Recreational demand, opportunities, and limitations in Connecticut's coastal area

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

planning report no. 'q;

IRPP

00-1
coastal

GV
191 42
N*PPPPPP-

.C8
S36 .creatio

,....@nnecticut coastal area management program

IX,

RECREATIONAL DEMAND, OPPORTUNITIES, AND LIMITATIONS

IN CONNECTICUT'S COASTAL AREA

Prepared for the
State of Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection
Coastal Area Management Program
by
Margaret N. Schneider
March, 1978

al
coast
I
ama
re
M
71 captol ave-ue hartforct corn 06TJ5

P R E F A C E

This report was prepared by Margaret N. Schneider under the super-
vision and guidance of the staff of the Coastal Area Management Program.
Ms. Schneider was an environmental intern with the CAM Program under the
auspices of the Massachusetts Audubon Society's Environmental Intern
Program. She is currently working toward a Master's Degree in Forestry
Science from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

This report assesses recreational demand, opportunities and limitations
in Connecticut's coastal area and recommends a planning process for the
protection ofand access to Connecticut's shorefront area. Views or opinions
expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
the policies, official or unofficial, of the Connecticut Coastal Area
Management Program or Advisory Board.

This report was financed in part by a grant through the Office of
Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
of the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972.

T,.A B L E 0 F C 0 N T E N T S

Page

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

DEFINITION OF THE TERM BEACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

COASTAL RECREATION: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . 5

Insufficient Recreational Resources to meet
Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Conflicts Between Recreational and Other Coastal
Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 8

Capacity and Intensity Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CONNETICUT'S COASTAL RECREATIONAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . 11

Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Coastal Recreational Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Recreational Resource Deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

AREAS OF POTENTIAL RECREATIONAL USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Potential for Expansion of Existing Facilities . . . . . . 27

Areas Recommended for Study as Potential or Improved
Access Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

POTENTIAL METHODS FOR ENHANCING SHOREFRONT ACCESS . . . . . . . 31

Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Land Use Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Provision of Access by the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . 33

Increase Access Through Affirmation of Existing Public
Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Management Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

i-i

Page

COMPLEMENTARY LEGISLATION AND FUNDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

EXISTING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

SCORP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Long Island Sound Regional Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

PLANNING FOR INCREASED SHOREFRONT ACCESS IN CONNECTICUT . . . . . . '43

Coastal Recreational Resources and Opportunities - Summary 43

Proposed Shorefront Access Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . 43

APPENDICES

Appendix A: National Outdoor Recreation Participation
Rates

Appendix B: Town Shoreline Descriptions

Appendix C: Beach Associations

Appendix D: Designated Public Recreational Beaches

Appendix E: State Boat Launching Ramps; Marinas

Appendix F: State Owned Recreation or Preserve Properties
in Coastal Towns

Appendix G: Islands

Appendix H: Complementary Legislation and Funding

T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S

page

TABLE I Compatibility Matrix 9

FIGURE 1 Materials of Connecticut Shore 12

TABLE 2 Distribution of Sandy Beach 13

TABLE 3 Ownership of Sandy Beaches 17

TABLE 4 Access to Designated Public Recreational Beaches 18

TABLE 5 Recreational Lands In The Coastal Area 21

I N T R 0 D U C T 1 0 N

This report addresses subsection 305(b)(7) of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 which requires that:

"The manaqement program for each coastal state shall
include...a definition of the term "beach" and a
planning process for the protection of, and access to,
public beaches and other public coastal areas of
environmental, recreational, historical, esthetic,
ecological, or cultural value."

This report proposes a coastal access planning process based on the
evaluation of Connecticut's coastal resources and existing recreational
facilities. Opportunities for increasing shorefront access in Connecticut
are limited by two major facotrs: (1) The amount of physical resource
suitable for recreational use is small. This is a result of the physical
characteristics of the coastline, the existing land use development
patterns and the degraded water quality in many areas of Long Island
Sound. (2) There are limited funds available for recreational development.
Given these limiting factors, a shorefront access planning process
which is both an integral part of the Coastal Area Management Program
and of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan is recommended.

The single most important factor limiting increased shorefront
access is the pattern of existing coastal development. Given the limited
amount of undeveloped land in the coastal zone the competition between
alternative coastal uses is great. While recreation is an important
use of coastal land it is not the only potential use. As in any resource
allocation process trade-offs have to be made. In order to determine
the priority which recreation should assume in this resource allocation
process detailed information on the demand for all types of coastal recreation
and the capacity of other recreational opportunities to satisfy this demand
must be determined. Access planning is therefore closely linked to state-
wide recreational planning. As both an integral part of the Coastal Area
Management Program and the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
the proposed shorefront access planning process for Connecticut should
continually evaluate coastal recreational needs and establish priorities
among competing coastal land uses throughout the coastal area.

D E F I N I T 1 0 N 0 F T H E T E R M B E A C H

The distinction between two interchangably used terms, beach and
shore, is important to the clarity of this section. Webster defines the
two terms as follows: l/

Shore - land at or near the edge of a body of water.
Beach - a nearly level stretch of pebbles and sand beside a sea, lake,
etc, often washed by high water.

From the legal perspective the shore is divided into four portions: 2/

1. Sea: that area seaward of the mean low tide.

2. Wet - sand area (foreshore or tidelands): "area between mean
low tide and mean high tide lines which is covered by the
daily flow of tides."

3. Dry - sand area: "area between mean high tide line and line of
vegetation. An area which is inundated only by severe
storms."

4. Upland: "area landward of the vegetation line."

The definitions of mean high tide, mean low tide, and vegetation lines
are much disputed. Generally, the mean high water line is established through
observation over a 19 year period.

Ownership of these four sections varies from state to state. In
Connecticut the state owns land seaward of the mean high water mark. The
"seaward" boundary of this ownership was established in the Submerged Lands
Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. �1301-1343). This act quit claimed lands under
navigable waters to a distance of three miles or to approved state boundaries.
Connecticut owns all lands from the mean high water mark seaward to the
congressionally approved state boundaries with New York and Rhode Island.

Ownership of the wet-sand areas is of a special nature. This land
is owned under the jus publicum or public trust doctrine. This land is
held in trust by the state for its citizens. The interests of the public
must be considered paramount in this area.

l/ Webster's New Worl.d Dictionary (New York: World Pub'l Co., 1962).

21 David Owens and David Brower, Public Use of Coastal Beaches (Raleigh, N.C.:
University of North Carolina Sea Grant College Program., 1976). p. 15.

-3-

-4-

For the purpose of planning under section 305(b)(7) of the Coastal
Zone Management Act and all relevant sections the following definition,
corresponding to recognzied ownership patterns, shall apply:

Public Beach - the public beach is that portion of the state
owned land seaward of the mean high line, which is between the
mean high and mean low tide lines (wet-sand area). This area is
held in public trust by the state for the citizens of Connecticut.

C 0 A S T A L RECREATION: A' NATIONAL P E R S P E C T I V E

Recreation is one of the most popular and fastest growing uses
of the coastal zone. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation estimated that
in 1965 forty-four percent of all those who participated in outdoor re-
creational activities preferred water-based activities. It is expected
that swimming will be the most preferred recreational activity by 1980. 3/
Nationwide the demand for coastal outdoor recreation activities is cur-
rently exceeding the effective supply, and the situation given projected
increases in participation rates is only expected to worsen. 4/

There are no uniform "solutions" for the coastal access problem. Each
states' coastline is unique and presents unique recreational opportunities
and management problems. There are, however, several major "coastal
recreation problems" which are common to all states. These are: 5/

1. Insufficient recreational resources to meet demand.

2. Insufficient public access to existing recreational
resources.

3. Conflicts between recreational and other coastal uses.

4. Disagreement over the capacity of recreation areas and the
intensity at which areas should be managed.

Before discussing the status of Connecticut's coastal recreation opportunities
it is useful to discuss the basic components of these coastal recreation
problems.

INSUFFICIENT RECREATIONAL RESOURCES TO MEET DEMAND

Two factors, the suitability and the availability of a resource,,
interact to determine the supply of recreational resources. The suitability of
the physical resource varies with the recreational activity. For example

3/ U.S. Outdoor Recreation Review Commission, Prospective Demand For
Outdoor Recreation (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962) p.36.

4/ Dennis Ducsik, "The Crisis in Shoreline Recreation" in Power, Pollution
and Public Policy (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1970) p.93.

5/ Robert Ditton and Mark Stephens, Coastal Recreation: A Handbook For
Planners and Mana ers For U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal
Zone Management Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976) p.1-2.

-6-

steep rocky shores are generally unsuitable for swim beaches but may
serve as boat access areas. Tidal wetlands, in their natural state,
are unsuitable for either swimming or boating activities. Other environ-
mental factors such as water quality also affect the suitability of a
resource for recreation.

The availibility of a resource for recreational use and/or development
is largely determined by the existing land use patterns. Historically,
this country's "vast" coastline served as a gateway for the nation. Early
settlements grew up along the coast and developed into large centers for
transportation and commerce. Existing land use patterns reflect these
early development patterns. It is estimated that fifty-four percent of
the nations population is concentrated within a fifty mile strip of the
coastline, an area which accounts for only eight percent of the country's
land area. 6/ Coastal land use today is characterized, particularily in
New EnglancF, by high levels of development and private ownership.

The demand for coastal recreation while very visible is difficult to
quantify. Recreational demand exists as expressed demand and latent
demand. Expressed demand is demand which is demonstrated; this demand
is reflected in rates of participation. Latent demand is that demand which
goes unexpressed. Latent demand may remain unexpressed as a result of
many factors including the lack of money, time, facilities (-Supply) or
overcrowding. The Long Island Sound Study has identified areas of high
population density where incomes are low and access has been precluded
by development and degrading water quality as areas of high latent demand. 7/

Latent demand is an important factor which must be accounted for in
the recreational planning process. There is, however, no standard or
uniform method for measuring this demand component.

Rates of participation are frequently used to estimate recreational
demand. These figures may reflect activity demand but due to the latent
demand component they are not totally synonymous with demand. Participation
rates are "the result of the interaction between supply and demand factors
and are a management of consequent consumption or quantities taken by re-
creationists, given these supplies and demands.` 8/ Trends in participation

6/ Dennis Ducsik, Shoreline for the Public (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press,
1974) p. I

7/ Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, "Outdoor Recreation and Long Island
Sound: Demand, Supply, Needs." Planning Aid Report No. 3 for New
England River Basins Commission. (June 1973) p.2

8/ Marion Clawson and Jack Knetsch, Economics of Outdoor Recreation
(Balto, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1966) p. 115.

-7-

rates may be used to project demand if one accounts for the supply con-
siderations and shifts between latent and expressed demand. 9/ Projections
for rates of participation in outdoor recreation have been m@aide on a
nationwide basis. Such trends, however, should not be arbitarily applied
to a specific section of a given state. 10/ In the absence of a user-study
specific to a state's coastal area, dem@_a_nd estimates based on participation
rates are inappropriate. While demand may not be precisely quantified,
demand for coastal recreational opportunities is very visible.

INSUFFICIENT ACCESS TO EXISTING RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

Access to existing facilities is often.restricted to certain user
groups. In the northeast three major barriers restrict the general public
access to recreational areas. Many recreational areas are privately owned.
Private ownership of the upland and ary-sand areas of a shoreline ef-
fectively bar general public access to the public beach. Publicly owned
shorefront (including the dry-sand and upland areas) for recreation is
scarce in the U.S.. The following table prepared by the Outdoor Recreation
Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) in 1962 demonstrates the extent of the
problem.

Total Publicly Public
Shoreline Erodable Owned Recreation
Location Shoreline Shoreline Use

Atlantic ocean 27,680 6,260 2,130
and
Gulf of Mexico

Pacific Ocean 4.9650 1,240 790

Great Lakes 3,680 6SO 370

Total 36,010 8,150 3,290

Alaska and Hawaii excluded.

Source: U. S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers,
Report on the National Shoreline Study, Washington, D. C.
(1971), at 43-44

9/ Ibid, p.116.

10/ A summary of national rates of participation in water-based activities is
provided in Appendix A. It should be noted that these figures reflect
national trends and are based on findings of a 1962 ORRRC report and may not
adequately reflect today's trends. Further the activities list does not
encompass the full range of coastal activities. It also appears unlikely
that trends for a particular geographic region of a given state can be
"broken-out" from national trends and remain statistically valid.

-8-

On a national average less than two percent of the shoreline is publicly
owned as recreation shoreland, this accounts for five and a half percent
of the total recreational shoreline. ll/

Access to public recreation lands is not always open to the general
public. Use restrictions, particularily residency requirements, are in-
creasingly being imposed on municipally owned lands in an attempt to
limit user numbers. Finally, our reliance on private cars as a means of
transportation to and from access areas restricts both the user classes
and the user numbers due to parking limitations.

CONFLICTS BETWEEN RECREATIONAL AND OTHER COASTAL USERS

Uses of the coastline include commercial, industrial, residential
and recreational. Highly developed uses such as industry and commerce
are often incompatible with recreation.

"The practical and aesthetic requirements of clear water,
adequate land area, safety and pleasant surroundings, and
necessary recreation developments can rarely be assured in
conjunction with commerce, industry, housing and transportation." 12/

Patterns of coastal development have excluded much shorefront from
alternative uses. In addition to these conflicts in use there exist
conflicts between different recreational uses.

The unique character of the coastal zone and the ecosystems it
supports makes it an area capable of offering many recreational experiences.
Each recreational activity places a different "demand" on the recreational
resource. The type of use an activity places on a resource and the
amount of support facilities which the activity requires determines both
the activity's impact on the environment and its compatibility with other
recreational activities. Table 1 (page 9 ) presents a compatibility matrix for the
major water dependent and water enhanced activities. In general, the more
intense or more resource copsumptive the recreational activity the less
compatible it is with other activities. In addition to these use conflicts,
the intensity of recreational activities and the development of support
facilities poses many management problems.

ll/ Dennis Ducsik, "The Crisis in Shoreline Recreation" op. cit., p. 99.

12/ The George Washington University, "Shoreline Recreation Resources of
The U.S., " Study Report No. 4 to ORRRC (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1962) p.7.

=Mon MM MM M MM MM mmm M

TABLE 1

COMPATIBILITY MATRIX

Hiking, nature
Water- walks,walking
Swimming Boating Fishing Skiing Picnicking for pleasure Camping
SWIMMING impacts water Separation See boating Compatible Compatible in Compatible in
quality, noise should be ----------- in multiple multiple use, multiple use
wake, safety maintained. Incompatible use facility low develop- facility.
hazard. ---------- ment facility.
------------- Compatible
Incompatibility if zoned.
in close areas

Boating shore and Dependent No influence Boating may May enhance
boat fishing detract from overall
ma be incom- experience experience
patible due
to noise
and wake.

Fishing Incompatible Non- No in- May
Influence fluence enhance

Waterskiing No In- lznn May
-, V. U
fluence Boating enhance
Picnicking May Dependent
enhance

Hiking etc. Low density
camping is
compatible

Camping

CAPACITY AND INTENSITY DETERMINATIONS

Recreational planners and managers must determine both the intensity
of the recreational experience to be provided and the capacity of a given
recreation area. The intensity of the recreational experience is determined
largely by the support facilities provided. Generally the more support
facilities provided, the more intense or consumptive the recreational
activities are. Thus capacity and level of support facilities are often
correlated. Capacity is defined in many ways. One may speak of "design"
capacity or of "natural carrying" capacity. The first concept stresses
man-spatial relations while the latter stresses the natural system's ability
to withstand continued use without depleting or damaging the resource.
Since the quality of a recreational experience is dependent both on
the resource integrity and spacing, a definition of recreational capacity
attempts to combine the design and carry capacity concepts. Recreational
carrying capacity is defined as: 13/

"The predictable optimum amount of recreational activity
that a recreation site can support or provide without
permanent physical or biological deterioration of the site
and/or appreciable impairment of the recreation experience."

The capacity of a resource is most frequently determined by dividing
the resource (area) by a space standard (area/person). The determination
by space standards should account for both the carrying capacity of the
resource and the effects which people - spacing has on the user'-s satisfaction
with the recreational experience (spatial or design capacity).

The use of space standards poses several problems. There is no one
space standard that can be applied to a given activity. The number of
standards which may be used is as varied as the number of "recreational
experiences" a resource can offer. The "recreational experience", and
11user satisfaction" derived from that experience is a very personal matter
and involves components which are independent of the resource. In theory
the use of space standards to determine capacity is effective. However,
the magnitude of demand being placed on existing recreational resources has
resulted in the misuse of these space standards. Many states have begun to
11manipulate" resource capacity definitions and suggested space standards in
an effort to justify expansion of support facilities without new acquisitions
of land. The effect of such approaches will be gradual redefinition of a
"beach experience" and a realignment of user expectations. Unfortunately,
while more people will be accomodated and have a "satisfying" experience,
the capacity of the resource to withstand intensive use will be largely ignored.
In the long run this may cause many new problems for recreational planners and
managers.

13/ Ditton, op. cit., p. 1-1.

C 0 N N E C T I C U T ' S C 0 A S T A L R E C R E A T 1 0 N A L

R E S 0 U R C E S

PHYSICAL RESOURCES

Beaches

Sandy beaches provide the most demanded coastal recreational opportunities
in Connecticut. This physical resource is, however, neither abundant nor evenly
distributed. The occurrance and distribution of shoreline features are a result
of a number of physical and geologic processes. Predominant in determining
coastal configuration is the nature of the under]-ying bedrock, the effects of
glaciation and the subsequent rise of sea level.14/ These basic concepts as
well as the process of sediment erosion, deposif-Toin and transport which are
responsible for the dynamic nature of the shoreline are described in
Long Island Sound: An Atlas of Natural Resources. 15/

What is fundamental to this discussion of "beach" access is the pattern
of resource distribution which have resulted from these geologic and physical
processes. As previously mentioned, sandy beaches, the access to which is
the most desired of the coastal resources, are not abundant in Connecticut.
To properly assess Connecticu@'s coastal access situation existing access
must be evaluated with respect to both the occurrance and distribution of
coastal resources. Connecticut's coastal frontage 16/amounts to 458 miles.
of this frontage 84.@ Wes or 18% .i-s sandy beach. This beach varies
greatly in length, width and a quality. Analysis of CAM coastal
resource map@, reveals that as much as one third of th state's beaches-.ju-e
lpc,,- than 150 Q gpp@ jAlength. Because of their small size such beac=s@
afford only limited pub-77-Mreational opportunities.
Bloom (1967) has described in detail the distribution of coastal resources
including beaches, rocky headlands and tidal wetiands.1 7/ Bloom's description
of coastal geomorphology is based on the division of tfie-shoreline into seven
egments based on the nature and distribution of sediments and bedrock. A
brief review of this information provided by Bloom is extremely helpful in
s
the assessment of existing and potential coastal access opportunities, particularly
recreational beach access. "he seven coastal sagmpnts depicted in Figure I (page 12
are described briefly below. Table 2 (paqe 13) indicates the occurance of sandy beach
in each of these segments. Additional information and map references for
each of the coastal towns is provided in-Appendix B.

L14/ Arthur Gains, "Connecticut Shoreline Survey: New Haven to Watch Hill"
(Dept. of Army, New England Division, CorDs of Engineers, 1973) p.l.
IF/ See Chapter 3: Shoreline Features and Processes in Long Island Sound: An
Ttlas of Natural Resources, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,
_Co_i`st__aT_Trea Management Program, November 1977.
16/ Coastal frontage i-n-cludes Long Island Sound frontage and riverine frontage
in the 36 coastal towns. (See Appendix B for detailed descriptions). Off-
shore islands which are not included in this figure provide an additional
90 miles of coastline.

171 Arthur Bloom, Coastal Geomorphology of Connecticut. (Final Report, Geography
Branch.Office of Naval Research, June 15, 1967).

CRY, Figure 1. DISTRIBUT IION OF SHORELINE FEATURES

Norwalk Bridgeport

gg
Stamford

'A xx 0
V

C. Glacial drif

B. Glacial drift and beaches
A. Rock and drift; much artificial fill LONG ISLAND SOUND

x
New,
Madison 0 0 London, Stonington

.. . ........ '--

E. Glacial drift and beaches F. Glacial drift and rock G. Rock and marshes

0 5 10miles LONG ISLAND SOUND
Source

-12-

TABLE 2

DISTRIBUTION OF SANDY BEACH

SEGMENT TOWN COASTAL FRONTAGE SANDY BEACH SANDY BEACH
(miles) (miles) % frontage

Greenwich 27.2 1.7 6.2

Stamford 15.0 3.4 23.3
A Darien 16.5 .3 1.8

Norwalk 17.0 .6 3.5

Westport 18.9 5.9 31.2

Fairfield 10.4 3.2 30.8

Bridgeport 18.0 2.5 13.9

Stratford 13.2 4.9 37.1

Milford 19.3 8.7 45.1

West Haven 7.9 4.4 55.7
C New Haven 18.0 1.3 7.2

East Haven 3.4 2.3 67.6

D Branford 18.6 3.4 18.3

Guilford 14.8 1.4 9.4

Madison 8.5 6.1 71.8

Clinton 8.7 4.0 45.9

E Westbrook 7.4 3.9 52.7

Old Saybrook 18.6 4.9 26.3

Old Lyme 17.1 4.3 25.1

East Lyme 19.9 6.3 31.7
F Waterford 22.4 4.0 17.8

New London 9.1 2.1 23.1

Groton 26.9 3.8 14.1
L Stonington 37.9 1.0 2.6

-14-

A. Byram Point to Norwalk Harbor (Greenwich, Stamford, Darien,
Norwalk to harbor)

This segment is characterized by extensive bedrock exposures
and small pocket beaches. Filling and bulkheading has occurred
extensively in this area.

B. Norwalk Harbor to Milford Harbor (Norwalk, Norwalk Islands, West-
port, Fairfield, Bridgeport, Stratford, Milford to harbor)

This segment is one of the two segments of glacial drift and
beaches. The area has many long barrier beaches notably are those
forming Sherwood Island, Fairfield Beach, Long Beach, and Myrtle
Silver Beach. In addition the Norwalk Islands, thought to be
part of an end moraine, provi:de additional shoreline with
recreational potential.

C. Milford Harbor to New Haven Harbor (Milford, West Haven and
New Haven)

Man's influence on this "urban segment" has been high.
While few small pocket beaches would be expected to occur
naturally between rocky headlands much filling, artificial
beach nourishment and bulkheading has increased the occurrance
of "sand deposits" particularly in West Haven. Man's impact
is also reflected in the water quality of this segment which
has greatly reduced the attractiveness of these coastal towns.

D. Lighthouse Point to Guilford Point (East Haven, Branford,
western Guilford)

This segment is dominated by exposed bedrock, rocky headlands
and tidal marshes. Drift is very thin in this area and only a
few small beaches are found. Many small bedrock islands characterize
this segment. Among these are the Thimble Islands in Branford.

E. Guilford Point to Hatchett Point (Guilford, Madison, Clinton,
Westbrook, Old Saybrook, Old Lyme)

The East River in Guilford forms a distinct boundary between the
rocky coastal segment to the west and the eastern segment character-
ized by sandy beaches and glacial dri,ft. This segment is largely
continuous but often narrow barrier beaches. Much filling of the
marshes naturally backing these beaches has occurred often.
Such filling has occurred to provide access to these beaches
(an example of this practice is Hammonasett State Beach where
much of the support facilities were built on filled wetlands).

-15-

F. Hatchett Point to Groton Long Point (East Lyme, Waterford,
New London, Groton)

This segment is one of glacial drift and rock. Relatively
long barrier beaches occur between headlands and are backed in
most cases by tidal marshes.

G. Groton Long Point to Pawcatuck Point (Eastern Groton and
Stonington)

This final coastal segment is characterized by a series
of irregular headlands separated by open coves. Essentially
no sandy beaches are found in this segment.

The coastal descriptions provided by Bloom are based on "naturally
delineated" segments. Often towns fall within two segments. Bloom
also does not note the full extent of man's alterations to the coast.
Such considerations are of importance in determining areas with recreati)onal
potential. The occurrance of seawalls, bulkheads, groins, and artificial
beach nourishment reflect the physical processes which influence the
occurrance of sand along the coast. Such feature provide a good indication
of the amount of mai.ntenance which may be required in any area if large
recreational facilities are planned. In addition, man's influences are
reflected in water quality.

Long Island Sound Waters

According to water quality standards prescribed by the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection for marine and coastal waters both
SA and SB quality wat'er is suitable for swimming. SC water is unsuitable
for recreational swimming but is considered suitable for recreational
boating. SC waters are closed to shellfishing and may be unsuitable
for the fishing of indigenous finfish species. All Long Island Sound
waters outside the shellfish closure lines are classified as SA waters.
With the exception of the major harbors Long Island Sound coastal waters
are classified as either SA or SB. The areas that are unsuitable for
swimming due to poor water quality include:

Stamford Harbor, Norwalk Harbor, Ash Creek, Black Rock Harbor,
Bridgeport Harbor, Housatonic River, Quinnipiac River, Mill River,
New Haven Harbor, Connecticut River (portions only), Thames River,
and Pawcatuck River.

The official water quality classifications do not adequately describe
water quality in many coastal areas. The less than pristine quality of
much of the Sound's water tends to detract from all coastal recreational
experiences. Particular attention must be given to improvement of water
quality in all coastal areas if enhancement of existing recreational
opportunities and the provision of new opportunities are to be made.

"16-

COASTAL RECREATIONAL @RESOURCES

Due to the limited availability of data on all recreational activi-
ties in the coastal zone, emphasis in this discussion has been placed the
on swimming and boating. While these activities account for much of
recreational activity on the coast other forms of coastal recreation such
as sport fishing, hunting, wildlife observation and appreciation of views
and scenic vistas are also important and additional opportunities for these
activities are provided by Connecticut's coast.

Connecticut has 84.5 miles of Sandy beach which accounts for only
18% of the state's total coastal frontage. Approximately 36%_(30.5 miles)
of sandy beach is publicly owned by the State or municipalities. The
remaining 64% (54 miles) of beach is privately held by individuals, beach
associations, and other private organizations (Table 3, pagel7 .).

Private individuals hold approximately 34% of the state's sandy
beaches while private conservation organizations such as the Nature
Conservancy own less than 2% of these beaches. Beach associations,
a listing of which is included in Appendix C, own 28% of the state's
sandy beaches. These association beaches rovide recreational o portunities
for many local residents.l_@/ While these Eeaches have restricte5 access
they are generally heavily used. This appears particularly true of small
association beaches found in high density residential areas.

Public ownership of sandy beaches by municipal governments accounts
for 23.5 miles or 28% of the total beach area. The state owns 7 miles
or 8% of Connecticut's beach resource. Swimming and related recreational
activities is the major use of these public beach areas. Appendix D
provides a listing and description of designated public recreational
beaches. Over 77% of the publicly owned beach is currently used for
swimming. The remaining 23% is composed of state and municipal conservation
areas and undeveloped or undesignated state and municipal beaches.

Approximately three-quarters of the designated public recreational.
beaches are generally accessible to the public. Use restrictions,
generally municipally imposed residency requirements, preveht access to
the remaining one-quarter of the designated recreational beaches. Table 4
(page 18) provides a breakdown of public beach frontage by use restriction.

18/ See Planning Report No. 8, "Coastal Districts and Associations," for
a discussion of Connecticut's beach associations.

TABLE 3

OWNERSHIP OF SANDY BEACHES

Private Mileage

Individuals 28.0

Associations 24.0

Conservation Groups 1.3

Commercial .7

Total 54.0

Public

State 7.0

Municipal 23.5

Total 30.5

-17-

TABLE 4

ACCESS TO DESIGNATED PUBLIC RECREATIONAL BEACHES*

Restriction Mileage

General Access

Public facility charging parking fee 10.2

Public facility charging entrance fee
or requiring pass 1.1

Town facility requiring parking sticker
available to residents and non-residents 5.6

Commercial: fee charged .1

Limited parking only restriction .8

General Access Total 17.8 miles
(% of designated re-
creational beach) (75%)

Restricted Access

Town facility: residents only by pass 3.1

Town facility: residents only by parking sticker 2.5

Other: not generally accessible .2

Restricted Access Total 5.8 miles
(% of designated re-
creational beach) (25%)

*Table includes only frontage figures for designated public facilities as
listed in Appendix.

-18-

_19-

restrictions for each of the public beach facilities is presented in
Appendix D.

The state currently operates three recreational beach areas
totaling 4.5 miles of beach. These facilities, Sherwood Island,
Hammonasset and Rocky Neck, offer comparable recreational experiences:
highly developed and user-oriented. CaDacitv-at th qP qtAtp farili-Hp-,
is determined b the avai_L2h.0_jtY of Earking (this is the ra4zo-nf mAnv
dMMMM@ 4 ,
municipal TdC11JL1eS d150). II; is uncTear wnetner the provision of
parking and the resource (sand beach) capacity bears any true correlation.
The State Department of Environmental Protection currently uses space
standards of five persons per car and 75 square feet per user to relate
parking and "beach capacity".

The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, (SCORP, 1974)
estimated the capacity of existing public saltwater swim beaches. These
estimates are based on parking availability. While the number of
facilities listed by SCORP is less than the number in RPA inventories,
the estimated capacity provides a good "ballpark" figure for total
capacity.

#Facilities Estimated Capacity

State 3 60,500
Local (Unrestri cted) 30 96,350
Local (Residents Only) 27 30,350

TOTAL 187,200

Source: SCORP p. 189.

Resource capacity estimates which require that the area of the resource
be known are not available for private areas. The nature of private owner-
ship of shorefront properties in Connecticut makes accurate area data dif-
ficult to secure. Use figures for these beaches are even less accessible.

Lot 6-^

-20-

Recreational Boating

While the boating activity occurs on the water, boating requires
special types of shore based support facilities such as boat launching
ramps and marinas. The majority of boating support facilities are pro-
vided by the commercial sector. These facilities are generally accessible
to the public within the economic constraints of the user.

A 1976 survey of marinas in Connecticut conducted by Department of Com-
merce for the Coastal Area Management Program identified 164 commercial marinas,
8 public marinas and 63 private yacht clubs. In addition there are 13 state
boating launching ramps providing access to the Sound, and 10 ramps providing
access to the Connecticut River. A listing of the marinas, clubs and boat
launching facilities is provided in Appendix E.

The 164 commercial and 8 public marinas provide 16,485 slips and
3,108 mooring spaces. The number of spaces which the 63 private clubs
provide is not known exactly. Based on earlier data, it can be estimated
that these clubs provide in excess of 5,000 spaces.19'./ The number of
opportunities which state boat launching ramps provi-d-e is not known, nor
are reliable turnover rates for the use of these facilities available.

Other Areas Providing Recreational Opportunities In The Coastal Zone

A variety of public, private and quasi-public lands offer recreational
opportunities within the coastal zone. Within one mile of the shore
there are over 8,400 acres of recreational land, exclusive of the swim and
boating facilities already mentioned. Table 5 (page _21) shows the distribution
Of these lands by region and ownership type. While much of this acreage is
in playfields and small municipal parks there are many state owned
recreation and preserve areas which provide either Long Island Sound frontage
or visual access to the Sound. Many of these areas may act as "substitutes"
for the traditional swim-beach access area. Most of the state-owned facilities
listed in Appendix F are managed for passive recreation only. Capacity
and use figures for-these other recreational areas is not available.

Islands represent one of Connecticut's greatest unused coastal
resources. The Connecticut coast is dotted with some 143 nearshore
islands. Most of these islands have remained undevelo'per
tlargely as the result of the access difficulties. Islands con-
stitute approximately 90 miles of undeveloped coastline. Many of these
islands support populations of flora and fauna which have all but
disappeared from the mainland. These nearshore-islands offer Con-
necticut a unique opportunity of both recreation and preservation. A
complete listing of Connecticut's islands appears in Appendix G.

19 / These estimates were made based on data provided in SCORP (1974)
p. 205.

TABLE 5

RECREATION LANDS IN THE COASTAL AREA IN ACRES
(Non Swim Beach and Non Boating)

Own@rship Total SWRPA GBRPA SCCRPA CRERPA SCRPA

Private: Zone 1 946.9 256.2 124.6 333.9 232.2
Restricted Acess Zone 2 693.2 214.4 183.7 157.5 137.6 ----

Private: Zone 1 156.4 60.0 12.0 60 24.4 ----
General Access Zone 2 289.9 188.5 30.1 25 23.3 .23

Public: Zone 1 1386.4 118.6 304.3 700 70.7 192.8
Restricted 78.0 282.7
Access Zone 2 940.7 35.1 106.9 438

Public: Zone 1 1817.6 304.6 153.5 829.3 8.8 521.4
General Access Zone 2 2259.5 614.6 274.6 300 5.7 1.0-64.6

TOTALS 8490.6 1792.0 1189.7 2843.7 580.7 2084.5

Zone 1: Mean high tide line landward 1000'.

Zone 2: 1000' landward to distance 1 mile.

Source: 1976 - CAM/RPA Contract Reports

-21-

RECREATIONAL RESOURCE DEFICITS

On any hot summer weekend in Connecticut the imbalance between the
supply of recreational swimming and boating opportunities along the coast is
obvious. SCORP in 1974 determined the need for additional swimming . and
boating facilities in the state. This determination of opportunity
needs was based on a combination of methodologies which are described
i n the appendi ces of SCORP.

U,sing state population figures and the frequency of turnaways from
state beaches it was estimated that a deficit of 10,000 "opportunitiesil
for saltwater swimming existed in 1970. Accounting only for natural in-
creases in the state population SCORP estimates that a minimum of 5,000
additional units per year will be necessary for the next 20 years. This
estimate does not account for the existing deficiencies in swim opportunities
nor for predicted increases in the rates Of.Darticipation. SCORP recom-
mends that this absolute minimum" increase in opportunities be provided by
both state and local governments-2b/

Applying space standards recognized by DEP, the addition of 5,000
units would require the provision of an additional 1,000 parking spaces
per year as well as 375,000 square feet of "unoccupied" beach area. The
expansion of existing state-owned recreational beaches is proposed in the
report of "The Governor's Task Force on State Beaches and Shoreline Parks"
(1975) as a means of providing additional units. The term "expansion",
as used in this report, generally does not involve an increase in state
owned shorefront acreage. The capacity at these facilities would be
increased by the provision of additional support facilities including
parking lots, bathhouses, and improved access roads. In one instance,
widening the dry sand beach by artificial nourishment is proposed. (see
later discussion).
The relationship between parking availability (currently the major
determinant of capacity) and beach capacity is not fully understood. It
was the conclusion of both SCORP and the Long Island Sound Study that
both the state and municipal beaches are used to capacity on peak use days.
Crowding of the physical beach resource is apparent on such days.21 /
Continued increases in the numbers of user units provided (through additional
parking, for example) will have to be accompanied by a realignment in user
expectations for a quality recreational experience unless additional
acreage is acquired. Ultimately crowding of the physical resource may
well result in a gradual degradation of the resource. This in turn may
pose serious management problems over the long run.
SCORP calls for an increase in user units each year for 20 years.
Long term management considerations, therefore, become increasingly important.
Given current levels of use, an additional 5,000,units per year for 20 years
cannot be accommodated at thle existing fa'cilities even if "expansion" occurs.

20 / Department of Environmental Protection State of Connecticut, Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan (1974) p. 196.
211 Capacity at existing state recreational beaches is exceeded (making
turnaway necessary) approximately five times per seasons.

The acquisition and/or development of new recreational swim beaches will
have to occur if this goal is to be met. The scarcity of suitable
resources for such new development makes both the resource allocation
process and the improvement and maintenance of environmental quality,
notably water quality, critical issues. Whether or not the SCORP
recommendations can and should be met will depend both on the priority
which recreation is given as a coastal land use and the long term impact
of water quality regulations.

While the capacity of the Sound to accommodate boating may be
limitless, the near shore and support facilities are not. There were
approximately 74,000 power boats registered in Connecticut in 1974 and
it has been estimated that this number will exceed 90,000 by 1978. In
addition to power boats, sailboats account for much of the boating use
of the Sound. Boats which are not powered need not be registered making
the numbers of such crafts difficult to determine; current estimates
place the number of sailboats in Connecticut at 30,000. The demand for
recreational boating support facilities, based on boat registrations alone,
currently exceeds the supply of these facilities. 22.1

Due to the problems associated with power boating, notably the
safety factor and the potential for degradation of water quality, it is
unlikely that new, large scale boating facilities will be provided by
the public sector. Instead emphasis should be placed on increasing the
number of state boat launching sites.

221 Connecticut SCORP, op. cit. p. 211.

SUMMARY

Availability of Recreationl-l Resources to Meet Demand

The demand for saltwater swimming and boating activities currently
exceeds the available supply. Based on SCORP estimates there exists
a deficit of over 20,000 saltwater swim units to date. The deficits in
supply and demand for other coastal recreational activities is not known.

While the Connecticut coastal recreational potential is limited by
the physical resource characteristics (i.e., limited sandy beach acreage
along the Connecticut shore the current levels of coastal development,
and degraded water quality) there still exist many areas which may
be suitable for recreational use if properly developed and managed.
Areas which offer high recreational potentials will be discussed in the
next chapter.

Access to Existing Recreational Areas

A large percentage (75%) of the designated public recreational
beach in Connecticut is accessible to the public-. (see Table 4). It is
unlikely that the removal of municipally imposed residency requirements
in areas of restricted access will provide many new use opportunities
since municipal facilities are generally used to capacity. The removal
of these use restrictions might, however, offer recreational opportunities
to different user groups. Overall, however, because of the percentage
of beach in private ownership, a total of 29% of the sandy beach in
Connecticut is accessible to the general public.
The provision of alternative forms of transportation and/or off-site
parking could provide for increased user numbers at existing facilities.
In the long term, however, demand for coastal outdoor recreation can not
be met without the development and/or acquisition of new facilities.

The number of additional units which would be provided by the public
acquisition of privately held beaches (including upland and dry sand
areas) is not known. The indication from admittedly incomplete data is
that many of these private beaches are currently heavily used and may not
individually provide many additional user opportunities. Many of these
"beaches" are quite small'(1/3 of the sandy beaches are less than 1500 feet
in length) and are non-contiguous; hence they would be both
Costly to acquire and manaqe.

The above considerations should, therefore, be carefully weighed so that
facilities developed will provide a wide range of opportunities and the
environmental integrity of the area will be maintaimed. An overall
plan for recreation must consider the long term attractiveness and
managability of an area as well as the immediate number of user units which
can be provided.

-24-

-25-

General public access to the existing public beach may be enhanced
through a variety of techniques other than direct state acquisition of
the dry sand and upland areas. Some of these techniques are described
in chapter V. Careful study of these techniques is necessary before they
are applied in Connecticut, but the gradual use of one or more nf these
techniques may enhance public access to' the public be@ch over the
long term.

Conflicts Between Recreational and Other Coastal Users

Coastal development in Connecticut is high. The impact of this
development is particularly profound in the coastal urban areas where
degradation of water quality has all but precluded recreational use in
the surrounding areas. As water quality in these urban areas improve
more opportunities for recreation should exist. Notably in New Haven
areas of existing recreational beach have been closed to swimming due to
pollution. In addition many areas of the coast have residential de-
velopments which are in flood prone areas and/or are substandard,, the
reuse or development of these areas could provide increased public access.

capacity And Intensity Of Use

The determination of recreational resource capacity and the intensity
at which the area is and should be managed is often given low priority
due to the magnitude of the demand for recreation. SCORP outlines five
consideration which should be weighed in the determination of recreational
facilities need. 231'

1. Diversity - A wide range of recreational activities should be
planned for.

2. Qtiality - Sites should be design to maximize the enjoyment of
the recreational experience but should not degrade
the environment excessively.

3. Proximity When possible opportunities should be close to
the potential users.

4. Capacity The definition of recreational resource capacity
should be considered.

5. Demand - Demand for recreational activities should be met in
a manner which integrates the above considerations.

Given the projected rates of participation in outdoor recreation, it is
unlikely given the physical resource limitations and land use development
patterns that Connecticut will be able to meet the demand in the long run.

23' Connecticut SCORP, op. cit. Appendix XIV.

A R E A S 0 F P 0 T E N T I A L R E C R E A T 1 0 N A L U S E

As discussed in the preceding chapter, the demand for saltwater
swimming exceeds the available supply. An inventory of the physical
coastal resources undertaken by the Coastal Area Management Program
has demonstrated that the potential for improvement of recreational
swimming opportunities in Connecticut is limited greatly by both the
availability of the physical resource and by the water quality in
Long Island Sound. Improvement of access to beach areas may occur in
two major ways: (1) the improvement of access to existing designated
recreational beaches, particularly state owned beaches and (2) the
development of new or the reutilization, of former or underutilized beach
areas..

POTENTIAL FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES

Both SCORP and the Governor's Task Force on State Beaches and Shore-
line Parks discuss the potential for expansion of the existing state
owned swim beaches: Rocky Neck, Hammonasset, Sherwood Island and Silver
Sands. As discussed previously, this expansion does not involve the ad-
dition of new shorefront land. Expansion proposals include the provision
of additional parking at Sherwood Island and Rocky Neck, and improvements
in the access route to Hammonasset. An environmental impact statement
for the expansion of Rocky Neck State Park, including beach widening by
artificial nourishment, is currently beingreviewed.

Silver Sands State Park posses distinct management problems. Silver
Sands is currently undeveloped due to on-site pollution and problems of
-contested ownership on parcels of land within the park boundary. The improve-
ment o 'f water quality by the removal of the pollution source as well as the
renovation of the deteriorated beach front, and the building of other sup-
port facilities are needed before the site will be suitable for recreational
use. Although these improvements are both costly and time consuming
Silver Sands appears to offer the greatest potential for enhancing public
shore !@ont access.* Silver Sand's potential as a recreational area
results both from its size and location. Silver Sands is currently 293
acres with 3100 feet of Sound frontage. The proposed aquisition of
Charles Island (23 acres) increases the park's size and frontage. Silver
Sands, in the Town of Milford is ideally located midway between two existing
State beaches and in close proximity to the urban center of New Haven.

Determinations of both the environmental suitability of the proposed
expansions of the existing recreational beaches and the benefits derived
from proposed expansions and the development of Silver Sands need to be
made before the limited available recreational funds are allocated. It
would appear that the preliminary steps necessary for the development of
Silver Sands are of high priority and will offer the greatest long term
benefits.

-27-

-28-

AREAS RECOMMENDED FOR STUDY AS POTENTIAL OR IMPROVED ACCESS SITES

In addition to the expansion of existing state owned facilities,
several coastal areas have been identified as having high recreational
potential. These areas are discussed below.

The Norwalk Island Group, Norwalk

Connecticut's coastal islands offer perhaps the greatest potential for
enhanced preservation and recreation. Of Connecticut's over 140 offshore
islands the Norwalk Island group are among the largest. Many of the islands
in this group have good quality sandy beaches. A 1970 report prepared by
the City Planning Commission of Norwalk found that Chimmons, Ram (Shea)/Little
Ram, Sheffield, The Plains, and Long Beach Islands be considered for increased
public access for recreational and/or conservation purposes. Of these
islands, two, Sheffield and Chimmons, have been recommended for inclusion
in the Long Island Sound Heritage Plan. It is recommended that further
study be given to the potential of these islands for enhancing coastal
access.

Pleasure Beach, Long Beach/Great Meadow Complex, Bridgeport-Stratford

Pleasure Beach in Bridgeport and Long Beach in Stratford which form
over two miles of continuous sandy beach offer great recreational potential
which is not being fully realized due to the poor water quality in the area.
Upgrading of water quality and subsequent improvement of facilities at
both these beaches would provide much needed access in this urban area.

In addition to poor water quality, the proposed development of Great
Meadow, the tidal wetland backing this barrier beach, threatens to further
detract from the recreational potential of this resource.

A decision concerning this proposed development is pending and the
outcome of this case will largely determine the suitability of the beach
resource for enhanced recreational access in the future.

Seaside Regional Center and Harkness Memorial Park, Waterford

Both Seaside Regional Center and Harkenss Memorial Park are state
owned facilities with Long Island Sound frontage. Neither of these
facilities provide general access for water-based recreation.

Seaside Regional Center is a 38 acre residential care facility with
1,300 feet of beach. The nature of this facility raises many questions
concerning its suitability for multi-purpose use. The feasibility of
increased recreational use of this existing state shorefront property should
be investigated.

-29-

Harkness Memorial State Park is a 192 acre park with approximately
200 feet of beach frontage. It currently does not support any water-based
recreation in accordance with the wishes of the property donor. A
large stretch of privately owned undeveloped beach frontage approximately
2500 feet in length connects Harkness and Seaside beaches. In keeping
with the desires of the Harkness family that the donated park beach not
be used for recreational purposes, the feasibility of increasing public
swim beach opportunities through additional use of the Seaside beach and
acquisition and use of the privately owned connecting beach should be
thoroughly explored.

P 0 T E N T I A L M E T H 0 D S F 0 R E N H A N C I N G

S H 0 R E F R 0 N T A C C E S S

The public beach (beach area below mean high water) is accessible on
the landward side through adjacent upland and dry sand areas. Ownership and
land use patterns in these upland and dry sand areas, therefore, effectively
determines and frequently bars public access to the public beach. Many
methods for securing access ways to the public beach have been suggested.
Several of these methods are briefly described below. Further study needs
to be given to each of these methods to determine its potential for
enhancing public shorefront access in Connecticut.

ACQUISITION

Purchase of Fee Simple Rights

Negotiated purchase of land is the most direct and currently the
most frequently used means of securing access. While direct purchase
of land is the prefered method because it places the land fully under
public control, it is both costly and results in the removal of the land
from the local tax rolls. While federal funds are available for re-
creational land acquisition, such funds are distributed on a cost--sharing
basis with the state. State matching funds, particularly for recreation,
are scarce in times of tight budgets. 24/

Easements (purchase of less than fee simple rights)

"An easement is an interest in land granting specific uses or
restricting the manner in which it may be developed.,, 25/ Easements may
be affirmative; enumeratingthe uses of property whichIi-re permissible,
or negative; enumerating the uses of property which are prohibited.
Easements are generally less costly than direct purchase since the private
owner retains title. The land remains on the tax rolls, generally at reduced
rates. The use of easements and corollary methods such as transfer of
development rights and conservation restrictions offer advantages for both
public and private interests and could be used quite effectively to enhance
access.

24/ Note: If shorefront access is to be improved for the general non-resident
public, property acquisition must also be accompanied by the provision
of essential support facilities such as parking and sanitary facilities.
The physical limitations of small, properties and the high cost of providing
maintenance personnel and equipment generally make it unfeasible for the
state to acquire and manage small, isolated recreational properties.

25/ Ibid, p. 5-2.

-31-

-32-

Condenmation

Condenmation of land through the exercise of the state's power of
eminent domain has long been recognized as a method of acquiring land
for public use and rights of way. The owner must be compensated by the
state. As with direct purchase comdemnation is costly particularly
in the coastal zone where land values are high. In addition to the
financial considerations the method is generally considered "politically
unpopular" and may create ill will with local residents. 26/

LAND USE REGULATIONS

Zoning

Zoning is the most widely used form of land use controls today. Zoning
is an exercise of state police powers. "Exclusive use zoning", the division
of an area into districts in which only specific uses are permitted, is
common in Connecticut. In some instances this technique has been ex-
tended to allow the creation of special recreational, open space zones, and
flood prone zones. The legality of such zoning has not, however, been
clearly established. Regulation can not be so severe as to be confiscatory.
The failure of the judicary to clearly define the line between regulation
and "taking" of land without just compensation tends to discourage many
states from employing land use regulation techniques for access enhancement.

Setbacks, subdivision regulations, and official map

Setbacks, subdivision regulations and the use of an official map are
generally applied in conjunction with zoning regulations, each provides
potential for enhancing access when applied in "innovative" ways. The
techniques are, however, subject to the same legal uncertainties as zoning
the use of compensable regulations, a system under which property owners
would be compensated for losses suffered as a result of restrictive
regulations on their properties, may reduce the "legal objectives" to
zoning techniques.

Tax Techniques

The use of preferential tax assessments or other tax incentives, may
be a useful method for encouraging land owners not to develop. Tax
assessments based on current use rather than the potential land use can
encourage owners to leave lands in low development. The use of this and

26/ Ibid., P. 5-1.

-33-

other land use regulations offers great promise for both enhancing public
shorefront access and for encouraging the provision of open space. The
use of such techniques should be carefully considered.

PROVISION OF ACCESS BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR

The private-commercial sector presently provides most of the recreational
boating access areas in Connecticut. Incentives for the private sector to
increase this access and to provide other forms of recreational access
could prove beneficial for both public and private sectors provided
proper regulations existed. "Much of the private resistance to increased
public access, particularly perpendicular access across private land,
could be eliminated through grants of immunity (to tort liability) for
grantors of access easements to public entities." 27_/

INCREASED ACCESS THROUGH AFFIRMATION OF EXISTING PUBLIC RIGHTS

Many states, notably Texas, Oregon, California, Florida and New York,
have applied common-law principles to upland areas and have successfully
demonstrated the public right to these areas. In these states litigation
and legislation has confirmed the public's rights to beach access. Five
major legal doctrines are commonly applied to maintain or re-establish
public access rights to privately held lands. They are: 1) the public
trust doctrine; 2) adverse possession; 3) prescription; 4) implied
dedication and 5) customary rights. The application of these doctrines
and the use of legislation (A National Open Beach Bill was first in-
troduced in Congress in 1968) will undoubtly become increasingly significant
as coastal appreciation increases.

The interested reader should refer to Coastal Recreations A handhnok
for Planners and Mana . Shorplinp fox the_@_ublic, and the National Open
Beaches Bill for a more thorough discussion of these enhancement techniques.

MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Innovative management practices have the potential to increase the
use at existing access points and to reduce many of the obstacles facing
the development of new access points.

Parking, or dependence on the automobile, is one of the greatest access
iimiting factors. Alternative means of transporation to access points need to
be considered. While many access areas are currently on buslines, improve-
ments and publicity for this service are needed. (Those facilities
served by bus are noted in Appendix D). The use of park and ride lots
has been extremely successful in Connecticut. A direct extension and
potential re-use of commuter lots appear feasible given. The proximity of
the shore and route 95. The provision of shuttle-bus service from off-site
parking lots to state recreation areas would allow more persons to use the

2 7V Ibid., P. 5-7.

-34-

facility without the construction of new support facilities. While this
would allow more of the existing park land to remain undeveloped and
alleviate congestion of the access routes, it would not increase the capacity
of the swim beach during peak use periods.
Methods for distributing the peak demand use which is characteristic
at shorefront recreation areas have been suggested. While many of these
suggestions do not appear feasible, the use of alternative transportation,
off-site parking and differential fees may help reduce the problems
associated with peaking. Consideration should also be given to re-
locating existing non-coastal dependent uses. Areas suitable for reuse
have been identified in chapter IV . The concept of prioritizing coastal
uses should be built into the overall coastal planning process.

C 0 M P L E M E N T A R Y L E G I S L A T 1 0 N A N D F U N D I N G

As with all sectio ns of the Coastal Zone Management Act coordination
between all federal and state legislation regulating or influencing
shorefront access must be accounted for in the formulation of management
proposals.

Federal responsibilities in the coastal zone are exerted by a great
number of different federal agencies. A summary of federal recreation
responsibilities in the coastal zone was prepared by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management. Since Connecticut has no si@qnifitant national,
recreational or preserve areas in its coastal zone, this summary of federal
responsibilities appears in Appendix H.

There are two major sources of federal funding available to states
for shorefront recreation and/or access. Limited funds specific to shore-
front access planning (section 305(b)(7)) will be available to the
State on a cost sharing basis under section 315(2) of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972. Rules and regulations governing the allocation
of these funds are currently being developed.

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation ( BOR) administers the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON), grants-in-aid to states for the
acquisition and development of recreation lands on a 50% cost sharing
basis. States must have prepared and updated comprehensive outdoor
recreation plans (SCORP's) to qualify for these funds.

Additional sources of federal funds are listed in Appendix.H.
The possibility for joint use of these federal funds for the acquisition
and development of coastal recreation and preserve areas exists. Federal
funds may not, however, be used to match federal funds. The state must
match funds received from each federal program from state or local funds
and not from other federal monies allocated for coastal recreational land
acquisition and development.

E_X I S T I N G P 0 L I C Y R E C 0 M M E N D A T 1 0 N S

THE STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN FOR CONNECTICUT (SCORP)

The preparation and adoption of a statewide comprehensive outdoor
recreation plan such as Connecticut SCORP is a prerequisite for the receipt
of federal monies under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965.
Expenditures of BOR/LAWCON grants for acquisition or development of out-
door recreation areas must be in keeping with the goals of this plan. _.Za/
The administration of SCORP and all outdoor recreat-ion pro*graw s and.
monies in Connecticut is the responsibility of various units wi:th-in
the Department of Environmental Protection. SCORP does not include
a plan for implementing the goals and recommendations identified within
it. SCORP represents, therefore, an "action plan" to be addressed when
monies for outdoor recreation are available. This "action plan" is de-
scribed in two tiers:

1. "Goal oriented activities" which the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) should follow and

2. Specific recommendations for action.

The following is a list of goals and recommendations, from SCORP, which
are particularly relevant to shorefront recreation and shorefront access:

Goal

"To protect and foster the optimum use of Connecticut's
marine resources."

Recommendations

27. Continue to encourage coordinated, compatible water use regulation
through existing time-zoning approach to management.
28. Continue the state's role of providing simplier forms of boat
launching access to significant fishing and boating waters
both inland and on the sound, and through sound management to
avoid excessive overuse of the State's waters.

28/ The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) under the Land and Water Con-
servation Fund Act of 1965 (LAWCON, (16 U.S.C. 460, 78 stat. 897)) ad-
ministers these financial assistance grants on a 50-50 cost sharing basis
with states, to assist recreational planning,acquisition or development.

-37-

-38-

32. Increase present swimming capacity to correct existing
deficiencies in supply and to insure an adequate supply in
the future to accommodate a growing population and expected
increases in rates of participation.

33. Provide an additional 5,000 units of saltwater swimming
capacity annually by a joint effort of state and local
governments. Because of the limited financial resources
at the local level and because beaches need to serve all
the State's citizens, the major part of this effort should
be assumed by the State.

34. Develop Silver Sands State Park which would add an additional
10,000 swim units.

36. Acquire new coastal beaches through State action when large,
privately-owned beaches, providing ample space for parking
and ancillary facilities, are available for purchase. Areas
frequently flooded or storm damaged should be considered for
condemnation and/or acquisition.

42. Acquire off-shore islands.

52. Give top priority to acquiring tidal wetlands which are of
sufficient size (minimum 100 acres) to provide hunting
opportunity and which can be managed for shorebirds and
waterfowl.

94. Establish a special project acquisition fund to acquire special,
large-scale projects, which are beyond the fiscal capability
of the regular state action program and whose preservation
may require prompt action by the state. Such major emergency
acquisitions may include storm - damaged shoreline areas,
key sites with significant recreation potential, and large,
unique tracts of land with conservation district potential.

Little progress has been made towards realizing the goals and recom-
mendations of SCORP, particularly those involving shorefront access, due
to the current financial and administrative contraints. New acquisitions,
while not being ruled out, are not being encouraged due to state budgetary
constraints. Increasing emphasis is being placed on the management efficiency
of acquisitions or gifts. The number of land parcels which constitute
"managable units" along the coast are very limited due to ownership and
development patterns. 29/

29/ The term "managable unit" is a general term used to refer to land areas
which are economically feasible to manage . While there is no clear line
between economically efficient and non-efficient areas it is generally
the case that small isolated land areas are inefficient to manage due
to the high cost of providing maintenance personnal and equipment.

-39-

State actions are currently being directed towards expansion of
existing state beach facilities. An environmental impact statement
for the proposed expansion at Rocky Neck is currently under reView.

LONG ISLAND SOUND REGIONAL STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

People and the Sound, a regional study of Long Island Sound prepared
by the New England River Basins Commission has made recommendations for
federal, state and local actions to improve access to the Sound. V/
The limited data base used in the preparation of the LISS raises many
questions concerning both the accuracy and feasibility of these recom-
mendations. Congress will debate the validity of the recommended federal
actions during its review of the recently introduced Long Island Sound
Heritage Plan. Review of the state and local recommendations will have
to be made by the individual parties. A quick first review of these
recommendations raises many questions; notably the figures for acquisition
of new shorefront property are unrealistic given the physical resource
limitations and land use development patterns. In reviewing the study's
recommendations the weakness in baseline data and the absence of feasibility
studies should be considered.

Federal Actions

The Long Island Sound Study concluded that there exists:
"M a serious shortage of general public open lands
along the shore of the Sound; (2) large concentrations
of recreationally deprived low and moderate income
families throughout and on the edges of the study
area; (3) very limited state and local financial re-
sources for providing significantly increased access to
the sound; and (4) a clear federal interest in the
general health and use of the Sound, as evidenced by
the massive federal expenditures committed to its
restoration."

The report concluded that the establishment of a federally administered
national park was an inappropriate means for increasing access to the Sound, although
there are currently no significant federally owned recreation lands in Con-
necticut. Alternatively, the plan proposed that federal monies be made available
to assist New York and Connecticut in acquiring and developing specific
shorefront areas referred to collectively as the Long Island Sound Heritage.
Recently, Senator A. Ribicoff introduced legislation in congress to implement
this proposal (@ee the following discussion).

30/ New England River Basins Commission, People and the Sound: Summa
(July 1975) P. 20.

-40-

State Actions (Applies to both Connecticut and New York)

1. By 2020, acquire and develop 11,000 acres of land.

2. Redevelop for recreation 3.3 miles of shoreline presently
located on the flood plain, prior to natural disaster.

3. Develop fund to acquire shorefront property following
inatural disaster.

4. Develop and expand existing parks and beaches.

5. Regulate land use in open space system.

6. Pass enabling legislation to allow right of first refusal
to the public sector for private recreation resources
up for sale.

7. Establish property tax allowance for private recreation
enterprise.

Local Actions

1. By 2020, acquire and develop 1800 acres of land.

2. Develop fund to acquire shorefront property following
natural disaster.

3. Develop existing parks and beaches.

4. Open parks and beaches to all on weekdays.

5. Expand and diversify urban recreation programs.

6. Develop public marinas.

THE LONG ISLAND SOUND HERITAGE BILL

Senator Ribicoff recently introduced the Long Island Sound Heritage
Bill to Congress (August 1, 1977). The bill calls for the appropriation
of 50 million dollars to provide New York and Connecticut with up to
75 percent of the costs of acquiring and/or developing fifteen areas of
participation recreation, scenic and conservation value on Long Island
Sound.

The following areas in Connecticut where cited for initial in clusion
in the Heritage plan:

1. Bluff Point State Park

2. Ram, Dodges and Andrews- Island in the Kystic Island qrouP.

-41-

3. Rocky Neck State Park including Niantic State Farm for
Women.

4. Stony Creek Quarry and Faulkner's Island.

5. Lighthouse Point Park

6. Silver Sands State Park

7. Pleasure Beach, Long Beach and Great Meadow Wetland
Complex.

8. Sheffield Island and Chimon Island (Norwalk)

9. Sherwood Island State Park

The plan calls for federal acquisition of these lands and federally
supported state administration of the areas. Management of the areas
would have to be in keeping with the "heritage". It is too early to
determine the future of this bill, although it is expected to have a
"long and stormy course through Congress." 31/

The Long Island Sound Heritage Bill would provide Connecticut with
needed funds for development and restoration of recreational facilities
along the coast, but would not greatly increase state land holdings.
The state currently owns Bluff Point, Rocky Neck, Silver Sands and
Sherwood Island. Lighthouse Point, Pleasure Beach and Long Beach are
municipally owned. The number of new recreational opportunities which
this Bill would provide for Connecticut is not, therefore, as great as it
may appear.

31/ The New York Times, (Sunday, July 31, 1977) section 11 p. 1.

P L A N N I N G F 0 R I N C R E A S E D S H 0 R E F R 0 N T

A C C E S S I N C 0 N N E C T I C U T

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires that a planning
process for the protection of and access to public beaches be developed
as part of a state's overall coastal management program. The nature and
scope of this planning process depends on the coastal recreational
resources and opportunities available in the state.

COASTAL RECREATIONAL RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES -- SUMMARY

1. Connecticut has a limited amount of coastal resource suitable
for "traditional" coastal recreation activities. Sandy
beaches account for only 18.4% of the coastline. Patterns
of development and associated degradation in water quality
further limit the suitability and attractiveness of many
coastal areas for recreation. (Chapter III)

2. Connecticut has 84.5 miles of sandy beach. Ownership of
this beach is dispersed between three state owned beaches,
some 70 municipal beaches, over 100 private associations or
clubs and countless private individuals. Public ownership
accounts for 36% of this sandy beach. Over 75% of this
publicly owned beach is currently used for recreational
swimminq.. Three-quarters of the designated public re-
creational beaches are accessible to the qeneral Public.
In addition to the access afforded by non-beach coastal
resources, 29% of Connecticut's sandy beaches are accessible
to the general public. (Chapter III).

3. The expressed demand for coastal swimming and boating
activities currently exceeds the available supply. Both
state and municipal beaches are used to capacity and over
on peak summer days. Estimates made by SCORP reveal a
deficit of over 20,000 saltwater swim units currently
exists. Deficit figures for the other coastal recreational
opportunities in the State are not available. (Chapter III)

4. Opportunities for increasing recreational facilities and
increasing shorefront access do exist. The greatest limiting
factor to the development of new recreational areas is money.
Unlike most other Atlantic coast states, Connecticut has no significant
federally owned recreational land. The burden for development
and maintenance of recreational areas falls solely on the
state and municipal governments. (Chapter III)

PROPOSED SHOREFRONT ACCESS PLANNING PROCESS

SCORP, the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, outlines
both recreational policies and an action plan for recreational development
within the state. The plan outlines a method for the determination
of recreational need which considers the critical recreational goals and
conflict (See SCORP Appendix XIV). The effectiveness of the SCORP action

-43-

44-

plan is determined by the availability of recreational funds. The recent
budgetary constraints at the state level have resulted in recreational
planning (and thus the updating of SCORP) receiving less than priority
consideration.

SCORP encompasses the major elements which a shorefront enhancement
planning process should entail. It is most appropriate for the shorefront
access planning process to become a subsection of a revised and revitalized
statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. In this manner, coastal
recreation can be considered and balanced in light of statewide recreation
demands and opportunities.

First Priority Actions

Undertake a coastal recreational user study to identify
and quantify recreational demand. This study should include
a survey of all potential coastal recreational actiVities.
A coastal user demand survey should occur in conjunction
with a statewide outdoor recreation demand study. Regular
updating of both the demand data and the supply of recreational
facilities should occur. The combination of regularly
updated, comprehensive supply and demand data with implementation-
oriented policies should insure that "need" determinations
for both coastal and non-coastal activities are appropriately
made.

2. Prioritize existing recommendations for improving shorefront access
and expend available monies on high priority projects. Sources of
Itions and/or
federal and state funding for these land acquisi
Jevelopment should be fully investigated and applications for
appropriate funds made. Both-the strenqtheninq and enforcement
of existinq water pollution -control legislation must occur in
conjunction with the prioritization.

Specific recommendations

The following specific recommendations should be considered "high
priority". The priority assignment system must, however, remain flexible
in light of pending federal legislation (The Heritage Plan) and in the
absence of a reliable user preference-demand study.
Develop Silver Sands/Charles Island State Park ZGM-p-lex-. -The
state should undertake all necessary steps to curb the sources of
water pollution and resolve ownership conflicts which are
making the development of Silver Sands currently infeasible. The
development of Silver Sands would greatly increase the saltwater
swim opportunities in the greater New Haven area.

-45-

2. Develop additional boat la unching sites. The construction of boat
launching sites and the maintenance of existing launch ramps is
funded from the boating fund (State Statutes 15-155). A re-
evaluation of the fund allocation process appears appropriate.
Additional sources of funding should be investigated. Notably
the use of the currently unclaimed marine gas sales tax should
be studied as a source of potential funds to augment the boating
fund.

3. The potential of rights-of-way for increasing access to the
public beach should be evaluated to determine their feasi-
bility. Provisions for accepting and/or acquiring small
parcels of land suitable for such right-of-way should be
made.

4. Methods of securing access-ways to the public beach,
other than by direct purchase of upland and dry sand
areas should be studied and steps to implement alternative
methods taken.

5. The feasibility of reusing current state owned non-
recreational coastal lands for recreation should be
determined.

6. Provisions for requiring the removal of barriers extending
below mean high water which obstruct passage along the
public beach should be made.

It is our conclusion that general public access to the public
beaches of Connecticut could be greatly enhanced by both the inclusion
and implementation of this shorefront access plan as part of the State-
wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan-znd_J?Y
q@ i cy decl ara 0
affi ming the public rights in these coastal areas.

S E L E C T E D R E F E R E N C E S

I. Bloom, Arthur. 'Coastal Geomorphology of Connecticut. Final Report,
Geography Branch Office of Naval Research. June 15, 1967.

2. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation for New England River Basins Commission,
People and the Sound: Outdoor Recreation, January 1975.

3. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation for New England River Basins Commission,
Outdoor Recreation and Long Island Sounde Demand-
Supply, Needs. Planning Aid Report #3, June 15, 1973.

4. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Prospective Demand for Outdoor
Recreation., ORRRC Study Report 26; Washington, D.C. 196

5, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Participation in Outdoor Recreation:
Factors Affecting Demand Among_American Adults. ORRRC Study
Report 20, Washington, D.C. 1962.
6. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Trends in American Living and Outdoor
Recreation, ORRRC Study Report 22, Washington, D.C. 1962.
7. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation for North Altantic Regional Water
Resources Study, Appendix M: Outdoor Recreation, May 1972.
8- Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Outdoor Recreation Space Standards,
April, 1967.

9. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation
Activities Preliminary Report,February 1972.

10. Clawson, Marion and Knetsch, Jack, Economics of Outdoor Recreation.
F-
Resources for the future, Inc., Jo ns Hopkins Press, Balto. 1966.

11. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan, December 1974.

12. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Governor's
Task Force Report on State Beaches and Shoreline Parks, 0 ober 1975.

13. Ditton, Robert and Mark Stephens Coastal Recreation: A Handbook
For Planners and Managers. U.S. Department of Commerce,
NOAA, OCZM, Washington, D.C. 1976.

14. Ducsik, Dennis (ed.), Power, Pollution, and Public Policy, Cambridge,
Mass. M.I.T. Press-1-971.

15. Ducsik, Dennis. Shoreline for the Public: A Handbook of Social,
Economic, and Legal Considerations RegardTng -Public Recreational
Use of the Nation's Coastal Shoreline. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge,
Mass. 1974.

-47-

16. Public Use of the State-owned Shore, memo for CAM by Steve Bosworth.

17. Owens, David and David Brower, Public Use of Coastal Beaches,
University of N. Carolina Sea Grant College Program Pubrl,
September 1976.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A
NATIONAL OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTICIPATION RATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

_Talle A Number of participants In selected outdoor recreation activities,
United States totals, 1970

Persons 9 and overl/ Persons 12 and over

Number of Number of
participants Percent of participants Percent of
Activity (Thousands) population (Thousands) population

Picnicking 82,147 49 73,843 48
Swimming 77,298 46 67,746 44
Playing outdoor
games or sports 59,985 36 51,547 33
Attending sports
events and concerts 59,374 35 53,956- 35
Walking for pleasure 50,270 30 46,410 30
6 28
Fishing 49,435 29 44,089
Boating 41,136 24 37,596 24
Bicycling 37,112 22 28,837 19
Camping 35,199 21 30,885 20
Nature walks 30,509 18 26,906 17

Hunting 20,887 1.2 19,814 13
Horseback riding 16,054 10 13,484 9
rd watching 7,457 4 6,813 4
Wildlife and bird
Biphotography 4,864 3 4,519 3
Other reported
activities 10,655 6 9,778 6

No participation 40,006 24 38,823 25

1/Based on estimated civilian noninstitutional population of 167,944,000
in December 1970.
2/Based on estimated civilian noninstitutional population of 155,230,000
in December 1970.

gouv'et! Thg 1970 Survoy of Outdoor Rpcrpation Activitio& Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
197L

SWIMMING, PERSONS 9 AND OVER

Number of Percent Recreation Days Days
participants of pop- days per per
Characteristic (Thousands) ulation (Thousands) person part.

Census Region
Northeast 20,312 51.7 449,998 11.4 22.2
North Central 22,652 47.0 467,064 9.7 20.6
South 20,596 39.5 411,340 7.9 20.0
West " 13,739 48.6 393,595 .13.9 28.6

C2nsus -Division
New England 5,229 56.8 116,502 -12.7 22.3
Middle Atlantic 15,082 50.1 333,496 11.1 22.1
E. North Central 16,403 48.0 345,746 10'l 21.1
W.., North Central 6,249 44.5 121,317- 10.1 19.4
South Atlantic 10;431 40.9 247.,322 9.7 23.7
E. South Central *3,939 '106.5 60,861 5.6 15.5
W. South Central 6,227 39.2 103,158 6.5 16.6
Mountain 3,021 48.2 62-,969 10.1 20.8
Pacific 10,718 48.7 330,626 15.0 30.8

BOATING, PERSONS 9 AND OVER

Number of Percent Recreation Days Days
participants of pop- days per per
Characteristic (Thousands) ulation (Thousands) person part.

Census Region
Northeast 99120 23.2 95,661 2.4 10.5
.North Central 131,726 28.5 139,889 2.9 10.2
South 10,924- 20.9 117,325 2.2 10.7
West 7,366 26.1 68,655 2.4 9.3

Census Division
New England 2,554 27.7 33,531 3.6 13.1
Middle Atlantic 6,566 21.8 62,131 2.1 9.5
E. North Central 9,479 27.7 101,242 3.0 10.7
W. North Central 4,248 30.3 38,647 2.8 9.1
South Atlantic 5,204 20.4 62,687 2.4 12.0
E. South Central 2,131 19.7 20,500 1.9 9.6
W. South Central 3,589 22.6 34,138 2.1 9.5
Mountain 1.663 26.6 15p233 2.1 8.0
Pacific 5,703 25. 9 55,422 2.5 9.7

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX B
I TOWN SHORELINE DESCRIPTIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Greenwich

Miles

Coastal frontage* 27.2

Sandy beach 1.7

Public:

State --

Town .6

Private:

Individuals .7

Associations .4

Shoreline Description

The shoreline in Greenwich is highly irregular and composed mainly of
rocky shoreline with tidal marshes and very few beaches. Two large isl,ands,
Calf and Great Captain's provide recreational opportunities in the town.

Water quality is below standard in both Greenwich and Cos Cob Harbors.

Stamford

Miles

Coastal frontage* 15.0

Sandy beach 3.4

Public:

State --

Town 1.0

Private:

Individuals 2.4

Associations --

Shoreline Description

Stamford, like Greenwich, has an irregular rocky shoreline along which
much filling and bulkheading has occurred. A large portion of the beach
occurring in the town is artificial.

Water quality in Stamford is a particular problem. Much of Stamford
Harbor is "C Class" water unsuitable for swimming. It can be assumed that
in this and other urban harbors along the coast poor water quality detracts
from the recreational potential of harbor areas as well as surrounding shore
frontage.

Darien

Miles

Coastal frontage* 16.5

Sandy beach .3

Public:

State --

Town .2

Private:

Individuals

Associations .1

Shoreline Description

The Darien shoreline, like those of Greenwich and Stamford, has few
beaches. Several offshore islands may, however, have recreational potential.

Norwal k

Miles

Coastal frontage* 17.0

Sandy beach .6

Public:

State --

Town .4

Private:

Individuals .2

Associations --

Shoreline Description

The Norwalk shoreline,ilike those to the west, is irregular with few
natural beaches. Those beaches found in the town are largely artificial.
Many offshore islands, many with good quality sandy beaches occur in this
area. Of the islands in the Norwalk group, Sheffield, Ram and Chimmons
Islands appear to have high recreational potentials.

Poor water quality is a limiting factor particul,arly in the harbor
area.

Westport Miles
Coastal frontage* 18.9

Sandy beach 5.9

Public:

State 1.1

Town 1.7

Private:

Individuals 2.5

Associations .6

Shoreline Description

The Westport shoreline is composed almost entirely of narrow sandy
beach of both natural and artificial origin. Much of the shoreline is in
public ownership and is managed to control erosion. Both Compo Beach and
Sherwood Island State Park have been artificially nourished. Private
ownership (in residential areas) accounts for several large stretches of
beach in the town.

Fairfield Miles
Coastal frontage* 10.4

Sandy beach 3.2

Public:

State

Town 1.1

Private:

Individuals 2.1

Associations

Shoreline Description

Fairfield is an area of naturally occurring sand deposits. The longest
continuous segment of beach is Fairfield Beach, a narrow barrier beach which
is immediately backed by residential development. This beach has been described
as a "vulnerable area" which is particularly subject to flooding and storm
damage. Both the high density residential development and poor water quality
extending from Bridgeport Harbor currently limit the recreational potential
of this area. Consideration to the future reuse of Fairfi6ld Beach should
be given.

Bridgeport

Miles

Coastal frontage* 18.0

Sandy beach 2.5

Public:

State --

Town 2.5

Private:

Individuals --

Associations

Shoreline Description

Bridgeport has several miles of public sandy beach. While access to this
resource is not a probl.em, water quality is a major deterrent. The emphasis
in the region from Bridgeport to New Haven, where much of the state's sandy
beaches are found, must be on upgrading the water quality. Such improvements
would greatly enhance the state's coastal recreational opportunities.

Stratford

Miles

Coastal frontage* 13.2

Sandy beach 4.9

Public:

State

Town 3.2

Private:

Individuals .4

Associations 1.3

Shoreline Description

Stratford like Bridgeport and Milford has many.long sandy beaches whose
recreational potential is limited by poor water quality.

Mi 1 ford

Miles

Coastal frontage* 19.3

Sandy beach 8.7

Public:

State .5

Town 1.3

Private:

Individuals 3.8

Associations 3.1

Shoreline Description

The Milford shoreline, composed largely of artificially nourished beaches,
forms a continuous segment of narrow beach backed by seawalls. Residential
development in many areas of the town sits on or immediately behind the
beach. Much of this housing is structurally deficient and flood prone.
Accordingly, many areas have been suggested for redevelopment.

Ownership of Milford's beaches is difficult to determine due to the
mixing of public and private rights-of-way and the confused nature of the
shoreline development.

Water quality, particularly in the vicinity of Silver Sands State Park,
is in need of improvement.

West Haven

Miles

Coastal frontage* 7.9

Sandy beach 4.4

Public:

State --

Town 3.9

Private:

Individuals .5

Associations --

Shoreline Description

The immediate shoreline between Woodmont and West Haven is characterized
by bedrock outcrops and boulders. To the east isa long section of sandy
beach which has received extensive artificial nourishment. The majority of
this beach frontage is publicly held. Access to this area is limited only
by parking availability and water qualityv

New Haven

Miles

Coastal frontage* 18.0

Sandy beach 1.3

Public:

State --

Town .9

Private:

Individuals .4

Associations

Shoreline Description

Lighthouse Point is the only beach of significance in New Haven. The
area has received fill numerous times and water quality has forced the closing
of portions of this beach and has reduced the attractiveness of the entire
park.

East Haven

Miles

Coastal frontage* 3.4

Sandy beach 2.3

Public:

State --

Town .1

Private:

Individuals 2.2

Associations --

Shoreline Description

East Haven has a segment of sandy beach (West Silver Sands and Silver
Sands) which has been artificially nourished and protected by seawalls in
many areas.

Housing immediately backs the beach in several sections and as in
Milford much of this housing is structurally unsound and flood prone.
Redevelopment of these areas should be encouraged.

Branford

Miles

Coastal frontage* 18.6

Sandy beach 3.4

Public:

State --

Town .2

Private:

Individuals

Associations 3.2 (all small parcels largely
association held)

Shoreline Description

Branford's shoreline is one of extensive bedrock outcroppings and
tidal marshes. Only a few small pocket beaches and short segments of
artificial beaches occur.

Gui I ford

Miles

Coastal frontage* 14.8

Sandy beach

Public:

State --

Town .7

Private:

Individuals .1

Associations ..6

Shoreline Description

Guilford, like Branford, has a rocky shoreline with many marshes.
The small beaches which do occur are.-largely artificial.

Madi son

Miles

Coastal frontage* 8.5

Sandy beach 6.1

Public:

State 2.1

Town .4

Private:

Individuals 2.1

A550CIdtions 1.5

Shoreline Description

The Madison shoreline is part of a segment of coast composed of
glacial till and naturally occurring beaches. The largest continuous
stretch of beach in the town in Hammonasset. This barrier beach, once
backed by tidal marsh, is a critical erosion area whIch-has received artificial
nourishment repeatedly. While there is a large proportion of beach frontage
in private ownership it may be assumed from the density of the surrounding
residential development that these narrow beaches receive heavy use.

Cl i nton Miles
Coastal frontage* 8.7

Sandy beach 4.o

Public:

State .5

Town .2

Private:

Individuals 1.5

Associations 1.8

Shoreline Description

The Clinton shoreline, like Madison, is characterized by naturally
occurring beaches. Most.of these beaches are subject to high erosion and
artificial fill and beach protection efforts such as seawalls and groins
are comon. As in Madison, private ownership is comon b-ut residential
density is also quite high in the imediate coastal area.

Westbrook

Miles

Coastal frontage* 7.4

Sandy beach 3.9

Public:

State --

Town .6

Private:

Individuals .4

Associations 2.9

Shoreline Description

Westbrook's shoreline, like that of Madison and Clinton, is characterized
by naturally occurring beaches which have received artificial fill and have
been groined in many areas. Private ownership and residential development
of shoreline areas is high.

Old Saybrook Miles
Coastal frontage* 18.6

Sandy beach 4.9

Public:

State -

Town (including Borough of Fenwick) 1.5

Private:

Individuals .6

Associations 2.8

Shoreline Description

Most of the shoreline of Old Saybrook is composed of naturally occurring
narrow beaches which have been artificially nourished and protected in many
areas. Private/association ownership of beaches is high, these beaches are
however narrow and ephemeral in many stretches and may well be used to
capacity by, local residents.

01 d Lyme Miles
Coastal frontage* 17.1

Sandy beach 4.3

Public:

State --

Town .4

Private:

Individuals .3

Associations 2.3

Conservation 1.3

Shoreline Description

Old Lyme, like Old Saybrook, is an area of naturally occurring sandy
beaches along which repeated attempts at stabilization have been made. Private
ownership of shorefront property is common. Improvement of access, particularly
local access to the shore should be considered.

East Lyme

Miles

Coastal frontage* 19.9

Sandy beach 6.3

Public:

State .5

Town 1.4

Private:

Individuals 2.9

Associations 1.4

Conservation .04

Shoreline DescriOtion

The shoreline of East Lyme is characterized by numerous bedrock exposures,
thin beaches, and barrier beaches connecting headlands. The largest of these
barrier beaches is Rocky Neck State Park. Much of the shorefront property
is privately held but the density of residential development would indicate
that beaches are well used by local residents.

Waterford Miles
Coastal frontage* 22.4

Sandy beach 4.0

Public:

State .8

Town .2

Private:

Individuals 1.7

Associations .5

Commercial .8

Shoreline Description

Waterford, like East Lyme, has an irregular shoreline characterized by
bedrock exposures and barrier beaches stretching between headlands. Beach
stabilization structures are common. Two existing state owned non-recreational
shorefront facilities are located in this town, their potential for recreational
use should be evaluated.

New London Miles
Coastal frontage* 9.1

Sandy beach 2.1

Public:

State --

Town .4

Private:

Individuals 1.3

Associations .4

Shoreline Description
New London's coastal frontage is largely riverine and the occurrance
of beaches is therefore limited to the areas near the mouth of the Thames
River. Commercial and industrial development in this area is high and
detracts from many types of recreation in this area. Ocean Beach, the
major beach in New London, is largely composed of artificial fill.

Groton

Miles

Coastal frontage* 26.9

Sandy beach 3.8

Public:

State 1.5

Town .4

Private:

Individuals .8

Associations 1.1

Shoreline Description

Groton's shoreline is composed of rocky headlands connected by barrier
beaches. These barrier beaches include Bushy Point Beach and Groton Long
Point. Bushy Point Beach, a tombolo, has been identified as a critical
erosion area along which many of the state's remaining sand dunes occur.
This tombolo is appropriately located within the boundaries of Bluff Point
Coastal Reserve. Groton Long Point Beach is heavily residentially developed.

Stonington

Miles

Coastal frontage* 37.9

Sandy beach 1.0

Public:

State --

Town .2

Private:

Individuals .7

Associations .1

Shoreline Description

Stonington, like Branford and Guilford, has a highly irregular coastline
dominated by bedrock exposures. There are no beaches of significance in
the town.

Coastal Frontage* of Riverine Towns

Miles

Shelton 7.9
Orange .75
Hamden 3.4

North Haven 3.0
Essex 8.5
Deep River 2.8
Chester 2.8
Lyme 6.8
Montville 8.7

Norwich 9.5
Ledyard 7.2
Preston 4.0

Coastal frontage was measured on USGS 7.5 minute Topographic maps
for both coastal and riverine towns. In wetland areas, frontage was
determined by measuring the exterior waterfront perimeter of the
marsh.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX C
I BEACH ASSOCIATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

BEACH ASSOCIATIONS

BRANFORD

Hotchkiss Grove

Indian Neck

Lamphier Cove

Linden Shores Erosion Control District

Short Beach Civic Association

Stony Creek

CLUBS

Double Beach Surf and Pool Club

Owengo Inn

I
BEACH ASSOCIATIONS I
CLINTON I
Beach Park Poi nt (Beach Park Road) I
Clinton Beach I
Grove Beach
Harbor View I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I BEACH ASSOCIATIONS
I DARIEN
I Beach Drive

Delafield Island
I Nash and Pratt Island
I Noroton Bay
Sea Gate
I Tokeneke
I
I
I CLUBS
I Tokeneke Beach Cl ub
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
CLUBS I
I
EAST HAVEN I
Colony Beach and Tennis Club
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

BEACH ASSOCIATIONS

EAST LYME

Attawan Beach

Black Point Beach

Community Beach

Ct. Spiritualist Community

Crescent Beach

Davis Beach

Giant's Neck

Giant's Neck Height Inc.

Niantic Beach and Marina

Oak Grove Beach

Old Black Point

CLUBS

Groton Long Point Yacht Club

BEACH ASSOCIATIONS

FAIRFIELD

Fair Acres

First Beach Corp.

Lordship Beach

Lund Court, Inc.

North Pine Creek Property Owners

W.O. Burr Corp.

CLUBS

Fairfield Beach Club

Holiday Beach. Club

Sea Lodge (Sasquanaug Society for Village Improvement)

BEACH ASSOCIATIONS

GREENWICH

Belle Haven Land Owners

Byram Point

Field Point Park

Harbor Point

Indian Harbor

Lucus Point Home Owners

Meads Point

Old Greenwich

Riverside

Shoreham Club

South Cos Cob

Willowmere

CLUBS

Belle Haven Beach Club

Hawthorne Beach

Riverside Yacht Club

Rocky Point Yacht Club

Calf Island (YMCA)

I
BEACH ASSOCIATIONS I
GROTON I
Groton-Long Point Beach Association I
I
I
CLUBS
Groton-Long Point Yacht Club I
Shennocossett Beach Club I
.I
-1
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I BEACH ASSOCIATIONS
I
GUILFORD
I Indian Cove
I Little Harbor
Mullberry Point
I Old Quarry
I Sachems Head
Tuttles Point
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

BEACH ASSOCIATIONS

MADISON

Barberry Farms

C & L Realty

Five Field Homeowners

Harbor Avenue

Kelsey Place Realty

Lee Manor

Overshores

Seaview Beach

Waterbury Avenue

PRIVATE/CLUB

Madison Beach

Shoreland Inc.

I
I BEACH ASSOCIATIONS
I MILFORD
I Bayview Beach
I Laurel Beach
Point Beach Improvement
I
I -Surf Club West CLUBS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
BEACH ASSOCIATONS
I

NEW LONDON
I

Bellard Beach
Guthrie Beach I
Neptune Park Beach I
Pequot Point Beach
958 Corporation I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i

BEACH ASSOCIATIONS

NORWALK

Bell Island Improvement

Harborview

Marvin Beach

Norwalk

Rowayton Beach

Shore Island Neighborhood

Shorefront Park

Wilson Point

Village Creek Homeowners

CLUBS

Ascension Beach Club

East Beach

Norwalk Shore and Country Club

Roten Point Beach Club

Shorehaven Country Club

South Beach

Hickory Bluff Shore (commercial)

BEACH ASSOCIATIONS

OLD LYME

Hatchetts Point

Miami Beach

Old Colony

Old Lyme Shores

Point O'Woods

White Sands

CLUBS

Hdwks Nest Beach Club

Mile Creek Beach

01 d Lyme Beach Cl ub

I
I BEACH ASSOCIATIONS
I OLD SAYBROOK
I Chalker Beach
I Cornfield Point
Indiantown
I Knollwood
Saybrook Manor
11
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

BEACH ASSOCIATIONS

STAMFORD

Cove Neighborhood

Dolphin Cove Club

Sea Beach

Shippan Point

Soundview Manor Property Owners

Wallacks Point Park

Wescott Neighborhood

CLUBS

Ponus Yacht Club

Oceanview Beach Club

Stamford Yacht Club

Woodway Beach Club

BEACH ASSOCIATIONS

STONINGTON

Latimer Poi.nt Fire District

Lords Point

Masans Island Property Owners

Orchard Hill Beach Drive

Wadawanuck Club

Wamphassuc Point

I
BEACH ASSOCIATIONS I
STRATFORD I
Lordship Beach I
Lordship Improvement I
West Lordship Beach Corp.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I BEACH ASSOCIATIONS
I WATERFORD
I Bayside Beach
I Mago Point Beach
Millstone Point
I Perry Beach
Pleasure Beach
I Waterford Beach
I
I
I
I
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I

I
BEACH ASSOCIATIONS I
WESTBROOK I
I
Island View
Grove Beach Point I
Stannard Beach I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I

BEACH ASSOCIATIONS

WESTPORT

Blue Water Hill

Burritts Landing

Compo Mill Cove

Owenoke Park

Saugatuck Shores

Stony Point

CLUBS

Cedar Yacht Club

Saugatuck Yacht Club

Sprite Island YachtClub

Goose Island (Saugatuck Audubon Society)

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX D
DESIGNATED PUBLIC RECREATIONAL BEACHES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

KEY

RR Restrooms P Picnicking

BH Bath Houses B Boating

LG Lifeguards F Fishing

DW Drinking Water C Camping

A Athletic Fields, Playgrounds etc.

ACCESS RESTRICTIONS

1. Public Facility - General Access

A. No Fee
B. Parking

2. Public Facility - General Access with Fee or Pass

A. Flat fee for all persons
B. Different fee rates for residents and non-residents

3. Town Facility: Open to Residents Only by Pass

A. Free
B. Fee

4. Town Facility: Parking Sticker Required

A. Available to residents only

1. Free
2. Fee

B. Available to residents and non-residents

1. Free
2. Fee

5. Private: Open to residents or members only (clubs and associations)

6. Private: Commercial

7. Other: Not generally accessible and/or known of

8. Availability of parking spaces is only restriction

This listing of designated public recreational beaches includes only
that beach which is currently used as recreational beach. The total
frontage accounted for will differ slightly, therefore, from the mapped
frontage figure in public ownership (in text of report) which includes
undesignated or unusable public beach area.

Source: RPA - CAM 1976 Contract Reports

NAME LOCATION OWNE RSH I P RESTRICTIONS BEACH FRONTAGE BEACH AREA PROPERTY PARKING SPACES
(feet) (acres) (acres)

1 . Byram Shore Beach Greenwich Town 3B 610 1.6 22 172-250

Little Captains
2. Island Beach Park Island Town 1,400 2.4 4

Great Captains
3. Great Captains Island Island Town 3B 2,000 4.9 16.3

4. Greenwich Point Park Greenwich Town 3B 2,400 13.0 148.3 7,000

5. Southfield Beach Stamford City 1-Closed 300

6. Dyke Beach(Kosciosko Park) Stamford city 1-Closed 350

7. Cummings Park Stamford City 482 2,050 4.6 93.5 400

8. Cove Island Park Stamford City 482 2,200 4.4 82.9 315

9. West Beach Stamford City 4B2 600 .6 8.4 110

10. Weed Beach Darien Town 2B 670 (370 of U.D. 1.8 20 250

11. Pear Tree Point Darien Town 2B 430 .75 6.9 240

12. Calf Pasture Beach Norwalk City 2B 1,760 7.5 44

Rowayton
13. Bayley Bell Island Norwalk city 3A 400 .9 7

14. Sherwood Island State Park Westport State 1B 5,600 140 234 5,000

15. Compo Beach Westport Town A2 3,800 9 30.3 1,100

16. Burying Hill Westport Town 02 500 1.1 6.2 -50

17. Old Mill Westport Town 4A2 450 .7 1.8 40

18. Jennings Beach Fairfield Town 02 2,000 9.2 22.9 1,500

19. Rickards Beach Fairfield Town 02 300 .8 1.8 -

20. Penfield Pavilion Fairfield Town 7 900 2.1 8.5 650

21. South Pine Creek Beach Fairfield Town 02 so .1 4.5 25

22. Southport Beach Fairfield Town 02 1,300 4.5 2.2 60

FACILITIES ACTIVITIES 1975 1975 PEAK DAILY CAPACITY COMMENTS
RR BH L6 DW P B F C A Attendance Day Attendance CAPACITY EXCEEDED

1. -X X X X- X X X 23,227 688 960 0

2. X X X X X 84,388 2,555 1,340 NA Ferry access

3. X NO X NO X X X 2,991 204 2,860 NA Ferry access

4. X X X X X X NO X NO 591,252 13,956 7,550 NA

5. Outdoor pool

6.
7. X _X X X X NO X 13.9,075 NA 2,650 NA Public transportation

8. X X X X X X X NO X 141,250 NA 2,533 NA Public trans3ortation

9. X NO X X X NO NO NO NO 42,750 NA 350 NA Public transportation

10.- X X X X X X X NO X

11. X X X X X X X NO X

12. X X X X X X X NO X 800,000

13. X X X X X NO X NO X 566

14. X X X X X NO X NO X 596,712 32,852 25,000 6

15. X X X X X NO NO NO X

16, X 11 X X X NO X 11 NO

17.

18: X X X X X X NO NO X 269,796 NA 5,300 None

19. X X X X X NO NO NO NO NA NA

20. X X X X X X NO NO NO NA NA NA None

21. X X X X X NO NO NO NO NA NA NA - None

22. X x x X X NO NO NO NO 27,516 NA 1,200 None

NAME LOCATION 014NERSHIP RESTRICTIONS BEACH FRONTAGE BEACH AREA PROPERTY PARKING SPACES
(feet) (acres) (acres)

23. Sasco Beach Fairfield Town 02 2,700 10.8 9.9 100

24. Seaside Park Bridgeport Town 4B2 8,800 25.3 370 6,500

25. Pleasure Beach Bridgeport Town 4B2 3,400 9.8 63 1,200

26. Long Beach Stratford Town 4B2 8,300 6.8 36 130

27. Short Beach Stratford Town 4B2 4,200 21.7 105 650

28.

Borough of
29. Woodmont Beach Woodmont Town IA14 2,640 6 10 100

30. Morningside Beach Milford Town 1 7 5

31. Romary Ct. - Oyster River Milford Town 1 7 7

32. Walnut Beach Milford -Town 1 5,280 a 10 350

33. Gulf Beach Milford Town 1B 900 5 10 175

34. Anchor Beach Milford Town 1 600 8 8 50

35. Silver Beach Milford Town

36. Wildmere Beach Milford Town

37. Public Beach-West Haven West Haven City 1B 15,840 70 90 1,000 B-10

38. Fort Hale Park New Haven city Closed to swiming 600 1 51 40-50

39. highthouse Point Park New Haven City 18 970 (250 usuable) 9 80.4 235-400

40. East Haven Town Beach East Haven Town 3 750 4 4 300-400

41. Johnson's Beach Branford Town 3 150 .3 .3

FACILITIES ACTIVITIES 1975 1975 PEAK DAILY CAPACITY COMMENTS
RR BH L@ DW p B F C A Attendance Day Attendance CAPACITY EXCEEDED

23. X X X X X NO NO NO No 17,925 NA 1,400 None

24. X X X X X X X NO X 359,640 32,805 NA None

25. X X X X X NO X NO X NA NA NA None

26. X NO X X- NO NO X NO NO 12,000 1.800 3,000 None

27._._ X X NO NO NO X_____ 28 000 4 200 7,000 No e

Maintained by
29. Association

30. On busline

31. X NO NO NO NO X NO NO 41,000 NA NA NA On busline

32. X NO X X NO NO C NO NO 13,750 NA NA NA On busline

33. NO NO X NO NO NO X NO NO 12,300 On busline

34. X X X X X X X NO X 400-700 1,000 On busline

35.

36.

37. X X X X X X X NO X NA 5,000 3,500 10

38.. X X X X NO X X NO X 65 000 3,000 1,000 6 On busline

39.' X X X X X NO NO NO X___ .10,440 800 None

40. X NO X NO X NO NO NO X

41. X X X X X NO NO NO X 21,000-2,700 1,200 1,500 0 On busline

NAME; LOCATION OWNERSHIP RESTRICTIONS BEACH FRONTAGE BEACH AREA PROPERTY PARKING SPACES
(feet) (acres) (acres)

42. Stony Creek Beach Park Branford Town 3 125 .3 .3

43. Parker Memorial Park Branford Town 01 360 1 12.5 30

44. Jacob's Beach Guilford Town 2B 1,000 1 5 200

45. Shell Beach Guilford Town

46. Hamonasset State Park -------Madison ---State 1B 15,840 200 918 62000 B=20-30

47. Madison Surf Club Madison Town 3B 1,000 4 54.5 60

48. East Wharf Madison Town 3B 150 .5 4 35

49. West Wharf Madison Town 3B 150 1.5 2.4 250

50. Circle Beach Madison Town

51. Town Beach Clinton Town 4AI/29 550 1.3 3.9 60-75

52. Town Beach Westbrook Town 4AI 1,rAn 6 7 90n

53. Fenwick Beach Old Saybrook Borough 3 300 .37

54. Fenwick Pier Old Saybrook Borough 3 100 -.1

55. Harvey's Beach Old Saybrook Private-Commercial 6 500 1.2 8

56. Town Beach Old Saybrook Town 4A 215 _ .4 .8 50-65

57. Sound View Old Lyme Town 8 1,850 4.6

58. Wbite Sands Old Lyme Town 02 210 .52 .78 78

59. Rocky Neck State Park East Lyme State 1B 2,400 11 561 3,700

60. McCook Point East Lyme Town 3 2,400 11 561 215

FACILITIES ACTIVITIES 1975 1975 PEAK DAILY CAPACITY COMMENTS
RR BH L@ DW P 8 F C A Attendance Day Attendance CAPACITY EXCEEDED

42.

43.

44. X NO X X NO X NO -NO NO 400/day NA NA 10

45.

46.____X X X X X X X X X NA 25,000 30,000 0

47. X NO X X NO X NO NO NO 300/day NA NA 10

48._ X X __X X X X NO NO X NA 500-600 300-400 NA On busline

49.

50.

51. X NO X X X NO X NO NO 6,000 NA 100 0

52. X X X _X X NO NO NO NO

53,

54.

55. X X NO X X X NO NO NO Parking limits

56. X NO X X X NO NO NO NO 15,000 300 150-190 NA

58.' X X X X NO NO NO NO NO .24,000 250 450 10-15

59. x X X X X NO X X NO NA 15,000 12,000 3 Expansion planned

60. X X X X X NO NO X X NA 3,300 NA 5-10

NAME: LOCATION OWNERSHIP RESTRICTIONS BEACH FRONTAGE BEACH AREA PROPERTY PARKING SPACES
(feet) (acres) (acres)

61. Waterford Town Beach Waterford Town 3A 1,300 3 95 145+

62. Ocean Beach Park New London Town 1B/2A 2,400 14 55 25-100

63. Green's-Harbor Beach and Park New London Town on Thames River 3.5

64. Riverside Park and Beach New London Town on Thames River 18.0

65. Eastern Point Groton Town 3 700 1.4 6 --

66. Esker Point Groton Town 2A 750 3.5 16 260

67. Groton Long Point Groton Town 8 2,200 2.5 2.5 20

68. Town Beach Groton Town 1A 275 .5 -- 65

69. Dubois Beach Stonington Town 3B 200 .5

FACILITIES ACTIVITIES 1975 1975 PEAK DAILY CAPACITY COMMENTS
RR BH L@ DW P B F C A Attendance Day Attendance CAPACITY EXCEEDED

61. x X X NO X x NO NO NO 0

62. x NO -X X NO NO X NO NO 10,726 200-300 -90-150 NA

63.

64.

65,

66. X- x x x X NO__NO NO NO 30,500 NA NA NA

Parking limits

68. ---,x- x X NO X NO NO NO _NO 27,500 NA NA NA

69. NO NO x NO NO NO NO NO NO 15,000 200 None

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX E
I STATE BOAT LAUNCHING RAMPS;
I MARI14AS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

STATE OWNED COASTAL BOAT ACCESS AREAS

Barn Island Stonington

Bayberry Lane Groton

Branford River Branford

Connecticut River Old Saybrook

Dock Road Waterford

East River Guilford

Fort Hale New Haven

Four Mile River 01 d Lyme

Great Island Old Lyme

Lighthouse Point New Haven

Niantic River Waterford

Seaside Park Bridgeport

Thames River New London

I SERVICES
FACILITIES SUPPLIES

AN
C',

del
TOWN C".

MARINA OR
YACHT CLUB 0

Branford
1. Branford Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B

2. Pier 66, Inc. 100
3. Goodsell Point 80 2
Marina, Inc.

4. Dutch Wharf 32

5. Branford Marine 12
Railroad
6. Indian Neck Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

7. Bruce and Johnson's 500 50
Marina, Inc.
Pine Orchard Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
and Country Club
9. Indian Point Yacht Y A C H T C L U 8
Club

Ind imw iml awl wolmom I"

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

(% 4,
0, k ... -- - -P, "-.
OF

0
TOWN @oll
let
0, C%
0;,
MARINA OR
0 0
YACHT CLUB
%P 0

Bridgeport
1. Black Rock Yacht Clul Y A C H T C L U B

2. Fayerweather
Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B
3. Bridgeport Municipal 280
Marina

4. Cedar Boatways 112
5. Hitchcock Marine 65

6. Poquonock
Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B
7. The Move Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B'

Parsell's Marine
Sales 15C
9. Bill's Boat Basin 5C
10. miamogue Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B
11. East End Yacht Club Y A C, H 7 C L U 8

FACILITIES SUPPLIES' SERVICES

eb
el d.

TOWN ei

MARINA OR
YACHT CLUB
0,

Chester

1. Connecticut River & 124
Marina

2. Parker's Boat Yard 58

3. Chester Creek Marina 160

4. Pattaconk Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B

5. Springfield Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

6. Chrisholm Marina, 115
Inc.

7. Middletown Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

ion -m sib I =6 @mw 601 do I Wn I W bol I WW 1 06 1 law

= = = mm = = M = mm SIR am
FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

'p- AN
et e
11p I Lq
TOWN
r3
MARINA OR
0 0
YACHT CLUB 0
e,
P
OA

CLINTON

1. Hammonassett River 60
Marina

2. York Haven Marina, 88
Inc.

3. Riverside Basin, Inc 44

4. Cedar Island Marina, 350
Inc.

5. Holiday Dock 30

6. Clinton Harbor 55
Marina, Inc.

7. Clinton Harbor 75
Marina East, Inc.

8. Graves Marina 6

9. Indian River Marina 2C

10. Old Harbor Marina, 115
Inc.

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

TOWN P. 0
MARINA OR CP 0
-&
YACHT CLUB 0.A
N

Darien

1. Norton Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B

2. Darien Boat Club Y A C H T C L U B

I aw is" w in I WE I aw 106 Immi WWI im I aim

m =no m m @mm M M m mm =wpm
FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

1-1
0
e, Cc) 0 c" AN 0

TOWN
AN
MARINA OR Cf,
0
YACHT CLUB 0

Deep River

1. T.J. Johnson 19 8

2. Deep River Marina, 135 5
Inc.

FACILITIES SUPPL!"ES SERVICES

10
41. AN
0e.
c%.
:oo
TOWN 0

MARINA OR
0
YACIHT CLUB
0

East Haddam

1. Goodspeed Airport 25
and Marina

aim
m WIN kmi imml dim I aim I aim I Imi ww imm

= so am M = I W = m m m m fill m

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

1IN
01
AI OR 0
TOWN
0
MARINA OR 0 C,
0 0 12
YACHT CLUB 0

East Hampton

I . Cobalt Marine 26

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

%-'>e AN
'Ile 7-"
'o 0
TOWN 1@p C,
-c@ "C%
MARINA OR 0
0 0 A
YACHT CLUB
0

East Haven

1. Lighthouse Marina 26

2. Haven East Marina 150

3. Talmadge Boat Yard 30

a* 104 ow 1 *0 1 *M I G* WW inal ww I wo I min I Ali ww iml wn I Elm

=go =0 omp"Immi"m w = m m = air
FAC I LIT I ES SUPPLIES SERVICES

5r
01, C"
TOWN

Cr
MARINA OR
YACHT CLUB 0

East Lyme

1. Niantic Bay Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

2. Niantic Beach Marina 10

3. Niantic River Marina 00
Inc.

4. Boats, Inc. 120

5. Bayview Hotel and 65
Marina.

6. Darron's Marina, Inc * 75

7. Niantic Boat Yard, * 62 25 *
Inc.

8. Bayreuther Boat Yard * 85 15 *
Inc.

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

AN
t

TOWN
e,
d'
MARINA Oil
YACHT CLUB 0

Essex

I Connecticut Yacht 45
Servides, Inc.

2. Essex Marine 42
Services, Inc.

3. Essex Paint & 10 60
Marine Co.

4. Essex Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B

5. Essex Boat Works 10

6. Essex Island * 150
Marine, Inc.

7. Dauntless Shipyard, * 70
Inc.

8. Petipaug Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

I ON I oil I a* immi d= 40 4@m mok Immi km@ i" vim

NOMMOMM mom No MWIM ww=w
SERV 1 C
FACILITIES SUPPLIES

N 0
x, <9- W-
C @;.

d- 05
rowm
S, P1. PIP 00
C,
iARINA OR
0 40
(ACHT CLUB

C1,

Fairfield

1. Pequot Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club'
2. Southport Dock 2001
3. South Benson Small 750
Boat Marina

1. Also Includes Pequct J nio- Ya:ht ',Iut

FAC I LIT I ES SUPPLIES SERVICES

d'
TOWN
0
P 4% d,
MARI hA Oil
0
YACHT CLUB w

Glastonbury

1. Hartford Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

2. Sagman's Marine

on W* Igo *m 1 40 1 N* 11* 00 W *m I 10A 106 1 mm@ low Lai dm I min

Mrii "17roz 1" 100 NM I"PPL" M MMI 00 NPIEdM W
FACI L. I I ES

% 4-

rOWN P.
%P d' 0
4ARINA OR 0 e
YACHT CLUB

Greenwich
I

1. J. Catalano and 20
Sons, Inc.

2. Byram Shore Boat Y A C H T C L U B
Club

3. Byram Park Marina 400 67

4. Belle Haven Boat Y A C H T C L U B
Club

5. Grass Island 327 750
Municipal Boating
Facility

6. Greenwich Boat and Y A C H -T C L U B
Yacht Club

7. Indian Harbor Y A C H T C L U B
Yacht Club

8. Strictland Road 300 10
Municipal Facility

9. Palmer Point Marina 150

10. McMichael Yacht 90
and Yardp Inc.

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

A%
14 11> @11

S%
C1.
TOWN

1 10
MARINA OR
YACHT CLUB
0 C1.
?k0

Greenwich (continued)

11. Harbor Marine 375
Center, Inc.

12. Waterways Marina, 39
Inc.

13. Hansen's Boat 55
Yard, Inc.

14. Drenchahn Boat 8o
Basin, Inc.

15. Riverside Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

16. Greenwich Point 700
Municipal Facility

17. Old Greenwich Y A C H T C L U B
Yacht Club

mi N6 m6 1 mi 6mll

MM M M mim MM M MM MM M = M
FACILITIES SUPPL!ES SERVICES
1* \XI.P1 et 0
el
S,
TOWN 0 A A%
>1
MARINA OR 0
YACHT CLUB el A
C1,
0 cl,

Groton

1. Sub Base Marina P R I V A T E

2. Groton Oil Marina 12

3. Groton Marine Deck 27

4. On-The-Thames 16
Motel/Boatel

5. Shennecossetl Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

6,. Spic er's Marina 180 110
7. Elks Club Marina 2 P R I V A -T E

B. Groton Long Point Y A C H T C L U B
Yacht Club

9. Palmer's Cove 100
Marina, Inc.
3
10. Sound Marine 25

11. Cousin's Boat 50
Yard

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

j
K%

%S%
TOWN P. 0
e,
D
cf, M
MARINA OR C 0
0 0 A% 0
YACHT CLUB el 0

Groton (continued)

12. Spicer's Marina 84 35

13. Noank Shipyard 150 75

14. Maxwell's Boat 35
Yard

15. Ram Island Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

16. Beebe Cove Marina 70 10

17. Mystic Shipyard, 33 6
Inc.

18. Fort Rachel Marine 75

19. Mystic Marine 30
Railway

I . Retired or active milliary per onn I or depencent on y
2. Elks Club members oily
3. Plus 60 in rack storage

I Nk IN& WW dm I do I WN I'Min I mob WW im

= = MIM M =I= M M Mm M =I = M
FAC I LIT I ESI IUPPL I ES SERVICES
op -Al

del 1C.0
rowN
OA
D
iARINA OR d' C)
%S%
0
eACHT CLUB
6-1
0

;uilford

Sachem Head Yacht YACHTCLUB
Club

Broud's Boat Yard, 24
Inc.

1. Guilford Boat Yards, 5
Inc.

i. Guilford Yacht Club YACHTCLUB

Guilford Town Marine 170 12

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

TOWN

tn
MARINA OR %S1 0 J.
B
YACHT CLU Ile fq

Haddam

1. Harpers Land.ing 22

2. Midway Marine, Inc. 38

3. Boyd's Marina and 11
Canvas Shop

I" owl I @m I No 1104 Owl ilm I I m# I m# lm@ iml 40

or= M M M mim M M M mm
FACILITIES I SUPPLIES SERVICES
'p- \ <% " - 11-1 5@ AN
le @@< @

TOWN r)o
lp
0 w
MARINA OR <9
u 0
YACHT CLUB

Ledyard

I Long Cove Landing 24

2. Gales Ferry 60 6
Marina

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

4%
TOWN P. % 0 0
Ir Cf 0
MARINA OR
0 0
YACHT CLUB

Lyme

1. Hamburg Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U 8

FAC I LIT I ES SUPPLIES SERVICES

-/f, ol
's
10, D C
el 'x 10 0
- I .
9 N v r^ dl
TOWN 0
P. C'
C,
Is% d' r- 0 !001
MARINA OR
0 0
YACHT CLUB el 0
0

Madison

1. Heritage Yacht 58
Harbor, Inc.

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVI CES

, I - *11 x 3

es
TOWN 0,
'0 e,
MARINA OR
0 r
YACHT CLUB
0, C1.

Milford
1. Valley Yacht Club, Y A C H T C L U :B
I nc.

2. Flagship Marina, 95
Inc.
3. Milford Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U 0
4. Sea Frolic Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

5. Commodore Marine, 100
Inc.

6. Milford Harbor 350
Marina and Boat
Works, Inc.
Wepawang Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

8. Town Dock and 0 0-
Landing Ramp

9. Spencer's Marina, 175 2
Inc.

4K No @00 16 1, 11@0 Nil !w1i

M on mom M so M

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

0-
10
411
TOWN 0
cob
(dr*
MARINA OR 0 0
0 0
YACHT CLUB !:t_

New Haven

1. City Point Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

2. Traders Dock
Marina, Inc.

3. City Point Boat 16 2
Yard

4. Waucoma Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B

5. Fair Haven Boat 51
Yard, Inc.

6.- J.G. Wyman Boat

7. Milo Marina 75

8. New Haven Marina, 95
Inc.

9. New Haven Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

Aj
TOWN

MARINA Oil Aj
U
YACHT CLUB el 0
KI
0

New London
1. Thames Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B

2. Marster's Dock and * 90 10 *
Marine Service

3. Burr's Yacht Haven * 172 25 *

4. A-& W Marina * 22

5. Gary's Marina 15

6. Crocker's Boat Yard * 105

7. Scott Is Boat Yard 28

6wj owlliw* 104 00@ 4w14w1*1=* 1* 001 ON

WIN am, 11111

FAC;LITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

@0 0
cc)
e,
^ %co
TOWN 0 0

MARINA OR 3
YACHT CLUB % 0
OKI
0

Norwalk

1. Five Mile Landing 50

2. The Boat Works, 20 30
Inc.

3. Rowayton Marine 37 50
Works, Inc.

4. W. R. Haskell 20 2
Marine Sales

5. Bounty-Smith 40 4
Marine Services,
Inc.

6. White Bridge 34 9
Marina
7. Wilson Cove Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club
8. Spangle Marina 85
9. Norwalk Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B
10. Norwalk Boat Club Y A C H T C L U B

11. Maurice Marine 7 13

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

00 V

<
d' V^ Aj o5
'OWN P
0 '0
OF
iARINA OR
0 0
(ACHT CLUB
1>

Norwalk (continued)

12.. North West Marine,
Inc.

13. ischod.a Yacht Club Y A C H T :C L U B

14. Rex Marine Center, * 75
Inc.

15.'Vinco Marine, Inc. * 98 14

16. Viking Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U 8

17. South Norwalk Y A C H T C L U B
Boat Club

18,* Anderson Boat Yard 30

19. Neptune Marina 89

20. Norwalk Municipal 100
Marina

21. East Norwalk Boat- Y A C H T C L U B
ing & Yacht Club

22. Overton's Outboard
Service, Inc.

m6l m@ [=4, @mj- 4m,1,48 4m 1 -vim 10, m 1* @m

MEN M M M M M W M am, M M
FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

0 S@
e,

TOWN
'C'
%A 0
MARINA OR 0
YACHT CLUB

Norwalk (continued)

23. T.J. Marina, Inc. 50 20.

24. Bloom Bors. Marine 100 13

25. Rex Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B

26. Norwalk Shore and Y A C H T C L U B
Country Club

27. Norwalk Cove Marina 430
Inc.

28. Sprite Island Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

FAC I LIT I ES SUPPLIES SERVICES

TOWN C,
ol 'C%
MARINA OR
YACHT CLUB 0

Norwich
1. Rose City Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

*m] ON I

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

A- / I& r AN
?X
N, e. ..* .1 QX,
S,
1-0 0
d,
TOWN

05
MARINA OR
0
YACHT CLUB

Old Lyme

I . Old Lyme Marina, 31 50
Inc.

2. Reynold's Marine 11

3. Saybrook Yacht
Yard, Inc.

4. Black Hall Marina 55

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

TOWN

MARINA OR 0
YACHT CLUB

Old Saybrook

I . Harbor 1 80

2. Chimney Point 100
Marine, Inc.

3. Saybrook Marina 11
Service, Inc.

4. Black Swan Marina, 198
Inc.

5. Riverview Marina, 55
Inc.

6. Oakleaf Marina 40 15

7. Ferry Point Marina 135

8. Offs-hore East 30

9. G.A. Plumb, Inc. 20

1. Plus 100 dry stack cap I cit t 22
on M "#M min Iwo 10-0 *M I 4n I=* I" ON I 'on I'M6 IN* Iwo 001 On

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

TOWN
%S%
S,
D
coo r 0
MARINA OR 0
YACHT CLUB

Portland

1. Portland Boat Works, * 50 3
Inc.

2. Yankee Boat Yard, * 16 10
Inc.

3. Middlesex Marina, 7
Inc.

4. Portland Riverside * 20 7
Marina

5. Meriden Motor Boat Y A C H T C L U B
Club

6. William J. Petzold, 10
Inc.

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

p AN
407, %Sl c
qe

TOWN

MARINA OR 0
YACHT CLUB

Rocky Hill

1. Hates Landing 25

fin

somm man M M @Wim MM = " W NMI W M
FAC 1 LIT I ES SUPPLIES SERVICES

'All
x%
D

T O'W'N
P -0
-C!
C%
MARINA OR
0 0
YACHT CLUB 0

Stamford

1. Southfield Park 70
Marina

2. Pat's Marina 65

3. Ponus Yacht Club Y A C H T C L U B

4. Yacht Haven East 800
and West

5. Doane Harbor Marine 200

6. Schooner Cove, Inc. 115

7. Stamford Yacht Y A C H T C L U 8
Club

8. Muzzlo Bros. Yacht 37 it
and Yard, Inc.

9. Halloween Yacht Y A C H T C L U 8
Club

10. Stamford Municipal 230
Marina

11. Cove Island Marina 190 89

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

0
@Pl Ilk 0"
1P
el
C,
TOWN
0
0
MARINA OR 0 0
YACHT CLUB 0

Stonington

1. Old Mystic Marina 36

2. Mystic Seaport, Inc. * 17

3. Seaport Marine, Inc. 37

4. Gwenmor Marina, Inc. * 96

5. Whit-Mar Marina, Inc * 7-00

6. Williams Cove Boat * 60 6 *
Yard

7. Shaffer's Boat 50 *
Livery

8. Brower's Cove Marina 70 35 *

9. Mason Island Marina * 8o 4o *

10. Mystic River Marina * 7-25

11. Mason Island Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

12. Spicer's Boat Livery 25

.13. Freddy's Boat Livery * 98 3

14. Wadawanack Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club
sum m w6i=@iv@ 61 61 w6 i ism@ @041 46 1 @w I @is 1" 'mod inn' dw

m m m mmlon MMIM mm w m m" w m
FACILITIES I SUPPLIES SERVICES
1@9 4-
0-
C y
10, n^ 0
,p
y d,
TOWN P. 0 C%
&
19/
0
MARINA OR
YACHT CLUB A 0 Or6
&

Stonington (continued)

15. Dodson Boat Yard * 30 85

16. Stonington Boat Work! * 30

17. Coveside, Inc. @25

18. Weguetegnock Cove 46
Boat Co.

19. Pawcatuck River Boat 14
Yard

20. Riverside Marina 60

21. Connor's & WBrien 66
Marina, Inc.

22. Miner's Boat Yard * 66

23. Greenhaven Marina * 60 15

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

0 %P d' @K
CI'S P- 0
TOWN I
d'
MARINA OR
- VO
0
YACHT CLUB o",

Stratford-

1. Housatonic Marina,
Inc. 107 1

2. Don's Marine Service
Inc.
3. Housatonic Boat Club Y A C H T C @L U B

4. Stratford Town Dock 0 0
and Launching Ramp

5. Brown's Boat Works,
Inc. 34

6. Stratford Marina,
Inc, 1-50 7

Pootatuck Yacht
Club Y A C H 7 C L U B

'its
min ino mks

1\80 womm man mmmm w m m m m m m m
FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

TOWN
Ie
MARINA OR le'. 0
J%
YACHT CLUB 0

Waterford

I . J.C. Marine, Inc. 10

2. Waddy's Dock 64
Marina

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

kA
P C, 0 N
A
TOWN
C% -
MARINA OR 0 0
0
0
YACHT CLUB 0

Wethersfield
1. Wethersfield Cove Y A C H T C L U B
Yacht Club
2. Cove Park 60
Anchorage

mo iowl in min 106 16111 kal is I is I mi mod

mom M "wa@16mm"Immm MM
FA CILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

4-
7^

ol
TOWN 12 o), 0
_0 0, 10
MARINA OR C,
YACHT CLUB 0

West Haven

1. West Haven Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club

2. Kimberly Harbor, 140
Inc.

FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

0 C', 1p
C, ;xy^
TOWN P.

1p
;3.
MARINA OR 0 .51 :9 0-
YACHT CLUB 0

Westbrook-

1. King's Marina, Inc. 12

2. Westbrook Boat and 30
Engine Co., Inc.

3. Wetmoor's Marina 130

4. Clough's Marina 30

5. Dick's Marina * 80

6. Pilot's Point Marina * Z25
North'

7. Pilot's Point Marina * 350
South

8. Rackliff Marine * 26

9. Harry's Marine 33

10. Pochaug River Marina * 71

11. Lawson's Marina, Inc 70

12. McCoomb's Marina * 200

as miW mm6 Immi 114 46m 1 min I =6 smi, joi 16m aim WIN,

m so as ion m
FACILITIES SUPPLIES SERVICES

lip
TOWN 0 Ol.

MARINA OR :P 0
0 0
YACHT CLUB %
0

Westport

1. Cedar Point Yacht Y A C H T C L U B
Club, Inc.
2. Saugatuck Harbor Y A C H T C L U B
Yacht Club

3. Coastwise Marine 20
Corp.
4. Joseph S. Clinton P R I V A T E C L U B
V.F.W. Post
Marina

5. Riverside Marine, 35 30
Inc,

6. E.R. Strait Marina 139
7. Compo Yacht Basin 45 210

1. Plus 60 Rack Storaga C pac ty

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX F
I STATE OWNED RECREATION OR PRESERVE PROPERTIES IN COASTAL TOWNS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

STATE OWNED RECREATION OR PRESERVE PROPERTIES IN COASTAL TOWNS

LOCATION

State Parks

Sherwood Island Beach State Park Westport
Hammonassett Beach State Park Madison
Sleeping Giant State Park Hamden
Rocky Neck Beach State Park East Lyme
Harkness Memorial State Park Waterford

State Heritage Areas

("An area primarily managed to preserve and interpret
unique and irreplaceable historical cultural, geologic
or archeological features.")

Barlett Arboretum Stamford
Swamp Fight Monument Fairfield
Fort Saybrook Old Saybrook
Fort Griswold Groton
John Mason Monument Groton
Miantonomo Monument Norwich
Pequot Burial Ground Ledyard
Fort Shantok Montville

State Reserves

("Lands and waters held in reserve that provide for future management
options".)

Miananus River State Reserve Stamford
Silver Sands State Reserve Milford
Quinnipiac River Conservation Reserve Hamden
Thatchbed Island State Reserve Essex,
Selden Neck State Scenic Reserve Lyme
Bluff Point State Coastal Reserve Groton
Haley Farm State Reserve Groton
Connecticut Arboretum State Reserve Waterford
Stoddard Hill State Scenic Reserve Ledyard
Minnie Island State Reserve Montville

LOCATION

State Fish and/or Wildlife Area

("An area of land or water having unique or outstanding
wildlife qualities primarily managed for fish and/or
wildlife based recreation".)

Farm -River Marsh East Haven
Branford River Branford
Democrat Rock Branford
East River Guilford
Great Harbor Guilford
C.E. Wheeler Milford
Quinnipiac River North Haven
Hammock River Clinton
Lords Cove Lyme
Nott Island Lyme
Great Island Old Lyme
Ferry Point Old Saybrook
Plum Bank Old Saybrook
Ragged Rock Creek Old Saybrook
South Cove Old Saybrook
Penny Island Groton
Six Penny Island Groton
Barn Island Stonington
Rose Hill Ledyard

Other

Farm Brook State Conservation Area Hamden
Nehantic State Forest East Lyme

Source: SCORP PRINTOUTS

UNDEVELOPED ISLANDS (con't)

Name Location Acreage Ownership_ Means Access

El Hammock Norwalk 1.7 P B

Wood Norwalk 1.9 P B

Temperance Norwalk .1 P B

Sheffield Norwalk 52.8 P B

The Plains Norwalk 21 city B

Little Ram Norwalk 3.0 P B

Copps Norwalk 7.9 P B

Chirilons Norwalk 70.2 P B

Betts Norwalk 14.8 P B

Grassy Norwalk 13.4 Ci ty B

Long Beach Noywalk .5 city B

Peach Norwalk 3.5 P B

Calf Pasture Norwalk 1.5 P B

Sprite Westport 7.2 P B

Goose Westport 3.4 Audubon B

Cockenoe Westport 37.6 Town B

Islands of
Sherwood Mill
Pond Westport 8 P B

Menunketesuck, Westbrook 5.0 P B

Salt Westbrook 1.0 P B

Mouse Groton .7 P B

Ram Stonington 24 P B

Andrews Stonington 30 P B

Dodges Stonington 18 P B

Source: 1976 - CAM Contract Reports

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX G
I LSLANDS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

DEVELOPED ISLANDS

These islands generally receive some public services (water, phone,

electricity or sanitary) and have some dwelling units on them.

Name Location

Gardners Greenwich

Pembrooke Greenwich

Gamecock Greenwich

Shell (Little Calf) Greenwich

Round Island Peninsula Greenwich

Grass Greenwich

Horse Greenwich

Saw Greenwich

Greenway Stamford

Brush Is. Peninsula Darien

Nash Darien

Pratt Darien

Dorrance Property (peninsula) Darien

Hay Darien

Great Is. Peninsula Darien

Delajuld Is. Peninsula Darien

Fish Islands (4) Darien

Butlers Darien

Bell Is. Peninsula Norwalk

Manresa Norwalk

Canfield Norwalk

Name Location

Saugatuck Shores Peninsula Westport

Owenoke Peninsula Westport

Money (Thimble Island: see note) Branford

Governor (Thimble Island: see note) Branford

High (Thimble Island: see note) Branford

Clam (Thimble Island: see note) Branford

Essex Island Marina Essex

Note: Most of the Thimble Islands have dwelling units on them (seasonal).

All the Thi.mble Islands receive some services during the summer, none

are sewered or have electricity service. Only those islands with

more than two dwelling units are listed as developed.

Recreational Islands (Islands with recognized recreation use)

Name Location

Calf Island Greenwich

Great Captains Island Greenwich

Ram Island (unofficial use) Norwalk

Sherwood Island Peninsula, State Park Westport

Kitts Island (Longshore Park) Westport

UNDEVELOPED ISLANDS

Name Location Acreage Ownership- Means Access

Shore Island Greenwich 1.8 P B

Bowens Greenwich 3.4 P B

Little Captain Greenwich 3.0 Town Ferry

Wee Captain Greenwich .7 Town B

Is. of Greenwich
Harbor Greenwich 3.5 P B

Grove Greenwich 3.4 P B

Finch Greenwich 3.2 P B

Goose Greenwich .6 P B

Clump Greenwich 1.5 P Ferry

Rock Greenwich .6 P B

Lot 16 Greenwich 1.0 P B

Park Greenwich .3 P B

Hannah Maria Greenwich .7 P B

Indian Head
Assoc. Greenwich .03 Assoc. B

Pelican Greenwich .4 Town B

Greenwich Greenwich .2 Town B

Fayerweather Bridgeport 14 Town B

Charles Milford 15 State B and walk

Green Branford 2 P B

Sumac Branford 2 P B

Sedge Branford 1 P B

Umbrella Branford 2 P B

P denotes private ownership B denotes private boat access

UNDEVELOPED ISLANDS (con't)

Name Location Acreage Ownership Means Access

Kelsey Branford 43 P B

Lover's Branford 1 P B

St. Helena Branford I P B

Thimble Islands

Bear (Goat) Branford 8 P Ferry (seasonal)
Smith Branford 3 P Ferry (seasonal)

Beers Branford 1 P Ferry (seasonal)

Davis Branford 4 P Ferry (seasonal)
Wayland Branford 3 P Ferry (seasonal)
Hen Branford 1 P Ferry (seasonal)

Cut-in-Two Branford 2 P Ferry (seasonal)
Dogfish Branford 1 P Ferry (seasonal)
East Stopping Branford 1 P Ferry (seasonal)
Bush Branford 1 P Ferry (seasonal)
Prudden Branford 1 P Ferry (seasonal)

Pot Branford 8 P Ferry (seasonal)

West Crib Branford 1 P Ferry (seasonal)

East Crib Branford 1 P Ferry (seasonal)
Rogers Branford 8 P Ferry (seasonal)
Cedar Branford 1 P Ferry (seasonal)

Potato Branford 2 P Ferry (seasonal)

Horse Branford 17 P Ferry (seasonal)

Outer Branford 6 P Ferry (seasonal)

Wheeler Branford 1 P Ferry (seasonal)

Burr Branforl 1 P Ferry (seasonal)

UNDEVELOPED ISLANDS (con't)

Name Location Acreage Ownership Means Access

Twins Branford 2 P Ferry (seasonal)

Frisbee Branford 1 P Ferry (seasonal)

Andrews Branford -I P Ferry (seasonal)

Belden Branford -I P Ferry (seasonal)

Horse Guilford 2.5 P B

Foskett Guilford 3 P B

Narrows Guilford 6 P B

Tuxis Madison 3 Club B

Cedar Clinton 21 P B

Thatchbed Essex 20.4 Priv-P'Ub B

Brockway Essex 12.8 P B

Nott Lyme 82 Public B

Eustacia Lyme 30 P B

Suden Lyme 623 Public B

Calves Old Lyme 40.8 Priv-Pub B

Goose Old Lyme 76.0 P B

Great Old Lyme 353.6 Priv-Pub B

Duck Westbrook 3.0 Public B

Canada Dry Stamford .2 P B

Scofield Stamford 2.0 P B

Norwalk Island Group

Hoyt Norwalk 3.6 P B

Cedar Hammock Norwalk 3.6 P B

Little Tavern Norwalk 1.2 P B

Tavern Norwalk 5.9 P B

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX H
COMPLEMENTARY LEGISLATION AND FUNDING
I - Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
- State and Federal Agencies With Support Activities
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

2.3 Other Federal Responsibilities*

2.3A U.S. Department of the Interior

The Department of the Interior contains several
agencies with major responsibilities for land and water
resource management in the coastal zone, including the
National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of Indian Affairs.
In addition, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has a
far-reaching role in coastal recreation, through its
myriad of planning, coordination, and technical and
financial assistance activities. The Department of
the Interior possesses the greatest experience in
recreational resource management of any Federal depart-
ment.

1. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

Under the Land and Water Conservation (LAWCON)
Fund Act of 1965, (16 U.S.C. 460, 78 Stat. 897)
the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation administers a
program of financial assistance grants to states
for facilitating outdoor recreation planning,
acquisition and developmentaT -activities. Under
LAWCON each state must prepare a State Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) to qualify for
funding assistance. Each state has a LAWCON liaison
officer to coordinate state/Federal relations.

The Bureau also prepares and maintains a con-
tinuous inventory of outdoor recreation needs and
resources of the United States, maintains a system
for classification of outdoor recreation resources,
formulates and maintains a comprehensive nationwide
outdoor recreation plan and provides technical
assistance to states, political subdivisions and
private interests. The Bureau provides technical
and funding assistance, but has no resource manage-
ment authority.

2. National Park Service

The National Park Service (NPS) represents a key
land managing agency in the coastal zone. Nationwide,
NPS administers a system of some 300 units, comprised

Jource: Coastal Recreation: A Handbook for Planners and Managers,
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone
Management, January, 1976.

of national parks, monuments, historic sites,
recreation areas, lakeshores, seashores, preserves,
battlefields, and military parks.

The Park Service is charged with a dual, at times
conflicting, mission of: (1) preserving the nation's
natural, cultural and scenic wonders, hile simul-
taneously (2) providing for public enjoyment derived
through recreational use of these resources. NPS
adminis red areas are generally established only
where resources meet stringent requirements for
uniqueness and national significance, and as a
consequence are jeldom located where public needs
are most iniense. In addition, NPS policies de
emphasizing facility development in many types of
park system units, and focusing greater attention
upon preservation efforts have evolved in response
to increasing use pressures and resultant resource
degradation at heavily visited sites.

NPS has, however, undertaken projects in recent
years that are distinctly oriented toward satisfying
urban recreational needs. The Gateway and Golden
Gate National Recreation Areas established in the
New York and San Francisco metropolitan regions
during 1972 represent the foremost examples of
National Park service units established for urban
recreational users in a coastal setting.

A 1935 National Park Service survey of undeveloped
seashore areas recommended that 12 major sites, with
a combined shoreline frontage of 439 miles, be pre-
served as national seashores. This investigation
led to the creation of Cape Hatteras National Sea-
shore in 1937. NPS conducted another survey in
1954 to determine the remaining opportunities to
preserve outstanding stretches of the Atlantic and
Gulf Coasts2. Subsequently, nine national seashores
and four national lakeshores distributed throughout
the ccuntry's ocean and Great Lakes coastline have
been established. These units have been complemented
by the designation of several national parks, monu-
ments, and other units with coastal frontages.

I Clayne Jensen. Outdoor Recreation in America. Burgess Publishing Co.
Minneapolis, Minn. 1973 (Second Edition).
2 National Park Service. A Report on the Seashore Recreation Area Sunm
of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 1955.

The establishment of national parks, seashores,
and lakeshores requires special legislation to
provide for purchasing privately held lands. This
requirement complicates planning for the creation
of new areas due to the uncertainties inherent in
dependence upon enabling legislation from the Congress.

In addition to its direct land managing respon-
sibilities, NPS administers several specialized
historic, archaeologic, and educational programs,
and conducts research in managing natural areas,
including coastal environments. The agency's
National Historic Landmarks Program includes a
survey of historic sites and buildings to identify
those of national significance, evaluation of
potential landmarks by the Advisory Board on National
Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments, and
procedures for designating National Historic Land-
marks.

All properties eligible for designation as national
historic landmarks, as well as historical areas in
the national park system, qualify automatically for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places,
a compilation of districts, sites, structures, and
objects significant in American history, architecture,
archaeology, and culture. The National ReWster,,
which is maintained by NPS, is published bienially,
with pertinent information concerning each entry.
Sites of state or local significance may be nominated
by the respective states, and are placed on the
National Register with NPS approval.

A State Liaison Officer appointed by the Governor
supervises state historic programs. Historic pro-
perties are identified in a statewide survey, and
reviewed by a professional committee. If the pro-
perty in question meets Federally prescribed criteria,
the committee may recommend it for nomination to the
National Register. Additions to the National Register
are printed monthly in the Federal Register, and an
annual revision composed of monthly supplements may
be obtained from the U.S. Governemnt Printing Office.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(16 U.S.C. 470 80 Stat. 915) authorizes Federal
matching grants to the states, and to the National
Trust for Historic Preservation. These grants may
be used for statewide surveys, the preparation of
statewide historic preservation plans, and the
acquisition and restoration of individual projects.
Individual preservation projects of other eligible
public or private recipients may also be funded
through the states if they meet the following re-
quirements:

- the project's inclusion in the National Register;
- consistency with a statewide historic preser-
vation plan approved by the Secretary of the
Interior; and
- need for financial assistance; or
- ownership by the National Trust for Historic
Preservation.

The State Liaison Officer directs the state's
grant-in-aid program historical surveys, and preser-
vation planning; this individual should be contacted
for questions concerning a state's historic preser-
vation program.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
also created an Advisory Council on Historic Preser-
vation, and authorized it to comment upon all under-
takings, prior to their approval, licensed, assisted,
or carried out by the Federal government that have
an effect upon properties in the National Register.
While this, in combination with applicable provisions
in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4331) and resultant regulations, affords some measure
of protection, important classes of projects with
the potential to generate adverse effects are omitted
in the application of these two laws.

The Natural Landmarks Program, also administered
by NPS, was created to facilitate identification and
registration of national landmarks, and to encourage
the preservation of nationally significant properties,
regardless of ownership. NPS has conducted an in-
ventory of the country's natural areas in conjunction
with this program. The system of natural landmarks
is designed to illustrate the diversity of the nation's
natural environment.

Following NPS evaluation, sites which appear to
qualify for inclusion are submitt, ed to the Advisory
Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings
and Monuments for its recommendations to the Secretary
of the Interior concerning their eligibility for
registration, In requesting registration, property
owners agree to comply with basic management and pro-
tection practices prescribed by the program.

NPS also holds major Federal responsibilities for
archaeological research and protection. The agency
conducts a program of salvage archaeology where
highway construction, dams, pipelines, and other Federal
projects threaten antiquities. Although substantial
archaeological fieldwork is conducted under the
NPS' historic preservation programs, archaeological
protection efforts are largely restricted to certain
types of actions, and often do not apply to various
projects which have a potential to adversely affect
these resources.

3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is charqed with
conserving and enhancing fish and wildlife populations, and
particularly migratory birds, and threatened and
endangered animal species. With responsibility for
administering the National Wildlife Refuge System, the
Fish and Wildlife Service represents another key
Department of the Interior land and water resource
managing agency. The refuge system, comprised of
some 370 units covering 32 million acres, supports
an estlated total of 20 million annual recreational
visits. Public recreation is permitted in wildlife
refuge areas as an appropriate incidental or secondary
use, if the recreational activities pursued are con-
sistent with the primary (fish and wildlife preservation)
objectives for which each particular area was estab-
lished (50 C.F.R. 108). Priority is afforded to
recreational uses directly associated with wildlife
and its habitat. These include sightseeing, nature
observation and photography, interpretive centers
and exhibits, fishing and boating, and other similar
activities (50 C.F.R. 28). The Fish and Wildlife
Service manages a national system of fish hatcheries.

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "The National Wildlife Refuge System .
U.S. Dept. of the Interior. 1975.

Fish and game management responsibilities are largely
delegated to the states, and to assist them, the Fish
and Wildlife Service administers Federal aid fish
and wildlife restoration programs, as provided for in
the Dingell-Johnson (16 U.S.C. 777) and Pittman-
Robertson (16 U.S.C. 669) Acts, with grants awarded
on a matching basis.

The National Wildlife Refuge System contains the
largest Federal estuarine wetlands holdings. While
recreational use of the National Wildlife Refuge System
has steadily increased, the fact that this is only a
secondary function limits the role of refuges in meeting
recreational needs for two principal reasons: (1)in-
compatible and/or excessive recreational usage in
some units has necessitated restrictions as a result
of environmental degradation; and (2) fish and wild-
life purposes claim first priority in allocating
funds, thereby limiting the amount of monies available
to provide recreational opportunities, and manage
recreational use. .
Conflicts arising from heavy'recreational use of
wildlife refuge areas received national attention in
the recent Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge con-
troversy near the Virginia-North Carolina coastal
border. A group of Atlantic Ocean beachfront property
owners brought suit attempting to overturn traffic
restrictions which banned driving along most of the
refuge's beach. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld the Department of the Interior's right
to enforce severe public access restrictions in
attempting to prevent ecological damage, which in this
instance, was rendered by dune buggies and four-wheel
drive trucks driving along the shore. While the
court decision applies only to Back Bay Wildlife Refuge,
it reinforces use restrictions for pr servation pur-
poses throughout the national systeP
Growing costs associated with managing recreational
activities in wildlife refuges may present a more
pernicious, if less publicized, constraint on the
.use of these areas. The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp
Act (16 U.S.C. 718) provides revenues for purchasing
refuge and waterfowl production areas, but not for
their maintenance and operation. The support of
recreational activities in the wildlife refuge system
is contingent upon continued adequate levels of funding.

4 McAllister, William. "Access Ban at Wildlife Area Upheld." The
Washington Post July 10, 1975. p. A-1.

Another key Fish and Wildlife Service area of
responsibility concerns the evaluation of fish and
wildlife impacts associated with Federal projects,
as mandated in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act of 1958 (16 U.S.C. 661). Federal agencies are
required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and with its state counterpart to develop,
modify or control, or to issue Federal licenses to
any public or private agency to develop, modify, or
control the waters of an stream or any other body
of water for any purpose@.

This function has assumed growing significance
with the growth in permit jurisdiction and changing
environmental posture of the Corps of Engineers, and
with the passage and implementation of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4331). These
project review powers have allowed expanded pro-
tection of fish and wildlife habitat that is of
direct or indirect significance to recreation.

4. Bureau of Land Management

As part of its respons-ibilities for managing some
450 million acres of Federal land reserve, the
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM) supports recreation that is compatible
with the agency's land stewardship objectives.
Recreational use of the vast public domain has in-
creased substantially in recent years, as BLM has
assumed a more active role in meeting outdoor
recreational needs.

The direct significance of BLM's recreational
activities in the coastal zone is limited, however,
by the distribution of the agency's holdings. BLM
lands are almost entirely in the western states,
and a great preponderance of these lands are found
at inland locations. Those BLM holdings that do
lie within the coastal zone, nonetheless, often
possess substantial potential for an expanded role
in recreation. The King Range National Conservation
Area, the first BLM unit of its kind, was authorized
by the King Range Act (16 U.S.C. 460Y, 86 Stat. 1067).
This 54,000 acre area, located along the northern
California coast, has been divided into management
zones, with recreation representing the paramount

5 Nathaniel Reed. "Living Marine Resource Conservation." The Coastal
Imperative: Developing a National Perspective for Coastal Decision
making. National Ocean Policy Study. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce.
Sept. 1974.

use for much of the unit. BLM holdings are managed within
an overall multiple objectives framework.

In addition to its responsibilities for land
management, BLM is also concerned with identification
and protection of undersea antiquities and cultural
resources, as well as ecological resources, undertaken
Tn conjunction with outer continental shelf oil and
gas leasing. A provision of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331) allows withdrawal
froin disposition of unleased lands of the Outer
Continental Shelf. Areas already withdrawn under
this provision include the Key Largo Coral Reef
Preserve, off the coast of Florida, and the Santa
Barbara Ecological Preserve and Buffer Zone off the
California shore6. The Key Largo site has been pro-
posed as a marine sanctuary, under Title III of the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (16 U.S.C. 1434, 86 Stat. 1061).

BLM maintains an inventory system that provides
statistics on the use of public lands for recreation
and wildlife purposes, including data on visitor
use of established and potential recreation sites,
as well as lands or sites leased to non-Federal in-
terests for recreation purposes7'.

2.3B U. S. Department of Defense

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' broad responsibilities
in the coastal zone substantially influence recreational
activities there. Other Defense agencies hold significant
coastal acreages, but public access for recreational use
is often restricted. Defense lands and waters in many
locations comprise, however, a potential reserve for
future recreational use since military requirements and
priorities change over time.

1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers possesses a diverse
and expanding array of responsibilities which relate
to coastal recreation in both a direct and indirect
fashion. As the interpretation of Federal navigation
interests has grown, the scope of the Corps' recreational
involvement has broadened as well.

6 Maurice P. Lynch, Martha A. Patton, & Theodore F. Smolen. "A Policy Study
of Marine & Estuarine Sanctuaries: Background Information." Marine &
Estuarine Sanctuaries: Proceedings of the National Workshop on Sanctuaries.
Scientific Report No. 70. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. pp.-J.-,')b
Feb., 1974
7 Bureau of Land Management. Public Land Statistics - 1973. U.S. Dept. of
Interior. U.S. Govt. Printing OTme. iv/4.

The Corps is vested with continuing authority to
plan and construct certain flood control, navigation
and beach erosion and shore protection projects; under-
take water supply projects; prepare flood plain in-
formation studies; engage in emergency flood control
and flood damage rehabilitiation work; and holds permit
review authority for a wide range of activities in
navigable waters and wetlands.

Recreation generally represents only a single com-
P-Onent of multi-objective projects, but benefits
derived from recreation have played an increasing role
in the justification of Corps programs. Federal
participation in beach and shore stabilization projects,
for instance, is often justified principally by public
recreational use8.

Recreational use of Corps facilities has shown a
dramatic increase since World War II, with annual
visitation now exceeding 300 million recreation days9.
More recreationists now visit Corps outdoor recreation
facilities than those of any other Federal agency, and
the rate of increase during the past'two decades has
exceeded that of any other Federal agency.

While a majority of these visits are recorded at
inland reservoir project sites, the Corps plays a major
role in supporting coastal recreational activites.
This role ranges from small boat harbor projects and
beach restoration measures, which facilitate recreational
activities directly, to broad research and permitting
authorities, which may preserve or enhance recreational
resources and pursuits in an indirect fashion. Corps
programs are carried out through nine coastal and Great
Lakes division offices, 20 operating offices, and five
major research facilities, including the Coastal
Engineering Research Center (CERC).

8 Office of Science and Technology. The Federal Ocean Program. The Annual
Report of the President to the Congress on the Nation's Efforts to
Comprehend, Conserve, & Use the Sea. April, 1973.

9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Recreation Statistics. 1973.

The River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426)
gave the Corps responsibilities for appraising, in-
vestigating and studying the condition of the nation's
shorelines, and for developing suitable means for
protecting, restoring and managing them so as to
minimize erosion induced damages. This legislative
charge resulted in a National Shoreline Study, completed
in 1971, which inventoried and evaluateU-B-4-,900 miles
of U.S. ocean and Great Lakes shoreline. While this
study probably represents the most-comprehensive
analysis of shoreline conditions in the U.S. produced
to date, ? report by the Comptroller General of
the U.S. 0 claims that the Corps' investigation
contained inaccuracies in the assessment of shoreline
erosion in the nation. The Comptroller General's
report identifies limited and inadequately defined
criteria for classifying erosion conditions, and a
lack of uniform methodology among Corps district
offices investigated as the study's underlying problems.
Among the difficulties encountered in attempting to
carry out the Corps' erosion control program revealed
by the Comptroller General's report was the requirement
that public access be provided to beaches developed
or improved with Federal funds; private property
owners along the shoreline within project areas were
found to be reluctant to allow public access to beaches.

Not only are Corps-maintained coastal waterways,
jetties and related navigation improvements extensive,
but the agency has significant additional holdings under
its jurisdiction with potentials for expanded recreational
use. A reconnaissance level survey was recently con-
ducted for the Portland District, U.S. Amy Corps of
Engineers to determine the potential for public rec-
reation and conservation use at 11 Oregon and Washington
coastal project sites. These sites consisted primarily
of jetties and accreted land at the mouths of coastal
rivers, and several were identified as already managed
for recreational purposes.

10 Comptroller General of the U.S. National Efforts to Preserve the
Nation's Beaches and Shorelines - A Continuing Problem. Report to
Congress. U. S. General Accounting Office. June 11, 1975.

While possible conflicts with navigation were
encountered, as were safety hazards associated with
public use, the report indicated that in most instances,
these constraints could be overcome. The study developed
a general planning framework for each site to serve as
a basis for detailed master planning (where required)
in cooperation with the Oregon and Washington state
park and recreation officials. Similar potentials for
coordination exist along much of the nation's coast-
line.
Corps permitting authorities cover*construction of
structures extending beyond the mean high water mark,
including piers and bulkheads and a variety of dredge,
fill, disposal and related activities. Corps review
authority may apply directly to construction and main-
tenance of public and private recreational facilities.
This regulatory authority, coupled with National
Environmental Policy Act review responsibilities, also
ass ists in ensuring that development and related
activities are planned and carried out in a fashion
that provides adequate protection of areas with rec-
reational values that could be adversely affected.

Interim regulations promulgated pursuant to section
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251) extend Corps permit
jurisdiction beyond traditional navigable water
boundaries. A phased program for implementation has
been proposed, with contiguous coastal wetlands the
initial area subject to `he revised jurisdiction.
Full implementation of sec"tion 404 will further refine
Corps permit jurisdiction, and will exert a far-reaching
influence on development and maintenance activities in
wetland and coastal areas.

2.3C U.S. Department of Commerce

Department of Commerce involvement in the recreational
field reflects the diverse nature of its component agencies.
In addition to the responsibilities of the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, the Department's Bureau of the Census provides
recreation statistics and the Economic Development Adminis-
tration may provide financial assistance for capital projects.
Further, additional major components of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration are involved: the National
Weather Service and National Ocean Survey provide climatic
and nautical information that is invaluable to all boaters
2-

and fishermen; the National Sea Grant and Marine Advisory
Service Programs provide research and technical assistance
for marine recreation; and the National Marine Fisheries
Service holds responsibility for managing living marine
resources.

1. National Marine Fisheries Service

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is charged with
the management of living marine resources, including
conservation, development and enhancement of anadromous
fisheries. NMFS holds responsibility for dealing with
both the commercial and recreational aspects of these
marine resources. The agency generally does not provide
directly for recreational activities, but rather com-
plements recreationaT -pursuits through its resource
management functions.

NMFS provides financial assistance to the states for
development, implementation, administration, monitoring
and evaluation of fisheries management plans. The
agency also establishes national guidelines for managing
fisheries.

NMFS sponsors extensive saltwater recreational fishing
surveys to more accurately assess numbers of fishermen,
the amount of time they spend fishing, their catch, and
their expenditures. A survey of 13 Northeastern states
and the District of Columbia was completed in April, 1975,
and a companion investigation with a spring, 1976 tar et
date for completion has been initiated for eight Sout9-
eastern and Gulf states.

Proposals before Congress to extend U.S. fisheries
jurisdiction to 200 miles would substantially expand
NMFS' responsibilities, though functions related to
commercial fisheries would be most significantly affected.

2. Office of Sea Grant/Marine Advisory Service

The National Sea Grant Program, now part of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
carries out cooperative programs in the coastal zone

with state and local governments, academic institutions,
and industry for the purpose of fostering marine resource
development, technology, environmental research, ed-
ucation and training, and advisory servicesll.

The Marine Advisory Service Program, which is designed
to facilitate the transfer of information between re-
searchers and users, coordinates the diverse advisory
responsibilities of Sea Grant institutions. While the
scope and orientation of Sea Grant sponsored research
varies substantially, an expanding array of projects
are concerned with some aspect of recreation. In addition,
a growing cadre of marine recreation specialists has
become affiliated with the Marine Advisory Service.

The collective expertise of Sea Grant/Marine Advisory
Service affiliates often makes them a valuabTe -resource
for research, information and guidance concerning
diverse aspects of recreation in the coas-fa-7 -environment.

2.3D U.S. Department of Agriculture

Recreation has assumed a role of expanding significance
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's overall operations,
particularly in the National Forest System. In addition
to the vast recreational opportunities afforded by national
forest lands and waters, other agencies such as the Soil
Conservation Service, Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
servation Service, and Extension Service provide technical
or financial assistance for recreational purposes.

1. U.S. Forest Service

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) administers the National
Forest System, which encompasses over 180 million acres
of public land. The extent of this Department of Agri-
culture component's holdings make it second only to the
Bureau of Land Management's. Like BLM, the Forest
Service's properties are heavily concentrated in western
states and inland areas.

11 Office of Science and Technology. The Federal Ocean Program. Annual
Report of the President to Congress on the Nation's Effort to Compre-
hend, Conserve, and Use the Sea. April, 1973.

National forests are managed within a sustained yield,
multiple objective framework for outdoor recreation,
timber and range production, watershed protection, and
fish and wildlife purposes. The national forests support
a variety of recreational activities in diverse settings,
and receive among the greatest visitation of any Federal
areas. Despite this extensive recreational use, a sub-
stantial proportion of national forest lands are located
in primitive and wilderness settings. Most of the acreage
in the National Wilderness Preservation System is located
in national forests. USFS, along with the National Park
Service, administers National Recreation Areas. A sub-
stantial majority of national forest coastal frontage is
found in Alaska, though significant shoreline holdings
are also located in other West Coast, Great Lakes, and
to a lesser extent, Southeastern states.

USFS conducts extensive recreational research, pri-
marily through its forest and range experiment stations,
although investigations are rarely undertaken in coastal
settings.

While recreation represents a fundamental and expanding
use of national forests, it still comprises only one
of many which must be accommodated. As a consequence,
much of the National Forest System remains unavailable
for- recreational activities.

2. Soil Conservation Service

Several Soil Conservation Service (SCS) programs provide
assistance for outdoor recreation, including its District
Assistance, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, 12
Cropland Conversion, and Technical Assistance Programs
SCS often works directly with individual or groups of
property owners, and with local governments. Its pro-
grams are predominantly of a rural nature, but have been
extended to an increasing number of urban areas. SCS'
primary contribution to recreation consists of technical
and financial assistance in planning and constructing
recreational facilities of a relatively small scale.

.12 Clayne, Jensen. Outdoor Recreation in America. Burgess Publishing Co.
Minneapolis, Minn. 1973 (Second Edition3.

2.3E U.S. Department of Transportation

While not a land and water resource managing agency,
nor one with substantial direct responsibilities for
recreation, the U.S. Department of Transportation never-
theless administers several programs with significant
ramifications for recreationists. These include Coast
Guard programs, especially those for boating safety;
the massive Federal aid highway programs administered
by the Federal Highway Administration; and public transit
assistance programs of the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration.

1. U.S. Coast Guard

The Coast Guard (USCG) is charged with maintaini ng
the safety of life and property at sea, and with the
enforcement of maritime laws and treaties, particularly
as they relate to pollution prevention and fisheries
conservation 13. The Coast Guard's primary role with
respect to recreation revolves around its public
safety mission, which includes search and rescue, aids
to navigation, and small boat safety'. USCG and its
volunteer arm, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, conduct boating
safety education and enforcement programs to train
private owners in the safe handling of their boats.

Like the Corps of Engineers and other Department
of Defense agencies, the Coast Guard has jurisdiction
over coastal landholdings that are incidental to
primary agency responsibilities. Certain of these
areas present potentials for introducing, expanding,
or better managing recreational activities.

2. Federal Highway Administration

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers
Federal aid highway programs, encompassing a network
which includes roughly one-fourth of the nation's
road mileage, and carries over two-thirds of all its
trafficl4.

13 Office of Science &,Technology. The Federal Ocean Program. The
Annual Report of the President to the Congress on the Nation's Efforts
to Comprehend, Conserve, and Use the Sea. April, 1973.

14 U.S. Dept. of Transportation. U.S. Dept. of Transportation - Facts &
Figures. January, 1973.

A series of policy and procedure memoranda, along with
legislative enactments, such as the National Environmental
Policy Act, have promoted increased concern for ecological
and socioeconomic considerations in transportation plan-
ning. This has led to expanded efforts to minimize adverse
environmental, effects associated with highway projects,
including protection of parklands, recreational areas,
wildlife and waterfowl refuges, properties of historic
and cultural significance, and wetlands and coastal
areas.

In addition to changing emphasis in highway planning,
and increased attention to the impacts of implementing
transportation facility plans, FHWA may, under certain
@circumstances, provide direct financial assistance for
projects, such as bikeways and pedestrian facilities-as
part of a Federal aid highway project, wherever conditions
are favorable and a public need is served. Provisions
in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973 (23 U.S.C. 217)
allow the use of these funds to construct bicycle and
pedestrian facilities independent of regular highway
projects. The various states are responsible for the
administration of funds apportioned each year by FHWA15.

2.3F Other Federal Agencies

In addition to those agencies already identified, others
described in this concluding section are vested respon-
sibilities of import to coastal recreation.

1. General Services Administration

The General Services Administration (GSA) develops
policies for the maximum utilization of Federally owned
excess real and personal property; and directs and
coordinates its disposal by sale or conveyance for
public purposes, including park and recreational usel6-

15 Federal Highway Administration. "Bicycles & Pedistrian Facilities in
the Federal Aid Highway Program." U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 1974.

16 John K. Gamman, Shavaun Towers, & Jens Sorenson. Federal Involvement
in the California Coastal Zone: A topical Index to Tgency
sibility. Institute of Marine Resources, University of Cal orn a.
Sea G t Publication No. 29. November, 1974.

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation ptovides technical
assistance to state and local governments relating
to applications for Federal surplus property for
public park and recreational purposes. GSA's Disposal
of Federal Surplus Real Pr erty Program has allowed
conversion of areas formervy devoted solely to
militar uses to outstandi --c-o-a-st-a-T-recreation sites,
Y6 ial urhan p@_I@__T@ti@_on
often accessible to substant! S.
Continuing operation 'of this program represents a
promising avenue for expanding public access to
potential shoreline recreation areas.

2. Water Resources Council

The Water Resources Council (WRC), an independent
agency, has broad responsibilities for coordinating
water resources planning. WRC recommends the estab-
lishment of Federal-state river basin commissions to
the President, and reviews plans prepared by these
commissions. The Council administers financial aid
programs for comprehensive river basin planning, which
is coordinated between water and related land resources
planning, and statewide recreation planning.

Each river basin commission serves as the principal
agency for the coordination of water resources planning
in its designated area. The commissions prepare and
maintain comprehensive river basin plans, which include
recreation, and fish and wildlife resources. Two recent
efforts which focus upon coastal areas include the
Great Lakes Basin Framework Study conducted by the
Great Lakes Basin Commission, and PeoRle and the Sound:
A Plan for Long Island Sound developed by the New
England River Basins Commission. Both of these plans
reflect high recreation and open space priorities.

3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
has traditionally been a key agency in the provision of
assistance for open space planning and land acquisition.
This agency's impact has been especially pronounced in
urbanized areas. HUD's categorical grant programs, such
as open space and urban beautification have recently
been replaced by community development block grants,
however. As a result, localities now have greater
discretion over how grant funds are to be spent. While
financial aid administered by HUD is no longer ear-
marked for open space, it remains a valid purpose for
expending community development funds.

FEDERAL AGENCIES WITH RECREATIONAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

PLNNG
FIN TECH RES.,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ASST. ASST. REG. COORD

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE
Rural Environmental Assistance x

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE
Cooperative Forestry Research x x

FARMERS HOME ADMI14ISTRATION
Farm Ownership Loans x
Irrigation, Drainage, and other Soil and
Water Conservation Loans x
Recreation Facility Loans x
Resource Conservation and Development Loans x
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Loans x

EXTENSION SERVICE
Extension Progams for Recreation, Wildlife
and Natural Beauty x x
Extension Programs for Soil and Water
Conservation x x

FOREST SERVICE
State and Private Forestry Cooperation x x
Forestry Cooperative Research x x
Forestry Research x x

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Resource Conservation and Development x x x
Soil and Water Conservation x x
Soil Survey x x
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention x x x
River Basin Surveys and Investigations x x

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL OCEANIC AN D ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Nautical Charts and Related Data x
River and Flood Forecasts and Warnings x
Weather Forecasts and Warnings x
Anadromous and Great Lakes Fisheries
Conservation x

Source: Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, State of Connecticut,
Department of Environmental Protection, December, 1974.

PLNNG.
FIN TECH. RES.,
ASST. ASST. REG. COORD.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS (ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS)
Aquatic Plant Control x x
Beach Erosion Control Projects x x
Flood Control Projects x x
Navigation Projects x x

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Comprehensive Planning Assistance x
New Communities Supplementary Grants for
Public Facilities x

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Neighborhood Facilities Grants x
Open Space Land Programs x
Public Facility Loans x
Neighborhood Development x
Urban Renewal Projects

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Public Land for Recreation, Public
Purposes and Historic Monuments x

BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
Outdoor Recreation-Acquisition and
Development Grants x
Outdoor Recreation State Planning-
Financial Assistance x
Outdoor Recreation Technical Assistance x
Outdoor Recreation Research and Education x
Outdoor Recreation Water Resources Planning x x
Outdoor Recreation Coordination x
Outdoor Recreation Resource Area Studies x x
Outdoor Recreation "Donations"

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Small Reclamation Projects x

BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Anadromous Fish Conservation x

PLNNG.
FIN TECH. RES.
ASST. ASST. REG. COOR6.

BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND K-LDLIFE (CONT'D)
Conservation Law Enforcement Training Assistance x
Farm Fish Pond Management x
Sport Fish Management x
Fish Restoration (Dingell/Johnson Act) x
Wildlife Enhancement x
Wildlife Research Information x
Wildlife Restoration (Pittman/Robertson Act)
Fishery Research and Information x

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY '
Geologic and Mineral Resoorce Surveys and
Mapping x
Map Information x
Topographic Surveys and Mapping x
Water Resources Investigations x

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Disposal of Surplus Wildlife x
Historic American Buildings Survey x x
Historic Preservation x
Park and Recreation Technical Assistance x
Park Practice Program x
-National Registry of Natural Landmarks x

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U. S. COAST GUARD
Boating Safety x

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Highway Beautification - Landscaping and
Scenic Enhancement x
Highway Planning and Construction x

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
Water Resources Development x

13ENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property x

14ATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Interdisciplinary Research Relevant to
Problems of Our Society x x

NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COMMISSION
New England Regional Economic Development x

PLNNG.
FIN TECH. RES. ,
ASST. ASST. REG. COORD.

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Management Assistance to Small Business x
Management and Technical Assistance for
Disadvantaged Businessmen-Research
and Demonstration Grants x x
Small Business Loans x

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER QUALITY OFFICE

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL x x

OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL x x

STATE AGENCIES WITH RECREATIONAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

PLNNG
FIN TECH RES.'
ASST. ASST. REG. COORD.,

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DIVISION OF PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES
Maintenance of Flood Retarding Structures x
Small Watershed Prevention Assistance to
Towns x x x
Flood Control Studies and Inter-Govern-
mental Flood Control Studies and
Surveys x x
Participation in Long Range Water
Resources Planning x
Shore Erosion Control x x

PARKS AND RECREATION
Development and Operation of Historic Parks
and monuments x
Development and Operation of Swimming and
Picnic Facilities x x x
Supervision and Promotion of Boating x x
Development and Operation of Camping Facilities x x
Development and Maintenance of Trails x x
Development and Operation of Winter Sports
Facilities x x

LAND ACQUISITION
Assistance to Towns for Open Space Acquisition x x
Coordination and Purchase of State Open Space
Land x x
Selection and Operation of Natural Area
Preserves x
Assistance to Potential Donors of Land and
Water x

FISH AND WATER LIFE
Management of Inland and Marine Fish x x

WILDLIFE -
Management of Wildlife x x

LAW ENFORCEMENT
Conservation Law Enforcement x x

PLNNG
FIN TECH RES.,
ASST. ASST. REG. COORD._

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER

POLICY PLANNING AND RESEARCH
Provision of a Comprehensive Plan for
Recreation x

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

WATER QUALITY
Establishing and Enforcing Water
Pol I uti on Standards x x x

AIR QUALITY
Enforcement and Control of Air Quality x x x

CONNECTICUT HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Preservation and Develapment of Historical Sites x x
Research to Discover Historically Significant
Sites x

CONNECTICUT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Development of a Year-Round Tourist Industry x x
Small Business Loans x x

CONNECTICUT AGRICULTURAL EXPERIEMENT STATION
Research on Natural Resources, Forestry and
Landscape x

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Regulation of Recreation Facilities
Sanitation Inspection x x x

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maintenance of Highway Facilities x x
Highway Beautification x x

FINANCE AND CONTROL

OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING
Coordination of Inter-Agency Water Resources
Planning Board x
Preparation of State Plans x

REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES 14ITH
RECREATION SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

PLNNG
FIN TECH RES.,
ASST. ASST. REG. COORD.,

REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCIES x x

SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS x x

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS x x

CONSERVATION COMMISSIONS x x x

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS x x x

RECREATION COMMISSIONS x x

V
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
f
3666814100-9623 -
'A