.

  

MMWIIUHIHIIIUHIWllllHIHIIHIIHHIIWIIllHIll.

  

108

film lllllllll \lll L

E 3 (£0309 5758

 

 

 

 

I‘lll‘ll

LIBRARY 3 ‘2
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

ANALYSIS OF A MAILABLE URBAN RECREATION
FISHING SURVEY FORM

presented by

Ned Earl Fogle

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

the Ph.D. degreein Fisheries & Wildlife

Major érOfCSSOY

Date February 10, 1988

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

JAN 0 6 201'}

 

”saunas remove this checkout from
.—:—. your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
5?? 3
JAN 0 9 2013
12 06 13

 

 

 

 

ANALYSIS OF A MAILABLE URBAN RECREATION
FISHING SURVEY FORM

By

Ned Earl Fogle
A DISSERTATION

Submitted To
Michigan State University
In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements
For The Degree 0f

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1987

ABSTRACT

ANALYSIS OF A MAILABLE URBAN RECREATIONAL FISHING SURVEY FORM

By

NED EARL FOGLE

Urban recreational fishing programs are in high demand across the nation in
populated urban areas. It has been demonstrated in many states that sport
fishing can be provided to urban dwellers in most metropolitan areas where

it once was considered unfit for the development of sport fisheries. Pro-
fessional fishery people who once avoided such areas now look to these

areas as necessary fisheries of the future. Development of such fisheries,
however, depends upon a well-planned program, including a complete inventory
of present and potential recreational resources. The development of an urban
recreational fishing program in the highly urbanized areas of southern
Michigan has high potential. Severe funding and personnel shortages in the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, however, have blocked doing the
essential on-the-ground inventory of this urban fishing potential. To over—
come this deficiency, a survey form and explanatory cover letter have been
developed to obtain the needed information. The survey form was tested on
twenty urban communities. On-the-ground checks of these communities showed
that the survey form design was good and that it could be used in place of

an on-the-ground survey and save a resource agency on the average (1987 rates)

of $20,000-$25,000 for the total survey.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge with sincere appreciation those colleagues
who have stood behind him and helped in this endeavor; both in the develop-
ment of the survey form and especially for the words of encouragement when
the road to achievement became rocky. This appreciation is extended to
Drs. Niles Kevern, Carl Latta, and Daniel Talhelm, Mr. Glenn Dudderar,

Mr. Harry Westers, Mr. Richard Lehman, Mr. Gale Jamsen, Mr. Douglas Jester
and Mr. Tom Doyle. A very special thanks to my secretary, Barbara, for
excellent administrative support and thorough attention to detail in
prparation of the survey form and dissertation manuscript. And, finally,

a special thanks to my guidance committee, Drs. Niles Kevern, Milton
Steinmueller, Clifford Humphreys and William Taylor, for their constructive

critique and support of my thesis.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

AbstractOOOOOIOOIO000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0000000000000IIOOOO ii

Acknowledgements................................................... iii
List of Tables..................................................... v
List of Forms...................................................... vi
Introduction....................................................... 1
Background......................................................... 2
Methodology........................................................ 10
Results and Discussion............................................. 33
Conclusions........................................................ 45
Appendix: "Project Analysis; The Use of a Survey form in the

Development of a State Urban Recreational Fisheries

Program"......OCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0....00....0... 47

List Of ReferenceSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 69

-1v..

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

10:

11:

12:

13:

14:

LIST OF TABLES

1980 Survey Expenses' Breakdown For One Level IX Staff

PersonOIOO00......CO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO

1982 Survey Expenses' Breakdown For One Level IX Staff

Person.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0.0...

Duplication of the 1980 Survey at 1986 Rates...............
Duplication of the 1982 Survey at 1986 Rates...............

143 Surveys' Cost, Based on 1980 Survey of Two Communities
Per Day (i.e., 11-Hour Day), but at 1986 Rates.............

143 Surveys' Cost, Based on 1982 Survey of One Community
Per Day (i.e., 8-Hour Day), but at 1986 Rates..............

M811 survey cost in 1984.00.00...0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO
Mail Survey Cost at 1986 Rates.............................

Eleven Communities Previously Surveyed for Fishing
Potential Before Receiving Questionnaire...................

Ten Communities Not Previously Surveyed for Fishing
Potential Before Receiving Questionnaire...................

Fourteen of the 21 Communities Further Questioned About
the Clarity Of the survey Form.OOOOOOOOOOOOCOCOO0.0.00.0...

Percent Response to Mail Survey and Follow-Up Letters......
Total Mailing CostSOOOIOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Cost Comparisons (On-the-ground vs. Mail) Per Community....

-v-

Page

15

16

18
19

20

35

36
39
44

45

Form

Form

Form

Form

Form

Form

Form

Form

LIST OF FORMS

Urban Recreational Fishing Inventory.......................
Original Letter Accompanying Inventory Survey Form.........
Letter Accompanying Testing of Survey Form.................
Follow-up Letter to Form 3 Letter..........................
Second Follow-up Letter to Form 3 Letter...................

Revised Cover Letter Whigh Accompanied the Survey Form Sent
to The 122 Additonal comunitieSOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0...

Follow-Up Letter to Revised Cover Letter Sent to the 122
Additional comunitieSOOOOO0.0.0.000...OOOOOOIOOOOIOOOOO...

Additional Follow-Up Letter to the January Letter..........

.vi-

Page
22

30
31
32

33

37

4O

42

INTRODUCTION

Early in 1972, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Fisheries
Division, entered into a major urban recreational fisheries program to bring
recreational fishing into the various urban communities of southern Michigan
(Fogle, 1978) ll. By 1980, some urban fishing projects had been funded.
However, state politics and money shortages mandated that funding be equitably
distributed among the state's urban area. Fisheries Division's responsibility
to this program mandated a method to inventory and prioritize urban fishing
needs. Considerable time and effort is required for on-the-ground surveys

of urban fishing potential in each community. However, because of other
Departmental responsibilities, it was logistically and financially impossible
to physically inventory the 143 communities identified by the author as urban
communities. A mailable survey form was determined to be the only acceptable
alternative. To substantitate this determination, a project analysis was made
by the author on the use of a survey form in the development of the State's

Urban Recreation Fisheries Program (Appendix A).

The analysis favored a mailable survey as the most feasible alternative

to collect the needed information. Such a hypothesis, or thesis, "that

 

Footnotes:

 

ll Fogle, Ned E. The author is the Fisheries Division's Recreational
Fisheries Program Manager responsible for developing the Division's
Urban Fishing Program.

2
a mailable survey form could be developed to replace costly on-the-ground
surveys for inventorying urban recreational fishing potential", however,
would have to be tested to determine if it actually would save the state
time and money. The testing was comprised of on-the-ground checks against
mailed survey forms for each of a group of 21 communities. From the testing
it was determined that a mailable survey form would save the state anywhere
from $126 to $193 per survey. Based on the results from the testing, survey
forms were then sent to the rest of the communities (122 [143 minus the 21
already tested]) in the lower part of the state characterized as urban.
The total estimated savings to the state were determined to be $20,000-
$25,000 in wages, travel and meals as well as freeing considerable amounts

of the author's time for other projects.

An explanation of why and how Michigan entered into such a program is
necessary to help understand the dissertation. The following background
explains the urban fishing situation in Michigan and its ramifications to

the State's fishing program.
BACKGROUND

Introduction to the problem of wide-spread racial flare-ups across the
country in the early 1960's left many large metropolitan areas with devas-
tated ghetto areas and extreme racial unrest. In an attempt to quell the
riots and soothe the inner city dweller, the Federal Government searched
for key solutions. One solution they discussed was the development of rec-
reational fisheries for the inner big city areas. It was noted by the

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Committee (ORRRC) in 1962, that

3
center-city residents are among the most outdoor-recreation-deprived groups
in the United States. The then Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (now
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) of the U.S. Department of the Interior,
then headed by Secretary of Interior Udall, initiated unique inner-city
pilot fishing in six major U.S. cities, aimed at providing needed outdoor

recreational activity for the disadvantaged ghetto dweller (Shupp, 1972).

The six cities selected were Washington, D.C.; Portland, Oregon; Ft. Worth,
Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; Atlanta, Georgia; and Boston, Massachusetts.
The program was administered by the central office in Washington, D.C. and
the Bureau's five Regional Offices with cooperation from state conservation
departments, city parks and recreation departments, and many volunteer

groups (Shupp, 1972).

This urban fishing push by the Federal Government followed a 1968 symposium
sponsored by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in which Dr. John
Gottschalk, the Bureau Director, in his opening remarks stated: "...this
is a different kind of conference that we are embarking upon. I think it
is different for those of us who are engaged in the conservation business,
because we have changed the usual orientation from that of talking about
how people can manage wildlife, and put it in a different perspective.
Perhaps it could be more nearly characterized as trying to determine how
wildlife can be made more positively a factor in the lives of people who
have relatively little opportunity to see and enjoy wildlife in what we
accept as the usual place for wildlife. ...I have high hopes that the
interaction that will come from this conference will stimulate new ideas
and new thoughts...that our successors will be carrying on over the next

10 or 20 years.

4
...Our Bureau faces a challenging future. When we first began to think
about this problem we asked ourselves the question, Just what is, or
what will be the role of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in

an America which is largely urban?

...I am not looking for a lot of pat answers, but I am hopeful there
will be a synergistic effect and that we will get the stimulation that
will help us start to plan the kind of program that the country most

needs and that we are best fitted to administer."

The challenge facing the five regional offices of the Bureau was large.
Most of the states did not have much enthusiasm. In fact, many thought
it was an amusing program and would not put up any money or help in
getting the program going. Managers criticized the program for putting
fish of any kind in any kind of place (i.e., flooded streets, stocking
fish in small pools) which they considered unnatural (Buterbaugh,

personal communication).

Overall, the total program was successful because as long as the Federal
funding lasted, the programs continued. However, no cost/benefit analysis
was ever completed by the government to determine if the program was good

or bad financially. There even were some attempts at additional programs in
different cities. One such program was in Okalhoma City. Here, ponds on
Tinker Air Force Base were stocked with catfish. Kids were able to use
donated fishing equipment and were helped to fish by Air Force personnel

(Summerfeldt, personal communication).

5
Even though U.S. Fish & Wildlife and Air Force personnel worked hard at the
project, similarly it was not picked up by the state or local government
and faded when the funding ceased. Local apathy and disbelief for such
programs by state managers were again primarily responsible for the program's

failure as it was for the original six programs.

Of the five governmental programs, only the St. Louis program was successful.
Started in 1969, the program was expanded in 1970 in a cooperative effort by
the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Missouri Department of

Conservation, and the St. Louis Department of Parks, Recreation and Forestry

with further financial assistance given by the St. Louis Sports Council.

The benefits of the program were explored by Ikeda (1971) in his Master's
Thesis. He determined the program was very acceptable in that it did meet many
of the inner-city needs, including the need for social interaction both for
individuals and groups and also by providing acceptable opportunities for

use of leisure time. Other benefits are possible. In their report on
"Something's Fishy in the Nation's Capitol" about the return of the Potomac

and Anacostia Rivers, Paul Leach and James Rasin, Jr. suggested rediscovery

of the pleasures of the rivers, had the potential to lead to considerable
savings in energy sources; the result coming from the reduced number of

trips from the urban areas to areas of wilderness (Leach, et al., 1981).

The riots in Detroit, which introduced Michigan's inter-city problems, were
equally disturbing to Michigan. It is said that about three of every four
persons in the United States live in cities, towns, or suburbs; that many

people live in the heart of metropolitan areas where there is little

6
opportunity to fish or enjoy nature (Leedy, 1981). Detroit, along with
most of Michigan's other major urban centers fits this category. The State
began looking at ways to provide recreation as a salve for its urban
problems. During this time Michigan's salmon program had expanded
dramatically on the Great Lakes. Seventy percent of the 415 cities in
the United States having a population of 50,000 and at least 30 percent
of the 520 cities having a population between 25,000 and 50,000 are
located on the edge of a river, lake, bay, or ocean. (USDI Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service Publication "Urban Waterfront
Revitalization"). All of Michigan's major urban areas have adjacent

streams or lakes.

So, persons living in the metropolitan area of the state had become
increasingly aware of the Michigan Great Lakes fisheries program and
wanted the state to increase its emphasis on fishing programs for their
immediate area (Fogle, 1974). Fishing is important to anglers. A study
of six northeastern states showed that 93 percent of all northeastern
anglers participated in fishing during their youth (Bevins, et.al.,

1968). Norman McBride, in his development of a "Strategic Plan for the
Development of Freshwater Fisheries in the Capitol District (Albany,
Schenectady, Troy areas)" expanded upon Bevins' findings by stating that
"It would appear that the formative childhood years exert a major
influence on an individual's choice of recreational activity. Therefore,
to promote sustained, long-term fishing activity, the main emphasis of the
Capitol District Urban Fishing Program must be oriented towards young people"
(McBride, 1978). It can be assumed that Great Lakes area anglers are not
greatly different than northeastern anglers and that they, likewise, have

been influenced by childhood experiences.

7
A review of assorted fisheries management information by the author
revealed that fisheries management in Michigan in the 1800's started in
southern Michigan. Little or no management was done in the middle or
upper part of the state because there was no demand. In the following
years, as the population in the southern towns and cities increased
dramatically and tranpsportation media and routes expanded, people were
less confined to the population centers. Also, pollution of waterways
was becoming more and more evident "up north" because of the escape from

stress and pressures of the urban confinement.

As the demand for increased fishing in the north mounted, the Department's
management began to shift and focused on the northern areas of the state;
because that was where the clean water and fish were. This also was where
considerable access was available to the water. With little or no access,
little could be done about degraded water quality in the metropolitan areas.
Interest in "at-home" fishing among city dwellers became non-existent. If
they wanted to go fishing, and could afford to, they went "up north"

(Fogle, 1977).

Actually, the buildup to the state's present position with Detroit area
fishing stretches back a number of years. In the early and mid-1960's, a
program of stocking eatable-sized trout was instituted in many southern
Michigan ponds (Tody-Harris, 1965 and 1966, unpublished). At that time,
trout also were being supplied for juvenile fish-out ponds (Westerman,
1955, unpublished). It had long been known that the potential for fishing
growth was there. Imagine, for example, an area 60 miles long and 40 miles

wide. Strung down one side of that rectangular area are two very large

8
rivers and two very large lakes. The rivers and the lakes are peppered
with islands. Both lakes are shallow enough to provide prime spawning and
feeding grounds for fish. One lake is considered as the largest single
fishery of its kind in the world. Both lakes provide excellent anging for
walleye, bass, panfish and catfish and have the capacity for greatly
expanded recreational uses. The rivers are large with quality water and
abundance of habitat and food. The inland sections of this area have
numerous streams and lakes (one county having the fifth largest number of
lakes of any county in the state)--all with the capacity for expanded
recreational use (Fogle, 1977). Packed onto the adjacent land area are
4.5 million people, about half of all the residents of our state. The
area is cries-crossed with a massive network of roadways. Automobile
ownership is high, and a system of public transportation covers most of
the region. All the elements are available for a truly massive fishery.
And this is only the Detroit area. Southern Michigan houses eleven major

urban areas, with Detroit being the largest, (Mich. DNR. 1979).

But three problems blocked sport angling success: A) most of the waters
were polluted; B) access to the water was in short supply; and C) fishery
management programs had traditionally been shunted north, away from this
area of the state. Many anglers who had formerly tried their luck here
became discouraged, gave up, and took their hooks to more northerly

waters (Fogle, 1977).

But then in 1968, a $335 million Clean Water Bonding Program was approved
by Michigan voters. It was the largest financial support ever given to

the state's anti-pollution effort. On a dollar-matching basis, the $335

9
million stimulated local, state and federal agencies to produce more than
$1 billion in clean water developments, with almost half of the total being
put to work in the Detroit metropolitan area. In addition to the public
funding, industries in Michigan have invested over $750 million in their
own clean-up systems over the last 10 years, again with about half going

into the Detroit area.

The results were dramatic (author's personal knowledge). The waters of Lake
St. Clair and western Lake Erie and the St. Clair and Detroit rivers responded
to these clean-up efforts. One did not have to be an "oldtimer" to recall the
sludge, the oil slicks, or the floating garbage. Today, nearly all of that is
gone (author's personal knowledge). The Detroit River once again supports a
quality fishery of walleye, white and black basses, yellow perch, freshwater

drum and catfish. It now also boasts of salmon and trout.

Detroit was not the only area undergoing such a change. All areas in
southern Michigan were experiencing positive water quality changes.

Rivers such as the Kalamazoo and Grand not only support high quality

cool water fisheries of smallmouth bass and walleye, but also coldwater
anadromous runs of trout and salmon. Julie Williams (1982) states that
urban fishing is not restricted to population giants. She gives one
definition of urban fishing as being within one hour's drive of a city or town.
Angling in metropolitan areas takes many forms, depending on fishing and
availability of funds. The public all over southern Michigan's urban areas
were recognizing that recreational fishing was no longer just a northern
opportunity-~but available in southern Michigan also and they were growing

more and more enthused (Lehman, 1973).

10

So, in 1972, the Department of Natural Resources designed a plan of action
to develop a Metropolitan Fishing Program with primary emphasis on the
Detroit area (Fogle, 1983). Major goals and objectives were outlined,
planning work groups established, and "Planning and Review" and "Citizen
Advisory" groups formed. From this organization, metro fishing proposals
were developed providing information on feasibility, scope, benefits and
costs, budget outlines, and operational plans. Priorities as suggested by

the review and citizens' committees were incorporated into the program.

But Michigan's urban fishing programs, similar to the Federal Government's
Urban Fishing Program in the 1960's, bogged down through the late 1970's.
Support from the higher eschelon of the Division and Department was low
key, at best. Action was stalemated until 1980 when the state legislature
appropriated 3.3 million dollars for waterfront fishing recreation projects
in southeastern Michigan. This attractive package of funding did not go
unnoticed by legislators from other urban areas across southern Michigan.
So, within the next year and a half, 1982, there was a legislative directive
to develop projects for other urban areas. However, and unfortunately,
state financial woes that year froze further funding action for additional
recreational fishing projects. This financial crisis continued for several
years. But, in 1984, several waterfront fishing facility projects (Ecorse
and Wyandotte, Michigan) were funded as the State once again achieved

financial stability.

METHODOLOGY

 

The author, as the person responsible for the state's urban fishing program,

clearly had a goal to develop an urban recreational fishing program for the

11
state to meet the needs and desires of the people. Likewise, the objective
to meet this goal was clear; to identify the urban recreational fishing
needs in each respective area of eleven urban areas in southern Michigan.
The question of "how" was met by first developing a project analysis having
a set of alternative options (Appendix A). The alternative options con-

sidered were:

Alternative Option 1: Develop a mailable survey form that will provide

 

the data comparable to the on—ground survey (visits to the site) that can be
used by the decision maker in determining the urban recreational fisheries

needs for southern Michigan.

Alternative Option 2: Do an on-ground survey of recreational fishing

 

needs and potential.

Alternative Option 3: Convince the fishing public that the wilderness

 

concept made it worthwhile to drive north for their fishing experience.

Alternative Option 4: Develop a transportation system, roads or publc

 

transportation to take people north for recreational fishing.

Alternative Option 5: Do nothing as the department had in the past.

 

Alternative Option 6: Plant more fish in southern Michigan to pacify

 

the public.

Since Alternative Option 1 was the alternative chosen as the means to

meet the department's goal and objective, it will be treated in full

12
later. The other alternative options were systematically rejected.

The rationale for rejection follows.

Alternative Option 2 is without doubt a very good method of determining
the urban fishing needs. But, it is very time consuming and expensive
as shown later. Adequate time and money were and are not available

to do an on-ground survey. So this was rejected as too costly.

Alternative Option 3 was rejected unequivocally because the public had
already stated to the Michigan Natural Resources Commission they wanted
recreational fisheries developed in southern Michigan; that they did not

want to travel to northern Michigan to fish when adequate water was available

to be managed for fisheries in southern Michigan.

Alternative Option 4, to develop a transportation system to take people
north for recreational fishing, was rejected for two (2) reasons. First,
as for Alternative Option 3, the urban public did not want to have to go
north for fishing. Secondly, the cost of developing such a system was

cost prohibitive.

Alternative Option 5, which was "do nothing", was rejected as unacceptable.
Politically, the department, and particularly Fisheries Division, had to
develop a fisheries program for southern Michigan. Sixty percent of the
legislative representatives (both House and Senate) are districted in the
Greater Metropolitan Detroit area while over 90 percent cover the southern
half of the Lower Peninsula. The political armada of the public of southern
Michigan mandated action. So, the "do nothing" attitude of the division

toward fishing in southern Michigan was a thing of the past.

13

Alternative Option 6 to plant more fish in southern Michigan to pacify

the public was also rejected, in part. Jpgg planting fish was considered
a form of hypocrisy and an attempt to patronize the public. The public
was now aware of the cleaning of the southern waters and the ability of

the Fisheries Division to develop and manage a fisheries. So they wanted
all the amenities that go along with planting fish. Thus, the planting of
fish became a step in the Fisheries Division's management plan for southern

Michigan.

Alternative Option 1 to develop a mailable survey form was determined to
be the most feasible first step of action to bring about a development of

an urban fishing program.

Mail surveys are inexpensive when compared to physical on-the-ground

surveys (on-the-ground surveys being actual physical surveys of a

community's recreational fishing potential where all water bodies and
potential sites where water bodies could be constructed are physically

looked at by the surveyor.) Statistically, there is always a question of
validity of the data when a sample is taken. This survey, however, would not
sample. Rather, it would be a test to determine if a survey could replace the

on-ground survey.

Mail surveys have been a means of collecting information for various
studies. To the author's knowledge, no survey to gather the type of
information needed for the state urban fisheries program had ever been
developed or tried and even if a survey form could be developed, there

was no knowledge as to whether it would satisfactorily gather the needed

14
information and save the state significant funds. One concern was whether
the communities could properly interpret the survey form and explanatory
letter. However, if such a form could be properly developed, then it
reasonably could be used by other natural resource agencies in other states,

as well as Michigan.

So, the thesis was proposed "That a mailable survey form could be devel-
oped that would replace costly on-the-ground surveys and which would save

the state considerable expense and time."

In the development of the 1980 program (see page 10 of background, re:

3.3 million dollars), the demand to come up with projects resulted in
considerable effort by one staff and one field person. To develop suitable
projects, it was necessary to do on-the-ground surveys of each downriver
community. A total of 12 communities were contacted and an on—the-ground
survey done for each. Records of time and effort revealed that an average of
four hours were required to inventory one community for recreational potential
(personal knowledge.) Travel time from Lansing to the downriver community
area was about 1% hours one way. So an inventory day of two communities plus

travel time was considered to be 11 hours.

Based on 1980 state hourly rates for level IX biologists (the author's

pay level), standard meal rates and 1980 vehicle rates, the total cost

of the 12 surveys for one staff person was $1,180.50. (In these particular
surveys, the author was accompanied by the District Field Biologist. With
District Biologists at the same pay rate, traveling nearly the same mileage
and also claiming meals, the cost figures were doubled. However, for the

purposes of comparison, only the author's expenses are shown.)

15
At two surveys per survey day, a total of six inventory days were needed
to complete the surveys. Broken down, cost-wise, each survey cost the
Division $98, or $196 per survey-day. This breaks down to about $18 per
survey hour. Cost breakdown for the 1980 survey is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: 1980 Survey Expense Breakdown For 1 Level IX Staff Person
Number Survey Hours Number Survey Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Pay Rate Per Hour Per Survey Day Days Cost
@ $13.90/Hour 11 6 $ 917.40
1980 State Meal

2) Rate For Lunch Number of Lunches
@ $4.25 6 $ 25.50
1980 Mid-Size State Average Survey Number Survey

3) Car Rental Day Mileage Days
@ $0.18/Mile 220 miles round trip 6 $ 237.60

Total Cost of Surveys $1,180.50

 

To develop the 1982 program of projects, another 10 urban communities

were surveyed. Included in the survey in this year were communities in
Jackson, Battle Creek, Ingham County, Lansing, Eaton County, Delta

Township, Jackson County, Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Kent County. The 4-hour
average survey time determined for the 1980 program was found to be insuf-
ficient to complete a survey in these other inland communities. And, at
least another hour, and in some cases two hours, were needed. This resulted

in the average cost of a community survey being raised to $163 per community.

With the average survey time raised from 5 to 6 hours, only 2 hours of the
working day remained. Travel time to most communities away from the
Lansing area ranges from 1 to 2 hours. So a single survey, including

travel time, equalled at least 8 hours or a full working day. In this

16

project a survey-day and a singel survey were equal in cost (at $163.00)
with the hourly rate being slightly more than that for the previous
survey with $20 per hour. Cost breakdown is hown in Table 2.

Table 2: 1982 Survey Expense Breakdown For 1 Level IX Staff Person
Number Survey Hours Number Survey Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Pay Rate Per Hour Per Survey Day Days Cost
@ $16.69/Hour 8 10 $1,335.20
1982 State Meal

2) Rate For Lunch Number of Lunches
@ $4.75 10 $ 47.50
1982 Mid-Size State Average Survey Number Survey

3) Car Rental Day Mileage Days
@ $0.18/Mile 136.8 miles 10 $ 246.24

Round Traip

 

Total Cost of Surveys $1,628.94

If a survey were to be done in 1987 similar to the 1980 survey (i.e.,
11-hour day with two communities surveyed), but based on 1987 rates
(wages, meals and car rental), the cost per hour of survey would amount
to $20.68 (Table 3) for an average cost of a survey of $113.74 (1/2 of
the daily total). If done similar to the 1982 community (i.e., an 8-hour

day with one community surveyed, the cost would be about the same, i.e.,

$24.45 per hour, but the total cost of one survey would increase to $195.60

(Table 4).

17

Table 3: Duplication of the 1980 Survey at 1987 Rates
Number Survey Hours Number Survey Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Pay Rate Per Hour Per Survey Day Days Cost
@ $20.68 11 6 $1,364.88
State Meal

2) Rate For Lunch Number of Lunches
@ $5.50 6 33.00
Small State Average Survey Number Survey

3) Car Rental Day Mileage Days
@ $0.18/Mile 220 miles round trip 6 $ 237.60

Total Cost of Surveys $1,635.48

 

Table 4: Duplication of the 1982 Survey at 1987 Rates
Number Survey Hours Number Survey Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Pay Rate Per Hour Per Survey Day Days Cost
@ $20.68 8 10 $1,654.40
State Meal

2) Rate For Lunch Number of Lunches
@ $5.50 10 $ 55.00
Small State Total Number Survey

3) Car Rental Day Mileage Days
@ $0.18/Mile 136.8 miles 10 $ 277.20

Total Cost of Surveys $1,955.64

 

One hundred and forty three communities were determined to fit within the
11 major urban areas of the lower part of the state. Based on the 11—hour
day, two community survey, 72 trips would be necessary to do the on-ground
survey. Total cost estimates, based on 1987 indices, would amount to
$18,757 (Table 5). If the surveys were done, based on the 8-hour day, one
community survey, 143 trips would be necessary at a total cost of $28,838

(Table 6).

18
$18,757 (Table 5). If the surveys were done, based on the 8-hour day, one

community survey, 143 trips would be necessary at a total cost of $28,383

(Table 6).

Table 5: 143 Surveys' Cost, Based on 1980 Survey of Two Communities
Per Day (i.e., ll-Hour Day), But at 1987 Rate

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number Number Total Rater Per Total Est.
Surveys Trips X ll—Hour Day Hours Hour Cost
143 72 X 11 792 $20.68 $16,378.56
Mean Total Total Estimated Mileage Total Est.
Mileage* Trips Mileage Rental Rate Cost
153 miles X 72 11,016 $0.18 $ 1,982.88
Lunches Per Total Lunch Total Est.
Trip Trips Rate Cost
1 72 $5.50 $ 396.00
Computed Total Cost of Survey $18,757.44

*The 1980 and 1982 trips totaled 2,908 miles for 16 trips giving a mean
mileage of 153 miles.

 

Table 6: 143 Surveys' Cost, Based on 1982 Survey of One Community Per
Day (i.e., 8-Hour Day), But at 1987 Rate

 

 

 

 

Number Number Total Rate Per Total
Surveys Trips X 8—Hour Day; Hours Hour Cost
143 143 X 8 1,144 $20.68 $23,657.92
Mean Total Total Estimated Mileage Total
Mileage* Trips Mileage Rental Rate Cost
153 X 143 21,879 $ 0.18 $ 3,938.22
Lunches Per Total Lunch Total
Trip Trips Rate Cost
1 143 $5.50 $ 786.50
Computed Total Cost of Survey $28,382.64

*The 1980 and 1982 trips totaled 2,908 miles for 16 trips giving a mean
mileage of 153 miles.

 

It is important to note that not only is the actual cost of an on-the-
gound survey expensive, but it has an additional effect of consuming

large amounts of time. Fisheries Division staff workloads are heavy.

19
Work on a project necessarily uses time which could be spent on another
project. Anytime project effort can be more efficient, then the sport

fishing public benefits because of reduced public costs.

There are 26 pay periods of 80 hours each in a State Government work year
in Michigan. This means that there are 2,080 hours available to work.
However, each State employee earns annual leave at a rate set by the State
Civil Service Commission. The author's rate is 7.1 hours per pay period,
or 184.6 hours per year. Assuming that no time is lost by reason of sick

leave, 1,894.4 hours remain for the work year.

At the 1980 survey rate (see Table 5), 792 hours are needed for the survey.
This means that 382 of the author's annual time would be needed to complete
the survey. At the 1982 survey rate (see Table 6), 1,144 hours are needed
to complete the survey, or 602 of the author's time would be needed. These
represent the minimun and maximum times needed. In either case, a major
portion of one's time would be needed to do on-the-ground surveys for the

143 communities. The cost of the actual mail survey is shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Mail Survey Cost in 1984

 

 

 

 

 

 

Labor Cost - One Estimated Total Cost
Secretary 2/ Hours Worked Minimum - Maximum
@$9.19/Hour - X 32-40 $294.00 to $367.00
Mail Surveys Sent Postal Rate Total Cost
122 X @$0.37/letter $ 45.14
Printing Cost for 1,000 forms 2/ $ 50.00
Total Cost of Survey $389.12 to $462.72

 

Footnotes:

 

2/ Secretarial costs include mailing out forms and logging in completed
forms.

2/ Record on exact cost of 1,000 forms are not available, but it was not
more than $50.00, so $50.00 is used as the rate.

20
The cost of a similar mailing, done at 1986 rates for 143 communities, is

shown in table 8.

Table 8: Mail Survey Cost at 1987 Rate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Labor Cost Hours Needed to Handle Total Cost
One Secretary Mailings and Logging of Replys Minimum - Maximum
@ $10.55/Hour X 32-40 $364.48 to $455.60
Mail Surveys Sent Postal Rate Total Cost
143 X $0.39/Letter $ 55.77
Printing Cost for 1,000 Forms (Estimated) $ 75.00
Total Cost of Survey $495.25 to $856.37

 

Cost alone quickly identifies the benefits of a mail survey over an on-the-
ground survey. Time, however, is very important in that anywhere from 38
to 60 percent of a staff person's time can be freed up for other projects

by a satisfactory mail survey; depending on the extent of surveys needed.

The development of an urban fishing program was of prime importance but a
determination of the potential fishery was necessary before priorities for
management could be developed. Because of the importance of determining the
urban fishing potential, a way to accomplish this was important. How to do
it was the question. The thesis that a survey form could be developed and

could be used in lieu of an expensive on—the-ground survey was initiated.

It was determined that the form would have to be designed so that munici-
palities completing the survey form would not only list existing waters,

but also list areas having the potential for development of waters where

a fishery could be established. The form would have to be so designed that
it would provide information on the character of the existing water body and

the sociological characteristics of the local community. Natural Resources

21

Projects funded by special legislation appropriation, e.g., as urban
fishing projects, require attention to environmental, political, con-
stitutional, ethical, sex, age and handicap constraints as well as others.
Such data, therefore, were necessary to collect. The form also would need
to provide a means for the surveyee to identify where a pond or other type
water body could be constructed. And finally, the form would have to pro-
vide data in such a manner that it could be computerized for analysis,

prioritization of projects and storage for easy retrieval.

With this type survey, certain advantages could be recognized (1) survey
clientele difference—-not a general public, but officials of government;
(2) factual information-~not recall or opinion; (3) response means possible

monetary award to community; and (4) also other type award-benefits.

Other survey forms utilized by various DNR divisions and also by M.S.U.

Fisheries & Wildlife researchers were reviewed. Personal communication
4/ 5/

was made with Gale Jamsen-— , Douglas B. Jester-— , and Dr. Daniel

Talhelm §./, on construction of a format that would answer the needed

questions. And, the following form was designed, (Form 1).

 

Footnotes:

 

é/ Gale Jamsen, Information Program Manager, Michigan DNR,
Fisheries Division, Staff, Lansing, Michigan.

é/ Douglas B. Jester, Program Services Manager, Michigan DNR,
Fisheries Division Staff, Lansing, Michigan.

é/ Dr. Daniel Talhelm, formerly with the Fisheries & Wildlife
Department, M.S.U., East Lansing, Michigan.

22

Form 1:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FISHERIES DIVISION

URBAN RECREATIONAL FISHING INVENTORY
SAY YES TO MICHIGAN!

FISHING

INSTRUCTIONS

Complete one form for each recreation fishery or potential fishery. Refer
to criteria listed below and on reverse side of this page. Permission is
granted to reproduce blank forms for reporting additional fisheries or
you may obtain more forms by contacting—-Department of Natural Resources,
Fisheries Division, Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909, (517) 373-1280.

DNR USE ONLY -- Please do not write in these columns.

Identification Block -- Please fill out completely; county, government
(for example: Eaton County, Delta Township, Dept. of Parks and
Recreation); park/facility (here the facility may be other than parks
land. See No. 25 of instructions. If the area, for example, is school
land, give the name of the school); contact person (it is important to us
to know position of person —- for example; if it is park director, this
gives us a contact point in case the present director should move to a
new job); and address (of the government) along with telephone number.

Questions:

1. Water body may be a stream, lake, pond, public swimming pool, gravel
pit, borrow pond, or other.

2. Self-explanatory.

3. For example, streams and lakes would be natural unless man made.
If the subject water body is of such nature, then you would mark
"natural". However, a dam would create a man made impoundment and
therefore would be considered impounded. Any pond that was created
by digging out would be listed as artificial. A swimming pool,
borrow pit or gravel pike likewise would be listed as artificial.

4. Run-off means from surface, such as from rain or from a stream.
Spring—fed means from spring(s) flowing to or supply the water
body. Ground water means from underneath, i.e., water table that
effects water body level, and finally, municipal supply, i.e.,
from the hydrant. This data will help determine the type of
species of fish feasible for the respective water body

23

Form 1. Continued (Page 2)

10.

11.

Deepest depth from surface of water to interface with bottom.

Example (see Figure 1 symbolizing a Figure 1.

pond)
0-3' -- area of A in percentage

of total;
3-5' -- area of B in percentage

of total;
over 5' -- area of C in percentage

of total.

This question is somewhat subjective but we need to have some type

handle on whether or not the shoreline is conducive to fishing.
Steep would be something considered difficult if not impossible
to fish from. Whereas in a shallow situation, there is no bank.
Give the percentage, relative to the total shoreline, of each.
Total should equal 100%.

Marshy would be soft, water-covered ground with perhaps some type
aquatic vegetation such as cattails or some other aquatic vegeta-
tion, in other words, wet. Beach would be considered as sand.

Rocky would be anything from gravel to big rocks. Mud would be
those areas where the shoreline is mud without any type vegetation.

Most categories are self-explanatory. Some that may not be are:

B. Safety ladders -- ladders from the water to a pier or dock
that would permit a person to get out of the water.

D. Handicapped access —- i.e., can wheelchair get to facilities
or can someone with crutches get there.

J. Hard surfaced shore -- are there walkways (concrete, blacktop,
etc.) at (along) the water's edge.

M. Modifications of railings are breaks in the railings so persons
in wheelchairs can fish.

Self-explanatory.
A. Bank stabilization -- has anything been done to stabilize the
banks if they are steep or marshy -- i.e., riprap put in, walkways

been created, banks sloped and seeded or the like.

B. Is there a program to control weeds and/or algae, i.e., manual
removal of some type or chemical treatments.

C. None -- self-explanatory.

D. Other -- anything else that has been done. Please explain.

24

Form 1. Continued (Page 3)

12.

13.

14.

15.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Answer, yes, if there is any type of fishing at any time.

If no counts have ever been made, please make a guess at the
amount of fishing occurring, i.e., one fisherman per day, 10
fishermen per day, etc.

For the most part self-explanatory. Bulkhead may be an unfamiliar
term. Simply, a bulkhead is a raised stabilized shoreline. As

an example, one type bulkhead is constructed by driving sheet
piling side-by-side along the water's edge, filling in behind with
earth and capping with a cement walkway.

16., 17. Self-explanatory.

Do you limit fishing to certain age groups, i.e., to only children
or to only senior citizens or etc.?

Do you limit catch in any manner, i.e, number of species, season,
daily bag, annual bag or other?

Do you limit size of fish caught in any manner, i.e., species,
season or other?

Who does fishing? Is it children? Is it primarily by senior
citizens? Please give percentages. Mark as many categories as
appropriate.

Please give percentages. Mark as many categories as applicable.

This may be difficult to judge in some cases but easy in others
by fact of location of angling. If you believe it is a mix, mark
all categories accordingly. However, if it is primarily one
category, mark only that one.

This question continues from question No. 12. It is generally
self-explanatory. However, it is an important question relative
to developing a recreation program for a community. For this
reason, the explanation category is very important.

A water body for fishing will fit in in almost any place there is
open space not being utilized. Most people picture a pond as a
rectangle or saucer-shapped. However, a fish-out pond can be any
shape and actually a ribbon-shaped pond is most ideal for fishing.
The accompanying figure depicts how a pond could be constructed

in a neighborhood park that perhaps seemingly to some would not
have room for a pond. The heavy dotted line outlines where a pond
could be constructed without moving one tree. The skating pond has

25

Form 1. Continued (Page 4)

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

has been both a HUN/am .5065“ W
nice warm-weather “INN/[Y6 F/g‘. D D/ANWD
fishing pond and a Wt.
much improved
skating pond. 3
In responding, to HOV/C ®_,-., : :‘
the question, please AREA ,’ 3’ l... U-“
consider local parks, _~ ‘ Q ”\ ‘: h _"_'_'
open school lands or ’m\\ ’l-.\ I); : +-— _

I

 

could be fitted in.

 

any other public lands \‘0 7
when a water body [ ®‘\~ % 4”

J

 

See No. 25.

A water supply may be a stream, springs or a municipal water
supply.

This is, of course, very speculative. I believe, however, that
one can get an idea of potential fishery use by looking at use
of other area recreational facilities in the area. Please give
your best estimate.

Similar to No. 28 this is speculative. But again would depend
upon the associated community structure. Please give your best
guess in percentages.

Similar to No. 29.

This question refers to the community attitude as a whole and
should not reflect just the attitude of one individual or small
group of individuals. You are welcome to document a spread of
attitudes including that of any board or commission.

Self-explanatory.

One of our goals in the development of an urban fishing program is
to develop interpretative programs of fishing instruction.
Instruction of young people in the classroom would be one method
of doing this. We would like to get an idea of your community's
attitude in this regard. Do you have any ideas?

Self-explanatory.

Quite often a community will have laws, ordinances, regulations,
biases, etc., that might be in conflict with the development of
a recreational fishing program. We would be very interested in
what these might be to assess potential impact or conflicts.

26
Form 1. Continued (Page 5)

URBAN RECREATION FISHING INFORMATION
PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

County Contact Person
Government Address
Park/Facility
Telephone:
Area Code /
1. Water body exists in park 8. Shoreline composition
or facility. percentage:
A. Yes B. No Marshy 2
Beach Z
If "No", continue with number 25 Rocky Z
Mud Z
2. Water body is a:
9. Man-made features:
A. Lake B. Pond C. Stream
A. Railings
D. Other B. Safety Ladder
C. Lifeguards
3. Water body is: D. Handicapped Access
E. Restrooms
A. Natural B. Impounded F. Trash Containers
G. Parking
C. Artificially Constructed H. Picnic Area
I. Boat Ramps
J. Hardsurfed Shore
4. Water supply is from: K. Fishing Piers
L. Fish Cleaning
A. Run Off B. Spring-fed Facility
M. Railings with
C. Gounddwater D. Municipal fishing
Supply modifications
B. Other N. Other
5. Maximum depth in feet: 10. Present fish population:
6. Depth in percentage: A. Carp
B. Goldfish
0-3 2 C. Channel Catfish
3-5 2 D. Bass
5-10 Z E. Bullheads
10-15 2 F. Rock Bass
Over 15 feet 2 G. Pike
H. Crappies
7. Bank or shoreline type is: I. Sunfish
J. Trout
Steep I K. Other
L. Don't Know
Shallow (lowly slated or flat) Z M. None

Form 1. Continued (Page 6)

11. Shoreline and water management
A. Bank Stabilization
B. Weed and Algae control
C. None D. Other

Explain:

27

 

 

12. Fishing done at site:

A. Yes B. No If "No" continue

with No. 24

13. Estimate the annual days of fishing:

 

14. Type of Public Access for fishing:

. Walk-in

Boat

Dock
Fishing Pier
. Bank

. Bulkhead
Other

OMNUOU’?’

15. Fish stocking done:
A. Yes B. No

16. Number...and species stocked:

 

 

 

 

 

17. Stocking schedule:

. Annual

Monthly

. Weekly

. Other (explain "other")

UOW>

 

 

 

18. Age limit 0n fishing:

A. Yes (explain "Yes")

B. No

 

 

 

l9. Catch limit on fishing:

A. Yes (explain "Yes")

B. No

 

 

 

20. Size limit on fishing:

A. Yes (explain "Yes")

B. Boat

 

 

 

21. Age mix of Anglers:

22.

23.

UCGIF’

Children Z
Adolescents Z
Adult Z
Senior

Citizen Z

Ethnic mix of Anglers:

UOw>

White
Black
Hispanic
Other

NNNN

Income mix of Anglers:

A. Upper
B. Middle
C. Lower

NNN

Continue with number 31.

28

Form 1. Continued (Page 7)

24. Why no fishing at water area:

25.

26.

27.

28.

. No fish B. No access
Dangerous (explain below)
Privately owned

Municipal water supply

Closed to fishing (explain below)
Other (explain below)

OMMUO?’

Explanation:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facility or park containing area where
water body may be created.
A. Yes B. No

If "Yes" give location of area:

 

 

 

Area configuration:

 

 

 

 

Association of number 25 if "Yes"

B. Park
D. Other

A. School
C. Private

Water supply available?
A. Yes B. No

Explain if "Yes":

 

 

 

 

If a fish-out pond was developed what
would be a ballpark estimate for annual
Angler Days of use?

 

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

What would be the age
mix of Anglers?

A. Children Z
B. Adolescent Z
C. Adult Z
D. Senior

Citizen Z

What would be the ethnic
mix of Anglers?

A. White Z
B. Black Z
C. Hispanic Z
D. Other Z

What is the attidue of
the community toward
recreational fishing?

A. Good B. Bad
C. Indifferent

Would the community
finance the construction
of fishery projects?

A. Totally
B. Partially
C. Not at all

Explain your answer:

 

 

 

 

 

Would the community be
interested in having
fishing education
programs?

A. In Schools
B. As Community Projects
C. Other (explain)

 

 

D. No (explain)

 

 

29
Form 1. Continued (Page 8)

34. What community groups would be willing to work or push for fishing

projects?
A. Sportsman Group B. Service Clubs C. Business Group
D. Chamber of Comm. E. Other

35. What political, legal and/or social constraints should be considered?

 

 

 

 

 

SIGNATURE TITLE DATE

 

The survey was designed with two basic parts; (1) Instructions for
completing each question (the first two pages) and (2) the urban
recreational fishing information (the last two pages). Because inter-
pretation of a question can vary widely between individuals the inclusion
of a comprehensive set of instructions were provided as a means to keep
misinterpretation of the survey form to a minimum. The public, in general,
also does not understand the basic requirements needed for developing a
fisheries. Through the instructions, various words and phrases used in the

survey form were defined.

The informational questions of the survey form asked for data needed for
each community to develop a prioritized inventory. The survey asked

for physical information on existing water bodies and also for information
on potential water bodies. It also asked sociological questions pertaining
to economics of the community, e.g., regulations and ordinances, ages of

angling public, income of angling public, ethnic mix, attitude of the

30
Although the survey form would provide the data needed on recreational
fishing for a community, it would not tell this community why such data
were needed. Community administrators are busy people. It was assumed
they would probably place the request at low priority unless something
were to be gained. Therefore, a cover letter was needed to explain the
purpose of the survey form. The following is the cover letter which
accompanied the survey form and which explained the survey form; how the
data would be utilized to develop the state's urban fisheries program and

the possibilities of money for facilities in the community. (Form 2).

 

Form 2.
July 26, 1982

Gentlemen:

Urban recreational fishing programs are being developed in many urban
areas around the country. Michigan's program, which was started in 1972,
continues to expand as one of the leading programs in the nation.

One of the major obstacles to statewide development of the program, however,
is the lack of identification of fishing potential in the various urban
communities around the southern portion of the state. Most communities

are financially unable to develop major recreational fishing programs.

Fisheries Division's approach to this problem is to look for sources of
state and federal funding to aid the local community. However, funding
of urban fishing programs depends on the identification and establishment
of priorities of urban recreational fishing potential. This can only be
accomplished by an organized survey of all the urban communities.

The enclosed questionnaire is proposed to accomplish this survey and
eliminate a time consuming and expensive on-the-ground survey. Your
response will not only help us complete our inventory but also will help
your community identify the various fisheries potential you have available.
With good data on fishing need and with established priorities, we will

be in a position to take advantage of financial opportunities as they
become available to develop the urban fisheries in your area.

An inventory form should be submitted for each opportunity available in
your community. For example, if you have two ponds, a stream and a vacant
public lot where a pond could be built, then four inventory forms would be
submitted; one for each. Please do not feel that you must have engineering
data (for example, on question No. 5 - maximum depth in feet) for answering
these questions. We would welcome your best estimate. Of course, if you
have measured data available, so much the better. On many of the questions
an explanation is asked for.

31

If more writing space is needed, please feel free to enclose an extra
sheet of paper with your response. If I have not included enough forms,
please feel free to duplicate as needed (or if you wish, call me at
517-373-1280 for additional survey sheets).

Since I am under a time demand with this survey, I would be very appreciative
if it could be completed and returned to me by late August. If you have any
questions, please call me at the above number.

Thank you for your time and effort.
Sincerely,
Ned E. Fogle

NEF:bjw Recreational FiSheries Specialist
Enclosures FISHERIES DIVISON

 

Eleven communities, chosen from southeastern communities already having had
an on—the—ground survey, were sent the letter, along with the survey forms

to test both the survey form and the letter. Recreational directors or other
persons who had been contacted for the on-the-ground survey had changed in
all but three of the 11 communities. However, to eliminate the chance that
those now responsible might be aware of the on-the-ground survey and believe

they did not have to respond, a letter of explanation was sent (Form 3).

 

Form 3.
July 26, 1982

Although I've already done a pretty thorough "on-the-ground" survey of
your community, I hope you will bear with me and take the time to
accurately complete the subject survey. I need to test this survey form
to determine if it will do the job I need it to do. It is the main part
of my Doctorate Thesis as well as the survey form I want to be able to
use to collect the state's urban fishing data.

Thanks in advance for your help, and if you have any questions, please
call me at 517—373—1280.
Sincerely,

Ned E. Fogle

Recreational Fisheries Specialist
NEF:bjw FISHERIES DIVISION
Enclosures

 

32
Ten other communities not having had an on-the-ground survey also were sent
survey forms along with the explanatory cover letter. In the case of
communities previously surveyed, it was only necessary to compare the
returned survey forms with the already completed on‘the—ground survey. For
the other communities not yet surveyed, contact was made with respective
recreation and park directors to do an on-the-ground survey subsequent to the

respective community returning the completed survey forms.

Initially, 10 of the 21 communities tested responded to the survey request.
A follow-up letter which was sent to the non-respondents, was successful

in getting all but five responses (Form 4).

 

Form 4
December 14, 1982

On July 26 of this year, I asked if you would provide information to
help me complete a Department survey on urban fishing potential for your
respective area. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information.

To date, I have not received a reply from your community. Would you
please take some time and complete the necessary survey forms to provide
me with information. Please call me if you have any questions because

I would like to complete this survey as soon as possible and I need your
response to do it.

Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Ned E. Fogle
Recreational Fisheries Specialist

NEF:bjw FISHERIES DIVISION
Enclosures

 

The five non-respondents were then sent another letter which was successful

in getting the final five completions (Form 5).

33

 

Form 5

February 17, 1983

Only July 25th and December 14th of 1982, I asked if you would provide
information to help me complete a Department Survey on Urban Fishing
potential for your respective area. Copies of these letters are
enclosed for your information.

To date, I have not received a reply from your community. Would it be
possible for me to meet with you regarding this particular subject?

Thank you for your reply.

Sincerely,

Ned E. Fogle
NEF:bjw Recreational Fisheries Specialist
Enclosures FISHERIES DIVISION

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Twenty—one communities that were sent the survey forms responded with
completed survey forms. Eleven communities (Table 9) had on-the-ground
surveys done before receiving the questionnaire survey. Ten communities
(Table 10) did not have on-the-ground surveys before receiving the
questionnaire survey. Of the previously surveyed group, one community,
Grosse Isle, responded with a letter explaining that they had no potential.
A phone call to Grosse Isle explaining that an on-the-ground survey had been
done and there was potential with the surrounding Detroit River brought out
a more positive attitude. The community responded by sending a completed

survey.

34

Table 9: Eleven Communities Previously Surveyed for Fishing Potential
Before Receiving Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

 

Questionnaire Forms Correctly Water Bodies Noted

Community Returned(Yes No) Filled Out(Yes No) Available Potential
Wyandotte Yes Yes X

Riverview Yes Yes X

River Rouge Yes Yes X

Detroit Yes Yes X

Trenton Yes Yes X

Southgate Yes Yes X

Ecorse Yes Yes X

Lincoln Park Yes Yes X

Grosse Isle Yes Yes X

Forest Park Yes Yes X X
Woodhaven Yes Yes _X .__
Total 11 11 11 1

 

Survey forms from the communities of Wyandotte, Riverview, River Rouge,
Detroit, Trenton, Southgate, Ecorse, Lincoln Park, Grosse Isle, Forest

Park and Woodhaven were checked against previous on-the-ground surveys.

In all cases, the mail survey forms were completely and correctly filled out,
and provided the same information as that obtained in the on-the-ground
surveys. Each community listed all situations where water was involved.
However, only one community, Forest Park, listed a situation where a water
body--a pool-~could be created. Comparisons of the survey forms with the
on-the-ground survey showed that all the other communities documented all
water bodies revealed in the on-the-ground survey, but missed the potential

areas where new waterbodies could be developed.

The 10 communities that had not been previously surveyed on-the—ground

were then visited and on-the-ground surveys made.

35

Table 10: Ten Communities Not Previously Surveyed for Fishing Potential
Before Receiving Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

 

Questionnaire Forms Correctly Water Bodies Noted

Communipy Returned(Yes No) Filled Out(Yes No) Available Potential
Ingham County Yes Yes X

Lansing Yes Yes X

Eaton County Yes Yes X

Delta Township Yes Yes X

Jackson County Yes Yes X

City of Jackson Yes Yes X

Kalamazoo County Yes Yes X

Grand Rapids Yes Yes X

Battle Creek Yes Yes X

Kent County Yes Yes _X __
Total 10 10 10 0

 

Appointments were made with respective parks and recreation directors. The
subsequent on-the-ground surveys revealed that, similar to the other previous
11 communities, the remaining 10, likewise, had done a good job with the mail
survey forms. In all cases the mail survey forms provided exactly the same
data as revealed in the on-the-ground surveys and were completed fully, pro-
viding the data needed by the department. All water bodies within their

respective areas were completely documented on the mail survey forms.

However, again potential pond construction was not documented by any of
the communities although the subsequent on-the-ground surveys showed that
each community had public land holdings such as parks or other vacant land

that had the potential for constructing fish-out ponds.

Personal contacts were made by the author with 14 (including the 10 not
previously surveyed) of 21 communities asking the following two questions:
(1) were the survey forms clear as to what data were needed; and (2) was
the cover letter adequate to explain the survey form's needs? (See

Table 11.)

36

Table 11: Fourteen of the 21 Communities Further Questioned About the
Clarity of the Survey Form

 

 

Survey Forms Clear Cover Letter Adequate
Community (Yes) (No) (Yes) (No)
Ingham County X X
Lansing X X
Eaton County X X
Delta Township X X
Jackson County X X
City of Jackson X X
Kalamazoo County X X
Grand Rapids X X
Battle Creek X X
Kent County X X
Wyandotte X X
Trenton X X
Ecorse X No Comment
Detroit X X

 

To the first question, 14 answered "Yes, the survey form was very clear".
To the second question, "Was the cover letter adequate?", nine answered
"Yes". Four answered "No", and one did not comment. The four communities
that answered "No" to the second question also were the communities that
had situations where ponds could be constructed but did not provide survey

information to the effect.

As a result of the testing of the survey form with the positive response

from the test units of government, the author considers the survey form a
valid form. The cover letter of explanation was determined, however, to have
been deficient in explaining how potential new ponds could be developed. 80
the cover letter was revised to correct this deficiency. The survey

form subsequently was mailed to 122 additional communities (143 minus the

21 already surveyed) along with the revised cover letter more explicitly
explaining the importance of the construction of ponds as urban recreational

fishing spots (Form 6).

37

 

Form 6

August 25, 1984

Gentlemen:

Urban recreational fishing programs are being developed in many urban
areas around the country. Michigan's program, which was started in
1972, continues to expand as one of the leading programs in the nation.

One of the major obstacles to statewide development of the program,
however, is the lack of identification of fishing potential in the
various urban communities around the southern portion of the state.

Most communities are financially unable to develop major recreational
fishing programs. Fisheries Division's approach to this problem is to
look for sources of state and federal funding to aid the local community.

However, funding of urban fishing programs depends on the identification
and establishment of priorities of urban recreational fishing potential
for each identified community. This can only be accomplished by an
organized survey of all the urban communities.

The enclosed questionnaire is proposed to accomplish this survey and
eliminate a time consuming and expensive on-the—ground survey. Your
response will not only help us complete our inventory of respective
community fishing potential, but also will help your community identify
the various fisheries potential you have available. With good data on
fishing need and with established priorities, we will be in a position
to take advantage of financial opportunities as they become available to
develop the urban fisheries in your area.

An inventory form should be submitted for each opportunity available in
your community. For example, if you have two ponds, a stream and a
vacant public lot where a pond could be built, then four inventory forms
would be submitted; one for each. Please do not feel that you must have
engineering data (for example, on question No. 5 - maximum depth in feet)
for answering these questions. We would welcome your best estimate. Of
course, if you have measured data available, so much the better. Also,
do not believe that you must have a planner to identify sites that would
make a pond. We can do an evaluation of feasibility at a later date.

Is there vacant land that could be purchased with room to construct a
1/2- to 2—acre pond? If so, include it. Is there a park where recrea-
tional activities could be rearranged to allow for construction of a
pond, or do you already have a pond that could be developed for fishing?
If so, include it. Any natural water body should be included. Do you
have a municipal pool that could be used off—season as a fish-out pond
for a kids' fishing derby? If so, include it. Please don't let liability
scare you out of submitting a proposal. This can be dealt with.

We want to know what recreational fishing could be developed in your
area.

38

On many of the questions an explanation is asked for. If more writing
space is needed, please feel free to enclose an extra sheet of paper with
your response. If I have not included enough forms for the number of
potential fishing possibilities, please feel free to duplicate as needed
(or if you wish, call me at 517-373-1280) for additional survey sheets).

Since I am under a time demand with this survey, I would be very appre-
ciative if it could be completed and returned to me by late September.
If you have questions, please call me at the above number.

One final note, I realize work schedules increase substantially with the
arrival of the summer recreational period. You will be very busy. Many
of you will decide you don't have time to do the survey and will put it
off. I hope that I can impress on you that this survey is for your
community's benefit as state funding becomes available to do these kinds
of projects. So far, nearly $5 million has been spent. We have already
funded a number of projects along the state's east side in Detroit,
Ecorse, Trenton and Erie Township. Two additional projects, in Ecorse
and Wyandotte, are presently under construction. Local legislators are
very supportive of these type projects and we will see additional funds
made available. I am very interested in projects in other urban
communities. However, I cannot develop projects if I don't know a
community's needs and potential.

So, in reiteration, this survey is my record of your community. Be as
comprehensive as possible. Stretch your imagination and fill out a
survey form for any possibility.

Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Ned E. Fogle
Recreational Fisheries Program Manager
FISHERIES DIVISION

NEF:bjw
Enclosures

 

The cost to Fisheries Division for the mailing of the survey at 1986 rates
was determined to be between $468 to $553. The cost included printing of
the survey form, actual mailing costs, and personnel time to do the

mailings (see footnote in Table 7).

39
Although the 122 questionnaires were sent out in mid-1984, only 57 (46%)
were returned that following fall and winter. Priority adjustment of
the author's programs prevented a follow up which had been planned. No
action was taken to follow up for over a year and a half. Without the
follow up, it was obvious the questionnaires were descarded or filed by
the respective communities. It is the author's personal experience, as a
member of the bureaucracy, that questionnaires reaching a bureaucracy,
if not responded to in a relatively short period, are put aside and

eventually discarded.

Table 12: Percent Response to Mail Survey and Follow-Up Letters

100 p 27Z Response
(March 13, 1987
90 . Follow-up Letter)

C!)
O
E]

\i
O
f
‘

 

8’60 L '
m
a ,5!
850 - ,r
s a ----------------- -’
a‘40 - ” lOZ Response
I (January 26, 1987
30 ~ ,’ 46Z Response Follow-up Letter)
’1 (August 25, 1984 Letter)
20 ' /
I
/
10 r 1’
I
0 ’ I L 4 r - . L a . . .

 

40
After a year and a half of no action, the author's job priorities once
again permitted him to undertake action to complete the survey. The
1984 letter (see Form 6) was slightly revised with a new lead paragraph
and sent on January 26, 1987 along with copies of the survey form to the
65 non respondents to the 1984 letter (Form 7).

 

Form 7
January 26, 1987

Gentlemen:

This letter is sent to you for response. If you are not the appropriate
individual to respond, would you please forward it accordingly. Thank
you in advance for your consideration and time.

Urban recreational fishing programs are being developed in many urban
areas around the country. Michigan's program, which was started in
1972, continues to expand as one of the leading programs in the nation.

One of the major obstacles to statewide development of the program,
however, is the lack of identification of fishing potential in the
various urban communities around the southern portion of the state.

Most communities are financially unable to develop major recreational
fishing programs. Fisheries Division's approach to this problem is to
look for sources of state and federal funding to aid the local community.
However, funding of urban fishing programs depends on the identification
and establishment of priorities of urban recreational fishing potential
for each identified community. This can only be accomplished by an
organized survey of all the urban communities.

The enclosed questionnaire will accomplish this survey and eliminate a

time consumuing and expensive on—the-ground survey by the division. Your
response will not only help us complete our inventory of respective community
fishing potential, but also will help your community identify fishing need and
and with established priorities, we will be in a position to take advantage of
financial opportunities as they become available to develop the urban fisheries
in your area.

An inventory form should be submitted for each opportunity available in
your community. For example, if you have two ponds, a stream and a

vacant public lot where a pond could be built, then four inventory forms
would be submitted; one for each. Please do not feel that you must have
engineering data (for example, on question No. 5 - maximum depth in feet)
for answering these questions. We would welcome your best estimate. Of
course, if you have measured data available, so much the better. Also,

do not believe that you must have a planner to identify sites where a

pond could be constructed. We can do an evaluation of feasibility at a
later date; just identify open areas where you think a one- two- or three-

41

acre pond could be dug or constructed. Perhaps you have a park where
recreational activities could be rearranged to allow for construction of

a pond, or do you already have a pond that could be developed for fishing?
If so, include it. Any natural water body should be included. Do you
have a municipal pool that could be used off-season as a fish-out pond

for a kids' fishing derby? If so, include it. Please don't let liability
scare you out of submitting a proposal. Many communities now have ponds
for fishing which are insurance covered at only a minimal increase in cost
over their former coverage.

We want to know what recreational fishing could be developed in your area.

On many of the questions an explanation is asked for. If more writing space
is needed, please feel free to enclose an extra sheet of paper with your
response. If I have not included enough forms for the number of potential
fishing possibilities, please feel free to duplicate as needed (or if you wish,
call me at 517-373-1280 for additional survey sheets).

I would be very appreciative if your response could be completed and returned
to me by mid-February or earlier, if possible. This will save me much time and
effort in calling on you personally. If you have questions, please call me at
the above number.

One final note, I realize most work schedules of government employees are
usually pressing and that you are very busy. Many of you will decide you
don't have time to do the survey and will put it off. I hope that I can
impress on you that this survey is for your community's benefit as state
funding becomes available to do these kinds of projects. So far, over $7
million has been spent on urban recreational fishing projects in Michigan. We
have already funded a number of projects along the state's east side in Detroit,
Ecorse, Trenton, Wyandotte and Erie Township and on the Grand River from
Grand Rapids to Lansing. We are now looking at other locations for

funding in Jackson, Belleville, Bay City and Saginaw. Local legislators

are very supportive of these type projects and funds can be obtained. I

am very interested in projects in other urban communities. However, I

cannot develop projects if I don't know a community's needs and potential.

80, in reiteration, this survey is my record of your community. Be as
comprehensive as possible. Stretch your imagination and fill out a
survey form for any possibility. Again, please call me on any questions
you might have.

Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Ned E. Fogle

Recreational Fisheries Program Manager
NEF:bjw FISHERIES DIVISION
Enclosures

 

42
By mid-February 1987, 12 responses had been received; a disappointing

response considering the good response in the early testing.

So, a follow up letter was sent on March 13, 1987 (Form 8). By March 31,
22 additional responses had been received bringing the total response
to the January 1987 letter to 34. Thirty-one communities had not yet

responded.

 

Form 8
March 13, 1987
Gentlemen:

On January 26, 1987, the enclosed letter was sent to your unit of govern-
ment relative to potential development of urban fishing in your area. As
of this date, we have not heard from you. We're wondering if you did not
receive the January 26th letter or whether you are not interested in
development a recreational fishing program in your community.

We would be very glad to answer any questions you might have about the
state's program. It appears that funding possibilities for urban
fishing projects around the state are becoming more and more positive
and that we will be able to work with the communities in developing
beneficial programs.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Ned E. Fogle
Recreational Fisheries Program
Manager
FISHERIES DIVISION
NEF:bjw 517-373-1280
Enclosure

 

However, by early May, another 11 response had come in, bringing the

total yet to respond down to 20.

43
The additional letters needed resulted in an unexpected additional cost
(Table 13). The January 26, 1987 letter cost $59.86. The March 13, 1987
letter cost an additional $51.53. It is anticipated that one more letter
will have to be sent to perhaps 20 communities at a cost of $21.48. It is
estimated 5-10 communities will have to be called by telephone at a cost of
$41.36 (two staff biologist hours @ $20.80 per hour) to finally complete the
survey of all communities. Despite the additional costs of follow up letters
and telephone calls, the predicted total will be $726.20 (Table 13) considerably

less than an on-the-ground survey. (See Tables 5 and 6.)

At this point one additional cost to the mail survey--that of the cost of the
development of the mail survey form itself--must be discussed. This cost
may or may not be considered in the total cost of the mail survey. Data
collected for a survey, whether on-the-ground or by mail, that is to be
computerized must be recorded in a systematic manner. To do so requires

a specifically designed form. The cost of the development of the mail
survey form, therefore, should approximate the cost of the development of
any form developed for collecting on-the-ground data. For this reason

the cost of the development of the mailable survey form was not considered
as part of the mail survey cost. For purposes of information, however,
approximately 25 hours were spent by the author in the development of

the form. In 1984 the author's hourly pay rate was $17.87. Forty hours

at that rate is $714.80.

A negative cost factor to consider in the mail survey concerns the several
lengthy delays by the author in follow-up letters to extract survey data
from non-responsive communities. It could be assumed that an immediate

follow-up, after the initial response, would have stimulated the

44

non-responsive communities to respond and negated the need for additional

follow-up letters.
been even less expensive.

to be factual.

In essence, if true, the mail survey cost would have

However, this is only assumed and not known

Final computed costs put the on-the-ground survey (based on the 1980 survey,

i.e, 11-hour day with two communities surveyed) at $131.17 per survey or

(based on the 1982 survey, i.e., an 8-hour day with one community surveyed)

at $198.48 per survey.

This is compared to final computed costs of the mail

survey which put the cost of each community surveyed at $5.08 (Table 14).

 

 

Table 13: Total Mailing Costs
Letters Letter Secretarial Total
Mailing Date Sent Cost Cost Cost
Original 8/25/84 122 @ .39¢ $ 47.58 $422.00 $469.58
(40 hrs.@ $10.55/hr.)
lst Supplemental 1/26/87 65 @ .22¢ 14.30 45.56 59.86
(4 hrs. @ $11.39/hr.)
2nd Supplemental 3/13/87 53 @ .22¢ 11.66 39.87 51.53
(3.5 hrs. @ $11.39/hr.)
Printing Costs For 1,000 forms (estimated) 75.00
Sub-Total Costs $655.97
Estimated costs for 21 additional mail surveys (21 test surveys)
(122 + 21 a 143) 8.19
Estimated staff time and telephone costs to complete survey 62.04

 

Total Costs $726.20

 

45

Table 14: Cost Comparisons (On—the—ground vs. Mail) Per Community

 

 

Number of Total Cost Per

Type Communities Cost Survey
On-Ground Survey
(Based on an ll-hour,

2 community day) 143 $18,757.31 $131.17
On-Ground Survey
(Based on an 8-hour,

1 Community Day) 143 $28,382.64 $198.48

Mail Survey
(Based on original, 2
mail follow-ups and a
telephone follow—up) 143 $ 726.20 5.08

 

CONCLUSIONS

The survey form that was developed is considered successful. It will be

a time and certainly a money saver for any natural resource agency wish-
ing to inventory its respective urban fishery. That letter that originally
accompanied and explained the survey form is considered only partially
successful. More explanation about potential water body construction was
needed. This supports the author's contention that the public often mis-
interprets or does not completely understand what it reads. Additional
follow up letters should be accepted as par for dealing with any bureau-
cracy. Survey forms are being received constantly by governments from
researchers and pollsters. Without followup reminders, the survey forms

have a tendency to get lost in the shuffle and discarded.

Discussion with various parks and recreation directors of the communities
surveyed revealed that formal college training had not prepared them for

thinking in terms of recreational fishing-—but rather of standard items

46
such as baseball diamonds, golf courses, picnic areas and swimming pools.
Most had no idea that fish-out ponds could be built in areas normally only
considered for playground development. This is why they did not think of

potential pond construction on vacant public property.

Personal communication with the various community representatives about the
survey form itself revealed the form was clear and easy to understand. The
logic was straight forward and they had no trouble in following the various
steps or blocks of questions, even though some did not understand the

reasoning behind the questions.

It is possible that the cost of the mail survey could have been reduced
somewhat if follow-up letters had been more timely. The long periods of
time between the various follow-up letters, as necessitated by the
author's work schedule, perhaps allowed many of the urban communities to
put the survey aside and forget it. It also has been suggested by
several of the author's colleagues that telephone contacts, instead of
the additional follow-up letters, may have prompted quick replies to the

survey request and perhaps less expensive in the long run.

The form is estimated to have saved the Michigan DNR Fisheries Division
$20,000-25,000 in wages, travel and meals. Any additional savings, such
as more timely follow-ups or through telephone contacts only serve to
enhance the mail survey. Also important is the fact that a considerable
amount of the author's time (between 38 and 60 percent of the annual total)

was freed to be utilized for other projects.

APPENDIX

47

APPENDIX

PROJECT ANALYSIS

THE USE OF A SURVEY FORM IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE
URBAN RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
PROGRAM

By: Ned E. Fogle

Recreational Fisheries Specialist
Fisheries Division

Michigan Department of Natural Resources
1981

48

The Use of a Survey in the Development of
A State Urban Recreational Fisheries Program

ijective (Problem): Identify the urban recreational fishing needs in
each respective area of eleven urban areas in southern Michigan.

 

Decision Maker: Fisheries Division's recreational specialist.

 

Goal of Fisheries Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources:
Develop an urban recreational fishing program for the state to meet the
needs and desires of the people.

Possible Alternative Courses of Action and Possible Reactions:
Alternative Option 1: Develop a survey form that will provide the data
comparable to the on-ground survey that can be used by the decision maker
in determining urban recreational fishery needs for southern Michigan.
Alternative Option 2: On-the-ground survey. Very good but time consuming.
The question is whether a questionnaire (Optional) will provide as complete
information as would an on-the-ground survey.

Alternative Option 3: Convince people the wilderness concept made it
worth to drive north. Rejected because public had already stated they
did not intend to do that.

Alternative Option 4: Develop a transportation system, roads and/or
transportation system to take people north. Rejected as extremely costly
to state and to individuals using system. Reflected costs far outweight
benefits derived. Option rejected.

Alternative Option 5: Do nothing as the department had in the past.
Determined to be a poor option because of the unrest by the public from
the southern portion of the state. A good possibility that legislative
action against the state, in form of fun curtailment or legislative
involvement in fisheries management, could result if the warning
subtleties were not heeded. This option was rejected.

Alternative Option 6: Plant more fish in southern Michigan to pacify
public. Rejected as non-feasible because much of the inner city public
would still have long distances to travel to get to the fish. Also non-
feasible because state hatchery system did not have capabilities of
planting a significant number of fish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Context of the Problem: By the early 1970's, persons living in the
metropolitan area of the state had become increasingly aware of the
Michigan Great Lakes fisheries program and wanted the state to increase
its emphasis on fishing programs for their immediate areas.

 

In 1972, the Department of Natural Resources designed a plan of action to
deve10p a Metropolitan Fishing Program. Major goals and objectives were
outlined, planning work groups established, and "Planning and Review" and
"Citizen Advisory" groups formed. From this organization, metro fishing
proposals were developed providing information on feasibility, scope,
benefits and costs, budget outlines, and operational plans. Priorities
as suggested by the review and citizens committees have been incorporated
into the program.

49

Major programs proposed included a pier and shoreline fishing, recrea-
tional fish-out ponds, fish stocking, interpretive services, and private
services. However, little could be done because of non-availability of
funding to support implementation of such a plan. The perpetuation of
the idea of the program, however, was continued through oral presentation
of the concept to various communities, groups, and governmental units.

However, in 1977, the department, under mandate by the Governor,
developed a proposal for an urban recreations program (Attachments 1-5
to this report). With the Governor's blessing, state funding of such a
proposal became a reality.

Fisheries Division, having heard the peoples' wants through its early
1970's contacts, opted to initiate the urban fisheries program in the
Detroit metro area. The area chosen was a waterfront strip from the Ohio
line to and including the city of Detroit. Projects were developed
following an on-the-ground survey of the selected communities by the
recreational fisheries specialist. Approval for funding was given by the
state legislature and the projects were initiated under the 1978-79
fiscal year funding.

Subsequently, the second phase (year 21 - FY 1979-80) projects were
proposed. However, the legislators from other urban areas of the state
blocked the program and demanded projects within their own respective
legislative areas. The department retreated and advised Fisheries
Division to come up with a phase two program that would include a number
of projects for other urban areas. There was no time for on-the-ground
surveys, so a hastily drafted proposal was constructed based on a few
telephone calls. The second year program was never approved for funding
because of the state's economic unrest.

It was obvious, however, if a good urban fisheries program were to be

developed, the communities to be involved would have to be surveyed to
determine their recreatonal fishing status; the present and potential

options as well as needs and wants. Although cost was a factor, time

constraints evolve as the major block to determining the recreational

fishing possibilities in these urban areas.

Review of the Pertinent Literature and Work Underway: A review of
pertinent literature (see Literature Cited) revealed that Michigan
continues to be a leader in urban recreational fisheries development.
Surveys of urban recreational fishing needs by other states had been or
were being done by on-the-ground surveys; non-feasible to Michigan
because of time constraints.

 

Decision: To develop a mail survey that would adequately identify the
urban recreational fishing needs in Michigan for the decision maker.

Actors: The actors chosen to provide the input to the survey would be
representatives of respective local governmental units; primarily parks
and recreation directors.

50

Decision Variable and Factors Affecting Variables: See Flow Chart,
Attachment 6. Variables affecting "decision makers". Decisions housed
within circles on chart. Variables are influenced by various groups

of public (housed in small six-sided boxes on flow chart) through
Fisheries Division.

Proposal: Develop a questionnaire that can be sent to the respective
parks and/or recreation director of each community determined to be part
of an urban area. The questionnaire, when completed by the communities
and returned to Fisheries Division, would provide the decision maker with
the neeed information. The questionnaire would eliminate the need for an
expensive on-the-ground study.

Study Needs: Study 1 - Twelve communities have had an on—the-ground
survey by the decision maker. This resulted from the department's need
to generate an immediate urban recreation program in response to the
Governor's request. Pilot (or test) questionnaires will be sent to each
respective community. Comparisons will be made of each respective
community's questionnaire to determine how well the questionnaire
duplicates the on-the-ground survey. In addition, another 10 urban
communities, picked at random, will be sent questionnaires. Each of
these communities will be on-the-ground surveyed after they have
completed their questionnaires. The questionnaire will then be judged
on whether or not it will provide the decision maker with the data that
would have been provided by an on-the-ground survey. If no significant
changes are required, the questionnaire will be sent to all communities
determined to fall within the designated area.

 

Time Schedule for Test Studies:

1. Initiation Date: January 15, 1982

2. Required Time Period
a. Return of questionnaires by March 1, 1982
b. On-ground-study - 10 communities - 5 days (to be completed by

March 15, 1982)

3. Initial Analysis Complete by April 15, 1982. (Provided no

significant changes to be made).

 

Cooperative Personnel:

Gale Jamesen - Fisheires Division, MDNR

Dr. Douglas Jester - Fisheries Division, MDNR

Paul Wei - Data Center, MDNR

Dr. Dan Talhelm - Resource Development, Michigan State University

 

Submitted by: Ned E. Fogle
Recreational Fisheries Specialist
Michigan Department of Natural Resources

51
PERTINENT LITERATURE

Bunin, Nina M., D. Jasperse, S. Cooper, "A Guide to Designing Accessible
Outdoor Recreational Facilities", Heritage Cons. And Rec. Serv., U.S.
Dept. Int., Lake Central Region, Ann Arbor, Mich., Jan. 80.

Duttweiler, Michael W., "Urban Sport Fishing - A Review of Literature and
Programs". N.Y. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit, Cornell Univ., Mar. 1975.

Fogle, Ned E., "Asphalt Angling", Mich. Nat. Res., Mich. DNR, Jul.-Aug.,
1975.

Fogle, Ned E., "Fishing for Fun", 4H-Youth Programs, Coop. Ext. Serv.,
Michigan State Univ., 4-H 1056, Marine Science.

Fogle, Ned E., "Fishing for Fun - Leader/Teacher Guide", 4H-Yough Programs,
Coop. Ext. Serv., Michigan State Univ., 4-H 1057, Marine Science.

Fogle, Ned E., "Fishing Where the Folks Are", Mich. Dept. Nat. Res., Fish.
Div., 1979.

Fogle, Ned E., "Michigan's Proposal for a Recreational Metro Fishing
Program", Mich. Dept. Nat. Res., Fish. Div., Tech. Rept. No. 78-2,
Apr. 78.

Fogle, Ned E., J. Hoffman, "Suggested Modifications for Making Recreational
Fishing Facilities Accessible for use by the Physical Handicapped and
Aged", Mich. Dept. Nat. Res., Fish. Div., 1978 unpub. memo.

Groen, Calvin L., "Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Fisheries
Administrators Section. Am. Fish. Soc.", May 28-30, 1980. Proceedings
compiled by Calvin L. Groen.

Ikeda, Alexander Yukio, "A Study of the 1970 Urban Fishing Program in the
City of St. Louis, Missouri", 1971. A thesis presented to the faculty
of the graduate school, Univ. of Mo., Columbia, MO.

Leedy, D. L., T. M. Franklin, R. M. Maestro, "Planning for Urban Fishing
and Waterfront Recreation", U.S. Dept. Int., Fish 5 Wildlife Serv.,
OBS-80/35, Jul. 81.

MacNab, Ian D., R. H. Hester, "Operation Doorstep Angling, Metropolitan
Toronto Fishery Project Report", Ministry of Nat. Res., Ontario, Vol. 2 -
Mgt. Recommendations 1976.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, "Michigan Urban Recreation
Program", Lansing, MI, Dec. 79.

Shupp, Bruce D., "New York State Urban Fishing Program Development", N.Y.
State, Dept. of Envir. Cons., Proj. No. F-36-R, Apr. 80.

Shupp, Bruce D., "Special Report — Urban Fishing: Three Years of BSFSW
Involvement Nationally". U.S. Dept. Int. BSF&W (now U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Serv.)

52

Attachment 1.

TO: Department Heads
FROM: Governor William G. Miliken (Signed William G. Milliken)
DATE: June 15, 1977

SUBJECT: Urban Action Group - Urban Policy Coordinator

In my 1977 State of the State address I announced the creation of the
Urban Action Group and the Urban Policy Coordinator. These positions are
necessary if the state is to take an active role in reversing the tragic
decline in our central cities. Fiscal crises, high crime rates, business
disinvestment, dilapidated house, and large scale unemployment are among
the many problems we need to correct. I am committed to developing a
state urban policy addressing these and other issues.

When discussing a comprehensive strategy, four general goals emerge: (1)
to provide full employment opportunities for all urban residents; (2) to
provide adequate housing in attractive neighborhoods to accommodate the
needs of a diverse urban population; (3) to assure safety and security to
all urban residents; (4) to put all municipalities in a sound fiscal
position.

To achieve the first of these goals the state must endeavor to improve

the urban business climate. We must assure the availability of trained
labor, land on which to develop, investment financing, adequate levels of
services, and an equitable taxation policy. We must expand entrepreneurial
opportunities for people within the community, improve local government
capacity for economic development planning, and assure equal opportunity
employment.

The second of the goals depends on stable, revitalized urban neighbor-
hoods and an expanding supply of housing. Equal housing opportunity is a
necessity, as are adequate services to all neighborhoods on an equitable
basis.

We must take steps to prevent crime. Certainty of arrest and prosecution
is the greatest deterrent we have available. We must provide maximum
efficiency within the criminal justice system to protect innocent citizens
from the criminal element of society. This is not just an urban problem,
but both the material and psychological effects are greatest in the cities.

The final goal can be accomplished by reducing fiscal disparieites among
communities, by strengthening local tax bases, and by improving fiscal
management at the local level. Just as we have reduced the disparities
among rich and poor school districts, we must strive to reduce similar
disparities among local governments.

53
Attachment 1. (cont'd.)

Department Heads -2- June 15, 1977

To accomplish these goals I have designated an Urban Policy Coordinator
and an Urban Action Group. The Policy Coordinator is Richard Helmbrecht,
Director of the Departmennt of Commerce. He is responsible for coordin—
ating all the efforts of various state departments as they relate to
urban issues. Of special interest will be economic development, an issue
which encompasses a wide variety of areas. Central city economic devel-
opment will not take place until businessmen can be assured that their
merchandise, employees, and patrons are safe from crime. Similarly,
businessmen will not locate in the downtown if central city tax rates are
two or three times higher than those in the suburbs. Housing is an
economic development issue since strong neighborhoods are a prerequisite
to business location. Job programs, transportation policy, and education
all directly interact with urban economic development. Consequently, the
Urban Policy Coordinator will approach each of you and ask your assistance
in developing policy recommendations. He will rely on you heavily, and I
ask your cooperation.

The Urban Action Group consists of: George Weeks, Executive Secretary to
the Governor; Pat Babcock, the Governor's Special Counsel for Policy and
Legislative Affairs; Roy Williams, the Governor's Executive Assistant

for Community Affairs, Keith Molin, Director of the Department of Labor;
Jerry Miller, Director of the Department of Management and Budget; Jack
Dempsey, Director of the Department of Social Services; and Dick Helmbrecht.
This group will be responsible for reviewing the work of the Urban Policy
Coordinator before it reaches my desk. At times this staff, too, will ask
for your assistance in a variety of ways. They may ask you to analyze
programs; or, they may ask for your assistance in planning a policy
roundtable. Whatever they request, I expect that you will cooperate

fully with them.

Developing a comprehensive effective approach to urban problems is a
difficult task. But the federal government has shown a renewed commit-
ment to addressing the problems of our urban centers, and so has state
government. I believe if we tap the expertise now within the Michigan
state government, if we cooperate in a sincere effort, we will develop an
approach which, with the cooperation and contribution of the Legislature,
will help revitalize our cities as employment, commercial, and cultural
centers.

54

Attachment 2.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Interoffice Communication

 

August 19, 1977

TO: All Division Chiefs
FROM: Howard A. Tanner, Director

SUBJECT: Department Urban Recreation Program

Over the past several years, an urban recreation policy and program for
the Department has been considered. The Natural Resources Commission, by
resolution, declared that ". . . wherever feasible, existing Department
recreation programs shall emphasize meeting urban recreation needs."
Governor Milliken, in his 1977 State of the State Address, created an
Urban Action group. This group is responsible for developing state
programs to assist the urban areas of the state, and the Governor has
directed the Department to assist this program.

I am giving this program priority and have designated Deputy Director
Scherschligt as the Department's Urban Recreation Coordinator. He will
develop a Department urban recreation policy and program, and coordinate
all Divisions' efforts related to urban recreation. Due to the short
time frame and the desire to integrate selected program proposals into
the Department's 1978-79 budget, I am asking for your immediate
cooperation. Deputy Director Scherschligt will contact each of you for
your assistance in developing and implementing the program.

(Signed)
Howard A. Tanner

cc: Bureau Chiefs
Office of Budget & Federal Aid
J. Robertson, Exec. Assistant

55

Attachment 3.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Interoffice Communication

July 1, 1977

TO: John A. Scott, Chief, Fisheries Division
Henry H. Webster, Chief, Forest Management Division
Keith E. Wilson, Chief, Waterways Division
David H. Jenkins, Chief, Wildlife Division

FROM: C. D. Harris, Chief, Bureau of Renewable Resource Management

SUBJECT: Urban Policy Coordinator

Attached is a capy of the memo all department heads received from the
Governor announcing his appointment of an Urban Action Group and an Urban
Policy Coordinator. Although we have several programs -— including urban
fishing, urban forestry, and game area management and development -- which
impact on urban programs none of them seem to fall within the purview of
the four goals listed in the Governor's memo.

I would suggest that any final documents describing any programs of your

division having an urban impact be forwarded by the Director to the Urban
Policy Coordinator for his information.

(Signed)
C. D. Harris

CDHzpw
Attachment

cc Scherschligt

56
Attachment 4.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

 

refer to 1102.1
Interoffice Communication

 

July 22, 1977

TO: John A. Scott, Chief, Fisheries Division
FROM: Ned E. Fogle, Great Lakes Specialist

SUBJECT: PRR Write-ups on Recreational Fishing Projects for the
Metro Area of South East Michigan

Comprehensive planning for Metro fishing in southeastern Michigan is
diffiuclt because of the uncertainties of obtaining land, utilization
of land, community priorities, and instability of recreational staffing.
However, I am making progress.

The attached PRR encompasses 26 projects, which I have listed in order of
what I consider the most favorable priority. There are a number of other
forseeable projects, which because of circumstances, should not be
considered at this time, but which should be pursued as future fishery
programs. Good examples of this type project exists with the Township of
Grosse Isle. The potential exists for buying land on the Island from the
Ford Yacht Club and the B.A.S.F. Wyandotte Chemical Co. for use in develop-
ment of fishing projects. Also several small Islands which are under the
Governmental jurisdiction of Grosse Isle have the potential for fishing
development, provided a suitable ferry service could be established to
carry fishermen to and from the Island.

My comprehensive plan, as it is drafted, will include all these poten—
tial projects as well as the ones now being given priority in the PRR.

I believe one general comment is necessary at this point. Metro fishing
is just beginning to be touched upon with the 8 million dollar request
and we certainly have our work cut out for us with this type of money
need. The communities are very pleased with our interest in their
fishery needs and will work whole heartedly with us. I think the Metro
fishing flower may just be beginning to bloom.

(Signed)
N. Fogle
NEF:nc
Attachment

57

MICHIGAN PROGRAM BUDGET EVALUATION SYSTEM

DMB FORM R 10: PROGRAM REVISION REQUEST—-CAPITAL OUTLAY PROJECT
Department: Natural Resources Est. Completion FY 1978-79
PRR Title: Metro Fishing Facilities — Planning and Construction
Project Title:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Project ‘___ Plan Only ___ Plan & Construction.___ Purchase

.___ New Constr. ___ Remodeling ___ Major Maint.
Service Capacity: Est. Cost (in $1,000)
Est. Cost/Capacity: $ FY 1977-78 Total
Est. Service Life (Yrs.) Total $ 8.0 million $
Est. Annual Amoritized Cost: $ Gen.Fund Gen.Purp. 4.0 million
Est. Annual Cost/Capacity: $ Land & Water Fund 4.0 million

 

 

Est. Annual Operation Cost: $

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION:

Shoreline and fish-out pond facilities are needed in communities along the
waterfront of southeast Michigna to provide recreational fishing opportunities
to shorebound citizens. Communities involved lie within the area bounded on
the east by Lake Erie and the Detroit River and on the west by I-75 and I-94.

Funds are requested for planning State projects and also to cooperate with
local units of Government in planning projects. Proposals include, but
would not be limited to: Fishing piers, fishing bulkheads, shoreline walk—
ways, breakwalls, cantilevel platforms, parking lots, fish-out ponds, bank
fishing features and related sanitary facilities.

Construction could commence on the following projects as engineering design
is complete:

1. Detroit-Riverside Park (Fishing bulkhead, parking, lighting) $500,000
2. Trenton-Harrison St. Riverfront Park (Cantilever fishing

pier already engineered) $140,000
3. Detroit-Lake Muskoday (dredging, diking, pumping facilities

and fish ladder) $225,000
4. Erie Township-(N. Sterns Road Park, already engineered) $ 40,000
5. Ecorse-Riverside Park (fishing bulkhead) $825,000
6. Detroit—Gabriel Richard Park (1500 feet of fishermen

walkway and fishing bulkhead) $937,500
7. Lincoln Park (3 fish-out ponds; l, 1, and 1% acres) $ 31,250
8. Woodhaven—(3 fish-out ponds; 2, k, and 8 acres) $ 37,500
9. Trenton-(4 fish-out ponds; 3, 1, 1, and 3 acres) $ 62,500
10. Detroit-Lakewood East Park (fishing bulkhead; 750 feet) $412,500

11. Detroit-Alfred Brush Ford Park (Fishing bulkhead; 1640 ft.) $902,000
12. Detroit-Gabriel Richard Pk. (underwater fish viewing station) $500,000

13. Detroit-Engle Park (fishing bulkhead; 430 feet) $268,750
14. Detroit-Memorial Park Extension (fishing bulkhead; 260 ft.) $162,500
15. Trenton-Meyerellias Park (bulkheading and fishing pier) $162,000
16. Detroit-Palmer Park (fish-out pond; 2 acres) $ 25,000
17. Detroit—Stockton Memorial Park (fishing bulkhead; 300 ft.) $187,500
18. Detroit-Owens Park (fishing bulkhead; 500 feet) $312,500
19. Detroit-Maheras Park (fishing bulkhead; 1230 feet) $768,750

20. Erie Township-Erie Game ARea (parking and fishing at end of
Sterns Road) $ 87,300

58

 

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION: (Contrd.)

21. Gibraltar (fishing pier; 300 feet) $ 75,000
22. Grosse Isle-(fishing pier and bulkhead; 500 feet of pier

and 500 feet of bulkheading) $412,500
23. Southgate (fishing docks; 100 feet) $ 23,000
24. River Rouge (fishing bulkheading; 200 feet) $125,000

25. Erie Township-Erie Game Area (Parking, dredging, erosion

protection and fishing pier as supplement to end of road

parking Item No. 20) $255,500
26. Wayne County-Elizabeth Park (fishing bulkhead; 500 feet

and two floating fishing piers 250 feet each) $437,500

59

Attachment 5

A PROPOSAL FOR A DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE

URBAN RECREATION PROGRAM

60

The final product of this proposal will outline

the Department's urban recreation programs, and

 

identify specific possible actions concernipg

 

each of the programs. These actions could include:

 

1. Reaffirmation of existing programs

 

2. Redirection of existingfiprograms

 

3. Development of new programs

 

The development of a Department Urban Recreation

 

Program would facilitate action for urban

 

recreation in Michigan.

 

l'

61

INTRODUCTION

During the past several years a Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
urban recreation policy and program has been discussed. In 1973, the

Natural Resources Commission by resolution adopted an Urban Recreation

 

Policy and declared that " . . .wherever feasible, existing Department
recreation programs shall emphasize meeting urban recreation needs".

In that same year, the Governor directed state agencies to re-evaluate
their role in urban recreation with emphasis toward expanding recreation
opportunities in urban areas. Responding to the further decline in
central cities, the Governor in his 1977 State of the State address,

and by memo dated June 15th, created an Urban Action Group. This group
is responsible for developing state policy and assistance for urban areas

and input from selected departments of state government is required.

Federal interest and concern for recreation in the urban areas of the
nation has resurfaced wtih the advent of the Carter Administration.
Evidence of this renewed interest is the mandating of an Urban Recreation
Study. This study conducted under the auspices of the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation is in draft form and hopefully will outline the role of the

federal government in urban recreation.

Against this background of renewed interest in urban recreation by the
federal and state government, a timely opportunity exists for the DNR
to define the state's role and develop specific programs. Our past
efforts have focused on generalized policy statements, limited facility

development, technical assistance and grants to local governments. These

62
uncoordinated efforts have put the DNR administration and commission in
a position that could be characterized by some as doing little to address

urban recreation problems.

This proposal will outline an approach for the development of unified

DNR Urban Recreation Program to be implemented by the Director and the

 

Commission. Bypacceptance of thispproposal the Executive office will

direct Department staff working with the concerned Divisions to develop

 

a series of specific programs for implementation. Definitions of urban

 

areas, urban recreation, identification of urban recreation programs and

providers will guide the development of the Urban Recreation Program.
URBAN AREAS

The Department's Urban Recreation Program will focus on recreation in the
urban areas of Michigan. Urban areas consist of the central city, or
cities and surrounding closely settled territory (urbanized portion) of
Michigan's Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's). Rural
portions of the SMSA's will be excluded. The SMSA's and the correspond-
ing urbanized areas are depicted on the attached maps as the shaded areas.
Specific boundaries will be developed for the urbanized portion of the
Battle Creek SMSA. In addition, the urbanized boundaries will be adjusted

to reflect the most recent population data.
URBAN RECREATION

A definition of urban recreation cannot be concise but must be expressed
in general terms. Recreation is a component or concept within the philosophy
of leisure. Urban recreation is characterized by its obligation to pro-

vide the facilities and programs for diverse interest and discretionary

 

63
time recreation opportunities close to home. It is expected to provide
something for everyone. From tot-lots to senior citizen and handicapped
centers. From competitive indoor and outdoor athletics to picnicking
and passive nature experiences. It must accomplish these expectations
with facilities on relatively small parcels of intensively developed
lands. Many urban facilities require intensive management and programming
to spread opportunities. The ability of urban recreation to meet its
responsibilities is an important contributing influence in defining the
community environment. Therefore, urban recreation carries an additional
burden of sustaining the viability of urban life and providing an

aesthetically pleasing landscape.
URBAN RECREATION PROVIDERS

Recreation, while related to open space, is not dependent upon it nor does
any one agency (public, private, quasi-public) provide the total scope of
services. Public recreation in urban areas is provided by the state and
local government and infrequently by the federal government. Cities,
villages, townships and counties are the local units involved and they
provide the bulk of urban recreation. Recreation services of local units
are provided under the provisions of state enabling legislation. Local
units, through this legislation, have assumed much of the responsibility
for urban recreation. Recreation based on natural resources values is

the major focus of services and facilities provided by the DNR. However,

the state has the pivotal role and responsibility for urban recreation.
URBAN RECREATION ISSUES

In recent years, cities have experienced an unfortunate decline in their

ability to meet urban recreation demands without assistance from federal

64

and state government. Increased reliance upon federal and state sources

of revenue plus local budgetary limitations has produced some serious

complications in the local recreation system. The following is a brief

outline of the major problem areas in urban recreation.

I. Activities

1.

Upkeep of existing programs - Budgetary difficulties have caused

 

cutbacks in ongoing programs, reduced facilities operation and
slippage in overall maintenance.

Opportunities for family participation - Families must travel

 

unreasonable distances to obtain the opportunity for simple out-
door relaxation in a pleasant natural environment. Thus, a
viable urban recreation system would have an important impact

on energy conservation.

Services topspecial populations - A higher ratio of costs and

 

resources are required to make recreation meaningfully available
to some groups of people such as youth, the handicapped and
senior citizens.

Safety and Security - A prevailing issue that influences urban

 

recreation participation is the concern for public safety.

II. Capital Outlay

1.

Land acquisition - The availability of suitable recreation land

 

in cities is obviously limited. Recreation land must compete
for space with many other types of land uses, and required
further extensive improvements to make it suitable.

Open space - It is necessary to replenish open space lost to other

 

uses. Open space can accommodate many forms of activities such as

bicyling and nature trails, as well as enhance the urban landscape.

65

3. Riverfronts — There is a growing recognition that waterfronts

 

and the natural resources of a community can provide expanded
recreation opportunities and contribute to the attractiveness

of that community.

4. Facilities development - The selection of a facility development

 

is frequently influenced by the criteria of the funding source.
Concentration on certain types of facilities occurs at the
expense of neglecting other types. The development of a facility
in order to take advantage of available funds, often results in

incurring unanticipated additional operation costs.

Site improvement and support facilities are a capital cost
frequently overlooked. Therefore, facility design must begin
to take into account the improvement and upkeep features of

intensively used urban facilities.

III. Operation and Maintenance

IV.

Operation and maintenance consumes the bulk of recreation expenditures.
Existing funds are also frequently expected to cover the operations
of new facilities. Local units of government have recently begun to
juggle short—term block grants and manpower funds back and forth with
local funds to advent budgetary deficiencies. The dilemma can be
simply stated: maintenance and operation cost for recreation
facilities are increasing at a rate greater than revenue necessita—

ting cut-backs in facility use and recreation opportunities.

Management
The ambiguity of recreation benefits has prevented recreation from

receiving a permanent priority status.

66
1. Reliability of sources of revenue - It is difficult to undertake
long-range development projects and programs with the limitations
of current revenue sources. This shortcoming tends to make local
units undertake expedient short-term projects and programs. Only
a long-term sustained revenue source can have any significant

impact on urban recreation needs.

2. Measurable services — Recreation providers must develop the

 

management tools to translate recreation services into social

benefits.
The DNR and Urban Recreation

As one of the providers of urban recreation, the DNR currently lacks a
cohesive urban recreation program which incorporates all of the various

Divisional recreation related activities.

To various degress many of the Divisions of the DNR impact the urban
recreation system. Most of these DNR activities can be grouped into
four categories: (1) Facilities and Programs; (2) Technical Services;
(3) Funding Sources; and (4) Regulatory Functions. Some of the
Department's operations within these four categories are:
I. Facilities and Programs:

Wildlife programs - pheasant put and take

Metro fishing program

Urban parks

Metropolitan trails

Marinas

Boating launching and public access sites

Natural rivers program

67
Youth safety programs - hunting, marine, snowmobile

Natural areas program

II. Technical Services:
Urban forestry program
Information and education services
Recreation facility and program design

Recreation research and planning

III. .Funding Sources:
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Michigan Land Trust Fund
Youth Conservation Corps
Coastal Zone Management
Work Opportunity Resource Corps
Pittman-Robertson

Dingell-Johnson

IV. Regulatory Functions:
Submerged lands - fill and dredge
Zoning and land use
Dams and impoundments
Land fills

Air and water quality

Attachment 6.

68

STRATEGRY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN URBAN FISHERIES

        

 

   
 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

      
 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Econ.
T'U' Impact
Much
Few Travel
People
Rura ood
Fed '7 Hatchery
Prev. Productio
Decision
(No.—.
Stat Fisheri Materials
Divisi
Access
. Available Much
Comm; Time
'FT
1//f§;:\\\\d_
fene its Mgt. Costs
Status
A Little
31: Needs
:thd. ‘
Ind. “‘f’p‘
Citz. Fisheri ,. terial
\\
nucc Ne‘f‘ \
Many (Decipipn ) Nat.
People " r Reprod.
Urba Food
Little
Kids Travel
Fishing
, Drby’ s t 15 h a 1 .
por syc 9 .- I ‘
. ‘ Value W , 73/

LIST
OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Bevins, M.I., R. 8. Bond, T. J. Corcoran, K. D. McIntosh, and R. J.
McNeil. 1968. Characteristics of Hunters and Fishermen in Six Eastern
states, Univ. of Vermont, Agric. Exp. Sta., Bull. 656; 76 pp.

McBride, Norman. 1978. The Capitol District Urban Fishing Program, Bureau of
Fisheries, Div. Fish & Wildlife, N.Y. State Dept. of Environ. Cons.

Buterbaugh, Glaen - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
stationed in the Minneapolis FWS Regional Office during the instigation
of this program.

Fogle, Ned E. 1975. Asphalt Angling, Michigan Natural Resources, 4833-5140,
Jul/Aug.

Fogle, Ned E. 1983. Michigan and the Urban Angler, Urban Fishing Proceedings,
Fish., Mgmt. Sect. & Fish. Admin. Sect., Am. Fish. Soc.

Fogle, Ned E. 1978. Michigan's Urban Fishing Program, Fish. Div. Tech. Report
#78-2. .

Fogle, N.E. 1977. The Relationship of Water Abundance and Quality to Development
of Metro Recreational Fishing Programs, MDNR, unpublished.

Ikeda, Alexander Yukio. 1971. A Study of the 1970 Urban Fishing Program in
The City of St. Louis, Missouri, a Thesis presented to the Faculty of
the Graduate School, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia.

Leach, Paul J. and V. James Raisn, Jr. 1981. Something's Fishy in the Nation's
Capitol. Office of Resource Conservation and Mangt., Nat. Mar. Fish.
Serv., 3300 White Have St., Washington, D.C. 20235.

Leedy, D. L., Tim Franklin and R. M. Maestro. 1981. Planning for Urban Fishing
and Waterfront Recreation. Urban Wildlife Research Center, Biological
Services Program, U.S.F.W.S., FWS/OBS-80/35.

Lehman, Dick. 1983. Metro Fishing. Michigan Natural Resources Magazine,
Mar/Apr.

Mich. DNR. 1979 Urban Recreation Program. Rec. Serv. Div.
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report No. 21, 1962.
Shupp, Bruce D. 1972. Special Report, Urban Fishing: Three Years of BSF&W

Involvement Nationally. U.S. Dept. of Int., BSF&W, Div. of Fish. Serv.,
Princeton, Indiana.

 

Summerfeldt, Robert - Iowa State U., Ames, IA. Formerly with the U.S.F.W.S.
and in charge of the Oklahoma project.

Tody, Wayne H. and C. D. Harris. 1965 and 1966. Trout stocking in Southern
Michigan Ponds. unpublished.
69

70

Westerman, Fred, Chief of Fisheries. 1955. Setting aside certain waters for
juvenile fishing. MDNR Fisheries Memorandum. unpublished.

Williams, Julie. 1982. Wake up Urban America Happy Days Are Here Again!.
Fishing Tackle Trade News, Jul/Aug.

USDI Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. Urban Waterfront
Revitalization: The Role of Recreation and Heritage.", Vol. 1, Key
Factors, Needs and Goals, undated, 31 pp.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
WWWI“lllllmllIllmllllllliH‘llllllllmlll
31293008095758