Michigan State University Extension
Ag Experiment Station Special Reports - 04089577
07/28/98
January 1995 Special Report 77
Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources
Special Report
Boating and Underwater Recreation
Lead Author: Daniel R. Talhelm, President, Resource
Econometrics and Visiting Associate
Professor, Department of Park,
Recreation and Tourism Resources, MSU
Contributor: Kenneth J. Vrana, Co-Director, Center
for Maritime and Underwater Resource
Management, MSU
Introduction and Overview Michigan is characterized by magnificent water resources. The Great Lakes and inland lakes and rivers have distinctively shaped Michigan's transportation system, economy, history, quality of life and life style. Abundant and accessible resources for boating, swimming, fishing, scuba diving and scenic enjoyment have helped create a life style found only in Michigan and small portions of other states.
This report evaluates the status and potential of Michigan's boating and underwater recreation resources. It considers their physical condition, their economic and social importance, and direct and indirect uses (e.g., scenic enjoyment). Successive sections evaluate boating resources, underwater resources, swimming resources and the role of boating/swimming/underwater resources in community development.
Some highlights: -Major portions of Michigan's economy depend on boating, swimming and other water-related recreation.
-Boating-related spending: about $3 billion per year.
-Outdoor swimming and scuba diving-related spending: about $.5 billion per year.
-Scenic enjoyment of boating/swimming/underwater resources: probably several billion dollars annually (c.f. coastal, shoreline and riparian real estate values).
Spending for these water-related recreation activities easily comprises a $5 billion slice of Michigan's $200 billion annual gross domestic product. Counting secondary economic impacts, spending for recreational and aesthetic enjoyment of Michigan's water resources generates up to $10 billion-about 5 percent-of Michigan's economic activity. This spending is the economic lifeblood of hundreds of rural Michigan communities. Without these water-based recreation resources, Michigan's combined recreation and tourism industry would resemble that of Indiana, Illinois or Iowa.
***Michigan clearly leads other states in boating and boating resources. Michigan has far more coastal shoreline and far more surface water than any other state except Alaska. It also has more registered boats than any other state_843,900 in 1993_and a wealth of boating facilities. Boating use has grown rapidly through the 1970s and 1980s, and is projected to continue growing through the 1990s. Michigan's estimated 59 million user days in 1986 was projected to reach about 76 million in 1996.1
***Michigan is a leading state for shipwreck diving and underwater historic preservation.Nine underwater preserves comprise over 2,000 square miles of Michigan's Great Lakes bottomlands. Over 1,300 shipwrecks are held in public trust in Michigan_one of the Largest and most pristine collections on earth.
***Michigan is probably also a leader in natural resource-based swimming and related recreation, but few statistics are available.
Boating
The following section presents an overview of recreational boating in Michigan. It first describes Michigan's national lead in boating, and boating's leading role in Michigan's economy. Other subsections describe Michigan's boating resources and facilities, boating fleet, boat owners, patterns and trends in boating activity, and boating's economic impacts. These subsections are derived largely from the Talhelm (1991) report on the latest statewide survey. A new survey is underway at Michigan State University in 1994 to update these use estimates and most other boating and marina data provided in this report, but results were not available in time for this publication. The boating section concludes with a discussion of boating-related opportunities and needs, derived largely from a 1991 conference on Michigan's boating-related problems, issues and needs convened by then Congressman Robert W. Davis. Following the boating section, other sections discuss underwater preserves and recreational scuba diving, swimming and the role of boating/swimming/underwater resources in community development.
Michigan: The Leading Boating State
According to the U.S. Coast Guard, Michigan leads the nation in number of registered watercraft (Table 1). This can be attributed to the relatively easy access that Michigan's nine million residents have to the state's Great Lakes waters, thousands of inland lakes, and thousands of miles of rivers (Table 2). In 1993, 874,818 boats were listed on the Michigan Secretary of State's boat registration files.
Boating is one of the most common recreation activities in Michigan. The average Michigan resident boats in Michigan about eight days per year. In 1986, an estimated 598,000 registered boats were used in Michigan on 30 million boat-days, providing 76 million person-days of recreational activity (Table 3). Boating on unregistered boats was not estimated.
The Coast Guard's comparison between states (Table 1) is probably misleading. For instance, in 1986, 710,323 boats were listed by the Michigan Secretary of State office (Table 3), but that number included 72,823 registrations that expired before 1986 and were never renewed. Only 637,500 boats had registrations valid for 1986. Michigan boat registrations are valid for three years, and some boats are "put to rest" by their owners while the boats' registrations are still valid. It is not clear whether other states retain expired registrations on their lists. Further, registration procedures and the types of boats required to be registered vary from state to state, so it is unclear how to interpret the state-by-state comparison of boat registration numbers in Table 1. In addition, only an estimated 598,000 of the 637,500 validly registered boats were used in Michigan in 1986 (Table 3). Some 39,500 registered boats were completely inactive that year. Some owners do not use their boats in any given year for a variety of reasons.
Economic Importance
Not only is Michigan a mecca for boaters, but boating is one of the larger "industries" in Michigan's economy. Owners of registered boats spent an estimated $1.83 to $2 billion in Michigan for boating in 1986 (Table 4). Actual 1986 spending was probably about $2 billion, since the statistics in Table 4 omit some boat sales in Michigan. Furthermore, since these expenditures had a secondary impact as a result of the dollars being respent within the state, boating had a total impact of about $3 to $4 billion on Michigan's economy in 1986.
Considering the approximately 33 percent inflation in consumer prices since 1986, this spending would be about $2.67 billion in 1994 dollars, and total impact would be about $4 to $5.3 billion. If boating participation continues to increase as projected_as indicated by a 23 percent increase in boat registration numbers since 1986_boating-related spending in Michigan in 1994 could easily exceed $3 billion. Therefore, the total annual economic impact of boating is about $5 billion_2.5 percent of Michigan's $200 billion gross state product. Approximately two-thirds to three-quarters of this money is spent in the retail sector, and most of the rest in the services sector. (Recreation and tourism are not usually identified as a separable sector of the economy.)
Though Michigan has larger boat registration numbers than other states (according to U.S. Coast Guard statistics), it ranks third nationally in marine sales. Sales volumes vary considerably from year to year, depending on economic conditions. In turn, boating-related employment and business vary with sales volumes. In 1988, Michigan had 223 boat dealerships employing about 1,800 persons.
Boating Facilities in Michigan
Michigan's boating facilities include recreational harbors of refuge, public access sites and marinas. Michigan currently has 86 Great Lakes recreational harbors (Figure 1) and 1,406 public access sites (Table 2). Some 700 public and private marinas, yacht clubs and similar facilities on the Great Lakes or inland waters are under lease or permit with the state, in accordance with the Inland Lakes and Streams Act. A significant but unknown number of marinas operate without required permits, and an unknown number of marinas are not required to register under the Act (i.e., those that are too small or are located directly on the Great Lakes shore, involving no inland waters) (Bennett, 1991).
Consistent counts over time of the numbers of marinas and marina slips are not available. However, it is clear that the number and capacity of marinas has been rapidly growing for the last decade or two. An inventory of Great Lakes marinas in 1983, based solely on aerial photographs of the coastline, estimated that Michigan had 746 "marinas" (including many aggregations of unrelated boat slips that looked like possible marinas from the air) containing 36,651 slips serving the Great Lakes (Table 5; Figure 2). Condominium marinas, in which slips are privately owned by the persons who keep their boats there, may have been the most rapidly growing type of marina in the late 1980s. A study of marina needs (Talhelm et. al., 1988b) showed that marinas were still in short supply in 1986. The 1986 market for commercial marinas would have supported up to twice the number of Great Lakes marina slips and up to three times the number of inland marina slips available at that time. Many marinas had long waiting lists of people who wished to keep their boats there. Since then, the market has apparently softened considerably. The marina market was being reassessed in MSU's 1994 study, but the results were not available in time for this publication.
Michigan's Watercraft Fleet
Most (72 percent) of the 637,500 boats registered for 1986 were 16 feet long or smaller, 17 percent were 17 to 20 feet long, 8 percent were 21 to 26 feet long, and 3 percent were over 26 feet long (Table 3). Of the 598,000 boats actually used, 66 percent were outboard-powered, 19 percent were inboards and inboard/outboards, 7 percent were sailboats, and 8 percent were some other type of craft.
The number of boats registered in Michigan has grown fairly steadily at about 2.5 percent to 3 percent per year since boats were first registered in 1960 (Table 6; Figure 3). This trend has continued through 1993, when the total of 874,818 listed boats was 23 percent higher than that in 1986. The level period in numbers of registered boats from 1977 to 1980_portrayed in Figure 3_is attributable to a 1977 change from an annual to a three-year registration period rather than to a smaller increase in boat numbers.
Characteristics of Boat Owners
This and the next three subsections on boating summarize selected results from the 1986 Michigan Recreational Boating Survey (Talhelm et al., 1988a). The study involved a mail survey of the owners of 10,089 of the boats registered in Michigan for the 1986 boating season. About half of the boat owners contacted responded. The survey results pertain to recreational boating activity in Michigan waters only and do not account for boating by: (1) an unknown number of unregistered boats and boats with expired registrations, (2) an unknown number of boats used in Michigan but registered in other states or countries, and (3) unpowered craft under 17 feet long, which do not have to be registered. Similar surveys were conducted in Michigan about every three years from 1965 to 1980. Statewide boating patterns and needs and statewide marina needs have not been comprehensively estimated since 1986, but were being reestimated by Michigan State University in 1994.
The survey revealed that the owners of registered boats actually used in Michigan in 1986 had an average age of 49.9, an average of 13.5 years of education, a median family income of $36,400, and a household with an average of 2.9 persons, including an average of 0.4 children under 12 (Table 7). They had owned their present boat for an average of 8.2 years and had owned boats of some kind for an average of 17.1 years. Compared to boat owners in 1980, these boat owners were somewhat older and had more years of education, higher incomes, smaller households and fewer children under 12.
Owners of larger boats were more educated, were less likely to own a second home, had fewer young children, and had owned their present boat for a shorter time than owners of smaller boats. Further information on the characteristics of boat owners, including an analysis of demographic life cycle segments, is available in Talhelm et al. (1988a).
Owners of larger boats spend much more than owners of smaller boats (Stynes et al., 1983). Therefore, Great Lakes boaters, with their larger boats, spend much more per boat and per boat-day than do inland boaters (Table 4).
Patterns and Trends in Boating Activity
About 61 percent of all boating occurred on inland lakes, 28 percent occurred on the Great Lakes, and 11 percent occurred on inland rivers and streams (Table 8). Most types of boats were used most frequently on inland lakes. Inboard and inboard/outboard craft and sailboats were used slightly more on the Great Lakes than on inland lakes, and canoes were used slightly more on rivers and streams than on inland lakes.
Boating in Michigan is closely associated with fishing. Over half (52 percent) of all boat-days involved fishing (Table 3), including 56 percent of Great Lakes boat-days and 51 percent of inland boat-days (Table 9). Cruising/pleasure boating accounted for 36 percent of all boat-days, waterskiing 10 percent, and other activities 1 percent (Table 3).
The above patterns of boating activity with respect to craft type, bodies of water and ancillary activities have remained fairly consistent over the last 15 years (Table 9 and Figure 4). All uses have increased, with overall boating activity up at least 48 percent between 1980 and 1986. During the same period on the Great Lakes, large boat use increased at more than twice the rate of small boat use. On inland waters, small boat use increased at nearly twice the rate of large boat use (Table 6). This could have resulted in part from lower fuel prices in 1986. The percentage of boat-days on which ancillary recreation activities (e.g., fishing) took place remained relatively constant between 1980 and 1986 on both the Great Lakes and inland waters (Table 9).
Transportation and Launching of Boats
Most boaters kept their boats at a non-waterfront permanent residence and transported it to an access site. Some 40 percent of boats were used this way. Other common modes involved keeping a boat at a cottage or second home on an inland lake (18 percent) or at a permanent residence on an inland lake (14 percent). All types of boats followed this general pattern, though a quarter or more of inboard boats, inboard/outboard boats and sailboats were kept at marinas and yacht clubs.
Michigan's launch sites received 5.9 million visits in 1986, or nearly 10 visits per active boat (Table 3). The use of public launch sites predominated, with visitation roughly split between Great Lakes and inland lakes. Many marinas and other firms also provide boat-launching facilities on a commercial basis.
Boating Origin/Destination Patterns
The availability of boating resources and the proximity to population centers determines boating activity. In 1986, the more populated counties and those with more boating resources close to population centers received the most boating activity (Figures 5 through 8). The southern half of Lower Michigan received about 58 percent of boat-days, the northern half of Lower Michigan about 33 percent, and the Upper Peninsula about 9 percent.
About 21 percent of all Michigan boat-days took place in a seven-county region of southeastern Michigan. Residents of that region generated about 30 percent of the state's boat-days. Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties generated more boat-days than they received, whereas Livingston, Monroe, St. Clair and Washtenaw counties received 11 percent of Michigan's boat-days but generated only 9 percent.
All state planning regions dominated by urban areas generated more boat-days than they received. In addition to southeastern Michigan, these included the Flint, Lansing, Saginaw-Bay City and Grand Rapids regions. All other regions received more boat-days than they generated. This was most pronounced in the northern Lower Peninsula, which imported over half of its boat-days. This area received 33 percent of the state's boat-days but generated only 16 percent of them.
Forecasts of Boating Activity
Boating activity in Michigan doubled between 1974 and 1986, with an annual growth rate of about 6 percent (Figure 4). Barring an energy crisis, total activity was projected to grow at a more modest 2.3 percent per year for the next few years (Figure 9). Use of large boats (21 feet long or more) grew faster than average, increasing 8 percent per year between 1974 and 1986. Large boat use is projected to increase 3.4 percent per year in the near future (Figure 9).
Forecasts were also developed of boat use under the following fuel price scenarios: 1. Status quo: relative (i.e., deflated) fuel price stays the same as in 1986;
2. Energy crisis: relative fuel prices are 2.5 times those in 1986, approximating the initial energy crisis of 1974 except with price rationing instead of government rationing; and
3. Energy glut: relative fuel prices are half those of 1986.
The resulting projections indicate that an energy crisis or an energy glut could decrease or increase boating levels by 5 percent to 12 percent, compared to use levels at 1986 energy prices (Table 10). Specifically, decreases or increases of up to 8 percent, 12 percent, 9 percent and 5 percent for Great Lakes use by small and large boats, and for inland waters use by small and large boats, respectively, could be expected with such price variations. High unemployment rates and low personal income levels probably operate in concert with energy crises, but insufficient data were available to statistically separate their effects.
Boating-Related Opportunities and Needs
Michiganians vastly underestimate the economic and quality of life importance of boating, swimming and related uses, and the resources that support these uses. Residents are slowly discovering new and better ways to utilize them. Lansing's recent discovery of the potential value of its riverfront is an excellent example. Unfortunately, in too many instances these potentials are discovered only after resources have become contaminated or degraded.
We choose to view boating-related opportunities for better protecting and utilizing boating resources from the perspective of potential contributions to the overall quality of life in Michigan. They are listed only briefly here, but are further discussed in the section entitled "The Role of Boating/Swimming/Underwater Resources in Community Development," below:
RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES AND QUALITY OF LIFE: Protecting, developing and "nurturing" coastal and underwater parks, waterfronts and related scenic and cultural resources can help Michigan continue to offer unparalleled recreation opportunities and maintain high quality of life in both economic and non-economic terms.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION: Michigan's unmatched resources for boating, diving, swimming and related activities can benefit community economic development and be a focus for community enrichment and enthusiasm. Boating, diving, swimming and related activities directly and indirectly support about ten percent of Michigan's economy. This percentage is much higher in some community economies. As Grand Haven, Lansing and numerous other Michigan communities have found, attractive and useable waterfronts can be a magnet for community economic development and a focus for community beauty. For example, marinas and related waterfront developments attract boaters, sightseers, shoppers and small businesses. Well-conceived waterfront developments also enhance community life and stimulate further development, enticing new residents and businesses unrelated to boating.
In 1991, a review of boating-related issues and needs was conducted in a Recreational Boating Workshop sponsored by Congressman Robert W. Davis. This workshop convened a broad cross section of agencies, businesses, academics and boaters, so it represents perhaps the best recent aggregation of viewpoints from across Michigan. The entire Summary of Problems, Issues, Needs, and Recommendations Identified by the Four Workshop Groups is appended to this report. It forms the basis for the following list of boating-related barriers and issues:
REGULATORY MAZE: Complex regulations hinder development of facilities and services.
TAXES AND FEES: Fees and taxes can severely discourage use and entrepreneurship.
INFRASTRUCTURE: Budget reductions threaten needed infrastructure development and maintenance. These needs range from boating access and waterfront structures to freeeways and other general infrastructures supporting our tourism industry.
STATEWIDE COORDINATED STRATEGY: Public and private services and facilities are not well balanced with real demand and needs in the state. Further, statewide boating and marina needs have not been comprehensively estimated since 1986.
INFORMATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES: Communities, businesses and other organizations need better information for marketing, forecasting and other support. There is a critical need for university outreach and other sources of technical assistance and leadership.
TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT: Communities and resource managers must better understand user needs, perceptions, and creation of high-quality, sustainable recreation and tourism products and services that complement other resource uses.
BALANCING PUBLIC/PRIVATE AND LOCAL/STATE INTERESTS: Balancing public versus private, and local versus statewide interests in resource use, management and protection can enlarge and sustain the dividends Michiganians receive from recreational use of Michigan's water resources. For instance, local restrictions benefitting a few can harm overall public good.
Underwater Preserves and Recreational Scuba Diving
The Great Lakes comprise the largest system of surface freshwater on earth and contain about 5,500 cubic miles of water (U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, 1988). Eight states and the Province of Ontario own nearly all of the approximately 94,000 square miles of Great Lakes surface waters and underlying bottomlands (Table 11). Michigan owns about 40 percent of Great Lakes surface waters and bottomlands, including portions of Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Superior.
Surface waters include all waters above Great Lakes bottomlands, i.e., water column and surface plane of the water body (Meyers and Tarlock et al., 1988). Bottomlands are submerged lands in the Great Lakes and associated bays and harbors that lie below and lakeward of the ordinary high-water mark (MDNR, 1986). Michigan's Great Lakes surface waters and bottomlands are managed under a public trust. Public trust is defined in the administrative rules of Public Act 247 of 1955 (Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act) as "the perpetual duty of the state to secure to its people the prevention of pollution, impairment or destruction of its natural resources, and rights of navigation, fishing, hunting, and use of its lands and waters for other public purposes" (MDNR, 1986).
Approximately 1,300 shipwrecks_comprising different types of commercial vessels wrecked since the mid-1800s_lie on Michigan's Great Lakes bottomlands (Wright, 1975). This number does not include hundreds of sunken pleasure craft. In addition, these waters hold hundreds of submerged wharf and dock sites, middens from shoreline habitation areas and prehistoric sites (Halsey, 1990). These cultural materials are found in excellent condition because the cold, fresh waters of the Great Lakes are a good medium for preservation (Singley, 1988).
Because of the important historical and recreational values provided by these underwater cultural resources, Michigan Public Act 452 of 1988 and P.A. 184 of 1980 (amending P.A. 173 of 1929) were implemented to protect and preserve aboriginal records and antiquities and abandoned property on the bottomlands of the Great Lakes. These acts also created a process for establishing state Great Lakes bottomland preserves (commonly known as underwater preserves). P.A. 452 is administered by the Land and Water Management Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the Bureau of Michigan History of the Michigan Department of State. State ownership and public trust management authority for shipwrecks was affirmed by the U.S. Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (43 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) (Vrana and Mahoney, 1993).
Recreational scuba diving (i.e., swimming with self-contained underwater breathing apparatus) on Great Lakes shipwrecks began in the 1950s and has increased dramatically to the present. An estimated four million active recreational divers reside in the United States today (Professional Association of Diving Instructors, personal communication, 1994). Profiles indicate that recreational divers have relatively high household incomes, educational levels and travel frequencies (Vrana, 1992; Skin Diver, 1989; Peterson et al., 1987a).
A survey of the large population of recreational divers subscribing to Skin Diver magazine indicates that over half of the respondents have a four-year college degree, 20 percent have a graduate degree, nearly 70 percent have an annual household income of $45,000 or greater, and nearly 25 percent have an annual household income of $90,000 or greater (Vrana, 1992). About 22 percent of the respondents had taken five or more diving trips within the twelve months prior to completing the questionnaire (Vrana, 1992). Skin Diver magazine (1989) reported that subscribers have an average household income of $64,300 and spend an average total of $2,150 annually on 5 dive trips in the continental United States and some international travel. Peterson et al. (1987a) indicate that Great Lakes recreational divers averaged over 4 trips annually to Great Lakes destinations, and spent nearly $250 per trip in 1986. Most of this spending was for goods and services that were NOT directly related to diving activity (Peterson et al., 1987a). Peterson et al. (1987b) found that divers traveled to Michigan underwater preserves from 14 states and Ontario, and used a variety of community-based services (about 50 percent used charter boats) and accommodations (especially motels and campgrounds). Kinnunen (1984, 1985) estimated that 6,000 divers visited Alger Underwater Preserve each year in 1984 and 1985. At $250 per trip, they would have spent $1.5 million per year; about half in nearby communities.
As participation in recreational diving has increased, so has the establishment of Michigan underwater preserves (Figure 10) and the development of diving-related businesses (e.g., air stations, dive shops, training facilities, charter services) (Vrana, 1989). The prime attraction in underwater preserves is shipwrecks, but divers appear to be exploring more biological and geological features.
There are nine state-administered underwater preserves in Michigan, totaling over 2,000 square miles of surface waters and bottomlands (Figure 10). Management and development activities associated with the underwater preserves have been coordinated predominantly by community-based support groups called underwater preserve committees (incorporated and unincorporated), in cooperation with the MDNR, Bureau of Michigan History, Michigan Sea Grant Extension, and Michigan State University's Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources. These local underwater preserve committees are represented by the Michigan Underwater Preserves Council, Inc., a nonprofit corporation established to help promote and develop the preserves and recreational diving.
Michigan and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the Great Lakes region, has become an important domestic travel destination for shipwreck-based recreational diving (Figure 11), and for maritime heritage tourism involving nondivers. Divers and nondivers can visit numerous maritime museums, interpretive centers and historical parks to enjoy exhibits, slide and video presentations and cultural demonstrations. At these and other locations, they can purchase publications, mementoes and art involving themes in maritime and shipwreck history. Unfortunately, very little information exists on the extent and characteristics of recreational diving outside of Michigan's underwater preserves and a few national park areas in the U.S. and Ontario. Very little information exists on the extent and characteristics of maritime heritage-based tourism in general, throughout the Great Lakes region.
Important Needs and Issues
Important needs and issues for Michigan underwater preserves and recreational scuba diving are outlined below. The following six informational and administrative needs and opportunities were developed by the authors, derived in part from discussions with many others:
1. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: Maintain and enhance public-private partnerships established among underwater preserve committees, the Michigan Underwater Preserves Council, Inc., the MDNR, the Bureau of Michigan History, the Michigan Travel Bureau, Michigan Sea Grant Extension and the MSU Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources. These partnerships have resulted in numerous benefits to underwater preserves and recreational diving (e.g., mooring buoy systems, cooperative advertising and promotion, avocational training in underwater archaeology, development of underwater technology for site mapping, marketing of recreational diving and involvement of the NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program).
2. ADMINISTRATIVE CLARIFICATION: Clarify the role of the State Parks and Recreation Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Michigan Public Act 171 of 1899 and Attorney General opinions associated with underwater preserve legislation indicate that Michigan's Great Lakes waters and bottomlands are designated as a "state park and pleasuring ground." These broad mandates have never been clarified in specific administrative priorities. Several programs provided by the State Parks and Recreation Division could be expanded to benefit management and development of the underwater preserves (especially park planning, harbors of refuge and boat launch programs).
3. UNIVERSITY INVOLVEMENT: Increase the involvement of university departments and units with missions in parks, recreation, tourism, history and archaeology. Experience at existing underwater preserves indicates that university programs in technical assistance, research, education and technology development/transfer could greatly benefit management and development of the underwater preserve system and recreational diving.
4. MANAGEMENT PLANNING: Develop and implement management plans that integrate multiple objectives for use of underwater preserve resources (e.g., economic development, recreational exploration, research, maritime salvage, historic preservation) to obtain sustainable outcomes as required by the public trust doctrine (Vrana and Halsey, 1992).
5. TOURISM AND RECREATION MARKETING: More effectively market Michigan underwater preserves as national and international destination areas for recreational diving. Determine the feasibility of marketing and developing maritime heritage resources within Michigan to enhance the tourism economy (e.g., lighthouses and lifesaving stations, underwater cultural resources, fishing camps and communities, fish and aquatic attractions, water-based logging operations).
6. RESEARCH SUPPORT: Additional research is needed to estimate the extent and impacts of recreational scuba diving outside of Michigan's underwater preserves, such as other Great Lakes sites, inland lakes and streams in Michigan and in the Great Lakes region.
The following needs and issues are based on consensus of voting representatives attending the March 6, 1994 business meeting of the Michigan Underwater Preserves Council, Inc. (MUPC):
1. Liability of MUPC membership in maintenance of mooring buoy systems on state owned shipwrecks and bottomlands.
2. Lack of statistics on use of the underwater preserves for recreational diving. Lack of understanding about impacts to underwater cultural resources from recreational diving activities.
3. Impacts of zebra mussel colonization on underwater cultural resources and recreational diving.
4. Return of artifacts taken from shipwreck sites and enforcement of laws relating to the removal of artifacts.
5. Intentional sinking of vessels within underwater preserves and other means of enhancing recreational diving.
The following needs were identified and prioritized by the community-based underwater preserve committees (discussed above) during 1989-1990, using the nominal group technique (Vrana, 1991):
1. Interpretive center and/or maritime museum.
2. New dive sites (including intentional sinking of vessels).
3. Boating facilities and services.
4. General tourism infrastructure (facilities, services or attractions).
5. Site survey, documentation and mapping.
6. Formal management (staff, plans and guidelines).
7. Marketing plans, advertising or promotion.
8. Scuba diving infrastructure (shops, air services and charter boats).
9. Mooring buoys for dive sites.
10. Law enforcement or site protection services.
11. Safety or emergency services.
Swimming
Swimming is commonly cited as one of the most popular recreation activities of Michigan residents and visitors to Michigan. Recreation activities of interest to residents of the Great Lakes states and Ontario when visiting Michigan are listed in Table 12. These results are from a telephone survey of households from Areas of Dominant Influence (ADIs) in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, southeastern Ontario and western Pennsylvania (Spotts, 1991). ADIs are broadcast media market areas delineated by county lines.
Swimming/sunbathing was the most common recreation activity in Michigan reported by Michigan residents and nonresident visitors in 1980-1981, at 110 million activity days (Table 13). This survey sampled approximately 1,500 Michigan resident households and 2,000 nonresident households that visited Michigan during the survey year. An estimated 49 million days of swimming/sunbathing took place at Michigan's lakes and streams and the remainder at pools (Wells, 1989). In 1976, 17 percent of lake/stream swimming by Michigan residents took place on Michigan's Great Lakes (Wells, 1989).
How important are natural resources for swimming/sunbathing to the quality of life in Michigan? How important are they to Michigan's economy? Are Michigan's natural resources adequately supporting the demand for swimming? Will they be more or less adequate in the future? As far as we can determine, these questions have never been addressed. Few data are available to support such an inquiry. We found very little scientific information on natural resource-based swimming activities and opportunities, particularly activities and opportunities on inland lakes and rivers.
Annual expenditures for natural resource-based swimming/sunbathing in Michigan could easily be $500 million per year. We could find no estimates of user expenditures specifically for the purpose of swimming/ sunbathing at lakes and streams. Swimming/sunbathing is commonly one of several activities occurring on an outing that may also include picnicking and sightseeing. Swimming is a low-cost activity but often involves transportation costs, admission fees and associated expenditures for food, clothing and accessories. Various studies show that average expenditures for nonintensive activities such as shore and pier angling and day use visits to state parks are approximately $10 to $15 per user day. At $10 per user day and 50 million activity days, expenditures would be $500 million per year.
Michigan's Great Lakes dunes and beaches are unquestionably a prime national swimming/sunbathing resource, particularly dunes and beaches in our state and local parks. Michigan's Great Lakes shoreline resources seem ample enough for some further development of natural resource-based swimming opportunities (Table 14), though approximately 80 percent of the U.S. Great Lakes shoreline is privately owned and not accessible to the public (U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, 1988). The percentage of shoreline in private ownership is greatest on the lower Great Lakes (Taylor and Gauthier, 1993; U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, 1988).
It is unclear whether public access to Great Lakes beaches will increase or decrease in the near future. Taylor and Gauthier (1993) expect continued growth over the next ten years in the land use categories of residential, commercial/industrial and public infrastructure along all U.S. Great Lakes and connecting channels, except for Lake St. Clair, which they consider relatively developed. These development activities could increase public access to the Great Lakes for swimming in some locations and decrease public access in other areas.
Recommendations by Taylor and Gauthier (1993) related to Great Lakes shorelands include the following:
1. Resources should be devoted to developing and implementing a strategy to maintain a land-use database.
2. Further analysis is required to evaluate the effectiveness of setback and elevation requirements and general development controls. Authors' note: Such shoreline management techniques have tremendous implications for public access for swimming.
3. Future investigations should look at the effectiveness of existing legislation in identifying and protecting areas of environmental significance or habitat areas. Authors' note: Shoreline recreation activities have been identified as a medium source of stress to Great Lakes biodiversity (The Nature Conservancy, 1994).
We conclude that there is an even more basic need, considering the lack of information and the importance of natural resources-based swimming in Michigan's quality of life and economy_a thorough baseline inventory of swimming opportunities and resources, coupled with a comprehensive assessment of the role of these resources in Michigan recreation and tourism. This assessment should include present and future needs and opportunities for natural resource-based swimming in Michigan.
Scenic Enjoyment
Scenic enjoyment includes "passive" uses of boating, swimming, underwater and related resources in specific sightseeing activities, or as incidental enjoyment as part of other activities such as dining on or near the waterfront or relaxing at a waterfront cottage. In all cases, facilities near the water provide an endless source of fascination and attraction. Of course, some sights, smells and other sensory receptions we receive from these resources can be unattractive or repulsive, reducing the overall desirability of the resources. To our knowledge, no one has successfully catalogued and quantified all of these water-related activities, much less their values, either in Michigan or elsewhere.
Some indicators of their value are obvious. First, most recreation activities involve using or viewing water resources. In Table 13, activities directly using the water are bold-faced. Visual use of these resources include nature study, picnicking, camping and visiting scenic sites. Tourism is closely associated with these resources, as indicated in Table 13 by the activity levels of nonresidents. Second, waterfront and riparian property values are typically much higher than similar non-waterfront, non-riparian property. Michiganians probably pay hundreds of millions of dollars more per year to own waterfront residential property for personal or commercial uses.
These property values are only indicators of the importance of scenic resources and of the annual spending associated with them. We can only guess the potential dollar value of scenic uses (i.e., willingness of users to pay for these specific uses). The role of expenditures associated with scenic uses in Michigan's economy is probably several billion dollars per year.
While waterfront values are obvious, the values of the natural resources responsible for such scenic uses seem unrecognized. To our knowledge, the status and potential of boating/swimming/underwater resources for these purposes have not been explicitly addressed.
The Role of Boating/Swimming/Underwater Resources in Community Development
Michigan's boating, swimming, underwater and related scenic resources are vastly more important to Michigan's economy than most people realize. Roughly five to ten percent of Michigan's gross state product is directly or indirectly based on recreational uses of these resources. Boating-related spending is about $3 billion, swimming/underwater-related spending is at least $.5 billion, and scenic enjoyment-related spending probably several billion dollars.
There are additional indirect economic impacts. Users spend money in the vicinity of the resources they are using. Thus, billions of dollars are spent in small communities with attractive boating/swimming/diving resources and in small, waterfront areas of larger communities. Most of this money is spent in the retail and services sectors, but the secondary impacts are spread widely across most sectors.
Several Michigan communities have recognized the opportunity that this presents for local economic development. Some have capitalized on it; others have not. Too many communities spend thousands of dollars "chasing" manufacturing firms while failing to take advantage of major opportunities for water recreation-based economic development in their own backyards.
Michigan's unmatched resources for boating, diving, swimming and related activities can increase community economic development and be a focus for community enrichment and enthusiasm. Communities have many options for turning water resources into accessible attractions that draw large numbers of residents and visitors. Lansing's recent discovery of the potential value of its riverfront is an excellent example. Lansing removed dilapidated facilities and trash, built a six-mile long riverfront trail/boardwalk, and is focusing economic development activities and community celebrations along the riverfront. Citizens and business leaders are now eagerly using and promoting the waterfront.
Marinas and related waterfront developments usually attract boaters, sightseers and shoppers, and small businesses. Well-conceived waterfront developments can become a nucleus for further growth, attracting new residents and businesses unrelated to boating. Grand Haven illustrates this. As its manufacturing base deteriorated in the 1970s, it began developing walkways and marinas along the waterfront. Abandoned manufacturing plants were converted to shopping centers, and new tourism-related businesses developed. Several new manufacturers and other businesses have since settled in or near Grand Haven, largely because of its attractive quality of life. Grand Haven also encouraged much of the industry remaining in its downtown waterfront to move to new industrial areas.
Recreational divers also contribute significantly to the economies of small northern Michigan communities, especially those with nearby underwater preserves. For example, divers and accompanying nondivers spent an estimated $3.4 million in 1984 and $2.4 million in 1985 visiting Alger County Underwater Preserve (Kinnunen, 1984, 1985). Most of this spending benefitted businesses in or near the city of Munising, with a population of less than 3,500. Stakeholders from underwater preserve communities have identified important development needs to enhance diving- and non-diving-related tourism_establishing interpretive centers and maritime museums, locating new dive sites, improving boating facilities and services, and providing better tourism infrastructure in general (Vrana, 1991).
Boating/swimming/underwater resource development can have broad effects on communities:
***Interest in maritime and underwater resources not only helps us learn more about our culture and history, but also can stimulate community development and enthusiasm.
***Revitalizing our Great Lakes fisheries in the 1960s and 1970s stimulated a boating boom and a wide variety of economic and social change in coastal communities such as South Haven, Grand Haven, Munising, Rogers City and New Baltimore. Further improvement in angling and boating quality can be expected to catalyze similar change in the future.
***Inland lakes and rivers have been turned from backyard dumps into centers of recreation, economic development and community pride. Many opportunities for further improvement remain.
(1)The 1986 statewide boating survey actually estimated 76 million boating user days in 1986, but that number includes 3.7 million boater-days on which boats were used but were not underway. The 1986 survey also double-counted boating days on which the surveyed boats were used on both inland lakes and inland rivers or streams. For projection purposes, boat-days were adjusted downward 15% to be consistent with a more conservative survey methodology used in 1980 and earlier, and boat use while not underway was eliminated. These changes reduced the 1986 estimate to 59 million user days.
Table 1. Number of registered boats by state, 1992 and 1993.
Total Boats Numbered
1993 1992
Total Rank 11,282,736 11,132,386
Alabama 17 246,359 243,541
Alaska* 47 31,340 32,331
Arizona 28 155,815 146,728
Arkansas 26 160,430 135,643
California 2 820,219 813,386
Colorado 34 86,147 85,885
Connecticut 33 96,516 97,618
Delaware 42 41,144 40,288
Dist. of Col. 52 5,788 3,654
Florida 4 719,071 702,652
Georgia 13 298,01 283,898
Hawaii 51 13,288 13,970
Idaho 36 72,660 68,827
Illinois 10 352,826 349,053
Indiana 25 180,564 196,260
Iowa 22 201,446 197,866
Kansas 32 97,308 97,242
Kentucky 29 142,833 137,711
Louisiana 12 300,248 300,172
Maine 31 113,590 112,981
Maryland 24 181,850 180,391
Massachusetts 30 120,944 145,991
Michigan 1 874,818 877,581
Minnesota 3 728,116 727,152
Mississippi 21 204,894 196,545
Missouri 15 287,158 283,065
Montana 43 42,082 41,299
Nebraska 38 62,359 56,626
Nevada 40 45,990 43,819
New Hampshire 35 80,520 79,379
New Jersey 27 159,084 156,288
New Mexico 41 43,540 39,920
New York 7 442,745 438,342
North Carolina 14 294,761 283,396
North Dakota 46 34,446 42,270
Ohio 8 384,048 382,218
Oklahoma 20 205,788 197,846
Oregon 23 184,007 180,138
Pennsylvania 11 311,542 311,776
Rhode Island 49 29,629 31,966
South Carolina 9 362,277 351,753
South Dakota 45 38,762 41,212
Tennessee 16 264,194 255,043
Texas 5 591,879 569,482
Utah 37 62,400 61,970
Vermont 44 39,907 36,270
Virginia 19 210,323 206,369
Washington 18 234,725 226,555
West Virginia 39 47,399 44,714
Wisconsin 6 515,342 512,234
Wyoming 50 24,628 24,110
Guam 54 1,737 1,737
Puerto Rico 48 29,883 36,648
Virgin Islands 53 3,822 7,777
Am. Samoa 56 156 114
N.Marianas 55 377 684
Table 1. Number of registered boats by state, 1992 and 1993.(cont.)
Scope of Current Boat Numbering System
Total (Does not include sailboats which are
numbered in some States)
Alabama All motorboats, sailboats and rental boats
Alaska All motorboatsused on Federal waters
Arizona All watercraft, except inflatables 12 feet in
length or less
Arkansas All motorboats with exceptions1
California All motorboats; sailboats over 8 feet in
length
Colorado All motorboats and sailboats
Connecticut All motorboats; sailboats 19.5 feet or mor in
length
Delaware All motorboats
Dist.of Col.All watercraft
Florida All motorboats
Georgia All motorboats; sailboats 12 feet more in
length
Hawaii All motorboats; sailboats over 8 feet in
length
Idaho All motorboats and sailboats
Illinois All watercraft, except canoes and kayaks
Indiana All motorboats
Iowa All watercraft with exceptions2
Kansas All motorboats and sailboats
Kentucky All motorboat, except electric motors 1 hp or
less
Louisiana All motorboats; sailboats more than 12 feet
in length
Maine All motorboats
Maryland All motorboats
Massachusetts All motorboats
Michigan All watercraft with exceptions3
Minnesota All motorboats with exceptions4
Mississippi All motorboats and sailboats
Missouri All motorboats; sailboats over 12 feet in
length
Montana All motorboats; sailboats 12 feet or more in
length
Nebraska All motorboats
Nevada All motorboats
New Hampshire All motorboats; sailboats 20 feet or more
in length
New Jersey All watercraft with exceptions5
New Mexico All motorboats and sailboats
New York All motorboats
North Carolina All motorboats; sailboats more than 14
feet in length
North Dakota All motorboats
Ohio All watercraft
Oklahoma All watercraft except joonboats with less
than 10 hp
Oregon All motorboats; sailboats 12 feet or more in
length
Pennsylvania All motorboats
Rhode Island All motorboats; sailboats; rowboats >12 feet
in length
South Carolina All motorboats
Tennessee All motorboats and sailboats
Texas All motorboats and sailboats
Utah All motorboats and sailboats
Vermont All motorboats
Virginia All motorboats
Washington All motorboats with exceptions6; sailboats >
16 ft. in length
West Virginia All motorboats
Wisconsin All motorboats; sailboats over 12 feet in
length
Wyoming All motorboats except motors less than 5
horsepower
Guam All motorboats (unconfirmed)
Puerto Rico All motorboats; vessels adapted to hold a
motor
Virgin Islands All motorboats
Am. Samoa All motorboats (unconfirmed)
N. Marians All motorboats (unconfirmed)
*Alaska did not have an approved numbering system as of December 21, 1993. The Coast Guard is the numbering authority.
1Arkansas excludes boats with motors of 10 HP or less used only during daylight.
2Iowa excludes inflatables under 7 feet in length and canoes/kayaks under 13 feet in length.
3Michigan excludes manually propelled boats 16 feet or less in length, and rafts, canoes, kayaks and manually propelled rental boats.
4Minnesota excludes non-motorized boats 9 feet in length and under, duckboats during duckhunting season, and riceboats during harvest season.
5New Jersey excludes non-motorized boats 12 feet or less in length and canoes, kayaks, racing shells and rowing sculls.
6Washington excludes motorboats under 16 feet with motors 10 horsepower or less used solely on exclusive State waters. Source: United States Coast Guard, September, 1994.
Table 2. Water resources by Michigan county.
INLAND LAKES OVER
5 0 ACRES IN SIZEa STREAM MILEAGEb
No. Combined Area Main Tribu-
Lakes In Acres stream taries Total
COUNTY
Alcona 13 11,842 31 331 362
Alger 51 8,679 101 608 709
Allegan 29 7,031 72 445 517
Alpena 13 12,747 76 225 301
Antrim 23 17,879 28 236 264
Arenac 0 0 40 116 156
Baraga 38 6,651 101 595 696
Barry 37 8,565 34 238 272
Bay 1 11 28 22 50
Benzie 18 17,016 53 51 104
Berrien 11 2,271 83 417 500
Branch 34 7,468 45 280 325
Calhoun 28 3,688 84 456 540
Cass 47 8,250 18 211 229
Charlevoix 19 22,266 20 195 215
Cheboygan 22 48,523 63 357 420
Chippewa 34 9,015 97 703 800
Clare 29 4,041 29 302 331
Clinton 4 484 62 257 319
Crawford 10 2,730 71 133 204
Delta 20 3,092 187 327 514
Dickinson 30 4,992 168 477 645
Eaton 5 407 51 156 207
Emmet 9 8,288 31 67 98
Genesee 17 3,413 59 296 355
Gladwin 15 6,349 72 401 473
Gogebic 78 27,253 168 1,036 1,204
Grand
Traverse 22 13,464 18 150 168
Gratiot 6 1,165 45 196 241
Hillsdale 21 2,776 19 279 298
Houghton 25 21,391 116 807 923
Huron 1 76 56 886 942
Ingham 2 533 42 192 234
Ionia 8 1,727 73 391 464
Iosco 23 10,102 25 234 259
Iron 87 21,376 167 735 902
Isabella 6 1,511 20 310 330
Jackson 42 8,523 40 284 324
Kalamazoo 32 8,477 44 321 365
Kalkaska 22 3,733 83 201 284
Kent 42 5,786 81 691 772
Keweenaw 14 4,957 19 252 271
Lake 17 2,639 99 151 250
Lapeer 18 3,448 44 550 594
Leelanau 15 17,003 0 58 58
Lenawee 20 3,934 38 584 622
Livingston 61 7,725 54 415 469
Luce 29 12,478 133 525 658
Mackinac 34 21,467 55 292 347
Macomb 2 895 44 252 296
Manistee 9 7,041 77 199 276
Marquette 87 22,401 221 1,685 1,906
Mason 20 8,180 93 145 238
Mecosta 28 8,497 50 243 293
Menominee 17 3,803 241 574 815
Midland 6 2,409 66 243 309
Missaukee 13 4,287 21 188 209
Monroe 3 265 65 394 459
Montcalm 35 5,099 15 462 477
Montmorency 28 8,846 50 256 306
Muskegon 21 9,966 25 369 394
Newaygo 34 7,816 58 426 484
Oakland 95 17,792 50 419 469
Oceana 11 2,938 34 190 224
Ogemaw 28 4,122 50 331 381
Ontonagon 9 10,391 138 1,144 1,282
Osceola 15 1,611 44 257 301
Oscoda 12 2,380 35 184 219
Otsego 28 4,905 29 169 198
Ottawa 12 4,709 50 257 307
Presque Isle 26 13,504 35 266 301
Roscommon 19 37,536 23 181 204
Saginaw 2 1,400 147 446 593
Saint Clair 6 385 149 810 959
Saint Joseph 38 8,136 114 178 292
Sanilac 0 0 30 977 1,007
Schoolcraft 79 23,121 168 566 734
Shiawassee 6 631 27 280 307
Tuscola 5 908 38 146 184
Van Buren 34 4,737 33 291 324
Washtenaw 38 6,810 41 331 372
Wayne 7 1,886 62 329 391
Wexford 10 6,297 33 221 254
Total 1,965 671,047 5,499 30,851 36,350
Table 2. (cont.) Water resources by Michigan county.
Miles of Number
Great Lakes of Public
Shorelines Sites
Alcona 27.4 8
Alger 120.4 9
Allegan 24.0 28
Alpena 61.0 9
Antrim 26.5 32
Arenac 47.3 9
Baraga 69.9 22
Barry 0.0 33
Bay 36.2 8
Benzie 24.8 23
Berrien 13.7 13
Branch 0.0 17
Calhoun 0.0 17
Cass 0.0 24
Charlevoix 102.4 20
Cheboygan 34.5 23
Chippewa 456.0 26
Clare 0.0 16
Clinton 0.0 6
Crawford 0.0 31
Delta 198.7 24
Dickinson 0.0 26
Eaton 0.0 5
Emmet 75.0 7
Genesee 0.0 5
Gladwin 0.0 12
Gogebic 30.1 15
Grand Traverse 55.5 26
Gratiot 0.0 3
Hillsdale 0.0 9
Houghton 50.6 29
Huron 92.5 13
Ingham 0.0 4
Ionia 0.0 15
Iosco 36.2 11
Iron 0.0 31
Isabella 0.0 3
Jackson 0.0 9
Kalmazoo 0.0 19
Kalkaska 0.0 26
Kent 0.0 24
Keweenaw 100.5 11
Lake 0.0 36
Lapee 0.0 8
Leelanau 151.4 17
Lenawee 0.0 8
Livingston 0.0 11
Luce 31.0 29
Mackinac 298.4 22
Macomb 26.5 6
Manistee 25.4 23
Marquette 79.4 62
Mason 27.5 26
Menominee 0.0 25
Midland 41.3 17
Missaukee 0.0 2
Monroe 0.0 7
Montcalm 56.6 10
Montmorency 0.0 29
Muskegon 0.0 20
Newaygo 26.9 12
Oakland 0.0 20
Oceana 0.0 36
Ogemaw 27.4 5
Ontonagon 0.0 28
Osceola 56.2 8
Oscoda 0.0 19
Otsego 0.0 10
Ottawa 0.0 19
Presque Isle 25.0 15
Roscommon 68.7 20
Saginaw 0.0 9
Saint Clair 0.0 8
Saint Joseph 164.2 12
Sanilac 0.0 18
Schoolcraft 40.5 4
Shiawassee 46.1 27
Tuscola 0.0 0
Van Buren 20.1 7
Washtenaw 13.4 28
Wayne 0.0 18
Wexford 75.4 10
Total 2,984.6e 1,406
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1974. "Michigan Lake Inventory." Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Office of Planning Services.
bSource: Brown, C.J.D. 1944. "Michigan Streams-Their Lengths, Distribution and Drainage Areas." Michigan Conservation 13(5):9-10.
cSource: Humphrys, C.R., Ali Razaque, J.O. Veateh, and Rex Yu. n.d. Preliminary Report: Statistical Data Related to Michigan Water Resources and Water Uses. Dept. of Resource Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
dSource: Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1990. "Updated Public Access Site Master List." Serial No. 624-90. Recreation Division. Lansing, Mich: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
eDoes not include shoreline of Isle Royale.
Table 3. Highlights of the 1986 Michigan Recreational Boat Survey.
BOATING USE
Total days on which boats were used 30,300,000 boat-days
Total boat use days underway 26,600,000 boat-days
Great Lakes boat use 7,500,000 boat-days
Inland lake boat use 16,300,000 boat-days
ver and stream boat use 2,800,000 boat-days
Days boat used but not underway 3,700,000 boat-days
Total recreation days 76,000,000 person-days
BOATING TRENDS
Total days underway if measured the same way as in 1980
approx. 25,000,000 boat-days
Inland waters use approx. 17,500,000 boat-days
Great Lakes use 7,500,000 boat-days
Total increase from 1980 48%
Inland boat-days increase 50%
Great Lakes boat-days increase 41%
ACTIVITIES Fishing 13,900,000 boat-days (52%)
WHILE Cruising/pleasure boating
9,700,000 boat-days (36%)
UNDERWAY Waterskiing 2,700,000 boat-days (10%)
Other 200,000 boat-days ( 1%)
BOATING FLEET
Working 1986 registration list 710,323 boats
Expired registrations on list 72,823 boats
Registrations valid in 1986 637,500 boats
Boats 0'-16' long (72%) 459,998 boats
17'-20' long (17%) 108,576 boats
21'-26' long (8%) 48,907 boats
over 26' long (3%) 20,019 boats
Registered boats active in 1986 598,000 boats
Outboard 397,500 boats (66%)
Inboard and inboard/outboard 112,500 boats (19%)
Sail 39,000 boats ( 7%)
Other 49,000 boats ( 8%)
Boat kept at: home 369,000 boats
cottage 140,000 boats
marinas 51,000 boats
other 40,000 boats
Boats used on Great Lakes 245,000 boats
Boats used on inland lakes 425,000 boats
Boats used on rivers or streams 133,000 boats
ECONOMICS Total expenditures $1,830,000,000
Trip-related expenditures $1,170,000,000
Craft-related expenditures $ 410,000,000
Craft purchased (new and used) $ 250,000,000
LAUNCH SITE USE
Launch site visits 5,900,000 visits
Public sites 5,000,000 visits
Private sites 900,000 visits
Sites with Great Lakes access 2,400,000 visits
Inland lake sites 2,800,000 visits
River and stream sites 700,000 visits
BOAT OWNERS Boats owned by Michigan residents 609,000 boats Boats owned by nonresidents 29,000 boats
MARINA USE
Boats using marinas at least once 84,000 boats
Boats usually kept at marinas 51,000 boats
Occupying a seasonal slip 40,000 boats
Not occupying a seasonal slip 11,000 boats
Boats not usually kept at marinas 33,000 boats
MARINA NEEDS
22,000 boats now using seasonal marina space would
rather rent elsewhere (i.e., 30% of 73,000):
Season-long users wanting to rent elsewhere: 9% of 30,000 at Great Lakes marinas 6,000 transfers 11% of 10,000 at inland marinas 1,000 transfers
Temporary users wanting to rent elsewhere:
46% of 33,000 temporary users 15,000 transfers
Up to 53,000 new occupants of seasonal marina spaces from other sources under ideal conditions:
Of 11,000 boats using auxiliary marina spaces, 23% would rent slips if available: 3,000 new renters
Of 514,000 boats not using marinas, 5% would rent slips if available: 26,000 renters
Potential from non-boat owners 24,000 new boaters
THE SURVEY
Registered boats surveyed 10,089 registrants
Usable returns 5,012 questionnaires
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Table 4. Estimated spending by registered Michigan boat owners on boating in Michigan, 1986.
Estimated 1981 Estimated 1986
Spending1 Spending2
CRAFT-RELATED
EXPENDITURES
Great Lakes 849.21/boat 1,025.04/boat
Inlannd waters 259.96/boat 313.78/boat
TRIP-RELATED
EXPENDITURES
Great Lakes 46.84/boat-day 56.54/boat-day
Inland waters 32.37/boat-day 39.07/boat-day
PURCHASES OF NEW
AND USED CRAFT
New $41,000,000
Used $64,000,000
1986 Survey Estimated 1986
Estimates Total Spending
CRAFT-RELATED EXPENDITURES Great Lakes 247,000 boats 253,185,000 Inland waters 489,000 boats 153,438,000
TRIP-RELATED EXPENDITURES Great Lakes 7,564,000 days 425,407,000 Inland waters 19,061,000 days 744,713,000
PURCHASES OF NEW
AND USED CRAFT
New 184,000,000
Used 66,000,000
APPROXIMATE TOTAL 1,830,000,000
1 From Stynes et al., 1983.
2 Derived by extrapolating the 1981 spending estimates by 20%--the 1981 to 1986 change in the U.S. consumer price index for all goods and services.
3 Sales by boat dealers (firms whose primary business is marine sales), excluding boat sales by general retailers. Information provided by Michigan Department of Treasury.
4 Derived from tax receipts from sales of used recreational vehicles. Information provided by Michigan Department of State.
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Figure 1. Locations of Great Lakes recreational harbors in Michigan, 1990.
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1990.
Table 5. Estimated supply of Great Lakes recreational marina facilities in Michigan, by Great Lake served, 1983.
Lake Lake Lake
Facility Michigan Superior Huron
Number of marinas 234 37 212
Number of marina slips
Less than 20 feet 3,055 167 2,236
20 - 30 feet 3,715 168 2,477
30 - 40 feet 1,974 63 1,046
More than 40 feet 1,250 85 705
Total 9,994 501 6,464
No. buoy moorings 561 5 53
Feet of broadside mooring 31,656 10,248 34,500
Number of marinas with ...
Launch ramp facilities 97 24 129
Haul-out facilities 55 7 29
Open dry storage facilities 122 20 120
Covered dry storage facilites 77 10 67
Lake Lake State
Facility St. Clair Erie Total
Number of marinas 198 65 746
Less than 20 feet 5,371 1,916 12,745
20-30 feet 5,399 2,467 14,244
30-40 feet 2,365 740 6,188
More than 40 feet 1,199 235 3,474
Total 14,334 5,358 36,651
No. buoy moorings 0 0 619 Feet of broadside mooring 22,560 6,744 105,708 Number of marinas with.. Launch ramp facilities 70 37 357 Haul-out facilities 69 21 181 Open dry storage facilities 95 39 396 Covered dry storage facilities 68 22 244
Note: Data are based on aerial photographs taken June-September, 1983.
Source: Holecek and Brothers, 1993,
Figure 2. Estimated number of Great Lake marina slips by Michigan county, 1983.
Source: Holecek and Brothers, 1983.
Table 6. Trends in boat numbers and use, 1971-1986.
1971 1974 1977 1980
NUMBER OF BOATS (000s)
Working registration 489 535 585 595
Valid registration N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Active boats N.A. 404 423 509
GREAT LAKES BOAT-DAYS (000s)
Small boats 2,422 2,553 3,060 3,788
Large boats 952 1,094 1,730 1,563
Total 3,375 3,646 4,789 5,651
INLAND BOAT-DAYS (000s)
Small boats 8,046 7,768 9,387 10,546
Large boats 312 430 981 1,028
Total 8,358 8,198 10,367 11,574
TOTAL BOAT-DAYS (000S)11,732 11,845 15,156 16,925
BOAT-DAYS/ACTIVE BOAT N.A. 26.3 32.5 33.3
Percent Change
1986 1974-1980 1980-1986
NUMBER OF WORKING BOATS (OOOs)
Working registration 710 +11 +19
Valid registration 638 N.A. N.A.
Active Boats 598 +26 +18
GREAT LAKES BOAT-DAYS (OOOs) Small boats 4,909 +48 +30 Large boats 2,614 +43 +67 Total 7,524 +47 +41
INLAND BOAT-DAYS (OOOs) Small boats 17,632 +36 +67 Large boats 1,429 +139 +39 Total 19,061a +41 +65
TOTAL BOAT-DAYS (OOOs) 26,584b +43 +57
BOAT-DAYS/ACTIVE BOAT 44.4 +27 +33
Note: "Small boats" means boats 20' and under in length; "large boats" means boats over 20' in length. "Inland boat-days" means boat-days on inland lakes, rivers, and streams. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
aThe 1986 estimate in constant units would be 17,400 (i.e., adjusted for survey differences).
bThe 1986 estimate in constant units would be 25,000 (i.e., adjusted for survey differences).
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Figure 3. Trends in numbers of registered boats and active boats in Michigan, 1965-1986.
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Table 7. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Michigan boat owners, 1980 and 1986.
PERCENT OF TOTAL CUMULATIVE PCT. MEDIAN/MEAN
1980 1986 1986 1980 1986
AGE
20 or less 2.0 1.5 1.5
21-30 9.5 6.2 7.7
31-40 19.5 20.4 28.1 Median 49.7 50.3
41-50 21.6 21.2 49.3 Mean 48.9 49.9
51-60 23.0 25.1 74.4
61-70 17.9 18.8 93.2
71+ 6.4 6.8 100.0
YRS. OF EDUCATION 1-11 19.6 11.8 11.8 12 37.1 37.2 49.0 Median 12.3 13.1 13-16 31.7 37.5 86.5 Mean 13.0 13.5 17+ 11.6 13.5 100.0
INCOME Under $20,000 41.0 21.0 21.0 $20,000-$29,999 29.3 17.2 37.2 Med. $22,556 $36,400 $30,000-$39,999 15.1 20.0 57.2 $40,000+ 14.6 42.8 100.0 $40,000-$49,999 15.0 72.2 $50,000-$59,999 11.3 83.5 $60,000-$69,999 6.1 89.5 $70,000-$79,999 4.1 93.6 $80,000-$99,999 2.6 96.2 $100,000+ 3.8 100.0
HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1 10.1 8.7 8.7 2 36.9 40.5 49.1 3 17.4 17.6 66.7 Median 3.2 3.1 4 20.3 21.1 87.8 Mean 3.0 2.9 5 9.8 8.0 95.8 6 3.6 3.3 99.1 7 1.4 0.4 99.5 8+ 0.5 0.5 100.0
NO. CHILDREN UNDER 12 0 73.5 78.9 78.9 1 12.2 8.3 87.2 2 10.2 9.8 97.0 Median 0.6 0.6 3 3.5 2.3 99.3 Mean 0.5 0.4 4 0.5 0.5 99.8 5+ 0.1 0.2 100.0
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Table 8. Michigan recreational boating use by size class and location, 1986.
Great Inland Rivers and
Lakes Lakes Streams Total
SMALL BOATS
Boat-days (000s) 4,909 15,245 2,387 22,541
Row percent 22 68 11 100
Column percent 65 94 86 85
Percent of total 18 57 9 85
LARGE BOATS
Boat-days (000s) 2,614 1,055 374 4,043
Row percent 65 26 9 100
Column percent 35 6 14 15
Percent of total 10 4 1 15
TOTAL
Boat-days (1,000s) 7,524 16,300 2,761 26,584
Row percent 28 61 11 100
Column percent 100 100 100 100
Note: "Small boats" means boats 20' and under in length; "large boats" means boats over 20' in length. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Table 9. Trends in the distribution of boat-days across ancillary recreation activities, 1968-1986.
GREAT LAKES INLAND LAKES/RIVERS/STREAMS
ACTIVITY 1968 1980 1986 1968 1980 1986
Percent of Boat-Days
Fishing 44 57 56 52 49 51
Cruising/Pleasure
Boating 40 35 38 25 35 35
Waterskiing 8 5 4 18 13 13
Other 8 3 1 5 3 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Figure 4. Estimated boat-days in Michigan, 1971-1986.
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Figure 5. Great Lakes boat-days in Michigan by destination county, 1986.
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Figure 6. Inland lake boat-days in Michigan by destination county, 1986.
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Figure 7. River/stream boat-days in Michigan by destination county, 1986.
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Figure 8. Total boat-days in Michigan by destination county, 1986.
Source: Talhelm et al., 1988a.
Figure 9. Estimated boat-days in Michigan, 1968-1986, and projections for 1991 and 1996.
Source: Talhelm et al., 1989.
Table 10. Estimated and projected boat-days in Michigan, 1968-1996.
SMALL BOATS (0'-20') LARGE BOATS (over 20')
ESTIMATED/PROJECTED AT: ESTIMATED/PROJECTED
AT:
1986 Energy Energy 1986 Energy Energy
Year Prices Crisis Glut Prices Crisis Glut
Great Lakes Boat-Days
1968 3,096,206 1,217,188
1971 2,422,400 952,300
1974 2,552,600 1,093,500
1977 3,059,500 1,729,540
1980 3,783,000 1,563,000
1986 4,909,000 2,614,000
1991 5,498,102 4,867,788 5,708,207 2,985,237
2,437,282 3,167,888
1996 6,190,313 5,559,998 6,400,417 3,420,505
2,872,551 3,603,157
Inland Boat-Days
1968 7,549,044 292,146
1971 8,046,200 311,500
1974 7,768,300 430,200
1977 9,386,550 980,600
1980 10,546,000 1,028,000
1986 14,987,088 1,214,286
1991 16,802,540 14,487,910 17,574,080 1,592,719
1,480,415 1,630,154
1996 19,014,040 16,699,420 9,785,580 1,883,370
1,771,066 1,920,805
Note: Figures given for 1968 through 1986 are estimates of actual boat-days in those years, based on surveys conducted at those times. Figures for 1991 and 1996 are forecasts based on statistical analyses of the 1968-1986 data. Each forecast is based on one of the three future energy price assumptions, denoted by the column heading.
Source: Talhelm et al., 1989.
Table 11. Area of Great Lakes surface waters by State/Ontario.
State/Ontario Area (square miles) Percent of Total Michigan 38,192 40.1 Ontario 33,190 35.6 Wisconsin 9,355 10.0 New York 3,901 4.2 Ohio 3,499 3.8 Minnesota 2,546 2.7 Illinois 1,575 1.7 Pennsylvania 740 0.8 Indiana 235 0.2 Total 93,233 square miles 99.1%*
*Does not equal 100% due to rounding.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1993; Cameron, personal communication, 1993.
Figure 10. Michigan underwater preserves.
Figure 11. Great Lakes Underwater Cultural Resources (UCR) Management Areas.
Table 12. Activities of interest on pleasure trips to Michigan, 1983-1986.
Activities of Interest % Response
SWIMMING 22
LAKE FISHING 16
Hiking/backpacking 14
POWER BOATING 8
Miscellaneous sports 7
Camping 6
Bicycling 5
SUNBATHING 5
Golf 4
Hunting 4
STREAM/RIVER FISHING 4
WATER SKIING 4
Canoeing 3
Horseback riding 3
SAILING 3
Tennis 3
CHARTER BOAT FISHING 2
Cross-country skiing 2
Downhill skiing 2
Snowmobiling 2
ICE FISHING 1
Rafting 0
N = 704
Note: Bold-faced type refers to water-based recreation
Source: Spotts, 1991; Ross Roy, Inc., 1986.
Table 13. Estimated resident and nonresident recreation activity in Michigan, 1980-1981.
Michigan Residents Nonresidents
Recreation Activity Days Activity Days
Activity (Millions) (Millions)
SWIMMING/SUNBATHING 97.1 12.8
Bicycling 95.4 2.1
FISHING 40.7 6.9
POWER BOATING 27.5 4.7
Hiking/backpacking and
nature study 25.3 2.9
Attending sports events 24.3 0.9
Baseball and softball 24.3 0.3
Hunting 22.7 0.2
Golf 18.0 1.4
Picnicking 15.5 2.5
Camping 14.9 3.1
Basketball 13.7 0.0
Attending Performing Arts 11.9 1.0
Raquetball/Paddleball 11.2 0.0
Fall Color Outings 10.6 1.6
Field Sports 10.0 0.1
WATER SKIING 8.5 1.7
Tennis 8.2 1.1
Trailbiking and ORVs 8.1 0.3
Snowmobiling 8.0 0.5
ICE SKATING 7.8 0.1
Sledding/Tobogganning 7.1 0.3
Attending Festivals/Events 6.9 1.1
CANOEING 5.7 1.2
Cross-country skiing 5.1 0.6
Visiting scenic sites 5.0 3.3
Downhill skiing 4.6 1.0
Horseback riding 4.4 0.3
Visiting museums 3.9 1.4
Visiting historic sites 3.7 2.6
SAILING 3.6 2.3
Visiting amusement/theme park 2.0 0.8
Note: Bold-faced type refers to water-based recreation Source: Recreation Division, MDNR, 1985.
Table 14. Length and selected uses of Michigan shoreline (excluding islands) on the Great Lakes and connecting waterways.
Undeveloped &
Shoreline Public extrapolative
Lake or waterway (miles) infrastructure(%) use (%)
Lake Superior 958.8 14.6 67.7
St. Mary's River 238.0 31.0 0.0
Lake Michigan 879.1 3.1 64.5
Lake Huron 689.8 4.3 63.2
St. Clair River 20.6 9.6 16.8
Lake St. Clair 84.5 31.2 13.0
Detroit River 73.3 20.2 30.5
Lake Erie 56.4 6.5 47.2
Totals 3,000.5 10.1 57.1
Note: The public infrastructure category includes parkland, road networks, institutional facilities and airports. Undeveloped and extrapolive uses includes beaches, wetlands, forest lands, dunes, rock and extrapolative uses. Ownership of these lands was not explicitly addressed.
Source: Taylor and Gauthier, 1993.
References
Bennett, Thomas. 1991. Personal communication. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Mich.
Halsey, John R. 1990. Beneath the Inland Seas: Michigan's Underwater Archaeological Heritage. Bureau of Michigan History, Lansing, Mich.
Holecek, Donald F. and Gene L. Brothers. 1983. Documentation and Analysis of Temporal and Spatial Changes in Marinas Serving Michigan's Great Lakes. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Kinnunen, Ronald E. 1984. Alger Underwater Preserve Diver Information Survey Results, Expenditures, and Secondary Economic Impacts. Alger Underwater Preserve Committee, Inc., Munising, Mich.
Kinnunen, Ronald E. 1985. Alger Underwater Preserve Diver Information Survey Results, Expenditures, and Secondary Economic Impacts. Alger Underwater Preserve Committee, Inc., Munising, Mich.
Meyers, Charles J., A. Dan Tarlock, James N. Corbridge, Jr., and David H. Getches. 1988. Water Resource Management: A Casebook in Law and Public Policy. The Foundation Press, Inc., Mineola, N.Y.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 1986. Michigan's Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act. Division of Land Resource Programs, Lansing, Mich.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1990. Michigan Harbors Guide, 1990. Recreation Division, Lansing, Mich.
Nature Conservancy, The. 1994. The Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Ecosystem: Issues and Opportunities. Great Lakes Program, Chicago, Illinois.
Park and Recreation Resources Department. 1991. Recommendations from Congressman Davis' Recreational Boating Workshop. Unpublished report. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Peterson, Jon P., Thord Sundstrom, and Steve Stewart. 1987a. A Profile of Great Lakes Diver Activity, Travel, and Expenditure Patterns. MICHU-SG-87-508. Michigan Sea Grant Extension, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Peterson, Jon P., Thord Sundstrom, and Ronald Kinnunen. 1987b. 1986 Recreational Diving Activity in Michigan Bottomland Preserves. MICHU-SG-87-506. Michigan Sea Grant Extension, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI). 1994. Personal communication. International Headquarters, Santa Ana, Calif.
Recreation Division. 1985. Building Michigan's Recreation Future: Appendix B _ Recreation in Michigan: Users, Activity, Programs and Opportunities. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Mich.
Ross Roy, Inc. 1986. Great Lakes Travel Monitor. Report prepared for the Michigan Travel Bureau, Lansing, Mich.
Singley, Katherine. 1988. The Conservation of Archaeological Artifacts from Freshwater Environments. Lake Michigan Maritime Museum, South Haven, Mich.
Skin Diver. 1989. Subscriber survey. Peterson Publishing Company, Los Angeles, Calif.
Stynes, Daniel J., Gene L. Brothers, Donald F. Holecek, and Dave Verbyla. 1983. Spending Patterns and Economic Impacts of Michigan Registered Boat Owners. MICHU-SG-83-210. Michigan Sea Grant Publications, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Talhelm, Daniel R., Scott W. Jordan, and Donald F. Holecek. 1988a. 1986 Michigan Recreational Boating Survey. Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Talhelm, Daniel R., Scott W. Jordan, and Donald F. Holecek. 1988b. Summary of the 1986 Potential Market for Seasonal Marina Slips for Michigan Marinas Having Access to the Great Lakes. Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Talhelm, Daniel R., Scott W. Jordan, and Donald F. Holecek. 1989. Michigan's 1986 Great Lakes Marina User Segments, Marina "Products," and Marina "Product" Needs. Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Talhelm, Daniel R., Scott W. Jordan, and Donald F. Holecek. 1989. Forecasting Recreational Boating in Michigan for 1991 and 1996: Summary of Results and Methods. Technical Report to Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Talhelm, Daniel R. 1991. "Recreational Boating in Michigan." In Spotts, Daniel M., (ed.) Travel and Tourism in Michigan: A Statistical Profile. Second Edition. Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resources Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Taylor, Stan, and Roger Gauthier. 1993. Land Use and Management. Land Use and Shoreline Management Task Group Report_Working Committee 2. International Joint Commission (IJC) Great Lakes Water Level Reference Study. IJC, Windsor, Ontario.
U.S. Coast Guard. 1978. Recreational Boating in the Continental United States in 1973 and 1976: The Nationwide Boating Survey. Report No. CG-B-003-78. Office of Boating Safety, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Environment Canada. 1988. The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book. EPA-905/9-87-002. Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, Illinois.
Vrana, Kenneth J. 1989. Michigan Bottomland Preserves Inventory. MICHU-SG-89-500. Michigan Sea Grant Extension, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Vrana, Kenneth J. 1991. An Analysis of the Development Needs of Michigan Bottomland (Underwater) Preserve Communities Using the Nominal Group Technique. MICHU-SG-93-201. Michigan Sea Grant Extension, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Vrana, Kenneth J. 1992. Results of the Sport Diving and Great Lakes Aquatic Parks Survey. Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Vrana, Kenneth J., and John R. Halsey. 1992. "Shipwreck Allocation and Management in Michigan: a Review of Theory and Practice." Historical Archaeology (26)4:81-96.
Vrana, Kenneth J., and Edward Mahoney. 1993. Great Lakes Underwater Cultural Resources: Important Information for Shaping Our Future. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.
Wells, Philip. 1989. Personal communication. Recreation Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Mich.
Wright, Richard J. 1975. Inventory of Shipwrecks Within Michigan Coastal Waters. Report on file with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Mich.
Appendix
Recommendations from Congressman Davis' Recreational Boating Workshop (Park and Recreation Resources Department, MSU, 1991).
Summary of Problems, Issues, Needs and Recommendations Identified by the Four Workshop Groups
Although the four different focus groups worked independently, there was considerable agreement among recreational boaters, industry and agencies regarding important recreation boating problems, issues and needs. There was also considerable concurrence on the actions they recommended to address these problems.
COMPLEX AND CONFUSING PROCESS FOR OBTAINING PERMITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF RECREATION BOATING FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Problem, Issue or Need
There was agreement across all the focus groups that the process for obtaining permits for recreational boating facilities and services is complex and confusing, and this adds greatly to the cost of developing and expanding recreation boating facilities and services. Lack of coordination among federal, state and local agencies involved in permitting processes is considered to be a major difficulty. Participants representing industry and local units of government indicated that it is very difficult to remain current with respect to new environmental and operating laws, changes in existing laws, and agency permitting requirements.
Recommended Action(s)
The process(es) for reviewing and issuing permits for recreational boating related facilities and services must be revised and streamlined to: (1) make them more understandable, (2) consolidate regulations and procedures, (3) coordinate the involvement of different federal, state and local agencies, (4) streamline the process(es) to reduce permit review time, (5) provide more emphasis on creative problem solving and assistance rather than denying permits, (6) hold the agencies accountable for (explaining) their decisions. Agencies should develop more effective and efficient ways of informing recreational boating businesses, and local units of government, of relevant changes in environmental laws, regulations and permit processes.
A position should be established (ombudsperson) to assist businesses and local units of government who encounter problems securing permits for recreation boating facilities and services.
(Persons desiring to develop marinas should meet with Michigan Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer representatives early in the conceptual stage of marina development to identify agency concerns and requirements prior to substantial commitments of resources. To set up a meeting, contact the MDNR Permit Consolidation Unit, Land and Water Management Division, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909, or telephone Mr. Les Thomas at (517)373-1950. The MDNR should continue to meet with the MBIA representatives on an annual basis. (Contributed by Hal Harrington, MDNR, 1994))
NEW RECREATION BOATING RELATED TAXES AND FEES
Problem, Issue or Need
New taxes on the purchase of boats, coupled with new and increasing user fees are adding to the cost of recreational boating. Some new (and proposed) taxes and fees are not allocated specifically to maintenance and improvement of recreational boating facilities and services. They are being used to reduce general fund deficits.
Currently there is no accurate accounting of fuel taxes paid by recreational boaters. Questions were raised regarding the "equitable" distribution of fuel tax revenues (i.e., for recreational boating facilities and services).
Recommended Action(s)
Before imposing new recreational boating fees and taxes, Congress and the Michigan Legislature should analytically and objectively determine the magnitude of the impact on recreational boaters, the recreational boating industry and state and local (tourism) economies.
Taxes and fees collected from boaters should be used to finance recreational boating facilities and services. Laws establishing new recreational boating taxes and fees should include a mechanism/formula to insure that the resulting revenues are utilized to maintain and enhance recreational boating facilities and services.
There is a need for a study to accurately determine fuel purchased and fuel taxes paid by recreational boaters. The results should provide the basis for a fuel tax distribution formula.
MAINTENANCE OF MICHIGAN'S RECREATIONAL BOATING INFRASTRUCTURE
Problem, Issue or Need
Considerable amounts of money have been invested in Michigan's recreational boating infrastructure including Harbors of Refuge, channels and waterways, public access sites and marinas. Reductions in agency budgets have diminished their ability to adequately maintain existing facilities, structures, channels, and waterways. Of special concern are reductions in funding for dredging operations.
Recommended Action(s)
Emphasis should be directed at maintaining existing, rather than developing new recreational boating infrastructure and services. Agencies should focus their effort and limited resources on developing and maintaining facilities and services which can not be provided by the private sector.
The Army Corps of Engineers should assign greater priority to recreational boating (access and quality) when deciding on dredging priorities and resource allocations.
Agencies/organizations responsible for law enforcement and search and rescue should coordinate efforts to insure cost effective allocation of staff and resources.
DISTRIBUTION OF RECREATIONAL BOATING FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Problem, Issue or Need
In some regions/areas of the state, available services and facilities exceed current and projected "demand." In other locations, there is existing and projected need for additional/improved access, launching facilities, Harbors of Refuge, marina slips, facilities and support services (e.g., fuel). There is a need for a more coordinated, cooperative and analytical approach to decisions regarding development and location of new recreational boating facilities and services, facility maintenance, dredging priorities, the distribution of enforcement, and search and rescue services.
Recommended Action(s)
Agencies responsible for recreational boating should develop (with significant involvement of industry, local units of government and boaters) a comprehensive, coordinated state-wide strategy/plan aimed at enhancing the quality and distribution of recreational boating facilities and services in Michigan. The strategy/plan should: (1) be based on up-to-date information on the "demand" and "supply" (e.g., boating access, facilities and services), (2) determine existing and projected access, facility and service needs, (3) establish maintenance and dredging priorities, (4) identify opportunities for private business development and public-private ventures and, (5) recommend policies, programs and actions designed to reduce various recreational boating related conflicts.
Attention should be focused on: (1) the need for additional Harbors of Refuge on Lake Superior, (2) problems of limited (or no) access to certain waters in northern Michigan, (3) limited availability of fuel service in certain northern Michigan locations and, (4) the adequacy of the distribution of law enforcement, and search and rescue services.
EFFORTS TO LIMIT/RESTRICT RECREATIONAL BOATING ACCESS AND FACILITIES