Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Division
Strategic Planning Update
Presented by:
Paul N. Curtis
Timetable
Step 1 – Analysis/Assessment of the Vision 2020 Plan and
the Waterways Commission Strategic Plan (2000-2005) –
November, 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
Vision of Michigan State Parks
(MSP)
MSP in 2020: (defined vision)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
GOAL 2 - Provide Interpretive Programs in the
Parks Establish 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.
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.
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.
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)
GOAL 3 - Improve/Expand Camping and
Lodging Facilities Upgrade 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.
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.
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).
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.
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)
GOAL 4 - Improve/Expand Recreation
Opportunities Provide 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?
- 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.
– 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.
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.
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.
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.
GOAL 6 - Create a Marketing Program Develop 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.
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.
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)
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:
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.
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.
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).
GOAL 3 - Create Harbors of Refuge The 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.…).
District Meetings…
(Sorry…no photos)
Setting up a Web site for info on the new PRD Strategic Plan
Thank You…