Report to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. George Washington University. Washington[U.S. Govt. Print. Off.]1962. Coasts United States. Recreation United States. GV 53 A25 1962 0 9540o COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER ORRRC Study Report 4 Coastal Zone Information Center FEB 09 1977 SHORELINE RECREATION RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES Report to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission by The George Washington University Washington, D. C 1962 0 Library of Congress Catalog card Number: 62-60026 0RRRC Study Report 4. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Governmemt Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. Price 75 cents OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES REVIEW COMAISSION - The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission was created by the Act of June 28, 1958 (Public Law 85-470, 72 Stat. 238). The task assigned to the Commission was to seek answers to the following basic questions: What are the recreation wants and ntc& of the American people now and what will they be in the years 1976 and 2000? What are the recreation resources of the Nation available to fill those needs? What policies and programs should be recommended to insure that the needs of the present and future are adequately and efficimtly met? Ile Commission's report, Outdoor Recreation for America, which was presented to the President and to the Congress on January 31, 1962, contains the findings of the Commission and its recommendations for action required to meet the Nation's outdoor recreation needs in 1976 and 2000. In the course of its work,, the Commission obtained many special reports from its own staff, public agencies, universities, nonpmfit research organizations, and individual authoritim It L publishing these reports because of their potential interest to officials at all levels of Govermncnt and to others who may wish to pursue the subjec@ further. A descriptive Est of the study reports appears at the end of this volume. In the development of the findings, conclusions, and remmm-endations presented to the President and to the Congress in January 1962, the Commission considered this report and other study reports, but its conclusions were based on the entire study and on its own judgm=L Pub- lication of the study reports does not necessarily imply endorsement of them in whole or in part- THE COPAMISSIGH CHAIRMAN Laurance S. Rockefeller President, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, New York, New York UNITED STATES SENATE Clinton P. Anderson, New Mexico Henry C. Dworshak, Idaho Henry M. Jackson, Washington Jack MiHer, Iowa HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES John P. Saylor, Penns)dvania Grade Pfost, Idaho Ralph J. Rivers, Alaska John H. Kyl, Iowa PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONERS Samuel T. Dana Dean Emeritus, School of Natural Resources Ile University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Mrs. Marian S. Dryfoos Associate Director of Special Activities, The New York Times New York, New York Bernard L. OreH Vice President@ Weyerhaeuser Company Tacom., Washington Joseph W. Penfold Conservation Director, Izaak Walton League of America Washington, D.C. M. Frederik Smith Vice President, Prudential Insurance Company of America Newark, New Jersey Chester S. Wilson Former Minnesota State Commissioner of Conservation Stillwater, Minnesota Special Assistant to the Chairman Carl 0. Gustafson Senators Frank A. Barrett of Wyoming and Arthur V. Watkins of Utah served on the Commission from its inception until January 1959. Senator Richard L. Neuberger of Oregon served on the Corru'russion from its inception until his death in March 1960. Senator Thomas Martin of Iowa served from February 1959 until January 196 1. Representative John J. Rhodes of Arizona served from the inception of the Commission until February 1959. Representative Harold R. Collier of Illinois served from February 1959 until March 190. Representative Al Ullman of Oregon served from the inception of the Commission until April 1961, Mrs. Katharine Jackson Lee, Director, American Forestry Association, Peterborough, New Hampshire, served on the Commission-from its inception until her death in October 1961. iv THE STAFF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Francis W. Sargent DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR STUDIES Lawrence N. Stevens EDITORM ADMINISTRATIVE Th@us J. MacQueen, Editor Henry L. Diamond Alva F. Rollins, General Counsel Stephen W. Bergen John R. Kennedy G. w. Cain Robert J. Phillips Mrs. Rose G. Phillips Advisers Louis V. Stevenson, Jr. Nancy Hanks Malcolm C. Moos Francis E. Rourke William H. Whyte 'tuart L Freeman (graphics) POLICY AND INVENTORY' FORECASTS PROGRAM AND EVALUATION AND ECONOMICS Arthur A. Davis, Chief Max M. Tharp, Chief Laurence L Hewes, Jr., Chief M. Constance Foley John E. Bryant Betty C. Churchill W. Roy Hamilton, Jr. Hugh C. Davis Abbott L. Ferriss George R. Lamb 'D. Isabel Picken Eugene S. Martin Seymour Fiekowsky Jane Greverus Perry Francis X. Hammett Dennis A. Rapp Conrad J. Thoren Clyde W. Hart Ann Satterthwaite Peter J. Weil Elmer J. Moore Andrew J. W. Scheffey Warren C. Robinson Vito Tanzi Mrs. Louis E. H. Zazove SECRETARIAL AND CLERICAL Mrs. Roberta H. Bleam Mrs. Dorothy C. Hanna Mrs.,Elizabeth'P. Simnson Mrs. Maryann M. Clement Mrs. Catherine G. Hart Mrs. Sylvia S. Singleton M. Angela Farrell Ronald T. Jones Lillie A. Synan Irene M. Ferguson Mrs. Lois L. LeMenager Mrs. Frances B. Tinsley Agnes A. Fitzgibbon Mrs. Sally S. Lewis Sandra E. Vadney John T. Fuston Janet E. Modery Sallie Wymard Mrs. Shirleyann Fuston Julia A. Schmidt Norman L Wengert served as Deputy Director for Studies from June 19 59 to May 1960. The above list includes those persons who served at least one year or who were members of the staff at the time the Commissioner's report was published. V This study report was prepared under the supervision of the Inventory and Evaluation Group of the Commission Staff. Max M. Tharp, Chief John E. Bryant Hugh C. Davis Jane Greverus Perry Peter J. Weil ?4 Angela Farrell Janet E. Modery Sandra E. Vadney V1 CONTENTS Page Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission ................................. lit The Commission ........................................................ iv The Staff ............................................................. V Acknowledgments ................................................ ......... Vi Preface .............................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................................. 2 Cb@pter 1 WHAT ARE THE SHORELINE RECREATION WANTS AND NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOW, AND WHAT WILL THEY BE IN THE YEARS 197,6 AND 2000? ........ 3 Present Shoreline Recreation Needs ....................................... 3 Significance of Outdoor Recreation ................................... 3 Indicators of Outdoor Recreation Demand ............................... 3 Water and Outdoor Recreation ....................................... 3 Popularity of Shoreline Recreation ................................... 3 Shoreline Recreation Target Areas .............................. .... 4 Summary of Shoreline Recreation Needs .................................... 5 Accessible and Available Beaches .................................... . 5 Inaccessible Nonbeach Shoreline ...................................... 5 Intermediate Shoreline ........................................... 5 Demands on the Resource: Kinds and location ............................................ 7 Needs for Recreation Shoreline in the Year 2000 ............................... 7 The Rapid Increase of Outdoor Recreation Demand ........................ 7 The Upward Trend of Shoreline- Pressure Factors .......................... 8 Summary of Forecast ........................... ..................... Chapter 2 WHAT ARE THE SHORELINE RECREATION RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO FILL REC- REATION WANTS AIND NEEDS NOW, AND WHAT WILL THEY BE IN THE YEAR 2000? 10 The Present Status of Recreation Shoreline .................................. 10 Recreation Shoreline Defined ....................................... 10 0dent of the Recreation Shoreline .................................. 10 Nature of the Shore ......... I .................................. : -10. The Supply of Recreation Shoreline ..................................... 13 The Major Recreation Targets ...................................... 13 The Future Status of the Recreation Shoreline ................................ 13 Chapter 3 THE PRESENT AND FUTURE STATUS OF FEDERAL, STATE. AND LOCAL INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS .................................... is State and Local 'Recreation Organization and Statutory Powers ...................... .15 State Organization .............................................. is. Local Organization ............. 16 Local Powers ................ 17 Associated Shoreline Control Agencies and Programs ......................... 17 Water Pollution Control ........................................ ::: 17 Beach Erosion Control ........................................... 20 Status of Shoreline Recreation Planning-t Current'Programs ...................... 23 Adequacy of Current Public Policy ........................................ 23 Cities 23 24 Trends 1@ @pin@;nj: The Future Status of Institutional Arrangements .............................. 27 Public Ownership and Regulation of Shoreline ............................ 27 State and Local Recreation Organization and Statutory Powers ................. 27 Status of Shoreline Recreation Planning ....... 27 Adequacy of Public Policy .................. 27 Page Chapter 4 WHAT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS WILL ENSURE THAT PRESENT AND FUTURE RECREATION NEEDS ARE ADEQUATELY AND EFFICIENTLY. MET? ............. 28 A National Policy for the Shoreline ........... 28 The'Public Purpose ................ 28 28 The Roles of the Various Levels of Government .......................... Recreation Use Vis-a-Vis Other Uses of the Shoreline .......................... 29 Metropolitan Areas .............................................. 29 Programs Recommended to Implement Suggested Policies ........................ 29 Shoreline Use and Inventory Data ...... ........ 29 Delineation of Basic Natural Planning Units ....... 29 Experiments in Recreation Use ..................................... 30 An Analysis of Administrative Arrangements and Intergovernmental Relationships ... 30 A Study of Management of the Recreation Shoreline in Target Areas ............. 30 Conclusions ............................................ ............. 30 Appendix A Glossary ....... ............................................. 31 Appendix B A State-by-State. Inventory of Physical and Administrative Aspects of Shoreline Recreation, . * * , * * * * , * * ,***,*,*,***,***,**,**,***,***,,*** ..... 33 Alabama .......... -34 ................ o......... o ............ California ......................................... 37 Connecticut ................................. 46 Delaware, . * * , , * * , * , , * * ....... 50 Florida ......................................... o ......... 53 Georgia ................................................. 59 Illinois ................................................. 62 Indiana 66 Louisiana ............................................... 68 Maine .................................................. o 71 Maryland ................................................ 75- Massachusetts ..................... o ..................... 78 Michigan ................................................ 82 Minnesota ............................................... 89 Mississippi ......... o ................. 92 New Hampshire ........ o ....... o....... 95 New Jersey .............................................. 99 New York ............................................... 102 North Carolina ............................................ 107 Ohio .............................. o.................. - ill Oregon ............................................... o. 115 Pennsylvania .......................... . 120 Rhode Island .................... 124 South Carolina ................ o............ ............... 128 Texas ........................... ? ...................... 131 Virginia ................................................. 134 Washington .......... ......................... 137 Wisconsin ........... .... 142 ...................... The Advisory Council ............... i ........................................ 143 ORRRC Study Reports. . ....... .......... .................................. 146 vui PREFACE This report Is addressed to the Outdoor Recreation use of, the'American shore. Categories of Information Resources Review Commission, a body charged with In the appendix are as follows: the responsibility of seekir@k answers to three ques- 1. Physical inventory. tions: 2. Administration of shoreline recreation. 1. What are the recreation wants and needs of 3. Water pollution control. the American people now and what will they be in 4. Beach erosion control. the, years 1976 and 2000 ? S. Tidelands: ownership and access. 2. What are the recreation resources of the 6. Status of recreation planning. Nation available to fill. those needs now and in the Much of the material contained in these various years 1976 and 2000? sections is summarized for the entire United States 3. What policies and programs should be recom- in the textof the report. rdended to ensure that the needs of the present and Ile inventory of.shoreline plans included in the future are adequately and efficiently met? report is based on the third chapter of a master's, What the authors have discovered about shoreline thesis in the Department of Geography of the George recreation in the United States will be presented as Washington University, in the course of which the answers to those questions. Some of these statements author explored the status of State and municipal will be obvious@yet important. Some are firmly planning for provision of recreation shoreldne in backed by fact: others represent what might be termed all of the shoreline States. I/ "enlightened opirLion"-enlightened by a year of inves- Because such terms as "recreation shoreline," tigation. The statements are fully, but it is hoped "beach" and "bluff shore" may have different mean- not burdensomely, explained. The bulk of the factual ings for different people, a glossary of terms appears information on which this report is based wiU be in appendix A. found in the appendix. The report was edited by the Outdoor Recreation A word about the appendix is in order, since this. Resources Review Commission staff. appendage constitutes the bulk of the report. During the process.of bringing together as much knowledge Robert D. Campbell, Ph. D. as possible about the recreation use and qualities Professor of Geography of the American shoreline within the time and fund ,;limits imposed, the authors collected considerable Hugh L. LeBlanc, Ph. D. factual information which had not been previously Associate Professor of Political Science collected@ Much of this infbrmation was collected by surveys of the vaxious State and local agencies. Martin A. Mason, Ing-Dr Coverage was not complete and much of the infor- Professor of Civil Engineering mation, particularly on organization and management, Dean, School of Engineering Is of a subjective nature. Put together in a State-by@ State surnmaryform, these data constitute an important Informational background for an understanding of the status of shoreline recreation today. More important, !/Adam Bilecky, "Planning the Recr"tional Use of the perhaps, is the significance of such information to American Shoreline,- the George Wcshington University, intelligent, coordinated planning for-future recreation Washington, D.C., unpublished, 1961. INTRODUCTION This report Is about a priceless national resource- Is privately owned and therefore not available for the American shoreline, over 20,000 miles of unique public use. and beautiful landscape. So far the natural state of On the basis of current trends for ou *tdoor recrea- this shoreline has been altered very little. Thus, it tion, and recognizing the longstanding popularity of remains one of the most significant outdoor recrea- shoreline recreation, there is little doubt that the tion resources this country possesses. demand for recreation shoreline will be many tinies Americans are fortunate to have so much shoreline. greater by 1976 and 2000 than at the present. It is In gross terms, there iscertainly "enough forevery- obvtous that long before the end of this century the b y he radius of use of large od 11 to enjoy-enough, that is, if it is both accessible recreation shoreline within tj and available to the public. These particular conditions urban populations will have to be managed with an constitute a major problem, as all those familiar with efficiency unknown today. Outside of these areas of the needs of outdoor recreation are acutely aware. major impact, some changes in the balance of public Three difficulties now confront us. First, a good and private ownership will have to be made to ac- deal of the shoreline is not close enough to where commodate public demands for the recreation use of people live to be widely useful for recreation. Second, these shorelines. some of it is so close to large metropolitan centers as The purpose of this report is.to discuss the prob- to be already overwhelmed by people. lems of the recreation shore line-pres e nt and future- A third complicating factor is that most of the and suggest national policies and programs to deal shoreline, especially that near metropolitan centers, effectively with the problems. 2 CHAPTER ONE r WHAT ARE THE SHORELINE RECREATION WANTS AND NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOW, AND WHAT WILL THEY BE IN THE YEARS 1976 AND 2000? Answers to the questions of present and future extent to which young people actually participate. The n needs will be discussed separately. It is first nec- greatest need for recreation opportunities is among essary to understand what measures of present needs the lower income urbanites. can logically be made before it is possible to project Delaware Basin Study.-A study of the Delaware these into the future. In general no real distinction River Basin, prepared for the National Park Service will be made between 1976 and 2000, except to point by the Gallup organization, indicates that all classes out that some situations have greater immediacy than of people share the desire for a great participation in others. outdoor recreation. Sixtypercent of the people queried preferred a rural setting for day outings, axid 42 per- Present Shorerine Recreation Needs cent preferred the outdoors for weekeb'd vacations. 2/ -Behind the ',wants" -and "needs" of people for Water and nutdoor recreation phoreline recreation, or any type of outdoor recrea- tion, Is the contemporary public attitude toward ree- .4. National Park Service report published in 1960 reation itself as a legitimate activity. Americans states, in part, that "... probably the major portion believe now, as they always have, that "the devil of outdoor recreation is associeted witli water guides idle hands." The growing fund of leisure areas ... 113/ The sales of outboard motors, over time in this country has made Americans keenly* half a miflion. annually for the past several years, aware of the problems leisure can present. lVe need are testimony to the great number of persons-who to be kept busy. Americans are basically "doers;" participate in recreational boating, estimated "o be ith as many as 40 million. they are action-minded; they will not be satisfied wi 4/ In any survey of outdoor t activities which place them in observer roles. sports, swimming is sure to be one of the rrost popular, and water skiing is rapidly Fa-iniing .,,n $igniRconce of outdoor recreation popularity. All such evidence emphasizes the im- portance of water featuxes in American forms of The very traits which have oven our society much outdoor recreation. of Its dynamism and spirit are those which can, un- barnessed, produce increased crime rates, social Popularity of shorefine recreation Ide. delinquency, higher rates of insanity, and suicl to mention but a few social evils. There is a direct Of the many outdoor recreation "enviro.aments," )r. ationship between the increase in leisure time ia mountains, seacoasts, deserts, and woodlands, the the last decade and the increase in the need for shoreline appears to have an unusually strong appeal 01pubstitutell activities which will keep Americans for Americans. In the Gallup study men' tioned above, busy and occupied. Perhaps Americans need to be a marked preference was shown for the seashore. even more active "off the job" than "on the job." Ile New Jersey seashore was the first choice for J 48 percent of the,respondents, and second choice for t Is @kist as important to plan for full employment of leisure energies as it is to plan for full employment 21 percent when asked about their preferred area for *f economically productive energies, and the primary a day outing. In contrast, the Pocono N11ountairis were outlet for these inherent American energies should the first choice of 23 percent and the second choice of be some form of outdoor recreation. 24 percent. For weekend outings, the figures were 43 and 21 percent for the seashore and 30 and 23 k0cators of outdoor recreation demand percent for the Poconos. Seventy-seven perceiA of the people questioned had been to the New Jersey Youth Survey.-In a study to determine what young seashore at some time, while 35 percent had been to people In the National Capital Area do with their spare time, the answers of over 60,000 young people in the -2/"Summory of Outdoor Recreation Activities -n Preference of Oth through 12th grades suggest that a "large and the Population Living in the Region of the Delaware River unfulfilled demand" exists "for most of the outdoor Basin," prepared by the Nutional Park Service from a report sports..". I/ The. study revealed comparatively little prepared by Audience Research, Inc., Princeton, N.J., January difference between neighborhoods in tne expressed 1958. desire for sports, but very great differences in the -2/"Water Recreation Needs in the United Stotes, 1960-2000," U.S. Senate. Select Committee on Notional Water Resources, ilEdward B. Olds, "not Young Peoale, Do and Want To Do in May 1960. Their Spare Time," Health and Welfare Council of the National 1/"Boatinq," National Association of Engin& and Boat Monu- Capital Arco, Washington, D.C., 1960. f"turers, New,York, N.Y.., 1960. 3 the Pocono Mountains. 5/ These two recreation sites lines are those which are close enough to large using we.re the two most popular discovered by the survey. populations for day and/or overnight use. Avail,,ible They are equally accessible to the people living in shorelines are those whose use Is not restricted by the Delaware River Basin. the nature of ownership, high fees, or some other In the year preceding the interviews upon which inhibiting factor. th e Gallup study was based, 24 percent of the popula- Both characteristics are essential in any assess- tioa of the area, constituting 45 percent of the vaca- ments of the wants and needs of the American people tioners, spent at least some of their time at the New for recreation shorelines and in any evaluation of the Jersey shore. ability of our resources to fill those needs.. In some Popularity of the shoreline is no accident. Coastal large metropolitan areas the per capita amount of areas provide opportunity for a wide variety of active accessible and available shoreline is extremelv or passive pleasures such as: limited. Shorelines accessible to less densely settle@ Activities exclusively "coastal"- parts of the country may be used by only a few people. Surf-riding. Thus, shoreline recreation demands are highly con- Skindiving (spearfishing, underw- ater explora- centrated, geographically. tion). Beachcombing. Acces sibi lity.- People who seek outdoor recrea- Coastal hunting and fishing. tion do so within very definite time patterns; these Activities associated with water bodies- are usually described as day outings, weekend or Swimming. overnight trips, and vacations. The most important Boating (motorboating, sailing, canoeing). of these, in terms of its impact upon outdoor recrea- Water skiing. tlon resources, is the day outing. The Gallup study Fishing. cited earlier indicated that, of the 71 percent of the Activities not limited to coasts or water 130dies- people questioned who ha@ been on any day outing Hiking and walking. during the past 12-rnonth period, one-half had been Sunning. on at least 10 day outings during that period. Of Lhe Bird watching. 47 percent who had been on overnigi@t or weekend Horseback riding. trips, half had been on at least three such trips. Picnicking. Fifty-four percent of the people questioned had Camping. been away from home on a vacation during the pre- Photographing, sketching, painting. ceding 12 months. Sightseeing fseenic, scientific, historical). Nature study (biological, geologic, botanical). The day outing is the basic unit of outdoor rec- reation at present. The Delaware Basin people queried Shorelines afford easy, active forms of recreation. drove a median one-'wav distance of 63 nrules'on day Going into the surf is fun whether one swims or not. outings, or a driving time of about 2 hours. This is It isn't necessary to be a mountain climber to take not necessarily the pattern everywhere. Data nub- walks along the beach, and beachcombing is, an ac- lished by the National Park Service in 1941 showed tivity that appeals to everyone irom toddler to considerable differences in average day outing dis- octogenarian. tances from one part of the country to another. This While all of the shoreline has some recreation is borne out by the recently published California value, and the entire shoreline constitutes a rec- Public Outdoor Recreation Plan 6/ which reported an reation resource, not all of the shoreline is equally average one-way distance of 35 r-niles for day outings soughtIout for outdoor recreation. Of the three and an average distance of' 75) miles for overnight categories of shoreline-marsh, bluff, and beach-.- trips. The authors of this report are inclined to the.latter is by fa-r the most popular kind of shore- belit@ve that at the present time people %ill drive line in present patterns of outdoor recreation one way about 2 hours, a distance that m' ay vary from activities. 30 miles to as much as 90 miles.for such outstanding Here, land and water are easily accessible; the recreation sites as ocean beaches provide. violence of breaking surf and the warm safety of relaxing sands are but a step apart; the stimulation Of course, when beaches are closer than th-4s, of the foreign environment of the water and the they will be used more heavily. About three- quarters relaxation of sunbathing are nowhere else so easy of the people in California live within an hour's drive of choice. Physical sport and mental relaxation are of a beach, accounting in part for beach popularity equally available. An that State. The following table shows how long people spent en route to three public beaches in the Shoreline recreation target areas metropolitan New York area on a summer Sunday in 1959. Some shorelines are almost never used, either for recreation or for any other activity. Others are New York City's beaches are so accessible th:it so overused that their recreation values are greatly eight beaches had an estimated total attendance in reduced. The important shoreline recreation targets 1959 of 65,595,204, according to that city's reply are those which have the characteristics of (1) ac- to the municipal facilities questionnaire. Unquestion- cessibility and (2) availability. Accessible shore- ably accessibilityis akeyfactor inuse-and in planning for the future. The Massachusetts report, "PubliC --1/'*Summcry of Outdoor Recreation Activities-of the Delaware River Basin," op. cit. J/Port 1, Mar. 25, 1960, Sacramento, Calif., p. 26. Table 1. Estimated range and oyerage trovellime of Summary of Shoreline Recreation Needs users of three beaches in the metropolitan New York There seems to be little question that the role y region, summer 195911 21 r of the American Shoreline In satisfying outdoor One-way Great Kills recreation needs is becoming more important every Jones Beach Orchard Beach traveltime (percent of (percent of Beach year. liowever, the usefulness of Shoreline to satisfy (range in - travelers) travelers) (percent of recreation needs varies with the: minutes) travelers) 1. Type of shoreline. 2. Accessibility of the shoreline. 0-15 ......... 17.0 69.2 46.8 3. Availability of the accessible shoreline. f 0-30 ......... 34.7 75.2 65.3 0-45 ......... 71.2 100.0 94.8 Accessible and avoillable beaches Less than I hour 83.9 100.0 94.7 The use Over 1 hour... 16.1 .... 5.3 . greatest recreational pressure is on Average one-way public beaches not more than 60-90 miles away, troveltime in depending upon the highways, or about 2-hours auto- minutes,.... 40.2 23.5 27.5 mobile traveltime, from metropolitan areas of a half million or more people. Within this range the heaviest !/Adopted from "The Race for Open Space," final report of the demands are normally placed on beaches within 30 Park, Recreation on d Open Space Project of the Tri-State New miles or less than 1-hour traveltime of metropolitan York Metropolitan Region. Regional P [an Association, Inc., areas. The 19 metropolitan areas which presently New York, September 1960, table 17, p. 34. have more than 500,000 people are shown on figure 1. 2/Troveltime is a weighted average based on the distance from Circles of 30 and 90 miles radius respectively, have each county's population center to each park, via major toads been drawn around these metropolitan. areas. These at normal speeds. are the crucial beach recreation targets. The inner circles are the "bull's-eyes." Where the impact areas of a number of metropolitan areas overlap. use pressure is extremely high. Outdoor Recreation," had this to say about public beaches: Anaccess;ble nonbeach,shoregne Massachusetts is fortunate in having a sys- The other side of the coin is extreme nonuse- tem of public beaches the estimated peak ca- The least use pressure on recreationai shoreline pacity of which is 385,000 people-8.5 percent is on marsh or bluff coast kith no beach areas and of the population. distant from metropolitan centers. While recreation However, 60 percent of the ocean beach use of these areas is slight at present, they are often capacity lies Within the 'Metropolitan Parks important as superlative examples of bluff or marsh District, where 2 million people, more than sh'orehne, as unique natural phenomena or as wildlife 40 percent of the State's population live. With- habitat. in this district, where tl@e beaches can ac- commodate 15 percent of the resident popu- fittemiedicrte shoreline lation, use on peak days taxes their capacity heavily..!/ In between these two extremes of use and non- d6e are intermediate pressures on recreational shore- AvallAility.-In general, the only beaches widely line, depending upon such matters as extent of available' to the public are public beaches, and even overnight and vacation demand for shoreline, relative some of these are restricted. For example, some qualities of the available shoreline, and the effects municipal beaches admit only bona fide citizens of of land management decisions on availability for the municipality. Others practice some form of recreation. segregation or other restriction. Ile use of private The authors of both the California plan and the beaches is normally under the control of the owners, Gallup study agree that the median distance traveled although in some States access may be gainedto the to an outdoor recreation site for overnight or week- foreshore-the area below high tide-through public end vacations is about 90 to 125 miles. Thi3 does thoroughfares. Because of time and fund limitations. not really produce any great nhange in beach recreation It was impossible to make an inventory of restrictive targets except to widen them a bit in some cases policies of either private or public beaches. The and to increase the potential use in many others. authors have assumed that public beaches are usually That is to say, people in the Delaware Basin who go available to anyone. However, it may be that the to the New Jersey shore for day outings may also extent of adjacent parking areas is the greatest single go there for weekends and for their vacations. factor restricting the availability of accessible public Vacation users may travel farther than day outing beaches. a-nd weekend users, thus considerably extending the area from which use pressure originates. While shoreline probably serves a much -smaller proportion of the public for long vacations than it 21"Public Outdoor Recreation," Department of National Re- does for day and weekend outings, vacation use is sources, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1954. Important because of the amount of the resource 5 5 1 B L E SHORELINE - 1960 if popufaffen of Recreation Urban Areas Targets needed to support vacation use. Vacation users, travel. they may have high utility for limited numbers along with weekend outing users, .require housing of people. Scenically, fficy may be the most interesting and associated services that are not required by type of shoreline. The competition that exists for day outing users. In this case, We nature of the most bluff shoreline is probably between public and use tends to spread people more thinly over the private recreation- resource than does day outing use. @ All demands on a resource which require physical use of the resource are preemptive. This is as true in a multiple-use aituation as in a single-use Demands an the resource: kinds and location situation. Multiple-use management of a resource is Demands on the shoreline resource differ in possible when the various uses do not deny each" other absolutely. intensity and in kind depending upon the location It Is almost universally the case that recreation of the resource with respect to population uses deny nortrecreation uses absolutely. Recreation concentrations. and commerce, recreation and housing, recreation With minor exceptions, these demands are more and Industry, recreation and transportation, recreation intense and more diverse in direct proportion to the and wildlife' protection-in most cases cannot be concentration and density of population. carried on at the. same place. The practical and In metropolitan areas, the demands for public ree- esthetic requirements of clean water, adequate land 'reation, private recreation, housing, commercial de- area, safety and pleasant 'surroundings, and necessary velopment, industrial development, and transportation recreation developments can rarely be assured in are all heavy. Historically, those uses of shoreline conjunction with commerce, industry, housing, and that could pay the hi-hest prices for land have pre- transportation. In turn, most recreation activities empted most of the shoreline. These are uses which become .nonconforming uses when considered in con- call for highly capital-intensive development. Cur- junction with wildlife preservation or the preservation renIly, those uses are exerting pressure on remaining of biotic communities. areas of low capital intensity that are immediate to the All ofthis reemphasizes that the greatest immediate city and also on low-intensity use areas at greater and expression of wants and needs for recreation shore- greater distances from the heart of the city. line is very close to great urban concentrations of Public recreation is relatively low on the capital- people. These needs are quantitative and impressive, intensity scale. It probably ranks with wildlife but it is the nature of outdoor recreation that many preserves in this respect. In azcending order might needs are also qualitative, and theselatter needs be placed private recreation and housing, commercial cannot be ignored. development, and industrial de -velopment. Public This concept of a. shoreline, portions of which transp,ortation is not in the same scale, wWle private can serve various recreation purposes according to transportation is so often invested with a public their physical and locational. characteristics, in interest as to make its ranking variable from situation response to differential expressions of. wants and to situation. needs, suggests an int Iegrated pattern of policies and At greater distances from the metropolitan centers, programs that depend in part upon the ways in which the pressures of commerce and industry decrease. the shoreline is presently being used to meet recrea- On these shorelines, Itthe competition is more likely tional needs. This Will be considered in a later to be between public and private development for chapter. Before this is done, an attempt will be made recreation, and vrithin the public sector among kinds to project wants and needs for recreation shoreline of development. to the year 2000. This competition is greatest at those places where physical accessibility is greatest. This includes Needs for Recreation Shoreline in the Year 2000 location near towns and close to roads. Other institutional characteristics beinc, equal, the Projection of the recreational element in American competition for shoreline is most intense@ for areas life over a 40-year period is subject. to many sorts :which can be used for the most kinds of activities of errors of judgment. The factors. which will. be. with the least cost of development. Both recreational used here are of two different kinds: (1) projection and nonrecreational uses may be said to conform to of actual demand factors, and (2) projection of those this pattern. factors which directly affect the trends in outdoor In most cases, beach shoreline offers the cheapest recreation d Iemand-population, income, leisure time, and most enjoyable recreation uses for large numbers and mobility. of people. These areas are also most generally useful for commercial, industrial, and transportation The rapid increase of outdoor recreation demand activities. Marsh shorelines become more important as beach A recent Fesouroes for the Future study has shorelines becoine scarcer. Development costs for plotted the average annual percentage increase in marsh shoreline are greater, but the factor of acces- use of various categories of recreation sites in sibility tends to counterbalance these costs at Inter- the post-World War 11 years. 6/ mediate points away frorn the metropolitan cores. - _.- , . _ Bluff shorelines have in general the highest development ' costs of the major . types of shorelines. VMarion Clawson, R. B. Held, and C. H. Stoddord, "Land for For most uses they may well be the least sought ti@e Future," Resources for the Future, Inc., Johns Hopkins after. although for certain types of recreation and Press, achimare, 1960. 7 wvitui vutua ut uzju, oi course, irom z,iqu,uvu in 1947, to 8,025,000 In 19GO, as reported by the same Table 2. Average annual increase in attendance -for major organization. types of recreation areas, post-World War 11 years The upward trend of shore line-press ure fcdors Average annual Major type of out aoor Kind of areas increase in In an article entitled "The Crisis In Outdoor recreation area representative cttendonce in Recreation," 9/ Dr. Clawson projects the recreation- of each type post-war years (percent) promoting factors to the year 2000. from the year 1950 in these terms: there will be twice as many User-oriented ........... Municipal parks 4 people, with twice as much incomeper person, with Resource-bosed ......... Notional parks ... a 1 1/2 times as much leisure, who will travellwice National forest... 10 as much. All of this, he believes, will add up to Wildlife refuges .. 12 about a tenfold increase in the demand for outdoor Intermediate ............ State parks ...... 10 recreation. TVA reservoirs ... 15 Dr. Clawson dots not interpret this as a tenfold Corps of Engineers increase "across the board" for all kinds of outdoor reservoirs ...... 28 recreation. Rather, lie believes that in terms of the Hunting 3 three kinds of outdoor recreation areas referred to Fishing 4 In the previous section, the increase factors will be as follows: Source: Marion Clawson, R. B. Held, and C. H. Stoddard, "Lcnd User-oriented . . . . . . Fourfold increase fovthe Future," Resources for the Future, Inc., Johns Hopkins Intermediate . . . . . . . Sixtcenfold increase Press, Baltimore,, 1960. Resource-based . . . . Fortyfold increase 77hese predictions can be interpreted in a variety It is significant that the largest increases in of ways. For example, a fortyfold increase in demand attendance were at resource-based and intermediate for resource-based recreation shoreline-essentially types of recreation areas, and that the largest national seashore areas-might be taken to mean Increases were associated with reservoirs: user- that there should be 40 such areas, because there oriented- acces sibi lity and availability characterize is now only one. Whether or not this is used "to these in- or near-city playgrounds, swimming pools, capacity" is another question. The Hatteras beaches parks, etc.; resource- based- the inherent natural never experience the use impact borne by the Long qualities of the area constitute the basic recreation Island and New Jersey public beaches, but perhaps factor; intermediate- as the term irnplies, these areas if they did they would not represent the same sort, of recreational "quality" that we like to associate are usually within 2 hours driving time of the user and represent the best natural qualities available in with our more valuable national.recreation sites. this area of day-use accessibility. These figures A tenfold increase in use of intermediate Preas, point up the fact that outdoor recreation sites with such as the Long Island and New Jersey beaches, significant natural advantages or which are water- would almost literally mein either providing 16 times associated are becoming increasingly important to as rauch beach or findinc@ some efficient way of Americans in the postwar world. Increasing the person per beach unit ratio. Shoreline Recreational Boating.-One often-stated but none- witl-iin the heavy impact range of. metropolitan areas theless valuable indication of this trend is the remark- not now used for public recreation v.@.Il receive able increase in recreational boatina. Table 3 shows increasing pressure for conversion to public recrea- the Increase in outboard motors in use by 2-year tion use. To the extent that new public shoreline periods since 1948 as reported by the National cannot meet all of the recreation demana, areas Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers: already in use will have to be managed to provide more recreation. Since the future will see increasing Table 3. Number of outboard motors in use, by 2-year pressure for nonrecreation uses of shoreline as well, periods!/ It is likely that management innovations will play an extremely important part in meeting future recrea- Outboard tional. demand. year motors in use The trends in today's recreation patterns point (thousands) without question to an increasingly larger role for the shoreline. When one adds to this the factors 1948 .................................... 2,321 of the public prefer6nce for beach shoreline, the 1950 ................................... 2,811 Increasin- nonrecreation demands for shoreline, and 1952 ................................. w. 3,219 the limita'tions on the use of relatively inaccessible 195-4 ................................... 3,740 beach shorelines, it becomes apparent that solutions 1956 ................................... 4,740 other than the direct one of devoting more of the 1958 ................................... 5,485 shoreline to recreational use will. have to be sought. 1960 ................................... 6,050 !Notional Association of Engine and Boot Manufacturers, New 2/Morion Clawson, "The Crisis in OutJoor Recreation," York, N.Y., 1960. American Forests, March and April 1959. 8 In Suggestions for IncreasIng bench capacities and present. diverting Interests in beach recreation will therefore Shoreline which Is farther from metropolitan be alluded to in the section of this report recommending centers will receive Increasing pressure. for recrea- policies and programs. tion use, 'although this. pressure will not likely be as - intense as that on close-in shoreline. Some Summary of Forecast of tWs shoreline has great value as superior natural or environment or wildlife habitat. Other portions of it 'n- The year 2000 will probably see a major increase are valuable for super ior recreation areas. All ar An demand for recreational shoreline of all types to of these values need to be considered on their ny such an extent that In areas of metropolitan impact. various merits, in the light of the necessity -to @th most of the shoreline will be needed to satisfy assure si@o'reiine use that returns the greatest public 1,e the recreational dernand, and some of it will have benefits? to )r Id ir 2 CHAPTER IWO WHAT ARE THE SHORELINE RECREATION RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO FILL RECREATION WANTS AND'NEEDS NOW AND WHAT WILL THEY BE IN THE YEAR 2000? The American shoreline is a geographical feature Ignored the resource? 17his report is based on the of the Nation in the same sense as its area, its rivers, assumption that the total physical shoreline of the Its mountains, and its deserts. While in some in- Nation can and should be considered available for stances its nature can be modified, its extent cannot public development and use. No attempt has been be appreciably changed. In this context, it is a limited made to evaluate the legal, political, financial, and resource and a scarce commodity. It differs from policy difficulties, that would accompany attempts some- natural resources, such as minerals and oil, in to place more of the national shoreline under public that its location and physical structure are an inherent control and management. The report does not irmply part, of its usefulness, while the usefulness of the that it is feasible or desirable to espouse public former lies in their capacity for being transformed ownership of the entire shoreline. However, it does and transported. recognize the public interest in the shoreline as a The shoreline is a resource requiring no manu- national boundary, and the necessity to consider the facture or modification of form for manyof its recre- entire shoreline when policies of shoreline recre@ ational uses, although it is capable of being modified, ation are being formulated. for some purposes. This chapter discusses the present physical statlis Ile aspects of the shoreline in which change is of the shoreline. Following this is a section .vhich possible are the control and management of the briefly indicates the physical conditions that raay shore, the eyploitation and modification of its inherent reasonably be expected to existover the next40 years. qualities for the purposes of recreation or other The present and predicted future conditions are uses, and the modification of the pattern of accessi- ..evidence of the nature and size of the task ahead 6f bility to the public that needs or desires the recre- providing adequate shoreline recreation opportunities. ational, and other values of the shoreline. Ilese are the aspects on which attention needs to be focused to The Present Stctvs of the Recrection Shoreline obtain some appraisal of the shoreline recreation re- source of the future. A little recognized fact is that the entire shoreline, Historically, the shoreline is a resource com- whatever its nature or type, has some inherert rec- paratively neglected by the Nation as a national reational potential and value simply because it is recreation resource. It has largely been left for shoreline. The -attraction of the shore and the acquisition and exploitation by whatever public or recreational values may vary %videly with the type private agencies desired to undertake its ownership, of shore, but even the least attractive shoreline area eontrol, and management. From time to time in the has some recreational value. The wild alid isolated past the Federal Government has taken certain limited rocky cliff of the Maine shore, the steamy wilderness areas under its control for purposes of coastal de- marsh shore of the Everglades, and the sunny beaches fense, national parks and recreation areas, or con- of Florida and southern California have the common trol of entrance to and exit from the country. In element of possessing some features that at' tract-or relatively recent years all levels of government, in can be modified to attract-those seeking- recreation. response to increasing pressures and dem-ands.from the public, have acquired ownership, control, and Recreation shoreline defined management of small portions of the resource for other purposes. Yet today it is estimated that some ne technical definition of shoreline is pr J ecise 90 percent of this limited, highly desirable recreation and nonambiguous. The shoreline is the lineof inter- resource is. in private control, about 5 to 7 percent section of a stated water surface with the land. nere Is in public recreation areas, and about 3 percent is are many such shorelines, each precise and clearly In restricted military areas. l/ understood; e.g., the mean sea level shoreline, the This predominance of private control of the raean high water shoreline, the tidal shoreline, and shoreline raises some important questions about the the mean lake level shoreline, among others. None availability of the shoreline for recreation use by the of these delineate the recreational pertinence of a public. Should the national shoreline now held by shoreline. In fact, the terms are confusing, mislead- private owners be considered available for acquisition, ing. and of little value in a study of shorelines as a development, and use by the public? What is the recreation resource. 11ey offer no clue to the right of the public in this limited resource, and is it meaning to people of "groing to the beach," or of supe@ior to that of the private owner who has held similar terms commonly employed by those speaking domain for scores of years while public agencies of the recreation aspects of the shoreline. In com- See footnote aIt end of chapter. mon parlance in the United States "the shore" or "the beach" is as diffuse and varied in meaning as 10 41the mountains.- Those terms and what theyconnote Z. The existence of an expanse of view of at least have many expressions to many people. and when 5 miles over water to the horizon from some- used in reference to recrentionoftenhave connotations where on the shore. that have little or no relation to the actual physical 3. Location on some water boundary of the United shoreline. States (water Nydies lying entirely within the The question to be resolved is what to consider U.S. boundaries are not included). as the recreation shorcline of the United States. There seems to be little doubt that all of the exposed coast Extent of the recreation shoreline fronting the oceans or the Great Lakes may be Ln determining the ertent of recreati .on shoreline thought of as recreation shoreline. There is doubt meeting I these criteria, it has been necessary to ex- that all of the shores of Puget Sound, San Francisco ercise subjective judgment. For example, the lower Bay, Chesapeake Bay, or the almost totally enclosed tip of Manhattan satisfies the criteria, yet there is Pamlico Sound, or Matagorda Bay, are recreation substantial doubt that all would consider its shore shoreline. Some criterion, or set ofcriteria, enabling as a recreation shoreline; similarly there are many 'lie the definition of a place as being recognized by the locations completely dLvoted to special uses (e.g., or public as a recreation shore location is necessary and ports, harbors, etc.) that are excluded. Gonversely, @!n desirable. some locations have been included that do not satisfy ad The qualities that make feasible and attractive the completely all the criteria,. yet are usuaJly con- ts recreation activities of boating, fishing swimming, sidered as recreation locations (e.g., some parts of Ic bathing, amusement, or cottage living unfortunately are Casco Bay, Maine, and of Puget Sound). not discriminative; they attach to many locations and @y The value of the figures on extent of recreation may be found at the seashore, the lakeshore, the shoreline so defined and reported herein rests in the river. the country club, and perhaps the farmer's stock gross rather than the detail. While the precision of a pond. any single figure may be relatively low, the COM- e A feature that does seem to discriminate "the parative orders of magnitude are significant and shore" from other areas, in the public mind, is the representative. coupling of expanse of view with proximity to the sea Table 4 summarizes the detailed tidal shoreline or other large body of water. The broad sweep of (as reported by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey water extending to or near the horizon is invariably or the U.S. Lake Survey), the gross extent of the associated with "the shore" uniquely. Another dis- recreation shoreline and the deWled shoreline now criminating quality is the existence of a marine devoted to public recreation or restricted military climate and enviro=.ent, identified by such weather phenomena as the occurrence of wind from off the use for. each of the water masses bounding t .he water, the temperature influence of the water, waves, Nation.. 2/ and other weather features associated with large water Masses. Arguments may be found for other Nature of the shore features of a more detailed nature. In keeping with Mere knowledcre of the extent of shoreline having the belief that gross terms will serve best the pur- some *degree of recreation possibility is not sufficient poses of this study, these will not be introduced. to permit adequate. ass essmant of recreation potenti P 1. For purposes of this study the following criteria For this purpose additional information is needed on have been established to discriminate the recreation the physical status and nature of the shore, the im- shoreline and its extent. The shoreline identified portance and effects of natural phenomena (e.g., waves, herein is considered to meet in some substantial tides, erosion, climate, and weather), the kinds and degree all these criteria: extent of development, and the suitabilit.y of the shore 1. 7be existence of a marine climate and en- vironment. Se@ footnote at end of'chapter. Table 4. Mileage of detailed shoreline, recreation shoreline, public recreation shoreline, and restricted shoreline, by major coastlines. Detailed Recreation Public recre-' Restricted Shoreline location' shoreline' shorelineY ation shoreline shoreline (statute miles) (statute miles) (statute miles) (statute miles)- Atlantic Ocean ......................................... 28,377 9,961 336 263 Gulf of JAcxico ...................................... 17,437 4,319 121 134 Pacific Ocean ................................ *... -- 7,863 3,175 296 127 Great Lakes ................ ........................... 5,483 4,269 456 57 U.S. total ........................................ .59,1571 21,724 1,209 581 !/Recreation shoreline is measured by the some methods used by the Coast end Geodetic Survey. The totals in this table and the State totals found elsewhere in the study are the result of including al I such measured shoreline that meets the criteria for recreation shoreline as noted above. These figures will undoubtedly be different than data published by many States. While some difference in the totals " be attributed to the inability of this study to identify al I public shoreline areas, a major reason for the difference is in the different criteria used by this study and by the various States in their reports. 0 recreation activity, The extent of the shore is categorized as beach, bluff, or marsh shore. These are arbitrary categories defined as follows. Beach- A beach indicates a wide expanse of sand or other beach material lying at the waterline and of sufficient extent to per;mit its development as a recreation facility without important encroachment on the upland. The beach is the image of the recreation shoreline " Beach" and "shore" seem to be synonymous in the public's mind. This is unquestionably because the beach is the ultimate marine-land enviroment, with an ever-changing and uninhibited view, supporting almost every type of recreation activity one can image. Bluff- A bluff shore indicates the existence of a bank,bluff, or cliff immediately landward of a relatively narrow beach, and varying in height from a minimum of several feet up to mountainous elevations. The bluff shore provides a marine enviroment, scenic values of a high order, and frequently the isolation many outdoor recreation seekers prize so highly. The possiblites of management of bluff shores for recreation have hardly been realized; the use of their scenic qualities alone only begins to exploit their recreational value. Marsh- A marxh shore indicates the existence of tidal or nontidal marsh as the principal shore feature. The marsh shore may be both the most ignored and the most promising type of shoreline for future recreation use. The developments at Newport Bay and Mission Bay, in Southern California, show how much can be done with marsh shores for recreational purpose. In fact, these developments tempt one to suggest that the marsh shore can be managed easily to provide a recreation complex unmatched by almost any natural shoreline area. Table 5 indicates the estimated mileage of these three types of shore, and in addition, indicates the amounts in public recreation areas. public restricted areas, private ownership, and development staus,These estimates are based on a classification of availabel data according to the criteria and definitions outlined in this study. the mileage figures for ownership are approximate and represent a probable midpoint of a range within rather narrow limits. Table 5 estimated mileage, by State, of the U.S. recreation shoreline, by type, ownership and development staus State Total miles Beach Miles Bluff Miles Marsh miles Public Recreation areas restricted areas Privately owned Development status Alabama 204 115 .... 89 3 1 200 low California 1272 283 883 106 149 100 1023 moderate Connecticut 162 72 61 29 9 ... 153 high Delaware 97 41 ... 56 9 9 79 moderate Florida 2655 1078 406 1171 161 122 2372 low-moderate Georgia 385 92 ... 293 5 ... 380 moderate Illinois 45 13 32 ... 24 4 17 High Indiana 33 ` 33 ... ... 3 ... 30 do Louisiana 1076 257 ... 819 2 ... 1074 lo Maine 2612 23 2520 69 34 ... 2578 do Maryland 1368 40 912 416 3 113 1252 do Massachusetts 649 240 288 121 12 6 631 high Michigan 2469 292 1959 218 357 ... 2112 low Minnesota 264 22 175 67 19 ... 245 do Mississippi 203 134 ... 69 ... 25 178 High New Hampshire 25 7 9 9 3 ... 22 very high New Jersey 366 101 33 232 18 15 333 do New York 1071 231 590 250 47 ... 1024 moderate North Carolina 1326 285 260 781 139 42 1145 low Ohio 275 20 195 60 9 5 261 high Oregon 332 133 181 18 101 ... 231 moderate Pennsylvania 57 9 44 4 19 ... 38 do Rhode Island 189 39 145 4 8 10 170 high South Carolina 522 162 ... 360 9 10 503 moderate Texas 1081 301 421 359 5 18 1058 very low virginia 692 160 118 414 2 26 664 low Washington 1571 121 1294 156 46 27 1498 moderate Wisconsin 724 46 634 44 13 48 663 do Total 21724 4350 11160 6214 1209 581 19934 .... Includes some Indian lands heid in trust The supply of recreation shoreine concentrations, the. current predominant pattern of A , shoreline development and use of accessible shore- Ile U.S recreation shorelines of the Atlantic and line is one of private ownership and restrictive :e Pacific Oce-ans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes usage. tur total 21,724 miles. Some 4,350 miles are beach, . Ile quality of facilities and the degree of crowd- ,and 11,160 miles are characterized as bluff shore (of Ing obviously are factors in the desirability of ac- ture which perhaps half 'has usable beach), and 6,214 miles cessible and available beaches. However, some of Ba are marsh shoreline. the beaches reported (e.g., Boston and New York) are bo Beaches.-If one assumes an average beach width attractive to large numbers of inhabitants of -the on above the water of 50 feet, and applies the criterion metropolitan centers, even though they are crowded. ,e to of a minimum of 150 square feet space per person, 3/ People will use crowded, inadequate beaches if s@ each mile of beach could accommodate 1,760persons. nothing else is available. But these conditions should On this basis the existing beach extent of 4,350 miles not define the desirable minimum beach area per los could accommodate 7,656,000 persons. If we as- person. sume further that 10 percent of the population will es It seems clear that the current pattern of pre- use the beach at a given time, the existingbeach thl dominantly private ownership and restricted usage shoreline of the United States could accommodate a of beach property near metropolitan areas must be te population of close to 77 million persons. modified to one of greater public use of the accessible of Bluff Shore.-Adding to this the comparably de- beaches, if Lhe current and foreseeable beach recre- ,ns rived figure applicable to the 11,160 miles of bluff ation needs of metropolitan areas are to be satisfied- @A shoreline, half of which has beach areas, an ad- even in part. ld- ditional 112 million persons could be served, making a total of some 200 million, or more than the entire The Futum Status of the Recreation Shorerine population of the Uniied States in 1960. The extent of the Amer;can shoreline of 1960 will Marsh Shore.-The 6,214 miles of marsh shoreline be almost precisely the extent of the shoreline in the are an untapped recreation shoreline resource with year 2000. Nor will the essential natural qualities tremendous potential, as are the roughly 6,000 miles of the shoreline be appreciably modified. There will of bluff shoreline without associated beach. be in the year 2000, as there are now, about 22,000 There is no shortage of shoreline for recreation miles of shoreline, one-fifth of which will be natural purposes if only gross area is concerned. The prob- beach, another fifth of which Adill be marsh (unless lem, however, is one of imbalance between the lo- programs of modification are instigated on a large cations of centers of population and accessibility to scale, which is unlikely), and the remaining three- adequately developed shoreline open to the us.e of the fifths of which will be bluff shore, half of itwith general public. beach. The major mcreotion targets The recreational value of this resource in the year 2000 will be determined in part by the nature The summary of the recreational shoreline of axid extent of its exploitation. Atthe present time, the United States shows only a small part developed this has largely meant providing access to a shore- as public recreation areas, and most of these areas line area and developing service 'facilities near it are beaches easily accessible to large population (comfort stations, bathhouses, parking lots, life- concentrations, guards). The kind of management which would extend On the other hand, there are extensive beach areas and improve beaches, rehabilitate destroyed beaches, of excellent quality that until recently have been or create new shoreline environments with higher Ignored almost completely by any public recreation recreation value (for example, developing marsh agency. Outstanding examples of such areas are the shorelines) has as yet been instituted only in scattered extensive privately owned beaches of the Texas Gulf instances. Where well planned restoration has taken coast. These beaches are far from the great centers place, it has been highly successful, as at Presque of population and therefore receive little or no use Isle State Park in Erie, Pa. The Mission Bay, pressure. Calif., type of marsh shore development can be Although comparative figures are not available, duplicated at- many places on all of the coastlines. it is a valid generalization that certain easily ac- It is exactly this kind of mamagement which would do cessible beaches are the more popular and well much to modify the statement that the extent and attended, while others less accessible but equally quality of the shoreline will not be greatly changed. well endowed. are less popular. Classic examples For example-, the extensive marshland lying immedi- are the beaches around Los Angeles (Santa Manica ately behind the New Jersey barrier beach@is acces- is the most accessible and is also the best attended) sible to what will be an even greater metropolitan and the Long Island beaches (Jones Beach is highly complex in the year 2000. If it were developed to its popular, while equally good or better beaches farther full recreational potential, it could unquestionably do from New York on the island's south shore receive much to meet the shoreline recreation demands'that much less use). are to be expected. Such development is a complex Although those beaches which are available for technical problem and is undoubtedly expensive, but public recreation tend to be accessible to population it appears to be technically and economically feasible even now, and this would be. even more true in 40 See footnote at and of chapter. years. 13 0 recreation devlopment Is already raising a conflict situation points to a need for the coorinted planning betwen developers and groups who are interested in and management which is more likely to occur with conserving such lands for wildlife habitat.This con- integrated State departments of natural resources. '/Since a field inventory of shoreline ownership ws not avail- able for this study, precise ownership data could not be ob- The two major recreational uses of Alaska shorelines are for tained for all shoreline areas. The estimates may understate local activities and for sightseeing (earn boots. The Forest the amount of public shoreline and as a result overestimate the Service currently has a policy of protecting the sightseeing amount of private recreation shoreline. The uncertainty with values of its shoreline property where this shoreline is along respect to precise percentages of shoreline in public owner- commercial ship routes. ship applies mostly to local, county, and to a lesser extent, The Coast and Geodetic Survey fig ure for the detailed coast- State ownership.- The estimate in the mileage of public recre- line of Alaska is 33,904 miles. Thus, the detailed coastline ation shoreline for a particular State may be as much as 25 percent too low. However, because the estimates for many of Alaska is a little less than three-fifths as long as that of States were based on nearly complete map identification of the rest of the continental United States. public recreation areas, the estimates for the Notion as a The Hawaiian shoreline has a detailed mileage of 1,092. whole are probably within 15 percent of the actual amount. The State is composed of six major and two minor islands. The amount of private shoreline is the amount left when Public Distance, transportation facilities, and population location recreational shoreline and public restricted shoreline are sub- are three of the major factors limiting widespread use of tracted from total recreational shoreline. Hawaii's shorelines. The beaches of Oahu, especially near Honolulu, are heavily used, both by the local population and This study did not include detailed analysis of shoreline of by tourists. For the rest of the State, lack of large scale Alaska and Hawaii. inter island transport and small local populations combine to In Alaska, the shoreline is not now and will not in the for- exert only slight recreation pressures on shoreline. seeable future be subject to the kind of pressures that'are discussed in this study. Both distance from centers of popu- !/A number of city and country planning commissions have stand- lation and length of usable season ore severely limiting ards which call for between 75 and 150 square feet of beach factors in the use of Alaska shorelines for recreation. per person. 14 he ng 1h CHAPTER THREE THE PRESENT AND FUTURE STATUS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS Ile Institutional arrangements by which public The problem posed by the type of agency head is agencies order their affairs have a. distinct bearing one which raises issues beyond strictly managerial on the amount and kind of services that a-re or can be cons ideratiobs. In many instances, the board form offered. This is nowhere more true than in the was adopted and combined with staggered terms of provision of shoreline recreation opportunities. These office for the express purpose of insulating the agency arrangements, applied to the physical and current from the normal political and administrative controls, use situdtion previously described, delimit the recre- particularly. those of the Governor. For example,- ation potential of shoreline. Wisconsin has both a Department of Conservation, The structure of government agencies, their statu- headed by a Commission serving 6-year staggered - tory powers, the status of shoreline planning, and terms, and a DeparLment.of Resource Development, the adequacy of current public policy are all discussed headed by a Director appointed by and responsible in this chapter. to the Governor. The latter agency was established in part in order to give greater emphasis to recre- State and Local Recrealiton Organization ation, rather than considering it a byproduct of and Statutory Powers conservation. The concern over relations with gubernatorial leadership is a practical problem, not State organization a formal one. The day is rapidly approaching when the legitimacy of recreation as a governmental function On occasion the role of coastal recreation is given will become widely accepted and its promotionunder- explicit recogn ition Within a State administrative de- taken without misgiving. Provision of public recre- partment, such as the Division of Beaches and Parks ation is becoming a vital part of providing for the. In the California Department of Natural Resources. general weLfare. It verywell might be a mistake, then, Since.this scarcely amounts to administrative innova@ to continue to argue for independent status for recre- tion, the comments Which follow apply equally to all ational activities. On the contrary, a close relation- outdoor recreation. ship with the chief executive might soon be desirable -Two facts stand out in regard to organizational ia order that a prcper share of funds and land and problems. The first is the widespread use of the water be allotted for recreational purposes. When board or commission form as the administrative the promotion of recreation is undertaken by political head of the agency which houses coastal recreation leaders with the understandin.- that such a program functions. The second organizational problem noted has public appeal, the day of recreation has arrived. concerns the fragmentation not only of the recreation Fragmentation of the Recreation Function.-Only function but of those functions related to the utilization 13 of the coastal States provide for an integrated of land and water resources. department Iof conservation or natural resou:rces to The Board or Commission Form of Direction.- 'house parks administration, wildlife mana@emet)t, and This is the pattern found in 20 of the 28 States con- resource management (table 6). Objection's to such a sidered (table 6). The argument over plural versus department stem from the fear of recreation en- single executives is one which seldom escapes at- thusiasts that the department would be dorninated by tention ir, the standard public administration texts, conservationists concerned with physical resources but ont.,,, which universally. valid prescriptions rather than with human needs. Aleyer and Brightbill, fall to @.-n@@rge. Nevertheless, njost students of among the leading students of recreation adminis- administration Will agree with the late Prof. LeonardD. tration, appear suspicious even of parks departments White that: and evidently prefer a recreation commission to ad- In general, the burden of proof is on the minister recreational pro-grams. 2/ advocates of a board in preference to an ad- Supporters of an integrated department argue that ministrator, although, in some cases a lay Intelligent planning and the development of a unified board may give results apparently superior policy are handicapped by the splintering of activities to those attainable by a full-time (but under- arising out of the use or management of natu-ral paid) executive. Exigent demands for unity of resources. The matter is further complicated where purpose, for energy in execution, for well- the several agency heads enjoy some degree of defined responsibility, and for easy coordina- Independence from gubtrnatorial controls. Where tion press strongly in favor of one official this is the case, there is no focal point for an active rather than for a conjoint authority. l/ iliorold D. Meyer and Charles K. Brightbill, "State Recreation: i/Leonard D. Vhite, "Introduction to the Study of Public Adminis- Organization and Administration," A. S. Barnes, New York, trotion," Macmillan Co., New York. 1955, 4th edition, p. 191. 1950, ch. 5. leadership. From tin organizational point of view a areas continue to sprawl across municipal and State plan suggested by the National Park Service appears lines. highly satisfactory.@/ Functions of this plan are Public Access to the Foreshore. 4/-Those States grouped as follows: bordering on waters which ebb and ffow with the tide, Governor ------------ Department of Advisory Natural Resources Commission on Director Natural Resources Forestry Game Fish Parks Lands Water Chief Chief Chief Chief Chief Chief Powers of Acquisition.-Statutory powers of park and which own such tidelands to high watermarks, agencies to acquire land are generally adequate. In have interesting possibilities of providing additional at least four States, however, the agency does not shoreline recreation for their citizens. The foreshore , possess the power of eminent domain, and in two that portion of the tidelands between high and low others the power is limited either to acquisition of tides, can be and is used for recreational purposes 'areas bordering on public parks or to acquisitions of even where the uplands are in private ownership. For under 200 acres (table 6). In the past, the authority example, in reply to a questionnaire on the subject, the to condemn land for park purposes was perhaps not Slate of Oregon stated that extensive use is made of of critical importance. Today and in the future the the foreshore and that the State highway ce"na"ission acquisition of coastal areas for. recreatiDnal purposes can acquire property, by condemnation if necessary, may not be satisfactorily handled by a dependency on to construct public pedestrian trails and bridle paths gifts, devises, or voluntary purchases. A coordinated to connect streets, roads, and public parks with the system of recreation cannot be developed if the Pacific Ocean. Ten other States also indicate ex- location of recreational areas depends upon the tensive or moderate use of the foreshore for bathing, willingness of public-spirited citizens to contribute fishing, crabbing, and similar activities (table 7). or sell suitable sites to the recreation agency. On Fourteen States own tidelands up to the high water- the contrary,' a recreation system must be planned mark (table 7). The rights of upland owners in most to meet the needs of heavy population concentrations, of these'@tates would not conflict with public use of and, where necessary, the recreation agency must the foreshore, although in five States the upland owner -have the authority and be willino, to use the power of may petition the State to acquire tidelands adjoining eminent domain to develop a balanced program. his property. State governments might well explore Powers of Cooperation.-Only slightly more than the practicality of opening the foreshore to more ex- one-half of the States under consideration specifically tensive use even where the uplands are privately authorize the park agency to cooperate with other owned. overnmental units in promoting parks and recrea- onal work. Cooperation ,vith the Federal Govern- Local organization' Ti"ent, other State governments, and with political subdivisions is authorized with approximately the same Local agencies are more often than not directed ount of frequency. Cooperation with private in- by a board or commission serving overlapping terms Uvidu als and corporations is permitted in only four of office. Although this is subject to the same ates (table 6). Ile explicit legislative recognition criticisms directed at the board form at State level, of the need for cooperation a-mono, governmental levels in cities of less than metropolitan complexity there lfferas, encouragement to those who feel that recrea- may even be some advantage in a board made up of 0 n nd related problems should not be divided artifi- outstanding civic leaders who can lend the n.-ency the ally along lines of political jurisdictions. The need weight of their prestige. However, in metropolitan for cooperation will likely increase as metropolitan areas the recreation function is so vitally important Recreation Today end Tomorrow: A Survey of the Recreation -@JThe authors of this report ore indebted to Col. Herbert C. Gee, I-Resources of the Missouri River Basin," Notional Park whose study, "Slate Regulation of Coastal Structures," pro- Service, U.S. Departnent of the Interior, in cooperation with vided the basis of parts A end B of section 5 of each of the ,the Missouri Basin Interagency Cornmillee, no do,,,, p. 43. St.t. reports in the oppIondix. 16 that the protection and encouragement of political MethodB of Financing.-Although agencies respoh- leadership are essential. A mayor or other chief sible for coastline recreation have broad authority in executive of a large city needs clear lines of authority financing projects, frequently Including special tax over the recreation 8gency If he Is to meet his levies, general fund appropriationg are byfar the most responsibilities. Important source of income. This holds true for both municipal and county recreation agencies and for all Local powers types of projects. Perhaps the most interesting pattern which emerges is the frequency of fees or charges Almost without exception, the coastal States grant Involvinn, marinas and launching ramps as compared to political subdivisions powers of sufficient breadth with other types of recreational activities. Quite to enable them to undertake recreational projects possibly park agencies. might explore further the use along their coastline. Twenty-six of the 28 States of fees or charges involving recreational activities considered specifically authorized municipal corpora- or sports where the fees charged are only a small tions o Ir towns to build and establish parks, beaches, portion of the total cost of enjoying the recreational activity. or other recreational projects; 19 authorize counties to, undertake recreational programs; 10 enable special 'Associated Shoreline Contmi districts or authorities to be created; and 1 authorizes Agencies and Programs the creation of regional districts to build. and manage recreational facilities. In addition, 10 States au- thorize 2 or more political subdivisions jointly to Both water pollution control and beach erosion establish and manage recreational projects (table 8). control are public, programs which are highly per- Attendance figures-based on replies received from tinent to shoreline recreation opportunities'. If they 259 local units of government indicate attendance in are coordinated with shoreline recreation planning, excess of 181 million at local beaches, marinas, these programs can be effective in establishing and launcbino, ramps, fishing piers, and parks in 1959.5/ maintaining the health, safety, and physical conditions which can support a successful recreation program. Undoubtedly, the responsibility of local governme@_ts for coastline recreation is a considerable one. At the present time, however, neither State water Municipal corporations and urban counties are pollution control nor beach erosion control programs are tied closely enough to shoreline recreation pro- more active than either rural counties or special gram to assure this success. districts in providing coastline recreation. This is what one might suspect. Rural populations have the advantages of open spaces and the possibilityof hunting, Water pollullion control fishing, or other recreational activities not so readily available to the city dweller. It is upon the governing unit of dense populations, then, that thc responsibility Federal -Programs.*-- The Public Health Service of for providing recreation has fallen, and it is here that the Department of Health Education@ and Welfare is. - the major problem is faced. It is well to inquire responsible for adminis@ering the Federal Water whether State governments, whose legislatures fre-. Pollution Control Act of 1956. The act contains the' quently overrepresent rural population, and the Fed- following provisions: eral' Government, whose major criterion for de- (a) Authorizes the Surgeon General, in co- velopino, parks is the uniqueness of the area rather operation with Pederal, State, and local than its active use, have met their responsibilities to agencies, to prepare a compreliensivepro- the urban citizen. gram for eliminating the pollution of inter- Powers of AcquIsition.-Local authority to acquire state waters. coastal sites for recreational purposes is also quite (b) Encourages cooperative action by States and similar to the pattern found at the State level. In gives consent of the Congress to interstate addition to authority to accept gifts, bequests, and compacts and agreements designed to con- devises of real estate, many local recreational agen- trol or alleviate pollution. cies are authorized to purchase lands for park pur- (c) Authorizes the Surgeon General to encour@ poses and to institute condemnation proceedings when age, cooperate with, lend technical assist- necessary. Voluntary 'purchase is the most fre- ance to, and make grants to public and quently used method of land acquisition by all types private agencies in studies related to the of local governmental aaencies and for all types of causes, control and prevention of water recreational facilities. Gifts run a strong second in pollution. importance, while the use of eminent domain is in- (d) Authorizes the Surgeon General to make frequently resorted to. As indicated earlier, eminent grants to States to assist them in financinn, domain although seldom reqUired, is necessary on the establishment and maintenance of adc- occasion for , balanced recreation program. quate prog@rams for the prevention and con- trol of water pollution, the Federal share -&About one-third of the shorelin@6 counties answered the equaling from one-third to two-thirds of the questionnaire. About one-third of the municipalities qucried costs involved. replied. A number of major 6ties and surrounding counties (e) Authorizes the Surgeon General to make ore not included in the responses. Many of these local grants to States and municipalities for the governments are known to provide public shoreline recreation. construction of treatment works of up to Thus, the figures for understate the actual amount of activity 30 percent of the cost, or $250,000, which- of local governments. ever is the smaller. .17 Table 6. Location and selected powers of Stcge agency Agency headil Location State Integrated Parks and Independent Plural Single deportment 21 forestry POAS Other Alabama ................................... .... X X California ................................. ... X X Connecticut ............................... X .... .... .... Delaware .................................. X .... .... X Florida .................................... X X oeorgio ................................... Ijx X X Illinois ................................... X X Indiana ................................... X X Louisiana ................... *-**-*-' X X Maine ...................................... X X ).jorylond .................................. X X .... thassochuse-tts ........... I................... YJX X Michigan ................................... X X Minnesota ................................. ... X X_ Mississippi ................................ .... X New Hampshire ............................ X X New Jersey ................................ 1/x .... X .... New York .................................. X X North Carolina ............................. .. Jjx X Ohio ...................................... .... X X Oregon ..................................... X .... . ii" .... .... .... /X Pennsylvania .............................. X .... 121X Rhode Island .............................. X .... .... .... 1_3/X South Carolina ............................... X X Texas ............................... ..... X X Virginia ................................... X .... .... Washington X X Wisconsin ................................. X .... .... Total ................................ 4 r 20 91 13 4 '/Refers to th e deportment having responsibility, not the administrative subdivision. 2/An integrated department is one which combines parks and wildlife management cod the administration of land and water resources genera I ly. -3/Requires legislative approvul unless condemned land is contiguous to a park crea.. 4/Jekyll Island State Park Aut".ority. J/Although headed by a commission, the Governor appoints the Director of the Deportment who serves at his pleasure. -!!/Limited to acquisitions of 200 acres or less, and land not used for industrial purposes. -kThe Governor accepts upon recommendation of the Department. State Organization.- The most common agency ad- Statutory Powers.-Pow'ers afforded water pollu- ministering water pollution control laws in coastal tion control agencies vary from State-to-State. Among States is a commission composed partly of ex officia the most important are authorization of research and officers and partly of members appointed by the investigation to determine practical and economical Governor to represent industry, agriculture, recrea- methods of pollution abatement; authorization to tion, or other interests. The State health officer classify the waters of the State in terms of purity is ordinarily among the ex officio members of such standards: power to issue permits for construction a special commission, and the State health depart- or alteration of sewerage and waste disposalsystems; raent is the second most common agency tesponsible and power to issue orders to polluters to cease their for water pollution control programs. It is apparently operations or ta-ke corrective action.. Ilic success of the practice at the State level to create a new or- water pollution control legislation depends on the funds 'ganI7 alion, and an ex officio and part time lay board available to finance the agency responsible for ad- Is simple to create, as new problems appear on the ministering the laws, the vigor with which the agency horizon. Such a practice merely fragmentizes the proceeds against violators, and the advancements made governmental process and creates a problem for in solving pollution problems where corrective action gubernatorial control and leadership. The problem now entails considerable costs. Is further intensified .,,-here representation is given Impact Upon Recreation.-Based on replies re- to those industries or governments which are respon- ceived from 24 of the 28 coastal States, pollution of sible for polluted conditions. coastal waters constitutes a serious problem in at 18 having primary responsibility for coastline recreation, 1960 Powers of cooperation with- Voluntary Gift Devise, Eminent Lease Federal Other Local Private State persons and purchase domain Government agencies agencies agencies X X X X X X X X X. X X X X X X .... X .... X X X X X X .... .... X X X X .... .... X X X X ... i X X .... X X X X X .... X X .... .... X. X X X ...i X X X X X .... X X !/X X X .... X X 21X 21X X X .... .... X X .... X X X .... .... .... .... X ... .... .... T X .... X .... ... X 21X 2/X .... X X X X X X X ... .... .... X X X .... .... .... 21X 1/X .... IVX .... .... .... X .... ivx X X .... X X X X X X .... X .... .... .... .... .... X X X X .... .... .... .... .... X X X .... .... 14/X X .... .... .... X X X .... .... ... X .... .... X X X X X X X X X X X 12 111 4 26 221 241 ill 10 .-!/The Department of Highways operates 4 beaches; the Metropolitan District Commis Iion, through its Parks Division, provides beaches in Metropolitan Boston. The Metropolitan District can acquire land by purchase, gift, and eminent domain. -9/Subiect to approval of the Govemor. 12"When authorized by the Governor. !J/Deportment of Highways. U/State Park and Harbor Commission of Eric, under the Department of Forests and Waters. i-3/Department of Public Works. IJ May recommend the purchase of fond to the legislature. least some areas of 12 States, and a moderate pro6- recreation to the maximum extent possible, if the lem In areas of 10 States (table 9). As one might people of these areas are to be provided with ade- suspect, the major problems appear near- coastal quate recreational opportunities under suitable condi- cities and areas around a polluted stream which tions of esthetic acceptability and minimum crowding. empties into the ocean. Several situations well illustrate the predicament presented by failure to give adequate attention to the Coastal and lak-e shore areas near large urban, centers are subjected to intense recreational usage, effects of pollution on beach areas. In 1942, the ;State but require the presence of clean water for maximum of California found it necessary to close the extensive beaches of Santa lilonica Bay, adjacent to the Los .utility, especially for swimming. Yet, in a number Angeles metropolitan area, to public swimming be- of instances, improperly or inadequately treated sewage and industrial or ship wastes discharged in cause of pollution resulting from discharge. into the Bay of sewage from the Los Angeles sewerage system. the waters near these beach areas have made it 'I nece .ssary, because of the resulting dangers tohealth, Construction of a modern 12-foot diameter outfall. as well as for esthetic reasons, to close the areas to sewer which delivered the treated sewage effluent I all uses involvin- human contact with the water. mile offshore corrected (his situation and permitted 'reopening. of the beaches in 1951. Continued growth These -situations are particularly serious because of the large populations invo!ved, and the consequent of the area has been so great, however, that it was need to utilize every possible mile of beach front for deemed necessary to construct expensive additional .19 Upland boundary of State Extent of use Rights of upland owner Sta te owne Aip -_ Prior cluirn Accretion and High water Low water Extensive Moderate Slight or none of purchase reclamation Aloborna X 0I X California ........ .... .... .... Connecticut ...... X P) .... .... X Delaware ......... X X .... .... .... X Florida ........... X X .... .... .... .... Georgia .......... X .... .... .... Louisiana ........ X .... .... .... X .... Maine ............ .... X .... .... X .... .... Maryland ......... .... X X Massachusetts .... X X Mississippi ....... @X .... (11 (-!/) New Hampshire. X X New Jersey ....... X X Now York .......... X .... X North Carolina .... X X Oregon ............ X .... X X Rhode Island ..... X .... X .... .... .... .... SouthCorolina .... X X .... .... Texas ........... X .... .... Virginia... .... .... X .... .... Washington ... X X X Total ...... 141 71 81 31 51 3 !/Not available. pipelines to discharge treated sewage 5 miles off- S@rvice to undertake a comprehensive survey of the shore, and treated sewage sludge 7 miles offshore. water pollution problems of the whole region. These new facilities have been operating satisfac- Another serious source of. beach pollution, es- torily since March 1960, but a continuous water- pecially near iniportant harbors, results from oil sampling program is nevertheless carried on by both tank sludges and bilge w'astes discharged from shins. the State and the city 'to ensure that the waters ad- Such pollution, carried onto the beaches by the mrind, Jacent to the bea ch of this splendid Bay are maintained .ca.n ruin beaches for long periods of time. Dis- In satisfactory condition for all recreational purposes. charging of oil wastes into coastal waters is pro- In the Lake Michigan area, a number of beaches hibited by Federal law. near - Milwaukee were closed durina the summer of The foregoin- situations are illustrative of con- 1960 and a(rain in 19GI because o7 pollution of the ditions that can occur adjacent to any urban area, and adjacent lake, and beaches near Chicago were threat- which can destroy the recreational values of their uchout ened with closure. A comprehensive. study of the beaches. Other similar situations exist thro 0 water pollution problems of this whole area is now the country, and still others may occur in the future being conducted by the Public Health Service, with unless timely measures are taken to prevent them. -the objective of determining the best course topursue In correctiner the water pollution difficulties of the region. Recreation will be given full consideration Beach eroston confrol in this study. At Cleveland, Ohio, 'beaches have been closed Federal programs.-The Beach Ero@,ion Board of every summer for several years because of pollu- the Army Corps of Engineers is charged by law to tion in.Lake Erie. Beaches near Detroit were closed undertake general studies into the causes of shore In 1961 for the same reason. erosion and the methods by which the shoreline can In the New York metropolitan area, pollution in be protected or restored. '1hese studies are designed. the adjacent tidal waters has resulted not only in the to develop technical knowledge or ".know, how" to recent closing of some beaches, but also in the pro- combat beach erosion, but do not result in specific hibition of dredging and saleofcIanis from some parts plans for a given locality. Such studies are financed of the area because of hepatitis contamination in the entirely by Federal moneys. ckuns caused by sewage. 'nie situation in this regi ,on A second program undertaken by the Federal Gov- has reached such a critical stacre, and beach front ernment calls for a cooperative effort with State recreation is of such I mportance, that public hearings governments or their political subdivisions and results under Ihc cnloreen,enl section of 1he Federal Water in 8pecilic recommendations to protect a particular, Pollution Control Act were recently held, and local beach. The initiative inust come from an authorized officials of the area have requested the Public Ifealth State agency, although it might be on behalf of local 20 Table B. State legislation enabling the establisliment of local parks or recreation agencies Special districts cooperative action nd State County Municipal-!/ Regional districts within a political among local units subdivision Alabama ................. X X .... .... .... California ................ X X X X Connecticut ............... .... X .... 21X X 4' Delaware ................. Florid .................... X X 14 11 Georgia .................. X, .... X Illinois .................. ...i X Indiana .................. .... .... Louisiana ................ X X .... X Ma i no .........: .......... X .... .... Maryland ................. X Massachusetts ............ X .... .... ... Michigan .................. X X X Minnesota ................ .0.. X .... .... Mississippi ............... X X .... .... New Hampshire ........... X X New Jersey ............... X X X New York ................. X X .... X North Carolina ..., ......... X X .... X Ohio ..................... X X .... X Oregon ................... X X .... X ... i Pennsylvania . X X .... Rhode Island ............. X .... .... South Carolina ............. X Texas ................... X X X X Washington ................ X .... X Wisconsin. .. .......... X X .... .... .... "gi ia--*-'-***' X Total . .......... 191. 261 1! 1 10 !/includes the New England town government. 2/Fire districts. ?/Sanitary districts. property owners and arise from their demands. The natural resources or conservation, departments of agency will work through the District Engineer in hig@ways, and special water resources or similar preparing a preliminary analysis of the problem, the. commissions. Since the problein varieis considerably project ultimately approved by the Beach Erosion among the coastal States, it might be ex-pected that Board. The studies are f inanced jointly by the Federal this would be reflected in its or@anizational status. Government and the State involved, with the Federal Where shore erosion is serious, it often calls for a t Government contributing no more than one-half of the Division of Shore Erosion, such as that of the Ohio costs. The costs to the State can be met by a con-@- Department of Natural Resources, or a Water Re- tribution of services or.by an actual transfer of funds. sources Commission, such as that in Coruiecticut. A third program calls for Federal participation in From the standpoint of recreation it would seem construction (but ordinarily not the maintenance) of preferable to locate erosion control activities in an works designed to control erosion on properties owned integrated department of natural resources which in- by the States or their political subdivisions. However, cluded the recreation function. where 'a seawall or structure has been crected to Statutory Powers.-All of the coastal States but control erosion, and where the structure protects a one have designated a shore erosion agency to co- highway considered by Che Chief of Engineers to be operate with the Beach Erosion Board of the Army sufficiently important to justifyprotection, the FederAl Corps of Engineers. rl'he exception is Texas, where Government will also SLU)ply funds for maintenance. erosion control is entirely a local responsibility. In either case of construction or rep air, the Federal However, in only 10 States is the erosion control share cannot exceed one-third of the costs. Before agency specifically empowered to study erosionprob- Federal funds can La appropriatcd, the plan of pro-, lems, and in only 8 States is it specifically empowered tection must have bcen approved by the Beach Erosion to undertake erosion prevention works (Lable 10). Un- .13oard and authorized by the Con,-ress. doubtedly, otber States have such powers which are State Orginizatioii.-fiesr)oi-ksibility for the control not spelled out in State codes. of shore erosion at the State level is found most com- Only seven States provide a statutory formula monly in departments of public works, departments of for financially aiding local governmental units in 21 lable V. Pollution control: . Organizational characteristics, statutory powers, and impact on shoreline recreation Agency Has at. least one oleo Location Powers in which the Pollution becd-!/ effect is- State Special Research Approval Issuance Summary Plural Single o9ency2/ Health Other and of pions @/ 0, of -@/ flerious Moderate Slight investigation dersi/ powers Alabama. ............ X X X X X California . X .... X X .... X X X X X X X Connecticut ......... PX ±/x X X .... X X X X .... .... Delaware ............ X .... X X X .... X Florida ............. X .... X .... X X X .... .... X Georgia ............. X X .... X X X X .... Illinois. X X .... .... X X X X X Indiana ............. X X .... .... .... X X (2/) .... Louisiana ........... X X X .... X X .... Maine ............... X .... X .... .... X .... X .... X Maryland[ ............ X .... X X .... X X X .... .... Mossachusens ....... X .... .... X .... X X X .... Michigan ............ !/x 21X X X ... X X X .... X X X Minnesota ........... X .... X .... .... X X X X X X X Mississippi... X .... .... X L0/X .... X .... .... .... Now Hampshire ....... X .... X X .... X X X .... .... .... New Jersey .......... LIJX .... .... X .... X X X .... .... .... X New York.. X .... X .... .... .... X X X X North Carolina ....... X .... X X X X .... X X Ohio ................ X X .... .... X X X X X .... .... Oregon .............. X .... X .... .... X X .... X X .... Pennsylvania ........ X X .... .... X X X X .... .... .... Rhode Island ........ .... X .... X .... X X .... X South Carolina ....... X X .... .... X X X .... X Texas ............... X X .... .... .... .... . .... .... Virginia ............. X .... X .... .... X X X X Washington .......... X .... X X .... .... X X X X -X Wisconsin ........... X .... X .... .... X X X .... A X X Total .I....... 21 1 131 it 26T 7 121 10 t 10 '/Refers department wltich houses the pollution control functions, not the administrative subdivision. _2/An agency established specifically for pollution control or related functions. /For sewerage systems and refuse disposal plants. _yTo control or obate pollution. -@JWater Resources Commission. 61Commissioner of Health. -ZNo, information. -!/Water Resources Corrunission. -9/Coornissioner of Health. LO/State Gam and Fish Commission. lyThe Governor appoints both a Public Health Council and a Commissioner of Health. protecting shore properties. Typically, where public of eminent domain in acquiring land for shore works property is involved, the State's contribution is h! glier and to make assessmcnts'on property benefited. than that for the protection of private property. How- Impact Upon Recreation.-The erosion of shore- ever, the extent of State aid is greater than one might Une is caused by natural forces, conunonly in corn- surmise because of appropriation,; for specific. proj- bination, of wind, tides, and currents. 'llie extezil; of ects not covered under blanket formulas. erosion is further influenced by the geologic and Enabling Legislation.-At least 16 of the coastal physiographic features of the shoreline wid by the States specifically authorize political sulxfivisions to existence of artificial structures which might mpede undertake. shore erosion prevention works (table 10). or accelerate the rate of erosion. %Vhere beach ero@ Such authority is undoubtedly included in provisions sion is severe, it has a profound effect upon the empowering political subdivisions in other States to cconornic and social fabric of a conirnunity which undertake general public improvernents. Althoughthe depends upon recreation as an industry. enabling legislation varies, local units of government Replies from 23 of the 28 coastal States indicate are not infrequently authorized to exercise the power that erosion constitutes a serious problem in soine 22 areas of at least 20 States and a moder'ate problem In reation, In which shoreline recreation has received areas of 12 States (table 10). due consideration. Here the preliminary work has A., a been accomplished-, the acquisition and developmental )a Status of Shoreline Recreation Planning: priorities, financing, and possible readjustmentshave Curre nt'Prog rams been worked but, a policy and goals have been C.9- tablished, and the plan has begun to be put into effect. Shoreline recreational planning, to be effective Local Planning.-Planning for development of the from a national point of view, needs to be coordinated shoreline recrea tion resource his probably tx!cn most for all of the levels of government that are involved active and realistic in areas of heavy impact. The in providing shoreline recreation opportunities. New York Metropolitan Ilegional Council has sup- Federal Planning.-The National Park Service has ported the "Park, Recreation and Open bpace Project," X@ recently completed a series of surveys of our national and other metropolitan areas have planned in detail X shoreline and has issued three reports recommending for shoreline use -and development. Examplc3 are tbe ( Federal acquisition of several desirable and Detroit Metroplitan Area Regional Pla."ing Com- elable shoreline areas. These.reports also identi- mission and the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority. fied a large number of sites that should be acquired X by State and local agencies. There is not at the present Adequacy of Current Public Policy time, however, a regularly budgeted portion of the Park Service program or any other Federal agency According to criteria formulated by the National program designed to set the pattern for development. Recreation Association incooperationwith the National of shoreline recreation sites. Park Service, responsibility for the provision of public State Planning.-The plans of State governments recreation is distributed among levels of government in X vary corisideriably, ranging from comprehensive plan-:.' the following manner: X ning to budget estimates for recreation facilities. Supplying facilities for the day-to-day recrea- The short review of State planning agencies and tional needs of the people is. primarily a local their activities in recreational planning and develop- responsibility, whether met by municipali ties ... X ment has made it possible to group their respective or by county or metroplitan park boards . . @ . Use activities into four categories. by outside residents of facilities so supplied and .X Fiscal, Year Programs.-Of the 28 States, 8 of them maintained is incidental. (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mis- Every State has areas either of such high sissippi, South Carolina, and Virginia) are identified scenic value or of such high value for active rec- with fiscal year programing. Their activities are of reation, or both, or possessing such interests short duration amd, as such, are more concerned with from the scientific, archeological, or historical maintenance of already- exis ting areas and facilities standpoint, that their use tends to be statewide than with future planning. in character. Acquisition of such areas and their X Uncoordinated, Preliminary Planning.@ Nine States development and operation appears tobeprimarily (Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, 'Alichiman, North a function of the State, though -.this should not X Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, and Wis- preclude joint participation ... by the State and 0 consin) constitute the uncoordinated preliminary plan- such commuTuty or communities as might receive ning group. Their activities range from fiscal year a high proportion of the benefits flowing from their programing to some long-range activities for indi- establishment. 0 ation as a whole, there are, again, vidual regions or areas and, as such, have no overall Taldn the N. effect on the entire State. areas of such superlative quality, because of their Coordinated Preliminary Pla-nning.-Six States primeval character.or scenic excellence, or his- (Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, torical, archeological or scientific importance or New York, and Pennsylvania) have coordinated pre- because of some combination of these factors, that liminary planning. Their activities can best be they are objects of national significance. It is the summed up as the first steps necessary before a responsibility of the Federal Government to acquire statewide master plan can.be developed. These steps and administer these. 6/ encompass the preliminary work of all interested Emphasis on criteria of this character can only State agencies and individuals, in order not only to. result in inadequate provisions for coastline recrea- obtain the necessary information and data needed tion. If the community has primary responsibility and before any planning takes place, but also to develop. if use by outside residents is only incidental, then a general prog-ram for the future acquisition and inlwid residents will be denied easy access to the development of the shoreline. In a sense these steps shore. Some towns already have found it desirable are dual in character. The first step encompasses. and necessary to restrict usage of their public beaches general data on Lhe present status of the shoreline, to town residents and taxpayers. and the coordination of county and community plans so that an overall plan for future acquisition and de- Cities velopment can be made. The second step includes the stages of priorities, A more -fundamental problem is thc@ pressure for financing, and future readjustments. shore facilities in urban centers. No localities were Statewide Master Plans.-Five States (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Oregon) are @/-Reporl on the Conservation and Development of Outdoor leaders. in the field of outdoor recreation planning. Re'creation Resources," Federal Inter-Agency Committee on These States all have statewide master plans for rec- Recreation, July 1950, p. 78. 23 .... ........... Agency heady Location State Plural Single Integrated Public Highways Special Other deportment2/ works agency2/ Alabama ...................... X X .... .... California .................... X X Connecticut .................. X .... X Delaware ..................... X .... X Florida ...................... X ... X Georgia .....-............ :: ±/X Illinois .................... X X .... .... .... Indiana ................. r.. . .. 21X X Louisiana .................... .... X .... Maine ........................ X X .... Maryland ................. X .... .... 21X Massachusetts ................ X .... X .... -Michigan ..................... X .... .... .... .... X .... Minnesota :---*--**** ... i X X Mississippi ................... .... .... X .... New Hampshire ............... X .... LO/X 12/X 3/X X .... .... 2/X New Jersey .................... L i@-; . L New York ..................... X .... X .... North Carolina ................ X X .... Ohio ......................... ..1. 'i X .... i- Oregon ....................... 'X .... Lll@ LS/X Pennsylvania ................. X .... .... i-6/X Rhode Island .................. .... X X ... i South Carolina ................ X X .... 2/X Texas ........................ lesponsibility for erosion control at local governmental Virginia ...................... X X Washington .................... .... X iil@ Wisconsin .................... X L,/x Total .................. 16 121 61 61 41 61 8 -!/Refers to department which houses the erosion control function (as listed by the Army Corps of Engineers), not the administrative subdivision. 2/An integrated department is one which combines parks and wildiife management and -the administration of land and water resources general ly. _JAn agency established specifically for erosion control or related functions. _i/To empower political subdivisions to undertake erosion preventive works. 5 _Jon a formula basis to political subdivisions. J/Department of Mines, Mining, and Geo!ogy. -7/Althovgh headed by a Conunission, the G overnor appoints a Director of th@ Depcr tment who serves a? his pleasure. OlOnly as a result of severe storms. 9/Department of Geology, Mimes, end Water. io/Forestry and Recreation Commission. found In this study where the extent of shoreline within not directed so immediately to the satisfaction of the the political boundaries of a shore municipality was needs and pressures of urban areas. The authors adequate to meet the needs of the municipal population conclude that the policies at the State arid' Feder,21 alone, even if the shoreline were fully developed. level are directed toward providing areas of high Obviously, the needs of the whole metropolitan area scenic quality 'and moderatp or low intensity rec- population cannot be served by these samc shares. reation use rather than high intensity use. This has Urban counties whose jurisdiction is likely to take contributed to the inadequacy of metropolitan area in a larger portion of the metropolitan area than do shoreline. recreation facilities. municipal governments have met the problempartially by undertaking responsibility for providing shoreline Trends in planning ation any States has facilities. Enabling Iegisl, in m, authorized municipalities to acquire properties outside The general trend of State planning revealed in this municipal limits and has equipped the parks agency study points to the conclusion that less than half of with condemnation powers for this purpose. the 28 States have arrived at the stage where they State and Federal provision of beach areas has are in a position to determine the overall recrea- been, in totality. lesser in magnitude and generally tional needs and to do something about thern. The 24 Wics 519tutory powers# unu i ... p,,,, vpuwi i--i-i Powers, a( erosion control age .nCy Statutory provision of- Has at least one area in which the No specific Enabling Granis-in- erosion effect is- - Research Constructi6n powers leqislotion@j aid1/ Serious Moderate Slight X X X X X X X X X X .... .... X X .... X X X .... X .... X X X Z/x X ... X .... .... X .... X X .... .... X ... X -X X .... X .... X .... n.n. X X .... .... NX X .... .... .... .... X .... .... X X X X X L2/X 0 U/X .... X X .... X .... .... X X ... X X X X .... X X X ... i ...; I X X @/X X .... X ... i ... i It D7 X X X @X X X .... n.a. level X X .... X X X X .... X X X X X @X X X X X X I z, 10 9 14 161 7! 20 12 10 lyThe Department of Public Works and, Highways will undertake the construction. of preventive works. 2/13each Erosion Coarnission. V/Department of Conservation. iftepcrtment of Highways. S/Soil Conservation Committee. M/State Park and Harbor Commission of Eric. 2/Only for the acquisition of land for share erosion works. 1-8/Stote Forestry Commission. ftepartment of Conservation a' d Development, not listed under "Integrated Department" because of separate Parks and Recreation n Commission. 12/Public Service Commission. n.a. Not available. other half of the States are still in the stage of fiscal replenishment, and@worst of all-planned areas which year operation and some preliminary and uncoordi- by the nature of their dcvelopment have caused untold nated planning activiflos, mainly because of the d2magc to adjacent shorelin 's e abundwit supply of shoreline areas, on the one hand, Shoreline Domains.- Although the. shore is con and the small demand for them, on the other, be- stantly -changing, there is a good deal of dynamic cause of low density of population. But even these consistency wiLhin its various "domains." Cape States arp, experiencing flic ever-increasing pressure Cod, Cape liqtteras, the Florida coasts, Uie great of the growing demand for recreation. Texas beaches, and mos. other areas remain con- All too frequently there is inadequate recognition sistently beach, bluff. or marsh unless nian inter- of the fact that plans for shoreline use and develop- feres with their normal rc:-iine. The "normal regime" ment must be made to "fit" the natural state and can be identified Mth considerable rclial)ility within bebavior of this dy-maniie environment. There are too various shoreline domains: that is to say, the regime many beach parks that no longer have beaches, too of littoral currents. Within the domain whatever is many beach areas that require constant wid costly done to the shore at one location affects to a greater 447US 0 - 63 - 3 25 -@-.-,.-ACCESS IDLE SHORELINE 200 population Recreation Areas Torgats or lesser extent all other locations in the dynamic Integrated departments In more States. Organiza- interchange of the forces which have produced that tions then will house recreation functions together dornain. There are many examples in which the major with other activities competing for land and water accomplishment of shoreline planning has been to iesources generally, and they will probably be further increase damage to the natural shore. integrated under executive leadership. Departments Another critical problem inplanning for shoreline of Natural Resources, or of Conservation, have been recreational development is the lack of cooperation established in 13 coastal States at present, a form of among governments in solving problems which do not organization the authors recommend, because it links conform to existing jurisdictional lines. For example, in a single agency the principal claimants for natural only 10 States specifically authorize their recreation resources and recognizes organizationally the claims agencies to cooperate with other States (although of recreation (table G). Interstate planning contacts axe undoubtedly made Although it cannot be considered an important despite this). Only 11 States specifically authorize aspect of the program for meeting recreational cooperation between State and local parks agencies. demands by the year 2000, there may well be a wider Only 10 States provide enabling legislation authorizing use of the foreshore where the uplands continue to cooperation among local governments in recreation be held in private ownership. Few legal. obstacles matters (table 8). restrict public use of the foreshore. However, the problem of public access to such areas will need to The Future Status *f Institutional Arrangements be solved to. make more of this type of resource available for recreation. Use of these areas may be Public ownership and regulation of shoreline further impaired because in the near future property h use vigorously. The demands by recreation users now put a hea@@ owners can be expected to protests Iuc burden on the available shoreline of all types in public Status of shorermb recreation planning ownership. Increased recreation demands by the year 2000 will require substantial increase in the amount of Under the leadership and encouragement- not to say public unrestricted shoreline, or much more efficient urging-of the Federal Government, it is highly likely use of currently available shorelines, or both. The that coordinated master plans for shoreline recrea- authors believe that much of the Nation's accessible tion development and management will have been shoreline will be needed to. meet the. recreational drawn up and partially put into effect by the year demands of the American people in the year 2000 2000. Plalis in metropolitan areas, where even now (figure 2). They do not. believe that the public will the attitude toward the problems of outdoor recreation have acquired anything like this amount of the shore- is one of panic, can be ex-pected to be highly sophisti- line by that time. Therefore, under present policies cated and to an important extent implemented. The it is highly unlikely that recreational den ands will be extent to which Federal and State plans will have been satisfied. implemented is problematic. The past record in this As now, accessible beaches near metropolitan respect is not an impressive one. centers will receive the greatest pressure for ree- reation. use. To meet this g-rowing need most of this Adequacy of pub9c porcy shoreline should be in public ownership, and it will bave to be managed much roore efficiently than it is The demand for outdoor recreation facilities is today. For not. only will recreation demands be increasingly accepted as legitimate, and the provision intense-other demands for the shoreline, pre- of such facilities by public agencies willbe a standard eminently those for transportational and industrial feature of providing for the'public welfare. The uses, will also be large in these areas. Since Federal Government can be expected to provide both metropolitan areas are facing these problems now, encoura-ement and lead,-rship in this general trend. 0 0 it is probable that such recreational shorelines will Urban governments will receive more assistance from either be in public ownership or under some form of higher government levels, with the Federal Govern- governmental regulation. ment more likely to respond to the needs of cities- both because of the impact of the urban vote in presidential elections and negatively, because of the State and local recreation organization and present pattern of under- represent ation of inctropoli- statutory powers 0 tan areas in State le-islatures. The Federal Govern- ment is likely to enlist the aid of State governments It seems likely that the present fragmentation of by means of, Frrants-in-aid programs. But Government adrnWstering agencies will gradually give way to programs will probably lag behind demand. 27 CHAPTER FOUR @WHAT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS WILL ENSURE THAT PRESENT AND@ FUTURE RECREATION NEEDS ARE ADEQUATELY AND EFFICIENTLY M E T) Basle to any policies and programs recommended use public funds to provide outdoor recreation facil- for wise and efficient use of theshoreline recreational" Ities that arc in no sense restricted to the use of local resource is an understanding of the extremely signif- residents. icant role this resource- activity relationship plays in American life. Outdoor recreation should be recog- alzed as a necessity in American life. It should be The roles of the, various levels of government widely encouraged for all American citizens, without regard to economic or social levels. In other words, It should he a public responsibility to recognize, In achieving these purposes, the various liE!vels of to encourage, and where necessary, to provide the government hav@c different responsibilitids; they share means for, outdoor recreation. Outdoor recreation the necessity, however, of the fullest cooperation in should become a more important paxt of the Pattern effectively planned utilization of a national resource. of the lives of all Americans. Federal Responsibilities.- The Federal Govern- ment should be responsible for the following pro-,ram. A National Policy for the Shoreline 1. Acquiring, developing, and -operating shore- lines of national significance for recreation, 7be Aoreline is a unique resource in many ways. scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, or biotic For the most part, it forms a national boundary. communities. For a single resource, a shoreline has unusually 2. Optimizing. shoreline recreation possibil- high recreational qualities. It is limited in extent. Ities on Federal lands including defense Improper use, pollution, or erosion can decrease lands. Its extent and value. All of these factors can be 3. Assisting State and local governments where controlled to preserve recreational values if proper other financial and technical resources are steps are taken. Shoreline is a dynamic resource not adequate to meet State and local shore- physically, a system of related checks. and balances line recreation needs, especially in areas which do not recoanize political boundaries. It is, of hi-h recreation.impact by: in other words, a national resource. -(a) providing financial assistance for plan- As a natiofial resource, shoreline merits anational ning, acquisition, and development of policy. That policy should serve three purposes: shoreline recreation areas. (1) it should state the public purpose'in the recognition (b) providing technical assistance forplan- and encoura-emeDt of, as well as the provision of ning, acquisition, and development of If the means for, outdoor recreation; (2) it shoulddefine shoreline recreation areas. the roles of the various levels of government by (c) specif3ring pro&,ram standards as aeon-' which this purpose is realized, and (3) it should dition of Federal assistance, includin- relate recreation use of the shoreline to other valid review and coordination of State and uses. plans. The PUVIC PLrpose State Responsibilities.- The State governments should be responsible for the followinr@ program. 1. Acquisition, development, and operation of Public agencies should recognize the present shoreline areas as part of State outdoor and future significance of outdoor recreation in. recreation plans, including: American life; they should encourage broad partic- (a) shorelines of more than local and less Jpation; and they should help provide the facilities than national si-nificance. for participation. (b) shorelines ser'Ving more than, local Recogrition of Significance.-All levels of govern- ar'eas. vi ment should have adequate statutory powers and 2. Maximization of shoreline recreation op- administrative organizations to assess outdoor rec@ portunities on existin.- State Iwid. reation wants and needs and to develop md implement 3. Desi going a shoreline plan and arranging coordinated programs which will effectively. meet t@ development and operation of shoreline those needs. recreation arcas, including: Encouragement of Outjoor Recreation.-All levels (a) cooperation with loca I governments and of government should encourage an increased public coordination of local plans. awareness of the advantages and benefits of partic- (b) cooperation with Federal planning and Ipation in outdoor recreation as an essential activity. assistance programs. Provision of Means.-All levels of government (c) cooperation with other Statesin regional should, when necessary to meet recreation needs, programs. 28 4. Assistance to local v ,overnments to meet use. Here also there tire problems of water pollution local shoreline recreation needs by: and general destruction of natural recreation Values (a) financial aid. because of unsightly and hazardous structures, smoke, also (b) technical help. noise, and the like. Since metropolitan areas are z (c) specification of standards, Including re- the areas in which the demands for shoreline recrea- view and coordination in State plan. tion are greatest, special policies need to be applied, Local Responsibilities.- The local governments rather than the general ones described in the foregoing Bhould be responsible for the following program. paragraphs. The uses which may dominate metro- 1. Planning, acquisition, development, and 'op- politan areas may not only be destructive of recrea- eration of locally important shoreline tional values, but they are highly competitive. Once - -recreation areas as part of a comprehen- ational shoreline sites have industrial and transport, sive local recreation plan. been established it is in anypractical sense impossible 2. Cooperation with State and Federal pro- to displace them for recreational use except with grams of financial and technical assistance. overwhelming popular support and exceptional funding. 3. Coordination of @shoreline plans with State A reasonable attitude is that these uses are so essen- plans. tial to the people who live in these great population Local governments particularly must recognize concentrations that they cannot and should not be ex7 the need for systems of regulation and control of eluded. On the other hand, they should not be per- competing shoreline uses which fully recognize rec- mitted to destroy the recreational value of adjacent reation as a legal claima-nt to its appropriate portion shoreline: the nuisance they tend to generate should of the shoreline. be subject to public control. At the same time, metro- politan recreational demand is so great and so funda.- Recreation Use Vis-a-vis Other Uses mentally important that new private residential build- of the Shoreline ing projects ought not to be permitted to cornpete successfully with public provision of recreational In terms of total mileage, the chief forms of land shoreline. Where recreational demands for the shore use on most of the American shoreline are probably are great, as is the case in most metropolitan -areas, recreation and agriculture, with the third largest use the public policy should be to provide as much rec- perhaps being defense, i.e., shorel4ne areas held by reational shoreline as possible without puttingimpos- the Feder al Government in the interests of the national - uses, sible restrictions on vital competing defetise in some sense. Transportation and industry use a negligible proportion of the total shoreline: Programs Recommended to Implement these are concentrated uses which cannot be expected Suggested Poli.des to occupy very large shore-line areas even in the year 2000 if Dresent trends continue. It would be possible to recommend an entire cralaxy Ile recreational land is largely in private owner of public pro"ams desicr gned to meet the needs of ship-for summer homes, to an important extent. 1960 immediately and to establish a tirnetable of Agriculture exists where there is no real competition acquisition and development for the projected needs of the year 2000. However, such a statement would for use of the shoredine, because agriculture simply could not compete with most ofthe other uses. be more idealistic than pragmatic. Some very basic For the most part, the shoreline is better suited preliminary programs are needed now to m--ke pos- for outdoor recreation than it is for the most other sible intelligent planning for the future. uses. It should be recognized, then, that the shoreline constitutes a primary outdoor recreation resource of Shoteline use and inventm data this Nation, and that the greater part of it will even- tually be needed for recreation; its present use should One of the greatest stumbling blocks in evaluatin either be for recreation or for some use which either recreational use of the American shoreline is a lacr. complements certain Icinds of recreation (wildlife pre- of precise information: data on both users and the serves, plant or animal community preservation) or resource are badly needed. How many people use does not destroy its recreational qualities. It is un- the shoreline now, and for what purposes? How much doubtedly the case that in the long run the major com- do they spend on various kinds of recreation? How petition for,the greater part of the American shoreline far do they travel? How often do they visit specific will not be among differing forms of use but between areas of the shore? What are the specific qualities private versus public mvnership for recreation. In and traits, mile-by-mile, of the total shoreline, and the final analysis public agencies will have tofice the what potentials for recreational use do these repre- problem of providing, more and more recreational sent? It is not possible to plan the intelligent and 'shoreline, thereby changing the balance of owner- balanced use of this @Irccious and limite'd resource ship from private to puble', because private use is without knowing a great deal more about the nature of restrictive. both demand and supply. Metropolitan areas Defineation of basic natural planning units Large urban concentrations present unusual and It has been pointed out that the shoreline environ- "special" cases of shoreline use. In Wese areas con- ment is a dynamic one that does not respect political siderable proportions of the shoreline may be devoted boundaries. , Useful phuining for recreational arid other to transporlalion and industry and even to residential uses of this resource requires knowledge of 'he extent 29 to which development In one area will affect some A study of management of the recreation other area. What are the basic components of this shoreline in target areas system? What arcas constitute "domains" within which planning must take place? Classifying the shore- Metropolltan, high-impact beaches represent one line In these terms will be one of the first applications of the knottiest problems of shoreline recreation. of the Information gained through a detailed shoreline Where public beach can be extendetl, it cannot be- ex- inventory. tended indefinitely; there isalimittoboththe resourer-- and the radius of accessibility. This does not mean that the problem cannot be solved. It may tx@ neces- E@perimenls in recreation use sary to introduce totally new concepts into the use of recreational shoreline in high impact areas. Perhaps the beach area per person ratio can be changed by The recreational potential otbluff and marsh shores permitting only alternate day use in some fashion, or has hardly been recognized in the overwhelmingpref- by staggering working hours or days in the beach erence shown for beach shoreline. It is necessary to season. Perhaps some of the shoreline demand can know th -e recreational potential of all types of shore- be diverted by the development of lake beaches'or by line if imaginative and creative development of this increasing the number of swimming pools. Perhaps potential is to result in optimum use. One of the best beaches can be made where they do not now exist. possible ways to develop an understanding of the shore- The present system of managing public city beaches line- recre ation complex is the operational approach- needs to be investigated with the objective of increqs- to experiment in shoreline recreation development, ing the number of people who can be served without to use new ideas and designs, to create new programs -destroying the natural qualities which people seek at and to see how well these work out. The Newport Bay beaches. 00ptimum effective mn-nagement will be nec- and Mission Bay developments in southern California essary long before the year 2000. are examples of the possibilities of this approach. Conclusions There Is a crisis in shoreline outdoor recreation. An analysis of administrative arrangements and The shoreline is vanishina, in the ser)se that private intergovernmental relationships ownership is inhibiting pullic use. There is a need for action now, if the public is to develop a real under- standincr of its shoreline outdoor recreation needs and Most existincr administrative organizations are not how these can best be met. But there is need for co- capable of planning for or managing the future recrea- ordinated, planned action-based on adequate informa- tional shoreline. There is need for administrative tion and upon clear statements of public. poiicy-so Innovation if Nation, State, and community are to be that the action is continuing, not sporadic. 11epublio jointly responsible for the wise use of the shore. must: Realistic plannin- must take into account the dynamic Kmw the importance and value of outdoor recrea- "domains" of the shoreline which cut across and tion. encompass many governmental jurisdictions. The Know what this Nation's outdoor recreation re- possibilities of cooperative arrangements, interstate sources are. compacts, Federal-State commissions, and regional Understand that policy formulation must precede authorities are many and diverse. It is essential that planning. studies be undertaken to determine how to establish Know that planning can only be implemented by effective programs without arousing the jealousies coordination. and animosities that can be associated with intergov-: Understand that coordination depends in largepart ernmental problems. upon administrative structures. 30 ApffNDIX A it 0 PLOSSARY Wrce 'ne Ce 6. Shoreline Domain-A length of shoreline which Se .1 words or terms or phrases that may be susceptible hal'is to a variety of definitions or interpretations are here is dominated. by a littoral current. The length Of A b defined by the authors as they intended them to be these currents is usually determined by natural physio- used. It would be well to refer to this glossary as graphic features such as reefs, bars, river mouths, one reads the paper. These definitions, in.this precise etc@ A manmade structure can influence a current if cayi form, are not necessarily repeated in the body of it is of sufficient size, such as lonrl piers or jetties. r byw the report. 7. Shorelines of National Significance-A shore- line of such superlative qualities (6ccause of scenic :is Physical Characteristics of Shoreline or recreational excellence, or historical, sciea-ifii@, or archeological interests) that it is a national at- tas- 1. Shoreline Resource-The shorelines of the traction and should be owned and managcd by the u United States, in this study defined to include those of Federal Government. a the two oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes, 8. Shorelines of State Sipificance-A shoreline constitute a unique, definable feature-where land and which pos sesses such unusual qualities O)ecause of reasonably large bodies of water meet. These coastal scenic or recreational excellence,or historical, scien- areas constitute a resource in the same way that tific, or archeological interests) that it is a State mountains constitute a resource. Because they rep- attraction and should.be owned and managed by the resent a special combination of physical features that State government. on. are definable as being different from other combina- 9. Foreshore-The foreshore, so far a_s its rec- ate tions of physical features, there are certain uses of reational significance is concerned, is that.section of @ed mankind for which they are suited under present the shore below whatever high tide line is recognized -r- r, social and economic conditions, and there are other by a particular State as being the limit of o',vnership ind uses for which they are not suited. of private property; it extends as far as the low tide 2. Recreation Shoreline- Recreation shoreline is line, whatever that is on a particular day, defined as all of the shoreline meeting in substantial -so part the following criteria: Development Characferisfics of Shoreline lic (a) The existence of a marine climate and 'environment. In part, this is identified by such weather phenomena as the occurrence 10. Access ibility-Any recreation site within 2- a- of wind from off the water, and the teni- hours' driving time by automobile (approximately 60 perature influence of the water and waves. to 90 miles, depending upon the highxay system) of a On the shore it may be identified by sea- metrODOlitan area with a population of 500,000 or Je shells, driftwood, and other materials more is highly accessible. . It is therefore subject to deposited by the water and it may be iden- heavy recreational use. Sites between 90 and 125 tified by the physiographic phenomena of miles from metropolitan areas (the distance people dunes, cliffs, spits, bars, marshes, etc. will drive for overnight or weekend trips) are mod- In the water it may be identified by the erately accessible. They can be expected to be subject occurrence of rollers, breakers, tide, and to heavy use during peak periods, such as Labor Day surf in conjunction with various weather weekend. Sites more than 125 miles from any met- and land conditions. ropolitan area will be less accessible N The existence of an expanse of view of at the more distant they are. Accessibility is a factor least 5 miles over water to the horizon of people, time, and distance; illustrations in this from somewhere on the shore. study are based on metropolitan areas only because (c) Location on some water boundary of the 1960 census data were not available. However, the United States (water bodies lying entirely significantly accessible areas are in regions. of cities within the U.S. boundaries are not in- of metropolitan size and complexity. eluded). .11. Availability-Any recreation site the use of 3. Beach Shorclinc-A wide expanse of sand or which is not restricted in any.sense, but can be used other beach material lying at thL waterline and of by anyone who wants to use it, is considertid to be Sufficient extent to permit its development -is a facility available. Availability depends upon those who control. Without important encroachment on the upland. the site. A privately owned beach may not be available . 4. Bluff Shorclinc-A bank, bluff, or cliff, im- since only members of the immediate family can use rnediately landward of a relatively narrow beach (if it. On the other hand, an excellent beach in Public any) and varying in height from several feet up to control may be made unavailable toanvone because its mountainous elevations. Bluffs may be composed of primary use is for some s rt ofactivity (firing range. 0 either loose or solid materiat-from sand to granite. for example) that would endanger the lives of those -5. Marsh Shoreline-Tidal or nontidal marsh. using it for recreation. 31 12. Public Shorellne-]@,ublic shoreline Is defined best natural qualities available for day use, for AP as shoreline with associafed upland, owred and op- extmple, a county. park. eratcd by a Federal, Statc, jr local government and open to all visitors without restriction. The term includes parks. bcache3, forests, and seashores that Miscellaneous Terms A include the shoreline as the chief feature Pf thu area. A 13. Restricted Shoreline-A restricted shoreline 19. Shoreline Recreational Demand-A measure. is shoreline to which access Is denied to the public of the numbers of peop!e who use the shoreline daily by governmental authority; it is chiefly reserved for or seasonally, preferably translated into some su6h military use; it does not Include shoreline held In figure as persons per square or linear foot of bc.1ch, private ownership. number of cars, per parkway, number of parkvisitors, 14. Development Status-The categories low, me- number of boats serviced per marina, and the like. dIum, and high development status rclate 1he status There is no general information of this sort available of occupation of the shoreline by manmade structures except locally. .lu and the extent of the recreational use of the shoreline. 20. Shorclifte Recreation Pressure-(See Shore- The categorizations are comparative rather than line Recreational Demand.) W absolute. They represent a State agency's judgment 21. Impact of Erosion on Recreation-The magni- of status rather than an actual measure. For example, tude of impact of erosion on recreation is the evalua- the Atlantic City, N.J. and Santa Monica, Calif. tion of State officials as to whether the problem in shorelines are judged to have high development status their State is a serious one in any area, a moderate because all of the shorelines are occupied by struc- one in any area. or is of little significance. The in- tures and intensively used for recreation; whereas formation was gathered by questionnaire attempting the Padre Island, Tex., shoreline is judged to have to elicit a self-evaluation and did riot provide criteria low development status because there are very few to distinguish the three categories of effect. structures and there is very little recreational use 22. Impact of Pollution on Recreation-The magni- of the shoreline. tude of impact of pollution- on recreation is the evalua- 15. Adequately Developed Shoreline-An adequa- tion of State officials as to whether the problem in V tely developed shoreline area is provided with sanita- their State is a serious one in any area, a moderate tion, police, parking, and similar facilities required one in any area, or is of little significance. The in- to make the shoreline usable for recreation with suf- formation was gathered by -questionnaire attempting ficient control to maintain the area in condition at- to elicit a self-evaluation and did not provide criteria tractive to mass use. to distinguish the three categories of-effect. 16. Resource Based Recreation Area (Clawson@- 23. Metropolitan Center- Metropolitan areas are A site, the recreation values of which are basically generally thought of as multiple cities, the core city determined by its natural qualities, for example. a of which has a population of more than 50,000. Pickard national'seashore area. defines a metropolitan area as an urban area in- 17. User-Oriented Recreation Area (Clawson)-A cludina one or more adjaccnt or nearby cities, having site,. the recreation values of which are basically a total area population of 100,000 or more. For the determined by high degrees of accessibility and avail- purposes of this study only those metropolitan areas ability and by the facilities developed on it. For with R population of 500,00 *0 or more were mapped, V example, city playgrounds and parks, swimming pools, simply because the ratio of urban population to beach r etc. users is not known, nor has there bLen practical 18. Intermediate Recreation Area (Clawson)-A experience on beach use adjacent to metr 'opolitan site, the recreation values of which are basically areas of a smaller order-for example, the South determined by the natural quality potentials within Carolina coast adjacent to Charleston, or the Georgia 2-hours' driving time of the user; in other words, the coast adjacent to Savannah. 32 12. Public Shoreline- 1,1`ub@ic shoreline Is defined best natural qualities available for day use, for APP as shoreline with associafed Lipland, owned and op- example, a county park. erated by a Federal, Statc@) ur local government and open to all visitors without restriction. The term Includes parks, 1@aches, forests, and seashores that Miscellaneous Terms A include the shoreline as the chief feature of the area. A!@ 13. Restricted Shoreline-A restricted shoreline 19. Shoreline Recreational Demand-A measure is. shoreline to which access is denied to the public of the numbers of people who use the sh6reline daily by governmental authority; it is chiefly reserved for or seasonally preferably translated into some such military use; it does not include shoreline held in figure as per;ons per square or linear foot of beach, ship. number of cars per parkway, number of park visitors, private owner 14. Development Status-The categories low, me- number of boats serviced per marina, and the like. dium, and high development status relate the status There is no general information of this sort available lot of occupation of the shoreline by manmade structures except locally., ul and the extent of the recreational use of the shoreline. .20. Shoreline Recreation Pressure-(See Shore- The categorizations are comparative rather than line Recreational Demand.) absol.ute. They represent a State agency's judgment 21. Impact of Erosion on Recreation-The magni- of status rather than an actual measure. For example, tude of impact of erosion on recreation is the evalua- the Atlantic City, N.J. and Santa Monica, Calif. tion of State officials as to whether the problem in shorelines are judged to have high development status their State is a serious one in any area, a moderate because all of the shorelines are occupied by struc- one in any area, or is of little significance. The in- tures and intensively used for recreation; whereas formation was gathered by questionnaire attempting the Padre -Island, Tex., shoreline is judged to have to elicit a self-evaluation and did not provide criteria low development status because there are very few to distinguish the three categories of effect. tot structures and there is very little recreational use 22. Impact of Pollution on Recreation-The magni- 4 X of the shoreline. tude of impact of pollution on recreation is the evalua- 15. Adequately Developed Shoreline-An adequa- tion of State officials as to whether the problem in tely developed shoreline area is provided with sanita- their State is a serious one in any area, a moderate tion, police, parking, and similar facilities required one in any area, or is of little significance. The in- to make the shoreline usable for recreation with suf- formation was gathered by questionnaire attempting in. ficient control to maintain the area in condition aV- to elicit a self-evaluation and did not provide criteria tractive to mass use. . to distinguish the, three categories of effect. 16. Resource Based Recreation Area (Clawson@- 23. Metropolitan Cente r- Metropolitan areas are A site, the recreation values of which are basically generally thought of as multiple cities, the core city determined by its natural qualities, for example, a of which has a population of more than 50,000. Pickard national's eashore area. defines a metropolitan area as an urban area in- . 17. User-Oriented Recreation Area (Clawson@-A eluding one or more adjacent or nearby cities, having t@l site,. the recreation values of which are basically a total area population of 100,000 or more. For the (X1 determined by high degrees of accessibility and avail- purposes of this study only those metropolitan areas @,;A: ability and by the facilities developed on it. For with a population of 500,00 '0 or more were mapped, fit example, city playgrounds and parks, swimming pools, simply because the ratio of urban population to beach 1r, etc.- users is not known, nor has there been practical @ 18. intermediate Recreation Area (Clawson)-A experience on beach use adjacent to metropolitan site, the recreation values of which are basically areas of a smaller order-for example, the South tl determined by the natural quality potentials within Carolina coast adjacent to Charleston, or the Georgia U 2-hours' driving time of the user; in other words, the coast adjacent to Savannah. V 32