[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Val '77, FM@7w` 11711, M, t Z.0, . N E AKORMATION. CENTER' A -,C@SIBILITY MD-PROTE: cc -CTION 'ONT A S T, C", k FL Al r rl Al W Al 177 GV 54 .T59 A44 -@r , I& xj& 1978 ACCC@@IBILITY AND PROTCCTION 0@ TCXA@ @HORCFRONT ARCAS 3 Property of CSC Library PRODUCED BY THE GENERAL LAND OFHCE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF Bob Armstrong Commissioner, General Land Office Pearce Johnson Chairman, Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission 7::7 Senator A. R. Schwartz tr- U. CC . DEP'ARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASIA[ SFPVICES CENTER 223z S()0H HOPSON AVENUE JUNE? 1978 CIAIL , STON SC 29405-2413 IV, This program isfunded in part through financial assistance provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered by the Office ofCoastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The principal authors of this report were Hal Hees, project manager; Michael H. McKann; and Jerry W. McAtee, under the supervision of Wayne D. Oliver. Artwork for the report was done by Pat Wiles, who was also responsible for design and pro- duction. The maps were prepared by Gale Green K 141 FL41 N L "N 11-'D G E: M E: N T and Christine Gever. Editorial assistance was pro- vided by Muriel Wright. Special thanks are owed to the staff of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the State Depart- ment of Highways and Public Transportation, the Attorney General's Office, and local officials and residents of the coastal area who supplied informa- tion for the study. Draft versions of the report were reviewed by Bob Armstrong, Commissioner of the General Land Office; Pearce Johnson, Chairman of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission; Senator A. R. Schwartz; and Joe C. Moseley, Executive Director of the Texas Coastal and Marine Council. 3 Introduction .......................... 7 Current Accessibility .................... 11 Legal and Institutional Mechanisms for Preserving Shorefront Access ........... 17 Meeting Future Recreational Demand ....... 19 Management 'Problems ................... 23 Protection of Public Shorefront Areas ....... 33 Recommendations ...................... 35 Appendix: An Inventory of Texas Gulf Shoreline Areas ...... 37 V, Bibliography ........................... 41 Figures 1 Geomorphological Profile of a Generalized Beach as Defined by the TCMP ................ 8 2 Historical and Projected Recreational V Participation on Gulf Beaches in the Texas Coastal Counties ............... 14 3 Seasonal Recreational Activity Based on Activity Days for Swimming, Fishing, and Camping on Texas Gulf Beaches and Bays - 24 4 Highway Traffic Counts Indicating the Seasonal Variations in Recreational Use in Three Areas of the Gulf Coast .... 25 5 Estimated Annual Two-Way Traffic Counts for 1970 Through 1976 to Galveston Island, Mustang and North Padre Islands, and South Padre Island ......... 26 TABLE: O@ CONTCNT@ 6 Historical and Projected Recreational Participation on and Around Gulf Bays in Texas Coastal Counties ............. 26 Tables 1 Acreage of Public Saltwater-Associated Parks and Refuges in Texas Coastal Counties, 1971-1973 ................ 13 2 Ownership of the Texas Gulf Shorefront in Linear Miles ...................... 14 5 3 Linear Miles of Accessible Gulf 5 Expenditures by Coastal Counties or Shoreline in Texas by Counties ......... 14 Cities for Beach Cleanup and Amounts Reimbursed by the TPWD from 4 Regional Distribution of Accessible 1972 through 1976 .................. 31 and Inaccessible Texas Gulf Shorefront in Linear Miles ............. 15 Maps ............................ in pocket 6 This report analyzes the accessibility of the state's public coastal areas-the shore subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the submerged lands be- neath the bays and Gulf of Mexico, and all publicly owned uplands contiguous to coastal waters-and of those beaches, either publicly or privately owned, to which the public is guaranteed right of access under the Texas Open Beaches Act. X-@ The analysis includes an assessment of current accessibility, means of meeting future recreational demand, and problems associated with the recrea- tional use of shorefront areas to which the public had always had free access. The protection of these M@ areas is discussed only insofar as it affects their accessibility and recreational use. Information for this investigation was gathered through study of published reports and ongoing research projects; four meetings held by the Texas Coastal Management Program in Brownsville Corpus Christi, Freeport, and Galveston during 3-@Un October, 1977; and correspondence and conversa- S tion with local government officials and with man- 4 agers of state and federal parks and wildlife A@ refuges. A set of shorefront inventory charts and seven maps accompany this report. The maps depict areas of erosion and accretion, active and potential washover channels, easily accessible Gulf shoreline, boat ramps, and ownership of shorefront areas. The . charts . catalog information on road access, ,shoreline mileage, ownership of littoral property, land use, beach regulations and management, pub lic amenities, and physical features of identifiable segments within each of the 12 Texas counties fronting on the Gulf of Mexico. The Texas Open Beaches Act The Texas Open Beaches Act (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE Sec. 61.011 et seq.) is the principal statu- tory guarantee of the public's right to use and have access to the public beaches of the state. It was passed in 1959 after private landowners attempted to close some Galveston Island beaches to the pub- INTRODUCTION lic, challenging a right the public had acquired through continuous use of the beaches, bays, and Gulf waters of Texas since the time of Spanish ownership. The Open Beaches Act guarantees the public unrestricted access to and use of (1) the state- owned portion of Gulf beaches below the line of mean high tide and (2) the larger area extending from the line of mean low tide to the line of vege- tation bordering on the Gulf, but no more than 200 feet landward of the mean high ticle'line, in all areas where the public has acquired a right of use or easement by prescription, dedication, or continuous right. 7 The act reverses the usual burden of proof, shift- inundated beach between the lines of mean high ing it from the public easement claimant to the tide and mean low tide (fig. 1). The public's right landowner, in any case in which the public's right to use the "dry" beach (the beach above the line of to use a beach is challenged. In any such suit, a mean high tide) along these shorefront areas has showing that the beach area in question is between never been judicially determined, and the extent of the mean low tide line and the line of vegetation is the public's right to have access to either the wet prima facie evidence that: beach or the dry beach from the landward side is unclear. However, at present, the private land- (1) the title of the littoral owner does not in- owners in these areas do not attempt to exclude clude the right to prevent the public from people who confine their activities to the beach using the area for ingress and egress to the tself. sea; While the Texas Open Beaches Act guarantees the (2) there has been imposed upon the area sub- public's right of access only to Gulf beaches, subse- ject to proof of easement a prescriptive right quent state laws, culminating in the Coastal Public or easement in favor of the public for ingress Lands Management Act of 1973, have protected the and egress to the sea. (emphasis added) public's right to use and enjoy other public coastal areas of the state. The provisions of the act do not apply to any beaches on barrier islands or peninsulas that are not The Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan accessible by public road or common carrier ferry. This exclusion currently applies to San Jose Island, Decisions concerning the number and location Matagorda Island, and Matagorda Peninsula west of of new parks and recreational facilities in the Texas the Colorado River Channel. Of the total 377 miles coastal area are based on Volume V of the ten- of Texas shorefront facing the open Gulf, 293 volume Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (TORP). miles are currently covered by the provisions of the This plan, which covers all aspects of outdoor act and open for public use. recreation in Texas, is the most thorough manage- On the remaining 84 miles of Texas Gulf shore- ment program for outdoor recreation prepared by front, composed of the barrier islands and peninsula any state. named above, the only clear public right is to use The TORP was developed as a result of a 1958 of the "wet" beach, the state-owned strip of tidally federal act establishing the Outdoor Recreation Re- Figure 1 SUPRA-LITTORAL ZONE III LITTORAL ZONE INNER NERITIC ZONE cliff or backshore foreshore inshore offshore dune perman.ent an high tide line vegetation berm berm j6 L line crest mean low tide line Dry Beach Wet Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . trough bar BEACH Geomorpho logical profile of a generalized beach as defined by the TCMP (adapted from Bird, 1968; King, 1972; and Komar, 1976-with modifications). 8 source Review Commission. In 1962, the commis- m *ents. It is also used to guid'e the allocation of the sion issued a report entitled Outdoor Recreation in state's dedicated and general-revenue park and Am'erica, which led to the creation of the Bureau recreation funds. of Outdoor Recreation' and the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. In order to obtain Volume V, Outdoor Recreation on the Texas matching funds for recreational land acquisition Gulf Coast, describes the coastal region as a whole, and development from the Land and Water Conser- covering such topics as climate, economy, industry, vation Fund, states were required to prepare an up- transportation, wildlife, and ownership of coastal to-date, comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. land areas. Each of the 17 coastal counties is The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), described separately in, terms of land area, major directed by the 59th Texas Legislature to develop freshwater resources, climate, wildlife, population, such a plan, published the TORP in 1965. The plan economy, saltwater accessibility, and recreational was updated in 1968 and 1975. States are now re- opportunities and requirements. The extensive quired to update their plans every five years. analysis of present and projected (through the year Information contained in the TORP has enabled 2000) demand for coastal recreation is used by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to allo- recreational planners at all levels of government to cate federal Land and Water Conservation Fund determine priorities for the acquisition and monies efficiently and equitably to local govern- development of coastal recreational facilities. 9 IT 7;q -flow, Amia@ A'I OF PORT ARANSAS FERRY 10 For purposes of this analysis, shorefront areas will be classified as "Gulf shorefront," "bay shore- front," and "bay and Gulf waters." The Gulf shorefront is the most seaward line along which the waters of the Gulf of Mexico meet the Texas upland. It is composed of the seaward faces of the Texas barrier islands and peninsulas, and the mainland shore along the Sabine and Brazos River deltas. The bay shorefront consists of the main land-tidewater interface in all the bays and estuaries together with the landward shores of all the barrier islands and peninsulas of the Texas coast. The bay and Gulf waters include the waters of the bays and estuaries and the waters of the open Gulf of Mexico that lie within state bound- aries. @W Definitions Beach The Texas Coastal Management Program defines "beach" as an area of high wave energy, consisting of an accumulation of unconsolidated sediment (sand, shell fragments, pebbles, or similar material) extending along the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico from the mean low tide line shoreward to some natural physiographic change such as a dune or sea cliff or to the point where permanent vegeta- tion is established (fig. 1, p. 8 ). According to this definition, almost all of the Texas shoreline that fronts on the waters of the open Gulf is classified as beach. The only Gulf shore areas excepted are the first 11 miles of shore- line west of Sabine Pasi and one mile of the original Brazos River delta (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971). These 12 miles consist of coastal mud flats or marshes. Because of the constantly changing character of the Texas coastline, the one mile of mud flat at the old Brazos River delta has evolved into a sandy beach, while the beach located on the southern side of the new Brazos River delta could now be more aptly described as CURRENT ACCEMBILITY mud flat. All bay shores of the state, which consist primarily of mud flat, marsh, or bluff, are excluded by this definition, although 16 miles of bay shore may be described as "beach-like" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971). The Texas Coastal Management Program's definition of beach is consistent with the Open Beaches Act in that the act refers only to the Gulf shore and not to any of the bay shores. The defini- tion also appears to be consistent with public opinion: in the public meetings on beach access held by the program in October, 1977, participants clearly regarded only the shorefront facing the open Gulf as beach. Accessible fall into this category are the beaches of San Jose A coastal area is considered "accessible" if it is Island, Matagorda Island, and West Matagorda Pen- presumptively legally open for public access and insula-the areas excluded from coverage by the use under the Open Beaches Act, if it is in public Open Beaches Act. ownership and held open for public access and use, or if for any other reason the public has a legally Publicly Owned Uplands protected right of access to and use of the area. This definition differs from the definition of The public parks and refuges that lie adjacent.to accessible bay and Gulf frontage used in the TORP, the coastal waters are, of course, all easily accessi- which considers only physical accessibility. The ble to the public and are major avenues of access to Texas Coastal Management Program uses the term the shorefront and waters of the Texas coast. They "accessible" to denote legal openness because this also ensure that these areas will not become inac- is more in keeping with the intent of the "Shore- cessible to the public as a result of private develop- front Access" element of the Coastal Zone Man- ment which might eliminate accessways. Table 1 agement Act Amendments of 1976. shows the total acreage of shorefront parks and The Gulf shorefront that is classified as accessi- refuges county by county; the maps that accom- ble (legally open under the Open Beaches Act) is pany this report show the locations of these areas. further defined by the terms "easily accessible" A total of 478 miles of public land fronts on the and "accessible with difficulty." These terms refer Texas coastal waters, 128 miles along the Gulf to physical ease of access. shoreline and 350 miles along the bay shores. Ap- go A segment of Gulf shorefront is considered proximately one-half of the publicly owned Gulf easily accessible" if the general public can reach shoreland is in Padre Island National Seashore; the it with a reasonable expenditure of effort: via rest is well distributed throughout the coast (table public road, by driving along the shore from a pub- 2). lic road in a conventional two-wheel-drive vehicle, or by walking no more than one mile from a point Accessibility of Gulf Shorefront which can be reached by a two-wheel-drive vehicle. This term corresponds to the TORP definition of The Texas Gulf shorefront extends 377 miles 11 2 accessible Gulf shorefront." and includes 365 miles of beach. One hundred A segment of Gulf shorefront is considered to be seventy-three miles of the Texas Gulf shorefront "accessible with difficulty" if it can be reached only by driving along the shorefront itself in a four-wheel -drive vehicle, by walking more than one mile, or by boat. Examples of such areas are the lower four-fifths of Padre Island National Seashore (accessible by fou r-wheel-d rive vehicle, walking, or boat) and the shorefront area between the San Bernard River and the Brazos River (accessible by boat only). X The bay shorefront is legally open to the public between the lines of mean high and mean low tide by virtue of public ownership of the bays. Mileage figures for accessible bay shorefront in this report are taken from TORP estimates, based on access via known public roads. The bay and Gulf waters are state-owned and legally open to public use. Their accessibility is -5- assessed in terms of the availability and distribu- F-5 im 0 tion of boat ramps and reliable navigation chan- nels. Though closely associated with the use of the coastal waters, marinas and other boat storage facilities are not considered in the evaluation of the accessibility of bay and Gulf waters. Inaccessible 2 Texas Coastal Management Program figures, calculated from maps prepared by the Bureau of Economic Geology A shorefront area is considered "inaccessible" if at the University of Texas. The U.S. @rmy Corps of the public has no presumptive right of access to or Engineers has calculated 373 miles of Texas Gulf shore- use of it. The only areas on the Texas coast which line. 12 Table 1 ACREAGE OF PUBLIC SALTWATER-ASSOCIATED PARKS AND REFUGES IN TEXAS COASTAL COUNTIES, 1971-1973 (TO RP, VOL. V, 1975) Managing Entity Federal State* Local. Total County Corps NPS USFWS TPWD Municipal County Acreage Orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jefferson 0 0 0 15,221 2,562 0 17,783 Chambers 0 0 9,837 0 0 58 9,895 Harris 0 0 0 0 0 48 48 Galveston 172 0 0 1,922 497 1,791 4,382 Brazoria 0 0 25,039 878 0 466 26,383 Matagorda 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 Jackson 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 Calhoun 0 0 0 2 22 43 67 Refugio 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 Aransas 0 0 54,800 313 0 72 55,185 San Patricio 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 Nueces 0 0 0 3,570 154 548 4,272 Kleberg 0 37,056 0 0 0 25 37,081 Kenedy 0 87,027 0 0 0 0 87,027 Willacy 0 8,035 0 0 0 0 8,035 Cameron 0 0 38,198 218 0 387 38,803 TOTALS 172 132,118 127,874 22,124 3,250 3,442 288,980 *State acreages updated with 1978 data. are easily accessible to the general public, and 120 ble beaches because these areas afford the majority miles are accessible with difficulty. The inaccessi- of beach recreational opportunity in the state. For ble areas-on San Jose Island, Matagorda Island, purposes of this analysis, the coast is divided into and West Matagorda Peninsula-comprise 84 miles upper, central and lower regions. Comparison of of the Texas Gulf shoreline. Thus, a total of 293 the regional distribution of easily accessible miles (78 percent) of the Texas Gulf shoreline is beaches (table 4) and recreational activity levels accessible to the public (table 3). (fig. 2) indicates that there is a high percentage of In analyzing the adequacy of public access to easily accessible beach in those areas of the coast the Gulf shorefront, the Texas Coastal Manage- where the demand for recreational beaches is high- ment Program concentrated on the easily accessi- est. 13 Table 2 Table 3 OWNERSHIP OF THE LINEAR MILES OF TEXAS GULF SHOREFRONT ACCESSIBLE GULF SHORELINE IN LINEAR MILES IN TEXAS BY COUNTIES (General Land Office, (General Land Office, Gulf Shorefront Inventory, 1977) Gulf Shorefront Inventory, 1977) Littoral Ownership County Private State Federal Local Shoreline FAleage Jefferson 27.8 5.5 County Accessible Total Chambers 1.0 - - Jefferson 33.3 33.3 Galveston 47.5 1.6 - 9.3 Chambers 1.0 1.0 Brazoria 23.1 1.0 6.2 (0.04) Galveston 58.4 58.4 Matagorda 60.9 0.2 - Brazoria 30.3 30.3 Calhoun 9.9 - 27.5 Matagorda 33.5 61.1 Aransas 19.4 - - - Calhoun -0- 37.4 Nueces 13.0 5.8 - 1.9 Aransas -0- 19.4 Kleberg 6.8 - 15.5 - Nueces 20.7 20.7 Kenedy - 48.1 Kleberg 22.3 22.3 Willacy 10.5 - 3.0 - Kenedy 48.1 48.1 Cameron 28.3 1.2 - 1.6 Willacy 13.5 13.5 Cameron 31.1 31.1 TOTALS 248.2 15.3 100.3 12.8 - TOTALS 292.6 376.6 Percent of Total Gulf Percent of Total Shoreline 65.9 4.1 26.6 3.4 Gulf Shoreline 77.6 100.0 40- 35- Figure 2 2000 30- 25- 1990 L 16- 1980 14- 12 - 1975 10 W 8 - 6- 1968 4 - 2 - A Aransas Nueces Cameron Jefferson chambers Galveston Brazoria Matagorda Calhoun Kleberg Kenedy Willacy COUNTY Historical and projected recreational participation (fishing, surfing, swimming, camping, picnicking, walking, hiking, and nature study activities) on Gulf beaches in the Texas coastal counties (adapted from TPWD, 1977, based on TORP data). 14 Table 4 this small supply of easily accessible beach appears adequate to meet current recreational demand in REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF the central coastal region. However, as the region ACCESSIBLE AND INACCESSIBLE grows and recreationists from the more popul6us TEXAS GULF SHOREFRONT IN LINEAR MILES regions seek less crowded beaches, additional easily (Adapted from Gulf Shorefront Inventory, GLO, 1977) accessible beach may be needed. The lower coastal region includes San Patricio, Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron Accessibility (miles of shorefront) Counties. Of 136 miles of Gulf shorefront in this R Esev Diffwt Inaccessible region (all of which is beach), 59 miles are easily accessible. The remaining 77 miles of beach can be Llpperl@ 104 19 - 123 reached via four-wheel -drive vehicle or walking; 54 Mid 10 24 84 118 miles of this difficult-access area are within Padre Island National Seashore. Current recreational Lower 59 77 - 136 activity levels are high for the regional population (474,614 in 1970), which seems to indicate that a Totals 173 120 84 37 substantial number of visitors come from outside the region. The easily accessible Gulf beach is Percent of 46 32 22 100 located near the major population and tourist Total Gulf centers of Corpus Christi and South Padre Island, Shoreline and thus far has proven adequate to meet the regional demand. In the future, additional road access may be needed north of the city of South *The upper coastal region has 12 miles of non-beach shorefront, Padre Island as the local population and tourist of which 2 miles are easily accessible and 10 miles are accessible industry of that area grow. with difficulty. The recreational activity levels for Kleberg and Kenedy Counties presented in figure 2 (p. 14) are in accordance with data contained in the TORP. However, information obtained from those familiar with the lower coastal region indicates that Kleberg County has much more recreational activity than the TORP figures show, particularly on the Gulf The upper coastal region, which includes Jeffer- shorefront at Malaquite Beach (the main activity son, Chambers, Galveston, Brazoria, Orange, and center of Padre Island National Seashore). Con- Harris Counties, has the highest population versely, Kenedy County, where the Gulf shorefront (2,348,166 in 1970) and the highest level of can be reached only by fou r-wh eel-d rive vehicle, recreational activity. This region also has the great- probably sustains less recreational activity than the est amount of easily accessible Gulf shorefront- TORP figures indicate. These discrepancies appear 104 miles of the total 123 miles of shorefront to be due to imperfections in the data collection along Jefferson, Chambers, Galveston, and Brazoria and processing procedures used by the Texas Parks Counties. There are 12 miles of non-beach in the and Wildlife Department in preparing the coastal upper region, of which two miles are classified as volum .e of the TORP. Except for these two easily accessible. Of the 111 miles of beach shore- counties, TORP figures on coastal recreational front along the upper coast, 102 miles are classified activity levels appear to be valid and useful for as easily accessible to the general public. Only nine planning. miles of beach in the upper coastal region-all of it south of the Brazos River mouth-are classified as Accessibility of Bay Shorefront accessible with difficulty. The central region, which consists of Matagorda, The 2,125 miles (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Calhoun, Aransas, Jackson, and Refugio Counties, 1971) of bay shore along the Texas coast is almost contains 118 miles of Gulf shorefront. All of the entirely a combination of marsh, tidal flat, and shorefront along Matagorda, Calhoun, and Aransas bluff. Wave energy in Texas bays is too low to Counties is beach. Only 10 miles, all in Matagorda create sandy, devegetated dry beach areas. The County, meet the criteria of easy accessibility; 24 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shoreline Study miles are accessible with difficulty; and 84 miles (1971) found that only 16 miles of Texas bay are inaccessible. The total population of the five- shore is characterized by beach-like unconsolidated pper- M@id county region is low (77,115 in 1970), as are sediment. Consequently, very little of the Texas recreational levels (fig. 2, p. 14). Therefore, even bay shore is either amenable to or desirable for the 15 same sort of intensive and diversified recreational deep-draft boats (TORP, 1975). The state-owned activities that occur on the Gulf beaches. The bay Gulf area, which extends out to the 3-marine shores of Texas, therefore, have never been subject league line (110.35 miles), comprises approximately to the same sort of public demand and general pub- 2,508,000 acres. lic use as the beaches fronting the open Gulf. Bay The bay waters are extensively used for recrea- shorefront recreation is largely limited to fishing tional activities-boat fishing, pleasure boating, ski- (either from the bank or by wading the shallows) ing, and pier and jetty fishing. Access to the bays and waterfowl hunting. is provided through boat ramps, upland public park The TORP states that 529 miles of bay frontage areas, easily accessible bay shore, and a variety of is easily accessible to the public through a com- private commercial facilities open to the public. Of bination of publicly owned parks and refuges and these, boat ramps (both public and commercial) public road rights-of-way. Most of the 16 miles of are the primary means of access. beach-like bay shore has been acquired by local In 1973, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department governments for public parks, including Sylvan identified 278 coastal boat ramp lanes available to Beach (Harris County), Magnolia Beach (Calhoun the public (TORP, 1975). The department predicted County), and Loyola Beach (Kleberg County). that 319 additional ramp lanes would be needed to Generally, the 529 miles of easily accessible bay meet the 1975 demand, and 147 more would be shore has been adequate to meet current recrea- required by 1980. The TPWD's inventory of coastal tional needs according to the local officials, recrea- facilities, which includes boat ramps, has not been tional planners, and residents of the bay areas. updated since 1973. Since there are no other recent Accessibility of Bay and Gulf Waters inventories, it is not possible to determine whether demands projected for 1975 have been met. Infor- The Texas coastal submerged lands lying be- mation obtained from other sources-council-of - neath the bays and Gulf, as well as the waters governments publications, county maps, and a Texas themselves, are publicly owned. There are 15 major A&M Sea Grant publication entitled A Recreational bays, which cover 1,537,000 acres. Connecting Guide to the Central Texas Coast (11974) -indicates these bays are the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (426 that publicly available boat ramps are fairly well miles) and its tributary channels, which provide distributed along the coast. However, statements safe daytime navigation for both small craft and and information received in the course of this study indicate that there is a shortage of boat ramps throughout the coast. The 2.5 million acres of Gulf waters within the ZA- state's jurisdiction are used by the public primarily _4 for fishing (surf and offshore) and boating. Access for surf fishing and swimming is obtained via the public beach. The offshore areas of the Gulf are reached from protected bay shore harbors through the natural passes and river mouths that breach the barrier islands and mainland coast (though naviga tion is sometimes difficult even for small boats) and through the channels maintained for deep- draft navigation. Twelve channels provide access -to the open Gulf: (1) the maintained channels-Sabine Pass, Bolivar Roads, the Freeport Channel, the Colorado River Channel, the Matagorda Ship Channel, Aransas Pass, the Port Mansfield Channel, and Brazos-Santiago Pass; and (2) the natural chan- nels-San Luis Pass, the Brazos River, Pass Cavallo, and the Rio Grande. Boats used in the Gulf are generally large sailing and fishing craft, which are moored in the numerous bayside marinas along :f r7 the coast. Small boats can be launched from the Gulf beach during calm weather, but this means of access tends to be neither reliable nor safe. Overall, access to the Gulf waters appears to be adequate for recreational boating and fishing throughout the Texas coast. 16 Gulf Shorefront Public access to the Gulf shorefront is protected by the Texas Open Beaches Act. The act is en- forced by the state attorney general, county attor- neys, district attorneys, and criminal district attor- neys. Each of these officers is empowered to seek a court order or injuction to have any physical obstruction or barrier removed from a public beach, or to prohibit any other restraint or interference which restricts reasonable free access to a useable beach. Penalties for violation of the Open Beaches Act may be assessed under TEX. NAT. RES. CODE Sec. 61.014. This statute makes it unlawful to claim, by written or oral communication, that a public beach or accessway is closed to the public. The attorney general or appropriate local legal officer may assess a fine of $10 to $200 for each day of violation. Early judicial tests of the Open Beaches Act by littoral landowners failed to either invalidate the act or find any beach covered by the act to be closed to the public. (See Seaway Co. v. Attorney General, 375 SW2 923; and Galveston East Beach v. State, Cause No. 87,893, in the 10th Judicial District, Galveston County.) These early failures, combined with a policy of rigorous enforcement by the state attorney general and local legal offi- cers, have discouraged any subsequent attempts to close a beach covered by the act. Bay Shorefront Access to public bayshore areas through federal, state, county, or city parks and refuges is protected LE:GAL AMD by the various public entities that own and operate those recreational facilities. Bay shore access that is afforded by public high- INUITUTIONAL way rights-of-way is protected by the Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transporta- tion (SDHPT). The SDHPT adheres to a policy of MCCHOKM @OR allowing such rights-of-way to be used for access to the bay shores as long as such usage does not create a hazard to public safety. This policy was PRC@CRVING strengthened by the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 56 during the 1977 session of the Texas Legislature. The resolution expressed a state policy @HORCRONT 4CCE:@@ that all state agencies and institutions possessing substantial areas of undeveloped land should, to the fullest extent possible, make such lands avail- able to the public for outdoor recreational use. Bay Waters The bay waters of the state are publicly owned, and public use of them is a legally protected right. Because access to the bays is afforded through a combination of publicly owned bay shore areas, 17 public roads, and public and commercial boat exchanges of coastal public lands for littoral ramps, protection of access to these upland areas property as provided therein. [emphasis also protects access to the bay waters. added] Public access to the bay waters could be threatened if the number of types of commercial Navigation-related activities in Texas bay waters activities permitted effectively excluded the public are conducted by specially created navigation dis- from large areas of the bays. However, the bay tricts (see TEX. WATER CODE Sec. 60.001). waters have been kept open for public use by the These districts have acquired rights to use certain School Land Board's adherence to the policies of submerged bay lands for navigation-related pur- the Coastal Public Lands Management Act of 1973 poses. Most of the granting instruments conveying (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE Sec. 33.001). these rights have specifically reserved the right of Activities permitted in the state's bays fall into the public to hunt and fish on these lands and five categories: (1) those related to oil and gas waters. Although some of the instruments do not development, (2) those related to the protection of specifically reserve such rights, these lands and fish and wildlife, (3) those related to public recrea- waters have been uniformly regarded as open for tion, (4) those related to navigation, and (5) those such public use. Navigation district activities have related to commercial fishing. therefore not constituted an impediment to public Oil and gas development (see TEX. NAT. RES. access or use. In fact, the creation of channels and CODE Sec. 52.011), the preservation of fish and harbors has in most cases increased the accessibility wildlife habitat (see TEX. NAT. RES. CODE Sec. of bay waters. 33.105), and the development of public recrea- Commercial fishing in Texas waters is regulated tional facilities (see TEX. NAT. RES. CODE Sec. by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TEX. 33.105) are all subject to the authority of the PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE Sec. 47.001 et School Land Board and governed by the policies of seq.) for the purpose of the Coastal Public Lands Management Act of 1973 (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE Sec. 33.001-33.176). ... the conservation of an ample supply of The Coastal Public Lands Management Act wildlife resources in the places covered by this states that the surface estate in the coastal chapter to insure reasonable and equitable en- public lands is an important and valuable asset ded- joyment of the privileges of ownership and icated to the Permanent School Fund and declares pursuit of wildlife resources. This chapter pro- that it shall be managed pursuant to the following vides a flexible law to enable the commission policies, among others: to deal effectively with changing conditions to prevent depletion and waste of wildlife re- sources. (a) The natural resources of the surface estate in Gulf Waters coastal public lands shall be preserved. Such resources shall be construed to include the Gulf waters within the three-marine-league juris- natural aesthetic values of those areas and diction of Texas are also the property of the state the value of such areas in their natural state (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE Sec. 11.012). These for the protection and nurture of all types of waters, like bay waters, are considered by Texas marine life and wildlife. courts to be held in trust by the legislature for all (b) Uses which the public at large may enjoy the people. Consequently, only the legislature, by and in which they may participate shall take specific enactment, may grant these lands to a pri- priority over those uses which are limited to vate individual (City of Galveston v. Menard, 23 fewer individuals. Tex. 349). The General Land Office, as manager of the Texas Gulf water bottoms, therefore follows (c) The public interest in navigation in the intra- the policy of granting only the interests authorized coastal waters shall be protected. to be granted by the legislature. These interests (d) Utilization and development of the surface have been limited almost entirely to three kinds: estate in such lands shall not be allowed un- (1) patents for navigational purposes, (2) leases for less the public interest as expressed by this oil and gas development, and (3) easements for Act is not significantly impaired thereby. pipelines. None of these interests interferes with (f) For the purposes of this Act, the surface public use of the Gulf waters, and navigational estate in coastal public lands shall not be channels and offshore oil platforms (which attract alienated except by the granting of lease- fish) have usually improved public access to and holds and lesser interests therein, and by enjoyment of the Gulf waters. 18 The rapid growth of the Texas coastal popula- tion, combined with an increase in the number of coastal visitors from other parts of the state and nation, will create a demand for additional shore- front recreational space and improved access. This demand may be met by: I . making more easily accessible those public coastal areas that are now accessible with difficulty by providing new access roads and boat ramps; 2. providing public access roads or ferries to areas that are currently inaccessible (not covered by the Open Beaches Act); 3. buying more public parkland adjacent to the shorefront; or 71@ 4. banning or otherwise controlling vehicles on heavily used beaches, either entirely or dur- 'U'; ing peak use periods. The last alternative, banning or otherwise con- trolling vehicles on the beach, must be imple- mented in such a way that it does not in fact re- Ifff:@ duce ease of access by making it expensive or in- Wy convenient for the average beach visitor to reach and use the beach. Provision of Additional Access Roads and Boat Ramps The State Department of Highways and Public Transportation constructs new roads at the request of county commissioners courts, who submit their requests through the district engineers of the SDHPT. Counties are required to pay at least 50 percent of the cost of a right-of-way for a two-lane highway, the type that usually serves beach areas. The SDHPT has the authority to condemn a right- of-way it considers necessary if a county is unable or unwilling to pay its share. The SDHPT may initiate plans for new cause- [ICETING NTURE: ways or ferries to barrier islands. To determine the need for such accessways, the department makes traffic counts and consults local citizens and offi- RCCREATIONAL DEXIND cials. Public boat ramps providing access to the bay waters may be funded through the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Special Boat Fund (TPWD Fund 059). Monies for the fund are gener- ated from boat registration fees and a portion of the unclaimed water boat fuel taxes. The TORP is used to establish priorities for boat ramp con- struction, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Com- mission gives final approval for all funding con- tracts. A project generally includes a ramp, a park- ing area, and an access road (not to exceed 2,500 feet). Once the facility is constructed, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department assumes responsibil- 19 Mv '01 @ 7 @7 ity for repairing the boat ramp and maintaining the Acquisition of New Shorefront area. Recreational Areas During the current year, some 20 boat ramp construction projects are planned by the Texas The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department may Parks and Wildlife Department at a total cost of acquire new public shorefront recreational areas as $248,000. Local governments are expected to pro- public needs arise. Determinations of need are vide 30 percent of the total funding. Three projects based on the TORP. State acquisitions are financed out of the 20 are planned for coastal areas, two in by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Fund 31, Galveston and one in Aransas Pass. At least three which provides monies for the establishment of more coastal boat ramp projects are planned for state parks and recreational areas. Both acquisition 1979, in Galveston, Brazoria, and Calhoun and development costs of new recreational facili- Counties. ties are paid from this fund. Supplied by a portion of the state's cigarette tax revenues, the fund cur- Extension of the Texas Open Beaches Act rently generates approximately $14 million annually, of which approximately $11 million is The state currently has no plan to provide pub- currently being made available for land acquisition lic accessways-ferries or causeways-to San Jose and development. Other sources are the TPWD's Island, Matagorda Island, or West Matagorda Penin- bonding authority ($75 million maximum) and sula, all of which are excluded from coverage by federal matching funds for certain projects. the Texas Open Beaches Act. If either type of Between 1970 and 1974, the TPWD concen- accessway were established, however, the provi- trated its acquisition efforts on the coastal area, sions of the Open Beaches Act would apply to the acquiring four new state parks adjacent to the beaches of these areas and they would be presump- Gulf. Sea Rim Park (far north coast) was acquired tively open to the public. in two purchases-14,360 acres in FY 1973 for The beaches of the islands and peninsula are $2,154,000 and 749 acres in FY 1974 for now largely undisturbed natural areas. Any future $158,833. Galveston Island State Park, totaling decision to open these beaches to the general pub- 1,922 acres, was acquired in FY 1970 for lic should be made only after careful consideration $890,875 (gift plus purchase of life estate). The of the public interest; it may, in fact, be more initial purchase of 509 acres that established Bryan desirable to protect at least some areas of the' Beach State Recreation Area was made in FY 1974 Texas Gulf shorefront from the effects of heavy for $475,357; two additional purchases made in use by retaining them as wilderness areas. FY 1976 and FY 1977 for $801,441 added 20 another 369 acres to the park. The 3,570 acres in receive technical assistance in park planning Mustang Island State Park were purchased in FY through the Local Planning Assistance Branch of 1973 for $3,696,000. the TPWD. Expenditures between 1970 and 1974 totaled $7,375,065, or 65 percent of the total statewide Restriction of Beach Traffic expenditures made by TPWD during that period. The total acreage acquired was 21,110 acres, or The State of Texas permits vehicular traffic on 56 percent of the total statewide acreage acquired its beaches, imposing only minimal traffic rules in during that period. (See maps for location of the most areas-setting speed limits and prohibiting parks.) anyone from driving on the beach while intoxi- cated. The Texas Open Beaches Act permits cities The recent abandonment of the Matagorda and counties to establish beach traffic regulations, ,Bombing Range on Matagorda Island by the U.S. but only a few beach areas have been closed to Air Force will eventually provide an additional motor vehicles by local governments. 27.5 miles of public shorefront in the central The issue of beach traffic has recently become a coastal region. Current negotiations between the topic of public interest and debate in the state, and State of Texas and the General Services Adminis- a bill to authorize the TPWD to ban vehicles from tration will determine whether the island will be beaches was introduced in the 1977 session of the owned by the state or a federal agency. Whatever Texas Legislature. The bill did not pass, but re- the outcome, state and federal negotiators have sulted in the formation of a senate committee to agreed that the beaches will be open for public study beach problems. It is expected that this com- use. mittee will propose legislation regarding beach Local government acquisitions are assisted by traffic to the legislature in 1979. the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is Wherever the decision is made to prohibit administered by the TPWD. The fund will provide vehicles on heavily used segments of Texas $12,518,236 in FY 1978 for local government beaches, off-beach parking areas and new access park acquisition and development statewide. Addi- roads will have to be constructed to ensure ade- tional funding sources available to local govern- quate public access. The ramifications of this ments, as well as to private individuals and corpora- method of increasing the amount of beach space tions, are listed in the TORP. Incorporated com- available for pedestrian use are explained in the fol- munities with a population of 7,500 or less and lowing discussion of shorefront management prob- counties with a population of 15,000 or less lems. 7 NO` OW Pmt P@_'Ae VMW "- @rt' @tj. 7N Ai @A q ET 5 A, 21 -YJ 17 TV, Y 1@ 22 Congestion The increase in recreational use of the Texas Gulf beaches during the past two decades has caused periodic congestion of some beach areas- most notably on Galveston, Mustang, and North Padre Islands. Congestion impedes the movement of people and vehicles on the beach, restricts beach activities, and increases damage to sand dunes by both pedes- trian and vehicular traffic. On narrow beach. seg- ments in particular, congestion is intensified by the presence of vehicles, both moving and parked, which take up considerable space. On crowded f beaches, vehicular traffic increases the danger of auto/pedestrian accidents and hinders the passage of emergency vehicles. Congestion tends to occur only during peak-use El 4,J periods: summer weekends and holidays (Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day(fig. 3).Traffic counts indicate that seasonal patternsiof use vary N.- somewhat from north to south along the Gulf. shoreline (fig. 4), though in all three areas of the coast, peak use levels occur from May through August. On Mustang and North Padre Islands, beach use peaks sharply in July. On Galveston Island, there is a more constant high level of use' from May through August. South Padre Island beach use also peaks in July, but use levels are only slightly lower throughout the rest of the year. Large pockets of congestion develop on -all the beaches of Galveston Island. Such pockets also develop on South Padre Island, on Padre Island north of Padre Island National Seashore, on Mus- tang Island near Port Aransas, and on Surfside Beach in Brazoria County. The Galveston Island beaches-par-ticularly East Beach, Stewart Beach, and the first few miles of beach.west of the Gal- veston seawall-are the most heavily used and have had the most severe beach traffic problems. Localized crowding occurs despite the availabil- ity of extensive beaches that are easily accessible to the public. Some beach users, particularly young people, seem to prefer to gather in large congrega- tions at established locations because large groups PROBLEMS permit more socializing. Crowds also tend to con- centrate where major roads intersect the beach, where concessions and. other amenities are avail- able, and where easily recognized landmarks pro- vide a convenient meeting point. These patterns of beach use tend to leave portions of easily accessible beaches uncrowded when nearby beaches are heavily congested. Participants in the public meetings on bea ch access reported that when beaches in and adjacent to the city of South Padre Island are crowded, the easily accessible beaches just north of the area have relatively few visitors; and when West Beach on Galveston Island is congested, the beaches of Bolivar Peninsula (just 23 Figure 3 2300- 2200- 2100- 2000- 1900- 1800- 1700- Average Weekday Activity: 7600- Beaches Bays 1300- 1400- Average Weekend Day Activity: 1300- Beaches X 1200- Bays 1100- 1000 900- 800- 7oo- 600- 500- 400- 300- 200- 100- 0- )an. F Seasonal recreational activity based on activity days for swimming, fishing, and camping on Texas Gulf beaches and bays on average weekend days and weekdays using TPWD Region 28 (Chambers, Brazoria, and Matagorda Counties) as an example (adapted from TPWD, 1977, based on TORP data). ju 24 700- YEAR 650- 1977 600- 1976 550- 1975 ------ 500- j�r uj 450- 01 400- Figure 4 Lw 350- > 300- 250- uj 200- co 2 150- Highway traffic counts indicating the seasonal. variations Z) z 100- in recreational use in three areas of the Gulf coast. 50- 0 > 0 z a CD MONTH Number of vehicles crossing the )ohn F. Kennedy Causeway (Corpus Christi) and Port Aransas Ferry (Port Aransas) to Mustang and North Padre Islands, Texas, during 1975, 1976, and 1977 (from Ditton, et al., 1977, and SDHPT, 1977). 1650- 1600- 700- 1550- 650- 600- X 1500- 550- YEAR 1976 143U - YEAR X 500- uj 1400- 1975 ------ 1975 450- 1350- 1976 400- uJ 1300- > 350- u- 1250- Uj 0 > 300- A 1200- U. Cd 0 250- W 1150- W cd 200- \ir 2 1100- Uj D W 150- z 1050- 4@\ 2 Z) 100- 1000- z 50- 0 1 T- 1 -1 1 1 1 V 0 -:;t > -:;i: > t'n 0 z 0 > co n 0 6 r -n > 0 z 0 a M r- C) a 0 -< QQ < W < MONTH MONTH Monthly visitation to Galveston Island, Texas, via Interstate 45 causeway (Houston), Monthly visitation to South Padre Island, Bolivar Ferry (Port Bolivar), and San Luis Texas, via Queen Isabella Causeway (Port A 1915 "Ole \., YEA 197 197 A\ Toll Bridge (San Luis Pass) for 1975 and Isabel) for 1975 and 1976 (from Ditton, et 1976 (from Ditton, et al., 1977). al., 1977; SDHPT, 1975, 1976). 25 north of Galveston) and Follet's Island (across San 16- Figure 5 Luis Pass from Galveston Island) are lightly used. 15- The recent closing of Galveston Island beaches to vehicular traffic will certainly alter the patterns of 14- 'E 13- use on Bolivar Peninsula and Follet's Island. 0 These patterns of use-congestion in local poc- @! 12- LOCATION kets during peak-use periods with lighter use be- X 11 - Galveston Is. tween pockets and during non-peak-use periods- r, 10_ Mustang-North Padre indicate that there is a sufficient supply of public LU _J 9- South Padre Is - ------- beach in all areas of the coast to meet current = 8- levels of demand if beach use is properly managed. W The task of managers is to see that congestion > 7- problems are solved without impairing public 0 6- access. ed 5- New congestion problems can be expected to UJ ..10 m 4- arise in the future as the coastal population grows. 2 - __-0 - _@' - ___'r :D 3 _.Ar Traffic counts and visitation records of state and z - federal parks along the Texas coast reflect a steady 2- increase in the recreational use of public areas. I Vehicular traffic from 1970 to 1976 increased 32 0 percent on the 1-45 causeway to Galveston Island, 85 percent on the J.F.K. Causeway to Mustang 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 YEAR and North Padre Islands, and 150 percent on the Estimated annual two-way traffic Queen Isabella Causeway to South Padre Island counts for 1970 through 1976 to (fig. 5). Visitation to state parks along the Gulf Galveston Island (via Interstate 45 shoreline is increasing, and new parks have reached causeway at Houston, Bolivar high use levels soon after their opening. Annual Ferry at Port Bolivar, and San visitation to Padre Island National Seashore in- Luis Toll Bridge at San Luis Pass), creased from 160,000 in 1969 to 980,000 in 1976 Mustang and North Padre Islands (USDI, 1977). Continuation of these trends will (via Jlohn F. Kennedy Causeway at Corpus Christi and Port Aransas intensify congestion problems. Ferry at Port Aransas), and South The TORP predicts that recreational use of the Padre Island (via Queen Isabella Gulf shorefront will continue to increase, with the Causeway at Port Isabel). (From highest visitation levels occurring in Galveston and Ditton et al., 1977; SDHPT 1970- Nueces Counties (fig. 6). Though there is less 1976.) 8.0- 7.0- Figure 6 6.0- 5.0. 4-0 3.0 2.0- 2cro L 0.9- 0.8- 0.7- 0.6- 1980 < 0.5- 0.4 @ 0.3- 1975 0.2 - 1968 . 0.1- Orange Jeffrwn Chamber, Gal-ton Hrri, Bm,,ria M-Vrd. Jack- Calhmm R,fgi. Ara- San Ntrid, WU- Kl,beg Ke-dy wiftcy C.-r.. Historical and projected recreational participation (boating, fishing, skiing, swimming, camping, picnick- ing, marsh hunting, walking, hiking, and nature study activities) on and around Gulf bays in Texas coastal counties (adapted from TPWD, 1977, based on TORP data). 26 recreational activity in the bay areas than on the relatively flat, with no steep or rocky cliffs adja- Gulf beaches (fig. 2, p. 14), congestion does occur cent to the beaches. The beaches can be easily at some access points (boat ramps) during peak use reached through the low, broken sand dunes of the periods. Significant increases in bay recreational northern coast or through breaches in the higher activities are projected for Chambers, Matagorda, dunes of the southern coast. The only natural Calhoun, and Kleberg Counties (fig. 6). These bay obstructions to vehicles on the beach are infre- and Gulf waters can support increased use, but quent channels and washovers, and most washovers congestion at access points will have to be allevi- can be crossed at low tide. ated. The increase in the number of vehicles on the beaches in recent years has caused a call for greater Beach Traff ic regulation of beach traffic. Vehicles in motion on the beach endanger sunbathers and pedestrians, Texas has a long tradition of using vehicles on its who may neither notice nor be noticed by drivers. Gulf beaches. The early explorers and settlers used Vehicles also contribute to congestion, because the beaches as natural roads, and by the end of the driving lanes and parking areas reduce the pedes- 19th century the Galveston Island beach from the trian/bather capacity of the beach. Four-wheel- City of Galveston to San Luis Pass had been made drive vehicles driven over the upper beach or sand a dedicated public highway. A horse-drawn stage- dunes uproot the stabilizing vegetation (making the coach line made daily runs down the beach carry- dunes more vulnerable to blowouts) and break ing mail and passengers to and from the ferry at down the dunes themselves. San Luis Pass. With the advent of the automobile, But vehicles are the only means of access to motorized vehicular traff ic replaced the horse. From many beaches. Public debate of beach traffic prob- these beginnings, recreational use of the Gulf lems and possible solutions has made it apparent beaches has grown tremendously, and the auto- that no single solution will be appropriate for the mobile has maintained a role in beach use. Today entire Texas coast. that role is still valid in most areas except when Consequences of Removing large numbers of vehicles cause overcrowding of Traffic from the Beaches the beach and create a safety hazard. Texas beaches are well suited to automobile Banning vehicles from Texas beaches would driving. The sand packs tightly when damp on the eliminate a major safety hazard to beach users and wide, gently sloping beaches and, in most areas, is open more beach area for use by pedestrians and sufficiently compact to drive on. The Gulf coast is bathers. It would also eliminate most recreational, IOft-TRIVIT571 11 O'EN, R., A K 4 27 vehicle traffic from the dunes: dunes are usually cost of establishing such a service would also be entered from the beach, since most back-beach high, however, and users might be charged both areas are privately owned. a parking and shuttle fee. The main problem with the banning of beach The question of user fees for off-beach parking traffic from state beaches is the high cost of main- systems deserves careful study. The public has taining current levels of accessibility by other never been charged for access to or use of public means. Many segments of the public beach that are beaches in Texas. Thus, the charging of fees for currently easily accessible can be reached only by parking would be contrary to state policy. If a driving along the beach, and an additional 100+ shuttle service were the only means of beach access miles can be reached only by four-wheel -drive available to the public, the charging of a user fee vehicle. The construction of new access roads to might be illegal under the Texas Open Beaches beaches that would be made inaccessible by the Act. Fees for either publicly or privately owned banning of automobiles would not only be expen- parking facilities with added amenities such as sive but would also damage back-dune habitats. bathhouses should be low enough to keep the Additional costs would be incurred in the con- beaches equally accessible to all segments of the struction of off-beach parking areas, both for ihe public. acquisition of high-priced beachfront property and Current Controls for the construction of the facilities. Frequent crossing of the dunes by pedestrians walking from The Texas Open Beaches Act permits cities to these parking areas to the beach would damage establish beach traffic regulations within their cor- dune and back-beach environments. Elevated walk- porate limits and authorizes counties to regulate ways might be an appropriate solution in some traffic on beaches outside city limits. Local politi- areas, but this approach has been unsuccessful in cal subdivisions-mayreceive assistance in develop- Galveston Island State Park, where pedestrians ing traffic safety plans from the Texas Department ignore the walkways and cut footpaths through of Community Affairs (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. the dunes. Wooden walkways have also be dis- (ANN. art. 4413(201)). State law regulates beach mantled and used for firewood. traffic directly through TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. An alternative to frequent off-beach parking ANN. art. 670ld-21, which sets beach speed limits facilities is a shuttle service providing transporta- of,25 mph during the day and 20 mph at night and tion to the beach from a parking facility located makes it unlawful to drive on the public beach where land is less expensive and less fragile. The while intoxicated. 7:7 rb A '4@ 4- 7c, _J 4 07@ 28 Under the Open Beaches Act, local governments systems. This assistance should be made available may restrict vehicles from the beaches, restrict cer- by the state upon request of local governments. tain activities from certain areas of the beach, set Also, because access to the beaches is a right of all beach speed limits, and establish any other neces- Texans, and because most beach users are not resi- sary traffic regulations. Until very recently, South dents of the cities and counties with beach jurisdic- Padre Island was the only city that had completely tion, the state should provide increased financial closed its beaches to automobile traffic. The city aid (either high-percentage matching grants or total of Galveston has now banned all vehicular traffic funding) to local governments for the enforcement from the beach on West Galveston Island during of beach traffic regulations and for the provision the peak use season (by city council action on of facilities needed to ensure adequate access. March 2, 1978). In the city of South Padre Island, public access- Litter ways to the beach have been provided at every city block from cul-de-sacs of the city streets running Litter on beaches is not only aesthetically dis- perpendicular to the beach (City of South Padre pleasing; certain types of litter may be a safety Island, Ord. 4). Parking is available along city hazard. Pieces of metal and broken glass are parti- streets. However, pedestrian accessways are un- cularly hazardous when they are covered by sand marked, leaving it unclear whether the beach user or water and are invisible to pedestrians and swim- is crossing over public or private property. Galves- mers. ton's recent banning of vehicles from West Beach was preceded by planning and acquisition of some parking areas by the county and city, but it appears that the available parking will be inade- quate to fully accommodate the volumes of traffic 17A experienced in the past few years. Cameron County has also banned cars from the beach at Isla Blanca Park, which is adjacent to the southern boundary of the city of South Padre Island. Ade- quate parking has been provided there; the county WRIT,, parking lots are capable of accommodating 4,000 to 5,000 cars. O@ Some cities and counties have used their ordin ance powers to reserve certain areas for specifi c activities such as bathing, camping, parking, and -411 driving. For example, the city of Galveston (which has recently annexed most of Galveston Island) has prohibited driving on Stewart Beach and restricted parking to enclosed back-beach areas, thus reserving a large portion of that beach for bathers only (Galveston Code, chap. 4, art. 1, sec. 4-6). Port Aransas has used barrels to form traffic lanes away from the water's edge, which is A reserved for swimming and camping. Speed limits !7-4 are posted and parking is permitted in specific V@ JV areas of the beach (City of Port Aransas, Ord. 77-6). 4@ Because of the varying intensity of use of Texas NA Gulf beaches, it seems most practical for beach b traffic to be regulated at the local level. Strict regu- -1P lations, or a total ban on beach traffic, may be the best solution for beach areas subject to congestion. Where beaches are lightly used and accessible only by vehicle, however, it may be best to permit driv- ing on the beach, imposing only dune-protection regulations. In planning for parking or other ancillary beach access facilities, local governments may require technical assistance in planning alternative means of access that will protect dune and back-dune eco- ..... ----- 29 While the beach user is a primary contributor to $338,369 for fiscal year 1978. Table 5 shows the beach litter, much litter is washed onto the beach amounts spent by local governments for beach from offshore. Offshore litter comes from recrea- cleaning from 1972 to 1976 and the amounts tional craft, fishing boats, and seagoing cargo ships reimbursed by the TPWD. and tankers. Litter from these sources is carried on- The Beach Cleaning Act was designed to relieve shore from river mouths, from passes between the local governments of part of the cost of a service to barrier islands and peninsulas, and from distant all beach users, many of whom come from outside Gulf waters by longshore or littoral drift. their jurisdictions. A significant percentage of beach users are day visitors from outside the cities Current Controls and counties where the beaches are located. These The primary state legal mechanisms for control- visitors contribute considerably less to the local ling deposition of litter in public coastal areas are economy than do overnight visitors. Traffic counts TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 4477-9, which on 61st street in the city of Galveston indicate that makes it illegal to dispose of waste on public or pri- 90 percent of visitors to West Beach on Galveston vate land without permission of the private owner Island are day visitors from the Houston metropoli- or appropriate public agency; TEX. REV. CIV. tan area. Patterns of use on Galveston Island and STAT. ANN. art. 6701-22 which makes it illegal other popular beach areas indicate that the current to deposit litter in couni@ parks; and the Texas two-thirds reimbursement may not be equitable or Open Beaches Act, which gives county and city sufficient aid to the local entities responsible for governments the authority to regulate and levy beach maintenance. fines for littering. Concessions The state provides for the removal of litter from Gulf beaches through the 1969 Beach Cleaning Act Beach concessions are beneficial if properly (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE Sec. 61.061). This act regulated. They offer food and drink at convenient assigns cities and counties the duty of cleaning the locations for beach visitors, and such services as beaches and provides for partial (up to two-thirds) surfboard and umbrella rentals facilitate a more reimbursement of the cost of such cleaning to diversified use of the beach. If they are too qualified cities and counties. In 1973, the Texas numerous on crowded beaches, however, conces- Legislature amended the statute to allow counties sions may contribute to littering, beach traffic and cities to be reimbursed for expenditures incur- hazards, or congestion by occupying space that red in the employment of lifeguards, beach patrols, would otherwise be available for recreational and litter patrols; however, no funds have been activity. Present regulation of beach concessions appropriated for these purposes. The Beach Clean- by the state and by municipal governments is pro- ing Program, administered by the TPWD, was viding the control necessary to prevent these prob- funded at $321,567 for fiscal year 1977 and lems. U n-@ , ns@ 30 -Table 5 EXPENDITURES BY COASTAL COUNTIES OR CITIES FOR BEACH CLEANUP AND AMOUNTS REIMBURSED BY THE TPWD FROM 1972 (WHEN THE PROGRAM WAS INITIATED) THROUGH 1976 (Adapted from TPWD, 1977) Year 1972 1973 1974 1975 lwyf- Participant ixpd. Reirrib. Expd. Reimb. Expd. Reirrilb. Expd. Reimb. Expd. Reirrilb. Galveston Co. 118,082 50,000 131,884 50,000 110,030 40,000 119,653 50,000 140,961 85,930 Cameron Co. 22,624 11,312 29,805 14,902 24,911 14,525 35,063 14,315 26,181 17,459 Brazoria Co. 89,461 44,731 109,216 45,586 89,677 48,195 72,200 36,100 52,162 34,775 Kleberg Co. 19,577 7,831 29,319 6,000 29,434 6,355 36,053 6,295 - - Jefferson Co. 15,503 9,406 14,041 7,020 15,872 10,565 23,919 11,681 16,267 10,845 Nueces Co. 64,904 32,452 55,130 26,824 58,903 35,570 72,195 34,970 87,151 45,240 Matagorda Co. - - - - - - 13,596 6,345 16,674 11,074 Galveston City 56,995 28,447 53,414 24,462 66,374 28,340 80,986 27,880 138,762 43,300 TOTALS 387,146 184,179 422,809 174,694 395,101 193,550 453,648 187,586 478,158 248,623 Current Controls shorefront increase in possibility of such encroach- TEX. NAT. RES. CODE Sec. 61.161 is the state- ment, particularly along the Gulf beach. level mechanism for regulation of commercial Beach users enter private property adjacent to establishments on the beach.'It prohibits fixed or the Gulf beach for several reasons: to walk, drive, permanent commercial establishments on the pub- or play in the dunes; to gather driftwood for fires; lic beaches, but allows the TPWD to permit a rea- to seek shade; or to find privacy. Where no public sonable number of mobile businesses on any Gulf restrooms or showers are available on beaches near beaches located outside the limits of any incorpo- developed areas, bathers may cross private rated area. A provision added to the act in 1973 property in search of these facilities. It is reported stipulates that no licensed concessionnaire may sell that this is the most frequent cause of trespassing. any commodity in a glass container. Current Controls Coastal cities have the authority to regulate beach concessions within their jurisdictions. Most The trespass laws are the principal legal recourse have adopted the policies established in the state available to the private property owner. With cur- law, and some have instituted even stricter regula- rent high levels of beach use, however, these laws tions. The city of Galveston prohibited all beach are not an effective solution to the problem of en- concessions as of January 1, 1978, to help relieve croachment on private land. the extreme congestion on Galveston beaches (City Indirect controls have been the most successful Ord. No. 77-51). The city of Port Aransas prohibits means of reducing encroachment on private fixed or permanently located concessions on the property. These include eliminating the need to beach and requires all mobile beach businesses to trespass (by providing public restrooms and bath- obtain permits (City Ord. No. 75-2). Action taken houses) and prohibiting activities that encourage by the city council after the 1977 summer season trespass (fire-building and camping). For example, prohibits food concessions from operating on the when trespassing and vandalism (mostly to obtain city's Gulf beach. firewood) became a problem on the beaches of West Galveston Island, the city of Galveston solved much of the problem, by prohibiting overnight Encroachment on Private Property camping and fires. The city is currently establishing pocket parks with restroom and shower facilities to Encroachment on private property is a potential discourage trespassing. These projects are being problem at any boundary between private land and partially financed by Land and Water Conservation public land in an area where the public has rights Fund monies. The Beach Cleaning Program is being of access and use. The extensive and sometimes in- used to provide portable toilets on the beaches definite boundaries of the Texas bays and Gulf throughout the Gulf coast. 31 71 77,-u, lq@ 'Will pt l-,Y '4-h, Mmli on Ala I- -14a. @.ii NO I kAP mg V ;Jtz its two av!, ta, 71@ k Ap, 'IT "Ib jig lot ulr 4,; 4"A" tow 6af AMIIIU@ff 11. Mlio I W14- 'A ;7'4 k, I-iAw IW7 --4&L PORT ARANSAS EASTER WEEKEND, 1977 Q "14 32 Erosion Erosion affects the accessibility of shorefront areas directly by eliminating beach areas, or in- directly by causing the shoreline to recede behind structures, which then impede travel along the shorefront. Erosion rates for the Texas Gulf shore- line are listed in the inventory charts (appendix), and eroding areas are indicated on the maps. The first effect is evident in Galveston, where the Gulf beach in front of the city seawall has slowly disappeared. The second effect is evident at Surfside and Sargents Beach where (in the absence of a large seawall) the shoreline has retreated in- land of the first row of houses. These houses now stand on pilings between the lines of mean low and mean high tide. Also, within the corporate limits of the city of South Padre Island a number of pri- vate bulkheads, undermined by erosion, now form obstructions on the beach. The Open Beaches Act vests in the state attor- ney general the authority to seek removal of obstructions on the beach. The act does not, how- ever prevent any agency, department, institution, subdivision, or instrumentality of the state from erecting or maintaining any structure as an aid to navigation, protection of the shoreline, safety, or any other lawful purpose. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may build protective structures for navi- gational purposes and for the protection of cities without obtaining a permit from the state. A more effective way to reduce the effects of erosion on shorefront access is to allow natural systems to function with minimal interference by man's activities. Sand dunes help retard erosion by storing sand that is resupplied to the beach. For this and other reasons, dunes may be protected by state and local regulations. At the local level, municipalities may exercise their zoning powers to PROTCCTION OF establish set-back requirements and other building standards that will protect sand dunes. Under the Sand Dune Protection Act (TEX. NAT. RES. CODE Sec. 63.001), a county may establish a dune PUBLIC SHOIZEAI%O@ N T protection line within 1,000 feet of the mean high tide line for the purpose of regulating activities AIZEA@ that might be destructive to the dunes in that area. Though this act does not apply to the Gulf shore- front below the Mansfield Ship Channel, the two counties in that area (Willacy and Cameron) have been given zoning authority in areas of Padre Island outside corporate city limits (TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 23721. Subsidence Subsidence does not appear to significantly af- fect any Texas Gulf beaches; however, measurable 33 ,@Z 7- subsidence of at least 0.2 feet per year does occur Hurricanes and Flooding in at least three areas encompassing bay shoreline: Hurricanes and flooding can make beaches inac- (1) the upper Texas coastal plain, extending from cessible by destroying access roads or by cutting Bay City northward into Louisiana; (2) a part of channels across the beach and adjacent lands. Jackson County near Port Lavaca, and (3) an area Human lives are severely endangered when flood- in Nueces and San Patricio Counties. Continuing waters threaten to inundate the causeways that subsidence on the Texas coast and the increase in connect the major barrier islands to the mainland the size of the area affected will cause additional or when storm tides and high winds make it impos- subsidence of some bayshores, but at a very slow sible to operate public ferries. At the present time, rate. there are only six public access routes to barrier Subsidence may impede access to the bayshores islands: the bridge at South Padre Island, the by making roads more susceptible to flooding and bridge at Mustang and North Padre Islands, the may damage bayshore structures. Both of these bridge across San Luis Pass, the ferry at Port effects are apparent around the San Jacinto Monu- Aransas, the ferry at Bolivar Island, and IH-45 ment near Houston, where the land has subsided from Houston to Galveston. Even if these access- 8.5 feet since 1906 (Turner, Collie, and Braden, ways are not closed by flooding or storm tides, 1972). In 1975, the Texas Legislature created the they may soon be inadequate to entirely evacuate Harris-G61veston Coastal Subsidence District to some barrier islands during a hurricane because regulate groundwater withdrawals, which cause both resident and tourist populations on the subsidence in this region. The district's efforts islands are increasing. Access roads on bay shores have slowed the rate of subsidence, but the pro- may likewise be made impassable by hurricane cess is nevertheless expected to continue for the floodwaters, and congestion of roads that remain next 20 years. open may impede evacuation. 34 Policy The state, using Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart- ment evaluations of the current accessibility of Texas beaches and bay shores, should develop policies to guide the development of new shore- front accessways. Consideration should be given to the desirability of preserving remote, undeveloped areasby limiting their accessibility. The legislature should carefully consider whether there is a present need to fully fund the acquisition of shorefront access rights-of-way at the state level. Regulation of beach traffic at'the local level should continue. Where removal of vehicles from the beach is necessary or desirable, the state should establish a policy of providing cities and counties with technical assistance, upon request, for the development of ecologically sound methods of maintaining public access. Funding Banning or limiting vehicular traffic on the Gulf beaches often creates a need for expensive off-beach parking areas or other traffic control measures. The Natural Resources. Council should recommend to th e legislature whether state funding is needed for the construction of off -beach parking facilities. RCCOM ME:N DAT IONS The state should provide funds under the Beach Cleaning Act to aid local governments in the employment of lifeguards, beach patrols,, and litter patrols. In addition, beach maintenance costs should be more fully underwritten by increasing the total legislative appropriation to the Beach Cleaning Fund and by increasing the percentage of state compensation for such expenditures. To help prevent encroachment on private lands along the Gulf shoreline, the state should make funds available to cities and counties for the provi- sion of more public beach facilities such as rest- rooms and bathhouses. 35 ok, 0--., jI NQ 4t too At lit foe 4 14 PORT ARANSAS AN INVENTORY OF TEXAS GULF SHORELINE AREAS The following charts contain information on the uses and physical characteristics of the Texas Gulf shoreline. For this inventory, the shoreline was divided into segments marked by easily identifiable features, including county and municipal boundar- ies, roads, park boundaries, channels, and jetties. The information presented was obtained from the State Department of Highways and Public Trans- portation, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart- ment, the Bureau of Economic Geology at The University of Texas, existing literature, conversa- tions with local officials and managers of public lands, and on-site observation of the areas. APPEADIA A shoreline segment was considered easily acces- sible if it could be reached by two-wheel-drive pas- senger vehicle or by walking_ no more than one mile from a passenger vehicle access point. Beach width was designated as narrow if less than 100 feet, moderate if between 100 and 200 feet, and wide if in excess of 200 feet. The erosion rates listed were calculated by aver- aging recorded annual rates from 1937 to the pre- sent. The information on annual rates was obtained from the Bureau of Economic Geology; 1937 was selected as the starting date because erosion on the Texas coast has increased significantly since that year. 37 op x 0 E; k FF t T A8 91 71 <3 5-r.* q Ci A ET 27. mi - = 3. 3 E13 z 7 z z it z z z z 0 0 0 7,2. 0 0 Z 3 m 0 E OM . .1 . -n- 2 2.1 no zt Ea; WE: EL ii tr In 9 0- 10 3 @E;, 3E 4E 71 71 -=7? 71 13 Ic 10 W 5L IP A. A. < SE 0 2 7 6C o I g - o 3! 55 t o a o r y 6 co o Fr o o o FL cl 0 > 0 ZE lw 1. g@ 0 Ez A L 0 1 ZF 5' @o q 2's t. S az 3g IR z > So o o )> > o p o o m.. o o ;7;; E >rl P n n n gn r) @o > o 42, o o o. 2i 21 Z? Ei m Ei R. in o o I o 2w A I < o 10 1 9; 95' 41 . . . 4&z EZ 2; a t; o A a I om m o o lo o o o t-,z A. ot, ol m w 2 @,> 37@ - 3 2 IS 3@ 4, Z-1 E5, I A Z E5 az z;, z z 'ai -1; z -,i z n p n ro) t g g rl g S g 2i 2i jo IC EL Y,g 5-3 0 0 o" Ditton, R. B., C. E. Ailing, D. D. Beardsley, J. M. Falk, and D. W. Pybas. 1977. Barrier Islands on the Texas Coast: Existing and Future Recreational Use and Development. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University, Recrea- tion and Parks Department. Doran, E., Jr. and B. P. Brown, Jr. 1974. A Recreational Guide to the Central Texas Coast. College Station: Cen- ter for Marine Resources, Sea Grant College Program, Texas A&M University. National Park Service. 1975-1977. Public Use in the South- west Region: Visitation to Padre Island National Sea- shore. Santa Fe, New Mexico: U.S. Department of the Interior, Southwest Region. Mimeo. State Department of Highways and Public Transportation. 1977. Two-way Vehicular Crossing to Padre Island and Mustang Island. Corpus Christi, Texas. Mimeo. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1975. Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan: Outdoor Recreation on the Texas Gulf Coast (Vol. 5). Austin, Texas: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Comprehensive Planning Branch. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1977. Beach Cleaning Expenditures, 1972-1976. Austin, Texas: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Design and Construction Divi- sion, Boat Ramp Section. Mimeo. Turner, Collie, and Braden, Inc., Consulting Engineers. 1972. Flood Protection Feasibility Study for San Jacinto Battleground State Historical Site. Austin, Texas: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. BIBLIOGRAPHY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. National Shoreline Study: Texas Coast Shores, Regional Inventory Report. Galveston, Texas: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gal- veston District. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1974. Natural Resources Management Plan for Padre Island National Seashore. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Padre Island National Sea- shore Staff and Southwest Region Office of Natural Science. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1977. Monthly Public Use Report: Padre Island National Seashore. Corpus Christi, Texas: National Park Service. Mimeo. 41 42 43 LEGEND OWNERSHIP Federal ......................... State Local County 9 Municipal 0 EROSION 0- 10 ft/yr ............... 10-20 ft/yr over 20 ft/yr ACCRETION 0- 10 ft/yr 10-20 ft/yr over 20 ft/yr IIIIIIIIJIMEIIIIIIIIIII EASILY ACCESSIBLE GULF SHORELINE -------------- BOAT RAMPS ACTIVE AND POTENTIAL HURRICANE WASHOVER CHANNELS (symbol indicates approximate onshore location) 4 0 4 Base maps obtained from Bureau of Economic Geology; additional information plotted by Plan- ning Program, General Land Office of Texas. 44 COASTAL ZONE INFORIAmmlii CENTER -DA'TE DUE GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRINTEDINU.S.A. 36668 14106