Parks and Recreation Division Strategic Planning Update

1. Parks and Recreation Division Strategic Planning Update Presented by: Paul N. Curtis

2. Timetable Step 1 – Analysis/Assessment of the Vision 2020 Plan and the Waterways Commission Strategic Plan (2000-2005) – November, 2007 Step 2 – Conduct Workshops with PRD Districts and interact with Department EcoTeams to introduce them to the effort and process and to gain their input. Perform “SCOT” Analysis of V2020, MSWC Plan, and PRD as an agency – January – April, 2007 - January 30…Cadillac, Gaylord, and Roscommon - February 9…Plainwell and Rose Lake - March 7…Bay City and Pontiac - April 10…Baraga

3. Step 3 – Conduct five Public Input Workshops across the state for assessment of PRD and its programs. (Note…we will coordinate the UP meeting(s) with the scheduling of a meeting with the Baraga District staff)–February – April 2007 Step 4 – Conduct a ‘Visioning’ Workshop –April 25-26, 2007 Step 5 – Develop a ‘Draft’ Strategic Plan and conduct public review workshops – May - October, 2007 Step 6 – Finalize the Strategic Plan for DNR approvals – November - December, 2007

4. Vision of Michigan State Parks (MSP) • MSP in 2020: (defined vision) • Leader in protection/preservation of Michigan’s natural and historic/cultural resources. • Have stable and sufficient funding for quality staff, facilities, and services. • Barriers to access have been eliminated for Michigan citizens and visitors. • Education/interpretation opportunities are emphasized to promote enjoyment and stewardship. • Contribute to local and state economy and contribution is recognized. • Strong public support for system built on partnerships with users, host communities, and private sector. • Are valued and appreciated by Michigan citizens and visitors.

5. Vision 2020 - Six Major Goal Areas • Secure long term, stable funding. • Strengthen and expand interpretation. • Improve quality and variety of camping and lodging. • Improve quality and variety of recreation opportunity. • Improve park planning and evaluation of a dynamic MSP system, and, improve MSP resource stewardship. • Better market MSP’s consistent with the mission and strategic plan.

6. Assessment of Vision 2020 Goals(Results from CCMSP meeting of 11/29/2006) GOAL 1 - Build long-term Stable Financial BaseSecure a permanent endowment for Michigan State Parks (MSP) through a one-cent sales tax increase for one year. Explore other nontraditional sources of funding for the system. • What are the Strengths you can associate with this goal? • We do have a Trust Fund (current balance is $120 million?) • Fall 2006 Proposal 1 – to protect the funds and citizen support. • We are not only part of DNR with a funding problem. • Citizens Committee reformed and established by statute. • Division Chief and Director – expertise. • State Park Foundation exists even if it is not currently active. • Resource base. • Visits – over 24 million. • Partnerships models. • Innovative staff. • Citizen support of State Parks and Recreation programs.

7. What are the Challenges you associate with this goal? • Lack of public knowledge of state park system. • Lack of tourism industry recognition of state parks. • The longer you survive on less the harder it is to get more. • How do we explain the need? • Clearly identify the believable consequences of inadequate funding. • How do we compete with other leisure time venues? • Total funding picture for the state is grim. • Establishing new users/younger. • Need to retain existing users, particularly older ones who serve as the gateway to outdoor recreation for their grandchildren when parents are too busy.

8. What are the Opportunities to be realized with this goal? • Form a coalition of local, regional, and state support across public and private sectors. • Future grant opportunities. • Regularly quantify and showcase the economic impact of state parks on local communities, and Michigan as a whole. • Reconnect with the disconnected (former) users of state parks. • Image of and pride in state parks is good and needs to be fostered. • Use state parks as opportunities to re-create family. • Strengthen public education about state parks and their role in conservation. • Keep up with trends. • Health and wellness activities in state parks. • Engage under-represented public. • Cooperation among conservation interests to find long term stable funding for conservation in Michigan (e.g. across the DNR and other partners)

9. What are the Threats you can associate with this goal? • Failure to recognize the differences of internal vs. external values. • Business as normal/usual. • Bad customer service. • In-flexibility • No lost value (Parks will always be there) • Perception we serve only upper-level. • Replacement of single business tax appears to be leaving DNR (including state parks) out of the loop • Have any other funding sources been explored? (List and describe…e.g. State Park Foundation) • Yes. • Missouri uses a conservation sales tax as does Arkansas. • The Michigan State Park Foundation exists but is not functioning.

10. Is this still a valid goal? • Valid goal. • Not just for parks. • Total DNR support. • Build long-term stable funding with other partners. • Would you modify this goal? (How?) • Include a goal of users providing full funding for day-to-day operations beyond basic resource stewardship through the fee system and a long term stable funding source fully capitalizing the State Park Endowment Fund to provide capital funds for new and renovated facilities on a rational replacement schedule. • Would you establish any other goals related to this topic? (What?) • Encourage and reward innovation in regards to improved efficiency, use of energy saving technology, etc. Promote green initiatives and efficiency challenge goals.

11. GOAL 2 - Provide Interpretive Programs in the ParksEstablish interpretive programs as a cornerstone for the activities provided in the parks system. • What are the Strengths you can associate with this goal? • Interpretation is a primary reason people visit parks… “Value added experience”. • “Cornerstone”. • Minimize negative effect of recreation use on natural resources – “to be good stewards.” • Understanding → ownership → responsibility → preservation of Michigan’s natural and cultural resources. • Environmental stewardship learned in state park’s transfers to stewardship at home/state/global. • Provides opportunity to educate park visitor on department/DNR issues.

12. What are the Challenges you associate with this goal? • Development of interpretation plans “a lot of work.” • Value of Interpretive opportunities should be a key factor in park acquisition decisions. • Funding and staffing (quality-quantity). • Complex Supervision within MDNR-PRD-DHAL. • Utilization/reliance on inexperienced low paid staff. • Integrate park staff rangers into overall interpretive effort (begin a program). • Perceived disconnect between interpreters and marketing of state parks.

13. What are the Opportunities to be realized with this goal? • Allow Interpretive “program” to expand beyond the traditional. • Expand interpretive program to harbors and BAS. • Take advantage of technology and innovation. • Build relationship with state park foundation. • Build partnership with private sector/corps for programming. • Better integrate interpretation into each park (not as an add-on) with all park employees translating story of resources, orientation information, management information in many ways including through informal contact. • Outreach programs • Traditional and non traditional users/non-users. • “Leave no child inside.” • More effectively train seasonal employees to provide basic, useful interpretive information to customers.

14. What are the Threats you can associate with this goal? • Lack of professional development. • Lack of funding. • Lack of understanding of importance of interpretation as marketing tool, etc. • Did we establish interpretive programs as the “cornerstone” for the activities provided in the parks system? • “More work to do” but some good work done/underway. • To what degree is interpretation linked to ‘activities’ in the park? • Some but greater linkage needed. • Is this still a valid goal? • Yes! • Would you modify this goal? (How?) • Broaden focus on DNR and PRD goals. • Increase focus and funding for natural resource stewardship. • Focus and $ for natural resource stewardship. • All PRD employees can provide some basic interpretation with customers • Would you establish any other goals related to this topic? (What?) - (No responses)

15. GOAL 3 - Improve/Expand Camping and Lodging FacilitiesUpgrade existing camping and lodging facilities and work in partnership with the private sector to create new overnight accommodations. • What are the Strengths you can associate with this goal? • Knowledgeable staff. • Location…geographical diversity/variety. • Resources (natural and cultural/historical) • Key revenue source for state parks. • Increasing variety of accommodations. • Raw material source.(?) • Un-met demand (certain locations and times) • Central Reservation System. • Potential grant funding (foundations) • Program to build upon. • Loyal customer base. • Good image. • Land to expand. • Valued Campground Host program. • Valued interpretation program.

16. What are the Challenges you associate with this goal? • Financial. (e.g. lodging provision is expensive requiring 24 hour per day coverage) • Utility costs continue to rise. • P.I.L.T. (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) • Maintaining trained workforce (significant turnover of seasonal staff.) • Need current use data (most recent study from 1997) • Park users are not a diverse group (white, middle class) • Aging infrastructure. • Private industry perception of unfair competition from state parks. • Keeping quality summer staff. • Filling vacant positions, particularly in mid-season. • Government regulations such as health department, drinking water, etc. are sometimes onerous. • “Red tape” regarding permits, etc.

17. What are the Opportunities to be realized with this goal? • Partnerships with other agencies (e.g. county or private sector) for maintenance, or campground operation. • Volume buying power (utilities) • Green initiatives (wind, solar, combustibles). • New campground layouts to better protect environment, link to recreational assets (e.g. trails, lakes) and provide universal access. • Expand definition of “group” camping to include wider cross-section of potential group campers. • Continue to diversify lodging opportunities. • Attract eco-tourists/corporate tourists for retreat/team building. • Better use technology (e-newsletter, list serve, e-comment cards, etc.) to increase satisfaction of customers. • Restore outdoor centers (historic structures) • Identify future trends in camping and lodging. • Form community partnerships. • Expand programming to attract visitors to lengthen stay. • Attract and accommodate special user groups. • Learn from other entities and states. • Attract cultural diversity (staffing and users). • Target seniors/grandchildren (takes into account two wage earner households, early retirement by baby boomers, and the strong camping orientation of baby boomers).

18. What are the Threats you can associate with this goal? • Legislative mandates. • Financial inability to maintain/renovate existing infrastructure such as roads, water, sewer, and electrical systems. • Vandalism to park facilities and potentially by park visitors to neighboring property. • Trespass by park visitors on neighboring property. • Social changes between different generations with some in the younger generation not exposed to camping. • Weather. • Urban sprawl which creates more park border neighbors. • Overall lack of funding. • Reduced staff hours directly impact presence and quality of service. • Lack of public awareness. • Private competition forces increasingly higher prices to provide parity with private sector. • Over dependence on fees limiting ability to provide camping opportunity to people of limited means.

19. Has PRD worked in partnership with the private sector to create new overnight accommodations? (other than design/construction) • No…focus has been on expanding options within the state park system using former employee housing and innovative designs (e.g. yurts) • Is this still a valid goal? • Yes…provides important revenue stream for state parks and increases opportunities for interpretive interaction and area-wide outdoor recreation and appreciation of park resources. • Would you modify this goal? (How?) • (No response) • Would you establish any other goals related to this topic? (What?) • (No response)

20. GOAL 4 - Improve/Expand Recreation OpportunitiesProvide the facilities and information needed by the public to enjoy a range of activities throughout the parks system, and encourage new visitors to enjoy the parks' resources. • What are the Strengths you can associate with this goal? • The ability to partner. • The ability to diversify. • Wide range of resources and facilities. • Improvements in facilities are bringing in new users. • Friends groups/stakeholders often help in expanding and improving recreational offerings.

21. What are the Challenges you associate with this goal? • Access from Urban areas may be difficult due to lack of mass transit, fees. • Programming for new activities is historically not a priority of PRD. • Lack of staff and money. • Create more partnerships. • Interfacing with P.A. 59 (2% tax on lodging…would this apply to camper lodging?) • Training/change attitudes/enable administrators. • Need to think ahead…identify new trends in recreational activities, etc.

22. What are the Opportunities to be realized with this goal? • Partner with AARP. • Partner with community-vendors, local park and recreation agencies, community education, etc. • Having Demo Day – provide more events. • Connect DNR PRD resources with community resources. • Provide concierge services. • More varieties level of challenge. • Expand ‘Go Get Outdoors’. • Expand ‘No Child Left Inside’. • Create ORV at compromised sites in Southern Michigan (e.g. Bass River) • What are the Threats you can associate with this goal? • Attitudes. • Non-flexibility in MVP. • Liability. • Funding priority. • Better understanding potential impacts of new activities on park resources and existing activities.

23. How do non-resource based activities fit in with the park system? (e.g. Model Aircraft Flying Fields?... others?) - Need assessment for different activities at different parks. • Is this still a valid goal? - Yes (based on discussion at the session wrap-up). Still need to keep in mind protection of the resource first. If resource is reasonably well protected, new activities may be warranted. • Would you modify this goal? (How?) - (No response) • Would you establish any other goals related to this topic? (What?) - (No response)

24. GOAL 5 - Establish Programs for Stewardship, Park Evaluation, and Park PlanningInitiate inventory and management programs that help protect sensitive historic and natural resources in the parks. Improve the park planning process through better use of resource information and public participation. Adopt criteria that can be used to evaluate individual parks, or to guide future park acquisitions. • What are the Strengths you can associate with this goal? - Stewardship • Protect/sustain resource. • Meets mission/law. • New planning process. • Inventory – Natural and Historical. • Diversifies management. - Planning • New planning process. • Ability to set priorities statewide. • Provides “meaning.” • Sensitivity to natural features.

25. Inspired other groups/advocacy. • Allowed for more interpretation/education. • Facilitated cooperation/partnerships. • Provides model for planning. • Promotes volunteerism. • What are the Challenges you associate with this goal? • Funding, etc. • Preserving cultural built resources. • Preserving archaeological resources. • Stewardship vs. outside political interference and economic development. • Inability to get prescribed burning done. • Ecological restoration is long-term management, not a one-time activity. • Accelerating and completing the planning process. • Preservation vs. recreation (enjoying it to death). • Public education. • Getting public to recognize themselves as stewards. • Changes in leadership. • Efficiency. • Urban sprawl. • Land control/acquisition. • How to reach the next generation.

26. What are the Opportunities to be realized with this goal? • “Geo-Tourism.” (tourism focused on ‘place’) leads to appreciation and protection of those places. • We have the authentic natural and cultural resources coming together. • Expanding education, interpretation and volunteering friends groups. • Take the message outside parks. • We have infrastructure for access to resources. • Connecting natural landscape to the story/history. • Pod casts/technology. • Tying Wi-Fi hotspots to appreciating resources. • Radio broadcasts for interpretation. • Changes in leadership. • Better emphasize the links with hunting/fishing interests who support habitat, clean water, clean air. • Better using habitat related grants for environmental restoration, acquisition of key inholdings to protect resource integrity.

27. What are the Threats you can associate with this goal? • Eco-poachers. • Funding. • Invasive species (including nuisance native species). • Climate change. • Hydrologic change. • Losing resources due to benign neglect/lack of resources. • Overuse (love it to death). • Improper uses of sensitive sites (e.g. illegal ORV/snowmobile use, etc.) • Changes in leadership. • Outside uses conflicting with resources. • Continued decline of funding relative to need.

28. Has PRD improved the park planning process through better use of resource information and public participation? (How?) • Yes, ‘Management Planning’ incorporates stewardship and stakeholder/public inclusion in the planning process. • Is this still a valid goal? - Yes. • Would you modify this goal? (How?) - Expand outside parks (e.g. to Boating) - Incorporate technology. - Growing (?) - How to show success. - How to quantify success – continue/expand. • Would you establish any other goals related to this topic? (What?) - Education/outreach. - Technology. - Establish separate goals for stewardship and planning? - Accelerate planning process. - Regional/Ecoregional planning. - Linking DNR planning with other community planning.

29. GOAL 6 - Create a Marketing ProgramDevelop a marketing program for the state parks system that would give the public more information about the opportunities available in the system, and provide park managers with information to guide future decisions on park facilities, activities, and programs. • What are the Strengths you can associate with this goal? • Our stakeholder groups are doing it for us. • Default marketing. • Missing (not many ‘strengths’). • The ability to partner and diversify products. • Public support of state parks. • What are the Challenges you associate with this goal? • Partnerships. • Lack of public support of state parks. • Making the public aware of our funding issues. • How do we market to harbor users. (and BAS users) • Identify market/users. • No cohesive marketing plan – it’s continually ‘rediscovered’ that we need to do marketing.

30. What are the Opportunities to be realized with this goal? • Cross market. • Create a marketing plan – identify expected outcome. • Re-visit current policies. • Identify and segment users and non-users and why they are/are not using parks. • Informing public of opportunities at underused parks. • Create an activity directory of each park and post it on the web. • Work with the corporate sector. • What are the Threats you can associate with this goal? • A$5 walk-in-fee and increased fees in general may deter use. • Policies/directives. • Lack of training – preconceived attitudes of what marketing is and does. • Concession contracts may limit the ability to effectively market to meet customers needs.

31. Does marketing provide guidance to park managers in making decisions on park facilities, activities, and programs? - (No Response) • Is this still a valid goal? - Yes (based on discussion at the session wrap-up) • Would you modify this goal? (How?) - Set specific goal to have a marketing plan in place with measurable objectives related to visitation as a result of marketing, and measure of user satisfaction. • Would you establish any other goals related to this topic? (What?) - (No Response)

33. The Commission’s Vision Statement: Through continuing efforts over the next 50 years, the Michigan State Waterways Commission and staff envision and will work toward a future where: • Michigan is a national and international resource for boaters and others seeking water-related recreational opportunities. • All Michigan residents and visitors have easy, convenient access to all the state’s lakes, rivers and streams through high-quality public facilities. • Michigan’s Great Lakes’ Harbors-of-Refuge network has been completed and is being operated and maintained to provide transient boaters with safe, high-quality public facilities using the latest, most appropriate designs and technology.

34. All of these public boating facilities are adequately funded and are developed, maintained, and operated in a customer-oriented, ecologically responsible manor. • Where appropriate, these public boating facilities are being operated through partnership with local communities, public agencies, conservation groups, friends groups, and concessionaires. • Michigan’s residents and public officials are aware of and appreciate the contribution of boater’s funds to acquire, develop and maintain the State’s public boating and public water access facilities. • Access to waterways is supported because of the contribution that recreational boating makes to the local and state economy. • The Commission’s work underscores the value and benefit of citizen oversight, input, and guidance.

35. The Commission’s Goals For The Next Five Years: • Upgrade and Maintain Existing Facilities • Create New Boat Access Site Facilities • Create Harbors of Refuge • Strengthen Internal Structure and Efficiency

36. Assessment of MSWC Goals(Results from MSWC meeting of 11/30/2006) GOAL 1 - Upgrade and Maintain Existing FacilitiesThrough a careful process which begins with study and thorough inventory, the Commission will create a maintenance schedule and prioritize the upgrades of existing Harbor Facilities and Boating Access Sites. Specific benchmarks will include: • By year one, complete the harbor electrical study. • By year two, complete the Boating Access Sites infrastructure study. • By year three, complete the harbor infrastructure study. • By year three, develop a preventive maintenance schedule for boating access sites. • By year five, upgrade electrical infrastructure at 12-15 harbors (at the rate of 4-5 per year, with priority determined by the electrical study). • By year five, upgrade a number of boating access sites.

37. What are the Strengths you can associate with this goal? • Continue utility upgrades. • Retain and attract new users. • Framework exists. • Loyal following. • Preventative Maintenance. • What are the Challenges you associate with this goal? • Determining appropriate capacity of electric/utilities today and future. • Need for technology updates. • Need for utility upgrades. • Funding. • We have to maintain what we have. • Upgrades pressure nearby facilities to duplicate. • Preventative maintenance. • Economy up/down. • Maintaining/sustaining internal expertise (boat crews).

38. What are the Opportunities to be realized with this goal? • Determining trends and respond with facility(s). • Market analysis. • Maintaining high level of quality. • Preventative maintenance. • Economy ups/downs. • Incorporate in harbor features new trends, or changing needs (pavilions, clubhouses, kayak rack). • Internships. • Partnerships. • What are the Threats you can associate with this goal? • Fuel costs, economy. • Regulatory changes, laws, rules. • Expectations. • Water levels (up and down). • Invasive species… hydrills, milfoil, z-m. (all types) • Training…ramp builders. • Funding.

39. Is this still a valid goal? • Yes. • Would you modify this goal? (How?) • Include technology (what users desire). • New construction trends, tools, materials. • Alternatives. (e.g. ‘Green’ products and buildings). • Would you establish any other goals related to this topic? (What?) • Establish annual goals with priorities. • Combine IMA and MRBIS into electronic unit. • Modify facilities to respond to new trends. • Continue to improve universal accessibility.

40. GOAL 2 - Create New Boat Access Site FacilitiesThe Commission will increase the number of Boating Access Sites in areas of limited access by 5 to 10 sites to better serve the needs of recreational boaters. The Commission will pro-actively create partnerships and garner local support in creating these sites. The Commission’s work will depend on: • The identification of high priority areas for public access • The establishment of a Boating Access Site Committee • The consistent use of survey methods to test for and gain local support. • What are the Strengths you can associate with this goal? • Increase activity. • Revenue available to construct sites. • Awareness of boating. • Other DNR opportunities. • What are the Challenges you associate with this goal? • Process not known to the Commissioners. • Land availability. • Future demands and type of demands. • No revenue from kayaks (or other non-registered watercraft) • No sustainability of program.

41. What are the Opportunities to be realized with this goal? • License vs. registration to gain more revenue. • Navigable lakes and streams. • Expand Grants-In-Aid program. • Elevate boating potential where it currently does not exist. • Register non-motorized craft. • Stronger partnership between fishing and boating (also wildlife). • Political support. • Synergy of activities. • Expand funding, i.e., federal grants. • Create a Boating Foundation (similar to the Parks Foundation). • John Dingell. (In strong political position for the next 18-24 months) • Partnerships with historic/cultural interests (e.g. HAL, Foundations, etc.) • What are the Threats you can associate with this goal? • Supporting current sites. • Negative public reaction. • Environmental impacts.

42. Is this still a valid goal? • Yes. • Would you modify this goal? (How?) • Develop a strong process to assess and support the development of new sites (all watercraft). • Would you establish any other goals related to this topic? (What?) • Develop a strong process to assess and support the development of new sites (watercraft).

43. GOAL 3 - Create Harbors of RefugeThe Commission will complete the Cedar River project and seek an alternate design/site for a harbor of refuge at Cross Village.The Commission will also complete a needs study for harbors of refuge in Lake Superior. In all efforts, the Commission will work with the Army Corps of Engineers to identify navigational issues in site selection, and the Congressional delegation to seek federal funding to establish harbors. • What are the Strengths you can associate with this goal? • Complete the safety net. • Increase navigation. • What are the Challenges you associate with this goal? • Piping Plover and environmental issues. • Availability of funds. • General infrastructure expenses. • Disposal sites (adequate). • Permitting issues. • Continue to validate program needs. • Marketing.

44. What are the Opportunities to be realized with this goal? • Marketing opportunity. • Future trends and demands. • Partnerships with private sector. • What are the Threats you can associate with this goal? • Goal 2 and 3 are mirrored in many factors. • Is this still a valid goal? • Yes. • Would you modify this goal? (How?) • Yes, explore type of boat and market to serve. • Would you establish any other goals related to this topic? (What?) - (No response)

45. GOAL 4 - Strengthen Internal Structure and Efficiency • A) The Commission will utilize “Standing Committees” to better manage the boater’s needs in the State of Michigan. They will include: - Facilities - Operation/Policy - Boating Access - Public/Governmental Relations - Finance • B) The Standing Committees will work to bring outside constituency groups into the public process of the Commission. • C) The Commission will direct staff to utilize the Bureau’s Field Structure to assist in statewide compliance of regulations, project agreements, and policies pertaining to all Waterways Commission sponsored facilities.

46. What are the Strengths you can associate with this goal? • Standing Committees work issues out beforehand. • Can address issues quickly with core subcommittee. • Can map out opportunities to subcommittee tasks. • Committees help organize boaters. • What are the Challenges you associate with this goal? • Commissioner turnover. • Information, meetings, sharing. • Communities unhappy with audits. • Staff training/scheduling/planning. • Need to represent unorganized boating public. • What are the Opportunities to be realized with this goal? - Can fully discuss an issue. • What are the Threats you can associate with this goal? • Boaters not an organized group…MSWC can bring these constituents together.

47. Is this still a valid goal? • Yes • Would you modify this goal? (How?) • Yes, but look at subgroups differently (have added strategic plan too). • Part C – using field structure – modify language to be current but keep basic goal. • Would you establish any other goals related to this topic? (What?) • Knowledgeable/trained staff available for harbor/BAS public. • Seek new methods for MSWC to reach out to boating public (comment cards, meeting announcements, meeting times, etc.…).

49. District Meetings… Step 2 – Conduct Workshops with PRD Districts and interact with Department EcoTeams to introduce them to the effort and process and to gain their input. Perform “SCOT” Analysis of V2020, MSWC Plan, and PRD as an agency – January – April, 2007 - January 30…Cadillac, Gaylord, and Roscommon - February 9…Plainwell and Rose Lake - March 7…Bay City and Pontiac - April 10…Baraga

50. Cadillac, Gaylord, and Roscommon Districts on 1/30/2007 • Excellent participation (approximately70) • Meeting notes sent out 2/15/2007