Public Recreation Access Programs

Michigan Office of the
Auditor General
Thomas H. McTavish, C.P.A.
Auditor General

EXECUTIVE DIGEST #7518097
Public Recreation Access Programs

INTRODUCTION
This report, issued in August 1998, contains the results of our performance audit of the Public Recreation Access Programs, Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

AUDIT PURPOSE
This performance audit was conducted as part of the constitutional responsibility of the Office of the Auditor General. Performance audits are conducted on a priority basis related to the potential for improving effectiveness and efficiency.

BACKGROUND
DNR is responsible for managing various programs that offer public recreational access to Michigan residents and visitors. The most expansive of these is the State forest program, which consists of approximately 3.9 million acres of forests that offer various types of recreational opportunities. DNR's 96 State parks and recreation areas; various trails; Great Lakes marinas; and boating, hunting, and fishing access sites offer additional public recreational opportunities.

AUDIT OBJECTIVE AND CONCLUSION
Audit Objective: To determine if DNR was effective in ensuring public access to meet public interest.

Conclusion: DNR was generally effective in ensuring public access to meet public interest. Although we found no material conditions, we identified two reportable conditions related to stakeholder surveys and public access publications.

AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Our audit scope was to examine the program and other records of the Department of Natural Resources' public recreation access programs. Our audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and, accordingly, included such tests of the records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

Our methodology included examining program records and activities for the period October 1, 1995 through April 30, 1998.

To accomplish our objective, we obtained an understanding of DNR's public recreation access programs by conducting a preliminary survey. We reviewed data on public interest to determine if it was current and whether DNR used it for making public recreation access need projections. Also, we compared various information to determine the consistency of data used.

We analyzed public access property acquisitions to determine if they were consistent with established priorities. Also, we determined if DNR was effective in acquiring public access properties. In addition, we reviewed property acquisition planning to determine that plans include site development and maintenance.

AGENCY RESPONSES
Our audit report includes 2 findings and 3 corresponding recommendations. DNR agreed with all 3 recommendations.

Full Audit Report - #7518097 - Public Recreation Access Programs

Documents prefaced by require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®, a free application available on the Adobe homepage.

This page was created on 08/11/98.


INTRODUCTION This report, issued in August 1998, contains the results of our performance audit of the Public Recreation Access Programs, Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

AUDIT PURPOSE This performance audit was conducted as part of the constitutional responsibility of the Office of the Auditor General. Performance audits are conducted on a priority basis related to the potential for improving effectiveness and efficiency.

BACKGROUND DNR is responsible for managing various programs that offer public recreational access to Michigan residents and visitors. The most expansive of these is the State forest program, which consists of approximately 3.9 million acres of forests that offer various types of recreational opportunities. DNR's 96 State parks and recreation areas; various trails; Great Lakes marinas; and boating, hunting, and fishing access sites offer additional public recreational opportunities.

AUDIT OBJECTIVE AND CONCLUSION Audit Objective: To determine if DNR was effective in ensuring public access to meet public interest. Conclusion: DNR was generally effective in ensuring public access to meet public interest. Although we found no material conditions, we identified two reportable conditions related to stakeholder surveys and public access publications.

AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY Our audit scope was to examine the program and other records of the Department of Natural Resources' public recreation access programs. Our audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and, accordingly, included such tests of the records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our methodology included examining program records and activities for the period October 1, 1995 through April 30, 1998. To accomplish our objective, we obtained an understanding of DNR's public recreation access programs by conducting a preliminary survey. We reviewed data on public interest to determine if it was current and whether DNR used it for making public recreation access need projections. Also, we compared various information to determine the consistency of data used. We analyzed public access property acquisitions to determine if they were consistent with established priorities. Also, we determined if DNR was effective in acquiring public access properties. In addition, we reviewed property acquisition planning to determine that plans include site development and maintenance.

AGENCY RESPONSES Our audit report includes 2 findings and 3 corresponding recommendations. DNR agreed with all 3 recommendations.