Report and Recommendations for the Montana State Park System a report to Governor Judy Martz and the 58th Legislature

40 Pages·2002·1.4 MB·English

by  Montana. State Parks Futures Committee II

DOCUMENTS COLLECTION
^i^R 2 5 2003
MONTANA STATE LIBRARY
Report and Recommendations
"^''-^q^'Va'!^^^^^
for the Montana State Park System
A
Report to Governor Judy Martz and the 58 Legislature
Submitted by the State Parks Futures Committee
II
November 2002
MONTANASTATELIBRARY
3 0864 0014 9005 4
Memorandum
TO: GovernorMartz; Montana Legislature; Fish, Wildlife andParks Commission; and State
Parks Visitors
FROM: State Parks Futures Committee II
Date: December3, 2002
SUBJECT: FinalReport andRecommendations
Duringthe past 14 months,the nine-memberState Parks Futures Committee II met in communities across
Montanato reviewthe condition ofthe state parks andexplore ways to improve yourparks systera At the
end ofJuly2002,the committee released its DrafiRefKMandRecmtrieiidatiorTS, andsolicitedpublic comments
throughthe end ofSeptember2002. Written andemailcomments were received froma totalof 19
individuals andorganizations. TheFutures Committee also held astatewide public meeting on September 11,
2002, throughMetNet,the interactive video conferencing network. About 30 people participatedvia links in
Billings,Bozeman,Dillon, Glasgow, Great Falls,Helena, Kalispell,Miles Qty, andMissoula. The committee
reviewed allofthe public comments andincorporated anumberofchanges inthe attached final report.
The recommendations inthis report are intendedtomaintain and improve Montana's state parks systemas
we move intothe 21" century. To help meetthese goals, we urge Montana's citizens andpublic officials to
constructivelymonitorandevaluate implementation. We encourage the Governor's Office;the Legislature;
the FWP Commission; andFWP DirectortoworkwithParks Divisionthroughout this process andtohold
one anotheraccountable to the mission andvisionofthe parks system. The committee also recommends that
Parks Divisionperiodicallyreport to the public onprogress througharticles in its newsletterand onthe
department web site. Further,we encourage the Legislative AuditDivisionto reviewParks Divisionprogress
at appropriate intervals.
As committee member?,we support the overallvision ofthis report. We recognize that some ofour
recomniendations mayface challenges to theirimplementation,particularlyduring leantimes such as we now
face. We are confident,however, thatthe parks staff,volunteers, and advocates we met during ourtravels are
up tothe task. We hope youwilljoinus inthe ongoingeffort to maintain, strengthen, and supportMontana's
parks systemfortoday's visitors and future generations.
The committee gives its thanks and appreciationtoParks DirectorDougMonger, Administrative Assistant
Debbie McRae, regionalandparks managers, anddivision staff fortheircourtesy, cooperation, and
professionalismshownthroughout ourreviewoftheirwork. We also thankthe manymembers ofthe
"friends ofthe park" groups and otherparks advocacyorganizations who sharedtheirpassion and insights
forMontana's parks. Finally,we want to acknowledge the valuable facilitationand communication assistance
provided bythe^Mont^ana Consensus Council.
man (Rep.,Poison) BobKeenan (Senator,Bigfork)
Sa^^Lj
(Senator, Trout Qeek)
/GkePenfold,.^drMontana, Inc.,
lie Big Mountain, Whitefisn)
Helena)
,

State Parks Futures Committee II
Final Report
AND
Recommendations
December 2002
3,
StateParksFutures Comrittee, DeoenherS, 2002

Contents JimElliott (Senator, Trout Qieek)
Ed Henrich (Fairmont Hot Springs Resort,
Fairmont)
Introduction 1
& Dave Kasten (Rep., Brockway)
Parks Mission Vision Statements 4
StatutoryFramework. 4 Quistine Kaufmann (Rep., Helena)
Planning and Management 5 Bob Keenan (Senator, Bigfork)
Funding 9 Mai^aret Moddison (chair. Great Falls)
OtherPolicyConsiderations 13 Mike Penfold (OurMontana, Inc., Billings)
Michele Reese (The Big Mountain, Whitefish)
Monitoring and Evaluation 14
Appendices 17
Purpose
Introduction As outlined in the Executive Order, the
purpose ofthe Futures Committee is to make
recommendations to the Govemor, the 2003
During 2001, the Legislative Audit Division FWP
Legislature, and regarding changes that
conducted a performance audit ofthe have occurred in the parks system and new
programs within the Parks Division of
challenges and trends that have arisen since
Montana of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP).
the original state parks futures committee met
The audit recognized the "world class"
in 1989. In that time, the numberofparks in
recreational opportunities and significant
the system shrankfrom 60 to 42, largely
contributions to qualityof life provided bythe
through the transferofsites (including
parks system. But auditors also noted that the
Canyon Ferry, Nelson Reservoir, East
numberofpeople recreating in Montana state Gallatin, and Bears PawBattlefield) to other
parks is on the rise, and that manychanges public agencies. The total numberofvisitors
had occurred in the 12 years since the to state parks is nowlower, given that there
previous reviewofparks programs bythe first
are fewerparks, but actualvisitation has
Sute Parks Futures GDmmittee in 1989.
remained steady. Montana residents are a
largerportion ofvisitoruse (72 percent in
That first Futures effort led to a host of 2000) than in past years. Manyparks
recommendations and subsequent
anticipate increased visitation during the
improvements in the field and in parks
programadministration. FWP agreed with the bicentennial ofthe Lewis and Qark
expedition.
Legislative Auditors that the time was ripe for
anotherParks Futures review, and theyjoindy
TTie workof the first Futures Committee led
recommended that GovernorJudyMartz
to a numberofimprovements across the
create a State Parks Futures Committee II.
parks system. Parks fees were laised to help
FuturesCommittee Members defrayrising costs. Parks Division established
a newpaid intem programwith the Montana
Universitysystem, providing one intem per
The Futures Committee II was appointed
yearforeach region. Six new"friends ofthe
underExecutive Order27-01, signed October
park" groups were formed. OveraU, the
3"*, 2001, byGovernorMartz (see Appendix
division standardized planning, policies,
A). The nine members represent avarietyof
publications, and signage, and added over $30
interests and communities across the state.
million in improvements, including new
Theyinclude:
visitorcenters at three parks.
John Brueggeman (Rep., Poison)
1
StateParksFutures Coimittee, Decerrixr3, 2002
The parksystem's legallandscape also . Considerthe values and needs ofall
changed during the 1990s. Passage ofthe recreational users.
Primitive Parks Act (23-1-115 through 23-1- • Considerthe financialand staffing needs
118,MCA) eliminated entrance fees and ofthe state parks system.
curtailed furtherdevelopment at 15 . Be technically, legally, socially, and
designated parks. Also, to prevent impacts to economicallyfeasible to implement.
landowners adjoining state parks, the
legislature established the Good Neighbor ADeliberative Prcx:ess
Policy(23-1-126, MCA), which requires FWP
to place maintenance as a higherpriorityover The Futures Committee meteight times in
additional development at all state parks and nine months in communities across the state
fishing access sites. to gatherinformation, discuss the issues, and
develop its recommendations. Meetings were
While responding to these and otherchanges facilitated bythe Montana Consensus Council
and trends, parks management must also and staffed bythe council and Parks Division
confront challenges related to funding. Costs personnel.
continue to rise, but revenues—particularly
fromexisting fees and taxes—remain flat. On Futures Committee members also toured ten
FWP
the current course, projects that state parks, met with all seven regionalparks
expenditures will eclipse revenues by2006. managers, and held public meetings in Helena,
Billings, Three Forks, Missoula, Dillon,
In light ofthese and othertrends, the Glasgow, Glendive, and Bigfork
Executive Orderdirected the Futures Representatives of a numberofinterest
Committee to consider: groups, notablythe Montana State Parks
Foundation and several local "friends ofthe
Parkfee revenues and funding sources park" associations, attended meetings and
Parkresources provided information, insights, and a broad
Statutoryparkdesignations range ofperspectives on the parksystem. The
Parkdesignations Committee received written comments and
Potential long-termpolicychanges provided an opportunityforpublic comment
Distribution ofstate parks across the state through the FWP web site.
Otherpolicyconsiderations
The State Parks Futures Committee II Ehaft
These items are covered in this report under ReportandReoommsndationswas released at the
the broaderheadings ofStatutoryFramework, end ofJuly2002, and public comments were
Planning andManagement, and Funding. accepted through the end ofSeptember2002.
Parks Division also held a statewide public
The Executive OnJeralso stated that the meeting on September 11, 2002, through
Futures Committee's recommendations mtast: MetNet, the interactive video conferencing
network. About 30 people participated via
• Considerthe original futures committee links in Billings, Bozeman, Dillon, Glasgow,
report, the 2020 VisionforMontanaState GreatFalls, Flelena, Kalispell, Miles Qty, and
Parks SystemPlan, and the 2001 Missoula. Written and email comments were
performance audit conducted bythe received froma total of 19 individuals and
Legislative Audit Division. organizations. Some comments praised the
• Considerthe social and economic effects, workofthe committee, while others were
both positive and negative, ofstate critical ofspecific recommendations. The
changes. main themes regarding the committee's
StateParksFtOures Carmttee, Decembers, 2002
recommendations that emerged fromall of vision and with the budget priorities listed in
the public comment included: Recommendation 15. These budget priorities
• Concem overand opposition to the were revised to more clearlyemphasize
recommendation to repealthe Primitive maintenance ofexisting park resources and
Parks Act. faciliues (with the exception of Region 6,
• Opposition to proposed fee increases. where acquisition is the first priorit)^.
• Support forsome fee increases.
• Concem and questions about Parks HistoryandStatusofthe State Park
Division budget allocations. System
• Support forthe budget priorities listed in
Recommendation 15 (and specifically Montana's state parksystembegan in 1939
support forgiving priorityto maintenance with the acquisition of Lewis and Qark
ofexisting parkresources and facilities). Caverns fromthe federal government. Since
Support forincreasing and improving law then, the systemhas grown—largelythrough
enforcement in the parks system. the initiative of local citizens and
Support forenhancing the tourist and communities—to include 42 state parks (see
economic development potential ofstate Appendix B fora map ofstate parks across
parks. the state). The systemfeatures natural areas,
Support fordeveloping thematic links cultural and historical sites, and recreational
among parks. areas, all providing a broad range of
Support fordeveloping policyon the recreational and educational opportunities,
commercial use ofparks. fromthe historical and cultural resources at
Opposition to allowing tourismand Pictograph Cave and Bannack, to the water-
commercial use to drive parks based fun ofthe Smith Riverand Flathead
management. Lake, fromthe fossils and nature trails of
Support forimproving relations with tribal Makoshika, to the near-urban developed
governments. swimming holes ofWhitefish and Spring
Meadow
lakes.
The committee reconvened in Helena on
November 14, 2002, to revise the report Nearly 1.4 million people visitMontana state
based on public comment and the parks each year. In 2000, 72 percent were
committee's own furtherdeliberations. Montana residents. According to FWP, the
Significant changes were made to several most popularparkactivities are learning about
recommendations and are incorporated in this Montana history, fishing, boating, picnicking,
final report. Most notably, the camping, hiking, and wildlife viewing.
recommendation to replace the Primitive
Parks Act was dropped in favorof asking In Fiscal Year2002, the Parks Division had an
Parks Division to develop, under operations budget of about $12 million,
administrative rule, a systematic management including 110.66 full-time equivalents (FTEs).
and planning framework, afterwhich the act This budget and staff are responsible forthe
would be revisited to determine whetherit state parks system as well as more than 320
would be appropriate to amend orrepeal it at fishing access sites (which are managed bythe
that time (see Recommendation 3). Parks Division but are not part ofthe parks
system), a communitygrants program, and a
The committee also clarified that actions to trails program, with a total land base of more
enhance the parks' economic development than 60,000 acres (33,532 ofwhich are in
potential and visitorexperiences should be parks). The primaryfocus ofthe Futures
consistent with the parksystemmission and Committee II was the Sute Parkprogram.
StateParksFutures Cormittee, DeoenixrS, 2002
historic, andrecreationaldmrsity(fMontana, liitha
During the 2000 recreation season, more broader^ographicandculturalrepresentationthanat
than 1,300 volunteers logged over36,000 present Thefiouresystemmilprmideagreater
hours as campground hosts and visitorcenter dvuersitycfpark types, suchas recreationalimteniays,
attendants, and doing maintenance and railtratls, andhistoricalroutes. ThesystemwUalso
interpretive work. In exchange for$8 an hour (ffera broadran^cffadlities, experiences, and
and college credit, 24 student interns fromthe pro-ams -uhichmeetanassortrrtntcfchangngvsitor
Montana Universitysystemalso worked inthe reedsandinterests, irtdudir^rrareeducationaland
wU
parks systemin 2000. interpretiiEopportunities. Staff contiruKto
irrpraieresouneprotection, rmintenanoe,pro-ams,
Formore information on the Montana state pknmng rrtmtorir^ sitedesi^T, lisitorirfomtttion,
parks system, see the publications listed in andouerallpnfasionalisrn, withenhancedconnections
AppendixI. andoommurdcutionwthodxrprograms bothinside
andoutsideFWP. Thequalitycfthesystemvillbe
rrvreconsistentandreooffrizahlebetueenunits, and
Parks Mission and Vision staffandfinandalresources milbestffidenttomeet
Statements vsitorneeds. FromoneendcfthestatetoMother,
vsitcrexpectations milberoutindyexceededbythe
hi^qualitycftheexperierKesprodded Oierall, the
The Futures Committee agreed to adoptthe
statepark systemmilbea moreintegralpartcf
mission andvision statements from2020
everydayexistenceinMontana;stateparks milbe
VisionforMontatjaStateParks, with several
affordableplaces lehereMontanansandtheirzisitors
modifications.
fromallmilks cflifefedconfortableandvdcame.
The mission statement is framed to capture
whythe state parksystemexists, what it is Statutory Framework
intended to accomplish, and who it serves.
The statement draws heavilyon the language
inthe 1939 state parkenabling legislation, as Montana's state parks systemis enabled and
well as the statement included in the 1990 governed bythe provisions of Title 23,
State ParkFutures Committee report. The Chapters 1 and 2 ofthe Montana Code
vision statement seeks to broadlydescribe Annotated (MCA). In its deliberations on the
what sort ofparksystemshould be in place by parksystem's statutoryframework, the
the year2020. Committee focused primarilyon the effects of
the Primitive Parks Act (23-1-115 through 23-
Mission 1-118, MCA).
ThenissioncftheMontana StatePark systemis to The Primitive ParksAct
presene, erhznoe, andinterpretadiierse
representationcfMmtana's wostoutstandingnatural, Passage ofthe Montana Primitive Parks Act
cultural, historic, andrecreationalresources,forthe in 1993 designated 15 sites as "primitive" to
personal, sodal, andeconomicben^cfpresentand prevent theirfurtherdevelopment and to
Juture^nerations. eliminate entrance fees atthose parks.
Vision The Futures Committee recognized that the
Primitive Parks Act provides the following
Intheyear2020, theMontana StatePark system benefits and disadvantages.
uillmoreaccuratelyr^leathenatural, cultural.
StateParksFutures Ccmrittee, DeoemberJ, 2002