11-24-1992 PTRC Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORPAC DRAFT Issues 1 V12/92 Meeting Page 3 negatively affect the natural environments supporting outdoor recreation. The natural resource base and its needs must be assessed to determine how to protect it and thus sustain outdoor recreation opportunities. E. Coordination & Connections Many facets of Minnesota's outdoor recreation system need to be more effectively coordinated or connected. Several examples are listed below: 1) Outdoor recreation can be connected with environmental education. Parks can be educational places as well as recreational sites. Outdoor recreation can serve as the medium through which youth and adults alike can connect to the land and learn how to use and conserve the natural environment. 2) There are opportunities for more linkages among recreational facilities. Trails can connect parks while serving as transportation corridors (some of them lengthy). Parks can serve both recreational and educational needs. Natural areas can serve as a means to preserve open space, unique environments while providing educational and recreational opportunities to connect these areas. 3) There are opportunities for linkages among providers and participants. Participation by participants builds in a personal investment into the recreational system. Coordination and partnerships among private • and public providers can result in better recreational facilities, enhanced service delivery to users, and saves financial resources as well. These efforts may include shared funding, leases, or contracting for services. There is a need to bring institutional systems up-to-date with technological systems (GIS). 4) There are opportunities to better coordinate fragmented funding efforts. For example, funding comes from federal, state, local, and special district (e.g, IRRRB) sources without planning for how these activities link with one another. F. Roles & Responsibilities The role of public and private providers should be examined to determine the roles each provider should play. Overlapping jurisdictions should be reduced (e.g., wetlands regulation). We need to work within the current bureaucracy rather than build a new one. There is confusion among the providers and legislators on the proper roles of providers and founders -- SCORP could provide a framework for this role. There is also a need to work on data gathering and analysis for the state's outdoor recreation system. We need a means to look at the social charges taking place in Minnesota. Who do providers seek out for this data and to assess the data implications for recreation facility development and maintenance? For example, should grants be administered through DTED versus the implementing agencies DNRJMNDOT? Perhaps grants should not • come through the those implementing agencies.