|
|
|
| Park History |
The Felt Estate
|
This site is dedicated to the Felt Mansion restoration effort. It includes photographs of Shore
Acres, then and now, and a brief history of the opulent estate of millionaire and inventor Dorr
E. Felt which eventually became Saugatuck Dunes State Park.
www.feltmansion.org
|
Biography of a Machine, The Comptometer
|
An interesting site on the Comptometer, the early mechanical calculating machine invented by
Dorr Felt which made him a millionaire. Also included is some of the history of Shore Acres
and old photographs. Had it not been for the comptometer, there probably would be no Saugatuck
Dunes State Park.
The Comptometer
|
The Michigan Academician, Fall 1982
|
This paper was written to present the process that ultimately resulted in the creation of
Saugatuck Dunes State Park as a template for future cooperative efforts between citizen
groups and government entities. In doing so, it relates a detailed history of the evolution
of the park from concept to reality.
Click here for a printer friendly version.
|
| |
|
An alternative to confrontation
A New Role for Citizens in State Park Planning:
Saugatuck Dunes State Park
ROBERT L. REINKING
Hope College
AND
PATRICIA L. BIRKHOLZ
Saugatuck Dunes Advisory Committee
A marked change in the relationship between the American
citizen and the government has occurred in recent years. Nowhere has this change been
more noticeable than in the area of the environment. Aware of environmental hazards,
citizens are demanding direct input into those governmental decisions which affect their
quality of life. Unfortunately, most of these encounters quickly become confrontations
between citizens' action groups and their public servants. Confrontation is not surprising
because most action groups form for the specific purpose of altering or halting action
which has already been planned and announced.
Now a different kind of citizen action has succeeded in changing
a governmental plan into a plan the citizens themselves devised. Cooperation and joint
effort have succeeded where confrontation might well have failed. The Parks Division
of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) yielded much of the responsibility
for designing and planning a new state park to a committee of local citizens. In doing so,
the DNR compromised and eventually gave up most of its own original park plan. Saugatuck
Dunes State Park is truly to become a "citizens' park." It will be a park which reflects
the majority view of local citizens not only in concept but also in the details of much
of the design. The process by which the master plan for Saugatuck Dunes State Park became
a reality may well provide a model by which citizens and governmental units can work
together to solve a variety of problems. The Saugatuck experience will almost certainly
alter the way in which future parks are planned in Michigan. This article describes this
process and is intended to suggest an alternative to confrontation.
The Park
Saugatuck Dunes State Park is located along the Lake Michigan
shoreline in Allegan County, Michigan. The village of Saugatuck lies two miles south of
the park. Holland, Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Kalamazoo and Benton Harbor all lie within a
fifty mile radius of the park. Holland State Park, the most heavily used facility in the
state, lies seven miles north of Saugatuck (Figure 1).
|
|
|
The project boundary of the park, that is, the area which the
state will eventually consider acquiring, encompasses approximately 1,600 acres. Of these,
about 900 are currently owned or under option to the state. The proposed park includes
13,000 feet of frontage on Lake Michigan. The Dunes Correctional Facility, a medium
security prison, occupies a 44-acre tract within the park boundary. The Master Plan
developed for the park by the Citizens Advisory Committe divides the park into four zones
based on the natural capability of each area (Figure 2).
|
|
The natural area zone occupies about 415 acres and is to be
recommended for legal designation as a natural area under P. A. 241 of 1972, the Wilderness
Preservation Act. Thus designated, development within this zone is to be limited to foot
trails. The heart of the natural area is the Luther-Uhl tract. This area has been recognized
by dune ecologists for its unique assemblage of dune and shoreline plant communities and
for the presence of several rare and endangered plant species. In recognition of this
unique area, the theme of the park is to be nature study and preservation.
The historic zone called for under the plan encompasses the site
of the former logging community of Singapore. The plan authorizes no reconstruction or
development of the site other than the construction of foot trails and interpretive signs.
The recreation zone actually consists of three activity areas.
Area A (Figure 2) is currently the location of a commercial interpretive dune ride operation.
Off-road vehicles (ORVs) transport visitors through the dunes, making brief stops at
selected sites. The emphasis of the rides is the interpretation of dune ecology. No private
ORVs are permitted on the property. The park master plan recommends that such rides continue,
either privately or through a concessionaire should the land be acquired by the state. By
continuing the dune ride operation, the plan makes dune study available to persons who
might not be able to walk the distance necessary to reach the natural area.
Recreation area B includes an existing picnic area and a small
parking rot. A small organizational campground is planned for this area. This is the only
camping to be permitted in the park.
Recreation Area C is the only intensive use zone in the park.
It includes about 80 acres and will support a beach and swimming area. Parking will be
limited to a single 200 car lot placed in a barren area about 1,000 feet from Lake Michigan.
Pedestrian boardwalks will extend from the parking lot to a small bathhouse and thence
to the beach. A picnic area and a series of trailheads will be located nearby.
The general zone comprises 760 acres or 48 percent of the proposed
park. It is intended to function as an open space buffer between the various activity zones.
Development in this zone will be limited to foot trails and viewing areas plus certain
specified access roads necessary to serve the recreation zones. The park headquarters
complex will also be located in the general zone adjacent to recreation area C. Because
the plan severely limits the amount of development allowed in the general zone, most of
these 760 acres will actually serve as an extension of the natural area but without that
legal designation.
Preliminary Park Plan
The possibility of creating a state park near Saugatuck had been
under consideration by the DNR for several decades. However, no action had been taken
on the project until 1977 when the Michigan Department of Corrections acquired 549 acres
in Laketown Township. The property included buildings once used as a Catholic seminary
which Corrections intended to convert into a prison. Only 44 acres were needed for the
prison. The remaining 505 acres were given over to the DNR Parks Division. This transfer
created a de facto state park at Saugatuck. However, the design of the park had been
legislated by the terms of the purchase of the property rather than by systematic planning.
Under the terms of acquisition Allegan County or its designate had the option to repurchase
the property within a specified time period. Also, the park was to be developed for low
intensity use and was to be consistent with an environmental assessment of the area.
Based on these requirements, the DNR developed only a small parking and picnic area with
foot trail access to the beach.
As the embryonic park was being developed, the Natural Areas
Conservancy of Western Michigan and the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission
nominated a nearby parcel for state purchase under the Kammer Land Trust Act. The Luther-Uhl
property was nominated because of its ecological significance and was soon purchased. With
the addition of this property to the park, the need to develop a comprehensive park plan
became apparent. It was clear that a design legislated for a 500-acre park could not
adequately serve a park which might eventually encompass 1,500 acres. Accordingly, the
Park Division drafted a preliminary design concept for a proposed major park on the site.
This preliminary plan was presented to the Saugatuck and Laketown
Township boards in January 1980. It called for an intensive-use park which would provide
large swimming beaches, a beachhouse complex, boat access, scattered picnic areas, hiking
trails, and group activity areas. The proposal did not rule out the creation of an
off-road-vehicle scramble area. Parking was to be provided for about 1,500 cars. This
intensive-use zone was to be centered in the Luther-Uhl tract.
Public reaction to the plan was immediate and strongly negative.
Already angered by the creation of a prison, local residents viewed the development of an
intensive-use park as the final step in the destruction of local duneland. Distrust and
anger about the workings of state governmerit and the DNR in particular became the major
topic of local discussion. The people wanted consultation and consideration in planning
the future of their area.
This almost unanimous local opposition to the DNR plan was given
a unified voice by the formation of the West Allegan Dunes coalition. Organizers were
able to enlist the support of all of the affected local units of government, several
environmental groups, and the general public. Their plan was to confront the DNR with
massive, organized, local opposition. Thus the coalition was a single issue action group
of the traditional type.
During the few weeks between the announcement of the plan and
the formal public hearing, the coalition gathered a broad base of citizen support. It
also began to assemble a significant mass of technical information from scientists
familiar with the site. This information provided an important element of scientific
credibility to the coalition claim that much of the site should be preserved in its
natural state. Through a series of frank discussions and direct compromises the coalition
was able to formulate a position statement which every member could support. This statement
called for complete preservation of the Luther-Uhl property and low intensity use of
adjacent lands, as well as a prohibition of ORVs from the park. Significantly, the
statement also called on the DNR to create a citizens' advisory committee to work with it
in planning the park.
In order to present the most effective front, the coalition
planned a coordinated presentation for the public hearing. One representative from each
member organization was to make a statement expressing that group's individual concerns
and its support for the adopted position statement. Speakers were urged to be brief and
asked to provide written copies of their comments to the hearings officer. Individuals
not speaking as representatives of the coalition were encouraged to make statements
independent of the coalition presentation. The coalition also invited several scientists
to make statements at the hearing.
On the evening of the hearing, promising an orderly and concise
presentation, the coalition gained an agreement that the DNR would call speakers in the
order in which speaker request cards were submitted. In this way, the various elements
of the coalition position and the supporting rationale were brought forward in the most
logical sequence possible. The presentation concluded with a reading of the formal
position statement by the coalition chairperson. Although many speakers addressed all
sides of the park issue, the atmosphere created by the coordinated coalition presentation
produced what a DNR official later described as one of the most orderly and informative
public hearings they had ever held.
The Citizens Advisory Committee
The efforts of the coalition proved justified. A few weeks
after the public hearing the DNR contacted the various governmental units represented
in the coalition, requesting their participation in a Citizens Advisory Committee which was
to help plan the new state park. This was indeed a first. The Michigan DNR had never
before assembled a group of local citizens to help develop a park master plan. Membership
on the committee included one representative from each unit of government in the area, a
member of the Michigan Wilderness Advisory Board, the West Michigan Regional Planning
Commission, and a staff planner from the DNR. The appointment of a representative from
each governmental unit allowed for a constant flow of communication between the committee
and the respective agency. By this mechanism the community as a whole was kept informed
of the committee activities.
Although several special interest groups had participated
in the coalition statement, they were not offered membership on the committee. Rather
they were asked to assist the committee by providing information about matters of
individual concern. It was the position of the DNR that it would be impossible to place
representatives of some groups on the committee while omitting others. Representation by
every interested group would have produced a committee that was far too large to be
effective.
The charge to the Citizens Advisory Committee by the DNR was
to assist the Parks Division in the preparation of a plan which reflected an appropriate
balance between intensive recreation activities and the quiet passive activities of a
nature area. The key element of this charge was the need for balance between a local
desire for low intensity use and the recreational needs of the people of Michigan.
By placing first responsibility for the plan with local citizens, the Parks Division
was conceding the primacy of local interests and hoping that a locally focused plan
might still contribute to the overall state recreational plan. This concession was
in strong contrast to common park planning processes wherein first consideration is
given to recreational demand.
The willingness of the DNR to allow local attitudes and concerns
to dominate was further reflected in the composition of the committee. As already
noted, only one of the twelve members of the committee was from the DNR, while nine
members represented local units of government.
Although the task of the committee had been defined in its
charge from the DNR, the method in which the committee would operate, and thus its
ultimate role in plan development were left for the committee itself to decide. There
were two basic approaches by which the committee could have accomplished its charge.
The first was to ask the DNR to modify its earlier plan based on committee input and
with committee review. The second alternative was for the committee to generate its
own plan, drawing technical assistance from the DNR, and sending a totally new plan
for DNR review. The committee quickly chose the latter method and set about to create
a "citizens' park."
In order for such an approach to succeed, several somewhat
problematical conditions must hold. First, the committee members must be politically
and technically astute enough to assess majority local sentiment accurately and to
turn that sentiment into a realistic park design. Second, the members must be
committed to a long-term, time-consuming effort. Third, total cooperation and a
willingness toward compromise on the part of the DNR staff planners is essential.
Finally, such an effort presupposes that the division-level administration of the
DNR is genuinely interested in considering a plan which is generated essentially
outside its control. As will be clear from the following discussion, each of these
conditions was met at Saugatuck.
The first task of the Citizens Advisory Committee was the
selection of a park name and the project boundary. Because the project boundary
defines the ultimate area which the state will consider acquiring for park use,
its determination has both political and economic significance. Eventually a
project area of about 1,600 acres was selected for the newly named Saugatuck
Dunes State Park.
The early work of the committee members focused on two
points. First, they sought scientific information to define the land capabilities
of the proposed park. For this they turned to the team of scientists whose aid
had earlier been solicited by the DNR. The science team included dune ecologists
from universities throughout Michigan plus several from regional environmental
groups and the DNR. These scientists surveyed the available literature on the
site and conducted field studies of the entire area. Based on these studies
the science team was able to prepare a comprehensive site evaluation and make
specific recommendations concerning the range of activities that could be supported
by different sections of the park.
The committee also solicited public opinion about how the
park should be developed. Because several members of the committee had earlier
served on the West Allegan Dunes coalition, many local views were already known.
However, an even wider spectrum of opinion, especially embracing special interest
groups, was needed. Accordingly a series of committee meetings was held to receive
public input. Specific requests for comments were sent to organizations which had
earlier contacted the DNR regarding the park. Most notable of these groups were the
Michigan Association of Private Campground Owners, the Great Lakes Four Wheel Drive
Association, and the Kalamazoo River Preservation Association. Each group responded
with presentations to the committee as did many private individuals. At each committee
meeting time was set aside to receive public comments.
The scientific, public, and special interest goals for the
park were brought together with the concerns of local units of government during the
summer of 1980. With these views and concerns as guides, the committee defined the
various activities to be provided for in the proposed park. Inherent in the selection of
activities was the adoption of an informal theme for the park. That theme, nature study,
reflected the concern of the vast majority of area residents as well as the views of the
science advisory team. The nature study theme also underscored the truly unique ecological
character of the site. This theme strongly influenced all subsequent planning by the
committee and indeed by the DNR. In addition to nature study and preservation, the committee
chose to include interpretive vehicular dune rides, hiking trails, picnicking, swimming,
and organizational camping in the plan. Family camping, a standard feature of almost all
state parks, was specifically eliminated in order to reduce total user impact on the park.
The committee concurred with the opinion of the Campground Owners Association that private
enterprise could meet the camping needs of the area and thus avoid the need to commit state
lands or monies to camping.
The selection of specific areas to be used for particular
activties was one of the most important accomplishments of the committee. Granting eminent
recognition to the unique ecology of the area, and with close guidance from the master
parks planner from the DNR, the committee adopted the method of capability planning. Yielding
to the views of qualified scientists familiar with the site, the committee used the science
team recommendations directly as the basis for activity zone selection. Thus the highly
sensitive Luther-Uhl property was designated for complete preservation as a legally
defined natural area. This zone became the focal point of the plan.
The committee proposed an open space or general zone surrounding
the natural area in which only foot trail development was to be permitted. This
open space was to provide the buffer necessary for the actual protection of the
natural area. Near the natural area but isolated by open space was proposed an
interpretive dune ride area. In reality this designation merely recognized an
existing operation and suggested that it could be incorporated directly into the
park plan and perhaps be brought under direct park control. The committee chose an
area in the center of the park near the prison and on the site of a former summer
estate of the headquarters complex. The committee proposed that some existing
buildings be consigned to park use including the development of a nature and culture
center in the former estate mansion. Placement of the headquarters at this location
not only eliminated the need to disrupt new areas but it also strategically separated the
sensitive nature study zone from the more active use areas to the north.
The two primary active use zones of the park were proposed for
locations north of the prison. Picnic and group camping facilities were suggested for an
area immediately adjacent to the headquarters complex. Much of this section had been cleared
under earlier private ownership and a picnic and parking area constructed as part of the
1977 development of the park. The second active use zone was to be a swimming beach located
near the northern boundary of the park. The site chosen had been suggested for this use
by the scientific team because it had been severely altered from its natural state by
earlier activities. Two separate parking lots with a total of 500 cars capacity were to be
placed in barren areas about 1,000 feet inland from the beach. This 80-acre recreation zone
was to be reached by a single roadway through the northern open space zone. With these
designations, the committee concept for the park was complete.
Throughout this process the committee had been aided and guided
by recommendations from members of the science team and DNR planners. With the concept for
the park defined, the committee turned to the DNR for the technical work of producing a
detailed plan. In a series of meetings, DNR planner Larry Miller presented various design
and layout options to the committee. By an evolutionary process of design, modification,
redesign, and remodification, the committee and the DNR reached a compromise between
the diverse wishes of area residents and the practical reality of park architecture.
Throughout the compromise process both the committee and the DNR remained dedicated
to the nature study theme and to the concept of use based on land capability. As it finally
emerged, the plan contained virtually all of the initial desires of the committee and bore
no resemblance to the original DNR plan. The citizen dominance which the DNR built into
the membership of the committee clearly produced a citizen-dominated plan.
Although the plan had been produced totally in an "open meetings"
approach, the committee decided to take one final step to ensure public exposure.
Representatives of the committee presented the plan formally for review and comment at
scheduled meetings of each governmental agency that had been represented on the committee
and before the Natural Areas Conservancy of Western Michigan. The latter organization had
first recommended the Luther-Uhl tract for state acquisition. These presentations were not
for the purpose of seeking endorsement since each agency had had constant input and
feedback through their representative on the committee. Rather, the meetings were held
to ensure that all citizens received ample opportunity to review and comment on the plan.
In April 1981, a final public hearing was held on the Citizens
Advisory Committee plan. Comments received at the hearing became part of the information
sent with the plan for complete DNR review.
DNR Review
The plan submitted by the advisory committee was thoroughly
reviewed by three different divisions within the DNR. Parks Division, Lands Division,
and the Geological Survey each considered the plan and its impact on the area. Of
special concern was the environmental impact of the park on the sensitive shoreland
zone. The in-house review lasted several months and resulted in only three significant
changes or additions. At the insistence of the Geological Survey, the beach parking
area was reduced from 500 to 200 cars and placed at the most distant of the two
locations recommended by the committee. In addition, at the urging of the state
repesentative for the area and the Director of the Department of Management and Budget,
an administrative memo was attached to the plan calling for a permanent ban against
ORV use in the park and a prohibition against expansion of the prison onto lands
acquired for park use. All of these points were totally consistent with the wishes
of the committee and received that body's immediate concurrence.
Submission of the Plan
The plan for Saugatuck Dunes State Park was presented to the
Michigan Natural Resources Commission in December 1981. In this final step of the
planning process the Parks Division granted still more acknowledgment of public
participation. The plan was presented in December with a specific request that the
commission take no action until January, ensuring that anyone wishing to direct input
to the commission had the opportunity. Even more significantly, the Parks Division
took the unprecedented action of submitting the plan jointly with the Citizens
Advisory Committee. Perhaps without saying so, the Parks Division was yielding to
the public and final privilege of presenting the public's own plan. Perhaps in a
subtle form of role reversal, the DNR was merely standing to support a plan that the
public had created.
On January 14, 1982, the Michigan Natural Resources Commission
unanimously approved the master plan for Saugatuck Dunes State Park. It is, in the
words of one commissioner, the best plan that could possibly have been created under
the circumstances.
|
|
Top
|
Last updated June 26, 2007
Comments
regarding website design, errors, and maintenance only please.
|
|
|
|
|
