. . . is you gotta be tough to live down here in Mid-Michigan. Having lived in the UP, I know that dressing appropriately allows inhabitants of the great, white north to enjoy winter to the fullest, the roads are better after worse weather, and I never saw an SAD light, although I would be interested in trying one. Having lived in Lower Michigan, I know that abundant, cloudy weather makes it difficult to motivate for outdoor recreation, especially since those clouds are most likely to bring wind and rain rather than glorious snow.

Ride at Pontiac Lake Recreation Area on a cloudy
Thanksgiving Day.

Rumor has it that “a city” in Michigan is one of the cloudiest cities in the United States, and some people will rank it as either number one or two, but this is not true. It is true, however, that Michigan is pretty darn cloudy, and it doesn’t take a genius or fancy meteorological equipment to figure that out.

I decided to find a worthy source for data pertaining to the amount of cloud cover throughout the United States. I checked with NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

NOAA has a beautiful, plain-text web page with the “Ranking of Cities Based on % Annual Possible Sunshine in Descending Order from Most to Least Average Possible Sunshine.” For those of you who are mathematically challenged, this means that the sunniest city, which is Yuma, Arizona, is at the top of the list with 90% annual average possible sunshine. The cloudiest city, which is Juneau, Alaska, is at the bottom of the list ranking at 174 with 30% annual average possible sunshine.

Clouds over Copper Harbor and Lake Superior.

Disclaimer: NOAA did not Di-proof the data by assigning each city with a rank, so I had to count down the list to figure out the Michigan rankings and the total number of cities where observations were made. Simply put, the rankings could be off by one or two, but that really doesn’t change my point. In hindsight, I should have copied and pasted the information into Word and then created an ordered list. Ah, well, live and learn.

Data was collected at the various sites for differing amounts of time up until 2004. The least data was collected in Pensacola, Florida for only five years, whereas the most data was collected in Blue Hill, Massachusetts for 112 years.

A plane flying into clouds
over the Pontiac Lake
Recreation Area.

How does all of this affect Michigan? Well, data was collected at six Michigan locations: Alpena, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Marquette, and Sault Ste. Marie (soo SAINT marIE for those of you who are not familiar with the funky pronunciations of Michigan cities). Data was collected for varying amounts of time:

• Alpena – 37 years

• Detroit – 31 years
• Grand Rapids – 36 years
• Lansing – 42 years
• Marquette – 21 years
• Sault Ste. Marie – 55 years

Detroit (dee TROIT ) was the first city to rank on this fantastic list at 140 with 53% annual average possible sunshine, while Grand Rapids was the cloudiest observed Michigan city ranking at 161 with only 46% annual average possible sunshine:

• 140 Detroit 53%

• 147 Lansing 51%
• 151 Marquette 50%
• 155 Alpena 48%
• 159 Sault Sainte Marie 47%
• 161 Grand Rapids 46%

Since Seattle is often used as a comparison for cloudiness, for the sake of comparison, it ranks at 160 with 47% annual average possible sunshine, just above Grand Rapids. Of the observed cities, the only ones with lower annual average possible sunshine are in Hawaii – yes, Hawaii – New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and some U.S. territories.

While Michigan’s cities are not the cloudiest, or even the second cloudiest, they are most certainly at the bottom of the totem pole for sunshine. On average, Michigan cities have 49% annual average possible sunshine, which works out to about 179 sunny days per year.

Dear EAC members:

Public involvement is a vital part of many programs administers by the Departments of Natural Resources (DNR) and Environmental Quality (DEQ). A successful public involvement process ensures that those who are most likely affected by a decision are notified, understand the proposed decision, and have an opportunity to provide meaningful input prior to a DNR or DEQ action. Staff from the DNR and DEQ has put together a survey to better understand how the public participation process is currently working and where improvements can be made. Please take a moment to answer a short survey on public participation.

Please only respond to the survey once and share the link with others who can provide feedback.

Thank you for providing input into this important process.

Susan Kilmer
MDEQ

The Michigan House and Senate are set to vote on the State Park, Boating Access Site and Forest Recreation Passport Fee on Thursday, November 12, 2010. That is THIS Thursday.

Many of you have already contacted your Senators and Representatives. I am asking you to contact them one last time. This time, the number of emails in support of these bills is more important than the plethora of reasons why these bills should pass. We have already told them why. Now we need to tell them YES!

You can view the bills and related information at the following pages:
• Senate Bills 388 & 389 (2009)
• House Bills 4677 & 4678 (2009)

I have provided detailed information regarding these bills in prior posts:
• State Park, Boating Access Site and Forest Recreation Passport Fee
• Michigan State Recreation Funding Update

If you support this bill, contact your Senator letting him/her know that this is the right choice for funding Michigan’s natural resources. Find your senator or representative by clicking on the following links:

• Michigan State Representatives
• Michigan State Senators

The following is a brief email I composed. Feel free to use this as a template, but it is probably best to make some changes – make it your own. I’ve been told that form letters are often cast aside.

Senator Mike Prusi:

I am writing to you in support of SB 388 and 389 regarding the State Park, Boating Access Site and Forest Recreation Passport Fee.

Michigan is currently considering the option of selling state land because the DNR can no longer financially support these lands and our parks. As a Michigan citizen and voter, I consider this an unacceptable action.

Only one financial solution has been proposed to the Michigan legislature. SB 388 and 389 are based on a system that has been successfully implemented in Montana. Implementing this system in Michigan would cost the State of Michigan no additional funding, but would allow the citizens to pay an optional fee in support of our parks.

Please vote YES for SB 388 and 389.

Sincerely,
Diane Ursu

Related Article

Senate and House votes expected on Thursday

The State Park, Boating Access Site and Forest Recreation Passport Fee bill passed the Michigan House of Representatives Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources Committee and is currently under consideration by the Michigan Senate Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee.

Senate Bill 389 would amend the Michigan Vehicle Code to provide for a State park, public boating access site, and forest recreation passport that a Michigan resident could obtain by paying an additional fee when registering a motor vehicle; and require the Secretary of State to transfer the fee revenue to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Senate Bill 388 would amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) to do the following:

– Prescribe the distribution of revenue from the proposed recreation passport fee.
– Apply existing provisions regarding motor vehicle park permits and fees to nonresident vehicles and commercial motor vehicles (CMVs).
– Eliminate provisions establishing park permit fees for resident motor vehicles, and eliminate the January 1, 2010, sunset on nonresident motor vehicle fees.
– Prescribe a daily park permit fee of $15 for CMVs.
– Create the “Local Public Recreation Facilities Fund” to provide grants to local units of government for the development of public recreation facilities.
– Authorize money from specified accounts within the Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund to be spent as provided in the bill.
– Require the Citizens Committee for Michigan State Parks to make recommendations to the Legislature for savings in State park and forest recreation programs.
– Eliminate legislative intent language regarding the use of General Fund/General Purpose money for State park operations.

The bills are tie-barred to each other. They would take effect on January 1, 2010.

Further analysis of these bills:
• S.B. 388 & 389
• H.B. 4677 & 4678

The biggest misconception regarding this bill is that the State Park, Boating Access Site and Forest Recreation Passport Fee is a tax. I cannot state this enough:

THIS FEE IS NOT A TAX!!!

A tax is mandatory and can be channeled into the state’s General Fund to be distributed at the state government’s discretion. The State Park, Boating Access Site and Forest Recreation Passport Fee is an optional fee that is considered a donation. This donation is protected by two state laws guaranteeing that this money will be distributed to the parks as described in the STATE PARK FEES S.B. 388 & 389: COMMITTEE SUMMARY.

The following was sent out by the Citizen’s Committee, last month:

Dear Michigan State Park, Forest Recreation and Local Park Supporter:

Many of you were able to attend the press conference on March 12 where state Senators Birkholz and Basham and Representatives Warren and Meekhof announced a set of bills to eliminate the motor vehicle permit for Michigan residents to Michigan State Parks and Michigan boating access sites and better fund the state park system. These bills reflect the spirit and direction of recommendations made by the Citizens Committee on Michigan State Parks, who have studied state park funding around the nation for the past two years. They are modeled on Montana’s successful program that eliminated motor vehicle permits for residents and replaced it with an optional fee on vehicle registrations.

The new system proposed in Senate Bills 388 and 389 would ask every Michigan driver to pay an optional $10 fee each year when renewing their Michigan vehicle registration on non-commercial vehicles. While non-residents would still have to purchase a non-resident motor vehicle permit, worker time in entrance booths at most parks would be drastically reduced, resulting in cleaner bathrooms, less litter, better resource stewardship and increased interpretation and security. In addition to providing support for state parks and boating access sites, this would also provide funding for our outstanding and underfunded state forest recreation system including more than 140 rustic campgrounds and almost a thousand miles of non-motorized pathways that serve hikers, mountain bikers, cross country skiers and equestrians. Finally, it would approximately double the amount of grant money annually available to local units of government to renovate or improve recreational facilities in local parks across Michigan.

As you probably know, our State parks have not received any general tax dollars since 2004. They are funded mainly by camping fees, motor vehicle permits and some support from the State Park Endowment fund. This Endowment was established by voters in 1994 and enshrined Michigan’s constitution and was envisioned to provide adequate monies to renovate and replace failing infrastructure. Unfortunately, the total absence of general fund dollars has forced State Parks to use Endowment funds on day to day management to keep the parks open. As a result, the system is one catastrophe short of collapsing and driven by user fee revenue, limiting its conservation mission. With the collapse in March 2009 of the roof at the visitor center at Ludington State Park and the bridge washout from flooding at Warren Dunes State Park on the only road to the busiest beach in the state park system, the park system is stretched to the breaking point.

The Citizens Committee on Michigan State Parks is reaching out to the public to come to the rescue of our great state park system and its important partners in outdoor recreation, state forests and local parks. We need your help! We need to let every citizen and every legislator know that we treasure our state parks and forests and local parks and will no longer stand by and let them fall further into disrepair. We need to let them know that these public lands are our legacy to our children and grandchildren and we can never replace them once they are lost. We need to let them know that we support this innovative alternative to involve more people in funding our state parks, increase convenience for Michigan residents as your license plate is your state park passport and convert thousands of park worker hours from cashier duty to better maintenance, security, interpretation and resource stewardship. Please take this opportunity to communicate with your legislators and support this innovative approach to better conserve and fund Michigan state parks, boating access sites, state forest recreation system and local parks.

Sincerely,

The Citizens Committee for Michigan State Parks

If you support this bill, contact your senator and representative letting them know that this is the right choice for Michigan’s natural resources. Find your senator and representative by clicking on the following links:

• Michigan State Representatives
• Michigan State Senators

I didn’t have a form letter to work off of, this time, so I had to write up this little gem that is tailored to my unique situation:

State Representative Mike Lahti & Senator Mike Prusi:

I am writing to you in support of HB 4677 and 4678/SB 388 and 389 regarding the State Park, Boating Access Site and Forest Recreation Passport Fee.

The importance of this bill, for me, stems from two different viewpoints: one as someone who grew up in the Lansing area and the other as a Keweenaw resident. Having lived downstate for much of my life, I recognize the great importance of the limited green space provided on public lands at an affordable cost, one that any family of any income level can afford. As a Keweenaw resident, I am a mountain biking advocate and volunteer trail builder. I strongly encourage people to visit the Keweenaw and am frequently contacted for advice regarding the area. For those that are making a long trip, the lower cost of a state park versus a hotel can be the deciding factor of whether or not to come. During those times when tourism is at its highest, the state parks are an absolute necessity because they offer a place to stay for many more people. Of course, I don’t need to tell you how important tourism is to us.

Last, but not least, the greatest reason for me to maintain my loyalty to Michigan is access to public lands throughout the state. Michigan’s abundance and type of natural resources are unique to this state. Michigan has a character all its own. Even in this economically-challenged time, our natural resources are what keep Michigan a desirable place to live.

The Recreation Passport Fee is a method of funding that has been successfully proven in Montana. If Michigan residents respond in the same manner, our state parks will not only break even, but will have additional funding to create more jobs and improve what we already have. I truly believe in the Recreation Passport Fee. Please support HB 4677 and 4678/SB 388 and 389.

Sincerely,

Diane Ursu