4 ms·

TLDR the Parks Service wanted to stop dredging that river, despite having done it for years, because they wanted to shift the focus to summertime visitors on fo

TLDR the Parks Service wanted to stop dredging that river, despite having done it for years, because they wanted to shift the focus to summertime visitors on foot and keeping the dunes more natural. That disappointed some fishermen who used to be able to navigate into the bay with a boat. Tired of having to push their boats over the last bit, they dug a channel themselves instead. The NY Times article has more info: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/09/us/michigan-river-national-park-vandalism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/09/us/michigan-river-nationa... "Park officials decided to restore the river to its natural state in 2016 after an environmental assessment found that the sand and gravel dredged from the river mouth interfered with dune vegetation and the enjoyment of beachgoers. According to the assessment, dredging benefited “a small, short-term user group compared to the deleterious effects for the larger recreational groups during the full summer.” It was a controversial decision, prosecutors said in court papers, because in the Platte River’s natural, non-dredged state, the river mouth became too shallow for boats to pass. “If you had a boat, it sucked,” said Brian Seiferlein, a chartered fishing boat guide. “You would need two, three guys to push your boat about three-fourths of a mile in ankle-deep water."" The environmental review is here: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=60589&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=SLBE%20Platte%20River%20Mouth%20Plan%20EA1%2Epdf&sfid=261691 https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=60589&MI...

nonethewiser 3y ago
> Park officials decided to restore the river to its natural state in 2016 after an environmental assessment found that the sand and gravel dredged from the river mouth interfered with dune vegetation and the enjoyment of beachgoers. The dune vegetation point seems very hand wavey. The environment impact is rather long but it appears to essentially say less human activity and boats may cause less disturbance to wildelife. Although this seems to undermine the point of it making the beach more accessible to other humans. I didnt see any acute or specific harm cited like damaging some endangered species or something. Basically, it sounds like they just plain dont want boats to be able to access the lake from the river. It seems like they are repurposing the park and hiding behind the wildlife assessment.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- solardev 3y ago
  (TLDR... this area is subject to a specific kind of protection that emphasizes protection over recreation. I wanted talk a bit in general about how these things work, because it's not super obvious from the outside. I'm not an expert in any of this, but my undergrad was in environmental science, where we talked a lot about this stuff.) > It seems like they are repurposing the park and hiding behind the wildlife assessment. "Park" here is a bit of an ambiguous term. This area was designated a "National Lakeshore" in 1970, which is a lot more protection than your typical county park would have. In this case the federal government, by act of Congress, stepped in and said they wanted to preserve this land for the future, unimpaired. https://www.nps.gov/articles/nps-designations.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/nps-designations.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Bear_Dunes_National_Lakeshore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Bear_Dunes_National_L.... This protection is closer to something like Yellowstone or Yosemite than your local fishing spot. And apparently its management was always contentious: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/slbe/adhi_intro.htm https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/slbe/adhi_intro... In other words, Congress specifically tasked the NPS to preserve this area, which is a specific designation that is meant to emphasize natural resource preservation over recreational usage. There are other land designations too, both higher like wilderness (MUCH more protected) and lower (like most USFS and BLM land, which can be managed for resource extraction alongside recreation, with limited conservation). Probably the area shouldn't have ever been dredged for recreation, if they were to follow the true spirit of the law. But NPS personnel and values have changed over time too, as well as our science, and over time it probably has become more protective than in the past (like we don't feed the bears in Yosemite anymore). Most of Lake Michigan doesn't have this sort of designation; it was only a few scenic spots that Congress wanted to protect (most recently, Indiana's dunes were added a few years ago). > The environment impact is rather long but it appears to essentially say less human activity and boats may cause less disturbance to wildelife. Although this seems to undermine the point of it making the beach more accessible to other humans. I didnt see any acute or specific harm cited like damaging some endangered species or something. PDF pages 28 and 29 summarizes the impacts and tries to weigh the pros and cons of various "alternatives". An "alternative" here is just an "option", i.e., a bunch of what-if scenarios. Alternative 2 is what they proposed, and what was ultimately chosen (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=83442 https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=83442). But the public comments on that page are worth reading too, with anglers and other community members wanting more access, more boat launches, giving the land back to the state, etc. This project ultimately resulted in a "FONSI", a "Finding of No Significant Impact", which means the agency thought that it wasn't a big enough deal to warrant a full investigation. The environmental assessment they did was just a preliminary review; if they had found significant impacts, it would've turned into a much longer investigation, like this 382-page environmental impact statement for another seashore (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=358&projectID=94076&documentID=110897 https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=358&project...). By contrast, even at 30-some pages, this is a pretty typical EA. The agency has to be relatively thorough and check a bunch of boxes, or they can risk getting sued by environmental watchdogs, local activists, property owners & developers, etc. Aaaaaaaaanyway, I hope I don't sound like I'm lecturing here. I don't have a dog in this race and I don't know all the facts, I just wanted to somewhat briefly explain the long and convoluted process that is NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act), which is a super important piece of law that the government is absolutely terrible at explaining or marketing. Even this overview flowchart is super complicated, and the actual process is waaaaaay more complex: https://www.fs.usda.gov/emc/nepa/revisions/includes/docs/NEPAProcessFlowchart-508.pdf https://www.fs.usda.gov/emc/nepa/revisions/includes/docs/NEP... For example, each stage of this process usually has a public comment period, which is the "official" way for the public to provide its input on projects. Sometimes they get a lot of attention, but other times they fly totally under the radar. I wish the government were more invested in publicizing these things and getting the public to be aware of them (such as mandatory notifications via email or social media or SMS or whatever). But even when the public does provide feedback, the agency isn't really obligated to agree with them, merely to acknowledge and respond to them. In this case, the public comments I linked to above explicitly requested more boat launches, other dredging options, etc., and the NPS explained its rationales about why it didn't do those things, why those things are out of scope for its proposed projects, etc. It's a lot of red tape and bureaucratic language that basically boils down to "Thanks for your comment. We're going to do this anyway." And that, IMO, is a separate failure of the current law: there is not really an avenue for direct democratic participation in these processes. You can scream at them all you want but ultimately it's not your call. And that's how we end up with vigilante fishermen who take matters into their own hands. NEPA was a groundbreaking law in its day that helped protect a lot of our public lands that otherwise would've been irreparably harmed or destroyed outright. But it's also 50+ years old now and probably in need of some updating and streamlining and more opportunities for public participation. But that's the sort of unsexy infrastructure and resource discussion that most hotshot politicians don't want to focus on, instead arguing about the latest hot-button culture war issues. Man, I wish people invested as much emotion into these things as, say, bathrooms or movie casting. By and large people just ignore our public lands management until something suddenly changes that they don't like (even though it's often been planned for years if not decades, again, usually completely under the radar just because the governments are so bad at marketing and publicizing).
anon84873628 3y ago
I wonder why they don't have a boat launch directly into the lake.
- solardev 3y ago
  As another poster mentioned (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341176 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. In the environmental assessment (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=60589&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=SLBE%20Platte%20River%20Mouth%20Plan%20EA1%2Epdf&sfid=261691 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&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=Platte%20River%20Mouth%20%5F%20Public%20Comment%20Summary%20and%20Errata%2Epdf&sfid=301263 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...
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
Rivers change their natural state constantly. What the guy or group did shouldn't be criminal insomuch as it only takes one storm to cut a new channel. I take issue with government putting the lives of little birds and mounds of dirt over the lives of its citizens and their livelihoods.
- db48x 3y ago
  Yea, but remember that it is a public park. It’s not that guy’s property to mess with.
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    Is he not a member of the public?
    - solardev 3y ago
      Sure, but if we're going to have any public property at all -- roads, buildings, parks, whatever -- surely we need some sort of democratic process to manage them, not "whoever has the strongest shovel gets to remake the land in their image"? I can't just go out to Yellowstone with an axe and make myself a nice meadow to relax in, divert a nearby stream to make it more convenient, dig a big ol' cesspool and then scream IT'S MY LAND TOO! I mean, that'd make a pretty entertaining YouTube episode, but I would expect a small fine...
- solardev 3y ago
  IMO a criminal charge does seem a bit heavy-handed for this. They should've just made him shovel it all back, lol; that would've been punishment enough.
khaki54 3y ago
Michigan DNR thinks having the mouth in that spot is better for the wetlands attached to the river. NPS thinks it's worse. It's not clear cut by any means

nonethewiser 3y ago

> Park officials decided to restore the river to its natural state in 2016 after an environmental assessment found that the sand and gravel dredged from the river mouth interfered with dune vegetation and the enjoyment of beachgoers. The dune vegetation point seems very hand wavey. The environment impact is rather long but it appears to essentially say less human activity and boats may cause less disturbance to wildelife. Although this seems to undermine the point of it making the beach more accessible to other humans. I didnt see any acute or specific harm cited like damaging some endangered species or something. Basically, it sounds like they just plain dont want boats to be able to access the lake from the river. It seems like they are repurposing the park and hiding behind the wildlife assessment.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
solardev 3y ago
(TLDR... this area is subject to a specific kind of protection that emphasizes protection over recreation. I wanted talk a bit in general about how these things work, because it's not super obvious from the outside. I'm not an expert in any of this, but my undergrad was in environmental science, where we talked a lot about this stuff.) > It seems like they are repurposing the park and hiding behind the wildlife assessment. "Park" here is a bit of an ambiguous term. This area was designated a "National Lakeshore" in 1970, which is a lot more protection than your typical county park would have. In this case the federal government, by act of Congress, stepped in and said they wanted to preserve this land for the future, unimpaired. https://www.nps.gov/articles/nps-designations.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/nps-designations.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Bear_Dunes_National_Lakeshore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Bear_Dunes_National_L.... This protection is closer to something like Yellowstone or Yosemite than your local fishing spot. And apparently its management was always contentious: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/slbe/adhi_intro.htm https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/slbe/adhi_intro... In other words, Congress specifically tasked the NPS to preserve this area, which is a specific designation that is meant to emphasize natural resource preservation over recreational usage. There are other land designations too, both higher like wilderness (MUCH more protected) and lower (like most USFS and BLM land, which can be managed for resource extraction alongside recreation, with limited conservation). Probably the area shouldn't have ever been dredged for recreation, if they were to follow the true spirit of the law. But NPS personnel and values have changed over time too, as well as our science, and over time it probably has become more protective than in the past (like we don't feed the bears in Yosemite anymore). Most of Lake Michigan doesn't have this sort of designation; it was only a few scenic spots that Congress wanted to protect (most recently, Indiana's dunes were added a few years ago). > The environment impact is rather long but it appears to essentially say less human activity and boats may cause less disturbance to wildelife. Although this seems to undermine the point of it making the beach more accessible to other humans. I didnt see any acute or specific harm cited like damaging some endangered species or something. PDF pages 28 and 29 summarizes the impacts and tries to weigh the pros and cons of various "alternatives". An "alternative" here is just an "option", i.e., a bunch of what-if scenarios. Alternative 2 is what they proposed, and what was ultimately chosen (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=83442 https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=83442). But the public comments on that page are worth reading too, with anglers and other community members wanting more access, more boat launches, giving the land back to the state, etc. This project ultimately resulted in a "FONSI", a "Finding of No Significant Impact", which means the agency thought that it wasn't a big enough deal to warrant a full investigation. The environmental assessment they did was just a preliminary review; if they had found significant impacts, it would've turned into a much longer investigation, like this 382-page environmental impact statement for another seashore (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=358&projectID=94076&documentID=110897 https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=358&project...). By contrast, even at 30-some pages, this is a pretty typical EA. The agency has to be relatively thorough and check a bunch of boxes, or they can risk getting sued by environmental watchdogs, local activists, property owners & developers, etc. Aaaaaaaaanyway, I hope I don't sound like I'm lecturing here. I don't have a dog in this race and I don't know all the facts, I just wanted to somewhat briefly explain the long and convoluted process that is NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act), which is a super important piece of law that the government is absolutely terrible at explaining or marketing. Even this overview flowchart is super complicated, and the actual process is waaaaaay more complex: https://www.fs.usda.gov/emc/nepa/revisions/includes/docs/NEPAProcessFlowchart-508.pdf https://www.fs.usda.gov/emc/nepa/revisions/includes/docs/NEP... For example, each stage of this process usually has a public comment period, which is the "official" way for the public to provide its input on projects. Sometimes they get a lot of attention, but other times they fly totally under the radar. I wish the government were more invested in publicizing these things and getting the public to be aware of them (such as mandatory notifications via email or social media or SMS or whatever). But even when the public does provide feedback, the agency isn't really obligated to agree with them, merely to acknowledge and respond to them. In this case, the public comments I linked to above explicitly requested more boat launches, other dredging options, etc., and the NPS explained its rationales about why it didn't do those things, why those things are out of scope for its proposed projects, etc. It's a lot of red tape and bureaucratic language that basically boils down to "Thanks for your comment. We're going to do this anyway." And that, IMO, is a separate failure of the current law: there is not really an avenue for direct democratic participation in these processes. You can scream at them all you want but ultimately it's not your call. And that's how we end up with vigilante fishermen who take matters into their own hands. NEPA was a groundbreaking law in its day that helped protect a lot of our public lands that otherwise would've been irreparably harmed or destroyed outright. But it's also 50+ years old now and probably in need of some updating and streamlining and more opportunities for public participation. But that's the sort of unsexy infrastructure and resource discussion that most hotshot politicians don't want to focus on, instead arguing about the latest hot-button culture war issues. Man, I wish people invested as much emotion into these things as, say, bathrooms or movie casting. By and large people just ignore our public lands management until something suddenly changes that they don't like (even though it's often been planned for years if not decades, again, usually completely under the radar just because the governments are so bad at marketing and publicizing).

anon84873628 3y ago

I wonder why they don't have a boat launch directly into the lake.

solardev 3y ago
As another poster mentioned (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341176 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. In the environmental assessment (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=60589&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=SLBE%20Platte%20River%20Mouth%20Plan%20EA1%2Epdf&sfid=261691 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&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=Platte%20River%20Mouth%20%5F%20Public%20Comment%20Summary%20and%20Errata%2Epdf&sfid=301263 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...

PM_me_your_math 3y ago

Rivers change their natural state constantly. What the guy or group did shouldn't be criminal insomuch as it only takes one storm to cut a new channel. I take issue with government putting the lives of little birds and mounds of dirt over the lives of its citizens and their livelihoods.

db48x 3y ago
Yea, but remember that it is a public park. It’s not that guy’s property to mess with.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  Is he not a member of the public?
  - solardev 3y ago
    Sure, but if we're going to have any public property at all -- roads, buildings, parks, whatever -- surely we need some sort of democratic process to manage them, not "whoever has the strongest shovel gets to remake the land in their image"? I can't just go out to Yellowstone with an axe and make myself a nice meadow to relax in, divert a nearby stream to make it more convenient, dig a big ol' cesspool and then scream IT'S MY LAND TOO! I mean, that'd make a pretty entertaining YouTube episode, but I would expect a small fine...
solardev 3y ago
IMO a criminal charge does seem a bit heavy-handed for this. They should've just made him shovel it all back, lol; that would've been punishment enough.

khaki54 3y ago

Michigan DNR thinks having the mouth in that spot is better for the wetlands attached to the river. NPS thinks it's worse. It's not clear cut by any means