Study of land use for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement submitted to Office, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers

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

Coastal Zone 10171
Information
Center

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service

AD-A034 144

STUDY OF LAND USE FOR RECREATION AND
FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT
MAIN REPORT

Coastal Zone Resources Corporation
Wilmington, North Carolina

MAY 27 1977

May 1975 COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

HD
205
.c63
1975

STUDY OF LAND USE FOR RECREATION AND.....
FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMARGH CENTER
Main Report

Submitted to
office, Chief of Engineers
y
U.S. Arm *Corps of Engineers

By
Coastal Zone Resources Corporation
'Wilmington, North Carolina

REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
.JZ INFORMATION SERVICE May 1,975
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE .
SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161
:Z@

N 0 T IC E

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM H. E

BEST COPY, FURNISHED U SBY THE SPONSORING,

AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT. CER-

TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE,. IT IS BEING RE

IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE

-"A"'S-,'M`U-C HINFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE When Date Entered)
READ INSTRUCTIONS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
REPORT NUMBER GOVT ACCESSION NO.1 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4.
TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
Study Use for Recreation and Fish and
Wildlife Enhancement a Final
T NUMBER
MAIN
REPORTo
CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(S)
7. AUTHOR(s)
COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES CORPORATION DACW 3-75-C-0001

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK
AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Coastal Zone Resources Corporation Directed by:
WilmingtoN, North Carolina Public Law3-251

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS
may 1975
Department of the Army
Office of the Chief of Engineers; DAEN-CWO-R 13. Security
Washington, D.C. 20314 317
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Office) 15. SECURITY C

Unclassified
SSI F1 CATION/ DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE
116. DIMIOUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Distribution Statement A

17. DISTRIBUTION. STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20, it different from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side it necessary and Identify by block number)
LAND USE
RECREATION
ISH AND WILDLIFE

29. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number)

The report describes legislative authorities, policy direction, and land use
practices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It identifies problems and
makes recommendations for improved management of project resources.

DD FORM 1473 EDITION OF NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE
JAN 73

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF T

STUDY OF LAND USE FOR RECREATION

AND
'FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCE@MNT

Submitted to

OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

U. S. ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

By
Coastal Zone Resources Corporation
Wilmington,*North Carolina

May 1975
Text revised to reflect the comments
submitted by Federdl agencies and
State governments
December 1975

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

..This report would not have been possible without
active assistance rendered by hundreds of people interested..
in the wise use of the Nation's natural resources. The in-
di,viduals who contributed include employees of the Corps of
Engineers and other Federal agencies; officials of national,
citizens organizations; homeowners; Istaff persons of trade
organizations; administrators and field employees of state
Agpncies; independent businessmen; local government officials;
and legislative budget analysts. Each took.the time to
.cIonsider and respond to questions and to provide.documents,
often with considerable effort, to shed light upon some
.aspect of the.problem at hand.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

COASTAL ZORNIE
INFORMATiGH CENTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Study of Land Use for Recreation and Fish and
Wildlife Enhancement

-Introduction
The increasing importance of recreation participation
and development has raised questions about Corps of Engineers'
.(Corps) involvement in the provision of recreation opportuni
ties. There has been and continues to'be a sharp division of
opinion about the role of an engineering agency in the
recreation, fish, and wildlife fields. Recognizing the im-
'portance of this issue, the 93rd Congress enacted the
following as Section 25 of the Water Resources Development.
Act of 1974 (PL 93-251):

The Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is authorized and directed to
study land use practices and recreational uses-at
water resource development projects under his juris-
diction,'.and to report thereon to the Congress not
later than-June 30, 1975, with recommendations as
to the best use of such land for outdoor recreation,
fish and wildlife enhancement, and related purposes.

In compliance with the above directive,.the Office,
,.Chief of.Engineers@ (OCE) contracted with Coastal Zone
Resources Corporation (CZRC) to perform the study summarized,
herein. The:issue of fish and wildlife mitigation or compensa-
tion attached to the creation of each project was.not,specifi-
..cally addressed. The study findings, conclusions, and recommen-'
dations were.developed through the performance of the following
tasks.

Review existing statuto.,, and regulations which
on n t ro Ithe management of w(,.rtcr, -ecource, deoelopment p roj e c t s
(W1-,)'1)P0). Statutory and regulatory authorities were assembled
by surveyin'g the United States Code (USC) and relevant regu-
lati.ons issued by OCE.

E-1

2. Heview pertinont "@iterature und data..
Bibliographies'were used to locate relevant reports and docu-.
ments which were reviewed and referred to throughout the.
course of the study.

;i. ('.'(.)nduot J*ieZd rosearch. Twenty-nine WRDPs were
.selected from among 407 projects nation-wide for intensive"
field study based uponthe following criteria: geographic
.location, concentration of Corps activity, differences in
.land acquisition policies, complexity of shoreline management,
are,i of water.surface, relationships between the Corps and
other Federal agencies -- including various management arrange-
ments with the U. S. Forest Service under the terms of Memoranda
of Understanding between the Secretaries. of Agriculture and
Army, relations between the Corps and State governments, urban.
.versus rural setting, amount of land'afhanaged by the Corps,
recreation visitor usage, interrelationships between recreation
resources and other project purposes (such as flood control and
navigation), and the complexity of real estate programs and
practices.

A field team of 2 to 4 persons specialized in planning/
administration and fish/wildlife biology visited each WRDP
selected, the cognizant Engineer District, and relevant state
.agencies. At each WRDP site, Corps personnel and personnel
,from other Federal agencies and from state, local,.and,
regional agencies were interviewed. When conditions per-
mitted, local realtors, land owners, bankers, and officials
of citizens groups, homeowners associations, and independent
governmental agencies were alsointerviewed. In the Engineer
District offices, interviews were held with personnel in the
engineering, planning,operations, and real estate divisions
and their respective branches and/or sections. At the state

,E-2

.7levell personnel within state planning, fish and wildlife,
parks and recreation, pollution,control, and other.recrea-
.tion resource and environmental agencies were queried.
..In addition to the surveys of selected WRDPs, agency
..profiles were developed for six Federal ageficies [U. S.
Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service,(USF&WS), Bureau of Land Manage-@-
ment (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec), and the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)] and six.state agencies
[Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Texas
Parks and Wildlife Commission, Pennsylvania Bureau of State
.-Parks, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Missouri Con-.
servation Commission, and Minnesota Department of.Natural
Resources] with responsibility for recreation, fish and
wildlife, or natural resource management. Although not
presented as agency profiles, discussions alsowere held
with officials of the U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR)
and.the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Executive
N1- Office of the President.
Nearly.1,000 persons were interviewed during the field
research phase of this study.
4. Appraise Corps land use., recr.eation,.and fish and
..wildZife management. Key findings developed in the case
studies provided a focal point for characterizing
Corps WRDP administration, the extent of the resources,.and
their national importance.
5. Project national needs. Existing-national policy.
statements and generalized demand forecasts for varying
types of water-oriented recreation.activities served as a

E-3

basis for a determination of national needs.

6. Identify key problem areas. Major areas of con-
flicting demands and management deficiencies discovered in
the field investigation were identified and a suggested
-framework for their solution dev--loped.

7. EvaZuate alternative solutions. Four major possible-
solutions to existing management problems were evaluated:
(1) sale or lease of WRDP land to the private sector; (2)
transfer of WRDP land to the state governments and their poli-
tical subdivisions; (3) transfer of WRDP land to other Federal
agencies; and (4) continue administration of'the lands and
waters by the Corps. Each alternative was analyzed in terms
of: (1) effectiveness in meeting the recreation-resources
management responsibility associated.with Corps.WRDPs, (2)
effect upon local tax structures, (3) effect u0on national
needs,@ (4) effect on programs of the Corps and other agencies,
and (5) statutory, fiscal, and policy constraints.

8. Recommend a course of action. Based on all the
preceding tasks, a recommended course of action was.prepared
'for consideration by OCE.

A. Findings

1. General

a. The 407 existing Corps WRDPs constitute a,
n7ition-wide system of resource units comparable to the
national park system, the national forest system, and the
national wildlife refuge system.

(1) Forty-two of the forty-eight.contiguous
states contain one or more Corps WRDPs.

E-4

.@(2)-Corps WRDPs occur within zones defined by.
landscape analysts as corridors of environmental quality..
Lakesize and diversity superimposed upon a high quality
landscape provide an aesthetically attractive setting for all
.classes of water-oriented recreation.

(a) During 1973, Corps WRDPs in the con-
tiguous states sustained 339.million recreation visits.

(b) The attractiveness of the WRDPs,
created very largely at national expense, draws people from
the date they are completed whether or not recreation is
an authorized purpose..

b. The present Corps WRDP system contributes
significantly to Federal,, state, and local recreation and
..fish and wildlife inventories. Corps land com
prises:

(1) Approximately 1.2% (378,028 acres) of
the land in USF&WS refuges and game ranges.

(2) Approximately 8.6% (473,8126 acres) of
state park acreage and 9.1% (1,440:,245 acres) of state fish
and wildlife lands.

(3) Approximately 2.4% (22,412 acres) of the
area in municipal parX systems and 1-.8% (23,06l.acres) of
@theland in county recreation use.

C. The Corps has broad statutory allthority to
plan, develop, and operate public recreation'facilities,
manage forest resources, cooperate in fish and-wildlife
management, and permit private use and development of public
land. The authority is permissive rather than directive.

E-5

(1) Corps recreation-resources management
prIograms at WRDPs completed prior to 1965 are premised on
Section 4, Flood Control Act of 1944 (16USC �460d), the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act'(16 USC �663d), and
Section 1, Flood-Control Act of 1938.(33 USC �540). The
Acts authorize public park and.recreation facilities but
only require adequate provision for wildlife reso urces when
consistent with primary project purposes.

.(2) The Federal Water.Project Recreation.Act
(16 USC �4601-12) requires. that full consideration be
given to outdoor recreation at all WRDPs completed after
1965 and requires cost sharing by non-Fede,ra.1 participants.,

@(3) A portion of the Corps''legal framework
consists of the,Clean-Air Act (42 USC �1857f),',Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 USC
S�1323, 1341(a) (1), and 1368(a)),, the Solid Waste Disposal
Act of 1965 (42 USC 93254e (a)(1) etseq.), the National
Environmental.Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC �43,32),,other
generally applicableFederal statutes, and Executive Order 11752
(3CFR "J80).

d. Identified key problems associated with Corps
administrati-on of its WRDP system cannot be directly related
to the age or size of projects, distances from urban areas,
or amounts of land acquired.

e. Some of the key problems identified are not
susceptible to afeasible solution at this time.,

(1) At those WRDPs where the land authorized
for acquisition.has proven grossly insufficient, the cost
.of acquiring the-necessary additional land would be
prohibitive.

E-6

.@(2) The quality of water in some streams
tributary to.WRDPs has been degraded by complex sources of
pollutants.
(3) The Corps has no control over the loca-.
@tion and quality of main arterial access r
outes to.WRDPs.@

2. Outdoor Recreation

a. The water surface of Corps administrated'
...WRDPs is not being used to full capacity, but problems of
.11ocalized congestion and uneven distribution exist.

(1) Overall boating use does not now require,
...:density controls except for no-wake zones near marinas...

(2) Large numbers of floating docks and
associated boat traffic limit fishing near shore at WRDPs
@Such as Hartwell, Old Hickory,, and Table Rock.

b. Corps field personnel provide safe and sanitary
.access to WRDPs and sometimes utilize innovative approaches
to recreation management.

(1) The physical cleanliness and maintenance
of Corps recreation facilitiest particularly comfort sta-,
tions, was rated excellent at 96.5% of the WRDPS.

(2) Rotation of.facility,use.and variable
bicycle trail locations are employed at the..Hartwell WRDP,
JDeen deviloped'at Old
and self-guided nature trails have e
Hickory.

c., Insufficient qualified professional personnel.
are employed:at the WRDP level'to properly regulate the use
of resources..and facilities.by visitors.

E-7

(1) Approximately 31 professional personnel
haveresponsibility for 8,065 miles of shoreline, 867,819
acres.of land, and 17.4 million visitor days of use at 17
WRDPs studied.

(2) Visitor occupancy is not limited to.the.
design capacity of'facilities at any Corps managed recrea-
tion area surveyed.

(3) Visitor protection is a problem at many
Corps WRDPs and the problem is being.evaluated separately
as directed by Section 75 of.the Water Resources Development
Act of 1974 (PL 93-251).

d. The planning process is. inadequate in one or
MIore of the following areas:

(1) Some Corps administered recreation area's
and facilities are overused (37.9% show physical site
deterioration soil erosion) and some are underusedl, some-
times at the same WRDP.

(2) The location of facilities and the design
of facility layout are often incompatible with the capabili-
ties of the natural resources.

(3) Changes in the character of recreation
demand are not measured over time.

(4) Planning staffs cannot adequately evaluate
'impacts upon recreation and fish and wildlife from various
water level and release regimens.

E-8

(5) Competition or complementarity of proxi-.,
mate private or public recreation facilities and services
is not adequately considered.

ik
(6) Corps planning does not adequately con-
sider increasing winter use of northern WRDPs.

(7) The Corps rarely uses available data effec-
tiv.ely to interpret the flora, faunaj geology, and history of
WRDPs and their environs.

e. Site deterioration, including soil erosion, seems
to be more pronounced at older WRDPs regardless of the amount
of land that.was authorized and acquired.

Al) Seventy-three percent of..,the,WRDPs sur"
.v eyed that.were completed prior to 1963 displayed visible
Signs of site deterioration.

Seventeen percent of WRDPs surveyed. that
were completed in 1953 or later exhibited visible signs of
sitedeterioration.

3. Fish and Wildlife

a. :Corps personnel at Engineer District and WRDP
levels practice limited fish and wildlife management within
the WRDPs in cooperation with state andiFederal fish and
wildlife agencies.

(1) The water level at some WRDPs such as
Eufaula is manipulated to enhance fish nursery and waterfowl

values.

(2). Peripheral.vegetation is encouraged within
some of the storage pools as food and,cover.for fish and
wildlife.

(3) Release schedules and structures are
modified to enhance or reduce damage to downstream fisheries.

E-9

(4) Where wildlife biologists
are employed at
WRDPs, meaningful wildlife habitat improvement programs have
been initiated.

(5) The Corps has issued.217 instruments out-
granting 1.8 million acres of land to fish and wildlife

agencies.

b. The water bodies and shorelands of the Corps
WRDP system are, for the most part, man-created environments
@which canbe managed more intensively for fish and wildlife
production than is now the case.

-(l) Maintenance of constant water elevations
during appropriate seasons increases the waterfowl carrying
capacity at projects such as John Day; similar opportunities
exist at WRDPs such as Pend Oreille.

(2) Wildlife habitat improvement programs at
a few WRDPs, such'as Clark Hill,are enhancing waterfowl,
wild turkey, and other upland game populations.

(3) Approximately 31%lof Corps WRDPs have
converted downstream areas from warm-water fisheries to cold-
water fisheries, the most notable ex4mple being,LaXe Taneycomo
below Table Rock, but release of water thermally incompatible
with needs of downstream.biota is always possible.

@C. Realization of the full fish and wildlife
potential of Corps WRDPs has been hampered by lack of funds,
qualified personnel, and policy direction.
(1) Conflicts between waterelevations
presently maintained and fish and waterfowl needs occur
at 55.2% of Corps WRDPs.

(2) Corps solutions to fish and waterfowl
problems emphasize structural modification and mechanical
manipulation rather than resolving conflicts among competing
resource uses.

E-10

(3) Corps WRDP personn have not assumed
strong coordina,tive leadership at interstate WRDPs even
when@requested to do so by state agencies.

(4) Corps programs emphasize water-oriented
-recreation rather than habitat enhancement and hunting.

(5) Fish and wildlife enhancement receive a.,
low priority,.usually below all other Corps programs.

(6) Structures and release mechanisms are not
adequately designed to protect fishery values.

d. Lake fishery and waterf rec eive more atten-
owl
tion than stream fisheries or upland wildlife..

@(l) The quantity, quality, and timing of water.
releases downstream deserve increased.attention at 27.6% of
Corps WRDPs.

(2) Responsibility for fish and wildlife
management is divided between the Corps and state and other
Federal..agencies with no clear leadership role established..

(3) Upland habitat management problems and
unde'ruse of potential exists at 75.9% of Corps WRDPs. Par-
ticularly noticeable is the lack of conscious lanned
p
wildlife management programs.

M. At sortie'. WRDPs so little emergent land
was acquired that meaningful wildlife management activities
a re not possible.

e. Shortages of.qualified professional personnel
and funds extend to state fish and wildlife agencids:that
depend. largely.on dedicated revenue from user fees and
license sales.

(1) The majority of state fish and wildlife
expertise is concentrated in the headquarters,-,staffs where
one or-two biologists may have.responsibility for management

of all state*game.land d fisheries programs; single dis-
trict biologists: often.a minister total fish and wildlife
'programs in very largetareas.

(2) Increases in present dedicated revenue
sources have by and large not kept pace with decreases in
purchasing power and state fish and wildlife agencies are
reducing programs or seeking new.sources of revenue.

4. Corps and Contiguous Land Use
a. The interrelationship between Corps and adjacent
land.area has.,been shown significantly to effect recreation.
overuse and/or underuse at WRDPS.

b. Corps planning considers socioeconomic condi-
.tions in large.geogr.aphic areas that,,influence recreation,
use, but does not adequately include detailed socioeconomic
and land use conditions in the much smaller 'area up to
0.75 miles of the shoreline --,within which impacts are most

severe.

(1) Adjacent private-residential*.development
impedes public.access to.the water at 17.2% of Corps WRDPs.

(2) The number of landowners applying for
permits to landscape contiguous Federal.property and/orto
construct floating docks is increasing dramatically at 24.1%
of Corps WRDPs4

(3) Approach co3@ridors traveled by recrea-
tionists have becQme aesthetically less pleasing at 37.9% of
Corps WRDPs.

(4) Encroachment on Federal land by adjoining
landowners occurs at 55.2% of Corps WRDPs.

.(5) Accelerated nutrient-rich runoff from
intensive contiguous urban developments is causing water
quality degradation at 24.1% of Corps WRDPs.,

E-12

(6) Inadequate Corps land in key locations is-
.,a major contributor to adverse impacts such as overcrowded
recreation areas, which occur at 37.9% of Corps WRDPs.

.(7) There are no controls on the development
process pxercised by local jurisdictions at 79.3% of Corps
WRDPs and only portions of an additional 13.8% of Corps
'W RDPs are subject to conventional urban development controls.
c. Inadequate definition and protection of the
Corps boundaries is a signficant cause of encroachment at
37.9% of Corps WRDPs.

(1) There are 112 WRDPs nation-wide whose
@boundaries are less than 50% monumented;the boundaries of
,only 132 WRDPS are 100% monumented; and.the boundaries at
WRDPs have between 51% and 99% of their boundaries
marked.

'(2) Encroachments upon Federal.land were,
repo,rted.at 48..3% of the WRDPs surveyed.

(3) There are insufficient WRDP personnel to
.provide adequate surveillance of the boundary.
(4) The enforcement response to.encroachment
problems has not been prompt noreffective.

d. Corps project personnel do not now monitor
the changing relationship between.concessioners on Corps
land, conditions on contiguous land, and other commercial
activities; thus, there is no basis upon which,to adjust
Corps concessioner relationships in ways that will accom-
.modate change -in competitive position.

E-13

(1) Modern marina facilities on adjacent
private land are preferred over proximate older concessioner-
.built.and operated facilities.

(2) Corps facilities originally designed to
serve dispersed regional populations now receive the
majority of their use from seasonal orpermanent residents
,settled in urban densities nearby.

(3) Construction and operation of comple-
.mentary facilities, such as commerical campgrounds, do not
influence changes in the quantity and quality of, facilities
constructed and operated on.Federal land.'

5. Real Estate Programs and Practices

a.-The organization of the real estate function
at.the Engineer District level is very uniform, sometimes
.overly so.

.(l) Instrument.format, record keeping, and
.organization of branches and sections are nearly identical
in all Engineer Districts visited, except those in the North
Central Engineer Division.

(2) The practices followed, e.g., establish-
ment of fees and awarding of outgrants, are designed to
,entourage private use of Corps resources while protecting the
.public interest.

.(3) Planning and management provisions in
Corps lease documents are perfunctory paragraphs bearing
little relationship to specific development needs or neces-
sary management practices, provid ing.little opportunity to
match lessee performance against master plan objectives, and
,making enforcement difficult.

E-14

built
b. WRDP.land, including recreation facilities
with project and Code 710 funds, have been made available to
State governments and their political subdivisions; in many
cases, non-Federal public bodies have been encouraged to develop
and manage WRDP land for recreation and fish and wildlife*unde'r
the' outgrant program.

.(l) Nationally, 473,826 acres are leased to
.:the states for public park purposes; 45,473 acres are leased
to political-subdivisions for public recreation.
(2) In some cases, entire project areas are
@outgranted to one or more state agencies, butcthere seems to
be a maximum site -- the largest,WRDP totally outgranted is*
24,000. acres beyond which states will not assume manage-
.ment.responsibility.

c., Some Engineer District Real Estate Directorate.
(RED) personnel interpret their custodial responsibility to,
encompass areas in which they lack professionalexpertise and
operational capability.

M In the absence of forceful recreation-
.resources management leadership, RED personnel may take a
policy making posture in recreation affairs.

(2) Inadequate coordination between RED per-
sIonnel and WRDP staffs intensifies encroachment and trespass
problems and permits poor operations and maintenance by
concessioner s.

(3) In only rare occasions -do RED personnel
remain.,at the.WRDPs once all parcels are acquired.

d. The low level of private concession activity
@s reflected in relatively low total capital invested, a
limited range of facilities builC on Corps land, low annual
rent.payments,and a lack of concession specialists on RED
Engineer District staffs.

E-15

(1) Only.$13.1 million was invested by
private concessioners at the 29 WRDPs surveyed.

(2) Facilities providea;by conc6ssioners are
largely marinas and fish camps. Total,rent paid by con-
in 1973 was $179,418.

(3) No RED personnel specializing in concession
.@management were identified in the-19 Engineer.Districts visitedi

e. Adminiatration of, agriculture and grazing out-
grants as interim uses-poses problems.i.n.achieving the full
wildlife potential of WRDPs.

(1) Responsibility for agriculture and grazing
use is divided:among planning, recreation-res.ourcep.managementI
and the management and disposal element of RED..

(2) There are 542,700 acres outgranted for.
agriculture and 603,550 acres outgranted for grazing use

nation-wide.

(3) Conflicts with wildlife occur when the
.cropping pattern is not coordinated with wildlife interests
and when grazing animals.compete directly with big game
animals for available forage.

(4) Such interim uses have become institu-
tionalized by cont.inued.reissuance of leases and by the
nature of the formula distributing Corps lease income to
local governments.

f. The Corps is assuming an increasing role, and
local governments a decreasing role,in'operating recreation

areas at WRDPs.

(1) Reversion of outgranted recreation areas,
even when developed at Federal expense, is increasing,

E-16

particularly when rural governments are involved.

(2) In some instances, local governments
.refuse to accept responsibility for operating and maintaining
such developed areas in the first place.
(3) This trend will probably continue, par-.
.:ticularly with.retroactive application of co�t.sharing.
6. Cor2s Organization
a. OCE has emphasized the significance of existing
WRDP resources in providing low cost outdoor recreation op-
portunities and contributing to balanced,state and regional
..land use pro'
grams.
(1) Full responsibility,for outdoor recrea-
tion planning was assigned to the planning.division and.a.

recr=
branch*was formed in*OCE
in 1967 and 1971, respectively.,
(2) Engineer Regulations.have been issued
''that accord full "project purpoself status to recreation and
fish and wildlife enhancement at all WRDPs.
b. The decentralized Corps organization and-hori-
zontal staff structure at the Engineer District level
provide great flexibility to meet a widevariety of condi-
tions and work loads, but fail to provide a balanced overview
of resource problems.
.(I) Task sharing across, divisions permits
maximum use of professional personnel, but tends to create an
attitude that recreation-resources management is a.peripheral
activity.
(2) Divided responsibility creates competition
for manpower and management funds, results in the lack of a

E-17

common data base and makes. it difficult to fix responsi-
bility for success and failure.

(3) Project operation personnel (dam tenders)
can also perform recreation-resources management functions at

'the WRDPs.

C. Many of the deficiencies in recreation, fish
:and wildlife, Corps and contiguous land use, and real estate
,programs and practices are directly attributable to insuf-
ficient numbers of the ri'ht kinds of..personnel in the right
.places.

(1) In the sample, 31 Corps professional
personnel were distributed among 17 W.RDPs with 867@,819 acres
of manageable land, 8,065 miles of shoreline, and 17.4
million visitors days of use on 31,275'acres of Corps
managed recreation area.

(2) Of 95 professional"person-years/year of
recreation-resources management branch capability in 19
Engineer Districts visited, civil engineers comprised 25
person years/year and headed seven of-the branches.

(3) The largest number of persons with
natural resource related training are in Engineer District
level engineering/planning divisions,,not in recreation-
resources management.

(4) Because supervisory positions at the
Engineer District level are designed for and occupied by
engineers, professional resource personnel havo few career
advancement opportunities and exhibit a high turnover rate.

.(5) Corps WRDP personnel based at the dam
site cannot.effectively inspect Corps,land, perform visitor

E-18

.,..contact worki and be aware of resource conditions throughout

the WRDP.
d.. Decentralization over a long period of time has
encouraged the development of Engineer Districts with mark-
e,dly distinctive characteristics. State agencies that deal
.,,with two or more.Engineer Districts report their relations
are akin to,working with separateagencies rather than.field
.,of f ices of the same-agency.

7. Six Federal Agencies and Six State Agencies

a. Federal Agencies

(1) The six Federal agencies.studied.were created
@or specific and limited purposes. %Re.creation.was initially a
by-product of their original.purposes, including the National
..,Park,Service which was originally established "to promote and,
regulate theuse of national parks, monuments, and reserva-
ti.ons, for the purpose of conserving the scenery, the natural
and histotic.objects and the wildlife...

.(2) Actual unit cost data were not generally avail-
.@able for the operating land management agencies. The Depart-
ment of the Interior recreation and 'fish and wildlife bureaus
and services use incremental budgeting.for.program enhancement
and have not developed unit costing. It is possible to take
the number of visitors, or visitor days, and-the total cost@
of operation:of a given recreation area and compute a cost per
recreation day., This cost can then be used to project futur'e
Costs based.on projected utilization factors,, but most agen-
cies were concerned about the reliability of such a technique.
This technique assumes all variables, other than dollars and
recreation days, remain constant.

(1) 'Ilhe 1973 Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan
s(:!t:.s fortl-i outdoor.recreation facility cost estimates for
ilcttvities. Operatinq\d'osts based on an optimum

E-19

staffing allocation are also estimated per unit of recreation.
.No record was found of Idirect application of the data to the
incremental units of increased costs for recreation activi-
ties in any land management bureaus and services.

USFS does not have unit cost data at the cen-
tral office in' tqashington. Forest Supervisors have developed
empirical data on the costs of various activities and these
data generally form a basis for.evaluating cost estimates from,
,each national. forest. It is recognized that costs,vary from
forest to forest, and there are no figures that are applicable

nation wide.

(4) A continuing review of land.use for recreation
(more so than fish and wildlife-enhancement).is being conducted
by the National Conference on StateParks of the National
Recreation and Parks Association. The Council on Environmental
Quality has sponsored a related study on recreational use of
water supply.reservoirs; and the American Society of Planning,
.@Offic@als has sponsored an effort by Professor-Richard Ragatz,
to evaluate recreation homes.

b. State Agencies

(1) The six state agencies studied range.from those
-which administ er only recreation (Pennsylvania Bureau of State
Parks) or fish and wildlife (Tennessee IWildlife Resources
Agency) to those which administer multiple purpose activities
including parks and fish andwildlife (Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources).

(2) Certain specific findings may be of use to the
Corps in refining its own techniques of.resource allocation
and-the enhancement of recreation and fishand wildlife
.opportunities:

(a) The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
has begun zero-base budgeting for.all activities beginning
with the PY 1-976-78 biennium. Contrasted toincremental

E-20

budgeting, this technique requires each activity to be justi-
fied anew in each'budget cycle rather than merely justifying
increases beyond the prior budget. For Texas, this appears to
4ave resulted in identifying varying levels of expenditure 'and,
the service or.product results of each.

(b) The Pennsylvania Bukeau of State Parks is
developing,and has under pilot operation at the Pennsulvania
State University, a program for allocating operational costs
to 17 recreational activities. The experimental uses of this
technique have been to critique operations at the park level,
to assist in annual budget preparation', and to assist in long
range planning-

(c) The Washington State Parks and Recreation
Commission has issued rules and regulations defining the
11possessoryinterest" of concessione rs in.certain facilities
on state lands., "Possessory.interest" is defined.as "... all
incidents of.own'ership except the right to free transfer of
mortgage and legal title,..."' The possessory interest is
subject.to provisions of the contract,state laws, and regula-
tions relating to the area. The possessory interest may be
usedas security for a loan or it may be assigned, transferred,
or relinquished,prior to the expiration or termination of a
contract with the prior approval of the Commission. The regu-
lations provide, further that.the possessory interest shall not
be..extinguished,by the expiration or other termination of the
concession contract and may not be taken for public use or
transferred to a successor without just compensation. This
concept has not been in.effect for a sufficiently long period
to establish its value in en ional investments
couraging recreat
or relieving the state of recreational investment responsi-
bilities. it appears to offer an opportunity for' the use of
private capital to serve a
puo-L-c purpose. A similar concept,
to provide concessioner security was porated in the
incor
statutory authority for the-NPS in 196.5.

E-21

8. There-are marked regional differences in the amount
of land needed to meet intensive and extensive recreational
use. The Corps WRDP system constitutes a significant supply
of land and water in'those regions where rapid rates of in-
creased demand are expected and where there are few alternative
Federal sources of supply.

B. Conclusions.

1. The overall response of the Corps to the chal-
lenge of recreation management is good for an agency
that traditionally has not emphasized management of recrea-
tion resources; the overall Corps response to fish and
wildlife enhancement opportunities is mediocre to very poor.
This overall conclusion recognizes the extraordinarily u.n-
even performance of the Corps organization-at the Engineer
District and WRDP levels.

2. Full realization of the recreation and fish and
wildlife potentia ls of the Corps WRDP system is dependent
upon national recognition and Congressional confirmation of
their importance and sufficient funding and land to meet
national needs.

a. No concise Congressional mandate for the
management of these various resources. exists.

.b. The Nation will need additional public, lands
to meet the rapidly increasing participation in natural
environment activities not normally provided by the private
sector, particularly in regions exhibiting most rapid
population growth. Corps WRDPs constitute a major portion
of the inventory of needed land in these regions.

B-22

C. Many WRDPs possess insufficient land area.to
,:.accommodate.tecreational demands without resource degrada-,
-tion or conflict with contiguous land use.

d. National recognition and Congressional
.,direction to manage the Corps WRDP system will require
financial support for personnel and other management tech-
..@niques but only modest increases for capital improvements.

3. Engineer Districts and WRDP staffs do not provide a
He considera-
focal point for recreation and fish and wildli
tions, nor do they contain a sufficient number of
professional natural resource management specialists..

a. The largest number of professional natural
resource management specialists at the Engineer District
level is,not in the@recreation-resources management branch.

b. The management responsibility is diffused
through the engineering/planning, operations, and real.
@@estate functions..

C. Professional natural reso urce management
specialists are very limited at the WRDP.level. This is
true of operating personnel, such as rangers, and staff
personnel, such@as foresters and wildlife biologists.

d. The,diffusion.of,various phases of recreation-
resources management at the Engineer District level causes
-confusion and conflicts for WRDP staffs.

4. The planning process inadequately considers
natural resource limitations and opportunities and linkages
with management decisions, the private sector, and other
public agencies.

E-23

a. WRDP personnel are not sufficiently involved in
decisions concerning staffing requirements and the location,
design, and use of facilities.

b. Master plans do not adequately consider:
specific goals and objectives for recreation-resources
management .uhi.qu.e to each WRDP, optimum wate.relevations fo .k
all.project purposes, specific roles for*concessioners.and
other non-Federal entiti:--s, and the importance of integrating
agr.icultural and grazing use of WRDP land'with-wildlife
management.

c. Natural resource characteristics, such as
soils, tolerance of vegetation, and configuration of the
water bodytare not adequately considered in.designing spe-
cific facilities, for specific sites.

4. Contiguous land uses contribute to problems of
access, deteriorating aesthetics along approaches to
project lands., increases in percolation of effluents and
movement of storm waters into WRDP waters, and establish-
ment of competing activities immediately adjacent to
.developed Corps recreation areas.
a. Only rarely has sufficient'.land been acquired
to protect the integrity of Federal land, waterand.facili-
ties-from the direct influence of contiguous land uses.

b.. The Corps has no effective means to,alleviate
many of the problems .associated with contiguous land use.

5. RED programs and practices have a profound.,
and sometimes adverse, impact upon recreation-resources
management.

E-24

a. Restrictive lease conditions discourage private
individuals from making large capital investments, produce
low rent income, and produce a limited range of recreation
opportunities.

b- Lease generated revenue is a function of
capital investment; thus, Corps disbursements to local
Jurisdictions will favor those jurisdictions that contain
WRDPs where the Corps has successfully attracted development..

c. Agricultural and grazing.outgrants fre-
quently impinge upon wildlife habitat and the application
of sound conservation practices.

d. An alarming number of government.units are.
.abdicating responsibility for operating and maintaining
Corps developed facilities, and the Corps has no explicit
authority to operate and maintain such 'facilities at WRDPs
completed prior to 1965.

6. Neither the authority for their creation, their
administrative procedures and practices, nor their budgetary
resources would indicate that the six Federal land management
agencies studied have a mission which is broad enough to
encompass the wide-ranging water resource related recreation
and.@fish and wildlife enhancement activities of WRDPs present-
ly under the stewardship of the Corps.

7. The rate of state level increase in these activities
has not kept pace with the overall rate of economic growth
within the s Itates. In some instances, this has been attribu-
ted to the failure of sources of dedicated revenue to match
needed expenditures. Missouri, Tennessee and-Texas are states
With a high level of dedicated revenue. Washington State
recently abandoned dedi cated revenues As th-e'primary meansof
financinq the-ir activities. ln other instancest the slower

E-25

rate of growth for recreation and fish and wildlife enhance-
ment purposes is simply attributed to the general extension of
state involvement in other social programs and a re-establishment
of priorities with a fixed level of limited resources. The
validity of this finding is difficult to verify at the indiv-
idual agency level because of differing economic bases and
varying rates of growth for each state. It is, however, the
general-concensus of responsible state.officials, and is docu-
mented at the aggregate level by the Bureau of Census in
Topical Studies, Volume 6, Number 4 ofthe 1972 Census.of
Governments, issued December 1974.

8. The Corps WRDP system has-high potential for,meeting
Congressional statements of national need for maintaining,
environmental quality, providing ba lanced recreation oppor-
tunities, and maintaining wildlife species populations at a
high level for the use and enjoyment of all Americans. These
are objectives usually associated with public.ownership of

resources.

C. Management.Alternatives
Four approaches to the management of WRDP lands were
evaluated: lease or sale to the private sector; transfer
to other Federal agencies; transfer.to state or local
governments; and retention under Corps management.
Each alternative was analyzed.in terms of: (1) effec-
tiveness in meeting the recreation-resources management
responsibility associated with Corps WRDPs, (2) effect
upon local tax structures, (3) effect upon national needs,
(4) effect on programs of .the Corps and other agencies, and
,(5) statutoryfiscal, and policy constraints.
The analyses assume that national needs and policy
require that the Corps continue to operate WRDP physical

J"',- 2 6-

'works for flood control, navigation, hydroelectric power,
low-flow augmentation, and other purposes authorized by
the Congress. 'Thus, lands required for these purposes.
could.not be transferred from the Corps.

1. Lease or sale to the private sector.

a. The private sector can: provide high density,,
@capital intensive recreation facilities, develop residences,
@...and commercial establishments, and conduct farming or
Market perceptions and flow of income
,.forestry operations.
..would determine which portions of WRDPs.would be purchased
or:leased if offered.

High density facility complexes made up of
@.,:.marinas, lodges, deluxe campgrounds for recreation vehicles,
condominiums, golf courses, and other amenities would
occupy the best recreation sites and would accommodate part.
of the national need for such amen.i.ties. Opportunities
for extensive recreation experiences, wildlife.mahagement,,
-and public hunting would be reduced. Access to the-water
for@fishermen, swimmers, and boaters would become difficult
andf if carried to extremes, the general public could find
itself excluded because of substantial admittance or user fees.
@in;tegrated shoreline and contiguous land use would depend
almo. st entirely upon local zoning and building codes which.
arenow nonexistent or inadequate.

Sale or lease of agricultural and forest
lands could contribute to meeting national needs. in those
areas, but would also fail to meet the:need for aesthetically
pleasing public land with opportunities for.recreation,
fishing, or,hunting.

Leasing selected lands to private interests
to achieve specified goals and objectives, such as the

E
27
-

.Provision of a@full range of outdoor recreation opportunities,
can be accomplished by modifying existing Corps concession
authorities.

b. Any sale of land would augment ad valorem tax
inc ome. The net effect upon local tax bases will vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, dependent upon requirements
forlocal services,
C. Meeting national needs for intensive recrea-
tion would be enhanced by the sale or lease of.land to
private interests. National needs for extensive recreation
would be adversely affected. The national need for retention
of aesthetically pleasing land.with recreation and fish and
wildlife value in public.hands@would be adversely affected,
particularly in those parts of the country where Corps
WRDPs can constitute a major portion of.the public lands
available for hunting, fishing, and ot Iher recreation.

d.. Sale of land would have considerable adverse
affect upon other Corps programs.. Coordination between
Corps interests and those of contiguous landowners would
require augmented Corps staffs to protect the quality of
WRDP borders and supervise conservation of the shoreline.
Sale to encourage private use also would have a deleterious
impact upon state park agencies.with heavy capital invest-
ment in resort state parks, putting major cqmpetitors with
new facilities in close proximity to older state-built
and marinas. The most serious effect would be upon.
state wildlife agency programs to provide public hunting
opportunities. Lands leased or sold to private individuals
would be largely unavailable for general public-entry.

E-28

Sale of property on eroding shorelines would result in
requests for public assistance for shoreline protection.

e. there are significant statutory and policy
constraints that would actively inhibit the sale of Corps
land to private individuals. The most significant are
the processes@described forstate and other Federal agency
review of real property declared excess. If all present
properties outgranted to other public agencies were claimed
by those agencies and no additional property declared
..excess is claimed by them, only 464,495 acres of the 2,763,451
acres in the 29 WRDPs studied would become surplus. In.
-addition, much of the WRDP landis encumbered by existing

outgrants.

2. Transfer to other Federal agencies,

a. Transfer of all Corps recreation-resources
management to NPS would add 407 units to the National
Recreation Areasystem. Such a dramatic increase in
acreage and recreational visitation would require signifi-
cant expansion of the NPS organization. transfer to the
USF&WS or the BLM would impose very large recreation burdens
upon agencies that have little experi Ience with large-scal.e
visitation. The USFS has demonstrated thatit can plan,
..,develop, and operate public recreation facilities, manage
forest resources, and cooperate in fish and wildlife manage-
ment. The USFS is experienced in administering outgrants and
.its operations arewell systemized. USFS experience is enhanced
by WRDP management responsibility shared with the Corps according
to a Memorandum of Understanding first executed in 1964. In
,any case, dividing project responsibilities between two or more
Federal agencies would lead to problems of coordination and
probably duplication of effort. Additionally,.personnel require-
ments imposed on any of the candidate recipient agencies

E-29

would sorely tax agency,budgets and jeopardize existing

,programs.-

b.' Local tax structures would be effected by the
formula used to compute payments made in lieu of taxes.
.NPS has no in lieu of tax provisions; the USFS provides for
.payment of up to 25% of gross National Forest receipts.

C.
NPS administration would meet nat'onal redrea-:
tion needs more effectively than Corps administration, but
,hunting and fishing opportunities might be reduced.. Transfer
to'USFS could mean decreasing.emphasis upon intensive recrea-
tion development,. would not effect extensive. recreation
:needs, and could enhance hunting and,fishing. opportunities.
d. The impact upon@the Corps would be substantial.
The cadre of resource professionals who,@currently share
tasks would have recreation-resources management work
eliminated; similarly, professional personnel performing
dual functions at the project level would be reduced; and
all personnel devoting full time to recreation-resouicces
activities, including rangers, would be released or trans-
ferred to the recipient agency.

The impact upon the recipient agency likewise
would be-profound. The NPS would have to become much more
of a multiple use agency. The.USFS would have.the geo-
graphic distribution of its workload shifted from the,
western regions to the south central and southeastern
regions. Both the NPS and USFS would require administrative
reorganization.
State fish and game programs currently'ad-
ministered on outgranted Corps Iands could also be
adversely affected by transfer to another Federal agency.

E-30

e. With minor legal adjustments, the USFS could
accept the management responsibility for Corps recrea .tion
resources. The Congress would have to make individual
det6rminati6hg of national recreation significance at each
WRDP prior tO.NP .S administration. The USF&WS would require.
aredefined agency mission, and the.BLM would need an even.
more extensivelegislative reorganization than was con-,
by the 93rd Congress. USDI@and USDA personnel and
.state personnel feel that the agencies of those departments
would not be successful in securing funds tomeet the
management objectives cited-above.
3. Transfer to.state and local governments
a. The Corps has sought to outgrant as much land:
to state and..local agencies as possible', and,At some WRDPS
all,projectland to such agencies.. The land
probably represents all.the,states would
actively seek for recreation resource management. The upper
:1imit is probablyxelated.to the cost of operation and
.maintenance., States have demonstrated little interest in
.-.-large or interstate WRDPs And currently nianage only portions
of the land available to them by outgrant.

Neither state nor local governments possess
required to effectively meet the full range of.
recreation resources responsibilities associated with all
.Corps WRDPs..
b. :Income now available for distribution by the
.Corps to local. government would be lost. some states may.
attempt to offset,this loss by in lieu of tax payments, but
..costs would probably be prohibitive for all'but*a few states.

E-31

C. The transfer of WRDP recreation resource lands
to the states would continue stewardship in public hands, and
the national needs for hunting and fishing could be met at
leas t as well as they are now if sufficient funds were
available. Increasingly,national needs for huniting and
fishing opportunities indicate that substantial investments
in these areas would be required. Recreation development
would be based upon state needs.rather than any presumption
of national needs.

d. This.alternative would have essentially the
same affect upon Corps programs as transfer to other Federal
agencies. The impact on state parks, fish:and wildlifei and
forestry agency programs would.be enormous. In some states,
Corps lands that could be transferred would triple the amount
of land to be protected and managed by state agencies. Nation-
ally, 5,000 permanent and temporary positions would be added.
-to state payrolls. Furthermore, the transfer would skew
total state programs away from other equally important mis-@
sions. Local governments have simply not demonstrated their
ability to undertake the management of more than limited
size recreation areas. If the entire WRDPs were transferred
to the states, local governments would not have the oppor-
tunity to share improvement costs with the Corps under the
Code 710 program.

e. The largest portion of the funds available to
state recreation resource agencies comes from dedicated in-
come and Federal categorical grants-in-aid, neither or which
has expanded as rapidly as inflation. New funding from
general revenue would be required, and the probability of
funds sufficient to provide an adequate level of management
is not promising. In addition, most states are looking

E-32

,askance at new programs that place large continuing oper-
ating and maintenance obligations up,:)n state budgets.

4. Retention by the Corps of Engineers

a. Corps retention is the most effective way of
-Maintaining consistency with other WRDP purposes while en-..
hancing public recreation benefitp,.and protecting and i,m-
proving the quality of fish and wildlife resources on WRDP
lands. The Corps has developed a.managemen.t system that
co.mbines the best elemenis of the alternatives.discussed:
.encouraging the private sector to provide services for which
..there is a clear and profitable market; outgranting approp-
@@riate resources to state and local entities; and cooperating,-,..
through outgrants and otherwise,.with state and other Federal
agencies. The principal shortdomings.of this alternative are
@the current abtence'of,clear direction and administrative
.,responsibility and the lack.of sufficient adequately trained
:professionals.

b. The effect on local tax structures is diffi-
cult to assess precisely. Currently, local communities
...r.eceive,a fixed return based on distribution of a percentage
of lease income. Their return from private development would
be a.function of sales.and.would fluctuate.

c.. Within the framework of theliberal Corps
policy of outgranting lands.to states and encouraging
private sector participation, this. alternativeoffers the
greatest potential for meeting the full range of national
..recreation resource needs.

d. The effect of the Corps management system on
cooperating agencies is basically beneficial to both, with
room for improvement in selected areas.

E-33

e. The statutory constraints are minimal, although
a clear statement of Congressional will is lacking. Within
the Corps, master planning procedures must be strengthened
if the potential benefits from the Corps WRDP system are to
be realized.

D. Recommendations

1. Management and administration

a. Corps WRDP larA should be retained.by the
Corps and managed -for public recreation, fish and wildlife
.enhancement, and other project purposes, including expansion
and improvement of the outgrant program to other public
resource agencies.

.b. A recreation-resources managemen.t.divisioft
should be created in the Civil Works Directorate and repli-
cated at each of the three major levels of.command, providing
a focal point for the multi-disciplined expertise needed to
manage natural resources in cooperation with other public a gen-
cies, provide recreational opportunities, and assure visitor.
protection.

C. Persons trained to deal with problems and
opportunities of expanded conc.essioner activity should be
added in some Engineer Districts.

d. The WRDP professional field force should be
increased by 'approximately 1,.300 profe Issional level personnel
by calendar year 1978, and should be accomp .anied by a pro-
portional increase in professional positions at the Engineer
District level.

e. Budget requests for the recreation-resources
management function should utilize a zero-based budgeting
format and contain a yearly balance sheet reporting the
economic goods and services produced by increments of in-
.vestment in WRDP lands and waters.

L-34

f. @The master planning process should: (1) estab-
the objectives for the management of a WR'DP in concert.
with continual refinement of state and regional comprehen .sive
...,.plans (e.g.P,,comprehens_-ve outdoor recreation plans, regional,
water quality plans mandated by Section.208,.Federal Water
Control Act.Amendments of-1972);.(2) be considered.
a major-Federal action under NEPA so full disclosure, public
participation, and intergovernmental coordination will occur;
(..3)' allocate all WRDP lands to project operations, recreation,
fish and wildlife, and forestry within.five years; (4) extend
to all lands and waters within a specified biophysical impact
area; (5) recognize the primacy of Federal and state fish and.
wildlife agencies in the,management of fish and wildlife
species and the responsibility of the Corps to manage habitat;
.(6),specify specific annual work programs for-all involved,
agencies and become part of appropriatestate, regional, and.
local plans and programs; and (7) provide for five-year re-
evaluation to include alternative water levels and timing.of
.water levels and discharges. In this process, the extent.and
nature of outgrants to other public agencies and inefficient,.
"small Corps operated facilities.could be phased out.in favor
of larger, more efficient facilities.

g. Key parcels of land, primarily at WRDPs with
relatively little manageable, land,:should be acquired as
specified in the master plans to -insulate'Corps facilities
and resources from adverse impacts arising from uses of,
contiguous land.

.2.. Legislation

a. Congress should formally recognize the existence
ofa national need for widely distributed 1'
ands and waters.
that are available for production of outdoor recreation,
.fish and wildlife for the use and enjoyment of all Americans.

E-35

Further, Congress should direct the Secretary of the Army to
protect and manage the public lands and waters.that con-
stitute the Corps WRDP system, to be used and enjoyed to the
maximum extent.by,the American public for recreational pur-
poses in perpetuity consistent with the carrying capacity
of the natural*resources and the health and saie@y of the.
using public.-

The Secretary of the Army should be authorized
@to copstruct, maintain, and operate'facilitie.s for recreation
:and fish-and wildlife enhancement at any existing or.future
WRDP consistentwith the national interest.

C. Authority should be.granted,'to the Secretary
.of the Army to operate and maintain facilities that are
built at Federal expense and abandoned by lessees.

d.. The Secretary of,the Army's authority should
be enlarged to facilitate investment in abroad spectrum of
recreation facilities normally associated with the private
sector of the economy.

e. Twenty-five percent of revenues received as
a result of new concession agreements should be paid to the
state in which the concession.is located; the.remaining 75%
should be:used by the Secretary of.the Army for recreation.
and fish and wildlife purposes within the Corps WRDP system.

f. The Corps should have.specific, but carefully.
limited, authority to directly intervene in instances where
actions beyond the Corps boundary directly impact upon the
quality of the hydrologic system of the WRDP.

g. The authority for state agencies to recover
reasonable administrative costs incurred in managing wild-
life resources on lands outgranted by the Corps should be
restated and clarified.

E-36

h. The-Federal Water Project Recreation Act
;(PL 89-72) should be clarified to prohibit retroactive appli-
.cation of its cost-sharing provisions.
These remedial measures can significantly strengthen
the Corps' ability to better utilize WRDP land for recrea-.
and fish and wildlife'enhancement purposes and thus
,significantly increase the contribution of these lands and.
waters to the national interest.

E-37

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Background . . . . . . . . ... . .
B. Study Approach .. . . . . . . . . 1-2
C. Organization of the Report . . . . . . 1-6

PRESENT SITUATION . . . . . . . . . .
A. Legal Framework 1-1
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . ... 1-1
2. Recreation. . . . . . . . . 1-3
3. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 1-6@
.4. Private or Commercial Activities on
Federally-owned Property. 1-8
5. Conservation. . . . . . . . . 1-9
6. Environmental'Quality 1-10,
B. Corps Recreation, Fish and Wildlife
Resources . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 1-13
- r s Civil Projects 1-13
1,. Genesis of Co p
2'
Expansion of the Purposes of Water
''..Resource Development.. 1-13
Project Characteristics.that In-
fluence Recreation, Fish and Wild-
life. . . . 1-14
Recreation Resources . . . . . . . 1-15.
Fish and Wildlife Resources. 1-21
6. Attractiveness ... . . . . . . . . 1-28
C. Findings. . . . 1-31

CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY ... . . . . . . . . 2-1
A. Case Study Selection Factors 2-1
B. Relevance of the Sample . . . . . . . . . 2-5
C. Data Collection. 2-10
D. Data Presentation. . . . . . . . . . 2-12
E. Summary of Sample Case Study Charac-
teristics . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 2-14.1

'Chapter page
.3 ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY DATA. 3-1
A. Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Overuse of Corps Intensive Recrea-
tion Use Areas . . . . . . .. . . . . 3-6@8
2i Excessive Recreation 'Capacity- - - - 1-17
3. Other Areas To Be Strengthened . . . 3-20
Outdoor Recreation Findings. . 3122
B. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement..'. 3-25
1. Water Elevation Fluctuation . . . . . 3-26
2, Downstream Water Releases.-. . 3-28
3. Insufficient Wildiife.Concern. . . 3-29
4.. Fish and Wildlife Findings 3-31
C. Corps and Contiguous-Land Use . . . . . . 3-33
1. Adverse Effects of Contiguous Com-
mercial and Residential Use.of Land.
@2. Effects of Corps Development on
Contiguous Land. 3-37
3. Corps and Contiguous.Land
Use Findings 3-43,
D. Real Estate.Programs,and Practices 3-44
1. Instrument Conditions and Enforce-
ment . . . . . . . . ... . . 3-46
2'. Inadequately Defined and Unprotected
Boundaries . . . . . . 3-50
.3. Concession Practices 3-51
4. Interim Uses of Land 3-5-5
5. Reliance on State and Local
Governments . . . . . .. . . . 3-57
6.. Real Estate Programs and
Practices Findings . . . . . . . . 3-62
E. Corps Organization. . . ... . . 3-69
1. Horizontal Division of Functions. 3-72
.2 Uneven Distribution of Corps
Project Personnel . . . 3-75
3. Numbers and Competence oi Personnel 3-76.,..
4:. Summary Findings. 3-86..

Chapter Page

SELECTED FEDERAL AND STATE RESOURCE
AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
A. Authorities and Responsibilities. 4-3,
.1. Federal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3.
2. State . . . . . . 4 - 6
B. Administrative organization . . . . 4710

-10
1. Federal . . . . . . . . . . 4
.2. State . . . . . . . . . . . . o 4-11
C. Budgets, Funding and Unit Costs . . . . 4-11
1. Federal o . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
@2. State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14
D. Payments in Lieu
of Taxes o . . . . .. . . . . . . 4-18
Federal.. . o . . . . . . .. . . . . 4-18
2. State . . . . . . ... . . . . . 4-19
E. Fees . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21
1. Federal .. . ... . . . 4-21
.2. State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 4-22
F. Authorities TC Acquire Land For Recrea-
tion, Fish and Wildlife Management. . .
1. Federal . . . . . . . . 4-23
2. State 4-24,
G. Authority and Procedure for Leasing Land
and/or Facilities to Individuals . . . . 4-2'6
1- Federal . . ... . o . . . . . . 4-26
2. State . . . . . . . . . . . o 4-28
H. Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31
1. Federal . . . . . . . . o . . . 4-31
2. State o. . . . . . . . . o . . 4-33

5 NATIONAL RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE
ENHANCEMENT NEEDS . . . . . o . . . . . . . 5@-l
A. Generalized Outdoor'Recreation Demands
Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 5-1
B. National Expressions of Need... . . . . 5-46

Chapter Page

C. Corps WRDP Resources and National Needs 5-c;A
D. Findings 5-59

.6. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 6-1
A. Introduction . . . . . . . ..... . . . . .6-1
Lease or'Sale of Land to Permit Private
tj .6, e 6-2
1. The Nature of Private Sector
Involvement
6-2
2. Discussion. 6-3
3. Findings . . . . . . . ... . . .
C. Transfer of Corps WROP Land to Other
Federal, State or.Local Agencies. 6-12
Federal Agencies. . . . 6-12
-2- State and Local Agencies... -19
6
D. Retention of Corps WRDP Land by the
orps. of Engineers, 6-30
Discussion. 6-30

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . .. . 7-1
A. National Policy and Statutes . . . . . . 7-1
B. Internal Improvements . . . . . . . . .. 7-6
lo Professional Staffing . . . . . . . 7-6
2. Corps Organization, . . . . . . . . 7-10..
3. Budgeting . . . . . . . . ... . . . 7-12
4. Master Planning o- o o 7-13
-5. Land Acquisition. o o 7-14

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table No.
1-1 Water Resource Development Project Attendance
By Engineer Division, 1973 ... . . . . . . . . 1-17.
1-2. Recreation Areas, Acreage, and Visits by
State at Corps Water Resource Development
Projects, 1972. . . . . . . . . 1-1.9-
1-3 Summary of Acreage outgranted to Non-Federal
Agencies for Public R@,creationby Engineer
Division . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 1-22,

1-4@, Contribution of Corps Land to Municipal,
County and State Park and Recreation
Systems . .. . . . . .. . . . . 1-23

@1-11-5 Summary of Selected Corps Outgrants and
Acreage .. . . . . . . . . . . 1-24

J-6 Lease,Monies Returned by the Corps to Local
Governments in Fiscal Year-1974 . . . . . . . 1-25

@l... 7 Corps Land Licensed for Fish and Wildlife
Management by Engineer Division.. 1-29

Relationships Between the 29, Water@Rdsource
Development Projects Evaluated.and All,
Corps Projects 2-7

.2-2 Characteristics of Districts Containing the
29 Water.Resource Development Projects
Selected for Study- 2-8

.2-3 Resources Characteristics of Water Resource
Development Projects Selected for Evaluation. 2-15
2-4 Summary of Ou,tgrants for the,Case-Studies 21-18

Table No. Eae
3-1 Comparison of Water Resource Development
Projects Reporting Overuse,by Category. 3-10

Comparison of the Number'Spedial Shoreland
Permits by Category . . . . . . . . . 3 _1 2

3-3 summary of Known Platted Subdivisionj Number
of Lots, and Lots Abutting Federal Property
at 25 Corps Water Resource Development Pro-
jects .. . . . . . ... 3-41

.3-4 Characteristics of Concession Leases at 29
Corps-Water Resource@'Devlopment Projects. 3-52

Recreation Areas Developed for operation by
Local.Goverranents Now Operated byCorps 3-61

.3-6 Municipal Outgrants for Public PArks. 3-63

3-7 Nationwide Corps Code 710 Cost Sharing
Response. . ... . . . 3-64

1-8 Location of Recreation Planning Functiont
19 Engineer Districts 3-71

3-9 Permanent Resource Personnel at 29 WRDPs. 3-78

3-10 Total Projects and Recreation Areas by
Engineer Districts Selected . . . . . . . . . 3-83

3-11 District Recreation Management Personnel . . . 3-.84

4-1 State Profile Administration, Authorities
and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . o 4-7

4-2 Profile Summary . . .. . . . . . . 4-8

5-1 Resident Population Over 9 Years of Age
by Region, 1970 and 1980. 5-2

5-2 Distribution of Population by Income Size
Class of Families by Region,.1970 and 1980. 5-3

5-3 Distribution of Population by income SIze
Class of Families by Region, 1970 5-4

J vi

:_Table No. Page

.5-4 Distribution of Population by Income Size
Class of Families by Region, 1986. 5-5

@,5-5 Annual Participation Rates in Boating by
Income Size Class by Region . . . . . . . . 5-
@8

Annual Participation Rates in Swimming by
Income Size Class by Region . . . . .. . . . 5-9

5-7, Annual Participation Rates in Hunting by
Income Size Class by Region . . . . . . . . 5-10

5.-8 Annual Participation Rates in Camping by
Income Size Class by Region. 5-11

5,-9 @Annual Participation Rates in.Picnicking
by Income Class by Region. . . . 5-12

5-10 Annual Participation Rates in Fishing by
Income Class by Region, 5-13-

@5-11 Number of Participants in Boating by
Income Size Class by Region, 1970. 5-15

5-12 Number of Participants in Boating by
Income Size Class by Region, 1980. 5-16@

5-13 Number of Participants in Swimming by-.
Income Size Class by Region, 1970. 5-17@.

Number of Participants in Swimming by
Income Size,Class by Region, 1980.: . . . . 5-18
5-15 Number of Participants in Hunting by
Income Size Class by Region, 1970. 5-19
.5-16 Number of Participants in Hunting by
Income Size Class by Region,.1980.*. 5-20
5-17, Number of.Participants in Camping by
Income Size Class by Region, 1970. 5-21

Table No. Page

5-18 Number of Participants in Camping-by
Income Size Class by Region, 1980. 5-22

Number of Participants@in Picnicking by
Income Sizelciass by Region, 197o . . . . . 5-23_

5-20 Number of Participants in Picnicking by
Income Size Class by Region,.1980. 5-24

5-21 Number of Participants in Fishing by
Income Size Class by Regibn,.1970. 5-25
.5-22 Number of Participants in Fishing by
Income Size Class by Region, 1980... 5-26.

5-23 Number of Boating Days Per.Participant,
and.Total Number of Boating Days by-Region,
197-0 and 1980. 5-27

5-24 Number of Swimiming Days Per Participant,
and Total Number of Swimming Days by Region,
1970 and 1980. 5-28

5-25 Number of Hunting Days Per Participant,
and Total Number of Hunting.Days by Region,
.1,970 and 1980.
5-29
5-26 Number of Camping Days,Per Participant and
Total Number of Camping%Days by Region,
1970 and 1980 . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 5-30
5-27 Number of Picnicking Days Pe .r Participant,
and Total Number of Picnicking Daysby
Region, 1970 and 1980 . . . . . ... . . . . 5-31
5-28 Number of Fishing Days Per Participanto,
and.Total Number of Fishing Days by Region,
1970 and 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3-2
@5-29 Distribution of Total Number of Boating
Days by Type of Boating by.Region,,1970
and 1980 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-33-
5-30 Distribution of Total Number of Hunting
Days by Type of Hunting, by Region., 1970
and,1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-34

viii

Table No. Page,.

5-31 Distribution of Total Number of Camping
Days by Type of Camping, by Region, 1970
and 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35

..5-32 Length of Season and Number of Boaters
Per Day During the Season by Type of
Boating by Region, 1970 and 1980 5-37.

5-33
Length of Season and'Number of Swimmers,
Per Day During the Season by Region, 1970
and 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . 5;.- 3 8

5-34 Length of Season and Number of Hunters
Per Day During the Season by Type of
Hunting by Region, 1970 and 1980 . . . . . 5-139

Length of Season and Number of Campers Per
Day'During the Season ' by Type,of.Camper
-0
by.Region, 1970 and.1980... 5-4

5-36 Length of Season and Number of Picnickers
Per Day During the Season by Region$ 1970
and 1980... 5-41,

.5737 Length of Season and Number of Fishermen
Per Day During the Season by Region, 1970
and 1980 . . . . . 5-42

5-38 Land and Water Use Standards . . . . . . . 5.-45

5-39 Land and Water Acreage Needed by Boaters
During Season by Type of Boating by
Region, 1970 and 1980 . . . . .. . . . . . 5-47
5740 Land and Water Acreage Needed by Swimming
During Season by Region, 1970 and@1980. 5-48
5-41 Acreage Needed for Hunting During Season by
Type of Hunting by.Region, 1970 and 1980. 5-49
-5-42 Acreage Needed During Season by Campers by
by Type of Camping by Region, 1970 and 1980 -5-50

Table No. Page

5-43 Acreage Needed During Season by
Picnickers by Region, 1970-and 1980. 5-51
5-44 Land and Water Acreage Needed by Fisher-.
Men During Season, by-Region, 1970 and
. . . . . . . . . . ..... . 5-52

5-45 Corps Supply of Land and Water Available
to Meet National Recreation and Fish
and Wildlife Needs . . . . . . . . . . 5-56
5-46 Federal Power Commission Licensed Water
,Resource Development Projects by NPA
Region ... . . ... . . . . . . . . 5-58

INTRODUCTION

A. Background
'The first Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan states that
"The Army Corps of Engineers reported 323 million recrea-
tion days of Use in 1972 on the.lands and waters at 390 reser-.
a
voirs under its management" That is a significant amount of.
recreational use for any agency to manage, especially an agency
that is primarily known for planning, building, and operating
multi-purpose projects to further the development of the Nation's

water resources.

The Nationwide Plan indicates that there are "...nearly.
6,000 designated.access areas.to accommodate the public
.,.nearly 2,300 of.the 6,000 access areas are specifically
..,developed for recreation. The Corps manages 1,750 of these,
while about 550 are managed by state and local agencies under
lease." Increasing recreation visitation to "access areas'"
managed by the Corps of Engineers (Corps.) has raised questions
about Corps involvement in the provision of recreation oppor-
.tunities, the rapidly growing budget requests to provide for
the,safety and convenience of visitors and.the protection
of resources, and the use for outdoor recreation and wildlife
@.of land acquired by the United
States for purposes such as
flood control, and navigation. There was and continues to be
sharp division, of opinion about the role of.an. engineering
agency in the recreation.field let alone,fish and wildlife
'habitat management. In an effort to set forth the facts,
the,93rd Congress enacted the following language as Section.
of the Water Resources Development Act of 19,74 (PL 93-251):

aU. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of outdoor Recrea-
tion. 1973. Outdoor Recreation: A Legacy for America.
G.P.0. Washington, D. C.

The Secretary of th Ie Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is authorized and directed
to study land use practices and recreational uses
at water resource development projects.under his
jurisdiction, and to report thereon to the Con-
gress not@later than June 30, 1975, with recommen-
datiohs as to the best useof such lands for out-
door recreation, fish.a'nd wildlife enhancement,
and related purposes.
The language succinctly sets forth the objective of, the study
reported here.
The congressional charge was@ applied-to water resource.
development projects (WRDPs) that have been completed and
are now providing recreational opportunities and/or essential
fish and wildlife habitats,. whether specifically:designed
for one or both purposes or not. Mitigation.of net damage to
or loss of fish and wildlife habitats caused by constructing.
a WRDP is a complex issue. Some WRDPs.were authorized and
built prior to general recognition of fish and wildlife
values and enactment of the Fish and Wildlife C6ordinatioh
Act; since strengthening amendments to the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act were enacted, coordinated fish and wildlife
recommendations, including mitigation,. prepared by the U. S.
Fish and Wilctlife Service (USF&WS) are forwarded by bistkict
and Division Engineers to the chief,of Engineers who may or
.may not consider the recommendation consistent with the
primary purposes of the proposed WRDP.- Even if included in

Public Works
the,Chief of@Enqineers' report to Congress, the
Committees may not authorize the works or the.Appropriations
Committees may not appropriate the mo Iney authorized for
mitigating the damage perceived by fish and wildlife .agencies.
A full-scale investigation of the adequacy and appropriateness
of the mitigation activities reconunended by fish and wild-

1-2

life agencies, whetherfinally authorized or not, is beyond
the scope of.this investigation authorized by PL 93:251;
nevertheless, the use of WRDP waters and lands to enhance
:fish'and.wildlife populations was studied.

The Corps sought an independent contractor to carry out
amulti-task ihv6stigation of Corps stewardship ofthe
existing lands and waters entrusted to their care and to de-
develop findings and conclusions based upon the.investigation..
The findings and conclusions drawn by the contractor selected,
Coastal Zone Resources Corporation (CZRC), along,with support-
in
@q documentation, are,essential bases for recommendations
forwarded by the Chief of Engineers.

B.:. Study@Approach
Within the broad purpose set by Section 25., several sub-
objectives were established: describe current authority;
identify constraints, conflicts, and other problems associated
with current Corps management; and evaluate major alternatives
that might be recommended by the Chief of Engineers.

To accomplish..th6se objectives within atightly con-
strained time schedule, the study was divided into eight
major tasks..

1. Analyze Existing Law
The basic intent of this task was to.assess and classify.
Corps.,policies,, laws, and regulations as they relate to land
use,, recreation, and fish and wildlife practices. A
general topic outline, arranged by type of authority, was
devised to permit easy reference I be.tween the.policies, laws,
and regulations and their intent. The categorization in-
cluded the general'a,uthorities.granted by the Congress to
other Federal reso,jrce management agencies.

T-3

2. Review Pertinent Literature and National Data
Resource rplated reports and published documents were
identified and keviewed early in the study schedule to pro-
vide base iniokm4tion for subsequent tasks. Literature
gathered from the Office, Chief of Engineers (OCE) as well
as that gathered from various'public'and private sources
wer e utilized. Qu antitative data compiled from OCE data
..files provided statistical reference to WRDPs nationally and
@at Engineer Division, En gineer District, and WRDP levels. Such
data were essential tools in establishing a national base. In
.addit@on to this early review, literature and data gathered
durin.g field work were reviewed and utilized specifically
during the subsequent analytic tasks.'

3. inspect and Analyze Represe tative WRDPs
information was compiled by field surveys of representa-
tive WRDP's throughout the contiguous United States and
similar surveys of relevant Federal and state resource related
..agencies.

Twenty-nine'WRDPs were chosen for detailed study based
upon their relation to-12 selection factors which encompassed
numerous physical, resource, and management characteristics
Quaiftitative add qualitative information was compiled in de-
tailed case studies'for each WRDP and provided a basis for
copsidering the current situationl, identifying problems, and
suggesting alternative solutions.

Corollary to the WRDP field survey".was,the preparation
of profiles for selected Federal and stateresource related
agencies. Specific information concerning authority, adminis-
tration, and responsibility was collected for the U. S.. Forest
Service (USFS), National Park:Service (NPS), USF&WS, Bureau
LandManagement (BLM), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and
Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec). Specific information within the
same topics was collected for the Minhesota.Department of

1-4

Natural Resources, Missouri Conservation Commission, Pennsyl-
vania Bureau of State Parks, Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency, Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, and Washington
'State Parks and Recreation Commission. Information co ntained
in the profiles, was utilized in establishing institutional
characteristics and approaches and in.evaluating alternative
solutions to.identified problems.
4. Appraise Land Use, Recreation, and Fish and Wildliff.-
Central to the accomplishment of this task were the
analyses generated by previous tasks. Key findings developed,
in the case studies provided a focal point for characterizing
various WRDPs, the existing resource base, and resource
..management andutilization. Data gathered in the field
were compared to data on a national scale and conflicts,
interpretational difficultiesi and data gaps were identified.
Relationships among governmental agencies and theirorgani-
@zation and their management approach.to resources at WRDPs
on. a national, district, state, and site basis were com-
pared to the magnitude, condition, and utilization of
these resources. Analyses of existing laws, policies, and
.regulations provided further insight into land use,
recreation, and-fish and wildlife. practices.at the WRDPs.

..5. 'Proje6t National Needs
Existing national policy statements and generalized demand
forecasts for varying types of water-oriented recreation activ.@-
ties in terms of land requirements,by.geographic region, served
as,,a basis for a,dete@rmination of national needs.

.6. Identify_Major Problem Areas
In Task,6, majorproblem areas that result from an inade-
quate resource base or inefficient management of that resource
base were identified. Specific conflicts, such as that between
14! fish and wildlife enhancement and other authorized purposes,
or that between governmentalInvestment and contiguous develop-
ment.pressures, were related to field experiences, compiled
data, and existing literature.

1-5

7. Evaluate Consequences of Alternative Solutions
Four major possible.solutions to existing management
probleimi were oveilitatodi (1) tinlo or It-latic, or WROP leindn to
the private sector, (2) transfer of WRDII lands to the state
governments and their political subdivisions, (3) transfer of
WRPP lands to other Federal agencies, and (4) continue adminis-
tration of the lands and water by the Corps. Each alternative
was analyzed in terms of: (1) effectiveness in meeting the
.recreation-resources management responsibility associated with
Corps WRDPs, (2) effect upon local tax.structures, (3) effect
upon national needs, (4) effect on programs of the Corps and
other agencies, and.(5) statutory, fiscal, and policy con-
straints.

.8. Recommend A Course Of Action
Based on all the preceding tasks, a reIcommended course of.
-action was prepared for consideration by OCE.
C. Organization of the R6port
The results of the intensive data gathering'and analyti-
cal work are presented.in this report.. Chapter 1 outlines
the current national extent of Corps administered land and.
water resources and the 1-gal framework that both authorizes
and constrains the management of these resources. Chapter 2
summarizes the. basic methodology by which 29 WRDPs were'
.selected to be case studies, the manner by which the data
gathered in the case studies were organized and presented,*
iand the relationship of the sample to W-RDP national totals.
Chapter 3 summarizes the analysis of major problem areas in
Corps mar,,agement of recreation and contiguous lands, real
.estate programs and practices, and Corps organization based
on the case studies. Chapter 4 sets out information
obtained from study of six Federal and six state recreation,
fish and wildlife, and natural resource agencies. Chapter
5 describes national needs. Chapter 6 discusses alterna-
tive management systems. Chapter 7 contains 'recommendations
for Department of the Army Action.

1-6

The material and analyses presented in this report are
based upon independently collected, fully documented infor-
mation. Documentation consists of: (1) automated searches.
of the literature and the United States Code; (2) research
..reports, survey documents, Corps master plans, and operating.
..reports prepared by universities, state.fish and wildlife
agencies, regional and state planning agencies,.state park
-agencies,'and others for each of the 29 intensively studied
WRDPs; (3) thestate constitutions and relevant statutes
-controlling each of six state recreation-resource management
@agenciep; a nd (4) interviews with nearly 1,000 personsin-
cluding Federal and state employees, businessmen, and private
citizens. Thedocumentation has been..compiled in four,
,fully referenced technical.appandices:.,"Appendix B.contains
...the methodology used.to.colle.ct, cite,@ categorize, and
,,analyze the statutory.and regulatory materials; Appendix C,
-'reports the data collected.for six Federal and six state
recreation-res.ource.agencies; Appendix D contains the 29
detailed case studies from which the specifics of current
.WRDPIconditions at Corps installations nation-wide are
and Appendix E is.a Eelected bibliography.

1-7

CHAPTER 1

PRESENT SITUATION

A. Legal Framework
1. Introduction
A review of the existing statutes and regulations which*
control the management of resources at.water resource devel-
opment projects (WRDPs) under the,control of the Corps of
@.Engineers, U. S. Department of the Army (Corps), was inte-
grated with the on-site study of 29 WRDPs selected for de-
tailed study. This legal review was-accomplished in four stages.
Initially, the statutory and regulatory authorities
,..were assembled. The collection was effected by surveying the
Un ited States Code both section-by-sectionand by key words,
:the latter being performed with the aid of" "JURIST'.', a com-.
puter system made available by the U. S. Department of
'.Justice, and through review of various compendia. The titles
of relevant OCE regulations were selected from U. S. Denart--
ment of the.Army, Office,-Chief of Engineers, Military.Publi-
cations, Index of OCE Directives and Publications Mledia
(EP 310-1-1, 1974).

The authority and responsibility to r-tanage the resources
of a particular project'are derived from Congressional
directives which are either specific or general. For example,
th.e.authorizing legislation for a given 147RDP directs the
Corps to operate and maintain that specific facility. Such
legislation, often a part of an omnibus Flood Control or
Rivers and 11arbors Act, designates.the particular purposes
Znd unique aspects of a given WRDP, either directly or by
reference to the appropriate House Document describing the

olans and specifications for the dam, reservoir or other
proposed worksi

The second and more-diverse category of relevant laws
consists of-those statutes which deal in more deneral terms-
--with resource management. A portion-of these laws apply to
:the Corps exclusively,,others apply to all,.Fede.ral..resource
management agencies, 'and,other apply to other specific
@'agencies exclusively.

All statutes.and regulations.material-to the study were
:,reviewed and summarized. The summaries were further reviewed
.and-clas-sified:according to a general topic outline which
''recognized fivemajor areas of authority and responsibility:
@public recreation; fish and wildlife enhancement; DriVate or
commercial activitieson Federally owned property;.resource
.conservation;.and environmental quality.

Thereafter, as an aid to analysis, the summiaries were
organized into two working documents. The first was a comni-
lation of summaries arranged by United States Code reference
for statutes and.by.Engineering..Reauldtion JER) number for
Corps regulations. The second organized each summary accord-
.ing*to its classification within. the general topic outline.
As a further aid,-the summaries, organized pursuant to
the outline, were elaborated upon. The elaborations, including
practical applications from the field experience and the full
tjext of the statutes and,ERs were relied upon.in making the
various legal analyses required for the study.
The review indicated that generally the Corps now has
91
hroad authority to manage multi-purpose WRDPs. Outlined
below are themaj@or authorities relevant to each area encom-
passed by the general tonic outline en umerated, above. The

1-2

.outline is a general introduction to thelegal framework
within which the Corps manages WRDPs. The body of law from
iwhich.the outline is derived is both vast and intricate and is
readil@ susceptible to a high degree of simplification.

2. Recreation
The Chief of Engineers is authorized to construct,
.maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities
-.at.WRDPs under the control of the Department of the Army
(Flood Control Act of 1944, 54, as amended, 16 USC 5460d).
.The Army is further required to give full consideration to
the'opportunities a given project affords foroutdoor recrea-
.tion (Federal Water Project Recreation.Act, Sl, 16 USC
S4601-12). Additionall whenever a project can serve both
y
the water resource purpose for whichit was proposed and the-
enhancement of recreational onoortunities, the recreational-
potential will also be develoved inaccordance-with,the
Yarious statutory constraints (516 USC 54604-12). Consonant
with the law,. adequate interestsAn land are acquired for
the realization'of optimum present and future outdoor reqrea-
tional potential (Planning and Project Aut@orization Civil
Works Projects,.ER 405-2-150; see also 16 USC 54.60Z-14(b)).

In generaL, the public must be,given open access to and
,from,the [email protected] of any.WRDP fo'r.the purposes of, boating,
swimming, fishing and other recreational.activities (16 USC
5460d). Unless an area is designated to be included with'
in
a,national recreation area, a national forest, or some other
Federally sponsored program,,or.a non-Federal public body,
agreesto administer a completed facilityand to assune the
costs of one half the construction and all the operation and
maintenance, the Coras since 1965 may develop only minimal

1-3

recreational facilities which are required for public
health and safety (Federal Water Project Recreation Act,
551-3, 16 USC 460z-12-14). All planning for the development
of recreational facilities at a given project is to be coor-
dinated with existing and planned Federal, state, or local
facilities and to the extent feasible should be consistent
with the statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan
sponsored by the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR)
(Federal Water Project Recreation Act, ss1, 6(a), 16 USC
s5460z-12 and 17).
Non-Federal public bodies can receive financial support
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to help defray the develop-
ment of Federal ands which are under lease to states (Land
and Water Conservation Fund act, s6, as amended, 16 usc
s460z-8(e)). Although the fund is also available for numberous
Federal recreational programs, the Corps does not participate
(Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, s7, as amended, 16 USC
s460z-9(a)).
No admission fees of any kind may be charged for entrance
into any Corps recreation areas. Daily use fees may be charged
at certain recreational facilities: such fees, however, may
be charged only for a specialized outdoor facility which has
been provided at Federal expense. In no event may the Corps
assess a fee for the following: drinking water, wayside
exhibits, roads, overlook sites, visitors' centers, scenic
drives, toilet facilities, picnic tables, and in most instan-
ces, boat launces. Additionally, whenever camping is per-
mitted at a project, the Corps must provide at least one

1-4

,primitive campground, without charge, at.whi.ch.desianated
campsites, sanitary facilities, and vehicular access.are
,available (Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, S4, as
amended, 16 USC S460Z-6).

The Secretary of the Army may grant leases of land
including the structures or facilities thereoh-for such
''periods, upon such terns, and forsuch purposes as.he may
deem reasonable in the public interest. Whenever.outgrants
.,are made, preference is given to Federal, state and local
.,governmental Agencies. A lease or licenseto such agency or
anon-proffit organization may be granted without monetary
..consideration (16 USC 54.60d). Recreational leases are granted
.for various purposes including [in order of priority es'tab-.
lished in Leases (ER 405-1-830)1:

(a) state facilities
commercialconcessions
(c). the recreational activities ofnon.pr6fit
organizations,
(d) private recreational uses.
In addition, lands'which have been retained fo r'other project
Purposes or for future recreational development may be leased.
for.agriculture or razing (Management andUtilization of
9
Civil Works Lands, ER 405-2-835).

The Corps is required to inventory its propertI from
time to time to determine what properties are excess and,to
-dispose of those properties in acco rdance with regulations
promulgated by,the General Services Administration (GSA).:

1-5

(Federal Property and Administrative Services Act off 1949,
40 USC S�471-475). Annual reports are filed which describe
properties deemed to be underutilized in the sense that
their oresent use is irregular or intermittent; properties
superAfluous toa program; properties suitable for better
purposes; or properties the operation and.maintenance costs
of which are too hiah relative to similarly .utilized proper@
ties., Those areas judged to-be underutilized are disposed of
as excess or surplus property, either by the GSA.or the
Secretary of the Army (Government Management: Property
Management, 34 CFR.5231). The Secretary of the Army is
specifically authorized to offer cottage site's. for sale if
he determines the lands are not otherwise needed-for public
recreation, or other project purposes (Actof August 6, 1956,
16 USC �460e), but as noted, this use of public land is.
afforded very low priority.
Activities at any Corps WRDP are governed by rules
and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Army.
In no case may a use be permitted which would be inconsistent
with the laws.for the protection.of fish and game of the
state in which the project ia situated (16 USC 5460d).

3. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
When not inconsistent with the orimary purposes of a
project, the Corps is required tomake adequate provision for
the conservation,.maintenance, and management of wildlife
.resources (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,_53, as amended,
16 USC S663(d); Flood Control Act of 1938, 51, 33 USC 5540).
The term "wildlife resources" is defined to include birds,
fish, mammals and all othe r classes of wild animals and all
types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is

1-6

dependent (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, �8, as added,
USC �666b). All planning for the development or modifica-@.
tion of a project is coordinated with the USF&WS (Fish and.
Wildlife Coordination Act, S2, as amended., 16 USC �622(a)).
The Corps may acquire lands, waters,.and interests therein,
'for wildlife conservation in connection with a @Oarticular
project subject to the same Congressional authorization
requirements as other project purposes (16 USC S663(c)).
Such areas are to be utilized in accordance.with a general
plan approved jointly by the Secretary of the.Army, the
secretary of the Interior, and the head of the state agency
exercising administration over wildlife resources in the
state in which the project is situated. The various areas
may be made@available to appropriate state agencies for
-administration (16 USC �460d; 633(b)).

Areas with fish and wildlife enhancement potential will.
".normally enjoy a minimal degree of development, absent an
agreement by 6 non-Federal.policy body to maintain and operate
a i.ven area. However, lands which potentially could be
developed by state agencies areheld in anticipation of such
an agreement for at least ten years after the initial opera-
tion of the project (Federal Water Project Recreation Act,.
�3, as amended, 16 USC S460Z-14(b)). Thelessee or licensee,
of a fish and wildlife area may be authorized by the Secretary
,.Of the Army to cut timber and harvest crops as is necessary
for the beneficial use of the area, and may collect and
utilizethelproceeds of any resulting sales for the develop-
ment, conservation., maintenance, and utilizat.ion,of the land
(16 USC 5460d).

in addition to the authorities cited above,.a multitude..
ol. Fod([email protected] state statutes bear upon the.management of

1-7

wildlife resources at Corps WRDPs. Of particular import
are: The Endangered Species Act; the National Wildlife
'Refuge System Act; and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

4. Private or Commercial Activities on Federally-Owned
Property
Approved private and commercial activitieson CorPs
properties involve a diverse grouping of rights and interests, 4L
e.g., an easement for powerline or Pipeline,:a concession,.or
an adjacent landowner's permit to use WRDP land, The Secretary
of th'e Army is.authorized.to,grant leases of land, including
.structures or1facilities thereon, for such periods, upon such
terms, and for such purposes as he may'deem reasonable in tfte
public interest (16 USC �460d). The-Chief of Engineers may
amend any lease for a commercial recreational facil.ity.to
.provide for a change in the amount of rental or other considr
eration payable to the United-States (PL 87-236, 16,USC
9460d-1). Seventy-five percent of all lease rentals are
.returned to the states in which the property is situated to
help defray the costs of,county government (Flood Control Act
of 1941, S7, as amended, 33 USC S701c-3).

The Secretary of the Army is authorized under a variety
af statutes togrant easements or rights-of-way. A review of
these authorities indicates the Secretary may delegate to the
:Chief of Engineers the authority to grant an easement for
rnearly any purpose, so long as the public interest is pre-
served. When read together these authorities*give the
Secretary the power to grant an easement for an unspecified
length of time to a state, a political subdivision thereof., a
corporation,-or an individual, for all required lands for any

1-8

-purpose. An easement may be terminated on account of:, (1)
failure to comply with the terms of the grant; (2) non-use
for two years; or (3) abandonment (PL 87-852, SS 1-4, 40 USC
5�319-319c; Act of August 10, 1956, 10 USC �2668). In
addition, specific authorities existfor the granting of ease-'
ments for particular purposes, including power and pipelinest
.roads, streets, railroad tracks, ferry landings, bridges, and
,.livestock crossings.

Use of land-and water areas by adjoining landowners may
..be permitted where such use is not inconsistent with planned
or present uses of the area, and where such use will-not deny
the general public access to the shoreline. Permits may be
issued under'Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), by
..the District Engineer in the form of a simple authorization
to perform an'act which w.ould ct.herwise.constitute a trespas's
orencroachment (Management and Utilization of Civil Works
Lands, ER 405-2-835).

5. Conservation
Responsibility for the conservation.of the nation's natu-
ral resources rests primarily with. the Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture. Accordingly, the vast majority of
statutory directivesin this area pertain.primarily and
directly to these departments, and often only secondarily or
indirectly to the Department ot the Army.
An exception to this general rule is the requi.rement that
Aands owned in fee by the Army are to be developed and main-
.tained to promote adequate and dependable future resources of
..readily available timber and to increase the value of such
areas for conservation, recreation, and other beneficial
uses (PI, 86-717.,,�Sl, 2, 16 USC SS580m-n)., To implement this
policy, the Chief of Engineers may provide for the protection

1-9

and developmeht,.of forests and other vegetative cover and is
required to establish and maintain other conservation measures
at reservoir areas under his jurisdiction (16 USC 5�580m-n).

A diverse,Array of statutory authorities relate to the
protection of wilderness-areas. With.particularity, various
elements of the National Park'System, the National Forest
System and the National Wildlife Refuge System are concerned
with preserving natural settings in their wild state. The
National Wilderness Preservation System, created pursuant to
the Wilderness Act of .1964,.is composed of Federally owned
areas designated by Congress to secure for@the -American
,people "the benefits of.an enduring resource of wilderness"
(16 USC 51131).,

Similarly, the Wild and Scenic Rivets Act created a
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System which preserves in a
free-flowing condition those rivers or sections thereof which
are of outstandingly remarkable scenic or recreational value.
Rivers may be included by act of Congress or by.state action.
In planning the use and development of wat r a
e nd related land
resources, the Corps is required to consider a riverls poten-
tial as a Nationd 1 Wild and Scenic River (16 USC 5�12'.71-1287)..

6. Environmental Quality
The Secretary may promulgate such regulations for the
us,e of WRDPs as he deems necessary, including prohibitions
against the unauthorized.di.soosal ofrefuse or litter of 'any
kind either into the water or onto any land Federally owned
and administered by the Chief of Engineers. As noted pre-
viously, no project area may be used in a mannerwhich is
inconsistent with the laws for the protection of fish and game

.1-10

the state in which the project is situated (16 USC S460d)
secretary of the Army has authority to control the intro
of obstructions into navigable waters, e.g., docks,@.
or the dumping of dredged material therein (River and Harbor,
..Act of 1899, SiO, 33 USC S403; Federal Water Pollution Control
'Act Amendments of 1972, S404 33 USC S1344).
@Iithin the last decade, a number of environmentally-'
.@,oriented Federal statutes have been enacted in an attempt to.
Insure environmental quality by the regulation of various'
private and governmental activities, The mandate of.each
.,enactment extends to most Federal activities and therefore to
.,.the management of resources at Corps WRDPs.,
The National Environmental Policy Act of.1969 directs
..all Federal' agencies to adhere to certain substantive and
procedural requirements in making decisions.which affect the....,
environment. Before a major Federal action is undertaken
which might significantly affect the quality.of the human
environment, the Corps, using a multi-disciplinary approach,
...must first file an environmental impact statement discussing.
the environmental implications of the proposed action (4.2 USC
�4332).

The Clean Air Act imposes a number of requirements upon
t.he Corps relating to. the abatement of air pollution, includ-
ing compliance'with Federal,.state, interstate and local
@regulations gov .erning the control of air.poli.ution. (42. USC
'51.857f).

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1-9*72 provide that all Federal'agencies with jurisdicti
ion
over any property or facility, or which engage in an activity

that might result in 'the discharge of pollutants into naviga@-
ble waters, must comply with Federal state, interstate, and.
.local requirements governing the control of water pollution.
.The Act also prohibits a Federal agency from entering into a
procurement contract with any person who has been convicted
,of an offense under the enforcement provisions of the Act.
Finally, the Act, imposes a number of requirements on the
.issuance of permits and licenses by Federal agencie.s. In
general, an applicant for.a Federal license or permit must
provide the agency involved with state' certification that the
activity to be conducted on Fe'deral property will not result
in a discharge into navigable waters in violation of the
various provisions of the Act (33 USC �51323,.1341(a) (1),
and 1368(a)).

The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 provides that if a
Federal agency has jurisdiction over any real property or
facility, the operation of which involves the agency in solid
.waste activities or leads the agency into.contracts with any
persons for the operation of any Federal property or facility,
wherein the performance of such contract would involve such
persons in solid @%Taste disposal activities, that agency must
ensure compliance with the guidelines recommended under the
Act (42 USC 53254e(a)(1)). Furthermore, an executive agency
.Must comply with the guidelines recommended under the Act if
it engages in an activity which.generates-solid-waste or
which, if conducted by a person other than such-agency, would
require a permit,or license from the agency in order to dispose.
of the waste (42 USC S3254e(a),(2)). Finally, the Act requires
an executive agency which permits.the Use.of'Federal property
for solid.waste disposal purposes to adhere to guidelines.,under

1-12

the Act (42 U SC.S3254e(a)(3)).

s which
The Noise Control Act of 1972 requires all agencie
..have jurisdiction over property, or which themselves engage
in activity tha .tproduces noise, to comply wi .th Federali
-state, interstate, and local requirements governing the con-
,@trol and abatement of noise (42 USC 54903(b)).

Moreover, Executive Order 11752 requires the Chief of
Engineers, as well as the heads of all other Federal agencies,.
..to ensure that all facilities under their jurisdiction are
.designed, constructed, managed, operated, and.maintained
in@accordaiice with the mandates of various environmentally
oriented statutes,including thelaws enumerated above.
_(3 CFR 380).

B.. Corps Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Resources.
1. Genesis of Corps Civil Projects
The Corps is both a civil and.,military engineering and
construction agency. From its inception the,Cbrps has been
..concerned with civil functions. The Corps was the engineering
department of.the government which planned and executed-the
national internal improvements program initiated in the 1820's.
,Among the first projects undertaken were improvements of the
navigation of the Ohio and Mississippi Riverst the building of.
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, and the continuation of the
Cumberland Road. In.1852 Congress placed rivers and ha
rbors
@work gen.erally,under the Corpsol.and in 1917 provided that the
laws relating to the
improvement of rivers.and harbors apply
to works of improvement for flood control. Flood control work
for the nation as a whole was more definitely assigned to the
Corps by the provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1936.
a
.(33 USC SS70la-f, 701h)

a
Maass, Arthur A. 1951. Muddy Waters. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts..

1-13

2. Expansion of the Purposes of Water Resource Development
Corps water resource projects-are presently developed to
.meet specific local or regional problems and.include planning
.,for the development of entire river basins. Planning for each
,project involves comprehensive studies to ascertain optimum
development of water resources. Planning considerations
include navigation, flood control, generation of hydroelectric
powerl water conservation, domestic and industrial water
suppl@, pollution abatement, fishand wildlife, recreation,
other potenitialwater resource uses. .An example of a
multi-purpose project is J. Percy Priest whichwas authorized
and developed for recreation, generation.of hydroelectric
power, and flood control. Missouri River mainstem. reservoirs
;are other examples of,multi-purpose projects. In most Corps
WRDPs, nevertheless, flood control.and nagivatioh'remain the
dominant project purposes.
.3. Pro@'ect Characteristics that Influence Recreation,
Fish:and Wildlife

Recreation and fish and wildlife resources at WRDPs are
.influenced by avariety of characteristics. However, there
are some basic characteristics, such as project purposes,
@physical characteristics, and project location, which influ-
,ence the magnitude of.development, use, and quality of

ces.
recreation and fish and wildlife resour

Physical characteristics of a WRDP are controlled by
project purposes and the topography of the projectarea.
Existing projects range from a single navigation canal with
only one acre,oif upland to large multi-purpose reservoirs
occupying over 600,000 acres, At present, Corps WRDPs
reported in Recreation-Resource management System (RRMS 1973)@
.are comprised of 259 reservoirs,.140 locks, seven canals, and
,@one floodway; a.total of 407 WRDPs in the contiguous United

States.

1-14

Reservoirs constructed in areas of low to moderate
topographicalrelief are characterized by relatively wide
Tools, in relation to the length of reservoir, and have
@gradual slopes bordering the shoreline. Those cohstructed.in
rugged terrain are characterized by relatively narrow pools.
@steep slopes, and/or shoreline bluffs.

A WRDP may be one of a series of supporting projects-that
influence and ate influenced by collateral upstream or.down-
stream WRDPs. Such interrelated WRDPs occur along large river...
systems such as the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Some
WRDPs occur as single projects along small tributaries which
Anfluence only.the immediate area*

..Location of WRDPS in relation to urban, suburban, and
rural areas varies among and within individual Projects. At.
Old Hickory near Nashville, Tennessee, suburban sprawl has
oncom-Dassed the lower reaches of the project while the upper
reaches have remained rural. Other WRDPs located near met-
ropolitan areas., such as Colebrook River takenear Hartfordi
Connecticut, have remained surrounded by rural environments.

4. Recreation Resources
Six major Federal agencies provide recre6tion.areas,
Jacilities,. and services: BUI, NPS, USF&WS, BuRec, USFS,
and the Corns. In 1972 they administered over 283 million
acrest of which-the Corps is responsible for about 10.6
million acres or 3.7%- In 1972, the year of record for the
Nationwide Plan, Corps WRDPs recorded 323 million visits
(36.5%). During this same period, the NPS reported 212
million visits (23.9%), the USFS 184 million visits (20.1%),
the BI.M 92 million visits (10.4%), the BuRec 56 million

1-15

a
visits (6.3%), and the USF&WS 19 million visits (2.1%). By
1973, total visitation to all Corps WRDPs had increased by 16
million to 39 million in spite.of the year"ehd fuel crisis
(Table 1-1). Thes6 totals include all 50 states, the Common-'
wealth of Puerto Rico, and the trust territories.
In 1973, the Corps administered 407 WRDPs in 42 of the
48 contiquous staites.@ Administration is delegated by the
Chief of Engineers to ten Engineer Divisions and 34 Enqineer
Districts (Figure 1-1). There were 2,718,intensive.recrea-
tional areas which occupied*943,567 acres (Table 1-2). Of
these 2,719 WRDP recreation areas, the*Corps administered 1,911
areas, 38 were managed by other Vedeta,l agenciesi 16.4 were
.managed by state agencies, 252 were managed by.local-govern-
ments, and 153 were managed privately (RRMS 1973).. Facilities
w,ailable throughout all Corps WRDPs@included 54,093 picnic
sites, 51,364.campsites, 444 group areas,.2,536 boat launch
ramps, 679 swimming beaches, 502 bath/change units, 751
miles of hiking traili and 311 concessi .ons.. Visitation to
these lands andfacilities in the contiguous states reached
262,493,307 in 1973 (Table 1-1)i

Many different organizations have taken a dvantage of
the Corps' outgrant policies'by establishing water-based
recreationAl areas.,at WRDPs at costs generally dependent upon',
the type of organization, the nature of the proposed use, and@,
physical site characteristics.

Governmental agencies and special districts may acquire
outgrants for recreational purposes without charge. In

a,
rhese data are quoted from: U. S. Department of the Interior,
.Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 197-3. Outdoor Recreation: A
!,@ac@ for America. The document does rT3`tdistinguish among
the several methoas used by Federal agencies to report recrea-

1-16

Table 1-1 Water Resource Development Project Attendance
by Engineer Division, 1973a.
Division Project Attendance No. Districts

Lower Mississippi River 31,563,800 4
Missouri River 23,724,500
New England 4,546,600 1
North Atlantic. 2,058,300 3
North Central 29,800,500 4
North Pacific 14,400,000 3
Ohio River 71,971,400 4
South Atlantic 53,436,400 5
South Pacific. 9,725,800 3
Southwestern- 97,870,600 5
Total 10 339,097,900b 34

a RRMS 1973.
b 262,443,307visits to 407 WRDPS in the contiguous 48 states.

tion visitation. Suffice it to say that the Federal agencies
have not fully followed the implementation provisions of
Recreation.Advisory Council. 1965. Federal Executive Policy
Governing the Reportinq of Recreation Use of Feder@i-i-Recreation
A.reas. G. P. 0. WashingTon, D. C..

1-17

4
7
A

A
- t ft A 4!
T4! C r

S o
S T

co
f sl'
% .0 u
0_@, v I s 1 0
V@LL
L -jo

0 V S 1 0

1-1 -LAS" DISTRICT.
j-rQJ.R'E*S. ILNC@ORAGC
AL-%-4. IS I-ICLUDIED IN
I.( 408T. PACIrIc DIVISION. T.C, IERRITORY OF PU[Pfo RICO
THE STATE Or HAWAII AND AQJ.C[#ir ISLANDS is
A.N.1 [email protected] IN TOE PACIFC ARE INIC'LL:011) IN INCLUDED IN JACKSONVILILt DISTRICY.
wo.,OUILU OMTRICT. PAC-rtC OCW DfVtS*N. SOUTK At LANTIC DIVISION.
*:IN WfADQUARIM A7 IrjkO%VtU. HAWAII

Table 1-2 Recreation Areas, Acreage, and Visits by State at Corps
Water Resource Development Projects, 1972.

State No. of Acreage Visitation
Recreation Corps Non-Corps Corps Non-Corps
Areas Recreation Recreation
Areas Areas

Alabama 110 12,862 416 3,888, 681 222, 766
Arizona 2 0 8,892 0 57,800
Arkansas 155 23,038 2,262 18,716,960 1,955,966
California 47 1,424 9,377 2,485,400 8,480,200
Colorado 4 1,900 2,150 121,200 253,700
Connecticut 11 2,520 4,355 751,262 265,800
Delaware 7,775 10 153,500 0
.,.Florida 15 7,099 0 757,199 0
Georgia 227 15,609 11,262 8,499,579@ .5,235,699
Idaho 91 3,866 1,112 304,000 1,107,800
Illinois 90 38,075 38,854 5,711,088 2,322,231
Indiana 57 37,873 19,308 656,560 3,627,337.
Iowa 59 5,025 25,132 3,894,500 10214,924
Kansas 93 13,896 7,956 6,161,700 3,111,6bo
Kentucky @156 76,053 17,337 7,534,377 5,138,428
Louisiana 8 40 1,700 201,300 157,400
Massachusetts 29 5,119 91099 .1,718,900 .771,100
'Maryland .1 45 0 33,200 0
Mi chigan 2 8 0 967,806 0
19 857 113 1,258 460 48,800
Mississippi 67 4,769 10,321. .1,047,877
Missouri 93 12,116 6,021 7,747,697 1,743,518.
Montana 13 3,731 2,075 565,100 90,500
-ol
N., C. it ina 24 2,664 1,035,895 989,900
N. Dakota .49 3,903 4,891 1,050,240 712,880

1-19

Table 1-2 (Continued),

State No. of Acreage Visitation
Recreation Corps Non-Corps Corps Non-Corps
Areas Recreation Recreation
Areas Areas

Nebraska 23 1,688 1,251 928,440 560,600
New Mexico 9 .208 742 133,506 289,500

New Hampshire 15 3,351 7,853 342,300 183,500
New York 6 25 4,419 600 618,931
Ohio 93 15,396 41,129 4,439.,609 15,312,620

Oklahoma 202 36,273 31,426 18,946j900 8,121,700

Oregon 81 724 2,743,343 3,322,624

Pennsylvania 52 27,797 23,966 4,374,875 1,412,998-
S. Dakota 82 17,731 5,269 .3,44@3,800 1,290,600
S. Carolina 80 4,113 3,253 21,7420995 934,240

Tennessee 144 7,863 4#104 9,896#330 2#578,920

Texas 240 45,742 7#771 27,788,629 4#648,000
Virginia 44 3,591 2#931 2,213,350 374,100

Vermont 9 4#897 857 336,500 38,400

W. Virginia .51 .8# 943 4,947 3#224,862 658,080

Washington 40 84#997 4#614 2#703,974 2,039,093

Wisconsin 12 382 240 197,260 78,500

Totals (42) 2,524 542,935 3331,004 164,630,362 81#018,632
2,524 875,939 245,648,994 b

aRRMS 1972.
bVisitation at WRDPs in the 48 contiguous states; 77.4 million visits
were reoorted at Corps WRDPs in the non-contiguous.states, territories'
and-the-Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

1-20

1973, the outgrants to governmental agencies totaled 512,299
acres (Table 1-3). The salutory effect of these Federally
acquired lands is shown in Table 1-4.

Religious groups, youth organizations, and charitable
organizati ons.may acquire outgrants at a minimal fee-which
in some cases is one dollar per term of the lease or a dollar
per year. Such organizations administered 25,933 acres for
recreation purposes at Corps TIRDPs.in 1974 (Table 1-5).
Private groups, such as sailing and fishing clubs, pay
an annual rent which is based on a percentage of the assessed
.land value. In 1974, outgrants for private recreation
accounted for 4,158 acres (Table 1-5).
There were 744outgrants.for commercial recreation pur-
poses on 14,133 acres (Table 1-5).,. Although concessions x)ro-.
vide a variety of services to the visiting public, most are
Marina,type services accommodating the boating public. Cdn@
cessioners pay an annual rent based on a fixed rate or a
fixed fee plus a percentage of gross receipts.
Income derived from the lease of concession sites, agri-
cult ure and.graz ing privilegest and other rents are deposited
In:a special account. Seventy five percent of these revenues
-.@ aredisbursed through the state governments to the county
..governments wherein the land leased is located. During the.
fiscal year that ended 30 June 1974, the Corps distributed
$3,715,061 to local governments in 42.of the contiguous states
(Table 1-6)

5. Fish and Wildlife Resources
Ujiland biotic communities associated with streams and
ri.vers afford.excellent wildlife habitat which is irretriev-
.ably lost when flooded. WRDP lands not inundated have high

1-21

Table 1-3 Summary of Acreage Outgranted to Non-Federal Agencies for Public Recreation by Engineer
Division.a

Acreage Outgranted for Public Recreation to
Engineer Division Municipalitiesi; Counties Sp. Districts States
Lower Mississippi Valley .182.5 1,084.3 595.5 25,687.9
Missouri River 1,530.7 .2,818.4 445.3 28,195.0
New England. 226.9 0 0 16,841.0
North Atlantic 316.3 478.0 0 9,828.6
North Central 1,180.8 31000.8 0 13,259.5
North Pacific 614.2 3,384.6 180.0 8,879.0
Ohio River 1,894.4 1#862.0 209.8 .302,713.7
South Atlantic 2t969.8 2,122.7 10,515.0 241387.2
South Pacific 4,709.2 S,294.7 0 10,056 .9.
Sof.ithwestern 5@842oO 2,415.3 0 33,977.6
Totals for Nation 19,466-8- @23,060.0 21-945.6 473,826.4

a. Office, Chief of Engineers, 1974. Suamary of outgrants-active, as of 31'December, 1974
Washington, D.C.

Table 1-4. Contribution of Corps Land to
Municipal, County and State
Park and Recreation Systems

Total Corps
Reported Outgrants

a b c
Municipal 938,100 22,412 2.4

b
County 1,2981700 23,061 1.8

d
State 5,483,200 473,826 8.6

e
15,771,500 1,440,245 9.1

a
includes city, township, park and recreation
districts and regional councils.

b
Regional, Community and Neighborhood Parks and
Recreation Areas.

c
fncludes outgrants to municipalities and special
districts.

d
Region,al,.Community and Neighborhood Parks and
Recreation Areas, and other areas.

e
Fish and Game Areas.

1-23

Table 1-S of Selqcrt@ed rpm Outgrants Acreage, a

Recreation Recreation Recreation Recreation Total
Agriculture wildlife Grazing commercial. Private - Public Park Quasi-Public
Division NO. Acres NO. Acres NO. Acres NO. Acres 50. AC;eb Acres No. - -.-Acres No. Acres

Lower
missis lippi
Valley 746 80,815.9 16 383,692.4 310 47,355.3 92 1,977.3 sell 1,294.2 67 28,612.5 2,262.5 2,133 546,210.1

Missouri
River 1,389 200,291.0 36 326,S99.9 527 81,205.2 39 2,145.2 465 297.4 70 369847.4 46 3,913.5 2,592 651,299.6
New mviland 34 1,384.6 9 14,676.0 2S 1,581.7 0 0 2 0 JS 17,067.9 1 1.8 86 34,712.0

North
Atlantic 34 1,7S4.4 7 14,866.2 6 119.5 S 15.7 121 80.3 20 10,622.9 4 3,447.9 197 30,906.9

north
Centra,l 306 24,686.0 25 165,870.7 30 1,944.1 30 301.6 698 553.3 79 17,585.3 24 409.7 1,192 211,349.7

H
I North
W Pacific 4 10.5 14 42,394.0 so 9,588.5 6 14.8 7 27.3 40 IS,153.5 1 67.0 152 67,45S.6
Ohio River 349 12,981.8 40 263,111.0 47 991.0 83 2,881.9 15. 115.6 106 301,89S.0 18 2,278.0 658 584,254.3

South
Atlantic 114 4,295.8 16 54,155.5 3S 1,843.6 41 1,625.4 262 1,05M 66 31,387.8 90 5,917.1 624 100,476.0

South
Pacific 56 8,182.3 1 22,BSS.7 40 21,202.4, 11 795.0 3 33.0 20 21,821.19 1 .29.3 132 74,918.6
Southwestern 1,314 208,310.6] 53 553,SS2.9 2,568 .437,718.3 437 4,156.4 218 705.9'. 74. 40,794.0 77 7,608.2 4.,741 -1,253,146.3
283 25,933.0 12,507 3,SS4,729.1
Total 4,346 S42,712.9 217 2,8424274.3 3,668 603,549.6 744 14,113.3' 2,692, 4,157.8 557 521,980.2
8office, Chief *f Ragineers. 2974. Bummary of outgrants-active, as of 31 March 1974. Washington, D. C.

Table 1-6\ Lease Monies Returned by the Corgs to Local
Governments in Fiscal Year 1974.
State Amount Returned ($)b

Alabama .6,191
Arkansas 162,643
California
184,790
Colorado 23,372
Connecticut 98,631
Delaware 3,765
rlorida
7,661
Georgia 148,615
Idaho 1,627,
Illinois 104,734
Indiana 27,170
Iowa 295,745
.Kansas 221,946
Kentucky 84,303
Louisiana 93,686
Maryland 386
Massachusetts. @4,199
Michigan 1,565
Minnesota 21,745

1-25

Table 1-6' (Continued)

b
State Amount Returned

Mississippi 282,912
Missouri .589,325,
Montana 5,652
Nebraska .89,834.
New Hampshire .2,621
New Jersey -40,438
New Mexico 1088
New York 374
north Carolina 3,859
North Dakota 89,102
Ohio 46,486
Oklahoma 529f,877
Oregon 7,836
Pennsylvania 98,059
South Carolina 11,498
South Dakota 48,080
Tennessee 80,153
Texas 347,715
Vermont ..135
Virginia 14,237

1-26

Table 1-6 (Continued)

State Amount Returned

Washington 10,807
West-Virginia 3,427
Wisconsin 7,772
Total 42 3,715,061,

a
Personal communication, 2;e November 1974, Office, Chief of
Engineers, Recreation ResourceManagement Branch, Washington,
.D. C.

b
Equals 75% of amount collected.

1-27

potential for substituting other species for wildlife lost.
At many Corps WRDPs, lands suitable for wildlife management
,are outgranted for grazing and agricultural purposes; in 1974,
1,146,262.5 acres were outgranted for these purposes versus
1,842,274 acres outgranted to stateand Federal agencies for
,.fish and wildlife purposes (Table.1-7).
WRDP fishery resources may receive intensive management
:designed to mitigate fishery losses, particularly when cold
water streams,are impounded, and,to enhance productivity by
habitat manipulation and stocking. Multi-level.fisheries
have been created at many Corps WRDPs providing fishermen
,with both cold.and.warm-water game fish. Additionally,
cold-water fish (usually trout) have been stocked in tail-
,races by state agencies on a put and takObasis to replace
.endemic warm water fisheries eliminated by cold reservoir

6. Attractiveness
In his work in landscape evaluation, Phillip H. Lewis,
Jr. devised an analytic system.based upon open water, wet-
land, steep topographyt and,mature vegetation. By combining
these factors, Lewis identified corridors of environmental
quality. During a Wisconsin test, valuableresources speci-.,
fically inventoried by many disciplines, such as foresters,
wildlife biologists, and historians, were plotted. Morethan
86% of the important resources were located within the corri-
dors defined by landscape evaluation. Later work by Lewis in
the North Central Engineer Division and elsewhere.showed that
on a scale of 1:250,000 the corridors followed the steep-edges@.
of natural water courses.,

Corps WRDPs have, of course, been largely. built within
these zones o f hi.gh environmental quality. The. combinations

1-28

Table 1-7. Corps Land Licensed for Fish and Wildlife
a
Management by Engineer Division

Acres Outgranted to:
Engineer Division USF&WS States

Lower Mississippi Valley 1,868.9 381,817.5

Missouri River 143,485.1 171,084.8

New England 0 14,676.0

North Atlantic 0 14,866.2

North Central 127,110.1 37,853.6

North Pacific 22,457.8 20,136.2

Ohio River 200.3 25i,131.3

South Atlantic 15,378.0 78,399.2

South Pacific 221855.7

..Southwestern 67,528.0. 467,424.9

Totals for Nation 378j028. . 2 1,440,245.4

a
Oft:ice' Chief of Engineers, 197.4. Outgrants-active, as of
'31 December 1913, Washington, D. C.

1-29

of lake size and diversity, superimposed upon a high quality
landsqape, mean that many Corps WRDPs are aesthetically
attractive.

This is borne out in thepreponderance of WRDPs that
report sightseeing and fishing as the number one or number
two recreation activity. This is consistent with.the,Nation-
wide Plan findings that "...the simple pleasures were the
a
most favored This must be tempered, of course, by supply.
..WRDPs without developed or designated camping areas do not.
report high camping participation. The attractiveness of
.these WRDPs begins to draw people@from the date they begin
operation. They have been created very largely at.national
.expense and th 'and fish and wildlife
e potential recreation-.
benefits to the nation, whether or not specifically recog-
nized in project authorizations, are very substantial.
Data pertinent to analyses of,publid willingness to pay
..for recreation and fish and wildlife opportunities at Corps
WRDPs are not generally available. Thus, recreation and fish
and wildlife enhancement contributions to regional economic
growth can only be inferred from a limited number of studies.@
For example, Knetsch found that a WRDP created a difference
in land value that is a benefit attributable to the project;
.comparable to the other forms of economic returns considered
-in project planning. Using data to approximate a TVA WRDP,
.he estimated average annual benefits of $160,677 in 1961
dollars. His work showed that these values are due mainly to
the value of the project as a recreational and Amenity
b
resource.

U. S. Department of the Interio r, Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, 1973. Op cit.

b
Knetsch, J. L. 1964. "Influence of Reservoir Projects
on Land Values". Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XLVI,
No. 1 (February).

1-30

'At Isabella, a Corps WRDP, there was a change from a
rural agricultural population of 1,000 to a tourist/recreation
a
,..population of 5,900, following,completion of the lake.

A decade later, work at the (7.orps' Tenkiller Ferry WRDP
suggests that recreation visitation, plus its corellary im-
pact upon population, accounted for annual increases (in 1970
dollars) of $4.0 to $4.3 million in personal income in a
b
,.,relatively small two-county area.

A study of four relatively small California WRDPs (7,012
to-10,796 acres) concluded that annual expenditures at or near
the rpspective' WRDPs which were attributable to its recreational
usage were: $2.-6 million at Lake Casitas, $4.4 million at Lake
c
Berryessa, and $4.7 million at Lake Elsinore.

nsibility for more diverse land management
Corps respo
seems destined to increase. The.r'eport'of a special citizens
group, acting at gubernatorial request,reviewed the Corps'
comprehensive plan for the Connecticut River Basin and re-
commended a combination of alternatives.to proposed structural
solutions, including Federal land acquisition (citizens Revi:ew
.Committee 1971).

Findings

a. The 407 existing,Corps WRDPs constitute a nation-wide
system of resource units comparable to the national Park system,
the national forest system, and the national wildlife refuge

.a CZRC Case Study, Appendix D.
bWarner, L., D. ID. Badger, and G. M. Lage. 1973. Impact
Study ofthe Construction and Operation of the I TPnk71-T-,Pr
.Ferr Lake, Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University, Still-
water Oklahoma..
C
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. 1971. Socio-economic Study
of Multiple-use Water Supply Reservoirs. office of Water
Resources Research, Washington, D. C.

1-31

system.

(1) Forty-two of the forty-eight contiguous states
,contain one or More Corps WRDPs.
(2) Corps.WRDPs occur.within.zones-defined by land-
scape analysts as corridors of.environmental quality. Lake
,size and diversity superimposed upon a high quality landscape
provide an attractive setting for all classes of water-oriented
recreation.

0) buring 1973, Corps WRDPs in the contiguous
states sustained 262.4 million visitor days of use.@

b. The present Corps WRDP system contributes signifi-
cantly to Federal, state, and local recreation and fish and
wildlife inventories. Corps land comprises:

(1) Approximately 1.2% (378,028 acres) of the land
in USF&WS refuges and game ranges.

(2) Approximately 8.6% (743,926 acres) of state
park acreage and 9.1% (1,440,245 acres).of state fish and
wildlife lands.

(3) Approximately.2.4% (22,412 acres.) of the area
in municipal park systems and 1.8%.(23,061 acres) of the land
in county recreation use.

c The Corps has broad statutory authority to plan,
develop, and operate public recreati on facilities, manage
forest resources, cooperate in fish and wildlife management,
and permit use and development of public land; but the
authority is diffused throughout Federal law and is permissive
rather than directive.

1-32

(1) Corps recreation-resources management programs
at WRDPs completed prior to 1965 are premised on Section 4,
Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 USC �460d), the Fish and Wild-
life Coordination Act (16 USC �663d), and Section 1, Flood
Control Act of 1938 (33 USC S540). The acts authorize public
vm
park and recreation facilities but only require adequate pro-
vision for wildlife resources when consistent with primary
project pruposes.

(2) The Federal Water Project Recreation Act (16
USC �4601-12) requires that full consideration be given to
outdoor recreation at all WRDPs completed after 1965 and
requires cost sharing by non-Federal participants.

(3) A portion of the Corps' legal framework consists
of the Clean Air Act (42 USC S1857f), Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 USC SS1323, 1341(a) (1),
and 1368(a)), the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (42 USC
S3254e (a) (1) et. seq.), the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 USC �4332), and other generally applicable
Federal statutes.

1-33

CHAPTER 2

CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY

Analysis of the Corps' management of its extensive sys@
of resource areas described in Chapter 1 was primarily
'based upon data gathered through intensive field study of a
.,representative.sa.mple of existing WRDPs. It was therefore
:,necessary to exercise great care in establishing the basic
framework within which the field,study would be executed.
.The.objective of this chapter is to acquaint.the reader with
the process by which the individual WRDPs were.selected to be
case studies, the procedures guiding the collection.of data
.from the related sample of WRDPsF and the manner by which the
data gathered in the case studies were organized and pre-
.sented.

@A.l Case Study Selection Factors
Criteria for the selection of.the representative-sample
.of. existing WRDP.s were established on the basis of CZRC's
experience with'the operation of Corps WRDPs and a prelimi-
reading' by Fried, Frank,, Harris, Shriver and Kampelman,
@.CZRC's subcontractor, of those statutes identified by OCE as%
-central to Corps authority in the fields of recreationj
f ish and wildlife, And land use.

Theselection of a representative sample, from among 407
WllbPs nation-wide, was based upon two sources of national 'data
provided by OCE: (1) Recreation-Resources Management'S Istem
y
JRRMS 1973) computer output reports "A" through "H".as of 31
December 1973;',and (2) a computer listing of all active out-

2-.1

grantees on record with the Real Estate Directorate (RED) as
of 31 December 1973, together with a description of each out-
'grant instrument.

Differences in the physical characteristics, the range
and complexity of recreation and fishand wildlife programs,
and the management practices at the WRDPs were related to
12 different selection factors. These.factors are identified

herein:
1. Geographic Location: The sample contained a minimum
@of at least two WRDPs-within each Engineer Division.. Further,
twelve of the sixteen water resource regions,recognized by
@the U. S. Water Resources Council were represented. Such a
geographic range of WRDPs was thought to.pr ovide'a range of
hydrological,'economical, environmental, and social settings
which would be useful in comparing different effects and im-

pacts.
2. Concentration of. Corps Activity: The@sample contain-'
ed five WRDPs within the Ohio River Engineer Division, which
had the largest number of WRDPs (127); four within the South
.Atlantic Engineer Division (33); four WRDPs within the South-
.western Engineer Division (70); three WRDPs within the North
Central Engineer Division (52);.three WRDPs within the North
,Pacific Engineer Division (27); and two WRDPs in each of the
remaining five Engineer Divisions (average 20).
3. Land Acquisition Policies: On the assumption that
the amount, configuration, and specified.use'of land acquired
for authorized WRDP purposes depended upon legislative and/
.or Federal agency policy in effect at the time of land acqui-
sition, WRDPs were selected which would represent the his-

2-2

torical evolution of policies affecting Corps reservoirs.
For example, authorizations of the 29 sample WRDPs spanned
82 years of.Corps activity (1880 to 1962).
4. Complexity of Shoreline Management: Two indices of
shoreline management complexity were used. The first, total
l.ength of shoreline created by the WRDP, ranged in the sample
from 9to 2,250 mi-Les (mi). The second, the number of per-
m1ts, letters of authorization, or other instruments issued
for piers, docks, and associated*purposes, ranged in the
sample from zero to 2,689.

5. Water Surface Management: two indices of water sur-.
.race management difficulty were utilized. The first, total
.water surface, ranged in the sample rrom 650 to 313,OGO acres
at normal pool elevation. The second index considered
whether or not an interstate body of water was created by the
WRDP. The sample included ten interstate water'bodies.

6. 'Relation with Other Federal Agencies:@ The sample
included eight WRDPs where project lands.and resources inter-
act with lands and resources administered by the USFS. A t six
of the@selected WRDPs some Corps land and/or facilities are
administered by -the USF&WS, although one of those licensed
to usr.,&ws is jointly,managed with the BLM. Finally, three
of@,the selected WRDPs involve, the.interests of Indian tribes.;...

7. Relations with StateGovernments: Application of
this factor involved selecting.those WRDPs showing the la rgest
acreage outgranted to agencies of state governments. The
sample includes four WRDPs where the entire project area,
except that reserved for project operation, was outgranted to
state agencies.and nineteen where varying portions of pro-
ject area have been outgranted to state agencieso

.2-3

8. Urban vs. Rural Setting: The.number of miles.separat-
ing a WRDP from the nearest Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) was considered as an index of the urban impact upon
the project. Five of,the sample WRDPs are within five mile's
of an SMSA, fourteen are more than five but less than fifty
.,miles from an SMSA, and the remaining ten are more than fifty
,miles from an SMSA.

9. Size of Corps Management Responsibility: The number
of acres held in fee sample by the Corps is the index associ-
ated with this factor. WRDPs in the sample range from 188.to,
589,774 acres.
10. Recreation Visitor Usage: WRDPs reporting large 1973
attendances, large numbers of Corps-managed recreation areas,
and large numbers of commercial recreation outgrants were
selected for.comparison with WRDPs having smaller correspond-
ing statistics, in order to reflect possible differences in
mAnagement problems. Included in the sample are WRDPs which
repo rted 10,432,900 visits, and have 24 commercial recreation
outgrants directly issued by the Corps.
11. Interrelationships With Other Project-Purposes: The
ability to compare recreation and fish and wildlife manage-
ment approaches with other project uses and purposes was
enhanced by representing in the sample all possible project
purposes according to RRMS 1973 data. a

aUnfortunately, Engineer Districts do not rep ort "Project
Purposes" in the same way. Some Districts report recreation
and fish and wildlife as a "project purpose" for every pro .Ject
under the general authorities cited in Chapter 1; other
Districts report only those purposes specifically authorized
by Congress (usually the House Document, as reported in
Chapter 1). CZRC case studies report only those purposes
specifically authorized by Congress. The error in data used
for sample selection may have.weakehed the examination and
analysis of fish and wildlife problems.

2-4

12. Complexity of Real Estate Programs and Practices:.
The record of outgrants made for recreation and resource-
related purposes (e.g., agriculture, grazing, private recre-
ation, and quasi-public recreation) was examined and WRDPs
with large huMbers of outgrants Covering a variety'of uses
and large acreages were included in. the sample.

Comparisons of OCE data,.tabulated and ordered accord-
..:.ing to the twelve selection factors, were instrumental in,
the identification of WRDPs-to OCE as the sample, Following
OCE review' of the selection criteria and therecommended.,
WRDPs, an additional WRDP was.included in the-sample by OCE,
,.and CZRC was authorized to initiate the research and field
work. The 29 WRDPS evaluated are shown on Figure.2-1.
B. Relevance of the Saml2le
The 29 WRDPs selected for evaluation encompass 28% of
the project acreage and 35% of the shoreline miles of all
Corps projects (Table 2-1), and 19% of the intensive Corps-
managed recreational acreage at all Corps projects. They
also account for.18% of the 1973 attendance at Corps areas.,
Sixty-eight percent of all attendance occurred at Corps-
managed areas for the projects.evaluated whereas nationally
63%.of the totalattendance at WRDPs..was at Corps-rianaged
areas.

The 1 a Corps dis-
projects selected for study involve 8
tricts responsible for the administration of 240 projects

a
RRMS 1973 data indicate.theselected projects involve 19
engineer districts; jurisdiction of John Day was being
transferred. from the Portland Engineer-District to the
Walla Walla,.Engineer District during the study period.

C A N A D A

*45@

00111IT ASOTA&LA
140

MINN
ORE

WIS
S 0.

WY
I FOS
Coce
IOWA
HE a. OIAIO
L
ILL. 'IND.
UTAm
COL
MO. J KY.
'CALIF KAN.
C1
a pw@
!tot! Ll TENN. mw
0
q0KRT 3 ME#* ARK S C
OKLA, 0 CLAAM pULL,
EUFAULA
A0JIZ 0 OUACmITA %
Au M TEXwA SLACK WARSHO* OIL. L\
MISS.
ALA-
fs BLUFF II.

TEXAS. LA-

0 M -E X 1 0,
C
0

0
Figure 2.1 Water Resource Development Projects Studied MILES
*45.

IRE

Table 2-.1. Relationships Between the 29 I-later Resource Development Projects Evaluated
and All Corps Projects.

of Total
Tatal 1973
Total Total Attendance Attendance.
Total Acreage Attendance at Corps at'l.corps-
Tota- Shoreline in all Recreation Managed Managed
Total Acreage Miles in Total Intensive Areas: 1973 Recreat.on
Recreation
Project in Fee Simple Acreage Recreation- (Number of Areas: 1973 Areas (S
Acreage Fee Simple (Actual) Outgranted Corps areas) (Number of Areas) of areas)

29 WRDPs Evaluated .2,7,3.4,,a 2,201,056a ll-,61'a 748,373 b 46, 684c 43,476,844 d 29,518,304 d 67.9
(12,723) (571) (447) (78.3)
All Corps Projects 9,870,64e 6,461,864' 33,078a 3,800,821 f 241,7239 262,608,506d 164,065,226d 62.5
(43,279), - (2,718) (21911) (70.3)

Case Study Sazple
as % of National 28.3 34.4 35.1 19.7 19.3 16.6 18.0
Zotals (29.4) (21.0) (73.4)

a
Appendix D. case Studies, Resource Statistics Tables.

b
Appendix D, Case Studies, Summary of Outgrants Tables.

c
RRKS. 1973. 1973 annual reports for respective WRDPs.. Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C.

d
RPUMS - 19731. Report Z>-4. total CY73 attendance at Corps projects with breakout.of attendance occurring at Corps managed recreation areas and recreation
areas mAnased by others.. Office, Chief o! Ergineers,,Washinqton, D. C.

PJU@S- L971. Report D-8; land and'water area.at Corps projects. Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C.
toffice, Chief of Engineers. 1973. Outgrants-MI-activer outgrant listing of active-grants (ac
tive as of 31 December 1973). Washington, 0. C.
9RRMS, 1973. Report r.-13: summary of land and water management (acres)s division-district totals. office, Chief of.Enginders, Washington, D. C.

.(59% of all Corps projects) which received a total 1973 atten-
-dance of 226,7921400 (67%'.,, of which 105,021,767 (64%) were
at 1,379 Corps-managed recreation areas (72%) (Table 2-2).

C. Data Collection
The data collection process followed a.plan which was
.established and refined prior to the start'of the actual field
Work. This plan included the preparation of a detailed for-
,mat for data collection and a schedule for field worki
The data collection format was initially established in
a Preliminary Development Scenario, a document based on pre-
liminary information, postulated information requirements,
and the need for data cross-checking andluniformity. Ouide-
lines for the uniform collection of data during personal
inte rviews were contained therein. Additionally, the
scenario contained standardized procedures for defining an
analytical unit, and for determining the regional setting
or geographical perspective of each WRDP.
The field work schedule invol ved travel and appointments
for six to eight personnel organized into three to'four sur-
vey teams over a 15-week period to inpsect and to Analyze
@each of the sample WRDPs. Each survey team consisted of a
basic two-person crew; one member specializing in planning/
administration and one specializing in fish and wildlife
bioloqy. When.warranted by complexity, additional personnel
.were added to the basic team assigned to a specific WRDP.
The maximum field strength for a single project,was four
for Old Hickory and J. Percy Priest..

Prior to each field survey, the evaluation team was pro-
vided with a package of existing data which characterized
the specific WRDP to be visited. Data consisted of RRMS 1973

2-8

Table 2-2. Characteristics of Districts Containing the 29 Water Resource Development
Projects Selected for Study.a

Attendance Total Number
Attendance Total Corps- of Corps-
Number all Number of Managed Managed
of Recreation Recreation Recreation Recreation
District Projects Areas: 1973 Areas Areas Areas
Baltincre 6 974,300 6 0 0

Little Rock 20 25,913,200 153 143

Los Angeles .8 5,340,100 13 0 0

Memphis 1 1,743,800 19 1,526,695

Mobile 18 32,582,100 282 10,8161754. 241

Nashville 26,391,600 226 13,265,700. 168

New England 31 4,546,600 65 3,131,600 42

Omaha 10 10,402,700 152 5,027,200 104

Philadelphia 4 991,900 .5 504,459 3

Pittsburgh 36 12,3711200 75 5,093,700 52

Rock Island 14 16,688,100 201 3,767,200 37

Sacramento 8. 3,012,700 .34 2,288,440 30

Savannah 3 12,188,400 156 5,426,201 129

Seattle 5. 1,450,80*0 17 1,504,840 16

St. Paul 26 12,102,900 .36 2,038,200 32

Tulsa 27 41,791,000 277 24,826,715 226

-ahlle 2-2. @Continued)

Attendance Total Number
Attendance Total Corps- of Corps-
Number all Number of Managed Managed
of Recreation Recreation Recreation Recreation
District Projects Areas: 1973 Areas Areas Areas-

Vicksburg 7 13,733,000 117 11,812,500 106

Walla Walla 8 4,568,000 59 2,376,763 38

Study District
Totals 240 226,792,400 1,893 105,021,767 1,379

NationRl Totals 407 339,097,900 2,718 164,065,226 1,911

tQ Study District
Totals as % of
.National Totals 59.0 66.9 69.6

aRRMS. 1973., Report D-4: total CY73 attendance at Corps projects with breakout of attendance occurring
at Corps managed recreation areas and recreation areas managed by others. Office, Chief of Engineers,
Washington, D. C.

data, a RED listing of active outgrants, project brochures,
and U4 S. Geological Survey maps at 1:250,000 and 1:24,000*
sca@e.

Engineer District, state, and WRDP site visits were made
for-each WRDP selected for study. In the Engineer District
Offices,.interviews were generally.held with personnel in
,the engineering, planningoperations, and real estate
divisions and their respective branche s and/or sections. In
addition to the collection of policies, practices, opinions,.
.And file data during the interviews, numerous project docu-
ments (such as real estate and public facilities design
memoranda) and related literature were,obtained. At the
state level, information was generally..collected from per-
sonnel within state planning, fish and wildlife, parks
and recreation, pollution control, and other-recreation
resource and environmental agencies. At each WRDP site,
corps project personnel, and other Federal (e.g., USF&WS and
USFS),state, local, and regional personnel provided informa"
tion through interviews, file material, project literature
and reports, and by guided field tours. More limited contacts
Were also made with home, business,*and.land owners.in that
part of the analytic unit contiguous, to the project area,
4nd-personnel from banks and*savings and ioaninstitutions,
citizens groups., homeowner.associations,. and independent
governmental agencies@(e.g., the.Missouri River Basin Commis-
slion). Efforts were made during all field visits to inter-
view personnel who were familiar with or had first-hand know-
ledge of the WRDP under consideration.

.D.z.@ta and information gathered during the field surveys
varied significantly in scope and detail. Uniform, comparable
(]UantiLative information on a ran.ge of topics originally

2-11

outlined in the'Development Scenario, such as water quality,
private sector impacts, contribution to local tax bases, and
effect on local community facilities and services., were
generally not available. Qualitative information concerning
these and other factors was gathered when available.@ Quanti-
tative information was, however, available for factors such,
as acreage outgranted, project area, visitationt area popula-
tion, and Corps organization. In-some instances, this infor-
mation was ift conflict with.informatioh.compiled by field
crews-from OCE sources before going into the field. Further,.
there were also instances in which the information.concerning
a-particular WRDP gathered from district, state,.and local
sources appeared to,be in conflict., Upon returning from the
field, frequent follow-up discussions,with district and pro-.,
ject personnel concerning particular.WRDP data conflicts
aided in clarifying some of the discrepancies.

D. Data Presentation
The data.collection for each WRDP visited was presented
in a standardized case study report format which was organi-
zed to facilitate (1) a discussion of quantitative and
qualitative information (including data'gaps or conflicts),
(2) adetailed consideration of each individual.WRDP, and
(3) comparisons of data among WRDPS.. Four major headings
were selected as the means of data.presentation".

1. Setting: Considered under.this topic was the geo-
graphic and jurisdictional location of the WRDP and, where
appropriate, population, proximity to major urban areas., key
transportation routes, travel distances, and the WRDP's proxi-
mity to other related projects. A map of the WRDP showing
significant locational features was presented. Authorized

'2-12

purposes and legislative citations were provided. Signifi-
cantfeatures of the WRDP including drainage area, lake size
at various pool levels, total project acreage, engineering
a.nd operational considerations, and topographical charac-
teristics were given. Resource statistics for each WRDP
were tabulated according to a standard format so entries
among the WRDPs could be compared.

2. Land use, recreation, and fish and wildlife con-
siderations: A. statement of the analytical unit for each
WRDP provided background information concerning WRDP impact
,on the surrounding area, impact of the surrounding area on
tf.ie WRDP, and general land.use con.siderations...Discussions
about ownership indicated the extent of public and private
interests in land within the analytical unit.

Each identified WRDP resource was considered in
terms of its characteristics, responsible agency, and overall
management and utilization4 Recreational opportunities,
facilities, and usage at a.WRDP were discussed in terms of
location, responsible agency, and contribution.to recreational
clientele. Lake 'resources (including the fishery, water
qualityj and water utilization) and the management of wild-
life resources were also discussed. Other,uses of land
within and adjacent to a.WRDP were considered, including
forestryj mineral extraction, agriculture, and grazing.
Whereappropriate, outgrant data were tabulated fo-r.various
purposes, including type of instrument, effective date and
term, rental basis.and annual rent,,, and non-Corps and Corps
investments. Special emphasis was@accorded concessioners.
The existence and.utilization.of resource use cont Irols were
discussed in terms of agency responsibilitie s and effectiveness.

2-13

Corps organization at the district and.field level was also
discussed and.depicted in an organization chart.

3. Key findings: Significant findings representing
problem areas,.data conflicts, resource.mariagement appi64chest
agencylrelati6nships, and viable prog .ram practices were-dis-
cussed under several-major categories. The categories in-
clude: (a) recreation, (b) fish and wildlife, (c) Corps and
contiguous land use, (d) real estate programs.and practices,,
(C) corps organization, and (f) environmental problems.

4. References: This section lists all reference
materials which were utilized in preparing each case study.

E. Summary of Sample Case Study.Chara teristics
The 29 WRDPt selected for evaluation are located in
diverse geographic areas throughout the na tion, in or
.partially in 26 states, with a combined acreage of
2,763,451 (Table 2-3). Total shoreline miles of the WRDPs
evaluated are 12,723 with a total water surface'area of
1,428,,633 acres.(at the average re creation pool elevation
exaluding the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal). Flood control
and power were the most common project.purposest cited in
72% and 69%, respectively, of the cases studied; navigation-
was also a frequently listed project purpose,.cited in 41%
of the cases studied. Impoundment at 43% of the WRDP analyzed,
occurred since 1960; impoundment at 25% of the-cases studied
was prior to 1950.

Outgranted acreage varied from zero (Colebrook) to'
128,114 (Texoma) with an average of 25,806 (Table 2-3).
The summer recreation season water fluctuation ranged from
zero (at several projects) to 65-70 feet (Colebrook).

2-14

Table 2-3. Resources Characteristics of Water Resources Development Projects
@.Selected. for:Fvaluation...

Water Corps
06t';f&--.tOd Ail itis ta, ct-r;a
RL A.Z10Z t
Case :.te cf L&AC 6@@mex ses@-C. Mtilt@rellzw Putlic r-c@eatlw Atcreatim
5. -A-t L. ',ro)*ct Pro)ect -!c siso Acc ... tion LaMs Fee hcreago creatic, Areas:
V @.Ie r k, Azrai@cd,( is
S..t. @6; @.nta ;,@.4sgsb Acr a-ea- Mia. (sxresic,e@sgazcn iftia! tacrwa S1s*?1&ne4 out-Iranted '34
V
4
1 S.;l 1-,: 4,396 ISO 6,400 3 35,225 196 37,170 2,779 ;1.709.033 M%: 66215w
owach,sta 4 ATI.Nsas 195) PCIP :2,373 690 40,060 a 42,231 61 4.276 2.021 21:10.9w M% 4.
I lie 1 .100
Feet Fe" I "uA- 1937 iMPIN.1 610,05 I.S20 2151000 2.5-3.5 380,774 2SL 101.19S 1.674 9i.100 S (36%) 1.32S.000
0whe 4 South a
North : QtA M) 477,8a3 2,250 1 313,C,00 7-9 IS9.376 70 80.54S 2.27L 11090.soo@ T 153%). S.C25.000

CoLeLgook 5 co."ectlc@t 6,
Mossechusa- to 1969 PC.% 1,411 i3 760 65-70 173 13 0 is 102."o a 0W 260.000
0*kLxtd@9-%94%.t 4 11we asspahro 1963 @Fc 1:,018 40 39S 1-2 6,740 IGS 6.7S4 2S4 182. 9M 8 (43%) Sm.000
rostar a. sayers 7 Vemnsyl.ania, 1969 PC .991 20 1,730 20 3.350 M 7,1S1 6,09S 174.CS6 S 16") 3.812.000

cwtsape4k* A [email protected]
'Nola
-an Karyland 1919 M 15,293 27 a% 3.S 7'sig 235 7.109 2 160,20C 5 (60%) 197019

14"r Paul al 9 fts"-rk: '1-36 IN= 14.600 146, 6,350 MA 7'"? 63 4.960 4S5 3.1312.400 P (Set) 76,77S

-...ta
sahta&wla 10 1951 FC, [C 74 5,626 3.5 2,367 20 I'S74 391 "J"Co P (65%) 4.S.373
Leech 11 M w 22:'47:23 $1, 12S'Soo 0.4 UK NA 21 ?S 69.600 C (650 104.771
Fend oratIle .12 Me-,* IM P 112,182 226 94,600 10 Kh VA 4.424 116 26S.C40 SK 442%) 4.6."0

V1 Jam Day 13 Or-,@ 4
M&srw@qtoa 1968 n,rc,p 76.6C.0 240 30.000 3. 27.023 113 22, 689 1.112 1.1.111se 5 (7001 6.510,060

Dearahak 14 Idaho 1971 FC,P 46,127 l7s 14,970 0 29,923 171 7 307 23C.600 5 M%l Z. 4 10. wo

Cordell WAIL is TOMfts"Al 6
xoftt-@Cxy 1973 N,P 391 11,960 20,260 AS 6.633 2,56S $9.900 S (44%) 3.290,000

Cumberland 16 Kentucky LOSO
L01,363 11065 510.250 so, 4 5, ill 3 46 44,253 :,S44 :,167,400 r (35%) 710,300
Old Saclwry 17 U&-tessto 1954 P,N 34,189 440 22,SOO a 1.921 22 41.071 708 .260.000 f (40%) lliao.wo

J. Percy Proist 18 Tewesses 1967 rC.P.R 33,662 21) 14,200 14.S 10,889 67 S.937 7,609 - 2,21S.Szo 3 ISZ%) SIS10.000

Mosquito Crack; it On Lo 1944. rc. WR 11.489 44 7.300 5.4 3,200 73 211006 S,65,1 1.436,030 r (S2%) 641000

Black Warrior 20 Al*b--- LOIS N 9,374 300 .31,973 a 9 '14 <1 21576 361,900 r (50%) lff.-03
Jose* Slut$ 31 Alab@-4 1972 N.P 24,SSS 368 12,300 0 1. :,Ia 107 S2S 4,190 64,700 r (95%) 411."o
Cl&tk RUI za [email protected]* a
So.th-
Carolina 1951 Fc,"'r IS5.686 L.060 71,531 5 91.401 77 44.614 L3,663 3.160.064 S(2S%),Fj2S%J 1.48S.000

040,2-1.1 23 South

6
C
, 'gi. 196i FC,? G0.ZS9 S62 $5,950 5 22,406 21 33.SGG 2.274 4,623,423 r 1134%) 2.448.503

Al"M 24 Ari@ 190 MUCIP 22,856 9 US 2 11,847 1,116 27.749 4.693 42,000 F(29%).C(291). 463.000
ls&b*ILG 25 Oalif.rhis, losi rc.1 .16.000 30 G.S20 42 6.190 273 S.196 .226 161.790 r m%) 1.300.600

Table Sock. 26 ILLoseuri
Arkansas, lose rc,r 694 745 0,1001 .12 14,30S is S2.SJ? 2,197 1.948,100 F (50%) 2.226;400
Lulaula 37 04abma 1964 FC.P 193.659 600 102,600 10 SI.,317 Be 63,226 10.221 11.047.000 a (60%)

a. Appendix D. Case Studies, Resource Statistics Tables.

b. Appendix D. Case Studies, Section IC,Features, FC=flood control, P=power, N=navigation, I=irrigation, ws=water supply, FC=flood control
wc=water conservations, r=recreation, lwr=low-water regulation.

c At average recreation pool elevation.

d 1973. 1973 annual reports for respective WROPS. Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

e Appendix D, Case Studies, of Outgrants Tables.

f. Appendix D, Case Studies, Tables of Outgrants for Recreation--Public Parks.

g. 1971. Report D-4: total CY& attendance at Corps projects with breakout of attendance occurring at Corps managed recreation areas and
recreation areas managed by others. Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

h. 1973. Report D-5: recreation use patterns at Corps projects, percent of activity use, and average attendance on weekend day during peak
month. Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

i. sightseeing, F=fishing, P=picknicking, C=camping, sw-swimming.

j. personal communication, November 1974. All respective Corps of Engineer Districts.

k. date of full operation.

l. not applicable.

similarly, project recreational acreage (intensive Corps
recreation areas plus outgranted areas for Public parks and
recreation) was quite variable and averaged 3,205 for the 25
,..Projects evaluated. Total attendance (1973) At allreckea-
!tion areas was 43,476,844 for the 29 cases studied with an
average of 1,499,2N per,project. The1owest attendance
.occurred at Alamo (42,000) whereas attendance was highest
.at Texoma (5,723,500). Sightseeing and fishing were the'two
most popular activities. Corps recreational investments as
..of 1974 totalled $54,838,044 for the projects evaluated.

There wero.5,773 instruments in effect that outgranted
.740,419 acres of land to Federal,..state and,local agencies,
quasi-public organizations, and private individuals. The
recorded investments made in facilities and, improvement at
Lhe 29 WRDPs were $28,585,699. The annual rent paid was.
$656,087. The outgrants verified in the field are summarized
in. Table 2-4.

The 29 case studies produced a substantial.body of data,
,representative of the Corps' management.of multi-purpose
WROPs throughout the United States. As..expected, WRDPs that
have, been authorized, constructed, and operated in response
to social and economic conditions during.an 80-year span
.exhibit great.diversity and present complex conceptual prob-.
;:lems for orderly analysis.

Several permutations of the available quantitative data
were undertaken in an effort to find distinctive features of.
'WRDI-Is around which certain resource management problems and-
iMpl ications' would gravitate

IL seemed a reasonable assumption, for instance, that
t).Iero, would be a direct relationship between' the size of a_
WRDII and t he complexity of resourceoriented problems

2-17

Table 2-4.- Summary of Outgrants for the Case Studies

Number of Annual Rent Paid investment to 1974
Purpose Outgra.nts Acreace

Fish & Wildlife 51 464,074 0 371,85@9
Public Parks 70 0 13,126,225

Commercial Recreation 117 3,890 179,418 13,115,171

Quasi-public Recreation 97 7,036 178 1,693,400
Aqriculture & Grazing 728 147,948 353,692 N/A
Others 4,710 74,139 122,799 277,044

a
Total 5,773 740,419 G516,087 28,585,699

a
Not complete. Not all districts had records of total investments, for-all purposes.

associated with it. However, ranking of the'29 WRDPs from
smallept to largest with associated data did not,substantiate
.sucha relationship. Similarly, rankings according to total
fee simple acreage, number of outgrants, shoreline miles,
Authorized purpose, proximity.to SMSA, or total Visitation
did not establish a clearrelationship between the feature
.andtthe problems., Particular attention . was accorded to segre-
ga tion of WRDPs according to the dates of authorization and
of impoundment because of a general belief thatCorps recre-
ation-resource management problems have a high correlation
with WRDPs built in periods when.national policy severely
limited land acquisition. Again,,there was.no clear relation-
ship between this WRDP characteristic and management problems
identified in the field.

The raw data obtained from literature, interviews, and
observation were.organized according to the data collection
formats, then analyzed to identify significant.points with
respect to the specific objectives of the study. Preparation
of internal summaries and evaluations of conditions, or key
finjings, for each WRDP wasIthefirst step in analysis.
Key findings were organized by category of major concern
(repreati.onj fish and wildlife, Corps and.contiguous,land use,
.real estate programs and practices, environmental problems,
and Corps organization at the Engineer District and field
levels). Facility cleanliness, impact of water level fluctua-
tion, site condition, and planning processes werenoted under
recreation. Level of fishery management 'water quality, and
type of habitat management were noted under fish and wildlife
enhancement. Effectiveness of state and local land use and
building controls, use of shorelands, and allocation of Federal,

2-19

land were noted under Corps and contiguous land use. The con-
dition of concessioner operated facilities, encroachment and',
trespass upon Corps administered land, and procedures for
leasing land for agriculture and grazing were noted under rea'l
estate programs'and practices. The qualifications of resource
management responsibilities among elements,of district offices,
and relationships.between.district staffs and on-site per-
sonnel were noted in the environmental problems section.

Discrepancies and conflicts between field-data and RRMS
1973 data, and-between RRMS 1-973 data and RED 1973 data,
were identified and documented. Most of the-discrepancies
discovered were of a random nature, possibly offsetting, and
did not appear to result from bias, except for visitation.
Visitation reports for state operated recreation areas were
compared with visitation reported to OCE by the Engineer
Distr'icts. The Corps reports were consistently higher than
the state reports. In addition, many districts use a 3.8
,occupants per vehicle load factor during all seasons to obtain
visitor.totals.. At WRDPs with active monitoring programs,
non-summer load factors can be as low as 1.8...Thus, visita-
ti-on seems overstated. None.of the conflicts or discrepan-
c1es known to exist within the resultant data base are
believed to be of such significance as to affect any of the
canclusions of the analyses of sampled WRDPs. The data base,
isi considered complete and comprehensive and.provides an
adequate basis for the evaluation of the complete range of
.problems and management opportunities existing nationally at
Carps WRDPs.

2-20

CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY DATA

The analysis of case study data was undertaken with the
objective of establishing a framework within which meaningful
conclusions could be drawn and constructive recommendations
.formulated. To this end, particular emphasis was devoted
to the identification of potential and actual problems, both
present and.future. This emphasis, however,'should not be
.taken to imply that the case study dataindicated only
@problems. indeed, as shall,be made.clear from the material
in this and subsequent chapters, much which is positive has
been found.

Physical characteristics peculiar to individual WRDPs
impose constraints on defining specific land uses and their
to Corps ma.nagement programs and make it
difficult to generalize about the pr9sent situation. The
ii1ost significant of these ph%":-,ical characteristics stem
.from the variable water surface elevation, typical of most
VRDPs, which, in turn, directly affects the amount of land
available for management at different,times of the year.
.Thus, water surface elevations in WRDPs which generate
sufficient amounts of hydroelectric.power' may vary acdord-
ing to, a,daily cycle, WRDPs which are largely operated for
..flood control may show very large seasonal water surface eleva-
variations, while WRDPs designed in conjunction with
.,navigation locka may have water surface elevations that vary
-only I or 2 feet during the year. All variations are s ubject
.to natural seasonal variations in the drainage area and river.,
t' 1. ows

To facil.@tatc the description and discussion of the
Corp.,; resOUrco management programs in light of s uch

3-1

peculiarities in.the phys@Pal characteristics of individual
WRDPs, it washelpful to [email protected] a uniform meaning to the
following terminology:

1. Land permanently inundated: Land lying below the
lowest waterel6vation (sometimes called the conservation
pool) subject to permanent inundation, andas such, able'
to support permanent,benthic communities and associated
aquatic resources.

2. Land periodically inundated: Land lying between
that which is permanently inundated and the elevation of
the spillway (including flood-prone areas) subject to peri-,
odic inundation whose value for recreation and fish and

wildlife enhancement varies with the fr
equency, periodicity,
and duration of inundation, as well as the topography. For
.example, gently sloping areas covered by shallow water may be
valuable as waterfowl,habitat or fish nurseries.

3. Land never inundated: Land lying above the eleva-
tion of the spillway not subject to inundation which can be
utilized for a number of purposes.

4. Project operations land: Land utilized by the
managing agency for,project works such as dams, locks,
powerhouses, administrative buildings, and as safety zones
.on the tailraces and/or lake side of the dam.

5. Manageable Resource Land (MRL): The residual area
derived by subtracting from the total reported project area
for a WRDP the following areas:. (1) the acreage inundated
a
at normal pool elevation , (2) the acreage for which the
aNeither the term normal pool elevation nor an equivalent
elevation is consistently applied by Engineer Districts.
RRMS selects the elevation and area that represents the
size of the impoundment during the majority of the year.

3-2

Porps.has only easements-or lesser interests above the normal
pool; and (3) the acreage designated as necessary for project
operation.

A very useful tool introduced to facilitate the analysis
f the use of Corps lands for recreation, fish and wildlife
enhancement and.other resource management purposes is the
MRL unit concept. While not perfect,thisconcept, and
.that.of the corresponding MRL ratio, significantly contributes
,to the understanding of the problems associated with resource
inventory and usage..

The applicability and usefulness of the MRL unit
in describing particular WRDPs may beseen in the follow-
i.ng examples..

The Old Hickory WRDP has a total project land acreage
of 34,184. However, (1) 25,838 acres of the land is
actually owned in fee simple, and 8,351 acres of the land
is under easement or some interest less than fee or is former
.river bed; (2) at normal pool elevation, 22,500 acres of
the total project are inundated and are therefore subject
to..aquatic management rather than land management; (3)
there are 117 acres of project operations land; such that (4)
@only 7,921 acres of the 34,184 total acres within Old
Alickory are- actually subject.to resource management.
Further, use of the MRL unit-to compare WRDPs repre-
sonts a more accurate picture of management problems and
'Approaches than-total project land or any one:of,the 12
selection factors identified in Chapter 2. For-'example,

3-3

comparison of Old Hickory and J. Percy Priest on the basis
of total project land (34,184 and 33,662 acres, respectively)
could lead to the conclusion that management considerations
are similar. Comparison of the MRL of thesetwo WRDPs-
(7,921 acres and 18,889 acres, respectively), however,
indicates that management considerations at the two WRDPs
,are significantly different.
The use of different terms for elevation and different
use classifications as applied to WRDP lands, however, causes
some difficulties in using the MRL unit-as a single standard
for comparing all WRDPs..
For example, at Leech and Pend Oreille, the MRL unit
cannot be calculated on the basis of existing data because
these WR,DPs were natural lakes prior to Corps operations
and Corps fee ownership patterns consist of isolated parcels
of land with an easement acreage greater than that held in
fee simple..
As a second example, at Hopkinton-Everett, the major-
@ty of MRL is subject to inundation. Small areas may be,
inundated for up to 30 days each year and many acres may be
inundated for a similar period only once,every @5 years.
The MRL area is 'nonetheless still.manageable for timber, wild-
life, and extensive recreation activity.
Finally, as an example of classification difficulty,
approximately half of the fee simple acreage at the Chesa-
peake and Delaware Canal is.classified as project operations
land and is utilized for dredged material disposal. These
lands, however, can be construed as manageable resource
areas because current knowledge concerning disposal of

3-4

materialand its usefulness in creating artificial
habitat is directly applicable to this WRDP..

A weighted ranking enhances the usefulness of the
M9L unit. This ranking is represented by the ratio of DIRL
act.cage to the number of shoreline miles held in fee simole
:,and is termed the MRL ratio. With r6spect to the 29 IIRDPs.
considered, this ratio is highest at Alamo (1,316), lowest
..at.Colebrook (13), and has an overall average of .94. MR.Ls
for Hartwell and Robert S. Kerr are similar 22,406 acres
and 20,983 acres, respectively. Hartwell Reservoir, how-
over, has 962 miles of shoreline in fee simple whereas
Robert S. Kerrhas 250 miles.. By calculating the MRL ratiol'
it can be seen that the former has only 23 acres of MRL per
shoreline mile while the latter has 84.

Although Hartwell has more.problems in terms of site
overuse, concessioner turnover, and contiguous develop-
ment, the difference in MRL ratio alone does not establish a
.clear cause and effect relationship. The MRL ratio does,
however, provide an extremely useful means of grouping
WRD,Ps as the basis for discussing their characteristics and.
@problems and for considering alternative management approaches
.which are applicable.

The final step.in the analysis was iteratively to
examine the Pase study statements in each category of major
'Concern (key findings) in terms of identifying significant
positive.and negative conditions, the causes and consequences
of siich conditions, the frequency with which they occur,
and the effectiveness of various Corps effort s to deal with

3-5

A. Recreation
I-,'valuation of outdoor recreation facilities involves
consideration of subjective factors such as variation in
the quality of human experience as well as.objective factors
such as the number of,units designed and designated to
accommodate fixed numbers of recreationists. For example,
a site with extensive facility development may experience,
crowding which may be satisfying for somerecreationists
but repugnant .to:0thers:.a Only direct polling of.
visitors (to ascertain their perception of how well their
experiences compared with their expectations),can uncover
these subtle and subjective interactions. Established
units of supply may be based upon acres of land designated
for a particular use, such as linear feet of beach, or upon
Lhe number of facilities, such as tables, grills, tent-pads,
or parking spaces actually installed and available for use.
These kinds of data are easily quantified, and are used
extensively in this study. Th ey alone, however, cannot
adequately characterize the impact of the Corps' recreation

proqram.

The complexity is further magnified at Corps WRDPs
by three separate but interrelated mechanisms for p roviding
visitor services: (1) land, water, and facilities (some of
wh.ich.have been designed and built by the Corps) that are
managed by other public entities, such as state and local
park agencies, (2) facilities.ahd services offered by
conwiercial establishments w*hich may operate either on.
I-'ederal land under concession leases or on land adjacent to
Federal property with permitted access,to the shoreline
across Federal land; and (3) facilities designed and built
by the Corps which are operated'directly by Corps personnel.

a[fart, W. J. 1966. A Systems Approach to Park Planning,
IUCN. Morges, Switzerland.

3-6

It was the intent of this part of the study to
determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the Corps'
manag ement of its recreat:ional facilities and areas. On the
.@basis of the analysis of the data gathered during the field
,surveys, many examples of the good practice in the Corps'
management of its recreation resources can be cited.
Additionally, areas were identified in which the Corps'
management cahlbestrengthened.

First consider examples of good management practices.
The physical cleanliness and maintenance of Corps recreation
lacilities, particularly comfort stations, was rated excellent.
spite of some reported overuse, dis-
28 of 29 WRDPs in
cussed later.. Uniformed, well equipped ranger patrols were
evident at high recreation-use WRDPs. All project resource
management staffs were cognizant ofthe need for regular
measurement of the characteristics of visitors to their WRDPs
and they conscientiously sample visitors according to OCE
guidelines. Recreation area rotation was.being implemented
at Hartwell to offset site deterioration from heavy use.
The Little Rock Engineer District contract with the Missouri
Department of'Conservation (Table.Rock and other non-study
'WRDPs) for,planning and performing intensive recreation area.
vegetation management is a model that other recreation.area.
managers can emulate. Initiation of lakeshore planning
du.rinq. the public facilities planning process.at Cordell Hull
is how being implemented system-wide. Some new camp-
qrounds and other public use facilities that were sited on
tlie ground by the designer in company with a resource
manager (New England Division) are as well designed as any
campgrounds in the country.

3-7

Now consider areas in which the Corps' management
of.its recreation resources can be improved. These areas
principally involve the overuse of intensive recreation
use areas and the existence of excessive recreation capac-
ity. Additional miscellaneous areas are also addressed.

1. Overuse of Corps Intensive Recreation Use-Areas
The overuse of recreation lands and facilities could
roadily be detected by two principal indicators, (1) the
physical deterioration of a site marked by soil.compaction
and (I-Irosion and damage to vegetative cover; and (2) the
number of permits for private docks.and access t o the water
andIapplications for new permits. Other, more subjective
indicators of overuse include law enforcement responses to,
crowd disorder, vandalism, and increasing.conflicts among
various types of recreationists.

CZRC, survey teams were alert to evidence of site
deterioration in intensive recreation areas. The overuse
of terrestrial environments at Corps WRDPs were documented
by direct observations, by discussions with Corps field.
personnel, and by examination of use records. Visible site..
deterioration attributable to overuse was found at 11 WRDPs:
Pend Oreille, Texoma, Wappapello,'MRP #21, Cumberland,
Isabella, Clark Hill, Hartwell, Old Hickory, Ouachita, and
Table Rock. Eight of these WRDPs.were constructed before
1952 whereas only three were.constructed in the post-1952
period. Thus, site deterioration appears to be more pro-
nounced at older WRDPS, a factwith significant management
implications.

3-8

The Corps administered 291 intensive recreation areas.
at the 11 WRDPs where site deterioration was observed.
These represent,65.1% of 477 intensive recreation areas
administered by the Corps in the sample. Recreation visits
to these 291 intensive recreation areas
was reported in 1973. The average size,of the.recreatio"h
areas at the 29 WRDPs is 104.4 acres; the average acreage
in the 11 WRDPs where,deterioration is a problem is 67.7
(Table 3-1). However, acres per site, per se, may not be
indicative of site deterioration sinc Ie the average ranges
..from 165.5 acres per site at Texoma to 7.5 acres per
Site at Old Hickory, both of which exhibited deteriora-

tion.

Overuse of recreation areas leads to accelerated
deterioration.of facilities, suchas tables, comfort sta-
tions, access roads, and internal circulation roads and
trails., Evidence of facility overuse was'.reported at Texoma,
Wappapello, Old Hickory, Isabella and J, Percy Priest.
Note.that at the first four of these WRDPs facility 4eterior-
ation co-exists with site deterioration. J. Percy Priest
exhibited only accelerated facility deterioration, a cir-
cumstance possibly explained,by,the newness of the WRDP,
.,the incompletestatus of facility development, and heavy
use@caused by close proximity to an expanding metropolitan

area.

;Tal?le 3-1 conpares.the intensity of visitor use
atCorps administered intensive recreation areas.. The 11

3-9

Table 3-1: Comparison of Water ResourceDevelo ent Projects
PM
Reporting Overuse by Category

Category Water Resource
Developmdfit Project Corps managed Recreation Areas
No...of Average. 1973 visits per MRL
Areas Acres Size Visitation a Area Acre Ratio

1890-1943
Texoma 41 6785 .165.5 4,772,60Q .116,405 703 D4
Wappapello 12 920. 76.7 1,526,695 127 224 1,659 196
MRP #21 3 419 174,400 58,133 416 63
Cumberland 19 163 8.6 1,937,900- 101,04 11,889 46

Category Total 75 8287 110.5

1944-1952
b
Pend Oreille 116 16.6 265,040 37,863 2,285 --
Isabella 13 200 15.4 761,790 58,599 3,809 273
Clark Hill .49 6,239 127.3 1,681,777 34,322 270 77
Ouachita 18 1,651 91.7 127,933 1,395 61

Category Total .87 8,206 94.32

1953-1974
Hartwell 79 1,285 16.3 3,326,124 42,103 2,588 23
Old Hickory 30 224 7.5 761,790 78,487 10,512 22
Table Rock 20 1,691 84.5 1,585,500 -79,275 938 119

Cateclory Total 129 @3,200 24.18

Totals Roporting
Overuse 291 19,693 67.7 18,569,226 63,812 943

salnph,, tTotals 447 46,684 104.4 29,51 8, 304 66,036 632

0/0 at! ,;alnl)lc 65 42 62.9

a. RRMS 1973 (Corps.Administered Areas Only)
b. Natural lake

..WRDPs,where site deterioration is occurring account for
[email protected] of 1973 visitation to all Corps administered recrea-
tionareas in the sample. Most unusual is the extreme range
in visitor pressure expressed in visitors per acre per year:
from a low of 270 to a high of 111889.
the second major indicator of the overuse.of recrea-
tion areas is the number of permits and oermit appli-
@cations for private docks and access to the water. Public
use of the shoreline and,the shallow offshore area.is pre-
empted when private docks occupy all available shorelands.
..The potential for localized.overuse exists in shifting this
.Strip-like shoreland use to a central marina. Increased
pressure for private dock permits was reported at Pend
Oreille, Jones Bluff, Eufaula, Table Rock, Texoma, Hartwell,
and,Old Hickory; representing 24.1% of.the sample (Table
3@2).

The greatest pressures occur at WRDPs with very
..low MRL ratios (Table Rock, Hartwell, and Old Hickory).
.,Thp expanding pressure at the Jones Bluff and Eufaula.WRDPs
.with moderate MRL ratios, is explained by proximity of the
.proje.cts to. urban centers (Montgomery, Alabama, and.Oklahoma
Cit maj respe
Y, Oklaho' ctively) and the construction of new
@suburban housing hear the project lands. The pressure at
Texoma is largely centered upon areas that were o riginally
leased as seasonal cottage sites and subsequently sold to
private owners. Pend Oreille is included although no exist-
ing Title 36 CFR permits are reported in the*RRMS systems,
because the lake was a navigable body of waterprior to
project construction. The U. S..did not acquire fee title
.to tracts of land above the'elevation of.the maximum power

3-11

Table 3-2: Comparison of the Number special Shore 1 and -Permits by Category

0/0 of No. Title 36 0/0 of
Category Water Resource WRDPs MRL Shoreline Permit@
Developmen@ Project in Sample Ratio Permitsa in Sample

Low MRL Shoreline Ratio
Colebrook 13b 0
Ashtabula 30 ...50
Cumberland 46 287
Old Hickory 22 lj230
Black Warrior 14 300
Hartwell 23 2,689
Table Rock .19 945

Category Total 24.1 5,501 73.8

medium MRL Shoreline Ratio

.Wappapello 196 158
Ouachita 61 62
Oahe 20
Hopkinton-Everett 169 0
Miss. River Pool #2'. 63 0
Leech --c 0
Pend Oreille --c
John Day 113 10
Dworshak 171 0
Cordell Hull 65 0
J. Percy Priest 87 2
mosquito Creek 73 21
Jones Bluff 107 0
Clark Hill 77 681
Eufaula 86 386
Robert S. Kerr 84 5
Texoma 134 555

Cateqory Total 58.6 1,900 25.5

High MRL Shoreline Ratio

Fort Peck 251 50
Foster J. Sayers 268 0
Chesapeake & Delaware Canal 235 3
Alamo 1316 0
Isabella 273 0
17.3 53 0.7
Grand Totals 100 7,454 100

.1. RRMS 11)73
b. Excludos Mett.opc)litan Dirtrict Comnizzion of Hartford land
Natural lake

3-12

pool.and does not control the riparian land. Thus, Corps
involvement stems from the provisions of Section 10, River.
and Harbor Act of 1899, charging the Corps with responsi-
bility to protect the navigable waters of the U. S.a

Finally, consider the more subjective indicators
of overusage. An example of increasing conflicts among
various types of recreationists is typified by the con-
f l.;
icts between fishermen vs..docks.in the heads of coves and
other shallow areas, and recreation boaters,who enjoy beach-
ing for picnicking vs permanent and seasonal residents who
own docks and landscape the federal shorel'ands to obtain,
pleas,aht,vistas.

Preparation of Lakeshore.Management Plans .(author-
ized, by 36 CFR 327.3.0),is a positive step to prevent growth
of further user group conflicts. Such conflicts were revealed
in the.public hearings conducted by the Savannah*Engineer
District to receive citizen reaction to lakeshore management
proposals f6r the Clark Hill and Hartwell.WRDPs. Strong
support.was received for Corps proposals to.1
imit the amount
of shoreland at Clark. Hill on which private and. quasi-public
facilities would be permitted r681 permits are r6portedl
(RRMS 1973) most of'which are.for quasi-public f .acilities,
and relatively few'barriers to fisherman use of the lake
exis.t7. Reaction to Corps proposals for Hartwell.were divided

a
Permits authorized by the 1899 Act are issued by a section
in the Seattle Engineer District which operates and reports
independently of the recreation-resource management function.
The total numberof active permits in.Lake.Pend Oreille was
riot determined.

3-13

between those favoring limiting areas for docks and those
favoring expansion of the area and number of facilities
permitted /2,689 permits were reported (RRMS 1973) and there
are conflicts between user classes7.
Itis significant to note that there were no rdpokfbd
conflicts between.hunting and outdoor recreation. Also, the
absence of any controls on boating (other than nominal marking
of bathing areas, no-wake zones in boat harbors, and a buoy
linein Mosquito Creek to separate recreation boating from
A wildlife refuge) indicates the absence of serious conflict
between fishermen, water skiers, and the various classes-of
boaters. Finally, there was no evidence of overfishing,
although it was reported at.Table Rock that fishing tourna-
Inent pressure had made.fishing less attractive than in adja-
cent WRDPs (Beaver and Bull Shoals).

Evidence was found to support contentions that
vandalism and rowdiness are increasing because..of over-
crowding at MosquAo Creek, Hartwell, J. Percy Priest, Old
Hickory, and Isabella. The incidence of vandalism appears
to have a high direct correlation with proximity of sizeable
dense urban populations.,
A major 'Cause of the overuse of the recreation lands
is the inadequate quantity or quality *of land available
for public use. This land shortage is not always simply
lac k of rederal property. It can be a lack of land in the
right place (Cumberland),, a failure toterminate interim
uses (Texoma), or constraints on public areas imposed by
long term commitments to other uses (as cottage site leases
at MRP #21). Inadequate facilities were found to be a prime
cause of overuse at Corps recreation areas.at Texoma, MRP #21,

3-14

Mappapello, Cumberland, Hartwell# Old Hickory, and Isabella.

A second major cause of overuse is the failure to
..control access to recreation areas. Without such control,
there' is no practical way to.limit the number of visitors
@,.who occupy a site at a particular time-or to "rest." an area
As part of a rotation system to allow vegetativerecovery.

A principal reason for inadequate access control
is the configuration of Federal land at Corps 11RDPs.
Recreation areas are typically peninsulas bisected,by a
,,roadway leading to the shoreline which becomes the basis
for a launching ramp and, often, a commercial marina operated
.by.a,concessioner. Campgrounds and picnic areas are fre-

a
.quently arrayed off the roadway near.the Feder,l boundary, but
controlling access at this point unfairly restricts other
users (for example, fishermen who desire to be on the water
..at night or the early morning hours) and the business volume
upon which the concessioner depends.

'Faulty recreation area location and facility.layout, most
often imposed by the configuration of areas available for
,recreation facilities, were observed at Texoma, Pend
Oreille, Jones Bluff, Table Rock, Wappapelloo MRP #21,
Cunberland, and Isabella.. At Isabella, for example, Corps
is level and covered by sparse semi-arid vegetation that
permits visitors to drive vehicles at random over the entire
area. At MRP #21, the Corps recreation developments Are
in areas where mud is deposited each year. At Table.Rock
.the combination day use/overnight recreation developments are
squeezed into small peninsulas.

Additionally', unsuitable areas for intensive recrea-m
tion development were-found -co have been selected in
the absence of any geographic constraints. Such poor land
:selection has contributed to overuse at Isabella and Old
Hickory, and could contribute to overuse at Hartwell, Table
Rock, Alamo, and J. Percy Priest. Conditions ich.determine
wh
site suitability include slope, depth of soil mantle,
exodability of soil, and characteristic vegetation. At
Hartwell, the upland soils.of the shorelands.readily erode
when exposed to precipitation'; at Table Rock and.*J..Percy
Priest the shorelands are composed of very.'shallow soil
mantles underlain by slick-rock. In all casesip the,location
and-design of visitor facilities should be predicated upon
well identified carrying capacities. Since carrying capa-
city data were not available at the projects surveyed,
comparisons of facility design and use with site suitability
were not possible.
-.Another.factor.influencing,the.Corps'..ability.to
deal with..the.causes of overuse.is the quantity and.@quality
@of personnel at,the WRDP. Shortages of project personnel
appear to.contribute to overuse at Jones Bluff,.Pend Orielle,
Table Rock, Wappapello, and Ouachita.
Directly related to the issue of staffing is the
policy posture of managers with respect to limiting occu-
pancy of facilities to design capacity. The contrast between
Corps and state park policies at Table Rock and Wappapello
is significant. State parks within these projects holdthe
number of camping parties entering the campground to the
designated number of campsites. Thereafter, park-per"
sonnel assist campers in locating alternative space at

3-16

public and private camping facilities in the immediate
vicinity. Corps operating policy, on the other hand,
permits entry of camping parties until a natural overflow
oIccurs. When occupancy reaches 150% or moke,of design
capacity, facilities and resources can be abused. Lack of
Corps.limitatio'h of visitors significantly con .tributes to
overuse at Pend Oreille, Texoma, Table Rock, Wappapellof
MRP #21, Isabella and Ouachita.'

.,2. Excessive Recreation,Ca2acity
Over capacity,can be divided into two categories: (1)
water area that. is under-utilized; and (2) facilities that
are,,under-utilized.

variability in the use of the surface of.a body of water
is a function of the configuration of the water body, the
population of boats that operate on the water,@ and the types
of boat-based activity pursued as evidenced b'
ythe types of
vessels employed. For all WRDPs sampled except the Chesapeake
and Delaware Canal, Colebrook, Hopkinton-Everett,.and MRP #211
large, open water areas are seldom used tocapacity, but local
areas near marinas and concentrations of private docks in
small,bays and coves are heavily congested. The fact that
neither the states nor the Corps haveinstituted water sur-
face.use controls implies that the water surface of.Corps
WRDPs is not now over-utilized. Problems of user distribu-
tion-exist, however.

Consequences of under-utiiized facilities can be: (1)
diversion of public shoreland toother purposes,. (2) in-
efficient uselof. scarce capital resources, (3) skewing.of the
work load to scarce operations and maintenance personnel,.

3-17

(4) increased probability of concessioner failure, and (5)
increased probability of residential development nearby.
The last phenonemon was particularly noticeable at Eufaula,
Robert S. Kerr, and Foster J. Sayers where recreational areas
were developed to accommodate anticipated future recreation
demand. The availability of large-scale, new water front
facilities is an attraction that enhance sales of housing
constructed in close proximity.
One cause of excessive recreational capacity is
failure to even out the distribution of visitor activities
on the water surface. The general configuration of a WRDP
consists of a zone of open, deep water near the dam where
the periodically inundated land is steep sloped and a zone
of constricted, shallow water near the nead of the impound-
ment where the land periodically inundated is relatively
level. Recreation activity tends to gravitate toward the
first zone. Dispersal of uniform recreation facilities
along the entire shoreline is intended to encourage use of
the less attractive headwater zone. To counter concentra-
tion of recreation use in the more attractive water zone,
the location and design of facilities must be coupled with
uperior highway access, proximity to population concentra-
tions, exceptional water quality, or uniform shoreline
characteristics. When these conditions do not mesh, recrea-
tional facilities stand idle. The Eufaula WRDP illustrates
the point.
A second major cause of under-utilized facilities can
be traced to the little control the Corps has over the
quantity, quality, or location of access roads to recreation

3-18

.areas. Lack Of control over the main highway arteries inhibits
vis,itations to developed recreation facilities not served by
-highways. This is illustrated.by Oahe, MRP #21, Ashtabula,.
Cumberland, J. Percy Priest,. Hartwell, Eufaula, and Texoma.
Insufficient access routes, compounded by poor directional
signs and subdivision streets that conceal entry points to
Corps recreation areas, account for underused facility
capacity at Oahe,.Fort Peck, Clark Hill, Old Hickory, Wappa-.
pel lot Foster J. Sayers and Dworshak.

Less obvious causes of,excessive recreation capacity
are-shifts in the.nature of the communities surrounding the
recreation area. For example, facilities planned in 1954 for
the shoreland south of Hendersonville at Old Hickory. were
appropriate to.then existing conditions; an agricultural
setting separated from the small, clustered center of Nash-
ville by low density suburbs. Some of the recreation areas
developed with Code,712 funds were leased to local units of
government who, in turn, entered into leases with private
individuals for the construction and operation of commercial
marina facilities. Duringthe intervening two decades, these
recreation areas weresurrounded.,by hig.h,density suburban
development. Competitive, modern marihas,.Wokebuilt on pri-
vate land separated from water's edge by as littleas five.
horizontal feet, and recreation areas.which were designed as
regional facilities now serve as neighborhood.parks. In
spite of recreational use of.approximately.10,512 visits per
a(.,-r(, Por year,. the overnight and marina.facilities represent
OXCOSS recreational capacity.

3. Other Areas To Be Strengthened
Water that has been degraded before entering a'WRDP is
acause of the:' decreased attractiveness.of the WRDP for
recreation. Introduction of.pollutants into streams tributary
,to the WRDP constitutes a growing problem at Eufaula, Robert S.
Kerr, Texoma, Ashtabula, Oahe, Jones Bluf*f, and Table,Rock.
Tbe.potential for decreasing water quality due to upstream
conditions, such as mine drainage, was reported at WRDPs.
in the upper Cumberland River drainage (Cordell Hull.).
Accelerated run-off from urban development adjacent to Old
Hickory was observed, and the potential for similarnon-
.point discharges exists at Table Rock and Hartwell. Thus,
deleterious impacts on the quality of WRDPs from sources
external to land and water directly administered by the
Corps occur, or have high probability of occurring, at 34.5%
of the WRDPs surveyed.
Drawing the water surface down to lower elevations is
often cited as creating extensive mud flats and other visually
objectionable characteristics. At only three of WRDPs sur-
veypd (Dworshak, Alamo, and Isabella), was this characteris-
tic found to be an important deterrent to recreation. A more
important cause of adverse consequences is the.maintenance of
water at levels that inundate developed recreation areas and
facilities during.the recreation season. Conditions at
Wappapello illustrate the consequences.

The question of altering the water level-regime to enhance

3-20

aesthetic and recreation values was raised at Texoma where
stabilizing the pool at higher elevations would increase the
a
recreational value of the project. In all other cases, the
water elevation regime as dictated by other Project purposO@;-
'was accepted by Corps planning and operating staffs as un-

alterable.

Another area in which management can be improved
4s related to the historical significance associated with the
areas in which WRDPs are located. Historic and prehistoric
travel and settlement patterns have centered on waterways,and
evidence of earlier human'occupancy has a high probability
of remaining in ar eas where water resources have beendeveloped
by tile Corps. In early projects, the discovery, cataloging,
and.interpretation of artifacts was not done.

Since the.enactment of the Antiquities Act (16 usc �431-
433),.Corps Dersonnelhave been scrupulous in providing funds.
to.universities, the NPS, and the Smithsonian institution
for archeological surveys and salvage. Since the enactment
ofthe Historic Sites Act (16 USC S�461-467), and the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 USC S�4331:et seq)i Corps personnel
have identified historic sites as w ell. 'As a result of the
surv.eys, evidence of prehistoric activities was found at 24.
..W RDPs and significant historic events have been documented@at
ok near 18 WRDPs.

A.I.though the experience of the NPS and state park and
historical agencies strongly suggests that interpretation of
cultural values in the field adds to the value of a recrea-
t.ional experience, the Corps has not been active in this
field. Where displays have been erected, they have been

.a Oklahoma State University., 1972. Recreation Study and
Assessment of Pool Elevation Effects on Recreation VTs--lr'ta-
i---Ir-on-at Lake Texoma. Stillwater, Oklahoma.

3-21

located..near the-dam sites, such as at Hartwell and Oahe
rather than in field locations where family recreation
activities take'place. In some instances, Corps activities
have encouraged others to capitalize on the existing vAlue'o
such as the Pennsylvania Historic and MuseuwCommission
development at Foster J. Sayers and the erection of'state
historic markers at Clark Hill. The sole exception is Corps
administration of the pump house associated with'the history@
of*the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Corps@:response seems
adequate at the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal ' Foster J.
Sayers, and six other WRDP,s where minimal.values are reported@
in,master plans. Thus, recreation and educational-values,
are.-not-being-.fully utilized at 72.4% of the.,WRDPs.surveyed.

Similarly, interpretation of natural phenomena at-.WRDPs
i,si,generally,overlooked-. All Corps-wma-ster plans chronical
flora, fauna,i and-.-.geology of project areas, but only two
short nature trails.represented the planned effort to
explain the importance of these phenomena to-the visiting
public.

4.. Outdoor Recreation Findings-
a. Positive
(1.) The 291 intensive recreation areas directly
planned and managed by Corps personnel at the 29 WRDPs sur-
veyed reported 29.5 million visitor days of use in"1973.
The.intensity of use ranged from 270 to 11,B89 visitor
days per acre per year.

(2) The water' surface of Corps, -administered
WRDPs is not being used to full capacity, but problems of
localized congestion and uneven user distribution- exist:.

3-22

Preparation of Lakeshore Management Plans.
is a major positive step to reconcile public interest in
Public land and water and the investments made, by in-
d.ivi.duals as well as reduce congestion and shoreline use
conflicts.

(4) Corps field personnel are generally highly@
motivated and'perform competently and sometimes innovatively
the jobs of providing safe and sanitary access to WRDPs for
recreationists.

(a) The physical cleanliness and maintenance.
of Corps recreation facilities,,particularly comfort.stations,
was rated excellent at 96.5% of the WRDPs.

(b) Facility use rotation, vegetative manage-
ment plans, bicycle trails, and other advanced recreation
.management techniques were found at some WRDPs.

b. Negative
(1) There is a shortage of qualified personnel
at the field level to regulate the use of resources and
facilities.

(2) The planning process breaks down in one or
more, of the following areas:

(a) Some Corps administered recreation
areas and facilities are overused (37.9% showed physical
-site deterioration soil erosion) 'and some are.underused,
s6metimes at the same WRDP.
(b) The location of facilities an.d.the
design of facility layout are often incompatible with the
dapabilities of the natural resources.

.(c) Changes in thecharacter of recreation
demand are not measured over time.

3-23

(d) Planning staffs cannot adequately
evaluate impacts upon recreation and fish and wildlife from
various water level and release regimens.
(e) Competition or complementairity of proxi-
mate private or public recreation facilities and services
are not adequately considered.
(f) Corps planning does not adequately c6n-.
sider increasing.winter use of northern WRDPs.
(3) Other outdoor recreation problems encountered
by the Corps in.areas for.which the agency has direct responsi-.
bility are caused principally by:
(a) Water quality problems that emanate beyond
the boundaries of WRDPs.

(b) Inability to control main arterial access
to WRDPs and thus to integrate various areas of the WRDP with
the planning, construction, and operation of recreation facili-
ties.

(4) Site deterioration, including soil erosion,
seems to be more pronounced at older WRDPs regardless of the
amount of manageable resource lands.
(4) Seventy-three percent of,the WRDPs sur-.
veyed that were completed prior to 1953 displayed visible
signs of site deterioration.
(b) Seventeen percent of WRDPs surveyed that
were completed in 1953 or later exhibited visible signs of
site deterioration.

(5) There is a shortage of land, but the shortage
is not always absolute;.some WRDPs lack Federal land Upon
which to expand recreation facilities, while at-other projects

3-24

the land restraint is imposed by commitments of Corps land to

other uses.
(6) The educational value of prehistoric, historic,
,.and natural phenomena is not being fully utilized.

B.., Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
The fish and wildlife potential at Corps W9DP6 is com-
posed of the fishery within the WRDP, the downstream fishery,
and,*terrestrial and-avian wildlife on project and adjacent
lands. A discussion of the adequacy or inadequacy of Corps'
concern for the..fisheries and wildlife populations iscompli-
cated by four factors: (1) fisheries and wildlife popula-
tions are commonly evaluated as part of recreatio n use rather
than viability of habitat; (2) the currently acCepted.relation-
ship between state and Federal management of resident fish and
wildlife species-which is basically that Federal land management
agencies are responsible for habitat management activities on
.lands under their control, whereas the states are responsible
for actual management of resident fish and wildlife species;
(3 the USF&WS is the'Federal agency charged by the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-666C) with the responsi-
bility of assuring adequate consideration. of fish and wildlife
at Federal WRDPs; and (4)*separating facilities and land intended
to mitigate losses caused by the.project from enhancement of
fish and wildlife onproject lands and,waters.

We are concerned here with the physical aspects of fish
and wildlife management at Corps administered WRDPs. Rela-
tionships with other agencies are discussed in two later
s9ctions of this.chapter, Real Estate@Programs and Policies,
and@,Corps organization.

Habitat management techniques, including some water
level manipulation to enhance fish populations were found

3-25

at five WRDPs: John Day (anadromous fish runs), Oahe, Jones'
Bluff, Black Warrior, and.Mosquito Creek. Corps district
,and field staffs are generally receptive to state fishery
management proposals. Specific water level management to
enhance waterfowl was found at John Day and Hopkinton-Everett.
In some projects, for example Black Warrior and Hopkinton-
.Everett, timber was left.standing to increase nutrients for
fi-sh. Multi-mil.lion dollar fish hatcheries have been con--@
structed by the Corps for operation by the USF&WSF as at the
Dworshak WRDP, in attempts to offset loss of cold water stream
fisheries. Expensive modifications to works at John Day and
.the-injection of.oxygen into water discharged through Table
Rockare examples of Corps willingness to tryto moderate
deleterious-downstream affects of WRDPs.

Game habitat management by Corps personnel can be found
at only a few WRDPs. The@fact that a atatt has been made in
the NAshville.and,Savannah Engineer Districts is worthy of
note. Converting,@softwood stands to hardwood stands, estab-
lishing food plots, and building diked waterfowl areas are all
part of the Cl.Ark Hill wildlife habitat enhancement program..

Now-consider areas,in which the Corps management of its
fish and wildlife enhancement program can be i.mproved. These
principally involve: (1) water elevation fluctuations; (2)
effects of downstream water releases; and (3) concern for

wildlife.

1. Water@Elevation Fluctuation
The artificial control of water surface elevations may
have several significant effects on the Corps 'fish and wild-
li-fe enhancoment efforts including the following: fish
spawning and nursery areas and waterfowl feeding areas may be

3-26

either damaged or enhanced depending upon when the.-,4ater is.
high'.or low; fishermen access may be made more or less
difficult; and small game habitat may be lost when water is
high.. In general, the cost of maintaining fish and small
game populations can be significantly increased if water
.11,evels do not allow the available habitat to be. utilized fully-
Project purposes were in conflict with fish and wildlife
,considerations at: Wappapello, Cumberland, Ashtabula, Oahe,
Fort Peck, Ouachita, Pend Oreille, Dworshak, Isabella, Hart-
well, Old Hickory, John Day, Eufaula, Robert S. Kerr, Black
Warrior,.and Jones Bluff; 55.2%'of the projects surveyed.
Apparent conflicts included: inability to reduce undesirable
fishand increase game fish species at Wappapello; leaving
potentially Valuable waterfowl habitat exposed during the,
fall months at Pend Oreille; and creating conditions in
which native fish species cannot survive at Oahe.
The imposition of unnatural and rigid drawdown and storage.
schedules imposed by.the legi timate requirements of other
authorized WRDP purposes can adversely effect fish and wild-
life.populations. There is a general attitude that change of
"these, water level regimes to favor.fish and wildlife would
not be consistent with the other project.purposes.. Such was
found to be the case at Wappapello, and to a lesser extent,.*
,at-Fort Peck, Oahel and MRP #21.
Leadership in@fisheries management is particularly
difficult at WRDPs that extend into two or more states. At
such projects as Clark Hill and Hartwell, management planning
and plan implementation between the fishery personneI of
the states-involved is difficult. In some instances, state
.personnel (South Carolina) have recommended that the Corps
develop and coordinate a fisheries management.program for the
interstate WRDPs on the Savannah River. Ten of the WRDPs
surVeyed (34.5%) are interstate in-nature.

3-27

2. Downstream Water Releases
A WRDP structure on a natural stream changes the nature.
of the stream Channel and the quantity and quality of water
flows. In, some instances, provisions were made in the design
of WRDPS to permit passage of anadromous fishes (John Day),
sustain minimu Im water flows (Everett Dam in.the Hopkinton-
Everett WRDP), or artificially replace-lost spawning area
(hatcheries at Dworshak and Table Rock). At some WRDPs, the
temperature and velocity of water releases produce cold
water tailrace fisheries where none existed before (Hartwell).
Fish deaths downstream may also result from such things as
too little water (Hartwell), or too little dissolved oxygen
in the water (Table Rock).

Water releases can reduce fish populations for any of
several reasons including: (1) the anaerobic condition of
water released from lower elevations of the lake; (2)
improper design of the release mechan isms.(caus ing gaseous
supersaturation,'for example); (3) too much, too little, or
surges of water released to satisfy other project purposes;
(4) release of water thermally incompatible with needs of down-
stream biota; and (5) the incomplete understanding of biologi-
Cal requirements.

Problems from all these causes were found at Table
Rock, Ashtabula, Fort Peck, Ouachita, Oahe, Texoma, Mosquito
Creek, Hartwell, J. Percy Priest, Isabella, and John Day.
Active Corps financed programs.to.correct.the causes of fish
loss are under way at Table Rock (injecting oxygen). and John
Day (alteration of discharge facilities). At Ashtabula, the
loss was attributable to recent floods and is not inherently
a part of resource management. At the remaining WRD Ps
(27.6% of the sample), there are conflicts between project

3-28

purposes and downstream fish@losses that deserve increased'

attention.

.3. Insufficient Wildlife Concern.
The Corps is conscientious about caring for waterfowl.
The importance of grain crops as feed for waterfowl, partid,u-
larly geese, is well recognized at all Corps WRDPs and no
serio-us conflicts or problems were reported. Such is not
th e case, however, with upland and big game, Indications of
the insufficient concern for these segments of.the wildlife
population include: (1) lack of conscious, planned habitat
manipulation to.augment game carrying capacities; (2) con-
fus.ion over theresponsible leadership role on land leased
and/or licensed to state'fish and wildlife agencies, particu-
larly if parcels are also leased to farmers and ranchers; (3)
declines in game populations and hunter success;. (4) increased
hunter pressure on private land.

The causes of the visible problems with game resources
at',Corps WRDPs are:, (1) confusion over the role and level
of Corps responsibility in wildlife management; (2) a general
assumption by the Corps that state's.rights preempt the field
leaving no role for positive@Corps managementi (3) the.short-
age of trained Corps biologists at the project level; (4)
poor considerat-ion:of wildlife requirements during project
planning so that lands available'for wildlife habitat manage-
ment are too small, of the wrong kind, or.poorly located;
(5) program emphasis upon water-oriented recreation visita-
tion rather than habitat management and use by hunters; (6).
inadequate funding; and (7) leasing and financial arrangements
that make Corps leasing for interim uses, such as agriculture
and grazing, financially morebeneficial to local governments

3-29

than leasing the same lands to public agencies for wildlife
management.

Serious wildlife management problems were report ed at 19*
WRDPs (65.5% ofthe sample), and there is evidence that game
management could be materially improved at three others.
Hence, there is an indicated need forimproved wildlife
programs'at 22 or 75.9% of sampled Corps WRDPs.. Those
WRDPs surveyed by CZR.C which are not included in.the above
are: Leech and Pend Oreille (except'watetfowl referred to
above), which are large natural lakes with minimal Corps MRL;
Hopkinton-Everett, Foster J.-Sayers, Mosquito Creek, and
Alamo, where all MRL has been leased to state governments;
and MRP #21 where most MRL is leased.to the USF&WS.

..Although very diverse, the observed wildlife-manag4-
ment problems can.be attributed to the causes cited above.
The specific cause at WRD.Ps with low MRL ratios,(Table Rock,
Hartwell, Old Hickory, Black Warrior) is lack Pf sufficient
land to do more than conduct token wildlifelhabitat programs..
In other instances, the specific causes of problems were:
a@lack of understanding by state personnel of the flexibility
available to them to finance timber harvesting to enhance
wildlife habitat (South Carolina at Clark Hill); the adminis-.
tration of domestic livestock use on Corps land by the BLM
as agent forthe USF&WS at Fort Peck; a-lack of clear physical
and fiscal relationships of agricultural crops and wildlife
food production at Wappapello, Oahe, and.Cor dell Hull; live-
stock and big game conflicts at Ashtabula, Texoma,.Eufaula,
and Oahe; conflicts with forest management at Ouachita;
slowness in obtaining big game land (mitigation) at Dworshak
(a source of sportsmen's consternation); and pressing urbani-
zation at J. Percy Priest. Improved management could be

3--:30

achieved at Colebrook, Chesapeake -and Delaware Canal, and
Jones Bluff.

4. Fish and Wildlife Findings
a. Positive
Corps personnel at Engineer District And
WRDP levels practice limited fish and wildlife -management
within the WRDPs in cooperation with state and Federal fish
and wildlife agencies.
(a) The water level at some WRDPs is manipu-
lated to enhance fish nursery and waterfowl values, such as
4ufaula.
(b) Peripheral vegetation is encouraged
within some of the storage pools as food and cover for fish
and wildlife.,
(c) Release schedules and structures are
modified to enhance downstream fisheries.

(d).Wildlife biologists employed at WRDPs
have initiated wildlife habitat improvement programs.

(e) The Corps has issued,217 instruments
outgranting 1.8 million acres of land.to fish and wildlife
agencies.
(2) The water bodies'and shorelands of the Corps
W.RDP system are, for the most part, man-created environments
which can be managed more intensively for fish and wildlife
.production than is now the case.

(a) Maintenance of constant water elevations
during appropriate seasons increases the waterfowl carrying
capacity at projects such as John Day; similar opportunities
exist at WRDPs such as Pend Oreille.

3-31

(b) Wildlife habitat improvement programs
ata few WRDPs,.such as Clark Hill, are enhancing waterfowl,
wild turkey, and other'upland game populations.

(c) Approximately 31% of Corps WRDPs have
converted downstream areas from warm-water fisheries to cold-
water'fisheries, the most notable example being Lake Taneycomo
below Table Rock, but release of water thermally incompatible
with needs of downstream biota is always possible.

b.- Negative
(1) Realization of the full fish and.wildlife
.potential of Corps WRDPs has been hampered by lack.of funds,
qualified personnel, and policy direction.

(a) Conflicts between water elevations
pr esently maintained and fish and waterfowl heeds occur at
55.2% of Corps WRDPs.

(b) Corps solutions to fish and:waterfowl
problems emphasize structural modification and mechanical
manipulation rather.than resolving 'conflicts among competing

resource uses.
*(c) Corps WRDP personnel have not assumed
strong coordinative leadership at interstate WRDPs even when
requested to do so by state agencies.

(d) Corps programs emphasize water-oriented
recreation.rather than habitat enhancement and hunting.

(e) Fish and wildlife enhancement receive a
low priority, usually below all other Corps programs.

(2) Lake fishery and waterfowl receive more
attention than stream fisheries or upland wildlife.

(a) The quantity, quality, and timing of
water releases downstream deserve increased attention at 27.6%
of Corps WRDPs.

3-32

(b) Responsibility.for fish and wildlife
management is divided between the Corps and state and other.
Federal agencies with no clear leadership role established.

.(c) Wildlife habitat management problems and
underuse of potential exists at 75.9% of Corps WRDPs. Par-
ticularly noticeable is the lack of conscious planned wild-
life management programs.

(d) At some WRDPs, so little emergent land
was.acquired.that meaningful wildlife management activities
a re not possible.

(3) Shortages of qualified professional personnel
an&,funds extend to state fish and wildlife agencies that
depend largely on dedicated revenue from user fees and
license sales.

(a) The majority of state fish and wildlife
expertise is concentrated in the headquarters staffs where
one or two biologists maybave responsibility for management-
of all state game land and fisheries programs; single dis-
trict biologists often.administer total fish and wildlife
programs in very large areas'.

(b) Increases.in present dedicated revenue
.sources have.,by:and large not kept pace with decreases in
purchasing power and state fish and wildlife agencies are
reducing programs or seeking new sources of revenue.

C. Corps and Contiguous Land Use
The use of land resources at Corps WRDPs is influenced
byactions in three distinct but tightly interrelated zones
of the analytic unit: (1),the shoreline, including shallow

3-33

water offshore; (2) Corps lands, particularly those lands
that are seldom or never inundated; and (3) lands that are
contiguous to Corps administered property. The location,
size, and timing of land allocations by the Corps and invest-
ments in specific land uses influence and are influenced by
the use of the shoreline. For example, Corps investment
decisions in designated recreation areas at Eufaula and Black
Warrior affected investment decisions by private developers.
Conversely, private development decisions at Wappapello were
exerting considerable access pressures to which Corps per-
sonnel felt obliged to respond.
The actual dimensions of the three zones are dependent
upon variations in shoreline elevation, width of the Federally
owned strip of shoreland, the location and size of Federally
owned parcels, the amount of land owned by other public
agencies, and the biophysical characteristics of the land-
scape. The case studies show a physiographic area surrounding
each WRDP within which more or less direct physical cause-
effect relationships exist, and a generally larger and
more indistinct area where changing socioeconomic condi-
tions have a direct bearing upon recreational use of the WRDP.
The aesthetics of scenes perceived by man are difficult
to state in absolute terms because different persons derive
different levels of satisfaction from the same scene. In the
case of outdoor recreation, aesthetics were related to
naturalness and orderliness of the scene perceived from the
water surface and from access corridors leading to the WRDP.
The following discussion of Corps land and contiguous
land usage is limited to the relationships that directly
influence the quality of the biophysical environment at Corps
WRDPs.

3-34

1. Adverse Effects of Contiguous Commercial ar@d
Resiaential Use of Land
Encroachments upon Federal land were reported at
@Hartwell, Old Hickory, Isabella, Ashtabula, Cumberland, Foster
J.-Sayers, Vidpoapello, Table Rock, John Day, Eufaula, Black-
Warrior,' Pend Oreille, Mosquito Creek, and Texoma; 48.3% of
the projects surveyed. Although the majority of MRL at
Mosquito Creek and Foster J. Sayers is outgranted to state
governments, encroachment remains a Corps problem.. Loss of
@natural aesthetic appeal was observed at Texoma, Eufaula
John Day,* Wappapello, Asht abula@, Cumberland, Isabella, Old
Ifickory, Hartwell, Ouachita, and Oahe; 37.9% of.the projects
.'surveyed. Development of,commercial and residential facili-
ties adjacent to the Federal boundary was found to be.
sufficiently dense to block public access to Corps land and
the shoreline at Hartwell, Old.Hickory, Table Rock,,Texoma,
.@:and Pend Oreille; 17.2% of WRDPs surveyed. Except for Texoma
,.and,Pend Oreille (a natural lake where Corps ownership and
.control is very limited), the consequences are'limited to-
.WRDPs with low MRL ratios. Urban runoff with attendant soil.
,erosion and localized (often short term) degradation of
..wat er quality were reported or observed at Texomal John Day,
Fl'ufaula, e ickory, and Hartwell;
Jon s Bluff, Wappapello, Old H@
24.19, of the WRDP,s surveyed.

Other observed adverse effects of high density commercial
and. residentialdevelopment included: overcrowding of'public
recreation areas and facilities; increased workload on WRDP
and Engineer District staffs.to accept applications from
-ind
issue permits and other outgrant instruments to private
individuals authorizing them to modify shore,lands or install
floating facilities; and requirements for staff.time to ensure
the integrity of Federal property.

3-35

One of the primary causes of the adverse effects of
.contiguous commercial and residential use of land is inade-
@quate Corps acquisition of key parcels of land. Control of
..such key parcels on some WRDPs is essential to effective
:management of the MRL.

Inadequate Corps,
land acquisition was cited as a cause
.,of adverse effects at Oahe, Hartwell, Isabella, Old Hickory,
,,Ashtabula, Cumberland, Table,Rock, Eufaula, Black Warrior,
Jones Bluff,.and Pend Oreille; 37-91% of the WR.DPs surveyed.
Six of the seven low MRL ratio WRDPs reported inadequate
.land as a cause of adverse impacts on the.resource units.

At Colebrook, the only low MRL WRDP without a problem,
.Corps ownership is coupled with Metropolitan District Com-
.mission of Hartford ownership to afford.nearly complete
-control of the lands within the analytical unit. Similarly,
there is a lack of negative impacts at.the Leech Lake WRDP,
.where ownership and management of over 50% of the lands
.Within the analytical unit by the USFS and the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources is coupled with state man-
dated zoning and building codes on private lands within one-
quarter mile of the shoreline.

A second important cause of WRDP resourc e degradation
from contiguous. commercial and residential land use is the
lack or inadequacy of local land use planning and develop-
ment regulations and/or the lax enforcement of those that
Pxist. This situation was found at Pend Oreille, Texoma,
Mosquito Creek, Eufaula, Jones Bluff, Foster J. Sayers,
MRP #21, Wappapello, Table Rock, Hartwell, Isabella,
Old Hickory, Ouachita, and Oahe; 48.3% of the WRDPs in'the
sample. All but two of@the WRDPs (Hopkinton-Everett and

3-36

@Le ech@ do not have localland use and building regulations
covering all lands abutting WRDP lands. At four other WRDPsj
portions of lands abutting WRDP lands lie within urban juris-
dictions with strong conventional controlst e.g., those por-
tions:of Old Hickory and J..Percy Priest within the jurisdic-
tion of the Metropolitan Government of.Nashville and Davidson
County. This means that 79.3% of all WRDPs surveyed lie in
'jurisdictions where there are no land use controls to comple-
ment.Corps management.

Opportunities for Corps project personnel to capitalize
On the potential for contiguous development and to work co-
.op eratively to control or guide development when it occurs
exist to some extent at all.29 WRDPs included in the sample.
.This exte'nds,to coordinative and cooperative relation-
@ships with state and other Federal agencies in planning and
managing contiguous lands. At allof the WRDPs where USFS
.lands constituted a significant portion of the analytical
unit, attitudes of Corps and USFS personnel can best be des-
cribed as very formal. True coordination means that both
parties are willingand able to give up some things in.retukn
for gains elsewhere an,atmosphere of reciprocity.

Inadequate definition and protection of the boundaries.-
@'of Corps-acquired land was found to be a cause of adverse
.effects at Oahe, Ouachita, Isabella, Hartwell, Old Hickory,
@Ashtabula, Cumberland, Table Rock, John Day, Pend Oreille,
.and Texoma; 37.9%.of the sample.

2. Effects of Corps Development on Contiguous *Land
The value,of land increases with proximity to safe and
S1-in.i._tq.j.-y access to the lakes. This increase in land value
reprOsents a portion of the land development process generally

3-37

leading to the development of housing and/or commercial
.establishments ata rate faster, than on parc-els not so
favored. The process quickly limits the potential for en-
.larging the area of public land adjacent-to Corps develop-

:ments.

Where WRbPs are constructed in areas.exhibiting low
-density suburban'or exurban housing patterns Corps develop-
decisions may alter the land use, patterns to include
service establishments-and to change from single unit residdn-
tial to either high density subdivisionst apartments, or
condominiums. Corps-induced changes are most evident at,
'Texoma, Pend Oreille, Table Rock, WappApello,-Hartwell, Cum-
,berland, Isabella, Oahe, and Ouachita.

This process occurs in at least two stages at low MRL
ratio lakes. The first increment of-development occurs
linearly on the strip of land immediately adjacent to Corps
land, but not necessarily evenly along the entire shoreline.
.For example, although the portion of Old Hickory which is
nearest to downtown Nashville (but outside the zoning juris-
diction of the,Na;shville-Davidson County Metropolitan
Government) is high density suburban development, upstream,
housing density grades downward to exurbanand rural. The
second stage occurs when.the accessible shoreline areas are
filled; second'and third tier,de.velopment.then radiates from
Places where the second and third tier homeowners can gain
access to the water. The Hendersonville portion ofold,
Hickory may represent a third stage of development: whole
peninsulas are entirely developed, (Figure 3.1) and the mag-
.nitude, pace, a.nd location of future development is not in-
fluenced by Corps development decisions (perhaps not even.by
Corps lakeshore management plans).

3-38

HENDERSONVILLE RECREATIONAL Figure 3.1.
ACCESS

L E G E N D.

CORPS ADMINISTERED RECREATION
OR ACCESS AREAS
CITY
LIMITS

0
6mmmJ 31 E
FEET

041,,

co
alto,-

3-39

and high MRL ratio.WRDPs begin with stage two,
and as at Eufaula, the sequence of development responds to
,,the proximity of transportation arteries and the capacity of
Corps development. The volume of subdivision activity at
;Corps projects is indicated by the data shown in Table 3-1.

Another consequence of Corps development decisions is!
.competition between concessioners and private recreation
service establishments. Concessions, whether operating under
leases issued by-the Corps or other agencies, offer a mix of
facilities and services prescribed by the public agency;
.the quality and price.of the goods and services offered.are
subject to public recjulation and inspection. on the other
hand, facilities operated on private land are subject 'Only
to the forces of the market, such local controls as exist,
And sometimes.Corps supervision of the location and quality
.-Of floating facilities installed. Thus, Corps decisions con-
.cerning the construction and operation of facilities that
detract.from, the business of a Corps concessioner may cause
bus.iness failures such as at.,,Hartwell.

There is generally a uniform lack of analysis of the
impact of Corps investment and policy decisions upon contiguo us
.land in Corps master plans; in fact, noldata were discovered
at the project level that would facilitate suchanalyses.
Additionally, sites chosen by the Corps for development
often do not have sufficient size to buffer the effects of
development from contiguous lands. This characteristic was
reported at Oahe, Ouachita, Isabella, Hartwell, Old Hickory,
Cumberland, Ashtabula, Table Rock, Texoma, Pend Oreille,
Leech, Eufaula, Robert S. Kerr, Black Warrior, and Jones
Bluff. These 15 WRDPs (51.7% of the WRDPs surveyed) lacked
adequate key land for recreation facility development.

3-40

Table 3- 3 Summary of Known Platted subdivision, Number of-Lots, and Lots
q. Abutting Federal Property at 29 Corps Water Resource Develop-
ment Projects.

Platted Number of Lots
Sub- Number of Abutting Corps.
WRj)P divisions Lots -,Property,

a
.1. ..Wappapello 3 5,100 N/A

.2. :..Ouachita 2 2?020 N/A

3. Fort Peck N/A N/A N/A

Oahe N/A N/A 110

5. Colebrook 0 0 0

6.- Hopkinton-Everett 0 N/A

71. Foster J. Sayres N/A N/A N/A

8. Chesapeake &
Delaware Canal 0 N/A N/A

MRP #21 N/A N/A N/A

10. Ashtabula N/A N/A 100

b
11. Leech N/A N/A N/A
12., Pend Oreille b N/A N/A N/A

:13 John Day 0 0. 0

14. Dworshak N/A N/A N/A

15. Cordell Hull N/A N/A N/A

16. Cumberland 120 N/A N/A

17. Old Hickory 114 29,000 2,700

18. J. Percy Priest N/A N/A N/A

3-41

Table 3-3 (Contin d I
ue

Platted Number of Lots
Sub- Number of Abutting Corps
WRDP divisions Lots Property_
19. Mosquito Creek N/A N/A N/A

20@. Black Warrior N/A N/A N/A

21. Jones Bluff N/A N/A N/A

22. Clark Hill 35 N/A 598

23. Hartwell 300 N/A 2,6711

24. Alamo 0 0 0

25. Isabella N/A N/A N/A

.26. Table Rock 284 18,534 6,721

27. Eufaula 136 N/A N/A

28.. Robert S. Kerr N/A N/A N/A

29,. Texoma 70 N/A N/A

Summary 1,064 54,654 12,302

a@
..Not available.

b@
Natural lake, no exterior Corps boundary.

3-42

.3. Corps and Contiguous Land Use Findin
a. The interrelationship between Corps and adjacent
land use has been shown significantly to effect recreation
overuse and/orunderuse at WRDPs.

b. Corps planning considers socioeconomic condi-.
..tions in large geographic areas that influenc e recreation
,,,use, but does not adequately include detailed socioeconomic
and land use conditions in the much smaller area -- up to:
0.75 miles of the shoreline within which impacts are most

severe.

C. Corps policies and decisions influence invest-
ment decisions within the biophysical area, and decisions by
contiguous owners force responses by the Corps on the Federal
.1a,.nds they manage. Failure by Corps officials*to recognize
and act upon this relationship has resulted in:

1) Increased pressure for dock.and landscaping
outg.rants (24.1%).

2) Loss of aesthetically pleasing approaches to
WRDPs (37.9%).

.3) Encroachment by adjoining landowners (55.2%).

4) Intensive development constituting a barrier
to ready access to the water (17.2%).

5) Accelerated, nutrient rich runnoff from
intensive contiguous development causing potential
water quality degradation in the WRDP (24.1%).

d. Inadequate land in key locations is a major con
..tributor to the adverse biophysical impacts being experienced
at Corps WRDPs (37.9%).

3-43

e. There a.re,.no controls on the development process
exercised b
y local government jurisdictions,at 79.3% of the
.Corps WRDPs surveyed. The-situation is-exacerbated by.the.
fact that only portions of four additional WRDPs-are subject
'to stringent development controls...

f. inadequate-definition and protection of the
Corps boundaries.is a.significant cause of encroachments in
37.9% of the WRDPs surveyed.

g. Interrelationships between concessioners on
fCorps land vary by WRDP and by.,time. Corps project personnel
do not now monitor this changing relationship; thus,.there
is no basis-upomwhich to adjust Corps 'concessioner rela-
.tionships to accommodate changes in competitive position.

D. -Real Estate Programs and Practices
Yrom the standpoint of recreation, fish and wildlife
..enhancement,.and -land use, Real Estate Directorate (RED)
.personnel function in six areas: (1) as a repository*for
..all...land titles; (2) issuing easements, licenses,and permits
to:agencies and Individuals forrights-of-way across Federal,
land; (3) issuing leases and licenses to public agencies for
.public recreation and for fish and wildlife enhancement; (4)
,issuing leases to quasi-public agencies for the use of
Federal lands and the development of group recreation
facilities; (5) issuing leases and licenses to private ind'i-
..viduals for a variety of activities on Federal land, including
-.private cottages, commercial concessions, cultivation of row
crops,and grazing; and (6) supervising the sale of products"
,such as timber, from civil and military property.

3-44

@In each of the areas, RED personnel are charged with
assuring the integrity of the land entrusted.to the Corps,
including: resolution of.encroachment upon Federal
'property and trespass; imposition of special terms designed
to.protect And enhance the Federal lands and inspection to-
assure compliance by grantees with the special and general.
termp of outgrant instruments;. and periodic calculation of
fair and equitable amounts due the U. S. from the grants
of use privileges.

Successful accomplishment of.these tasks requires skills.
in real estate law and practice, business administration.
(particularly marina and food and lodging management), land
management, and public affairs.

In fulfilling-their responsibilities, RED personnelare
constrained by,.: (1) conditions imposed in'the project authori-
zation, such as the recognition of existing utility rights-
of-way, rights,of first refusal and/or rights attached to the
acquisition.of.the property,,such as theright of livestock
to.cross Federal land to,water; (2) master plan designation
of areas for intensive recreation developmentt interim uses,,
and. wildlife management; (3) acceptance by state and local
..governments of'national policies for assuming development,.
operating, and maintenance costs; and (4) the effectiveness.
.of project-level Corps organizations.

The RED staff at the field level can dominate recrea-
..tion and resource administration, or they can be only a
service unit subsidiary to the planning and/or operations
functions. Some of the problems in the.real estate area
cannot be attributed solely to the real estate staffs.
These problems are the result of joint decisions made with
personnel in other substantive divisions.

3-45

In this part of the study, the effectiveness of the
.Corps' real estate programs and policies with respect to
recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement are dealt with.
First,examples of good management practices are cited,
;followed by a discussion of problem areas in.which improve-
,.ments could profitably be made..

First consider examples of the strong points in the
programs and policies. Corps real estate practices represent
very high standards. There is open competitive bidding for
concession privileges, full disclosure of negotiations for
agricultural and grazing leases,.and use of a base fixed fee
plus graduated percentage of gross-income to compute con-.
cessioner rents. All these practices are recognized by public
ag.encies such as the Office of Management.and'Budget as fair
and.,6quitable ways to grant private.use of.public land while
protecting the national interest.

Now consider areas in which the Corps' real estate
practices can.be improved with respect to its recreation,
,..fish and wildlife enhancement efforts. These areas principally
involve: (1) instrument conditions and enforcement; (2)
inadequately defined and/or unprotected boundaries; 13)
concession practices; (4) interim land uses; (5) reliance on
state and local governments; and use of other Federal
Resource Management Agencies.

1. Instrument Conditions and Enforcement
Instrument and enforcement deficiencies generally lead
to poor use or overuse of land resources.. overgrazing and
''poor agricultural practices, for example, evidenced by exposed,
soils and accelerated erosion, were reported at Ouachita,
Fort Peck, Oahe, Isabella, Ashtabula, Wappapello, Texoma,
John Day, and Eufaula; 31.0% of the projects sampled.

3-46

Instrument and enforcement deficienc*
les also generally
lead to the presence of poorly operated and maintained con-
cession areas. The evidence most often found was run-down@
buildings, house trailers used as rental units. scattered
[email protected] a concession area, and the presence of abandoned
a Po
or concessioner
.,,.vehicles, appliances, and other debris
compliance with-the maintenance provisions of Corps lease
i.nstKuments. wa s noted at-Leech, Cumberland, Hartwell, and Old
Hickory, or 13.8.% of the sample.

..There is a lack either of realistic grantee investment
Schedules in the terms of the outgrant or.of evidence that
,existing schedules are being met at Isabella, Pend Oreillef
.Dworshak, Hopkinton-Everett,. and Eufaula, or 17.2% of the
WRDP's sampled. More serious is the lack of an accounting of
cumulative investments in recreation and fish and wildlife.
-made by non-Corps entities. At all WRDPs except Colebrook
..:.(where thereare no outgrants) and Cumberland, records of
-the cumulative total of-investment per lessee and forecasts
of. planned lessee investment are incomplete. .At the WRDPs
,,where the records and forecasts are incomplete, their
existence in a.ny,,.form seems to be more nearly attributable
to the initiative of the lessee [an example is the forecast
:of planned investment by the Quincy (Illinois) Park District,
MRP. 421)] than to Corps management of the lessees..

Enforcement deficiencies lead to after-the-fact dis-
@covery of encroachments and trespass. Encroachments are
.,evident at John Day,.Eufaula, Black Warrior, Jones Bluff,
.Pend Oreille, Texoma, Table Rock, Wappapelloj*Ashtabula,
:Cumberland, Isabella, Hartwell, Old Hickory, Ouachita, Oahe,,
a
Special care- was taken not to include in this enumeration
those facilities built upon private land adjacent to.a Corps'
botindary but operated as part of an area.covered by Corps
lease or.Title 36 permit.

3-47

:.and Fort Peck; 55.2% of the WRDPs surveyed. Lack of interest
in field inspection and enforcement activities by RED and
lack of RED professional staff at field locations from which
frequent, irregular observations of conditions could origin-
ate were reported at Black Warrior, Jones Bluff, Pend Oreille,
..,Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Wappapello, MRP #24 Foster J..,
Sayers# Ashtabula, Leech, Isabella, Oahef and Fort Pdck;
A1.4% of the surveyed WRDPs.

In one field, wildlife enhancement, RED personnel have
difficulty in identifying adverse effects of poor land
management Practices. Wildlife outgrants (leases and licenses)
are made to.state and Federal agencies with biological exper-
tise. RED officials do not have the necessary.expertise to
Audge the adequacy of.proposed state.or,Federal investments
and operating and maintenance schedules. Further, compliance
with schedules-that are submitted is difficult.to enforce..

Partof the problem in the wildlife enhancement field
is the incomplete understanding by state-les'sees of the
.financial alternatives open to them for managing habitat on
WRDP land. For example, top South Carolina Wildlife and
Marine Resources Department staff were uncertain as to the
extent departmental personnel could mark.and cause to be sold
standing timber on land leased from the Corps at Clark Hill.
The lease provides that such proposals be made as part of
the state's annual work program that is reviewed by.the Corps
.for technical competency and that receipts from the sale be
earmarked for further improvement of the leasehold.

The degree of RED reliance upon project level personnel
is conditioned by the quality of the field force. In-the
South Carolih4 case cited above, project level professionaL

3-48

staff can relate habitat management on Corps land to state
,Management proposals; at other projects, there are no profes-
@s.ional personnel other than the district environmental
resources staff on whom RED can call for assistance. Under
these circumstances, it is difficult to obtain flexibility in
balancing the technical lan guage of the instruments against
pragmatic field relationships within the context of legal and
Tolicy requirements.

A, well recognized cause of encroachment and trespa .ss is
@the absence of'well marked boundaries on the land outgranted.
@In some cases,.this situation is synonymous with failure.to
-mark clearly the limit of intensive recreation areas where
special visitor,regulation authorities apply. In these
cases, RED responsibilities can be coordinated with Corps
field,personnel, especially the growing ranger force. Mutual
confidence may.require frequent RED/Recreation-Resource
P@aftaqement coordinating sessions to assure joint familiarity
with conditionsin the field and with RED requirements.

@A principal cause of the Problems associated with instru-
mcht conditions and enforcement is the lack of direct involve-
ment by project Jevel personnel in the formulation of the
conditions to be attached to outgrant instruments and the
very uneven division of responsibility between,RED personnel
and-Operations Division personnel stationed at or assigned to
.the WRDPs. In some instances, project personnel warn con-
cessioners of unsatisfactory-conditions only to see RED
.inspectors ignore their recommendations to penalize repeat
offenders; in.8ome cases, outgraht inspections.are made by_
RED only once per year. such conditions were found to ekist
atOuachita, Fort Peck, Oahe, Isabella, Ashtabulal MRP #21,
Pend Oreille, and Texoma; 27.6.% of the sample.

3-49

2.. Inadequately-Defined and Unprotected Boundaries
The incidence of management problems related to inade-
.quate-boundary location and marking is identical to that
,associated with contiguous land use. There are, however,
different considerations more directly related to RED activitibs.@.
Lack of clearly marked boundaries-makes prosecution of
,violators difficult. Examples of inability to prove trespass.,
,violations were found at, Ouachita, Oahe, Isabella, Old
Hickory, Hartwell, Ashtabula, Cumberland, Tabl:e Rock, and
'Pend Oreille; 27.5% of the WRDPs@surveyed. Frequent grazing,
timber, and wildlife.trespass is another problem. Thecause-
effect relationship-between trespass.frequency and boundary
definition is-not clear. Rustling is a national phenomenon;
felling mature walnut trees is a function of the market
value of a highly demanded material in short supply.
Frequent abuses and unsuccessful prosecutions were
reported at Texoma, MRP #21, Wappapello, Ouachita, Oahe, and.
Fort Peck 21.6% of the projects in the sample.

The causes of this situation mainly stem from the low
priority assigned to.boundary,problems, suchas, was reported.
at Ouachita, Oahe, Fort Peck, Hartwell Old Hickory, Ashtabula,
Table.Rock, Foster J. Sayers, Wappapello, MRP *21, John Day,
Eufaula, Robert.S. Kerr, Black Warrior, and Jones Bluff;
.5.1.7% of the projects studied.. Low priority means too few
personnel in the field and a reluctance to prosecute encroach-
ment and trespass cases vigorously. Some evidence.of this
exists in the level of staffing of RED Management an d Disposal
Branches (or its equivalent) at the district le vel. Lack of
vigorous enforcement is indicated when resolution of en-
croachment cases consists of the sale or lease of the property
encroached upon to the offender (four such sales and three
such leases reported in one year.at a single WRDP).

3-50

3. Concession Practices
The 49 case studies include.117 concessioners operating
under leases issued by the Corps. Two of the leases.were for
terms.exceedin4 25 years, 78 were for terms of 16 to 25 years,
17 were for terms of 6 to 15 years, and 20 were for terms
of 11to 5 years.

'The basis upon which annual rent is paid varies widely.
District RED personnel are converting to the system of
minim'um fixed fee plus a graduated scale based upon the
relationship of gross income to investment. The rate at
which this conversion is occurring also varies widely.* Some
districts are renegotiating leases on their initiative while
other districts wait for the termination of the present lease
or a request by the lessee for major modifications. During
197,31, 47 leases specified a fixed annual rental, 37 were
based upon a small fixed minimum rental plus a percentage of
grossincome, and 33 specified the graduated system.

Analysis of the characteristics of the 117 concessions,
@shown in Table 3-4, reveals that the term.'of lease is.relative.ly
a
short.. In an earlier study concessioners indicated that un-
ce-rtainties of project operations beyond the control of con-
cessioner, requirements to rersiove all facilities on 30 day
notice if the land is to be converted.from recreation to
other project purposes, and inability to,secure capital at
reasonable cost when tenure is less than 50 years all con"
tributeto limited concessioner investment in recreation
facilities. In this regard, the existence of run-down or
substandard facilities was noted at Oahe, Hartwell,.Old
Hickory, Leech, Eufaula, Cumberland, and Isabella; 21.6% of
the projects surveyed.
LlCoastal Zone Resources Corporation. 1973. The Private Sector
aiid Cost-Sharing Recreation Development and Maintenance at
.Cork"; of Engineers Multi-Purpose Projects: An Initial In-
!IqEr OTFIcie, Chief f Engineers, Washington, D. C.

3-51

Table 3-4. Characteristics of Concession Leases at 29 Corps Water Resource Development Projects.

Annual
Number of Length of Lease Terms Rent
WRDP Concessioners 1-5 6-15 16-25 25+ Fixed %'Gross Graduated -Paid $
(as)
Wappapello 5 3 3 10 1 4,010

Ouachita 9 9 1 .8 17,803

Fort Peck 2 2 2 635

Oahe 4 3 1 3 1 1,025

Colebrook 0

Hopkinton-
.Everett 0

Poster J.
Sayres 0a

Chesapeake &
Delaware 0

MRP #21 0
Ashtabula 2b 2 2 294

Leech 6 6 6 1,300

Pend Oreille 0

John Day 0

Dworshak 0
Cordell Hull 3 3 3. N/Ag
a
Cumberland 9 1 8 9 49,567
Old Hickory 12c 1 11 10 2 8,910

J. Percy Priest 4 .4
2 2 19,816

Table 3-4.

Annual
Number of Length of Lease Terms Rent
WRDP Concessioners 1-5 6-15 .16-25 25+ Fixed Gross Graduated Paid $
(yrs)
Mosquito
a
Creek 0

Black
Warrior 0

Jones Bluff 0
Clark Hill 4d 4 4 5,323
Hartwell Q 3 2 2 4 5,445

Alamo. 0
'Isabella 3 3 1f 2 6,522
V,
Table.Rock- 13 6 7 16,172

Eufaula 4 2 .2 2 6,414

Robert S. Kerr 1 1 1 652

Texoma 24 1 7 16 3 .14 7 35,650

Totals 117 20 17 78 2 47 37 33 .179,538
aThere are third party concessioners operating in addition to Corps. f of gross only.
bOne reported business failure. gNot available.

C
includes one third party lease assumed by Corps.

d
One facility had 5 turnovers in 20 yrs; one had 4 turnovers in 20 yrs.-
eHa d three operations that changed ownership three.times in the first 5 yrs.

Survey team,obse,rvation of concessions revealed that
,with few exceptions conces-sion operations are primarily marinas
and fish camps that.vary only in scale. This situation con-
with resort type facilities found on.private land
contiguous to low MRL ratio WRbPs, such as Table Rock, which
.land and
only require passage across, a narrow strip of Corpig'
a permit for floating facilities. Hence, the full potential
-.range.of visitor demands for fishing,.boating, and other
family activities which could be.offered by Corps WRDPs.is
limited-basically to water related activities..

A corollary Problem is the concession failure o r turn-
over. Definitive measures of the turnoverrate' are not avdil-;-.
able for a variety of reasons. An operator may assign his
interest-in a lease.and-facilities to another party with
approval,of,the District Engineer. There.is no@easy way to
,determine whether such@assignment is made because of financial
difficulties or because of speculation. In addition, although
a large number of lease amendments record internal reorgani-
zation.-of lessees, it is not possible to tell. whether the
reorganization.was caused by a need to save an operation by
infusing new capital or the emergence of a dominant individual
in-.a viable operation. Thi.rdly,.turnovers may be caused by
Corps operation of WRDRwater levels.rather than private in-
vestment or the management capability of the operator.

A cause of poor concessioner selection is inadequate mar-@-
ket information upon which to base,the content and timing of a
,concession prospectus. Forecasting recreation visitation
.accurately is difficult, particularly in view of the variety
of purposes to be served by Corps project forecasts. Planning@
staff forecasts during the preauthorization period and the

3-54

degree of subsequent forecast refinement depend upon whether
recreation is intended as an authorized purpose for which
benefits must.be calculated as directed by Supplement 1,
Senate Document 97, or whether only an estimate of the cost
of*minimum basic facilities is needed. Other forecasts Ate
made during the post-authorization master planning process
in order to determine facility needs.. The methodology for
this process, devised by the Sacramento Engineer District
Jor the Office, Chief of Engineersi is a useful guide for
a
determining service areas and capacities needed
in no case,, however, do forecasts isolate the
competitive and/or complementary relationships between
different levels of public investments and private invest-
inents. Distinctions are not made between gross visitation
and.visitors who will contribut e to the cash flow of a con-
cessioner

Finally, although not quantifiable, there was a feeling
in some districts that persons with theprerequisites for
a good Corps concessioner are hard to find and, therefore,
every consideration should be given to existing operators
to prevent a lease cancellation and a vacant concession
operation.

4. Interim Uses of Land,
1@and acquired as part of WRDPs may be allocated only for
authorized uses. Where recreation and -fish and wildlife
enhancement are recognized as project purposes, allocations
of land for these purposes may be made. During tne transition
.from land use patterns existing at the time of WRDP authori-
zation and full operation of the project, lands'not immed-
iately needed for project operations, recreation development,
.a Sacramento District. 1969. Estimatin@ Initial Re servoir
Recreation Use. Sacramento, California.

3-55

or habitat improvement can be used for other purposes-, most
@often agriculture and@grazing practiced by owners and/or
operators of adjacent land. The Corps designates such use
of a WRDP as "interim",and issues short-term leases (usually,
5 years or less) to private individuals permitting the
planting and.harvesting of crops and grazing of livestock.

In theory the system permits pr oductive use of land
until a higher public demand develops. In practice, however.,
the interim use-tends to become permanent. Thelessees
become accustomed to using the land and oppose even general
.Policy moves-to limit private use'(Wappapello); some . request
permission to.post the land to prevent@entry by sportsmen
(Hopkinton-Everett). Efforts by the.Corps to,encourage good
husbandry increases the possessory feeling. For example,
when-the Corps included application of fertilizer, seed, and
fencing as lease conditions (Hopkinton-EVerett and Clark Hill),
the concomitant investment was.considered as securing a right
to the use of the land that should not be abrogated. Reduc-
tion of this lease program is also resisted by local govern-
ments who receive 75% of the lease income received by the
Corps.. At.Fort Peck and Wappapello, the short-term, interim
leases have been repeatedly renewed to the same individuals
.or their-assigns-for thirty or more years.

In cases such as Wappapello and Hopkinton-Everett, where
MRL is in large part level flood plain, subject to only
infrequent inundation and-surrounded by steep., rocky slopes and
ridges, maintenance of open pasture and the growing of grains
may be beneficial to upland wildlife.; If the same land were.
leased to a wildlife management agency, similar,agricultur al
practices probably would be prescribed (as was found at Oahe@
hy the North Dakota Denartment of Fish and Game and at RP #21
M
by the USF&WS), and there would be no lease income to dis-

3-56

:tribute to the counties,.since the lease'income accrues to the
managing agency.

The situation becomes more sensitive when grazing of
o.Den range land is involved. Such cases often result in
direct competition between livestock and big game animals
(Texoma, Eufaula, and Fort Peck).

The Corps finds itself between opposing forces with
very little*internal expertise available. This observed lack
of professional expertise is corroborated by the,following:
(1) specific land treatment provisions included in the
flopkinton-Everett and Clark Hill cases are the exception
rather than the rulef (2) good husbandry is recommended by.
general. reference to conservation districts and the cooperating
@U- S. Soil Conservation Service, and (3) no lease instruments
examined in this study expressed pasturage or grazing in
,animal unit months (AUM) at specific times of the year.

5. Reliance on State and Local-Governments
The intent of Congress to encourage state and local
.governments to develop and operate public',parks has been
implemented by the Corps. Five hundred nineteen thousand
acres of Corps land have been outgranted to.states, coun-
.ties, municipalities, and other local public-bodies for
:public recreation purposes.

In addition, state governments who desire and are able to
assume management responsibilities for all MRL in a project
have been encouraged to do so as in the cases of Mosquito
Creek, Hopkinton-Everettl Foster J. Sayers, an.dAlamo; 13.7%
of the WRDPs surveyed. The Congressional int ent has been to
provide basic minimum safe and sanitary access.,to the water

3-57

resource at.Federal expense; more sophisticated facilities,
such as full-service campgrounds and.lodges, are to be
provided at;non-Federal expense. The states h ave taken
advantage of the opportunities offered, as exemplified by
Cumberland State Park (Kentucky), Lake Texoma State Park
Oklahoma), and the Baker Creek State Park (South Carolina),
under development.at Clark Hill. Complexes such'as these
(with lodgest cottages, golf courses,. and airstrips as well
as more conventional campgrounds,and marinas) constitute a
new type of state operation: _the resort state park.
The following are some state.characteristics. discernible from
the WRDPs,studied by CZRC and from other studies. (1) Once
a-state commits itself to the long-term.(50 years) administra-
tion of Federal land, it honors thecommitment; there were
no reported.attempts by the states 'to.abrogate existing leases
on the Corps WRDPs surveyed. (2) State natural resource
departments are more interested andable to accept manage-
ment of all project MRL than single purpose state agencies.
The Ohio (Mosquito Creek),Department of Natural Resources
exemplifies,the point. Relations with Corps personnel are
bett.er because inter-f-unctional disputes-are j,.nternalized.
Where consortia of-state agencies are involved, as in the
case in New-Hampshire (Hopkinton-Everett) and Arizona (Alamo)
coordination may become a problem. (3) There seems to be an
upper limit on WRDP size and total WRDP acreage that state
agencies are able to handle financially. Most state parks
do not meet their operations and maintenance cost from income,
let alone accumulate reserves equal to depreciation.

a,
States that finance capital improvements with proceeds from
the saleof revenue bonds may be an.exception. -Here, as in

3-58

'.The,22,856 acre outgrant to Arizona at Alamo is equal to the
:total project acreage reported in RRMS 1973, and is the
largest single project of this type managed by state govern-
Even the size of.this project as an upper limit is-
Mitigated against by the relatively small size of the recrea-
.@tion water body (11,000 acres), relative distance from popula-
..tion penters, and the fact that the capital cost of initii
facility development was borne by the Corps.

The success.of the outgrant policy with respect to local'
:governments is mixed. At the 29 WRDPs surveyed, 50 recreation
areas presently managed by the Corps were originally designed
and developed for operation by local. governments a 11.1% of all
,Corps operated recreation areas in the sample WRDPs. The,full
cost of developing these facilities was paid.by the Corps from
project or Code 710 funds.

The complexity of Corps resumption of management is
increased when, a third party concessioner has invested in
and, in some cases, acts as park manager for the.
local government. The common Corps practice observed-in the

-.the case of Kentucky, park operations must be profitable
(Robert R. Nathan and Resource Planning Assoc. 1967), but
.in the process non-revenue generating facilities, such as.
Sand beaches, are often neglected in favor of facilities
that do generate income, such as lodge swimming pools.
@Zl The total of 50 represents known areas where management has re-
verted to.the Corps., The point was not pushed in early
.,,field work and some reversions may have been missed. Nash-
ville Engineer District personnel reported that.,at least two
other recreation areas outgranted to.local governments were@
-likely to revert to the Corps.

3-59

study was to honor existing lease agreements between local
agencies and concessioners.

Sparsely populated, rural jurisdictions are most prone
to request cancellation of leases in favor of Corps manage-
ment (Table 3-5). In the Mosquito Creek and Hopkinton-Everett
cases, the state leases contemplated third party arrangements
with a local government. When local participation did not
materialize, the areas were dropped from the state lease and
management was assumed by the Corps. At Old Hickory, lease
cancellations were requested by public utility districts and
suburbanizing government jurisdictions but not the Parks and
Recreation Department of Nashville-Davidson County Metropoli-
tan Government. One reason for these changes may be that there
is seldom a staffed park and recreation agency within the lessee
jurisdiction. There is no established commitment to recreation
services for residents by the legislative body of the juris-
diction and operating a recreation area at a Corps WRDP is
the first venture of the government into recreation administra-
tion. Thus, when the composition of the legislative body
changes, there is no accepted voice to advocate appropriations
to continue operating one or two-recreation areas that may, in.
fact, be little used by a rural constituency. Their needs may
be well met by the free, minimum basic access the Corps is
required by law to provide. This general pattern does not
apply universally. At Isabella, all recreation areas were o nce
managed by Kern County, California, which has a well developed
county park and recreation department and a broadly based
county budget; nevertheless, these areas have also reverted
to Corps management.

3-60

Table 3-5. Recreation Areas Developed for operation by Local
Governments Now Operated by CoE2s.

Project Number
of Areas

Hppkinton-Evere.tt 3

Ashtabula 7

Pend Oreille 2

John Day 8

Old Hickory 4

Mosquito Creek

Isabella 13

Table Rock '12

Totals 8 50

3-61

A qqantitative analy:sis of municipal park performance
was not possible. It did seem, however, that.the proximity
of a.town or city to the recreation pool at 10 WRDPs is a
major reason whythe 17 municipal public park lessees have
continued to manage their recreation akeas. Data presented
in Table 3-6 show the number and acreage of, municipal park
outgrants at the' 29 WRDPs studied.

State and local response to the retroactively applied
cost sharing principles of the Federal water Project Recreation
Act (PL 89-72) to Code 710. funds are low. Within the samole
studied, only the State.of Arkansas and Montgomery County,
Arkansas (Ouachita), the State of Texas (Texoma), the State
of Arizona (Alamo), and.the State of New Hampshire.(Hopkin.ton-
Everett) had'expressed interest in the program, and are the
only WRDPs where an active non-Federal interest was reported.
No cost sharing concepts had been exe .cuted.

This information is confirmed by a report on Code 710
contract status compiled by OCE as of 2 May 1974 (Table 3-7).
Twelve states, 16 cities, and only 7 counties expressed in-
terest in the programs. Again, the preponderance of non-
state interest came fro& urban jurisdictiorib.
.6. Use of other Federal Resource-Management Agencies
Some of the r6creation-iedource management load at Corps
,WRDPs has been assumed by other Federal agencies. As shown in
Chapter 1 (Table 1-7), 378,028 acres in the Corps WRDP system is
outgranted to USF&WS for management-as parts of the national-
@wildlife refuge system.a In a Memorandum of Understanding be-
..tween the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Army,
,originally executed in 1964 and subsequ6ntly amended, the Corps
a
Management for that part of Charles H. Russell National Game
Range withdrawn for the Fort Peck WkDP is shared by USF&WS
and BLM, according to Corps outgrant documents.

3-62

And USFS recognize a community ofinterest in those WRDPs that.
are 'or may be created within or adjacent to the boundaries of
the national forest system. The Agreement betw'en the agencies
e
recognizes that Corps WRDPs are or may be built so that a
..majority or all of the shoreline consists or. may consist of
land held by the United States and entrusted to USFS administra@
ti.6n; Corps WRDPs are or may be built within National Forest
boundaries, but where a majority or all of the.MRL has been
or may be acquired for the United States by the Corps with
project funds; and Corps WRDPs are or may be built adjacent to
National Forest boundaries. In the first situation, USFS
.:.continues multiple use management of the land; assumption of
the additional recreation work load caused by the WRDP (in-.
cluding project financed facilities) can be accomplished by
only adding direct recreation employees since District Ranger
and Forest Supervisor staffs are already in place. In the
l6tter two situations, USFS assumption of recreation-resource
...management of all or part of Corps acquired MRL is judged upon
the relative efficiency of using in-place agency management
staffs., Wherever possible., management is outgranted to USFS@.
Operations under the Memorandum of Understanding (formalized
as a Corps Engineering Regulation) recognizes the urgency of
applying skilled management to,WRDP lands and achieves economies
through efficient use of Availa ble manpower.

7. Real Estate Programs and'Practices Findings
a. Positive
(1) Real Estate.Directorate personnel are com-
petent professional realty specialists, interested in their
i'work and well equipped to support.recreation resource
management programs.

(2) The organization of the real estate function
...at the Engineer District level is very uniform, sometimes overly
SO.

3-63

Table 3-6. Munidi2al Outgrants for Public Parks.

Number of
WRDP Outgrants Acres Term

Oahe 3 137.7 2.5

Poster J. Saytes 2 45.5 26

C D Ca.nal 1.5 25

MRP #21 25

John Da 2 7516
'Y 25

Cordell, Hull 1 116. 0a
20

Old Hickory 2 71.0 2-25

Clark.;Hill 1 60.
.0 25

Hartwell
.28.0 25

.Texoma
3 462.0 10-25

'Totals 10
17 1032.8

a
For use of the Town of Gainsboro as part of a municipal,,golf course.

3-64

a
Table 3-7. Nationwide Corps Code 710 Cost Sharing Response.

.WRDP/Recreation Area Sponsor

Ouachita

3 Sisters Park State of Arkansas
South Twin Creek Montgomery County

Sakakawea
Four Bears 3 Tribal Councils
Hazen City of Hazen
'Little Muddy Creek City of Williston & Williams County
Mountrail Mountrail County

AIWW City of Chesapeake.
Waterbury Lake State of Vermont

Hopkinton-Everett. 'State of New.Hampshire
..Tully Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Fall..Creek
Sky Camp School District
McNary
Columbia Benton County
.,..Gen. Groves City of Richland

West. Fork,Mill Cr. Hamilton County
Atwood Lake Muskingtum Conservative District
.Greenup Lake. City of Huntington
Dillon Lake State of Ohio
Berlin Lake State of.Ohio
Belleville City of Parkersburg
Bluestone Lake State of.W. Virginia
Center Hill St te of Tennessee
J..Percy Priest .City of Nashville
..Dale Hollow
Dale Hollow St. Pk. State of Kentucky
Standing Stone. State of Tennessee
'Laku Barkley State of Kentucky
Cheatham City of Nashville
Wolt Creek State of Kentucky

3-65

Table 3-7. (Continued)

WRDP/Recreation Area Sponsor

Allatoona
Acworth Sub Im' undment City of Acworth
PO
Red Top Mt. State Park
Lake Sidney Ldhie k Lake Lanier Islands Authority
John H. Kerr State of North Carolina

..Jemez Canyon City of Albuquerque
'Gr@pevine Lake
City of Grapevine
Somerville Lake State of Texas
Whitney Lake State of Texas
Nimrod-Lake City of Plainview
Bull Shoals
@Shadow@Rock, Park City of Forsyth
Bull.Shoals St. Pk. State of Arkansas
Dardanelle State of Arkansas
.,Millwood State of Arkansas
Lake Texoma State of Texas

-Alamo Lake State of Arizona
Carbon Canyon Orange County
Orange County
..Fullerton Dam
Hanson Dam City of Los Angeles
Prado Dam City of Corona & Riverside County
Whittier Narrows City of Pico Rivera &..Los Angeles
County

,a
Corps of Engineers, Office, Chief of Engineers, Disposition Form,
Status Report Recreation Cost Sharing Contracts. Washington'. D. C.
20 May 1974.

3-66

(a) Instrument format, record keeping, and
organization.of branches and sections are nearly identical
in all Engineer Districts visited, except those in the North
Central Engineer Division.

(b) The practices followed, e.g., establish-
ment of fees and awarding of outgrants, are recognized by
cognizant authorities as being well.suited to the task of
encouraging private use of Corps resources while protecting
.the public interest.

(3) Most management and disposal branch.personnel
@take a direct interest in the successful operation of'recrea-
tion facilities at WRDPs, especially meeting the.unusual
problems faced by concessioners.

'(4) WRDP land,,including recreation facilities
built with project and Code 710 funds, have been made available
to.state governments and their political subdivisions; in many
cases non-Federal public bodies have been encouraged to develop
and manage WRDP land for recreation and fish and wildlife under
the outgrant program.

(a) Nationally, 473,826 acres are leased to
the states for public park purposes; 45,473 acres are leased
,to political subdivisions for public rec.reation.

(b) In some cases, entire project areas are
outgrapted to one.or more state agencies, but there seems to
be-a maximum size -.- the largest WRDP totally outgranted is
24,.000.acres -- beyond which states will not assumemanage-
ment responsibility.

b. Negative
(1) Some Engineer District Real Estate Directorate
ARED) personnel interpret their custodial responsibility
to.encQmpass-areas in which they lack professional expertise
and operational capability.

3-67

(a) In the absence of forceful recreation-
iresources management leadership, RED personnel may take a

1-rs.
@Policy making posture in recreation affai

(b) Inadequate coordination between RED per-
..sonnel and WRDP staffs intensifies encroachment and.trespas.s
,problems and permits poor operations and maintenance by
7concessioners.
(c) Inonly rare occasions do RED personnel
.-remain at the WRDPs once all parcels are acquired..

(2) Planning and management provisions.in
Corps lease documents are perfunctory paragraphs,bearing
little relationship to specific development.needs or neces-
-sary management practices, providing little opportunity to
:Lmatch lessee performance against master plan,objectives, and
-7making enforcemerit.difficult.

(3) The low level of private concession activity
ds reflected in.relatively lowtotal capital invested, a
limited range of facilities built on Corps land, low annual.
rent.payments, and a.lack of concession specialists on. RED'
Engineer District staffs,

(a) Only $13.1 million was invested by
-private concessioners at the 29. WRDPs surveyed.

(b).Facilities provided by concessioners are
largely marinas and fish camps. Total rent paid by con-
cessioners in 1973 was $179,418.

3-68

(4) Administration of agriculture and grazing out-
as interim uses poses problems in achieving the full
wildlife potential of WRDPs.

(a) Responsibility for agriculture and grazing
use is divided among planning, recreation-resources management,
and the management and disposal element of RED.

(b) There are 542,700 acres outgranted for
agriculture and 603,550 acres outgranted for grazing use
nation-wide.
(c) Conflicts with wildlife occur when the
cropping pattern is not coordinated with wildlife interests
and.when grazing animals compete directly with big game
animals for available forage.

(d) Such interim uses have become institu-
tiona.lized by continued reissuance of leases and by the
nature of the formula distributing Corps lease income to
!Aocal governments.

(5) The Corps is assuming an increasing role, and
"local governments a decreasing role, in operating recreation

areas at WRDPs.

(a) Reversion of outgranted.recreation
:areas, even when developed at Federal expense, is increasing,
particularly when rural governments areinvolved.

(b) In some instances, local governments
to accept responsibility for operating and maintaining
such-developed areas in the first place.
(c) This trend will probably.continue, Par-,,
tictilarly with retroactive application of cost sharing.

(6) USFS administration of Corps WRDPs under the
Memorandum of Agreement reflects the agency philosophy toward'
recreation development which will be enlarged upon in Chapter 4.

3-69

E Corps Organization
The case studies considered in our study show water and
land environments have been under Corps control for as long as.
years. Until recently, their potential as recreation, fish
And wildlife resources,was recognized by a relatively small
number of persons scattered'among Engineer District and@Division
offices, OCE, and the Board,of Engineers for Rivers and
Harbors. These individuals, through personal interest or.
training,actively promoted development of the recreation and
fi sh and wildlife potential of existing and planned-WRDPs and
created the climate for professional consideration of these
matters that endures to this day. Their personal imprint
extends beyond simple recognition of importance to philoso-
phies of management. A senior Corps civil servant with a NPS
.background emphasized resource protection.(Savannah); another
with an outdoor recreation background emphasized facility
development and people management (Nashville).

The wave of public participation in and concern for,
outdoor activities of the 1950's and 1960's broke upon this
emerging framework. At the same time, the backlog of
authorized WRDPs built up during-the 1940's was funded and
district engineering and construction staffs expanded
accordingly.

As national attention increasingl
y highlighted outdoor
recreation and natural beauty, OCE .sought to improve the out-
door.utility of WRDPs and to emphasize the sign'ificance of
existing WRDPs in state and regional outdoor recreation, land
use, and environmental planning. A report to the Chief of
Engineers examined these issues and recommended separating
the recreation planning function -from',engineering and relocating

3-70

a
At, in the planning division in the Civil Works.Directorate
,.A,planning division assignment was made in OCE and the
.,Engineer Divisions quickly followed suit. By fall, 1974,.
however, only 4 of the 19 engineer districts visited had
..established planning divisions (Table 3-8). Recreation planning,
4 environmental resources, and master planning branches or
isections are*found in a wide array of configurations within'
the planning.an.d engineering divisions.

Rapidly increasing outdoor recreation use of Corps WRDPs
and the impact of the Water Resource ProjectRecreation Act
.(PL 89-72) upon Corps policies and practices prompted the
Chief of Engineers further to investigate ways to meetpublic
recreation needs. A report written by Edward C.. Crafts
.placed considerable emphasis upon professional personnel and
b
program modifications. Shortly thereafter (1971), a recrea-
tion-resources management branch was esta Iblished within the
construction-operations division of OCE. Of the 19 Engineer
Districts visited, all but three had established a compara-
.ble branch or section in the operations division.

A series of Engineer Regulations (e.g.., ER*1110-2-400,
ER 1120-2-400, ER 11.20-2-401, ER 1130-2-400, and ER 1165-2-400)
:now fully and competently describes.sound approaches to the
design, oper tion,.and maintenance of recreation :and fish
a i
:.and-.wildlife enhancement programs.

Thus, recognition of resource management.as a legitimate.
part of the Corps Civil Works Program has developed very
recently. It is against this backdrop of change that this
discussion of existing Corps field organization is set

a
Knetsch, J. L. and W. J. Hart. 1967. Outdoor Recreation
i"olicy of the U. S. Army Corps of En@ineers: Initial Review
and Suggestions for Improvement, Office, Chief of Engineers.,
@@a s h in-
gton,. D. C.
@b Crafts, E. C. 1970. How to Meet Public Recreation Needs
At Co= of Engineers KE_.',7s-ervoirs. Office, C-Lief of En'gineers,
Was f@inqto_n, 5. C.

3
-71

Table 3-8. Location of Recreation Planning Function, 19 Engineer
Districts.

District Engineering Separate Operations

Memphis x
2. Vicksburg' x
3.1 Omaha x

4. New England. x

a
5, Balt=ore x x

6. Philadelphia x

7. Rock Island. x

B. St. Paul

9. Portland x

10. Seattle x

11. Walla Walla

12. Nashville X

13. Pittsburg x

Savannah x

15. Mobile x

16. Los Angeles x

17. Sacramento x

18.. Little Rock x

.19. Tulsa x

a,
s branch, planning division, and the design
resource
reports section-, engineering divison, share responsibility.

3-72

1., Horizontal Division of Functions
Traditionally the conceptualization of projects from
broad-gauged river basin analysis through the preparation of
,a definite project report is the responsibility of the Engineer
.,.District engineering division. Determination of needs for flood
-protection, hydroelectric power, waterborne commerce, and,
water supply, and the economic and environmental benefits-to
be gained by meeting these and other needs, are compared
against the supply of water, the physical feasibility of con-
struction, and the economic and environmental cost of capturing
the benefits.. Once authorized, detailed design and the drawing
of specifications is performed, again by the engineering
division. The construction-operations division(s) then
assu,res construction to the specified standards and assumes
responsibility for the management of the facility. RED per-.
sonnel (assigned division status within most Engineer District
support both functions. The planning and control
branch estimates the real property that should be acquired
and contributes theestimates of acreage and costs to the
enqineering division's project report. Upon authorization,
specific parcels to be acquired are identified and appraised.
'Th(_@rcafte_r, the acquisition branch.actually acquires
the real property. pro3ect is complete, management
of the property is'the responsibility of the management and
disposal branch.

There is a marked difference in the time frames within
which the engineering and management functions are con-
sidered., The engineering function is discrete; that is, even
though a single WRDP is only one of a series of WRDPs en-
visioned, the engineering function ends with construction.
Management's involvement, on the other hand, extends over the
on Liro life of the project, during which conditions not fore- .
wen at the time of design may develop.

3-73

The horizontal,division.of,the-management function at
.the Engineer District level does not provide an adequate
overview of the total water and land management.picture.
This situation was noted at Alamo, Ashtabula, Cordell Hull,
Cumberland, Lee6h, MRP #21, Foster*J. Sayers, Oahe, Ouachita,
and Fort Peck; 34.5% of the sample.

There is also a resultant competition among divisions
for manpower and funds. This situation,while not explicitly
!cited, is endemic in all Engineer District-offices.. In
:addition, there is insufficient cooperation and communication
;,among the three main -elements of management planning, opera-
tions, and RED. A closely allied problem is the lack of a
-.common information base. Planning personnel tend to rely'
!upon data used to generate pre,-authorization reports, opera-.
tions division personnel work within the data prescribed by
:the RRMS because,operating and Code 710 budgets are allocated
:from this base, and RED personnel utilize those data pertinent
.to the administration of outgrant instruments.

It is difficult to assess-responsibility for success
.and failure. If a facility.is,..poorly located, operations
personnel point to the lack of practical know-how on the part
of the planners; if an internal circulation road system
operates inefficiently, the planners point to inept manage".
ment; and if a concessioner fails, both point to the realty
specialists.

Another problem is the lack.of a focal point for commun-
ications with other public agencies. Should, a state or
Federal agency address its recreation and/or.fish and wild-
life questions, proposals, arid criticisms to the planners,
the managersi or the outgrant administration?.

3- 7 4

o0f considerable importance is the confusion of project
@pers.onnel concerning responsibility for recreation, fish and
wildlife, and land use decisions at the Engineer District
level. The project staffs are nominally responsible to an
Engineer District recreation-resource management branch or
section, yet major policies and decisions that affect their.
work And relations with visitors and local residents are, or
.,seem to be, made by Engineer District personnel.in other
major divisions. Project personnel were found who believe
that@ facility plans prepared at the Engineer District level
are unrealistic and must be modified before they are imple-
mented (Hartwell), that their recommendations will notbe
accepted or sought by Engineer.District level staff (Ashtabula,
Table Rock, Hopkinton-Everett, @and Wappapello), and that only
Engineer District level personnel can deal with'lessees and.
local government officials (Mosquito Creek). This confusion,
1
of course, reduces the effectiveness of project management.
Solutions proposed without the.benefit offield experi-
.enc.e may not be,.cost.effective.. The State Park Superintendent
..at..Alamo indicated that some State reluctance to manage Corps-
built-fadilities stemmed from the custom made nature of even;
standard items such as pumps and lights.ockets; at Clark
design of comfort stations was reported to make
routine repairs difficult.
A cause, of inefficiencies is an attitude by Engineer
D.is,tr,ict planning personnel that recreation and, particularly,
fish@ and wildlife activities, are peripheral to their main
work. They must travel from the Engineer District head-
quarters to field locations and confront strange conditions.
,'Instances where recreation and fish and wildlife were thought

3-75

of as add-o.ns'were reported at Alamo, Cumberland, Poster J.'
Sayers., Eufaula, Robert S. Kerr, Colebrook, Isabella, Ouachita,
Oahe, and Fort Peck.

Also noted was a tendency to solve problems. through
construction rather than application of improved.management.
.Evidence of this-bias was specifically noted at Oahe, Fort
Peck, Alamo, and Ashtabula, but is probably.more pervasive.

The degree to which management is delegated to project
level personnel is directly related to the professional
capabilities of the project staff. Many.of-the problemt
enumerated.occur at WRDPs where all or most of MRL has been
outgranted to,state agencies, and Corps.officials assume
there is no Federal management responsibility other than
operation of the project works. In such cases,,Corps project
staff may consist.of a dam tender and assistant allotted
only sufficient operating and maintenancefunds to care for.
the grounds around Corps buildings (Hopkinton-Everett,,
Fbst. er J. Sayers, Mosquito Creek, Alamo). a

2.. Uneven Distribution of Corps Project Personnel
One of the consequences of uneven distribution of Corps
,project personnel is the infrequent inspection of Corps lands
,and inadequate contact with visitors and'contiguous land
owners and residents. Encroachment, trespass, and vandalism,
go undetected for long.periods.

The role of the Corps as a builder and operator of
engineerin%works and the location of offices and buildings
at construction sites has focused Corps field activities
aAn analogous situation exists at natura 1 lakes@where Corps
MRL,acreage is small (Leech and Pend Oreille)..

3-76

around the major facility such as the dam. Customarily,
Corps offices occupy construction era buildings at this loca-
tionwhile new buildings are located nearby. This arrangement
@is,vdry satisfactory for those operations associated with the
dam and/or other project works. There are no' tub-project
Offic'es or stations distributed along the length and breadth
f the project.

This arrangement may be adequate for relatively small.
WRDPs, but when a WRDP has a linear configuration of 100 miles
.or more without a road system on Corps land close to the
shoreline (Oahe, Clark Hill), adequate monitoring of activities
on and adjacent to Corps land from a single headquarters is
@very difficult.

.3. Numbers and Competence of Personnel
'Management of renewable natural resources is a field of
that has evolved in this country during the past 50
years. Recognition of the interactions between the natural
sciences, design sciences, and social sciences is even more
recent.

It has been demonstrated that'the Corps exercises rianage-
ment responsibility for a significant'amount of.important and,
valuable natural resources. The.effectiveness of the Corps.'
response.to the management challenge.is as dependent upon the
number.of persons competent, by training$ interest, and
experience in this field, as is the demonstrated effective-
Pes.s of the Corps in engaging persons competent in planning,
.constructing and operating engineering works.

Analysis iscomplicated simply because no one discipline
has a preeminent position in the field. Sanitary engineers,
foresters., landscape architects, wildlife biologists,

3-77@

geographers, eco@omists, andsociologists are among the dig"
piplines that make valuable contributions to resource
management. Thus, it is not possible to draw conclusions
solely from the training of an incumbent or a job title.
Two measures of resource management effectiveness, hoW-@@ 51,
ever, are the number of professional persons occupying respon
sible field oositionsin an organization, and the,professibrial
specialties of the technical support staff.
Poor resource management by the Corps, where it occurs,
results from.an inefficient administrative structure and/or.
.insufficient numbers of the right kinds of personnel at the
right place. Part of the poor management problem may be.attrib-
,uted to the relatively recentnation-wide entry of the Corps
,into the direct management of resources.. The Corps' organization
simply has not had time to adjust to the newly acknowledged obl.i-
gations (as noted, some Engineer Districts had not established
a. recreation-resource management function at the time of the*
s tudy-)

'Nonetheless, the dimensions"of the issue can be seen by
the types of permanent civilian recreation-resource managers
.employed by the W.RDPs surveyed (Table 3-9).. Only 48.16 per-
son-years/year of professional level staff (8 .8% of all field
staffing at 29 WRDPs) are permanently assigned to these pro-
jects. The ranger and park techniciana force amounts to 89.1
person years (16.2%), and there are 61 person-years of sub-
professional, primarily clerical, personnel (11.2%), and 347
person-years of maintenance and laborer effort (63.7%).

.Significant numbers of professional personnel at the
project level were found only at the six WRDPs studied in the
Savannah and Nashville Engineer Districts. With the excep-

a,
rhis is arbitrary. Some rangers have natural science
degrees and are professionals, but there is no requirement
that rangers meet professional standards. Thus, ranger
po!iiLiuns are reported separaXely.

3-78

'Ta.ble 3-9 Permanent Resource Personnel a t 29 WRDPs. a

Project Professional Rangers & Sub-Pro- Main- Total
Titles Park Techs fessionals tenance

Wa
.ppapello 3 1 1 5 10.0

Ouachita 2 2 2 16 22.0

Fort Peck 5 2 io 25 42.0
b
Oahe .50 5 5 15 25.5

Colebrook .14 .14 i2 0 2.28
Hopkinton-Everett .20 0 4 0 4.20

rost e r J. Sayers .0 0 3- 0 3.0

C
C &.: D Canal 2 1 2 52 57.0
MRP #21 0 .16 2 11 13.16
Ashtabula .1: 0 0 2.16

Leech Lake .16 1 0 1.16
Pend Oreille @3 1 3 17 24.0

John Day 2 6 0 12 20.0

..Dworshak 2 0 1 3 6.0

.Cordell Hull 2 4 1 4 11.0

Cumberland 2 1 9 18.0

Old.,Hickory 2 6. 10 19.0

J. Percy Priest 2 5 1 11 19.0

Mosquito Creek 0 0 0 3 3.0

Warrior Lake 3 1 2 .11 17.0

'Jones Bluff 3 5 2 2 12.0

Clark,Hill 6 5 17 35.0

Hartwell 3 8 3 17 31.0

'Alamo 0 0 2. 0 2iO

..Isabella 1 10 1 4 16.0
Table Rock 3 3 b 0 22 28.0

3-79

Table 3-9. (Continued)

Project Professional Rangers-& Sub"Pro- Main- Total
Tit1w Park Techs fessionals tenance'
Eufaula 0 5b 0 34 39.'0
b
Robert S. Kerr 0 5 0 14 19.0
Texoma 1- .7b 2 33 43;0

Totals 48.16 88.3 61 347 544..46

of Total 8.8 -16.2 @11.2 63.7 100

aIn person years/year. When personnel have responsibilities for more than
one WRDP, the person year is evenly divided by number of*-WRDPs those
persons cover.

:b
Park,managers below GS-9.

C
Park guide.

3-80

of 'Seven civil engineers, these persons are trained in
some resource management discipline (forestry, wildlife
:.management) and account for 17 of the professional person
year.s/year available for resource management. The remaining
.31 professional person years/year arq allocated among 23
MRDPs. Even when the WRDPs consisting of former natural lakes
,,.a.nd:,the WRDPs where most of the MRL acreage is outgranted to
:other public agencies are deducted from the totalsf the 31
Corps professional personnel must cope with 17 WRDPs with
.867,819 acres of MRL, 8,065 miles of shoreline,.which recorded
4million visitors on 31,275. acres of Corps managed recrea-
tion* 'areas in 1973 (as derived from Table 2-3).

Analysis of staffing levels And resource management
capabilities at the Engineer W.strict, level is far more
difficult because personnel from various divisions are used
toperform recreation-resource management work. This com-
plexity is evident in the organization charts and tables for
19. Engineer Districts. No two are the same,.and,comparable
branches or sections in the engineerin division, say recrea-
tion planning, may differ widely in the number and types of
-.pprsonnel available for recreation-resource management work.

A similar situation exists in environmental resources..
:branches and sections. AtHopkinton-Everett, New England
@nqi
@.r neer Division personnel reported that approximately 75%
of three environmental resources branch.pro.fessionals (2.25
person years/year) was devoted to recreation-resource manage-
ment. work; two of the individuals referred to are engineers
and One is a landscape architect. The majority of resource
management professionals at the Engineer District level were
locatpd in the environmental resources branch/section.

3-81

Matters in the recreation-resource management function
are more clear cut. The total number of professional person
years/year in the 19 Engineer Districts was 95. Although
the allocation of the 95 person-years/year to the individual pro-
jects was not available, 25 person-years/year were in engineering
and the recreation-resource management function was headed
by an engineer in 7 districts.
There are two reasons why the number of professional
personnel in the real estate division management function in
the 19 Engineer Districts cannot simply be totaled from the
organization charts included in the case studies: (1)
uncertainty about the distribution of professional time between
management and disposal when the two activities are combined
in a single branch; and (2) uncertainty about the civil
responsibilities of resource professionals with military
responsibilities (for example military timber management by
RED foresters in the Savannah Engineer District). The total
professional management force at the 19 Engineer Districts
is 146 person-years/year.
Use of the tables of organization to describe the profes-
sional characteristics of Corps personnel may be misleading.
In the course of the study, an incumbent dam tender had been
retitled resource manager (Mosquito Creek), a supervisory
recreation planner was trained as a forester (Nashville), a
park manager was a civil engineer at one WRDP (J. Percy
Priest)and another was a retitled park ranger (Oahe). The
individual discrepancies may not appear serious, but in the
aggregate, one cannot be uniformly sure of what kind of
management expertise the Corps is employing to manage land
and water resources.

3-82

Another factor that affects the number and type of
recreation and fish and wildlife personnel at the Engineer
District and project levels is the hature of the overall
Engineer District workload. This factor alone is the reason
that some Engineer Districts have very few WRDPs in which the
recreation, fish and wildlife potentials are presently recog-
nized. (Table 3-10 shows the unevenness of the district ,
recreation potential.) It is unreasonable to expect the same
level of resource management awareness and expertise in the
planning, operations, or real estate functions of the Memphis
Engineer District with only one moderately large, attrative
WRDP or Nashville Engineer District (8 large, attractive WRDPs)
or the Tulsa Engineer District (27 large WRDPs). The im-
portance of a WRDP to the visiting and regional populations
and its susceptibility to degradation, however, is no
different whether the WRDP is one of a 100 or the only project
in an Engineer District.

Examination of the organization charts also reveals
that the largest number of natural resource related d&-@kiplines
are slotted in the district engineering/planning division(s).
Th4@ number of persons and their titular discipline are shown
in Table 3-11. The preponderance of engineers is evident.
This is not as significant, h1@ wever, as the dominance of
section and branch chief posAions by supervisory civil
engineers. This number of civil engineers and their dominance
in supervisory positions is not as surprising as the number of
civil engineers in the recreation-resource management branches/
section.

Resource trained personnel may enter Corps service at
the Engineer District level. They may be called upon to

3-83

Table 3-10. Total Projects and Recreation Areas by Engineer Districts
Selected.

No. of
No. of Projects Recreation Areas

Memphis 1 19

Vicksburg 7 117

,Omaha 10 152

Baltimore 6 6

Philadelphia 4 5

Rack Island 14 201

St. Paul 26 36

New England 31 65

Portland 15 100

Seattle 5 17

Walla Walla 7 41

Nashville 8 2,26

Pittsburgh 127 580

Mobile 18 282

Savannah 3 156

Los Angeles 8 13

Sacramento 8 34

Little Rock 20 153

Tulsa 27 277

3-84

Table 3-11. Dis t
rict RecreatiOn Management,Pers6nnel

nch or Section
Project Planning Bra a Recreation-Resource Management Branch or Section
outaoor Outdoor Management
Distr-'ct gineers b Landscape Recreation b Landscape Recreation and Disposal
En Architect Biologistc Pllwuiers Other Engineers Architect Biologist Planners Other Realty Other Tota.1s
Id d
Memphis 0 0 G 0 0 Does not exist within the District Organization 2 1 9
Vicksburg 14d 0 0 0 5 3d 1 3 1 3 3 3 36.
0maha 0 1 6d- @2 1 0 0 2 3d 1 12 8@ 36
New Englande 5 1 6 0 4 1d* 1 0 -0 0 4 3 25
Baltimore f 9d 2 3 3 4 0 0 6 2d 1 9 4 37
Philadelphia Does not exist within the District Organization. Does not exist within the District Organization 4 '2 6
Rock Island 13d 1 6d 0 9 0 0 0 1d 0 5 0 35
St. Paul 1d* 1 0, 3 0 2d* 0 0 0 1 Does not exist is
within the Dis
trict organization
d*
Seattle 0 3 6 0 2 Does not exist within the District Organization 1, 0 12
Portland 2 7 0 1 2 0 8_@ 2d 2 5 1 30
Walla Walla 1 3d* 7d* 0 0 0 0 2 3d 0 1 0 17
W Nashville 5d 2 2 1 0 0 .0 0 7d 0 2 1 20
h d d
00 Pittsburgh 10d 4 3 1 2 4 0 0 2 1 0 2 29
Ln Mobile 1 6d* 0 1 2 2d 0 0 2 1 6 5 26
Savannah 4d* 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1d 0 6 7 22
Los Angeles 5d* 0 4 0 3 Does not exist within the District Organization 8 4 24
Sacramento f 3 0 7d* 2 3 1d* 0 0 1 3 6. 2 28
Little Rock 5d* 1 2 3 0 .3d 0 1 @5d 4 a 3 35
d* d
Tulsa 6 2 5 2 7 8 1 0 4 11 7 53
Totals 35 57 21 44 25 2 17 30 21-0 93 53__A 488
247 95 146

Table 3-11 (Continued)

aProject planning is. defined as a term which includes a branch and/or sections wi thin the district
organization that is responsible for recreation planning.

b
Includes engineering technicians and aids.

c
includes ecologists, environmental resource specialists, and biological aids.

d
Denotes profession of supervisor or supervisors.
eDivision.

The Project operations Section- includes Recreation-Resource Management responsibilities.

Indicates section or sections within a branch@

participate in master planning an existing WRbP without
having had any field experience; they can look forward to
very little advancement within the district, and their chain,
of advancement is by and large limited to the planning or
.-engineering divisions. A person with similar training who
enters Corps service at the project level has little room
for vertical career movement.

4. Corps Organization Findings
.Positive
a.
(1) OCE has emphasized the significance of
existing WRDP resources in providing low cost outdoor recrea-
:,tion opportunities and contributing to-balanced state and.
Tegional land use programs.
(a) Full responsibility for @outdoor recrea-':
Lion planning was assigned to the planning division and a
.recr6ation-resources management branch*was, formed in OCE.in
1967 and 1971, respectively.

(b) Engineer Regulations have been issued
that accord full "project purpose" status to recreation and
:fish and wildlife.enhancement at all WRDPs.

(2) The decentralized.Corps organization and
horizontal staff structure at the Engineer District level
provide..great -flexibility to meet a wide'variety of condi-.,
tions and work loads.

(a) The horizontal,. staff type, organization at
the.Engineer District level permits task sharing by professional
personnel; for example,. landscape architects in the engineer
division may work on definite project reports part of the
time (an engineering division task) and on public faciliti.es

3-87

plans for a 20-year old WRDP (an operations division task).
Project operations personnel at WRDPs (dam tenders) can
perform recreation-resoukce management functions simply
because they are headquartered at the WRDP.

(b) PIrbject operation personnel (dam tenders)
can also perform recreAtion-@-resource management.functions at
the WRDPs.

(3) The Corps is recruiting and employing
train:ed resource pro-f-essionails at the Engineer District level.

(4) The Corps organization exhibits the charac-
teristics of an agency shifting from An advance-planning/
construction posture to a management posture.

b. Negative
(1) Many of the deficiencies in recreation,
fish and wildlife, Corps and contiguous land use, and real
estate programs and practices are directly attributable to
insufficient numbers of the right kinds of personnel in the
right places.
(a) In the sample, 31 Corps professional
personnel were distributed among 17 WRDPs with 867,819 acres
of manageable land, 8,065 miles of shorelinel' and 17.4
million visitor days of use'bn 31,275 acres of Corps managed
recreation area.
(b) Of 95 professional person-years/year of
recreation-resource management braridh'capability in 19
Engineer Districts visited, civil engineers comprised 25
person-years/year and headed seven of the branches.

3-88

level engineering/planning divisions, not in recreation-
..resources management.

(d) Because supervisory positions at the
Engineer District level are designed for and occupied by
engineers, professional resource personnel possess few career
advancement opportunities and exhibit a high turnover rate.,.

(e) Corps WRDP personnel based at the dam.'
site cannot effectively inspect Corps land, perform visitor
..contact work, and be aware of resource conditions throughout.,
the WRDP.

(2) Task sharing across divisions'permits
of professional personnel, but tends to create an
@.attitude that recreation-resources management is a peripheral
activity. Divided responsibility creates competition for
manpower and management funds, results in the lack of a com-.
mon data base, and makes it difficult to fix responsibility
for success and failure.

(3) Decentralization over a long period of time
.,has encouraged the development of Engineer Districts with
.markedly distinctive characteristics. State agencies that
deal with two or more Engineer Districts report their rela-..
tions are akin to working withiseparate agencies rather than,
field-officesbf the same agency.

3-89

CHAPTER 4

SELECTED FEDERAL AND STATE RESOURCE AGENCIES

Selected Federal and state agencies with the kespon-
s,ibility for recreation, fish and wildlife, and general
,Tesource management were studied to establish a.bas6line
,,@against which alternative courses of action with respect
dto.Corps,land and water resources could be evaluated and

rM_
,to serve as a guide in describing the Corps general perfo
:ance with respect to executing its r creatio
e n and fish and
,.Wildlife enhancement responsibilities.

Four Federal agencies were selected by OCE for study:
USFS, NPS, usr&WS and BLM. Two additional agencies, the TVA.
and DuRec, were added on the recommendation of CZRC with the..
app.1-0val of. OCE. In addition, discussions were held with
officials of the BOR and the Council on Environmental Quality-.

Factors considered in the selection of the six state
xecreation and/or fish and wildlife agencies included: (1)
the.total Federal, state, and local public recreation
.opportunities within each state: (2) the interrelation-
ships that exist between the Federal and state fish and
wildlife programs; (3) the number of Corps WRDPs that are
entirely or partially within each state; (4) the existence
of.innovative land use, recreation, and fish and wild-
life practices; and (5) the structure of the state re-
source management program.
Each state was evaluated according to these factors
through the use of data from the Bureau of the Census,
National Recreation and Parks Association, Council of State

4-1.

Governments, and the Corps. Additionally, recommendations were
solicited from the American Forestry Association, American
.Fisheries Society, National.Wildlife Federationi Wildlife
'Society, National Recreatlon.and Park Association, Interna-
tional Association of Game, Fish*and Conservation Commissioners-p
and the Sport Fishing Institute.

On the basis of its evaluation, C-ZRC recommended and OCE
.approved the following six state agencies as representative
of state recreation and fish and wildlife experience: Wash-.
.ington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Texas Parks
and Wildlife Commission, Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks,
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Missouri Conservation
Commissio4,,and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Individual profiles were developed.for each Federal and
.state agency which consist of.statutory references, raw
budget data, tables of organization, information derived
from interviews with key agency personnel and executive
legislative budget staffs, and a study of annual reports
and information system documents. The profiles1were organized
into seven se ctionp which.consider: (1)' the nature of their
statutory authorities and responsibilities.for managing.
recreation and fish and wildlife resources; (2) their adminis-
..trative organizations; (3) the sources and sizes, of their
recreation and fish and wildlife'budgets; (4) their provisions
for payments to local governments in lieu of taxes; (5) their
administrative fees and charges; (6) their..a.uthority to
acquire land for,recreation purposes; and (7) their authori-
ties and procedures for leasing land and/or facilities to
'private individuals.

4-2

The results of the research are presented under the head-
Ings used to organize the basic materials.

A. Authorities and'Responsibilities
1. Federal
The six Federal agencies studied were created for and
originally authorized to perform limited specific purposes.
Multiple,use laws which specifically include recreation as
an.au.thorized management objective have only b .een added during.
the last twenty years.

The USFS was created in 1905 to administer forest re-
serves in order to improve.and protect the forest, secure
favorable conditions of water flowl, furnish a continuous
supply of timber for the needs anduse of citizens of the
United States, and to eliminate agriculture and mineral ex-
traction. It was not until 1960 that the USFS was given an
.explicit Congressional directive to manage forest resources
@.for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and fish'
and wildlife purposes.

The basic authority for the NPS.was enacted in 1916
!'to.promo,te and. regulate the use of national par%s, monuments,
and reservations, for the purpose of conserving the scenery.,
the natural and historic objects and the wildlife...". Recre.la-
t;
ion.was not authorized until Recreational Demonstration Areas
were transferred from the Resettlement Administration to the
Secretary of the Interior in 1942 Further, the,NPS did not
expand its definition of other public purposes to include
recreation until.1954,

The BLM, successor to the General Land Office, was
created as a vehicle for the transfer of public domain lands
@to states, local governments, corporations, and private

4-3

individuals, under the provisions of the public land laws.

The USF&WS implementing legislation was specifically
oriented toward the acquisition of lands for fish and wild-
life management. The UFS&WS-did not have a comprehensive fish
and wildlife policy, nor did it include in its policies
attemRts to meet the public demand for recreational fishing
until 1956. Recreation as a management objective of the
national refuge-system was not recognized until 1966.

The TVA was created in 1933 @'...to improve the
navigability and to provide for the flood control of the
Tennes see River, to provide for reforestation and proper use
of marginal lands in the Tennessee Valley, to provide for
agricultural and industrial development of the valley and to
provide for the national defense...". Recreation has never
been a specified purpose of TVA programs and is therefore
only authorized on a project by project basis.-

The BuRec was created in 1902 to locate, construct,
operate, and maintain works for the storage, diversion, and
development of waters for the reclamation of arid and semi-
arid lands in the westex, states. Recreation and fish and
wildlife considerations have been a part of individual pro-
ject authorizations.

Whereas present management responsibilities for
recreation, fish and wildlife in the USFS and the NPS are com-
prehensive and have broad application, they are narrowly
applied to specific situations in the BLM, TVA and BuRec and
are often delegated to other Federal and state agencies.

Generally USFS policy prefers permanent, maintenance-
free recreation facilities that enhance the natural landscape,
serve the public need while protecting public health, and

4-4

which do not conflict with other resources uses. Federal law
requires USFS employees to did in the enforcement of state'
laws desi ned to protect fish and game.
9
NPS recreation authorities are not as concise as
those of the USFS. Administrative policies for natural areas,
historical areas, recreation areas, and cultural areas cover
resource management, resource use, and physical development.

The BLM recreation policy encourages state and local
'governments and private agencies to develop public facilities
:,whenever such development will be consistent with long range
..management plans of the Bureau and will give priority to up-
developed sites where public recreational demand exceeds
presently available opportunities. It is general'policy to,
administer all public lands'for the benefit of all wildlife
....:With an added emphasis on the protection and restoration of
the habitat of rare and endangered species.
The USF&WS permits public recreational use of fishand
wildlife areas wherever practical and consistent with autho-.
-rized Federal operations and the USF&WS's primary objective
to aid in the conservation of the nation's fish and wildlife..
The USF&WS acts as the.Federal government.'s main consulting@:
agency for the conservation and enhancement of fish and wild-
Jife.

The TVA.and the BuRec generally directly develop areas
for public recreation and manage wildlife habitats on a very
limited basis. Each agency has made lands available, however,.
to other Federal agencies, states, local governments, and
..private inviduals, through transfer, lease, and licens,ing
procedures. The TVA has encouraged the development of state,
regional, andlocal planning and zoning activities and has
provided technical assistance and land for state and local
park, fish, and wildlife activities. Even with decades of

4-5

of encouragement -to state and local agencies, TVA has found,
it necessary$' beginning in 1970, to begin direct.administration
,of public recreational access areas.

2.. State

n lohal, croa!@
The state Agencies selected represent a ati
,section of the administration of parks,, fish'And.,,4atne, and
other natural resource functions by single -purpose and multi-
pie purpose agencies. Most of the -state parks ahd wildlife
duties. of,each agency began elsewhere in the state government.,
'and were'.Moved by reorganizations.-within the last fifteen
years..A.notab.le exception is the MissouriConservation COM7
mission which was constitutionally created in 1936 and has
retained its original duties.and organization since that time..
There,have been onlythree directors of the depa-rtment since
its-creation.

Like the Federal agencies@, the states do not include
recreation and fish and wildlife as authorized purposes for-
evexyw agency. Table-4-1 presents the authorities,responsi-
bilities, dated created, and administration for each state
Agency studied. Table. 4-2 summarizes 'basic-de.scriptive
information-about each agency.

Three agencies, the Washington State Parks and Recrea-
tion Commission, the Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks,and the
Tennessee Wildlife,Resourc6s Agency, have only single func-
tions. On theother hand, the Texas. Parks and Wildlife.Commis-
sion, the Missouri Conservation.Commission and the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources divide multiple functions
among departmental divisions such as parks and recreation,
forestry, fish and wildlife, and soil and water*,

4-6

f state Agencies studied
Table 4.1- Administration, Authorities and Responsibilities 0

Responsi-bilities
soil &
Date Authority Parks For. F & W Water
gency Administration treated

Washington
State Parks and Commission -1947 Specific x x
Recreation
:ommission
rexas Parks Broad x x
and.wildlife Commission 1963 (multiple x
Commission u.ses)

Pennsylvania Specific x x
Bureau of State Sub-cabinet 1970,
Parksa

Tennessee 'Specific x
Wildlife Commission 1974
Resources
ency

Missouri Broad x x
Conservation Commission 1937 (Multiple
commission uses)

Minnesota
Department of Cabinet 1974, Broad x x x x
Natural (Multiple
Resources uses) L
aAlthough the Pennsylvania Bureau.of State Parks' a.uthoritv is limited to the administration of
vironmental Resources under the
park lands, the Bureaui,s.loc6ted within the Department of En
is also responsible for the
Deputy Secretary of Environmental Res"ources. The Deputy Secretary
operating bureaus of design, operations, forestry, and soil and water conservation.

T ab 1 a 4. 1 a Prof ile sumpaly

IN LIEU CONDEN-
TAX PAY NATION
STATE AGENCY AUTHORITY BUDGET FUNDS ADKIN, _NENTS AMMORITY LEASING STATE
TENN. Wildlife Resources Statute INCR Ded Comm Yes ADMIN Specific Leasing Authority TE!V
Agency No Standard Concessions-Pol.
TEXAS Parks and Wild- Statute ZERO- Ded/Gen Comm Yes ADMIN Specific Leasirg Authority TEX
life Commission BASE .60%/20% Standard Concessions Policy

MO. Conservation Com- Consti- INCR Ded Comm Yes ADMIN No Specific Leasing Aut-h. 140
mission tution Standard Concessions Contract

MINN. Dept. of Natural Statute INCR Ded/Gen 'Cab Yes LEGIS Specific Leasing Auth.
Resources 50%/50% No Stahdard Concessions Pol.

WASH. Parks and Recrea- Statute INCR Gen Comm No ADMIN Specific Leasing Authority WASH
tion Co:r4mission Standard Cbncessions Policy

PENN. Bureau of State Statute INCR Gen Sub-Cab Yes ADMIN Specific Leasing Authority P E NN
Go Parks No standard Concessions Pol.

Notes:
Budget. rNCR equal incremental, justifying additional request
ZERO-BASE equal rejustification of entire program
Funds. Ded equal substantially dedicated sources
Gen equal substantially from general revenue
(Approx. percertage'shown.when significant amount from both sources)
Admin. Co."= equal Commission
Sub-Cab/Cab Sub-Cabinet/cabinet

Condemation Authority: ADMIN - Administering Agency of Department
LEGIS - Legislative only

The Washington Parks and Recreation Commission is
charge, control and super-
-generally responsible for the care,
vision of all parks and parkways acquired or set aside by the

state.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission formulates' oar'k
and wildlife policy which is in.turn administered by the
.,Parks and Wildlife Department. The Department is organited
into four divis'
ions: Parks, Enforcement, Wildlife, and Fish
eries. Divisional-responsibilities are:,

Parks to execute the department's.opera-
tional responsibilities for the State, Parks
System;

Enforcement to enforce the more than 1,000
state laws which relate to parks and wildlife;

Wildlife to promote sound wildlife manage-
ment and to increase recreational opportunity
through improved methods of game production
and harve.st;

'Fisheries to provide maximum fishing oppor-
tunities and optimum seafood product yield.

The Pennsylvania Bureau of State.Parks is charged
with the effective management of all Com,monwealth.state pa'rk@.

res
gurces.

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is responsible for:
the protection and conservation of,wildlife through the acqui@-
sition of lands and waters suitable for the operation of fish
hatcheries and for wildlife management, and for providing
public use by entering into cooperative agreements with private

4-9

individuals and governmental agencies for management purposes.

The Missouri Conservation Commission has the-duty to
control, manage, restore, conserve, and regulate all bird,
fish, game, forestry, and wildlife 'resources.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is a cabi-
net level executive department which reviews land appraisals, A;
installs and operates recreation facilities on public land,
protects forest lands from fire, manages state forest and
swamp land, controls hunting and fishing, enjoins inter-
fekence with extra-territorial waterflow, establishes bounda-
ries, stipulates low water marks, rents and leases property,
issues licenses and permits, manages recreation areas, con-
serves wild rice, designates wilderness areas, grants ease-
ments to the United States and performs topographic surveys.

B. Administrative Organization

1. Federal
Administration of the Federal agencies is decentra-
lized. The Washington offices generally rely on regional
offices for identification of problems, the issuance of per-
mits, financial management, site planning, contributions for
reports, drafting of environmental impact statements, coor-
dination with other governmental agencies, and the inventory
and classification of lands.
Since its interest is regional rat'her than national,
the administration of the TVA is centralized under a Board of
Directors directly responsible to the President of the United
States. District activities are nonetheless maintained for
the purpose of implementing policies.

With the exception of the TVA and BuRec, each

4-10,

Federal agency is headed by a director or chief who is assist-
..ed by five deputies. BuRec is headed by a Commissioner who
..has four assi.stants and the TVA has an Office of the General q
Manager who is directly responsible to the Board of Directom...,

.2. State
The organization of Washington, Texas, Tennessee,
and Missouri i's similar to that of TVA, each being headed by
..a commission.appointed by the governor and approved by the:
,.,state senate. Generally, commissions institute policy and
.appoint an executive director to administer sophisticated
professional departments that implement-the policies. Each
executive director is assisted by deputy directors for
..various line and,staff functions.

The Pennsylvania Bureau of State-Parks and the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.are subcabinet*and
Cabinet level executive departments and are headed by a
Deputy Secretary for Resources Management and a@Commissioner,',..
respectively..

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Minnesota use aregional
@structure and regional managers with assistant ma.nagers for
,functional programs,in enforcement, fish and,wildlife,.fores-,
try, recreation and water. Washington, Texas,and Missouri
!,operate similar functional programs through.a direct line
organization.

Q. Budgets, Funding and Unit Costs

1. Federal
With the exception of the TVA, budgets for the
Federal agencies are developed in Washington, and the actual
administration and detailed allocation is made at the regional
..level. TVA's budget is developed in the main.offices in

4-11

Knoxville, TN, and is allocated from the regional offices.

Agency fiscal data are not comparable because actual
fiscal data were either: not available; available as a
total budget outlay or appropriation rather than as an
appropriation.for recreation, fish and wildlife; not
available for comparable years; or only available as a budget
request rather than an appropriation. Hence agency fiscal
data is noted here only for general reference.

(a) USFS: Budget outlays for recreation
and-fish and wildlife for FY 1972-1975
are $47,661,000, $52,652,000, $59,038,.000,
and $61,306,000, respectively.

(b) NPS: the total appropriation for FY
1973 was $120,941,000.

(c) BLM: budget requests for recreation and
fish and wildlife for FY 1975 and PY 1976
were $9,500,000. The budget estimates
were equal because most recreational pro-
gram estimates did not significantly in-
crease and planning related to recreation
and wildlife was not funded for FY 1976.

(d) USF&WS: operation and maintenance appro-
priations for FY 1973-1974 were $79,284,000,
$85,989,000, and $101,295,000, respectively.
.(e) TVA: total appropriations for FY 1973-
1975 were $64,550,000, $45,676,000, and
$74,600,000, respectively.

4-12

M BuRec: there was no budget information
available for recreation and fish and
wildlife management at the 18 Bureau
administered areas.

Most Federal agency funding is directly appropriated.
Some agencies such as TVA and BuRec use special sources of
funds, such as monies from the sale of hydroelectric power,
as part of their prograrr budgets.
Funding for USFS recreation activities is from three
sources: Interior and Related Agencies appropriations, the
revenues dedicated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
and 65% of the admission and user fees collected by the USFS
tinder the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (only about 10%
of annual budgets are derived from the latter source).

NI'S park management functions are divided into two
portions. The first, operation of the National Park System
is funded from general appropriations; whereas the second,
the planning, development,and operation of recreation facili-
ties, is funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The BLM directly funds recreation and resource manage-
ment, construction, and maintenance on the public domain and
on the Oregon and California reverted grant lands.

Inf6rmation on USF&WS funding specifically for recrea-
tion, fish and wildlife was not available. Funding is by
general appropriations, and special funds are used to pay
expenses necessary for scientific and economic studies,

4-13

conservation, management, investigation, protection,
and utilization of sport fishing and wildlife resources.

TVA derives its funds from general appropriations and
the receipts from the sale of power. All recreation funding
comes from appropriations. TVA Power Production and distri-
bution is a self-sustaining program that sells power at
wholesale rates to 110 municipal and 50 cooperative electric
distribution systems.

Most of the recreation and fish and wildlife funding
for BuRec is from general appropriations; however, under
snecial cost sharing agreements the Bureau administers spe-
cial revenues or advance project revenues from general appro-
oriations to be later reimbursed by non-Federal entities.
Federal budgeting procedures use incremental budgeting
and do not include unit costing. The'USFS computes costs
per recreation day but only on a limited basis which relates
to administrative, cleanup, and maintenance dollar needs for
various recreational activities at selected National Forest

areas.

2. State
The budgets, sources of funds, and use of unit cost
analyses are more diversified at the state level. State
budget data, as is the case with Federal budget data, were
not available in comparable form and will only be noted
briefly.

(a) Washington State Parks and Recreation
Commission: total expenditures and re-
quests for operating expenses in FYs
1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977
were: $6,242,818, $7,566.743;

4-14

$8,9.57,926; $9,195,299 (estimated);
$15,227,761 (requested); and $12,671,572
(requested), respectively. In addition,
there is a capital budget request of
$17,030,200 for the FY 1975-1977
biennium.
(b) Texas Parks and Wildlife Commis sion:
requested appropriations for FYs
1976 and 1977 were $58,443.670, and
$63,754,535, respectively, for both
operating and capital expenditures.
(c) Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency:
expenditures for both operating and
capital expenditures, for FYs 1973,
1974, and 1975 were $6,211,724,
$7,257,830, and $6,310,846, respec-
tively.
(d) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources:
expenditures and requests for both opera-
ting and capital expenditures for FYs
1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975 were
$19,308,823; $22,529',956; $24,283,084
(estimated); $21,939,570 (legislative
conference report recommendation); and
$21,981,431 (legislative conference
report recommendation), respectively.
(e) Missouri Conservation Commission: bud-
get request for both operating and
capital expenditures for FY 1975 is
$13,821,028.

4-15

M Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks:
expenditures and requests for "Develop-
ment, Operation and Maintenance of Re-
creational Areas and-Facilities" for
FYs 1973, 1974, and 1975 were $13.6
million; $15.2 million; and $16.6
million (requested), respectively. In
addition, there is a proposed capital
budget expenditure for forestry, flood
control, and recreation of $10.2 million
in FY 1975.

Punding is generally from two sources,:general and
dedicated. Dedicated fund-s are usually derived from collec-
tion of entrance and user fees or from the sale of hunting,
fishing and boating licenses. The Washington State Parks
and Recreation Commission, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency and the Pennsylvania Bureau of State'Parks are funded
primarily from general funds. The Missouri Conservation
Commission is funded by dedicated funds. The Texas Parks and
Wildlife Commission and the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources allocate dedicated and general funds among parks,
wildlife, and occasionally forestry activities.

Generally, the Washington State Parks and Recreation
Commission is an independent agency almost totally funded
from general revenue. Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
funding is 80% dedicated and 20% general. All fundina is
divided between the parks and wildlife functions. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources is

4-16

supported by the general fund and its revenues, with minor
exceptions, are returned to the general fund. Most Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency funding is from the Wildlife
Resources Fund, which is supported by hunting and fishing
:license sales and concomitant Federal grant funds.

The Missouri Conservation Commission is funded from
dedicated sources of funds. Dedicated funds are divided
among forestry, fish, and wildlife activities; 12.1% to
forestry, 16.4% to fish'and 39.8% to wildlife.

Funding for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
is generally received from dedicated sources for fish and
game activities and from the general fund for park and recrea-
tion activities.

Texas uses a unit cost budgetary procedure while Tennessee
and Pennsylvania are currently developing unit cost computer
capabilities. Washington and Missouri have no systematic
approaches to the development cf unit costs but do budget by
program goals and workload indicators.

, The budget proposed by Texas for the 1976-1977 biennium
is a zero-based budget submission as contrasted with an incre-
me ntal budget. Agency program managers prepare activity
decision packages and program decision packages. Each set
of activity and program packages is ranked by priority and
all operations within each package are identified in the
budget request. This technique highlights service and product
results of varying levels of expenditure.
The Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks, in collaboration
with the Pennsylvania State University is developing a unit
costing technique through the allocation of operational costs on

4-17

17 recreational activities. Cost allocations are used to
provide the activity days per unit of facility, the oDerations
and maintenance costs per unit, and the operation and mainte-
nance costs per activity day of usage by unit. The resulting
information is used to critique operations at the bark level
and to assist in budget preparation and long-range planning.

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency currently has
no unit cost orocedures but is working on a comprehensive
wildlife ulan to include unit costs and regional program
package budgeting by Fiscal Year 1975-1976.

D. Payments in Lieu of Taxes

1. Federal
The USFS distributes 25% of all revenue earned from
the sale of forest products or the use of National Forest
and National Grassland land to the states where the National
Forests are located to be used for county schools and roads.
.There are only two instances where the'NPS, as authoriz-
ed by a special act of Congress, makes payments to local
governments.

The BLM makes payments from the receipts for the use
of the public domain for grazing, min@ng, forestry and from
the sale of land to local governments in lieu of taxes under
a variety of legislative provisions. Special state situa-
tions exist in Alaska, and the revested lands in Oregon and
California.

The USF&WS has one in lieu tax payment derived from
the sale of products from the national wildlife refuge system.

4-18

Other USF&WS payments to states are really grants-in-aid for
the acquisition of migratory bird refuges and waterfowl pro-
duction areas, support of fish restoration and management
projects, and for the acquisition and development of land
and water areas for wildlife management research.

The TVA has an extensive system of in lieu payments to
state and local governments but it is expressly associated
with power program rather than the recreational program.
Five percent of TVA's gross proceeds from the sale of power
(except sales to the Federal Government) is paid to states
and counties by TVA as payments in lieu of taxes. The
states are free to distribute these payments as they see
fit. Local distributors of TVA power also pay taxes or tax
equivalents to state and local governments.under various
state laws.

The BuRec has no general statutory obligation or adminis-
trative policy concerning payments to local government s in
lieu of taxes. However, at least three projects (Columbia
Basin Project, Klamath Project, and the Trinity Division of
the Central Valley Project) have special provisions in
their authorizations for payments in lieu of taxes.

2. State
The state agencies studied typically make in lieu tax
payments on forest croplands and park lands.

Most states include revenue for payments in lieu of taxes
in their budget requests. Only Tennessee and Texas have
special funds for these payments. The Texas fund must be
reimbursed by the Federal government from fish and wildlife
restoration funds, whereas Tennessee makes its payments from
a fund nade up of license payments, sale of contraband, fines,

4-19

penalties, and forfeitures used for administrative expenses and
for the pvirchase of land suitable for the efficient manage-
ment of wildlife.

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has
no,provisions-for payments to local governments in lieu'-of

taxes.

The Texas Park&and Wildlife CommissioO has authorized
payments in Lieu-qf taxes to counties and schoo-l'districts.

Prior to 1964, Pennsylvania had two provisions for-
payments in lieu of'taxes: $0.20/acre on state forest lands
transferred into the park system and $0.20/acre on the total
amount of forest lands. In 19-64, Pennsylvania added,a.$0.20/
acre payment for park lands.

The Tennessee Wild-life Resources Agency has no statutory
provision relating to payments in lieu of taxes. However,
the authority to acquire lands has been administr atively in-.
terpreted to include acquisitions of tax delinquent lands.

The Missouri Conservation Commission a's provided by state law,
pays $0.35/acre to the-county for all stateland private lands
classified as-Federal Croplands within the county. These funds
are appropriated annually by the Legislature from-general revenue

sources.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has no
payments in lieu of taxes provision on property acquired by
the state. Minnesota law requires that all assessments and
taxes due at the time of acquisition be paid as-taxes. If
the state permits occupation of the property through a rental'.
agreement, 30% of-the rental received is returned to the-
local government in lieu of property taxes..

4-20

E Fees

1. Federal

The authorization for and the extent of admission and
recreation use fees at Federal projects is contained in the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended. In
its present form, admission fees can be charged only at de-
signated units of the NPS administered by the Department o;f
the Interior and those National Recreation Areas administered
by the Department of Agriculture.

NPS entrance fees may be Golden Eagle Passports ($10.00/
year), Golden Age passports (free entrance to citizens
over the age of 62), or park admissions fees which average
$1.00 per day. National Recreation Area admission fees are
not charged at all areas; if they are charged, the fee is
minimal.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act stipulates that
Federal agencies furnishing specialized outdoor recreation
facilities, equipment, or services can charge user fees sub-
ject to specific criteria.

When setting rates for recreation areas the USFS
Regional Foresters consider the direct and indirect cost
to the United States for developing and operating the
area, the cost charged for private and other public faci-;-
lities in the vicinity, the quality and variety of re-
creational opportunities in the area, and state, local
and private contributions to maintaining and developing
the area. The USFS establishes user fees at levels com-
parable to rates justified by private investments in the
same vicinity. Concession fees are also determined on
the basis of prevailing private and commerical rates
charged in the area.

4-21

The NPS concession fees are based on a franchise fee
formula promulgated under the Concessions Policies Act
which directs that they "be judged primarily by comparison
with those current for facilities and services of compaiable
character under similar conditions..."

BLM user fees are determined by the state director who
is the line manager for 11 western states and Alaska. BLM
user fees are charged according to the sophistication of the
facilities. Concessioners may establish changes at a com-
parable level with that of private facilities in the vicinity.

The USF&WS may establish reasonable charges and fees
for public use of national Uildlife refuges, game refuges,
national fish hatcheries and other conservation areas.

TVA has no user charges. Concessioners charge rates
comparable to rates charged by private facilities in the
vicinity.

The BuRec has no recreation fee schedule for the 18
areas that it administers. The Fontennelle Reservoir of the
Seedskadee Project in Wyoming is the only one with recrea-
tion facilities approaching those specified in the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act. This reservoir is being studied
to determine if user fees should be charged.

2. State
State fees are often lower than those charged by private
investors. Many states, including Tennessee, are considering
raising their fees. Texas is the only state that charges
entrance fees to state parks. These funds go into the Texas
Park Development Fund for acquiring and developing lands
as state parks.

4-22

F. Authorities to Acquire Land for Recreation, Fish and
Wildlife Management

1. Federal
Federal agencies may generally use Land and Water Con-
servation Funds for the acquisition of land and the develop-
ment of recreational sites. In addition, most authorizing
legislation contains authority for the acquisition of lands.
The NPS, TVA and the BuRec may have authorization to acquire
lands in the general description of the park or project

areas.

Federal authorities for land acquisition include:

a) USFS: Weeks Act of 1911 which allows the govern-
ment to purchase and exchange lands for national
forests.

b) NPS: No general authority exists to acquire or
dispose of park lands. Authorities for land
acquisition and disposal are contained in the
specific legislation for each area in the
system.

c) BLM: No explicit authority to acquire land for
recreation.

d) USF&WS: The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956
directs the Secretary of the Interior to acquire
refuge lands. The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp
Act authorizes acquisition of waterfowl production
areas. The Refuge Recreation Act authorizes
acquisition of lands adjacent to existing con-
servation areas for recreational development and
to protect the natural resources of the refuge.

4-23

e) TV A: Recreatiop was not specified as a major
purpose of TVA programs at the time of
authorization, but the acquisition of speci-
fic project lands may include authorizations
for recreation.

f) BuRec: No general authority for recreation
and fish and wildlife programs although re-
creation and fish and wildlife considerations
are a part of individual project authoriza-
tion.

2. State
State authorities for the acquisition of land for recrea-
tion, fish and wildlife purposes are more explicit than the
Federal authorities. States may institute condemnation pro-
ceedings in order to acquire lands. The specific authori-
ties are as follows:

a) Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission,:
The general powers and duties of the Commission,
as set forth in Section 43.51.040, RCW, include
a broad grant of authority to acquire land for
park and parkway purposes either by purchase or
by condemnation.

b) Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission: The Land
and Water Conservation Act (Chapter 112, 1965
Regular Session) provides the basic authority
for the acquisition of land for recreation
purposes to construct and maintain facilities,
or to enter into agreements with any other
agency to construct, maintain and operate
facilities.

4-24

c) Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks: The Bureau
of State Parks, through the Department of Environ-.
mental Resources is given specific powers (in
Section 1906-A, (2), Act No. 275, December 3,
197.0) to acquire natural areas or other areas
with unique features by purchase, lease, or con-
demnation provided that the amount expended for
acquisition does not exceed the amount specific-
ally appropriated for such purposes.and that
mineral rights, rights-of-way, and other en-.
cumbrances are not inconsistent withrecreation

purposes..

d) Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency: ..Public
Acts of 1974, Section 5, provides authority to
acquire areas, and fish hatcheries. Lands can
also be acquired by gift, conde
mnation, or lease.

..e) The'Missouri Conservation Commission: Empowered
to acquire land by purchase, gift, eminent domain,

or
otherwise for the control, management, res-
-of the bird,
toration, conservation, and regulation
fish, game, forestry, and wildlife resources of
the State. There.is no stated authority to
acquire land for recreation purposes except as
related to the above authority..

The Minnesota Department of Natural...Resources:
General authority.to carry out recreational
projects and.acquire interests inland is in.
cluded in thebasic laws. Specific authority
is included in the.legislation creating each

4-25

park. If power of eminent domain is not granted,.
and if the land.cannot be acquired by other
means, another legislative,enactment is required.'
authorii-ing.condemnation.,

Authority.afid Procedure for LeasipgLand,.and/or
Facilities to Individuals

1 Federal
The USFS'is authorized to issue special use permits'(with
long term leases). for a wide range of purposes including
agriculture, community uses, public and private recreational
uses,. industrial usess-public information research, study
and training,- transportationg utillities.and communications,
and water. Another set of term permits is limited to
a maximum of 80 acres and 30 years duration and applies
solely to National.Fore-s-t lands.. Term permits for the use.
ofstructures or improvements under the administrative
control of the.USTS' 'are limited to 30 years.

USFS concessions come under the aegis of special use persits.
Current USFS policy discourages expansion of present long-term
residential occupancy of sites on national forest s .ystem,lands.
Approximately 18,000 recreation residence sites on Federal land
have been occupied continuously for extended periods., The
residential special permits and*all.other licenses may be
terminated only if the.land is needed for a higher use (dis-
cretion of the USFS) or breach of permit terms..

NPS has a basic authority to lease or,permit
the use of land for the accommodation of visitors in the
various parks, monuments, and other reservations for a
period not exceeding 30 years. The 378 operating con-
cession activities include restaurants, snack bars, lodging,
camp-grounds and related facilities, trailer parks, general
merchandising, souvenirs and curios, marinas and tackle
shops, and transportation.

4-26

The NPS is Authorized to negotiate concession contracts
without soliciting bids, however,,a prospectus is normally
i.ssued for the information of all persons known to be interest-
.ed in providing that particular type of concession. When the
.NPS determines that concession facilities should be built,
abidding procedure is used that begins with a prospectus
that clearly delineates NPS requirements. NPS also has the'
.Authority to permit a "possessory interest", i.e., "all
@.incidents of ownership except legal title," in concession
facilities under the Concession Policies Act, PL 89-249 79
Stat. 969). NP.Shas the authority to terminate a concession
ermit with prior warning if the permittee has not met NPS

standards.

The USF&WS may issue permits for public recreational
.use@ in national wildlife refuges only if the public recrea-
tiona.1 use does hot interfere with the primary purpose for
which the area was established and if funds are available
for-the development, operation, and maintenance of the per-
Mitted forms of recreation. The.permitted recreational
,use.s,.usually-operated by concessioners, are boat rentals,
campgrounds, trailer hookups, and marinas.

The TVA has no formalized concession policy. There are
only seven areaswith activities considered by TVA to be
,concessions, each is primarily a marina. The TVA policy for
permits, leases, and permanent recreational easements involve.
negotiated sales to private owners who then make substantial
.investments. Currently TVA has leases and permits for the
.following uses:

4-27

Agriculture 1,100
Public Parks 75

Private@docks and resorts.- 65
Wildlife - 9 + 41 separate permits

All TV,%-leases' are made for 30 years-and are revocable.

BuRec has no statutory'authority for leasing land
41though the Secretary of the Interior may adopt.su6h methods
as he deems to be in the best interest of,the.United States
and the-project. Most BuR6c project areas are administered
by other agencies (233 out of, 251). Twenty-one of the
leases are under current Federal Water Project Recreation Act
(PL 89-72) cost sharing agreements for recreation and fish

and wildlife.

2. State
State agencies typically grant leases and permits for
recreational and educational faciliti es in state.parks or for
mining, grazing, or farming of undeveloped state lands.

The Washington State Parks and@Recreation Commission has
three types of leases - concessions in state parks, indivi-
dual leasing of undeveloped parks, and leasing of land to
television stations. All leases are subject to conditions
approved by the Commission. Park concessioners .must
generally provide for public access. These leases are
usually for periods not longer than 20 years with the excep-
tion of special high investment cases. Individual leases of
undeveloped land for grazing, agriculture or mineral develop-
ment do not exceed 10 years'.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission-grants park con-
cessions under two policies: if the net investment is less

4-28

than $15,000, the' lease may not exceed three years; if net
investment is greater than $15,000, leases are negotiable up
to five years. The Commission may also lease grazing rights
and harvest and sell or to sell in place any timber, hay or
other product grown on such lands when these products are
found to be in excess of wildlife needs.

The Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks will lease a
po,rtion of any state park, whether owned or leased by the
Commonwealth, as.a site for buildings and facilities to be
used for health, recreational, or educational purposes, or
for, parking areas and concessions for the convenience and
comfortof the public. The term of the leases may not ex-
Cec.d 10 years.unless asubstantial capital investment is
.involved and itis deemed inthe best interests.of the
Commonwealth to extend the term of the lease to 35 years.
Mining leases grant rights to mine or remove any oil or gas
found in a state park.. These resources may be mined if it
@.is considered to be in the best interests of the state.
Beginning in 1913, the state forest system leased 1/4 acre
jots to individuals and permitted the construction of hunt-
ing cabins. No new leases.have.been granted since 1970 but
many of the existingleases have.followedthe reclassifica-
.,tion of state forests to state parks. Pennsylvania has no
written concessions policy but the concessions that exist,
most of which are associated with three ski areas, involved
a'bidding process.

Tennessee does not lease lands to any state, local or
private agency.. The state will, however, lease or lend to,
sell or exchange land with the Secretary.of th Interior for
e

4-29.

wildlife refu:es under the authorities of the Migratory Bird
9
Treaty Act and*the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Tennessee
will lease lands from any.governmental agency or private
individual to-obtain exclusive game and fish rights and for
the right to manage the areas. Leases from.Federal agencies
,typically run 99 years at a.cost of ti.00. The.ttate
acquires game and fish-rights from private.owne'rs for any
'mutually agreeable period. The Wildlife Resources Agency may
sublet the rights secured from private individuals to any
.other public agency of the state or Federal government for
management purposes, but has Aot done so except for coopera-
tive fishing, hunting, or trapping.
The.Missouri Conservation Commission has no specific
4uthority for leasing,land or facilities to private individuals.
The dommissionmay enter into sharecrop type arrangements with
.farmers as long*as the use is compatible with the goals of
the Commission.. The terms of agreement are negotiated by the
field staff. tlissouri has a standard concessions contract
but the Commission has difficulty acquiring concessions be-
cause the business activity level is not generally high
enough to support large, long term investments. Fewer than
10 concessioners are operative, primarily for boat rentals,@
-he total income for FY 1973 was less than $15,000.
and I..

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources leases have a
renewable ten year term with a three month concellation notice
clause, under an authority which includes leasing for taking
and removing sand, gravel, clays rock, marl, peat, and black
dirt. A second authority is limited to lands and buildings
riot presently needed to meet Department objectives. These

4.;-3'0

leases must be made in "furtherance of the interests of con-
servation". are for a two year term, and include cooperative,
farming agreements. A special type of lease called the
.."Lakeshore Leasing Law" subdivides land into convenient lot
sizes and then leases them for cottage and camp purposes for
not more than 10.years at a time. The Department does not
have a standard concessions policy.

H. Findings

1. Federal
a. The six Federal agencies studied were created for
specific and limited purposes. Recreation was initially a
by-product of. their original purposes, including the National
Park Service which was originally established. elto promote
and regulate the use of national parks, monuments, and reserva-
.tions, for the purpose of conserving the scenery, the natural.
and historic objects and the wildlife...."
b. Actual unit cost data were not generally avail-
able for the operating land management agencies. The Depart-
ment of.the Interior recreation and.fish and wildlife bureaus
and services use incremental budgeting for program enhance
ment.and have not developed unit costing. It is possible to
take,the number of visitors,, or visitor days, and the total
cost of operation.of a given recreation area and compute a
cost per recreation day. This cost can then be used to pro-
je ct future costs based on projected utilization factors, but
Most agencies were concerned.about the reliability of such a
technique. This technique assumes all variables, other than
dollars and recreation days" remain constant.

4-31

C. The 1973 Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan sets
forth outdoor recreation facility cost estimates for selected.
Activities. Operating costs based on an optimum staffing
allocation are also estimated per unit of recreation. No
record was found of direct application of the data to the
incremental units of increased costs for recreation actiVi-
ties in any land management bureaus and services.

USPS does not have unit cost data at the central
office in Washington. Forest Supervisors have developed
empirical data on the costs of various activities and these
data generally form a basis for evaluating cost estimates f .rom,
each nationalforest. It is recognized that costs very from,
forest to forest,and there ar eno figures that are applicable

nation wide.
d. A continuing review of land use for recreation
(more so than fish and wildlife enhancement) -is being conducted
by the National Conference on State Parks of the National
Recreation and Parks Association. The Council on Environ-
mental Quality has sponsored a related study on recreational
use of water supply-reservoirs; and.the American Society of
Planning Officials has sponsored an effort by Professor
Richard Ragatz, to evaluate recreation homes.
e. Neither the authority for their creation, their
administrative procedures and practices, nor.their budgetary
resources would indicate that the six Federal land management
agencies studied have a mission which is broad enough to
encompass the wide-ranging water resource related recreation.
and fish and wildlife enhancement activities of WRDPs Present-
ly under the stewardship of the Corps.

4-32

2. State

q
a. The six state agencies studied range from those
which administer only reckeation (Pennsylvania Bureau of State
Parks) or fish and wildlife (Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency) to those which administer multiple purpose activities
including parks and fish and wildlife (Minnesota Department
Of Natural Resources).

b. General findings indicate that the rate of'state
.,level increase. in these at.ztivities.has not kept pace with the
'Overall rate.of economic growth within the states. In some in-
@.stances, this has been attributed to the failure of sources
of dedicated revenue to match needed expenditures. Missouri,
Tennessee and Texas are states with a high level of dedi-
@cated-revenue. Washinaton State recently abandoned dedi-:
@cated revenues as the primary means of financing their
activities. In. other instances, the'slower rate of growth
for.recreation and fish and wildlife enhancementpurposes@ is
simply attributed to the general extension of state involve-
ment.in other social programs and a re-establishment of
:priorities with a fixed level of limited resources. The
validity of this finding.is difficult to verify at the
:individual agency level because of differing economic bases
and varying rat es of growth for each state._@It is, howeverl,
,@.the.general cohcensus; of responsible state.officials, and
is doqumented,at the aggregate level.by the Bureau of Census
in T ical Studies, Volume 6, Number 4 of-the 1972 Census
of Governments, issued December,1974.

4-33

c. Certain specific findings may be of use to the
Corps in refining its own techniques of resource allocation
and the enhancement of recreation and fish and wildlife
.opportunities:

(1) The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission has
begun zero-bas-e budgeting for all activities beginning with
the FY 1976-78 biennium.. Contrasted to incremental budgeting,
this technique requires,each activity to be Justified anew,
in each budget cycle rather than merely-justifying increases
beyond the prior budget. For, Texas', this appears to have
resulted in identifying,varying levels of expenditure and the
service or product results of each...

.(2).@ The Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks is
developing, and has under pilot operation at the Pennsylvania
State Universityr a program for allocating operational costs@
to 17 recreational activities.. The experimental uses of this
technique have been to critique operations,at the park level,
to assist in annual budget preparation, and to assist in
long range planning.

(3) The Washington State Parks and Recreation
Commission has issued,rules and regulations defining the
"possessory interest"'of concessioners in certain facilities
on state lands., "Possessory interest" is defined as."... all
incidents of ownership except the right to free- transfer of
mortgage and legal title,..." The*possessory interest is
subject to provisions of the contract, state laws, and regula-
tions relating to the area. The possessory interest may be
used as security for a loan or it may be assigned, transferred,

4-34.,

or relinquished prior to the expiration or termination of a.
contract with the prior approval of the Commission. The
rogulations provide further that the possessory interest
shall not be extinguished by the expiration or other termina-
tion of the concession contract and may not be taken for
public use or transferred to a successor without just com-
pens'ation. This concept has not been in effect for a su,"fi-
ciently long period to establish its value in encouraging
recreational investments or relieving the state of recrea-
tional. investment responsibilities. It appears to offer an
opportunity for the use of private capital to serve a public
pqrpose., A similar concept to provide concessioner security
W.as incorporated in the statutory Authority for the NPS in
1965.

4-35

CHAPTER 5

NATIONAL RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE
ENHANCEMENT NEEDS

Jter presents a statement of nationa
This Chap 1 outdoor
recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement needs. First..
a generalized forecast of the demands for selected types of
outdoor activities is made. This is followed by findings of
Congressionally authorized Commissions and references to
specific legislative acts which provide an authoritative
,indication of public.policy.in this general area. Finally,
thedegree to whi ch the Corps WRDP land contributes to both.
:satisfying the projected demands for outdoor activity and
stated public.policy is identified.

..A. Generalized Outdoor Recreation Demands Forecast
..A methodology was formulated for projecting the demands.
::,for land andwaterarea associated with selected outdoor
recreation activities normally found on Corps WRDP land.
MaJor elements of this methodology-are briefly summarized..
be-low.

First, resident populations,for 1970 and 1980 by major.
geographic r egions and distribution' by income.class were
ot)tained from.the National Planning,Associatio'n (NPA).
a
Regional Demographic Projection.series and Regional Economic
Projection Series. and are shown in Tables 5-1 through 5-4.

a
National Planning Association... 1972. Regional Demographic
Projection
s:, 1960-1985. Washington,,D. C.

National Planning Association. 1973. Regional Economic
Projections:, 1960-1985. Washington, D. C'.

5-l'

'Table 5-1. Resident Population'Over 9 Years of Age by Regiont
1970 and 1980,(In.Thousands of Persons)

NPA REGIONS 1970 1980

NEW ENGLAND 9,733.6 10,936.2

14IDDLE ATLANTIC 35,061.0 38,860.9

GREAT LAKES 32,772.8 36,518.4

SOUTHEAST. 35,848.1 40,69.8.5

PLAINS 13,396.9 14,294.0

SOUTHWEST 13,477.2' 15,512.0

MOUNTAINS 4,06649 4,699.4

FAR WEST 22,226.8 26,276.9

U.S.A. 166,583.3 187,796.3

source:. National Planning Association. 1973. Re ional
Demo%raphic.Projections: 1960-1965. was n Ono D*C.
Adjusted to maintain internal c itency.

-Abi e 5-2.. Dis tr 1but-lon of Population by, income. S i ze Class of.
1970 and 1980

(In Percent of Total Population)
1970 1980

12 to 15 to 25,000 U
'er 3 @o 6 to .9 to nder 3 to 6 to 9 to 12 to 15 to 25,OQO
-0: 5, 9@ 9 3,999 11,999L4,999 24,999 and 3,000 5,999 8,999 111999.14,999 24.99 and
01.7-r Over

.8.4 35.4 36.8
NEl., 'ENGLAND 1.2 10.6 16.1 26.7 17.0 22.51 7.3 2.7 4.3 5.6 6.8

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 6.5 11.0 15.9 19.0 15.9 23.2 8.5 3.0 4.2 @5.5 6.4 7.9 31.8 41.2

20.8 .7 3.2
2 17.0 21.2 1 16.7 5 5.2 6.1 7.2 9.0 36.3 33.0

S nUT--..
-4.6 10.3 10. 4 17.8 11.6 12.5 3.8 6.3 9.1 10.0 10.7 11.0 31.1 21

PLAINS 9.6 15.5 18.9 19.9 14.5 16.7 4.9 3.6 6.5 7.8 8.5 9.5 34.0 30-1

ST ii.7 17.3 19.4 18 2 13-0 15.6 4.8 5.2. 8.3 9.4 10.3 11.0 32.1 23.7

110"'NTAI NS 8.3 14.9 20.2 20.@ 1-! .5 16.7 4.8 3.9 6.6 8.14 9.9 11.8 35.3 24.1

7.0 11.8 15.0 18. 17.1 23.0 8.0 .3.4 .5.3 6-7 7.5 7.5 33.7 35.9

Source: National Planning Association. 1973. Regional
Demographic Projections: 196.0-1985z Washington, D. C.
Adiusted to maintain internal consistency.
6 8
6 d.4

5-3. Distribution o5 Population by Incone Size Class of
F am 1 e s by Region, 1970
(In Thousands of Persons) @12 to 15" to
3 to 6 to 9 to 25,000
"-S
IP 0 5,999 81999 11,999 14,999 24,999 and over
3
N F; EN G L; D 564.55 1,031.76 .1,567.11 2,014.86 .71 2,190.06 710.55

2,980.J.9
5 4.70 6,661.59 5,574.70 8,134.15
2,278.970 3,656.71 5, 7
3,736.10 5,571.38 6,947.83 5 473.06 6,816.74 @.1,868.05
G=E;@.T LA-KES 2,350-G!

3
6,913.68 7,313.01 6,380.96 4,159.38 4,481.01 1,362.2
2,076.52 2,532.01 2,665.98 1,942.55 2,237.28 656.45
P,';' AN S 1,286.10

752.04 2,102.44 646.91
S 0'-' T T 11576.83 2,331.56 2,614.58 2,452.85

195..21
X -3 TA I S 3377.55 605.97 821-51 837.78 589. 1 70 679.17
FAR WE- S T -55 5. 8 8 3,800.78 5,112.16 1,778.14
2,622.76 3,33.4.02 4,023.05
T
6 29,3 24,945.92 31,753.01. io,197.73
5, 93.34 23,180.0 28.32 31,984.90

Source: ab I e s 5-1 and 5-2

me Size Class o f
@-able 3-4. Distributon of Population by Inco
Families by Region, 1980

(In Thousands of Persons)

9 to - 12 to 15 to 25,000
Under 3 to 6 to. and over
A RE 3,000 5,999 8,999 11,999 14,999 24,999

470.26 612.43 .743.66 918.6.4 3,871.41 4,024.52

2,137.35 2,487.10 12,357.77 16,010-69
@i- C -1,165.83 1,6312.L6

13,256.1-8 12,051.07
'58.59 1,898.96 212271.62, 2,62-9.32 3,286.66
r: 7 1-TL d'.

2,564.01. 3,703.56 4,069-85 4,354.74 4,476-94 12,657.23 8,87-2.27
S U 7:_1 EA S

5 .1 4-58 929-11 1,114.93. 1,214.99 1,357.93 4,859.96 4,302.49
PLAINS

S 0 U T E'S T 806.62, 1,287.50 1,458.13 1,597.74 1,706.32 4,979.35 3,676.34

.-TAINS 183.28 3.10.16 394..75 465.24 554..51 1,658.89 1,132.56

8,855.32 9,433.41@
FA2 893.41 1, [email protected] -1,970.77 1,970.77.

0 62,496.11 59,503.35
U.S.A. 7,591.60 11,624.39 13,775.61 15,463.56 17 341.7

Source: Tables 5-1 and 5-2

National Planning Association regional projections are
the only projections available in the U. S. that contain
forecasts of.incomeby income-class. Income is one of the
.Cardinal determinants of outdoor-recreation 'participation

rates.
The Regional tconamic Projections Series is published
,annually, and contains 5 and 10 year forecasts of metropoli-
...tan, state and regional population, employment, household
and family formation, personal income,.and consumption.
Emphasis is placed upon estimating future patterns of inter-
.state migration and industrial location.
Whenevdr,possible, population projections prepared by
the National planning Association have been drawn from work
in.this area by -the Bureau of the Census..
To provide population projections NPA employed the
standard.cohort survival method on a five-year basis vital
sta.tistics (fertility and survival rates), These statistics
'were calculated by assuming that such rates will bear the
same relationship to the corresponding rates for the whole
population as occurred in the most recent Census data. In
all population projections the Census Series E fertility
assumption has been used which most closely fits recent
:,experience and which is also used by most recent U. S.
Government projections.

-The National Planning Association's projections were
derived by using the macro-economic and industry-models
built by Michael K. Evans and his associates at Chase.
Econometrics Associates among others.

5-6

The projections for consumption and investment by
detailed commodity types are produced by the models built.
at the National Planning Association.

The NPA regions consist of the following states:

New England: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
Connecticut.
Middle Atlantic: New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and
District of Columbia.
Great Lakes: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
and Wisconsin.

southeast: Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky,
Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Arkansas.
Plains: Minnesota, Iowal Missouri, North Dakotaf,
South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.
Southwest: Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, and New
Mexico.
mountains: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and
Colorado.
Far.West: Washington, Oregon, and California.

Since the NPA income size-distribution.did.not directly
.,correspond to the income size distribution used by BOR,
these were aggregated to make the NPA series compatible with
BOR.. Participation rates for each of seven income class
sizes were obtained from BOR a Those obtained were for
boating, swimming, hunting, camping, picnickingi and
fishing (Tables 5-5 through 5-10).

a
Unpublished data from BOR 1970 Survey of Recreation.

5-7

Ta ble 5-5. Annual Participation Rates in Boating by Income Size Class by Region

(Rate expressed as percentage-of population oOer 9 years of age)
Linder 3 to 6 to 9 to 12 to 15 to 25.,0:00
N?@' REGIONS
31000. :5,999 81999 11,999 14,999 24,959 and over

EN'LILN
D 11.5 15.9 28.4 36.7 36.7 35.4 4,5.7

M:DL'-'E ATLP.NTIC 5.4 12.4 18.6 28.5 28.5 35.0 4.4.5

GREAT LAKES 7.3 18.9 22.9 35.1 35.1 42.9 51.4

SOUTHEAST 5.1 12.4 20.8 28.3 .28.3 37.6 48.4

PLAINS 12.2 15.8 32.0 43.2 43.2 43.4 49.8
S 0 U T 1F S 4.9 14.3 24.0 35.6 35.6 37.3 59.0
0 1j T A i N S 5.3 19.2 22.7 40.0 40.0 27.3 62.2
FAIR WEEIST 12.2 16.1 23.6 30.9 30.9 36.7 41.5

Source: Calculated from unpublished material from BOR 1970
Survey of Recreation.

T
Zable 5-6. Ann%:al Partiicipation@Rates in Swimming by Income Size Class by.Region

(Rate expressed as percentage of population over 9 years of age)

Und e X- 3 to 6 to .9 to 12 to 15. to 25,00,0
11_),;@ RE
3,COO 5,999.. 8,999 11,999 14#999 24,999 and Over

z1-Z--A- -Z -L;@@: 23.9 45.1 61.3 71.5 71.5 67.6 .70.7

MT. !;OLE AT LAN T I C 15.9 30.4 48.2 65.0 65.0 68.5 73.9

GREAT LAX M-S 15.6 32.8 45.6 58.'7 58.7 64.18 .64.3

SOUTHEAST 1.4.9 29.0 42.1 58.5 58.5 64.9 64.9

PLAINS 18.2 29.2 48.3 55.9 71.4 56.9

SOUTHWEST, 13.1. 26.0 46.6 54.6 54.6 59.2 64.2

MOUNTAINS 25.5 33.4 49.4 .55.9 55.9 53.9 73.0

F.%R w Z S T 23.0 38:.2 47.6 55.3 55.3 63.9 74.7

Source: Calculated from unpublished material from BOR 1970
Survey of Recreation.

lable 5-7. Annual Participation Rates in Hunting by Income Size Class by Region

(Rate expressed'as percentage of population over 9 years of age),

Under 3 to 6: to 9 to: to 15 to 25,000
NPA ?XGIO%-S
3,000 5,999 6,999 11,999 14,9�9 24,999 and Over

NEW EN G L A-,0 5.2 ..7.7 1 0.3 8..9 8.9. 4.9 0.1

MID= ATLANTIC 7.6 10.0 8.0 8.6 5.5 3.4
3.5

I -GREAT L.:Q1 14.4 11.9 11.9 12.0 6.7
MS 5.6 11.1

6.2 11.1 12.9 13.2 13.2 11.1 5.2

PLAINS 10.7 17.7 21.1 24.6 24.6 19.7 10.3

SOLITMEEST 9.2 18.3 21.9 19.4 19.4 24.0 22.1

INS 8.4 11.7 18.8 29.7 29.7 12.5 35.1

8.3 8.1 10.9 11.3 ll,.3 12.1 13-8

Source: Calculated from unpublished material from BOR 1970
Survey of Recreation.

T a'-- 1 e5-8. Annual ?a-rticipation Rates in Camping by Income Size Class by Region

(Rate expressed as pecentage of-population over 9 year of age)

12 .to .15 to 25,000
L:nder 3 to 6 to 9 to
REGI6;- -
3,000 .51999 8,999 11,999 24,999 and Over

N
*E'.., Z,
L.;--N D 9.0 9.8 23.9 24.5 .24.5 22.1 21.7

M I D D T- EA71JUN T I C 4.5 9.0 13.4 15.3 15.3 13.1 14.8

GRZEP.T LAKES 5.8 13.1 22.0 26.5 26.5 28.4 21.6

S0!:7--..ZAS- 4.1 10.1 17.2 22.5 22.5 22.0 12.0

Qn
PLAINS 11.1 14.4 28.8 34.4 34.4 30,3 23.8

SOUTHNEST 8.0 18.7 29.9 31.9 31.9 33.2 25.7

IMOUNTAINS 14.3 28.0 18.0 54.7 54.7 33.6

18.8 25-.5 32.4 3.8.8 381.8 46.7
FFTR V. EST 23.9

Source: Calculated from unpublished material from BOR 1970
Survey of Recreation.

Table 5-9. An n al 'Par--*cination Rates in Picnicking by Income Class by Region

(Rate expressed as percentage of population over 9 years of age)
NPA Under 3 to 6 to 9 to 12 to .15 to 25,000
3,000 5,999 8,999 11,999 l4i999 24,059 --and Over
NZ1.1 ENG:,PCND 28.4 42.4 54.7 .59.9 59.9 54.4 35.9
MIDDLE ATLANTIC 22.8 39.0 52.2 59. 8 59.8 51.1 50.4
GRE%_1 LAKES 46.8 54.8 63.7 63.7 59.2 56.2
31.
SOUTHEAST 19.6 30.6 46.5 56.3 56.3 55.1 35.1
32.6 55.2 65.5 65.9 65.9 67'. 3 48.8.
'EST 19.3 50.2 3.2 53.2 49.1 40.4
SOU*"ffl*, 29..5
MOUNTAINS 37.6 50.4 65.6 66.6 66.6 53.1 58.9
FAR 'WEST 40.1 55.3 60.8. .60.8 60.9 49.1
.30.2

Source: National Planning Association. 1973. Regional
Demographic Projections: 1960-Ub

Lit

ab 1 e 5- 10 Annua.L Particip4tion Rates.in.Fishing by Income Class by Region

(Rate expressed as percentage of population over 9 years of age)

Under 3 to 6 to 9 to 12 to .15 to 25,000
-FA REGIO.NS
3?000 5,999 8,999 11,999 14, .24,999 and over

"E' '2.9 15.8 28.4 .24.8 24.8 25.0 33.7

MIDDLE ;@r.M.*.NTIC 8.1 15.2 21.9 25.2 22.7 28.6

GREAT LAKES 14.0 25.8 28.4 32.9 32.9 31.8 24.0

S-- 34.1 36.3
36.3 31.5 37.8

P--' All N S 24.1 31.1 43.1 47.6 47.6 43.6 28.2

SOUTH'--'t'ST 19.2 31.8
43.6 42.5 42.5 43.1 43-0

-MIGUNTAINS 16.8 25.1 36.4 44.7 44.7 41.6 55.1

FAR WEST 17.4 24.7 [email protected] 33.1 41.1 21.4

Source: Calculated from unpublished material from BOR 1970
Survey of Recreation.

Multiplication of the regional populations by the
participation rate s resulted in estimates of numbers of
participants in each region for 1970 and 1980. These are
Ar
shown in Tables 5-11 through 5722. The annual number of
activity days per,participa,nt for each of the six. recreation
a
activities was obtained from BOR multiplication of this
...number by the number of participants in eachregion resulted
.in-the total number of recreation days for each of the six
activities for 1970 and 1980, as shown in Tables 5-23, 5-254F
5_26, 5728, 2-30, and 5-31.

In the.case of boating, hunting, and camping, the total
number of activity days was further subdivided: boating in-
to marina,based and trailered boats; hunting into small,game,
big game, a nd'.waterfowl hunting; and camping into trailer
And tent camping.

Thus, a total of tenoutdoor recreation categories are
reported upon in this report. Other categories were con-
sidered,: retail and service establishments and hotels and
motels were deleted because it was not possible to separate
rIecreation activity levels from levels attributable to other
activities in these establishments;lbut in.the case of
marinas, harbors and swimming,.beaches the projected,land
use requirements include land areas improved by such.
..establishments. Upland game,.cold and warm.wat6r fishingi
and wilderness and natural area categories were deleted
because of a paucity of information.

a
Unpublished data from BOR 1970 Survey of Recreation.

5-14

--:nber of Participants in Boating by income Size Class by Region, 1970

(In Thousands of Persons).
nder 3 to 6 to 9 to 12 to 15 to 25,000
TOTAL
5, 999@ 8,999. 11 ,99.9 14,999 24,999 and Over
64-92 164.05 445.06 739.45 607.28 775.28 324.72 3,120.76

123.05 478.23 1,036.89 1,898.5t .79 2,846.95 1,326.18 9,298.65
1,588

-72.25 706.12 1,275.85 2,438.69 1,921.04 2,924.38 960.18 10,398.51

L, S T 857. 1,521.11 1,805.81 1,176.82 1,684.86 659.32 7,972.76

810.24 1,151.70 839.18 970.98 326.91 4,584.00
_-.k 7,:,3 328.09

S 0 U; Th:."z S T 7 7 26 333.41 627.5o 873.2 623.73 784.21 381-68- 3,70-1.00

.186.48 235.
Y-, 7@" i 17.891, 116.35 335.11 88 185.41 121.42 1,198.54

1,876.16 737.93 6,430.56
.AR ?2 422.26 796.83 1,243.12 1,174.44

U.S.A. 4,069.02 .3,406.43 6,689.96 10,485.64 7.16 12 04 8. 2 3 4,838.34 46,704.78

So,-rcc.: Tables 5-3 and 5-5

Ta*--Ie 5-12. cf Participants in Boating by Income Size Class by R6gion, 1980

(Tn thousands of Persons)
Under 3 to 6 tc 5) 12 to is to 25,000
1-0 5,999 11,999 14,999 24,999 and Over TO-IAL
I:r* RZ :,@::s

272.92
33.96. 74.77 173.93 337.14 1,370.48
1,839.21 4,102.41

ATLANTIC 62.93 202.39 3911.55 708.82 874.95 4,325.22 7,124.76 13,696.64

85.31 358.90 510.12 922.89 11153.62 5,686.90 6,194.25 14,911.99

SCUTHEAST .13C.76 459.24 846.53 1,232.39 1,266.95 4,759.12 4@,294.18 12,989.17

G:.,78 145.80 356.78 524.88 5s 2,109.22 2,142.64 5,929.72
6.62

SO @:T 5 T [email protected] 184.11 .349.95 568.80 607.45 1,857.30 2,169.04 5,776.17

9.71 89.61 186. 221.01
10 452.88 704.45 1,724.11

109.00 224.22 415.49 608.97 608.97 3,249.90 3,914.87 9,131.42

U.S.A. 533.99 1,709.�B 3,139.96 5,025.77 51657.51 23,811.02 28,383.40 68,261.63

Source: Tables 5-4 and 5-5

@.-'-,-,fticivants in Swim ing by income Size, Class by R
egion, 1970

(In Thousands of Persons)
3 to 6 :to 9 tc
12 to 15 to 25,000
11,999 14,999 24,999 and Over. TOTAL
D 0 62 1,183.12 0 6,167.11@1
465.32 960.64 1,44 .
1 4eO.43 5C2.36

C 2 2,68"
.01 4,330.03 3,623.56 5,571.89 2,202-36 19'949.6!@
Gi-WE;.T L-VK-77S .368.io 1,2215.44 2,540.55 4,078.38 3,212.69
4,417.25 1,201.16 17,043.57

779.24 2,006.42 3,078.78 3,732.86 2,432.65 2,908.18 884.09 15,812.82

:@LA-@NS 234.07 60C.-14 .1,222.96 1,490.28 1,085.89 1,597.42 373-552 6,610-0

SOUTH -"=-S TA 2C6.56
6,06.21 11218.39 1,339.2 956.61 1,244.64 415.32 86.99
5,9

25.08 202.39 405.813 468.32 329.64 366.07 142.50 2,000.83

FAR WEST 357. ?3 1,001.89 1,586-99 2,224.75 2,101.83 3,266.67 1,328.27 11,868.25
U.S.A. 2,529.79 7,286.45 13,701.15 19,10A.50 14,925.99 20,852.60 7,049.58 85,45,0.016

Source: Tables 5-3 and 5 - 6

Table :-14. ctf Participants in Swirming by IncoT-,.e Size Class and Region, 1980

(in Thousands of Persons)
Z:rder 3 to. 6 to 9 tc 12*to 15 to 25,000.
14 999 24,999 and Over -TOTAL
3 0' _999 8,99- 11,9@@q

ENGLS-N 7n-.57 212.09 375.42 531.72 656.83 2,617.07 2,845.34 7,309.04

m:D2L*:I A:--L7LNTIC 496-18 1,030.20 11616.62 1,995.51 8,465.07 11,831.90 25,620.85

G F1, . T '-r S G 1,015.79 81590.00 7, 7.A 9.84
-32.10 .522.86 1,543.41 1,929.27 1 11,632.47

TH E.A'S T 382.0-4 7 4 . 0, 3 1,713.41 2,547.52. 2,61-8.95 8,214.54 5,758.10 22,308.59

PL-,!-,I Ns 103.63 271.30 538.51 679.18 759.08 3,A70.01 2,448.12 8,259.85

S T I 13- 5 . --- 7 334.75 679.49 B72.37 931.65 2,947.78 2,360.21 8,231.92

,,:o N T'I IN S 46.74 103.59 195.01 2.60.07 30.98 894.14 826.77 2,636.30

rAZ t-.IFFT 3 . 4 C 839.02 1,0F9.84 1,089.84 31650.55 7,046.76 16,460.49

1,271.82
.6-,385.85 9,140.73 10,291.11 40,857.16 40,866.04 1 112,459.51

Source: Table 5-4 and B - 6

:`--r cf ?ar"=-*;_-nts 1-url-Ina by -ncome SIze Class and Pegion, 197C

(in Thousands off Persons)

rder 3 to 6 to 9 to 12 to 15 to 25,000
S'999 1 99 24,999 TOT AL.
5,SI?9 11,999 14,9 and Over

ENGLA' 147.27 107.31
79.45 179.32 00.71 70-4.83

C
f 7 91 7 6 293.11 .557.47 5".93 445.98 447.38 101.33 2,457.96

14.71 802.28 826.79 6
132.14 41 51.29 818-01 12 5. 11f; 3,770.36

F CU 7H Z.7@ 3 T 324. 767.97 943.38 -842.29 548.91 497.39 3,995.28

137.61 3677.54 534.25 655.83 477.87 440.74 67.61 2,681.45

j,:5.07 426.68 572.59 475.85 339.90 504.59 142.97 2,607.65

28.35 70.90 .154.44. 248.82 175.14 .84.90 68.52 831.07

VOR 1-,EST [email protected] 212.44 454.60 429.49 618.57 245.38 2,453.03

1,005.93 2,632.80 4,089-23 4,216..43 3,215.85, 3 822.52 501.65
U.S.A. 518.89 _T T191

Source: Table.5-J and 5 7

Table 25-16. Cf Par-c:pants In Huriting by Income Size.Class and Region, 1980

(In Tiousands'of Persors)
Under 3 to 6 to 9 to 12 to 15 to 25,000
3,000 5,999 8,999 11,999 TOTTALT
-41999 24,999 and .over

15.35 36.21 63.08 66.19 81.76 189. 70 4.02 456.31

'IDDLE ATLANTIC
40.80 124.04 @213.74 198.97 245.60 679 .68 544.36 2, 047-19

GRZAT LAKES 65.44 210.78 320.78 312.89 391.11 1,590.74- 807.42 3,699.16

SOUTHEAST 158.97 4111.10 525.01 574.83 590.94 1,404.95 461. 36.' 4 127.16

55.05 164.4-5 235,25 298.89- 334.05 957.41 443.16 2,483.27

319.33 309.96 331.03 1,105,04 812.47
S OTU 74.21 235.61 3,277.65

MCUNTAINS 15.40 36.29 .74.21 18 164--70 207 ..36 397.53 1,033.67
138.
?A-R WIEST '74. 15 112.81 191.90 222.70 222.70 1471.491 1,301.81 3,197.56
U.S.A. 4.99.38 1,3311.29 1,943.30 2,122.61 2i361.89 T 7.,296.37 .772.13 20,326.97

Source- Table 5-4 and 5-7

y income Size Class and Region, 1970
ber c f @art@64-amts n Ca:--pi ng b

(In Thousands of Persons)
to 6 to 9 12 to 5 to 25,000
U- 6 e r
3,999 8,999 1 11,999 .14,999 r
24,999 ard Ove

3- C. 21 lC1.1l 374.54 493.64 405.40 484.14V 154.14 2, 063. 6!

347.110 747.01 1 1,019 2 441.07, 4,57-5.4@
c 55 .2 852.93 1,0f;-3.57

-- 489.43 1 , 225 . 70 1,841.17 1,450.36 1,935.95 403.50 7,482.9'
c- 7;,- 1-6.36

SOUTH'Ac 214 . C@q 698.79 1,257.84 1,435.72 935.64 985.82 163.47 5,691.8-

PI.A 142.76 299.02 729.22 K7.110 668.24 677.@O 156.24 3,590.41

781.76 782.46 558.90 698.01 166.26 3,549.54
S -126.15 436 CO

322-57 1 161.9. 3E
YOUNV INS 48.27 169.67 312.17 458.27 22R.20 80.23

FAIR [email protected] 668.SO 1,080.22 1,560.94 1,474.70 2,387.38 424.99 7,889.5-2

U.S.A. 1,114.50 3,209.92 6,508.46 8,508.52 6,668.74 8,462.83 1,989-94 36,462.9i

Scjrcc: Table 5-11 and 5-8

!,umber of Pa::ticipa,-ts in Carping by Ircome Size Class and Region, 1980

fln Thousands of Persons)
UMet 3 to 6 to 9 to, 12 to 15 to 25,000 TOTAL
3 , c 5'9qq s'999 11,999 14,999 24,999 and.Over.

..r;: ENGLAID
26.58 46.09 146.37 1821.20 225.07 855.58 873.32 2,355.21

T r' _--.n 52-46 146.89 28 6.40 380.53 469.71 1,618.87
2,369.58 5,324.44
GREAT T AKES 67.78 248.76 490.08 696.77 870.96 3,764.76 2,603.n3 R,742.14

1-05.12 374.06 700.01 979.82 1,007.29 2,784.59 1,064.67 7,015.56
INS 57.12 133.79 321.10 417.96 467.13 1,472.57 1,023.99 3,893.66

1,653.14
SCU7HW-ST 64.53 240.76 435.98 509.68, -544.32 944.82 4,393.23

MOUNTAINS 26.21 86.84 l5c.01 254.49 303.33 557.39 465.48 1,843-.75

FAR WEST 355.13 570.42 764.66 764.66 4,135.43 2,254.58 9,012.84

4 186 16,842.33 11,599.47 42,580.83
U.S.A. 56?.76 1,632.32 T3,100.37 .11 4,652.47

Source: Table 5-4 and 5-8

-2z.1.2 5-19. NI.--,-er Cf in@P4cnickina by Income Size Class and Reg-on, 1970

(In Thcusands of Persons)

nder .3 to 6 to 9 to 12 to 25,00@,
15 to
5F99-0 8,999 11,999 14,99- 24,999 and Over TOTAL

16@[email protected] 43-7.4.7 857.21, 1,206.90 991.17 i,191.39 [email protected] - 5,099.56

31 1,304.12 .2,909.99 3,9E3.63 3,333.67 4,156.55 1,502.02 17,909.59

74-0.93 1,7748.49 3,053.12 4,425.77 3,486.34 4,035.51 1,049.84 18,540.00

SOUTFF.AST 1.n25.e2 2,117.12 3,400.55 3,592.48 2,341.17 2,469.04 478.14 15,424.3-3

? 4'9.2- 1,146.24 1,658.47 1,756.88 1,280.14 1;505.69
320.35 8,087.04

SCUTH'.:FST 304.333 687.81 1,312.52 1,304.92 932.09 5,835.32
1,032.30 261.35

Mo U TA I N S 126 .92 305@41 .538.91 557.96 392.74 360.64 114.98 2,397.56

469.S3 1,051.73 1,843.711 @2,310.87 3,113.31 873.07 12,108.58
2,446.01

3,7671.10. 8,998.39 15,574.48 19,274.55 15,068.19 17,864.43 4,854.84 85,401.98

Source: Table 5-3 and 5-9

7able 5-20. Participants in Picnicking by Income. Si-ze Class and Relion, 1980

(in Thousands of Persons)
n c r 3 to 6 to 9 to 12 to 15 to 25,000
-S,999 11,999 14,999 24,999 and Over TOTAL

445.45 550.27 2,10
335.00
6.05 1,1144.?0 5,164.82

Z121-E ATTL;@:..TIC Z--- C-36.54 115. .20
1,487 1,835.87 6,314.82 8,069-39 19,725.42_

G T -NES 1,674.88 2,093.60 7,847.66 6,772.70 20,855.23
365.9' 8,08.71 1,220.74

5:2.55 1,392.48 451.72 2,520.46 6,974.13 3,114.11 18,538.S!@

2,C^-9.62
512.87 -0.29 800.68 894.88 3,270.75 8,476.83

S i35.66 379.81 731.98 850.00 07.76 2,444.86 1,485.24 6,955.33

,@.Ri 1 156.32 66
258.96 309.85 369.32 880.87 7.06 2,711.31

F;LR T."EST, j69.9-1 5-18.46 973.58 1,198.23 1,198.23 5,392.89 4,.631.80 14,223.00
u . S. A . 88i.31 4146-5.39 7,258.72 1 9,218.10 10 370.39 35,23 12.03 28,284.90 96,710.74

Scu--ce: Tab I s 5- 4 ard 5-9

f n -"Shincr by income Size Class and Re glon, 1970

(In Thousands of Persons)
'Under - 1613 6 to 9 to 12 to 15 to 25,000
5 9.9 8.999 ll-,999 l 4,999 24,999 and Over TOTAL

-2.83 499.69 410.37., 547.52 239.46 .2,377.95,
1633.02 445.0 6

%'-ODDLE ATLANTIC
-84.60 1 586.22 1,220.86 1,678.72 1,404.82 1,8'46.45 852.33 77,774.0C

-S 33^4.35 gr 0
1,582.27 2,285.84 2,167.72 449.33 9,579.C6

Soz:@=,AST 1,01@@'.13 1,895.72 2,493.74 2,316.29 1,509.49 1,411.52 514.92 11,151-81

309.95 645.60, 1,691.30 1,269.01 924.65 975.45 185.12 5,401.28

S S T Z S T 3C2.75 '741.44 1,139.96 1,042.46 744.62 906.15 278.17 5,155.55
F@C, UN TA N _S 56.71 152.10 299.03 374.49 263.60 282.53 107.56 1,536.02
[_;A-R -1-17ST 27,110.72 647'.62 1,100.23 1,331'.63 1,258.06 2,101.10 380.52 7,090.08

U.S.A. 538.04 5,796.03 9,372.45 10,798.13 8,31 . 5 10,238.44 3,006 50,065.75
6'2 .41

Source: Table 5-3 and 5-10

5-22. -.:77ter c-' ParticiPants in Fishing bv Income Size Class and Recion, 1980

(In Thousands of Persons)

9 to 25,OnO
der - to 6 to 12 to 15 to
3, 5,999 8.999 11,999 14,999 and over TOTAL

Z G Z) 38.C-O 74.30 173.93 184.43 227.82 967.85 1,356.26 3PO22.6a,

[email protected] 248.09 468.08 626.75 773.64 2,805.21 4,579.06 9,595.26

G.--@ZAT LAKES 163.60 489.93 632.64 865.05 1,081.31 4,215.47 2,892.26 10,340.26

SOUTHEAST 494.83 1,014.78 1,387.82 1,S80.77 1,625.09 3,987.03, 3,353.72 13,444.06

PI-AiNS 124.,1 288-95 480.54 578.34 646.37 2 118.94 1,213.30 5,450.45

H-11-7s
SOUT. 154.87 409.43 6.35.74 679.04 725.19 2,146.10 1,580.83 6,331.20

207.96 624.04
e.0UNTAIN'S 3C.79 7-7.83 143.69 247.88 690.10 2,022.31

155.45 343.99 580.98 65-2.132 652.32 3,639.54 2,018.75 8,043.35

U.S.A. 1,256.09 2,947.32 4,503.42 5,374.66 5,979.622 0,570.24 17,618.22
58,249.57

Source: Table 3-4 and 5-10

-23. .-umber of -Boating Days Per Participant, and Total Number of
Table 5
B-oating Days by Region, 1970 and 1980

in Thousands-
No. of Days/ Total No. of Total No. of
NPA REGIONS Participant Days 1970 Days 1980

NEW ENGLAND 13.1 40,882 53,742

MIDDrE ATLANTIC 9.5 88,337 130,118

GREAT LAKES 10.7 1.11,264 159,558

Ln
1 12.0 95,673 155,870
SOUTHEAST

PLAINS 9.1 41,714 53,960

SOUTHWEST 9.5 35,160. 54,874

MOUNTAINS 8. 0 9,588 13,793

FAR WEST 9.7 62,376 88F575

U.S.A. 484,994 710,490

Source: Tables 5-11 and 5'-12,..and BOR. 1970 Survey

Table 5-24. Number. of Swimming Days Per Participant., and Total Number of
Swimming Days by Region, 1970 and 1980-

In Thousands

No. of Days/ Total No. of Total.No. of
NPA REGIONS Participant Days 1970 Days 1980

NEW ENGLAND 22.3 137,535 162,992

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 22.1 440,887 566,221

GREAT LAKES 21.1 359,619 456,445

Ln
SOUTHEAST 23@7 375,001.1 .528,714
co
PLAINS 19.4 160,241

SOUTHWEST 16.6 99,384 136,649

MOUNTAIN S @20.8 54,835

FAR WEST 30.8 365,542 506,983

U.S.A.' 1,947,828 2,573,080

-Source: Tables 5-13 and 5-14,. and BOR 1970 Survey

lable 5-25. Number of Hunting Days Per Participant, and Total.:Number
of Hunting Days by Region, 1970 and 1980

In Thousands
No. of Days/ Total No. of Total No. of
NPA REGIONS Participant Days 1970 Days 1980

NEW ENGLAND 12.1 81528 5,521

MIDDLE ATLANTIC, 10.1 24,825 20,677

GREAT LAKES.. 9.8 .36,950 36,252

SOUTHEAST- 42,350 43,748

PLAINS 12.5 33,518 31,103

SOUTHWEST' 9.4 24.,512 @30,810

MOUNTAINS .6r565 8,166

FAR.WEST 11.0 26,983 35,173

U.S.A. 204,231 211,450

Source:' Tables 5@15 and 5-1601. and BOR 1970 Survey

Table 5-26. Number of Camping Days Per Participant and Total
Number of Camping Days by Region, 1970 and 1980

In Thousands

No. of Days/ Total,No. of Total No. of
NPA REGIONS
Participant Days 1970 Days 198*0

NEW ENGLAND 13.9 28,685 32,737

MIDDLE ATLANTIC. 13.0 59,481 69,218

GREAT LAKES 11.4 85,306 99,660

Ln
SOUTHEAST 10.3 58,626 72,260
CD

PLAINS 10.6 41,273

SOUTHWEST 9.3 33,011

MOUNTAINS @10.0 1-6,194 18,438

FAR WEST 12.7 100,197 114,463

U.S.A. 419,559 488,906

Source: Tables 5-17 and 5718, and BOR 1970 Survey

Table 57 27. Number. of Picnicking Days.Per Participant,and Total
Number of Picnicking Days by Region, 1970 and@ 1980

In Thousands
NPA-REGIONS @No. of DAYS/ rotal No. of Total No...of
Participant Days 1970 Days 1980

NEW ENGLAND 8.7. 44,934

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 6.7 119JI994 132,160

Ln GREAT LAKES 6.6 122,364 137,711 i

SOUTHEAST 6.7 103,343 1240,545

PLAINS 6. 3 50,948 53,404

SOUTHWEST 5.6 32,678 38,950

MOUNTAINS 6.8. 16,303 18..,437

FAR WEST .7.0 84,760 9 9'11 5 6.1

U.S.A.-. 574,756 649,702

Sour -19 a d 5-20, and BOR 1970 Sur
ce: Tables. 5 n vey

Table 5-28.. Number of Fishing Days Per Participant and
Total Number of Fishing Days by Region, 1970 and 1980

In Thousands
No. of,Days/ Total:No. of Total No. of
NPA REGIONS Participant Days 1970 Days 1980

NEW ENGLAND 12.4 29,487 37,481

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 10.6 82,404. lQ1,710

GREAT LAKES 11.4 1090,201 117,879

SOUTHEAST 12.6 140,513 169,395

PLAINS .11.1 59,954 60,500

SOUTHWEST. 11.6 59,804 73,442

MOUNTAINS 9.8 1.5,053 19,819

FAR WEST 11.2 79,409 90,086

575,825 670,312;

Source: Tables 5-21 and 5-22, and BOR. 1970 Survey

'Table 5-29.1 Distribution of Total.Number olf Boating Days by.Type of Boating
by Region, 1970-and 1980

(In.Thousands)
Percent Percent Marine Based Trailered
NPA REGIONS Marine Based Trailerd
1970 1980 1970 1980

NEW ENGLAND 32% 68% 13,082 17,197 27,800 36 , 54-r

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 32% 68% 28,268 41,638 60,069 88,48(

GREAT LAKES 32% @68% 51,059 .75,660 108,499

V1
30,615.
SOUTHEAST 32% 68% 49,878 65,058 105,992

PLAINS 8% 92% .3,337 4,317 38,377 49,642

SOUTHWEST 8% 9 2%' 2,813 4,390 32,347 50,484

MOUNTAINS 8% 92% 76.7 1,103 8,821 12,690

FAR WEST 36% 64% 22,455 31,887 39,921 56,6.88

U.S.A. 136,941 201,469 348,053 509,021

Source: Table 5-23 and various reports

Tall 5-3C: of Tctai Kunber ef Hunting Days by Type
of by Rer-ionF 1?70 and 1980

(in Thousands)
Percent Percent Percent Small Game Big Game Waterfowl
27al-I Gane Big, Game Waterfowl 1970 1980 1970@ 1900 1970 1980

27% 12% 5,202- 3,368 2,303 1,491 663.

L- -1:C 61q 27%
7
12% 15,143 12.613 i,703 5,583 2,481

61% 27% 121 22,114
22,540 9,977 9,728 4,434 4'3@0

r-:I!, SA 5 T 61 % 27% 12% 25,834 26,686 11,435 11,212 5,092 5,250

3,732
611 27% 12% 2.0,446 .18,973 91050 2.98 4,022

27% 12%. 14,952 18,794, 61618 8,319 2,941 2 C-37

X: I-S 60% 35% .5% 3,939 4,900 2,298 2,859 328

61% 27% 12% 16,460 21,456 7,285 9,497 3,233 4,'22L

V S..A. 124,516 129,904 SS,669 57,746 24,047 .24,802

Ta-*,Ic 5-25 and BOR 1970- Survey

Table 5 31. Distribu@
tion,of Total Number of Campin pe,
g Days by.Ty
of Camping,' by Region, 1970 and 1980

(In Thousands)

Percent Percent Trailer Tent
NPA REGIONS
Trailer Tent
1970 1980 1970 @1980

NEW ENGLAND 64% 36% 19,358* @20,952 10,327 11,78

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 64% .36% 44F'300 21,413 24,91

GREAT LAKES 64% 36% 54,596 63,782 30.,710 35,87

SOUTHEAST 64% 36% 37,521 .46,246 211,105 26,01

PLAINS 64% 3.6% 24,358 26,415. 13,701 14,85:

SOUTHWEST 64% 36.% 21,127 26,148 11,884 14,70(

MOUNTAINS 64%, 36% 10,364 .11,800 5,830 .6,631

4
FAR WEST 64% 36% 64,126 73,256 36,071 1,201

U.S.A. 268,518 312,899 151,041 176,001

Source: Table 5-26 and various reports

These breakdowns, expressed as percentages, and the
resulting activity days are shown in Table 5-24 for bo.Ating,
.Table 5-27 for hunting, and Table 5-29 for camping should
be regarded as estimates.

In order to estimate the number of participants in
;each recreation activity per day during the season, the
total annual number of activity days was divided .by the
number of days'in the season of each recreation activity as
obtained from a variety of unpublished sources. The re-
suits of the division are sh6wn in Tables 5-32. through 5-37.

Selection of'appr6priate standards for land/water area
requirementi;1assodiAted with outdoor recreation activities
is difficult. The major reasons are the absence ofuniform
definitions and-very large numerical differences in the
land and/or water areas specified for outdoor-r6creation
activities.

In order to select the land/watek area standards used
in this report a comprehensive examination wasmade of the
.space standards compiled and published by the BOR in a re-
a
'port that summarizes over 130 reports and studies.

Land/water area standards used in this report were@
,selected to represent the average representative size of the
@standard areas reported. It is pertinent to note, there-
fore, that the selected standards listed.below'represent
@professional judgment.

The following standards were used:

,a
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1970, Outdoor Recreation
Space Standards. G.P.O.. Washington, D. C.

5-36

Table 5-32. Length of Season.and Number of Boaters,Per'Day During
the Season by Type of Boating by Region, 1970 and 1980

Length of Season (In Thousands)
Marina Based Trailered Marina Based Trailered
NPA REGIONS Boats: Days Boats: Days
@1970 1980 1970 1980

NEW tNCLAND 120 90 109 143 309, 406

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 120 120 236 347 501 737

GREAT LAKES 120 90 .297 425 841 1,206

SOUTHEAST 120 120 255 416 542 883

PLAINS 120 90 28 426 552

SOUTHWEST ..210 210 13 .21 154 240

MOUNTAINS 210 @210 4 @5 42 60

FAR WEST 210 210 107 ..152, 190 270

U.S.A. 1,049 .1,545@ 3,005 4,354

Source: Various reports and Table 5-29

Table 5-33. Length of Season and Number of Swimmers Per Day
During the Season by Region, 1970 and 1980

.(In Thousands)

Length of
NPA REGIONS 1970 1980
season (Days) -

NEW ENGLAND 90 1,528 1,811

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 90 4,899 6,291

Ul GREAT LAKES 90 3,996. 5,072

CC)
SOUTHEAST 90. 4,167 5,875

PLAINS 90 1,425 1,780

SOUTHWEST 120 828 1,139

MOUNTAINS 90 462. 609

FAR WEST 120 3,046 4,225

U.S.A. 20,351 26,802.

source: Various reports and Table 5-24,

ters Per Day During the
5-34. Le7@ct of Season ard Nuipber of H-,rf
Seascn by Type of Hunting by Region-1970 and 1980

Length of Season (In Thousands)

1 Came Bi- Gam. Waterfowl Small Game ig Gwne W z t c r rw 1
(Days)
k0ays)
1970 1980 1970' l9sp i973 i9so
-@w 90 26
60 43 28 17 17

90 60 126 105 74 62 41

-S 90 60 1138 184 ill 74 -13
109

S-*- :L:TAST 120 90 60 215
222 127 131 85

i 120 93 60, 170 158 101 93 6 62

gn 12 B 157
-.2C 60 74 92 49 C-2

-.A 5 So 60 33 41 26 32 5 7

123 6 --179 U
wzs 96 0 137 81 106 54

1,037 1,074 620 414
L@u S.A. 6-2 401

repoz:ts and Table 5-30

-7-

Table 5-3.5.. Length of Season and Number of Campers Per Day
During the Season.by Type of Camper by Region,, 1970 and 1980

Length of Season (In Thousands)
NPA REGIONS Trailer Tent Trailer Tent
(Day s (Days)
1970 1980 1970 1980

NEW ENGLAND 200 90 92 105
115 131

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 20.0 90 190 222 238 277

GREAT LAKES 200 90 273 .319 341 399

SOT
VITHEAST 200 90 231 235 289

PLAINS 200 90 122 132 152 165

SOUTHWEST 250 @120 -85 105 99 123

MOUNTAINS 250 120 41 47 49 55

FAR WEST 250 120 257 293 301 343

U.S.A. 1,248 1,454 1,530 1,782

Source: Various reports and Table 5- 31.

r"ab e 5-36. on and Number of Picnickers Per.
Length of Seas.
Day During the Season by Regibn, 1970 and 1980

.(In Thousands)
Length of
NPA REGIONS Season (Days) .1970 1980

NEW ENGLAND 120 370 374

MIDDLE ATLANTIC -120 11101

GREAT LAKES, 120 1,020 1,148

SOUTHEAST 120 861 1,038

PLAINS 120 425 445

SOUTHWEST 2.00 163. .195

MOUNTAINS 120 136 1.54

FARIWEST 424 498

U. S*. A. 4,3.99 4,953

Source: Various reports. and Table 5-27

'.rable 5-37. Length of Season and Number of Fishe-men Per
Day During the Season by Region, 1970 and 1980

(In Thousands)
Length ot
NPA REGIONS Season (Days) 1970 1980

NLEW.ENGLAND 90 328 416

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 90. 916 1,130

GREAT LAKES 90 1,213 1,310,
i-n

SOUTHEAST 210 669 807

PLAINS .90 666 672

SOUTHWEST 210 285 349,

MOUNTAINS 120 @125 165

FAR WEST 378 429

U.S.A. 4,580 5,278
----------------------I

Source: Various reports and Table 5-28

a
Boating
Land area. requirements;@ 2 acres per 100 boats
Land area requirements: water-based boats, 1.1 acre
per boat
Water surface requirements: water-based boats, 1 Acre
per boat
Trailer boat: 1 acre per boat.
Swimminga
.Land area requirements: 130 sq. ft. per swimmer
Water area requirements: 70 sq. ft. of surface per
swimmer

Hunting
Land requirement for small game: 9 acres per hunter
Land requirement for big game:. 64 acres per hunter
Land requirement for waterfowl: 4.5 acres per hunter
Campingc
'Land requirement for trailer camping: 35 persons per
acre
@Land requirement for tent camping: 12 persons per acre

a
.,Sources: Wisconsin Conservation Department. 1966. A
comprehensive plan for Wisconsin outdoor recreation.
Madison, Wisconsin,and U. S. Bureau of outdoor Recreation.
1966. Water-oriented outdoor recreation: Lake Brie Basin.
Ann" Arbor, Michigan.

b
Source: Wisconsin Department of Resource Development.
19.62. Recreation in Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin.

C
Source; Wisconsin Conservation Department. 1966. A compre-
hensive elan for Wisconsin outdoor recreation. Madison,
sconsin, and California outdoor Recreati6n Plan Com-
-mittee. 1960. California oublic outdoor recreation Elan:
P_z!.KL_jI- Sacremento, California.

Note: In all cases, the Wisconsin Standards should.not be
regarded as design criteria.

5-43

a
Picnicking
Land requirement: 15 persons per acre
b
Fishing
Land requirements for fresh water: 800 squarefeet
per fisherman
Surface water requirements for water: 3.6 acres pet
fisherman

-The standards reflect the actual land required for
construction of a facility, plus parking, plus a buffer
zone allowance to separate the activity from other recrea-
tion activities and from contiguous uses. No standard or
set of standards were found that adequately consider multiple
recreation activities at a sing le.complex. Private sector
and state park resorts make effective use of the complementarity
between overnight accommodations,,rnar;inas, campgrounds, swim-,
ming beaches, and golf courses in a single recreation area.
Use.of individual standards may overstate total acreage
requirements, but addition of the additional acre .age
to buffer the larger reckeation complex from incompatible
contiguous uses seems appropriate.

Table 5-38 sets forth these standards expressed in
uniform units in terms of acres per participan t.

a
Source: Wisconsin Conservation Department. 1966. A com-
prehensive plan for Wisconsin outdoor recreation. Madison,
01-sconsin, and California Outdoor Recreation Pra-n Com-
:mittee. 1960. California public outdoor recreation plan:
part II. Sacremento, California.
bSources: Wisconsin Conservation Department. 1966. A com-
prehensive plan for Wisconsin outdoor recreation. Ma-61-son,
Wisconsin, and U. S. Bureau of outdoor Recreation. 1966.
Water-oriented outdoor recreation: 'Lake Erie Basin. Ann
Arbor, Michigan..

5-44

Table 5-38. Land and Water Use Standards

..::,.Trailered Boats 2.3 participants/boat)
Land 0.0009 acres/participant
Water 0.435 acres/participant
Marina-Based Boats (@ 3.7 participants/bpat)
Land 0.300 acres/participant
Water 0.270 acres/participant

Swimming
Land 0.003 acres/participant
'Water 0.002 acres/participant.

-Hunting

Land
Small Game 9 acres/participant
Big Game 64 acres/participant
Waterfowl 4.15 acres/participant

camping

Land
Trailer 0.029 acre/participant
Tent 0.083 acres/participant

Pic-nicking
Land 0.029 acres/participdnt

Fishing
Land 0.018 acres/participant
Water 3.6 acre.s/p4rticipant

5-45

Multiplication of these standards by the number of parti-
cipants per day for each outdoor recreation activity resulted
in land and surface water area requirements. These are shown
in Tables 5-39 through 5-44.

As noted earlier, data were sought for natural area
recreation use to support comparable calculations ofrequire-
ments. It isreported that wilderness recreation and recrea-
tion in undeveloped natural areas has been growing at the
nate of approximately 10% per year over the past several
decades without evidence,of-slackeni-ng. a

B. National Expressions of Need
Congress has been responding to the nation's needs for
recreational opportunity and fish and wildlife enhancement
programs, since the turn of the century. The national forest
reserves, now under the management of the USPS, for example, were
originally established by Congress in 1891. Twenty-five
years later in 1916, Congress created the NPS to conserve
the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife in
various areas of the country. Other early.landmark statutes
include the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Acts of 1934 and.1946, and the
1944 Flood Control Act.

,Beginning in the early 19601s, Congressional concern
for recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, natural
beauty, and environmental quality intensified and the pace

a-Fisher, A. C. and J. V. Krutilla. 1964. Valuing Long Run
Ecological Consequences and Irreversibilities. Resources
tor the Future, Inc. (Reprint No. 117), WasFIngton, D. C.
and Fisher, A. C. and J. 17. Krutilla. 1972. "Determination
of Optimal Capacity of Resource-Based Recreation.Facilities."
Natural Resources Journal. Vol. 12 No. 6 (July).

5-46

T @@ble 5- 39. L3nd ard WI a ter Acreage Needed by Boaters During Season by Type
@f 30atinc by Region, 1970 and 1980 (in Acres)

Flarina-based Epats, Land. Trailer Boats, Land Marina-based Boats, Water Trailer Boats.. Water
1970 1980 C
198C C @ha:! 1980 ChIng? 1970 1970
ha hange 1980 inge
3--,'700 42,900 31 278.1 365.4 31 29,430 33,610 31 134,415 176,610 31

7C, 'Z:00 @1^4 , 100 20 93,690 47 95
45q.9 6631.3 47 63,7 217,935 320.5 47

756.9 1,085.41 43 801190 114,750 365,835 43
.27,5@O 43 43 524,610
76,500 121,ell 61 794.7 63 68,850 112,320 63 235,770 384,105 63
'9
383.4 496.8 30 7,560 9,720 29 185,310 240,120 30
So 3,900 6,30 62 138.6 216.0 56 .3,510 5,670 62 F 66.990 104,400 56
1.2.00 i'501 25 37.8 54.0 43 1,080 1,350 25 18,270 26,100 43

5.60 4
FAR 'XES11 32,100 4 2 171.0 "243.0 42 28,890 .41,040 42 82,650 117,450 @2
U.S.A S14,7CO 47 2,704.5 3,918.6 45 283,230 417.1501 47 1,307,175 893,990 45

So%.:rce: Tabl@_s 5-32 and 5-38

Table 5-40. Land and Water Acreage Needed,by Swimming During Season
by Region, 1170 and 1980 (In Acres)

Land Acreage Wa'ter-Acreage
@NPA REGIONS V. d. @ . I= 1@
1-970 1980 Cha 1970. 1980 Change
-- Me
NEW ENGLAND 4,584. 5,436 19 3,056 3,622 19

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 14,697 18,873 28 9,798 12,582 28

GREAT LAKES 11,988- .15,216 27 7,992 10,144'' 27

Ln
SOUTHEAST 12,5bi 17,625 41 8,334 11,750 41
00
PLAINS* 41275 5,340 25 2,850 3,560 25

:SOUTHWEST 2,484 3,417 38 1,656 2,278 38

MOUNTAINS 1,386 1,827 32 924 1,218 32

FAR WEST 9,138, 12,675 .39 6,092 8,450 '39.

U.S.A. @61,053 @80,409 32 40,702. 53,0604 32

Source: Tables 5-33 and 5-38

Table 5-41. Acreage needed for-Hunting During Season--by Type of Hunting
by Region, 1970 and 1980 (Thousands of acres)

NPA'REGIONS small Game Biq Game Waterfowl
1970 1980 Chan6ae 1970 1980 C 1970 1980 Chan(
NEW ENGLAND 387 252 (35) 11664 1,088 -(35) 77 50 (35'
MIDDLE ATLANTIC 10,134 @945 (17) 4,736 3,968 (16) 225 185 (18'
GREAT LAKES 1,692 .1,656 (2) 7,104 6,976 (2) 333 32
SOUTHEAST 1,935 11998' 3 8,128 8,384 3' 383 396 3
PLAINS.. 1,530 1,42.2 6,464 5,952 (8) 302 279 (8)

SOUTHWEST 1,125 1,413. .26 4,736 5,8 88 .24 221 279 26

MOUNTAINS, 297 369 24 1,664 2,048 23 23 32 39

FAR WEST 1,233 1,611 31 5JF184 6,720 30 243 315 30

U.S.A. 9,333 9,.666 4 39-,680. 41r024 3 1,805 1,865 3

Source: Tables.5-34 and 5-38

Table 5-42. Acreage needed During Season by Campers by Type,
by Region, 1970 and 1980 (in acres)

Trai:lers -Tents
NPA REGIONS
1970 1980 ChaRge 1970 1980 Change

NEW ENGLAND 2,668 3,045 14 9,545 10,873 14

MIDDLE ATLANTIC .5,510 6,438 17 19,754 22,991 16

GREAT LAKES 7,917 9,251 17 28,306 33,117 17

Ln
SOUTHEAST 5,.452 6,699 23 19,505 23,987 23
un

PLAINS 3,538. 3,828 8 12,616 13,695 9

SOUTHWEST 3,045. 24 8,217 10,209 24

MOUNTAINS 1,189 363 115 4,06.7 12

'FAR WEST 7,453 8,497 14 241983 28,469', 14
I J

U.S.A. 36,1192 421166 17 126,993 147,906 16

Source: Tables 5-35 and 5-38

Table.5-43. Acreage Needed, During Season by Picnickers by
Region, 1970 and 1980 (In Acres)

NPA REGIONS 1970 1980
Change

NEW ENGLAND 10J1730 10,846 1

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 29,000 31,929 10

GREAT LAKES 29,580 33,292 13

Ln SOUTHEAST 24,969 30,102 .21

PLAINS 12,325, 12,905 5

SOUTHWEST 4,727 5,655 20

3,944 4,466 1.3
MOUNTAINS

FAR WEST 12,296 14,442 17

U.S.A. 127,571 14316.37 13

Source: Tables 5-36 and.5-38

Table 5-44. Land and Water Acreage Needed by Fishermen During Season,
by Region, 1970 and 1980 (In Acres)

Land
Water
NPA REGIONS % %
1970 1980 ChangE 1970 1980 Change. -

NEW ENGLAND 5,904 27 1,180,800 1,497,600 .27

MIDDLE ATLANTIC 16.,488 20,340 23 3,297,600 4,068,000 23

@GREAT LAKES. 21,834 23,580 8 .4,366,800 4,716,000 8

in SOUTHEAST 12,042 14,526 21 2,408,400 2,905,200 21
Ul

PLAINS 11,988 12,096 1 2,397,600 .2,419,200 1

SOUTHWEST 5, 13 0 6,282 23 1,026,000 1, 2-56,.4 00 22

MOUNTAINS 2i250 2,970 32 450,00,0 5941,000 32

FAR WEST 6,804 7,722 13 1,360,800 1,.544,400 13

U.S.A.. P2,440 95,004 -15 16,.48-8,,000 19,000,R00 15

Source- Table's 5-37 and 5-38

of legislative action markedly quickened. Thus., in 1960
Congress passed the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act
which1declared.that the National Forests were to be admin-
istered for outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife, as
Well:a's range, timber, and watershed purposes. In 1964,
the@Secretary of.the Interior was directed to classify the
vari.ous:uses to which each parcel of Federal land.could be
put to avoid the loss of nationally beneficial uses, e.g.,
recreation and1fish and wildlife, by the unwise transfer
of certain parcels to different ownership (Classification
And Multiple Use Act of 1964). That same year Congress
established a framework for.creation of a national network
of Federal wilderness.areas.(Wilderness Act of 1964).

Two major statutes evidencing an increasing national
interest in recreation and wildlife resources also became
law in 1965.. In the Federal Water Project'Recreation Act.,
@Congress recognizedrecreation and fish and wildlife
activities as purposes which should receive full consider-
ation in the planning and operation of every Federal WRDP.
In the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, Congress pro-
vided ameans for improving the quantity and quality of out-
door recreation facilities.

.:The Transportation Act of,1968 provided that the plan-
ning of highways should give special,recognition to preserva--
tionof the natural beauty of the countryside, public parks
and recreational facilities, wildlife areas and historic
sites.. Durinq the same year, a statutory basis was estab-
11slied.. for creation.of a national system of outdoor trails
(National Trails System Act of 1968) and a national. system
to.preserve rivers possessing outstanding scenic, recreational,

5-53

fish and wildlife values (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968).
Finally, in th@e-National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
Congress declared a national policy of encouraging the.pro-
ductive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment,
and directed all Federal agencies to consider environmental
values'when proposing most major Federal activities.

in addition to legislation, Congress foc used attention
upon recreation, fish and wildlife, and other natural re-
sources of national value through formation of two commissions,
one to review Federal public land law (PLLRC). and the other
to study outdoor recreation policies (ORRRC). ORRRC's report
recommended the establishment of a national outdoor recrea-
tion policy, the creation of a systematized classification
scheme for recreation lands, state-by-.state long-range
recreation master plans, a Federal grants'in-aid program, and
the creation of a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation recommenda-
tions which have since been partially implemented. Congress
has not yet acted upon PLLRC's findings, though a BLM Organic.
Act,and a,National Land Use Policy Act are presently being
given active consideration.

.Wi,.th the exception of participation in the Land and
Water Conservation Fund, the Corps has been assigned manage-
ment responsibilities under each of the foregoing statutes,
including recreation development, fish and wildlife enhance-
ment, and natural resource protection.

C. Corps WRDP Resources and National Needs
The acreage required to satisfy national recreation,
huntinq, and fishing demands was shown to be increasing.
Some regions ofthe nation will demonstrate dramatic changes,
for ex4mple, a forecasted 42% increase in land needed to

5-54

support swimming activity in the southeast region.
Table 5-45 shows the supply of Corps WRDP lands and
waters.by regions appropriate to the projections of need.
In the U. S., there are 4.3 million acres of surface water
in.Corps WRDPs available for swimming, fishing, marina-based
boats, and trailered boats; 33,000 miles of shoreline to
support fishing, boating, and swimming activities (RRMS 1973).
There are 5,532,245 acres of land above normal pool elevationa
hel,[email protected] fee by the Corps available to meet the needs for
1and-based recreation activities (RRMS 1973). Of the 5.5
million acres, 418,400 acres are classified by the Corps
aS.SU-itable for intensive. recreation development and are
'available to meet needs formarinas, launching ramps, camp-
qrounds, picnic groundsi and swimming beaches,-- 2.4 million
acres are classified by the.Corps as primarily valuable
.for upland and/or big game and are available to meet hunting.
needs. The remaining 2.6 million acres, incl'uding 191,412
acres of identified natural area, are available for extensive
re.creation use requiring minimal investment in facilities.
All.of the 5.1 million acres of extensive recreation and
wildlife lands and part of the intensive recreation area acreage
..are 1-ivailable for compatible multiple recreation uses; that is,.
more than 5.1 million acres.are open for-public hunting in
-season and the same acreage is available for.extensive
recreation users during the balance of theyear,.
It'he supply of land and water in the Corps WRDP system
t,-ikes an,added significancein three NPA regions not par-
ticularly well served by other national.systems,as shown in.

a
Case study analyses show that normal pool elevation may not
always be the best dividing line between aquatic and terres -
trial environments because of thezone partially above and
partially below normal pool elevation that is periodically
inondated.

5-55

reat- or
-ia*o,- to '.Ieet ',Iationa' Rec
C:--,Ds :f '_@rd 3nA
-C :..2C-s

L_nn,_@ for :ntenslve! Land o r z 1 a nd"
:,ec.-eat.rn an--' B i a G v. m
(@Ii _s I (Acres) ',%cres'

4,957 132 2,828 2E,E69

01
5,561 8,307 -,n-,362
7 S 307,929 1 2,886 1 23,223 1571,890;

15,532 152,146 1,071,729
1,481,951

ilsi91019 7,4775 76,083 64v-7,404

7,26,272 5,437 131,967 422,280

292,712 1,525 23,922 93,9C4
A 4,338,401 33,078 418,476 2,432,238
7*;,,2 totals represent conbinations of Corps data* reported by Engineer Division. The match with State
-ines is not exact.

-=e in '-;*-e.

2 'F n v I -- n,_@
X--rth Atlantic Civision less 'Norfolk.
e@'__rth Central D4-,:ision less St. Paul plus Pittsburgh and .3 of Louisville..
Scuth AtIzint-1,- Division, Lower Mississippi Valley Division, Ohio River Division less Pittsburgh and
.3 of Louis%rille, plus Little Rock and \orfolk.
-@iver Di-,,-ision plus St. Paul.
tern Div` sion less Little Rock.
xclud--@s '4*ontana (Plains) and Idaho (Far West)
iaci-Hc Divislon and South Pacific Division.

a
the Nationwide,.Plan In the southeast, plains, and south-
..West regions, demand for WRDP-related activities is high and
I.pro]e'ctions show significant percentage increases in thd
future. Data in Table 5-45 show that Corps WRDPs have more.
than 3.5 million acres of water surface, 28,444 miles of
shoreline, and 2,141,413 of upland and/or big game land
'lable to meet the demand.
aval

There are legitimate national needs for various types
of intensive recreation opportunities. Decisions to provide'
::these opportunities at specific times, and places are far
subject to market conditions. Some of.the opportuni-
..ties can be provided at some Corps WRDPs through innovative
..arrangements, such as the Lake Lanier Islands.Authority
.(Georgia) under existing authorities; others, such as
vacation -- or second homes, will be difficult to
.,accommodate at Corps WRDPs.

Second homes would be a serious resource allocation
.,problem if Corps WRDPs werethe only supply of land to
nieet water-orlented second home demand., The data shown
in Table 5-46.indicate a reasonable supply of land Avail-
..able at WRDPs.created by private and,quasi-public.utility
'companies. Housingdevelopment focused on these WRDPs is
@iexemplified at Lake-of-the-ozarks (Missouri), Deep Creek
.Lake (Maryland), and Lake Gaston (North Carolina). Natural'
lakes, some TVA.and BuRec WRDPs, and Great Lakes and sea
coasts should be added tothis stock. Also, Corps WRDPs
where very little manageable land was acquired.have already
experienced intensive housing development.

aBureau, of outdoor Recreation. 1972. Outdoor Recreation:
A Legacy for America. G.P.O., Washington, D. C.

5-57

Table 5-46. Federal Power Commission Licensed Water a
Resource Development Projects b NPA Region
y

Watet,-
Number of Shoreline Number of
Region Projectsb Surface (Miles) Access Areas
(Acres)
;New England 74. 121,864. 1,410 19,6.
'Middle Atlantic 39 3&, 614 354 152
[email protected] .107 261,269 2,498 662.
.,Plains 19 113,616 1,790 1, 3 55
.@Southeast .75 493FO21 9,418 11830
Southwest 6 284.,374 3,094 916

214 680 1 063
,@Mounta:ins 38 .305
.Far West 166 223,027 1,853, 393
'TOTALS 524 1,748,465 21,520 5,813

,a CZRC from U..S. Federal Power.Commission. 1970. Recreation'
Opportunities at Hydroelectric Projects Licensed by the
Fedex,al Power Commis-sion. Washington, D. C.

b
Does not include irrigation district, state agency, PUMP
storage, orn6n--@-reservoir-licenses.

5-58

It was not possible to reaggregate existing data to
quantify specific national needs for housing-based recrea-
a.
tion opportunities that could be met by Corps WRDP resources
...In some cases, particularly at those WRDPs where housing
development is. already well advanced and is part of con-
tiguous land use problems, Corps authority to work cooper-
...ati.vqly with local governments -- and perhaps directly with.
developers could meet a portion of the needs while main-
@,@taining the integrity of the resources. In,all such casest.
analyses of the tracts in question should be conducted to
''determine whether the value of the natural recreation
..resource would exceed its value as high-density recreational
b
resource

D.. @Findings
.1. The lands and water of the Corps WADP system
constitute a major segment of the supply of resources
available to meet these needs both nationally and in the
.,,regions showing largest percentage increases.

2. The national need foroutdoor recreation and fish
and wildlife enhancement as expressed by the findings of Con-
authorized Commissions and specific legislative:
%acts can better be met by insuring that the full 8upply.of
@Corps WRDP land.is available to the public..

a
,..The demand, in aggregate, is very large. See: Richard L.
Reclatz Associates, Inc. 1974. Recreational Properties:
An Analysis of the Markets for Privately Owned Recreational
Lots and Leisure Homes. Council on Environmental Quality,
Rashington, D. C.
bFisher, A. C. and J. V. Krutilla. 1972. "Determination of
''Optimal Capacity of Resource-Based Recration Facilities".
Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 12,.No. 6 (July).

5-59

3. There are marked regional differences in the amount
of land needed to meet intensive and extensive recreation
,use. The Corps WRDP system constitutes a significant supply
@of land and water in those regions where rapid rates of in;--
!crease are expected and where there are few alternative
'Federal sources of supply.
4. The Corps WRDP system has high potential for meet-
@,ing Congressional-statements of national-need for maintain-
ingenvironmental quality, providing balanced recreation
opportunities, and maintaining wildlife species populations
at a high level for the use and enjoyment of all Americans.

5-60

CHAPTER 6
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

A. Introduction
The Congress has granted to the Corns broad discretion-
ary authority to plan, develop, and operate public recreation.
facilities, mote specific authority to manage forest resourcesi
andauthority to cooperate in fish and wildlife management
consistent with project purposes.. These grants of authority
constitute the present Corps responsibility for:utilizing
Corps.managed.land and water areas to.provide for outdoor
recreation and fish, forest, and wildlife enhancement in the
public interest.

Recreation-resource management, however, is but one func-
tion of the total resource developrent and operation program
of the Civil Works Directorate of the Corns. Recreation-
resource management must, at the same time, be both consistent
with the other authorized purposes and enhance oublic recrea-
tion benefits and protect and enhance the quality of the
resources. It has been.shown: ".Operation of a series of
wa ter resource development projects.on a single river system
is. a,very complex decision-making process. The decision.
to,.save or'release water at a.given point for a given month
affects not only the situation.for that site and that month,
but also for every other month and site as well." a
In this chapter, the following alternativemanagement
Systems by which the Corps could discharge its recreation-

a
King, D. H. 1972. Effects of Reservoir_Operating Policy
on Re -creation Benefits. Vi'rqlnia Polytechnic Institute-
&.State.University-, Blacksburq, Virginia.

6-1

resource management responsibilities are evaluated:
(1) Lease or sale of WRDP lands to Permit Private use.

Transfer of WRDP land to state governments or other
Federal agencies.

(3) Retention of WRDP land under Corps management.

The evaluation of each alternative includes the assess-
ment'of the following major considerations:
(1) Effectiveness of the alternative system in meeting
nt responsibiliti
the recreation-resource manaaeme les
associated with Coros WRDPs.

(2) Effect of the alternative system. upon local tax

structures.
(3) Effect of the alternative system on national needs.
(4) Effect of the alternative on the pro5rams of the
Corps and other agencies.
(5) Statutory, fiscal, and policy constraints that
attach to the alternative.

B.. Lease or Sale of Land to Permit Private Use
1. The Nature of Private Sector Involvement
In general, firms have successfully entered the recreation
industry by developing and operating capital intensive', high
density facilities in regions where there is high year around
visitation or where a market can be developed. In these'
Profitable areas,,entrepreneurs can bid land away from other
uses such as agriculture.
The unprofitable nature of some activities,'such as

6-2

g, hunting, and nature study, have inhibited
primitive campin
intensive private entry. Yet significant segments of
Am.ericans have expressed high levels of demand for oppor-
tunities to enjoy solitude while fishing, camping and boatina@
The provision of.these non-market opportunities tradition-
ally has been the role of the public sector.

.,2. Discussion
a,. Effectiveness.of Sale or Lease of Corps WRDP Land
in Meeting Corps Responsibility

The private sector-can effectively perform certain
parts of the Corps recreation-resource management responsi-
bility nationwide: provision of high density,.canital
intensive recreation facilities; development of residences
and.commercial establishments;.and farming, grazing, or
forestry. Market perceptions and.flow of.income would deter-
mine which portions of WRDPs would be.purchased or leased
if offered.

Because of existing long-term leases, the sale
orlong-term lease of all WRDP lands to the private sector
could conceivably take 30 years to complete and would lead
to lan Id use at most WRDPs quite similar to that currently
found at low MRL ratio WRDPS. The best recreation sites
would.be occupied by high density facility'complexes made up
.of.marinas, lodges, deluxe campgrounds for recreation
vehicles, and even condominiums, golf courses,and other
amenities associated with planned community development;
th6.intervening lands would have a strip of houses bordering
the shorelinevand the balance would be subdivided (old
Hickory), farmed (John Day), grazed (Oahe), or subject to
intensive industrial forest@ management (Clark Hill).

6-3

Present trends observed at the 29 sample WRDPs lead
to the expectations that: the agricultural. and forest land
would be posted; cropping and silvicultural practices would
only peripherally consider wildlife habitat; and grazing
(exc-ept pasturage in the east) would compete with game.

Within this context, only part of the recreation
responsibility would be met. Extensive recreation experiences,
wildlife management, and public hunting would not be met.
Access to'the water 'for fishermen, swimmers, an&boaters
would become difficult. However, the responsibility to
contribute tothe Nation's forest supply,dould be.met.
Lakeshore management planning would be materially inhibited,
and integrated shoreline and contiguous land use would depend
almost entirely upon local zoning and building codes which
ar.e. now non-existent or cover only small portions of the WRDPI
at anestimated 93.1% of all WRDPs..

A concern, however, is that profitable.users will
be in a position to bid the intervening land into higher
yielding us.es. This would further reduce the availability
of lands for extensive recreation and for fish and wildlife-

enhancement.

b. Effect of Sale or Lease of Corps WRDP Land
upon Local Tax Roles
Any sale of land would augment local ad valorem tax
income. In most states long term leases would not alter the
present situation.

The economic costs and benefits resulting from
sale of Corps recreation-resource land are not clear. costs.
to. local governments increase as more facilities,are built,

6-4

@partIidularly as housing is built, occupied seasonally, and
then,occupied permanently. The margin between tax income
and service costs varies with balance and density (planned
unit developments with multi-occupant structures and commeri-
a
@cial,activity vs. subdivisions). Typical problems evidenced
bv,frequent complaints from homeowners in the vicinity of
both '.private and public WRDPs include inadequate police and,
fire.protection,,solid waste service (including collection
b
and disposal),,and roads,and streets.

Whether or not the taxes received by local government
from devel6pment on property purchased or leased from the
Corps exceeds the cost of thenew services demanded*cannot
be-determined without further study.

The development found at 11 of the surveyed WRDPs con-
sisted of extensive (0.5 acre to 5 acres) suburban-type
housing. According to a recent Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) reportc, this.type of growth is most injurious
tothe landscape, and costs local government more to service
than is derived in tax income. Conversely, the CEQ report
and other research has shown that large-scale, well-planned
multi-density developments such as Reston, Virginia, yield
tax.s.treams to local government that are higher than the

aReal.Estate Research Corporat ion. 1974. The Costs of Sprawl.
G.'P..O.,,Washington, D. C.
b
Burby, R. J. and S. Weiss. 1970. Public Policy and Shoreline
Landowner Behavior. University of rth Carolina, Chapel Hillf
North Carolina
[Zeal Estate Research Corporation. 1974.

6-5

cost of providing services. a Commercial establishments on
private land pay taxes that exceed service costs.

Tax income from major commercial recreation facili-.
ties exceeds local government service costs. The degree to
which the margin between revenue and service cost is related
to land purchased or from lease income rebated to local
government by the Corps without concomitant local government
service costs,'.cannot be estimated without further study.

Current assessment practices undervalue agriculture
b
and forestry land , but there are few-local costs to service
such land. Sale of lands to. encourage private agriculture,
forestry, and grazing would.have a positive effect. upon
local tax bases.

.The net effect of sale or lease.of land to permit
private use upon local tax bases will vary from jurisdiction
to.jurisdiction, dependent upon whether the initial capacity
of local services is high and adequate development regula-
tions are in existence, or whether a service infrastructure
.and development control mechanism must be created.

C. Effect of Lease or Sale of Corps WRDP Land on
Existing National Needs
Meeting national needs for intensive recreation
would be enhanced by the sale or lease of land to private
interests. National needs for extensive recreation, however,
would be adversely affected. -The national need for retention

a
.Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc. 1973. The Economic Impact
,of Reston on Fairfax County Government.. Gulf Reston, Inc.,
.Reston, Virginia..
b
Liner, C.W. 1972. "The Effects of Alternative Tax Policies,
on Land Use." In: Proceedings of the 1972 North Carolina.
:Land Use Congress. b7urham, North Carolina.

6-6

o.faesthetically pleasing land with recreation and fish and
wildlife value in public hands would be adversely
affected, particularly in those parts of the country where
Corps.WRD,Ps constitute a major portion of the public lands
available for hunting, fishing, and outdoor.recreation.
d. Effect of Lease or Sale of Corps WRDP Land on
Programs of the Corps and Other Agencies
Sale of land could have considerable adverse effect
upon other Corps programs. Corps personnel would continue to
develop lakeshoremanagement plans to protect the nation's
navigable waterways and the public interest in those bodies
of water, as the St. Paul Engineer District is,doing at
Leech Lake, and the Little Rock Engineer District is doing at
Lake Taneycomo. Both coordination between-Corps interests and
those.;of contiguous landowners, and augmented staffs would
be required to protect the quality of the,WRDP waters and
supervise conservation of the shoreline as is now the case
at Old Hickory.

Sale to encourage private use would have a delete-
ri.ous impact upon state park agencies with. heavy capital
investment in resort state parks. Indiscriminate sale
could.put major competitors.with ne.w.facil,ities in close
proximity to older state-built lodges.and marinas. As des-
cribed in Old Hickory, a shift to larger, more.modern
marinas on private land diverted customers from the older
facilities built on Corps land under lease. Thus exposed,
some statepark units.could suffer losses.

The most serious effect would be upon state wild-
A
life @iqency,,programs to provide public hunting opportunities.
Lands leased or sold to private individuals would no longer
be@available to the general public.

6-7

If property is fronted with land that is subject to
erosion 6r other threat, sale or lease to private individuals
could result in some immediate public program to protect the
shoreline'. A specific instance was found at Clark Hill where,
under a now abandoned policy, the Corps issued long-term
lease agreements for private coitage construction to ihdivid-.
uals. The lots upon which the cottages were built were sub-
sequently sold to thelessees. Washing away of shoreland
material is placing some houses in jeopardy,leading Corps
project staff to propose protective structures to stabiliZe
the.land and protect the cottages.

e. Statutory, Fiscal, and Policy Constraints in
Performance
A significant existing statutory constraint is the
prescribed process forconveying title to Federal land into,
the private sector (no similar obstacles.currently exist to
leasing). First, the 4;orps.must determine.that the land is
in excess of.the needs of the Civil Works Directorate,
secondly, all other Federal agencies must be offered oppor-
tunity to acquire the land; thirdly, state park and recreation-
Agencies may choose to request transfer of the land to their
jurisdiction under the Leqacv of Parks Program (PL 91-485,
�2, 40 USC 484(k)(2)). If all Federal and qualified
park and recreation agencies find no use consistent with@
their mission for the land, it becomes surplus and available
for competitive-disposal by GSA.

How much land might be affected by the statute is
closely related to statutory and policy constraints. Data
from the 29 case studies show that of 2,763,451 total project-

6-8

acres, only 1,091,046 acres are MRL. Of this total,
45,832 acres are under 25 to 50 year leases to state and
.,local -park and recreation agencies, and 464,000 acres are
.leased or@ licensed to USF&WS or state fish and wildlife
agencies. An-additional 7,573 acres are leased to quasi-
public bodies, such as Boy Scouts,,Girl Scouts, and 4-H Clubs_.
Thus, all but 573,600 acres are committed to purposes recog-
n.i zed as high priority public purposes and.ar6 ineligible
for transfer as,excess property.

:Not all of the 573,600 acres, however, could be
classed as excess by the Corps. Some WRDPs have large amounts
of land below maximum flood pool, as at Hopkinton-Everett
and.Wapp@pello, and others have some more narrow land between
normal pool and maximum pool elevations. If this amount is
,assumed to be 10% of MRL, or,10 9,105.acres,, 464,495 acres
could be available as surplus.

3. Finding,
a. Sale to achieve greater private use of WRDP land
would be an ineffective policy for meeting national needs;
would reduce the area of land available for pub.lic.hunting.
and other outdoor recreation, and would have a negative
impact upon residual Corps programs andthose of existing
private cooperators. Sale would have a goodchance to
-hent is not
,improve local tax bases, but the net improvel
Clear. In at least the short-run, sale.would not promote
Corps recreation-resource management opportunities..

6-9

b. The private sector. can: provide high density,
capital intensive recreation facilities, develop residences
and commercial.establishmerits, a-,id conduct farming or fores-
try operations'. Market perceptions and flow of income would
determine which portions of WRDPs would be purchased or
leased if offered.

High density facility complexes made up of
marinas, lodges, deluxe campgrounds for recreation vehicles,.
condominiums, golf courses, and other amenit..ibs.would occupy,
the best recreation sites and would accommodate part of the
national need for such amenities. opportunities for exten-
sive,recreation experiences, wildlife management, and public
hunting would be reduced. Access to the water for fisherman,
swimmers, and boaters would becomedifficult ando if carried
to extremes, the general Public could find itself excluded
because of substantial admittance or user fees. -Integrated
shoreline-and contiguous land use would depend almost entire-
ly upon local zoning and building codes..which are now non-
existent or inadequate.

Sale or lease of agriculturaland forest lands
could contribute to meeting national needs in those areas,
but would also fail to meet the need for aesthetically pleasing
Public land with opportunities for recreationj fishing, or
hunting.

Leasing selected lands to private interests to
achieve specified goals and objectives, such as the provision
of a full range of outdoor recreation opportunitiest can be
-accomplished by modifying existing Corps concession authorities.

C. Any sale of land would augment ad valorem tax
income. The net effect upon local tax bases will vary from
j-urisdiction to jurisdiction, dependent upon requirements
for local services.

6-10

d. Meetingnational needs for intensive recrea-
tion would be enhanced by the sale or lease of land to
Private interests. National needs for extensive recreation
would.'be adversely,affected. The national need for retention
of aesthetically pleasinq land with recreation and fish and
wildlife value in public hands would be advers .e.ly affected#
Particularly in those parts of the country where Corps WRDPs
can constitute a major portion of the public lands available
fQ.r. hunting, fishinq, and other recreation.

e. Sale of land would have considerable adverse
affect upon other Corps Programs. Coordination between
Corps interests and those of contiguous landowners would
r6quire augmented Corps staffs to protect.the quality of
WRDP borders and supervise conservation of the shoreline.
Sale to encourage Private use also would have a deleterious
impact upon state park aqencies with heavy capital invest-.
ment in resort state parks, putting major competitors with
new.facilities in close Proximity to older state-built
lodges and marinas. The most serious effect would be upon
state wildlife agency programs to Provide public hunting
opportunities. Lands leased or soldto private individuals
would.be largely unavailable for general public entry. Sale
of,:Pkoperty on eroding shorelines would result in requests
for public assistance for shoreline protection6
f. There are significant statutory and policy.
constraints that would actively inhibit the sale of Corps
land to.private individuals. The most siqni,ficant are
the processes described for state and other Federal agency
review of real property declared excess.* If all
present
Properties outgranted.to other public agencies were claimed

6-11

.by those agencies and no additional property declared excess
is claimed by them, only 464,495 acres-of the 2,763,451 acres
.in the 29 WRDPs studied would become surplus. In addition,
much of the WRDP land is encumbered by existing olutgrants,
C. Trangei of Corps. WRDP Land to Ottier Federal, State
Z;r Local Agencies

1. Federal Agencies
a. The Nature of Other Federal Involvement
Excluding the Corps,.the U. S. Department of the
Interior (USDI) and the U.- S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) possess the majority of Federal resource management
experience. Within each.department, one or more agencies
have experience in planning and implementing recreationo,
fish and wildlife, and forestry programs.
In USDI, the BuRec most closely parallels the Corps;
Civil Works activity. All Civil.Works programs except
navigation have.counterparts in the BuRec. BuRec, however,
.is concerned with irrigation, distributes project costs to
,local sponsoring agencies based upon water values differently
from the Corps, and traditionally contracts recreation
a
manaqement to other agencies only six BuRec WRD.Ps do not
have all MRL outqranted to,other aqencies.

a
When peripheral development and heavy recreation visita-
tion occur, local contracting agenci *es encounter serious
problems. Special legislation enacted by the 93rd
Congress provided for transfer of the Federal land at
the BuRec's Berryessa WRDP in California from a local
cooperator to the NPS.

6-12
. ..........

The NPS, another USDI agency, has been the primary
-consultant to BuRec in the planning and design of WRDP
recreatioin facilities and prQgrams. The NPS has an active
administrative role at WRDPs such as Lake Meade, Lake Powell,
a
Blue@Mesa, and Grand Coulee that have been included in the
National Park System as National Recreation Areas (NRA).
-A third USDI agency with both an involvement and int,erest
@is the USF'&WS. Some 378,028 acres of the Nat ional Wildlife
Refuge System are.located at Corps WRDPs.

Operations of the fourth USDI agency, the BLM, are
limited to the outer Continental Shelf and west of the 100th
meridian. Further, the agency is severely limited by lack
of a comprehensive resource management statute.

Of the four USDI agencies, only the NPS and the
USF&WS report to the same assistant secretary. Program coor7
dination among them emanates from the secretarial level.
In USDA, the USFS.is a well integrated line organi-..
,zation with 70 years of forest, watershed, fish and wildlifer
range, and recreation management ex
perience. USFS experience
is enhanced by WRDP management responsibility shared with the
Corps according to a Memorandum of Understanding first entered'
,into:by the secretaries of Agriculture and Army in 1964. The

aThese NRAs are in the west and that WRDP take-lines
oxtended primarily into public domain which could be
withdrawn for reclamation purposes. Thus, the MRL
ratios are high, the scenery is expansive, and, since
thO, WRDP has been withdrawn.from public domain,. the
majority of the contiguous land within a reasonable
analytical unit is in public ownership.

6-13

Memorandum guides the roles of the agencies when a WRDP is:
constructed entirely within a national forest involving land.
already owned by the U. S., constructed within a national forest
but involving land acquired by the Corps with project funds,
or constructed so WRDP lands acquired by the Corps are con-
.tiguous with a national forest boundary.

b. Discussion
1) Effectiveness of transferring Corps WRDP
land to other Federal agencies*.,
The only Federal agencies with experience in the
dual recreation-resource management responsibility assigned
to the Corps are the BuRec and NPS. BuRec WRDP 8 are adminis-
tered in a mode.similar to Corps WRDPs except that the BuRec
enters into contracts with local special purpose districts to
olperate WRDPs. By doing so, however, WRDP special Purposes
are sharply defined by binding repayment schedules. For
example, a recent report illustrates the role of the Casitas
MUnicipal Water District as WRDP operator, employer of
uniformed park.person nel to operate NPS designedJacilities,
a
and planner of.contiquous land use

Transfer of all Corps recreation-resource
management to the NPS would enlarge the NRA system by 4.07
units. Such a dramatic increase in acreage and recreational
visitation,would require expansion of NPS regional organi-
zation and shift the main focus of the organization from its
generally accepted role as protector of natural.and cultural.
treasures of national significance to a provider of recrea-
tion services. The dichotomy between recreation use and
resource protection has become a particularly difficult issue
yithin the NPS'in interpreting its basic charge. b
a
Montgomery Research, Inc. 1972. Watershed Development 12pact
on Lake Casitas. Venturel County Planning Department, Ventura,
California.

b
National Park and Conservation Association. 1969. Wilderness
and the National Parks. Washington, D. C.

6-14

Transfer of recreation-resource management to
@the USF&WS or the BLM would impose very large recreation
.,.burdens upon agencies that have little experience with large-
scale visitation.

The USFS has demonstrated that it can plan,
develop, and operate public recreation facilities, manage
...forest resources, and cooperate in fish and wildlife manage-
..ment. USFS is experienced in administering outgrants and its
operations are well systematized. Thus, the USFS could meet
Corps' obligations for management.

Dividing project responsibilities between two or
more Federal agencies would lead to problems of coordination
and probable duplication of effort. Additionally, personnel
requirements imposed on any of the candidate recipient agenci es
would sorely tax agency budgets and could jeopardize existing

@programs.

2) Effect of transferring Corps.WRDP land
to other Federal agencies upon local
tax structures.:

Thelonly effect would.,be theformula used to
determine payments in lieu of taxes to local governments.
The NPS.has no..i,n.lieu provisions.. The USFS provides for
%a of gros
payment to localgovernments of up to 351. s receipts
.from all national.forest sales.and rentals,,considerably
@Iess than presently distributed by the Corps.

..a'rh.e'USFS provides for payment of 25% of groIss receipts from all
national forest sales and.rentals to local governments where
the income was earned. An additional 10% of gross receipts is
expended for roads and trailswithin the national-forests.
.Thus, jurisdidtions containing high income producing national
forest resources receive larger annual
payments than juris-
dictions where national forest use yields low revenues and high
-income national forests reinvest larger amounts for development
of roads and trails than low income national forests.

6-15

3) Effect of transferring Corps WRDP land
to other Federal agencies on meeting
existing national needs.,

Transfer to the NPS would,provide recreation
administration to meet national.needs more effectively than
qorps administration. I 'n meeting national needs for hunting
and fishing, it is assumed.that the primacy of state owner-
ship of fish and wildlife resources.would be recognized by
the NPSI but it is not certain whetherexisting outgrants
.to state fish and wildlife agencies would be continued. Out-
grants to the USF&WS would be feasible; conceivably.as a
jointly administered NRA. Thus, national.hunting and fishing
needs may not be met.

Transfer to USFS, on the basis of that agency's
@history, could 'mean that a decrease in emphasis upon inten-
sive recreation development could occur.unless the expertise
of the agency in cooperative Federal"private development of
winter sports areas could be brought to bear. Extensive
recreation needs would be uneffected, and.hunting and fishing
needs would be better met.

4) Effec t of transferring Corps WRDP land
to other Federal agencies-on the programs
of the Corps and--other agencies.

The impact upon-the.-.Corps would be substantial.
The cadre of resource professionals who devote time jointly to
assessing .envirohmental impacts and to.recreation-resource
planning would be reduced; similarly, professional personneL
perf.orminq dual functions at the project level would be
reduced; and all personnel devoting full time to redreation-
resource activities, includinq rangers, would be released or
transferred to the recipient agency. Thus, a growing conserva-
tion force operating within the Corps would be lost. However,
all pursonnel now responsible for the operation of waterways,
powerhouses, and dams would remain at the WRDPs, but their

6-16

uti lity to perform recreation-resource management work would
be negated.

The impact upon the recipient agencies would be
profound. The kPS would have to become much more of a multiple
use agency. The USFS would have the geographic distribution of
,Its. work load shifted.from the western regions to the south
central and southeastern census divisions -- areas where
administration of the national forest system is diffused
within one very large region.

The NPS currently has no involvement with Corps
WR.DPs; the USMadministers, land for multiple purposes,in con-,
junction with the Corps as outlined above. Both NPS and USFS
would require substantial staff and administrative reorgani-
zation to cope with the problems of resource management,
visitor protection, cooperative relations with state and local
agencies, and,the boundary, access, and fish and wildlife
problems unique to WRDPs.

5)' Statutory, fiscal and policy constraints
on transfer of Corps WkDP land to other
Federal agencies.

Only the USFS could, with minor legal adjust-
ment, accept the management responsibility.for land and water
at.Corps WRDPs.@ For the NPS, the.Congress would:have to make
individual determinations of the national.recreation.signi-
f1ri.cance of each WRDP to be entered in the system.. USF&WS
w.ould need a completely redefined agency mission and the.BLM
would need an even more extensive 1 egislative reorganization
than was co,nsid.ered by the 93rd Congress, although manV
aspects of the proposed legislation are apropos to Corps
Jr-
WRDP problems.

6-17

Transfer Of the recreation-resource management
.function implies retention of the majority of the present
'Corps district and projectlevel staffs since these reflect 4r
.the bas* ementsof the Corps' engineering.r
ic requir esponsi-
'bility.. Assigning the recreation-resource management function
to another Federal agdncy would cause duplicationof field
.organizations and inefficient use of manpower.

opinions expressed by field officers of USDI and
USDA agencies and state personnel indicate that the Corps has,
an enviable record for receiving the appropriations requested
and.that the potential recipient agencies would not be success-
ful in securingfunds to develop and manage the resources to
adequately provide quality outdoor recreation experiences at
the. levels expected. USFS,officers have not been aggressive in
extending USFS management to WRDP lands for this reason. USFS
recreation operations and maintenance appropriations approxi-
mate 50% of the amounts needed according to the Recreation
Information Management System.

Closely linked to the availability of adequate
,funding levels i.s the necessity for the new recipient agency
,to adapt to the complex funding provisions such As special
repayment schedules and cost sharing associated,with each
WRDP or system of WRDPs.

C. Findings

1) No single Federal agency matches the Corps
in breadth of management responsibility, staff, fundinq,
and, most important, experience with continuous management
of large complex structures, water resources and.land re-
sources as interrelated reqional systems.

2) It would be Possible to transfer the manage-
ment of recreation, fish, wildlife, and forest'management to

6-18

another federal agency. The agency best suited by existing
@statutory authorities and experience to meet multi-purpose
national needs would be the USFS. The NPS, USF&WS, and BLM
could conceivably be recipient agencies. Transfer to any
of these agencies would require:

(a) A very large proportional shift in
,:dxisting philosophies and programemphasis.

(b) Major, large-scale administrative
reorganization.

3) Transfer of resource management functions
would result in:

.(a) Duplication of field operations staffs.

(b) Less ability to share recreation tasks
with other project operation functions now performed.by
.Corps WRDP staffs.

2. State and Local Agencies

a. The Nature of State Involvement
Three major elements.are essential for recreation-
resource management: (1)'policy, 1and use, and functional
planning; (2) field monitoring and key environmental resource
control; and (3) development and management of state owned
.land and water resources. None of the six,state agencies in-
Vestigated conta ined all of these elements.

Policy planning is usually associated with a state
I anninq office. Usually, a multi-disciplinary.group acts

6-19

,as staff to the governor and cabinet-ilevel officials in
establishing state recreation-resource management objectives,
.,roles, and relationships. In some states, this work is done
461
,by a division within the executive office of the governor
@(Texas) and in some by a.mojor staff department (Economic
Planning and Development in Arizona, Department I.,of State
Planning in Maryland). These staff.departments.also adminis-
-ter community planning.programs and attempt to.-achieve coor-
dination through the units of general government..

In some states-field monitoring and control of
.key environmental res ources have been combined with other
-(Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection) or
all (Maryland Department of Natural Resources) aspects of
resource development and management. In some states, all
development and management is consolidated in a. single
department (Ohio and Minnesota Departments of,Natural
Resources); in other states (Texas Department of Parks and
Wildlife and-Missouri Department of Conservation), resource
development and.management'are only partially consolidated;.
while in some states there is little orno consolidation
(Washington Departments of Fisheries, Natural Resources,
Ecology, Game, and Parks and Recreation). The greater the
cons6lidation, the more comprehensive functional planning
and agency programming become.

Principal state involvement in recreation-resource
manaqement at Corps WRDPs is through agencies charged with
responsibility for fish and wildlife, parks and/or recreation,
and !'orostry. Even within these, aqencies, variations ate

6-20

@s-igni+icant. For example, a law enforcement group may have
ci,ficld organization separate from the management organiza-
@,tion, while in other states, enforcement may be a secondary
responsibility of managers.

b. Discussion

1.) Effectiveness of transferring Corps WRDP
land

Analysis of 29 Corps WRDPs revealed that the
Corps has actively sought to lease or license as much land
state agencies as possible. The amount outgranted is
representative of state interest and capability. A portion
.of,,all WRDPs surveyed, except Isabella, Colebrook, Black
Warrior, Leech, Robert S. Kerr a, and Dworshak b is currently
,outgranted to state agencies.

At Hopkinton-Everett, the state planning agency,
prepared a land use master plan allocating the WRDP land to
recreation, recreation reserve, agriculture, forestry and
qwa.terfowl. Agricultural leasing is performed directly by
,the Corps while the remaining acreage is leased to the New
Hampshire Department of Resources and EconomicDevelopment
(NffDRED). The.Parks Division of NHDRED is r Iesponsible for
the state park (200 acres). The balance of land is subject
to.multiple use.management administered by the Parks and
Forestry Divisions of NHDRED and the New Hampshire Department
aThelmajority Of MRL at Robert S. Kerr is outgranted to
USF&WS.
b
The Corps has been negotiating with the State of Idaho for
sItate operation of a recreation area.

6-21

of Fish and Game (NHDFG). State park development costs are
paid by the Corns.. Staffing from all agencies is minimal
and management is not intensive. Three small recreation
areas originally designed for use and operation by municipal
government were deleted from the state lease when the munici-
pality'failed to assume responsibility.

Outqrants at Foster J. Sayers have been made to
the Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks.(PBSP), the Pennsyl-
vania Game Commission (PGC), and the Pennsylvania Historic
Iand Museum Commission (PHMC). Additionally, two small
municipal recreation areas are outqranted to local governments
by the Corps. Recognition of area wide water.qpality probl-ems
by the PBSP and the Corps has resulted in innovative planning
drid proqramming? including a waste water collection and treat-
ment system built by the Corps and operated by PBSP.
Neighboring municipaliites may connect to the system. PHMC
development is very limited in scope,.and PGC has no
specific plans for its area.

Lands at Mosquito Creek are outgranted to the
@.Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). All divisions
and bureaus of the department cooperate in managing the
resources. Typical WRDP conditions prevail: Deeper, hicrh
value recreation water near the dam; and shallow, marshy
areas at the head of the lake. The Ohio Division of
.Parks (ODP) manages the recreation resources.at the dam,
where the recreation area (designed, built, and operated by
ODP) is among the ten most heavily visited in the Corps
W1 IDP system. The Ohio Division of Fish and Game (ODFG).
nianaqes the shallow water and adjacent land. The dividing

6!_ 2 2

I-in,e between the two divisions is marked by a buoy line in
the lake. Significantly, ODFG has acquired additional con-
tiguous land for game (primarily waterfowl) management.
@There is little or no difference in the intensity of manage-
applied to fee land as contrasted with leased land.

At Alamo, all project land is leased to the
Arizona Department of Game and Fish (ADGF); 4,800 acres
ofthese project lands are also leased to the Arizona State
Parks Department (ASPD). Recreation planning and develop-
-ment i's done by the Corps and no conflicts between the depart-..
ments are evident.

These four WRDPs are relatively small,
and are almost.exclusively flood control structures that.
require a much-different Corpslinvolv6ment in structure
operation and maintenance than structures that include
'hydroelectric power and/or navigation locks.

At the remaining 19 WRDPs, state park agen i
cies
,have leased specific, usually choice, parcels for development
and operation as self-contained parks (that is the day use,
overnight, and interpretive facilities, including trails, are
1-imited to the leased area); state. fish and wildlife agencies
may either have licenses or.leases covering all MRL
or specific parcels.
All,WRDP lands,.except those needed.for project
6perations and those outgranted as parts of the National
wildlife refuge system are subject to state seasons, bag
limits, and enforcement of state fish and game laws and
regulations. This provision of law is not always formalized
except,when all project lands are outgranted to a state fish

6-23

@and wildlife-agency subject to multiple use of specific
,parcels by th e Corps or other agencies. outgranting parcels
"to a state fish and wildlife agency implies that only those
@parcels have value for fish and wildlife, which is not true.

Of the four WRDPs where the total MRL was outgranted
to the states, :only at Mosquito Creek is the outgrant to a
single state department which includes all the actively engaged
line functions. In all other cases, comprehensive management
.requires interagency coordination.

The amount of Federal land now outgranted
probably represents all that the states would actively seek
for recreation-resource management. States have demonstrated
little interest in WRDPs that are large,or that are inter-
state in nature. Particularly with respect to fish and
wildlife resources, the states*actively manage only portions
of 'the land'outgranted to them.

2) Effect of transferring Corps WRDP land
to the states upon local tax'structures

Presently, the Corps distributes 75% of all in-
come derived from leases to local government. Any transfer
to the states ofland now outqranted to private individuals
would reduce the income availabl:e for distribution to local
government. This was illustrated in,Okllahoma where the
Department of Wildlife Conservation was anxious to assume
management of land outgranted to them for fish and
wildlife. The same land was also leased by the Corps to
individuals for livestock grazing. Elimination of the grazing
leases would reduce not only*competiti6n between livestock and
(lame animals but also the funds received by local governments.

6-24

Some states attempt.to offset loss of ad valorem
.'property tax income that results from state acquisition of
,land. In New Hampshire, the NHDRED must pay to the town(s)
@@.the existing level of taxes where property has been acquired.
::.for.park purposes until development is complete and the pa rk.
.is declared open for public use. Thereafter, the in lieu of
.,tax payment is reduced 20% per year until no further in lieu
.payments are made. Also in New Hampshire, towns may apply.
to NHDRED for payments in lieu of taxes on state and Federal,
forest land. The payments are calculated by applying the
current town tax rate to a value of the land comparable to
its current assessed value.

In North Dakotaf the Department of, Fish and
.Gamemust pay from its revenue sums in lieu of taxes that
equal the taxes,yielded by the property atthe time of
@acquisition. Other examples are cited in Chapter 4.

Effect of transferring Corps WRDP land
to the states on existing national needs

The transfer of WRDP recreation-resource lands
t.olthe states would continue stewardship in public hands.
Ba(sed upon conditions found at 29 WRDPs, the national., needs
for hunting and fishing would be met at least as.well as they
a,re now. Given future increases in fishing demand, however,
investments in fish enhancement would be needed. Investments
in.wildlife habitat enhancement would also be necessar
y
although this cannot be demonstrated bv ordinary demand calcula-
tions.

6-25

Recreation development choices would be made
,based upon state needs rather than a perception of national
or even multi-state regional needs. The differences in how
'these perceptions would work are intimated by the organizational.
location of the parks function, e.g.,, tourism and parks, parks
and recreation,,parks with economic development, and parks with
-environmental protection.

Transfer of all WRDP recreation-res6urce manage-..
ment to the.stat.es would only partially.meet national needs.

4) Effect of transferring Corps WRDP land
to the states on the programs of the
Corps and other agencies

Transfer of Corps WRDP land to the states would
require the coordination of other Corps responsibilities
with one or more states and, if the present situa-ti i
ion is
indicative, more than one agency in each state. Theinte-
grated management ofthe full complement of water-and land
resources within each WRDP and system of WRDPs would become
much more difficult.

The impact of nationwide transfer on state
park, fish and wildlife, and forestry agency programs wouldbe'
enormous. For some states it would be a 300% or more in-
crease in state,lands to be afforded protection and management.'
To replace existing Corps recreation-resource management
personnel at WRDP lands would require at least 2,800 permanent
employees and 2,300 temporary employees, which we found to be
inadequate, in the state forestry, park,@ and fish and wildlife
agencies in 42 states.

'eA

6-26

Equally important, acceptance.of recreation
resource management responsibilities would skew total state
programs in states where WRDPs are concentrated toward the
rec reation potentials of WRDPs and away from other areas
with equally important fish and wildlife potentials. The
director of Oklahoma's state park agency was especially
forceful about this point in explaining his state's lack
of interest in participating in the cost-sharing provisions
of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (PL 89-72).
Gi.ven:the choice of providing recreation and hunting and
fishing opportunities statewide or concentrating on Corps
WRDPs, most states would choose the former.

While administration of recreation and other*
resources at Corps WRDPs fits very wellin the plans of some
states,, as demonstrated in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and
Tennessee,,it is not the case nationwide.

There will be some impact on local cooperators
is shifted to the states. Local govern-
ments have been able to avail themselves of recreation areas
and facilities acquired and built by the Corp94 presently
they are able tolshare the cost of improvement and expansion
of these areas with the Corps underthe Code 710 program.
Under stateadministration, cost sharing would be limited to
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As a re sult local
governments would be less able to maintain existing facilities
at the WRDPs.@

Transfer of Corps WRDP land to the states must
ultimately require state planning and environmental agencies
to become more actively concerned with the multiple problems

6-27

found on the configuous lands, most of which degrade the
aesthetics and other aspects of environmental quality at
the WRDPs.

5), Statutory, fiscal., and policy constraints
on transfer to the states.
Nat ional Data Seriesa indicate a decline of com-
bined general and dedicated fund Appropriatio
ns to state
natural resource agenciesrelative to total state budgets.
Data from the state resource agencies surveyed show that the
,largest portion of the funds available to them came from dedica-
@ion of hunting and fishing licen se sales and Federal categorical
.grants-in-aid. The dedicated:revenue sources have not
expanded as rapidly as inflation. All state fish and game
agencies visited-during this study reported cut-backs in
programs largely due to erosion of thepurchasing power of
the funds available. New funding from general revenue would'
be required and in the face of mounting competition.from other.
state agencies and current state budget short falls, the pro-
bability of this happening is not good. Missouri took a pro-
posal to dedicate revenue from a tax on soft drinks to state-
wide referendum where it failed passage.

The director of planning, Tennessee Department
of Conservation, reflected the "view of a large number of park
and recreation officials and state legislative budget analysts
when he emphasized that shortages of funds at the state level
are most acute in.continuing operations and maintenance. The.

a
U. S. Bureau of the Census- 1974. Census of Governments.
Washington, D. C.

6-28

concensus is that states must increasingly quantify the con-
..tinuing costs of new program starts, even if their capital
hcod.s are funded by grants-in-aid or gifts of lands, and reject
those new projects which will cause the state budget to exceed
,revenues. The point is particularly significant for fish and,
%,rIildlife which is labor intensive rather than capital intensive
and for state park and recreation programs which seldom meet..
operation and.maintenance costs from revenue.

c. Findings
Transfer to state agencies of the full responsibility
lor present Corps recreation and resource management lands does
not appear feasible because of severe.fiscal constraints.
,These fiscal restraints are even more evident for local.govern-
ments. State administration of the resources would in some
i.nstances be-a more effective way of discharging Crops responsi-
.bility for recreation and fish and wildlife, and it is toward,
this end that'current Corps policies encourage state participa-
tion to the maximum extent Possible. This participation.should.
be continued and further encouraged even to the extent that
some small or anachronistic WRDPs could be transferred to appli,-.,
.cant states upon a'finding by the Chief of Engineers that
sufficient o public.
peratinq competence exists to protect.the
a
interest, with reversion provisions.
Additionally, a voluntary national program to trans-
fer present Corps management responsibilities.to state and
local qovernment will.not materially change the Present size
orn.aturo of the Corps management role; if successful or
niandited, the impact upon the Corps would approximate that of
An examplo in the WRDPs surveyed in Leech Lake

6-29

transfer to'ahother Federal agency. Plus the Corps would.have
to integrate'WAter resource management with many state agencies
and land''manaq6ment programs.
@D. Retention of Corps,WRDP Land_by the Corps of Engineers

1. Discussion
Analyzing this alternative according to the five con-
siderations used to evaluate other alternative.manaqement
systems reveals that:

a. Corps ret-ention is the most effective way of
maintaining consistency with other WRDP.Purposes while en-
hancing public.recreation benefits, andprotecting and im-
proving the quality of fish and wildlife resources on WRDP
lands. The Corps has developed a management system that
combines the best elements of the alternatives discussed:
encouraging the private sector to provide services for which
,there is a clear and profitable market, outgrantinq appropriate
..resources to state and local entities, and cooperating, through
outgrants and otherwise, with state and other Federal agencies.
The principal shortcomings of this alternative are the current-
absence of clear direction and administrative responsibility
and the lack of sufficient adeOuately trained. profession4ls.

b. The effect on local tax structures is diffi-
cult to assess precisely. Currently local communities receive
a fixed return based on distribution of a percentage of lease
income. Their return from private-development would be a
function of sales and would fluctuate.

c. Within the frame work of the liberal Corps
Policy of outgranting lands to states and encouraging
private sector participation, this alternative offers the
greatest Potential for meetinq the full range of national
recreation resource needs.

6-30

e. The, statutory constraints are minimal,.although
a clear statement of Conqressional will is lacking. Within
the Corps, master planning procedures must be strengthened,
if the potential benefits from the Corps WRDP system are t6
be realized.

The Corps has.recognized opportunities for innovative
management in the new aquatic environments created by water
resource development projects. This recoqnition is evidenced
by., support of research in reservoir management at the
USF&WS station at Fayetteville, Arkansas, symposia on reser-
voir fishery resources (University of Georgia 1967), and
construction and operation of project-related fish hatcheries;
cooperation in reservoir and tailwater fisheries.manage .ment
by state'fisheries agencies; and the specific steps taken to
correct tailwater deficiencies at WRDPs such as John Day and
Table Rock.

The Corps has evolved a management system that combines
the best elements.of the alternatives discussed which: en-
courages the private sector to Providethose services for
which,there is,a.clear and profitable mar,ket;.outgrants to
state and local entities of resources that contribute to the
qoals and objectives of the respective agency; and is coopera-
tive, through outqrants and otherwise, with state and other
Federal agencies.

Hence, the best utilization of Corps WRDP land is achieved
by:this alternative, subject to the provisos that.particular
deficiencies are overcome and opportunities are created to
transfer title to certain lands to Federal and state agencies.

6-31

CHAPTER 7

RECOMMENDATIONS

Corps WRDP land should be retained by the Corps and
managed for public recreation, fish and wildlife enhance-
ment, and other project purposes, if certain deficiencies
are overcome. The most significant of these deficiencies
and proposed remedial measures are discussed below.

'A. National_Policy and Statutes
The majority of problems associated with Corps use of
'WR DP land for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement
can be attributed to the lack of firm national policy direc-
tion. It is necessary for Congress to clarify the national
position with respect to the use of Corps lands for such
purpo ses. For example, while Corps WRDP land outgranted to
the USF&WS are inviolate parts of the national@wildlife
refuge system, adjacent land used for extensive recreation
Arid non-migratory wildlife is subjectto continual evalua-
tion for relevance to.authorized project purposes.

l...There,should be a congressional declaration'of
policies toward recreation and fish and wildlife resources
at WRDPs under the control of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The policies should consist of.'

a. A finding that the W.RDP system administered
by the Corps has substantial potential for.recreational use
by the people of the United States, and that the provision
.of facilities for outdoor recreation at such projects will
contribute.substantially to the health, vitality, and well-
being of thepublic.

7-1

b. A directive that the WRDP system administered by
,the Corps can and should be managed in such a manner as
will contribute to the preservation, protection, and en-
hancement of the.Nation's fish and wildlife resources in
,,perpetuity.

C. A declaration that it is important,to the
.effective utilization of the WRDP system administered by
the Corps that the Corps have adequate authority to pro-
tect and maintain the quality of water at such projects@.

The declaration of policies for the WRDP system.@.
restates'and clarifies-previously enunciated Congressional
.declarations of purpose which have recognized the intrin-
..sically important role Corps WRDPs can and should play in
.our nation's recreational and conservation programs. These,
declarations also charge the Corps with the perpetual
,res ponsibility for protecting and managing these resource's.

2. Although the Secretary has possessed.authority since.
1944 under 16 USC S460d and since 1946 under 16 USC,S663c
to manage land for the enhancement of fish and wildlife,
there still exists a lack of Corps authority in this field
..with regard to older WRDPs. Thus, theSecretary of'the
Army should have specific authority to set aside and manage-
lands at present and future water resource development
projects for the enhancement of fish and,wildlife and enter
into leases or other agreements with state or local public
agencies to further the enhancement of wildlife,resources
through proper management.

At a significant number of the lakes surveyed, areas
outgranted to state or local wildlife agencies were not

7-2

adequately monit ored by Corps personnel. This, at well as
other problems, are due in large part to the lack of a
specific legislative directive to the Corps to developt
operate and maintain areas for the enhancement and protection
of fish and wildlife, particularly at older projects.
A 3. The Secretary of the Army should be authorized to
construct, maintain, and operate facilities for recreation
.or fish and wildlife enhancement which are beyond the minimum
le.ve.l.established by section 3 of the Federal Water Project
.Recreation Act (16 USC S4601-14) in two well-defined
situations:

a. The.proposed facilities must serve a national,
as @opposed to a merely local interest, and theremust be no
J.ikelihood that any non-Federal public body will agree to
administer the facility and contribute to its costs pursuant.
to.section 2 of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act.

b. Facilities which have been provided at public
usually Federal expense would be operated and maintained
at whatever level of development they had achieved whenever
their administration is turn
ed back to the.Corps.. Additional.
development would be permitted only when a national interest
also existed.

These provisions are not intended to defeat the
.concept of local cooperation for local benefits which is
embodied in the Federal Water Projects Recreation Act, as
amended. The first merely provides for the construction of
facilities which would benefit the nation as a'whole rather
than merely a local area. The second avoids the wasteful

4@
7-3

situation where a facility which has been returned to Federal
.administration would be permitted to.deteriorAte to a "mini-.
mum" level regardless of its present level of development.

4. The Secretary of the Army should be authorized to
acquire lands or interests in lands, by condemnation or other-:
means, for recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, ih-@-
.cluding public access routes-across contiguous lands, at
any existing or future WRDP under his control.

5. The-present general authority to lease conces:sions
.at projects under the Secretary's control should be clari-.
fied and defined with the objective of encouraging marjor
private investment in fac.i.lities when consistent with,
coordinated WRDP master plans. A special fund should be
created with the new revenueproduced by the.capital inten-
sive concession units to help finance facilities and pro- J
grams for recreation and conservation at WRDPsnation-wide.

It it recommended that the Secretary of the Army be
granted the same authority, with respect to concessions at
WRDPs under his control, which presently applies to areas
administered by the NPS, and that 25%,of all-monies col-
lected from agreements executed under such new authority
shall be disbursed to the states in which such projects are
situated to be expended for public.schools or the general
operation of county government. The remaining 75% would-be
expended by the Secretary of the Army for recreation and
fish and wildlife purposes in the Corps WRDP system.
6. The Secretary of the Army should bedirected to
protect the integrity of water quality at WRDPs under his
control through negotiations, and where necessary, applica-
V
tion for injunction to the U. S. District Court*which has

7-4

Jurisdiction over the WRDP in question.. A second device to.
combat some problems attributable to use of contiguous land'
would be a grant ofauthority to the Secretary to enter into
cooperative agreements with local agencies for the construction
of sewage treatment plants in excess of project needs, on the
condition that a local agency bear the additional costs in-,,

v6lved.

This concurrent authority is proposed to ensure that
..the Secretary'of the Army will have adequate authority to
@protect water quality at Corps WRDPs.in the event a given.
.project is threatened by pollution, but a remedy is not
@immediately available due to the low priority ofthe
project within the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's
@national program for clean water.

Where a statewide planning and zoning mechanism
exists controls over use of contiguous land necessary to
@prevent degradation of WRDPs should be specified and enforced
.by the cognizant state agency.

7. A number of non-Federal grantees find it difficult.....
.to.finance the administration of fish and wildlife facilities.
'One cause of this problem is.the present interpretation of
.,section 460d of Title 16 which restricts the application of
...proceeds from the@sale of timber or crops, raised on an out-
grant,to the development, conservation, maintenance, and
the outgrant. Presently, grantees may not
apply any proceeds to the overhead incurred in the administra-
tion of an'outgrant. This problem.would be rectified by.a
minor amendment to 16 USC S460d which would indicate.that
..maintenance is defined to include a proportionate share of

overhead.

7-5

8. Section 3(b)(1) of the Federal Water Project
Recreation Act,,'as amended (16 USC 54-601-14), which requires
a-non-Federal public body to agree to administer a facility
bear not less than one-half the cost of construction for
,recreational facilities and not less than one-quarter the
cost for fish and wildlife facilities, should be amended
..to the effect that the provisions.shall not be'applied
-retroactively to projects the construction of which had
-been commenced prior to the enactment,of that Act.

B. Internal Improvements

1. Professional Staffing
..Resourc-e'management today must be multi-disciplinary.
Landscape architects, recreation specialists,.civil engineers,'
.economists and'marketing experts, sociologists, physical
educators, ecologists, architects, hotel and motel managers,
and others make valuable contributions to the field. Fish
and.wildlife is no longer the exclusiverealm of the biologist.
These are professional disciplines. They are.impor-
tant to the success of each public and private enterprise. To
.attract and retain such professionals, the Corps mutt have a
well--@defined program of recreation and resource management
that has an impact upon agency policy, is respected in the
fipld, and offers opportunities for satisfying career develop-

ment.

The present Engineer District and field staffs,are
relatively immobile. Upward movement is restricted by low
grade ratings, there are few opportunities to move laterally
amonq WRDPs in the Corps system, and there is little two-way
movement between the Engineer,District offices and the WRDPs.

-4.
7-6

Professional people should be moved from field to
office to field in-different Engineer Districts. Those per-
sons-with Corps recreation-resource management experience
should be the nucleus forstaff expansion.

Entry and supervisory grade levels should be raised.
EnLry.level rah9ers at GS-5 were found at surveyed WRDPs;
resource managers are, for the most part, GS-9 and GS-11;
the chiefs of recreation-resource management in the Savannah
and Nashville Engineer Districts are GS-12 and GS-13, res-
pectively. These are below comparable positions in the USFS
.supervisor and district offices.visited.

Recruiting professional level resource and people
managers at less than GS-Tis inconsistent with Federal
agency practice, Professional entry should be,GS-7 (proba-
tionary) with advancement to GS-9 after the probationary-
training period, Recreation-resource management chiefs at
the GS-14 level would not be inappropriate.

In-service training is important. Professionals
recruited from other agencies or from universities must be
acquainted with the multiple use land and multi-objective
water management that is unique to the WRD .P Wstem.
y

Corps WRDP facilities are maintained by permanent
Corps project personnel augmented by contractors and
temporary personnel. The fact.that these facilities are,
with rare exception, clean and well maintained indicates
tbat this work force is generally adequate.

The ranger and supporting sub-professional technician
force was found to be inadequate.in number. The shortage is

4L 7-7

difficult to quantify because the character of work performed
is varied. At WRDPs in or adjacent to urban areas or which
receive very heavy visitation, ranger work resembles a police.
,unit. At WRDPs with extensive remote segments, ranger wo .rk.
can concentrate upon resource management. The purely law
enforcement aspects of Corps recreation-retource activities
were not a purpose of this inquiry. It can only be assumed
@that a portion of-the badly needed police-type supportis
provided partially by professional resource people (filling
the same type role as NPS park rangers or USFS district ran-
gers) and partially by persons with desire for-law enforce-
ment careers (such as the NPS Park Police and Corps police-
men in.the national capital area).
The,cas.e studies-clearly show the need for an'aug-
mented natural resource management capability. The success
of the wildlife biologist unit at Cumberland and the excellent
forestry programs at Clark Hill that recorded nearly $.5
million in.timber sales in FY 1974, are indicative of the
enhanced fish, wildlife and productivity possible at WRDPS
when the resources are professionally managed. The need
.for additional-professional staff applies equally to the
district and WRDP staffs.

No professional standards are in use by any agency
to.calculate the number of professionals needed per unit of
aci@eage, per unit of recreation facility supervised, or per
unit- of visitation. USFS and NPS base their staffing on
workload analysis. Resource management work,loads at USFS
ranger districts have been.under.some study-for decades and
records for timber volume-handled-and range livestock grazed
under permit are available to evaluate personnel needs.

7-;-8

An additional difficulty in forecasting Corps needs
for Professional resource-recreation managers is the.varia-
bility in distribution and organization of resource managers
and staff between the.Engineer-District office and in the
field.. This variability is illustrated by comparisons
of the Savannah Engineer District and the Nashville
Engi neer District. The Savannah Engineer District recreci-
ti,on-resource management branch has two professionals;
Clark Hill is staffed with 11 professionals and Hartwell
is staffed with six professionals. The field.organizations
at Clark Hill and Hartwell are in a line and staff arrange-
ment where the staff persons are foresters and biologists
and the line persons are rangers. The Nashville Engineer
District recreation-resource management branch has seven.
professionals; J. Percy Priest, Old Hickory, Cumberland,
.@and Cordell Hull are staffed by 25 professional biologists
organized in line structure.who report to a..resource manager
at each of the.WRDPs.

Evidence developed by the National Recreation and
Park Association (NRPA) indicates that one ranger is needed..
for every 250,000 visits. Based on 3,39.1 million visits in
197.3, a total force of 1,360 rangers would have been required.
Instead, in 1,973, there were only 310.permanient rangers and
:-.516 temporary rangers. If the temporary rangers worked
during the 3-month peak se 'son, the
a total force for 1973
..,Would be 439 rangers or 921 less than was required.
If visitations increase annually at the 1972/1973
.rate of A,, there will be 430 million visits in 1978 requir-
ing 364 additional rangers for a total additional ranger
fqrce of approximately I'
300.

increase in professional staff will perform more
effectively if project staffs are dispersed within the WRDPs.
'Fourteen of the 29 WRDPs surveyed would benefit from rangers
.stationed away from the control structure. Thus, ranger
@Istations should be built at the same pace as staff is'in-

Xreased.

2. Corps Organization
The recreation-resource management responsibility at
.'OCE, Engineer Division, and the overwhelming majority of
Engineer Districts.exists as either a branch.or section
''within the operations division. At the Engineer'District
.level, resource managers-must rely on personnel from.planning.
.and engineering divisions for master planning (including land
-ise planning), site planning, and for the design of facilities,
and upon personnel from the Real Estate Directorate for the
.selection and supervision of lessees. These resource managers
@are also faced with a wide variability in the WRDP staff. In
some Engineer Districts, the WRDP staffs have good depth and
-capability, while in others, they are sub-professional'in
capability and limited in number.
This.management structure is a major cause of in-
efficient recreation, fish and wildlife, and land management
.at Corps WRDPs. Additionally, it is apoor vehicle to achieve
the career development mobility within the recreation-resource
man.agement function.
Instead, the creation of A.recreation-resource
management division in the Civil Works Directorate should
-be considered. Such a division would draw into one organi-
zation that would be repeated at each of the three major

7-10

l,evqls of command within the Coxps the multi-disciplinary
expertise needed.to manage natural resources and provide
recreational opportunities. It would build upon the small
existing recreation-resource management staffs at the OCE,
Eng.incer Division, and Engineer District levels. To-these
cadres would be added environmental resource, master
planning, andrecireation planning elements from the engineer-
..ing.and/or planning divisions and.the management element
of the Real Estate Directorate.

Such a division would: (1) provide the flexibility
needed at the project level to organize the ranger force and
the management force, and at the Engineer District level to
organize the master plan force, resource management . force,
and the realty force in staff-line relationships appropriate
to the workload;, (2) provide the structure to encourage verti-,
catprofessional.staff mobility from entry ranger level to
division chief; and (3) locate the responsibilities for
recreation and the protection of environmental quality at*a
,level.suitable for District Engineer decision making. Further,
the division would facilitate relationships with other.resource
management agencies with respect to both expanding and improv-
ing the existing outgrant system and developing cooperative,
area-wide resource management.programs.
Additionally, a coordinated internal training pro-
gram, includingpersonnel exchanges among the Corps, NPS,
USFS, and USF&WS, and an augmented ranger and resource manager
staff would improve Corps recreation and fish and wildlife
performance.

7-11

Replication of this organization in all Engineering
Districts may not be necessary or desirable. District recre-
ation-resource management services could be centralized in the
the same way single Real Estate Directorate Offices provide
civil and military services in more than one Engineer District.
As a corollary to the reorganization, the RRMS and PBD auto-
mated information systems should be consolidated. The result
would be a more accurate and more useful system for manage-
ment.

3. Budgeting
Budget requests for the recreation-resource manage-
ment function would be enhanced by use of a system that showed
the relationship of increments of output to increments of
input. The Texas system of zero-based budgeting format would
facilitate the preparation of a yearly balance sheet reporting
the economic goods and services produced by WRDP lands and waters.
4. Master Planning
WRDPs exhibit conditions, problems, and solutions
that require special approaches to resource management. Each
of the 29 WRDPs examined during this study profoundly altered
existing natural resource systems and patterns of resource
use. Only one project of the 29 (the Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal) was not a part of a more comprehensive program to
stabilize water levels in rivers and lakes.
One cause of the recreation and fish and wild-
life enhancement problems at Corps WRDPs is the failure of
the master plan process. The master planning process should
begin by establishing the objectives for the management of a
WRDP and then continue periodically to measure conditions

7-12

Establishing the objectives for a WRDP requires
inventorying the carry capacity of that WRDP and those other
WRDPs geographically located so as to form a single area
available for satisfying recreation-resource demands. Next,
the gross future demands for recreation-resource goods and
services in the overall area must be estimated. Through a
process of comparing the available supply within.the overall'
area to the expected demands, the objectives for each of the
.WRDPs can be selected. Choices would be made, for example,
as to committing all or part of a particular WRDP to inten-
sive. recreation development, moderate dispersed development,
or to minimal development as a function of the supply of
resources and the.demand upon them in the overall geographic

area.

The steps outlined should be integrated with the
continual refinement of state and regional comprehensive
plans. Examples are: state comprehensive outdoor recreation,
transportation, and fish and wildlife plans; state and/or
regional water quality plans mandated by Section 208, Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (S404, 33 USC
S1344) and state plans prepared pursuant to the Clean Air
Act (42 USC S1857f); and state mandated local land use and
zoning plans. Integration with the states, -regions, and
localities will not be easily accomplished because of dif-
ferences in methodologies, standards, and objectives.
Perceptions of priority needs identified by jurisdictions,
however, may shift Corps objectives at individual WRDPs;
and,Corps policy decisions may effect state calculations.*

7-13

At any rate, the establishment.of managemenL_
objectives for each WRDP should be considered a ma]o-,-
Federal action underthe National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 P? USC S4332) so full disclosure and public
participation as required.by the Act as well as a formal
coordination as required by the Intergovernmental Coopera-
tion Act of 1968 are made part of the planning process.

once management objectives are chosen, alternative'
.designs for allocating land to recreation,and wi"Ldlife
enhancement can be formulated. A WRDP chosen for intensive
development could emphasize people management and provide
for heavy involvement of'concessioners and developers of
contiguous lands for the provision of all feasibily mar-
services, state development and operation of comple-
mentary facilities, and Corps maintenance of minirum O(IS11-
access; a WRDP chosen for extensive development could
emphasize habitat management and provide primative camp
sites, foot trails ' and unpaved vehicle access roads.
Transfer of all or part of the WRDP to state and/or Federal
agencies could be considered at this time.

The provisions of the master plan would extend to
all water-and land in the WRDP biophysical impact area.
In the process, all WRDP lands, except necessary pro3ect
operations land, would be allocated to recreation, fish and
wildl@fe, or forestry after the first five-year period -- no
further outgrants for "interim uses. The master plan would
detail five-year action programs for all involved agencies
and jurisdictions. The agreed-upon actions should become
part of the appropriate state, regional,. and local plans
and programs.

7-14

Particular.note should be taken of fish and wild-
life management. Findings of this study include: "The
water bodies and shorelapds of the Corps WRDP.system.are,
for the most part, man-created environments which can be
more intensively for fish and wildlife production
than is now the case".; "Responsibility for fish and wild-
life management is divided between the Corps and-state and
.,other Federal agencies with no clear leadership role
established";...and "All WRDP lands, except those needed
.for project operations and those outgranted as parts of the
..national wildlife refuge system are subject to state seasons,.
JiMitS,L and enforcement of state fish and game laws and
regulations. This provision of law is not always formalized
..'except when all project lands are outgranted to a state.
fishLand wildlife agency subject to multipleuse,of specific
.parcels by the Corps or other agencies.L Outgranting par-
cels to a state fish and wildlife agency implies that only
those parcels have value for fish and wildlife, which is not
true". (Some 5.1 million acres of Corps WRDP lands are
open to public hunting.) The planning process outlined
recognizes the primacy of the USF&WS with respect to migra-
...tory water fowl and endangered species and of th&primacy of
the state fish and wildlife agencies with respeCtLto all
:.other.-species-. Recognition of leadership for species
.@management onLall WRDP land should not,,however, absolve
theCorps from,responsibility in realizing the.full.fish
.and wildlife.potential of WRDP land. The agumented wild-
life staff recommended above would conduct.counts and
.habitat surveys', make the data available to fish and,

7-15

.wildlife agency personnel for planning and management
,purposes, plan and perform habitat improvement projects
in keeping with the.jointly,approved master plans and annual
.work programsi offer assistance to thefish and wildlife
agencies managing those lands'designated exclusively and
outgranted for wildlife management, and, importantly,
!represent the'interests of fish and wildlife in internal
Corps budgeting and programming activities.

At least each.5 years (as is now Corps policy), the
.master plan.-would be updated. The benefits derived from
alternative water levels and timing of,the watei levels for
.recreation, fish and wildlife, and other authorized purposes
would be.calculated from th Ie current data base. Changes in
@Federal policy,.land use downstream, regulatory structures
:on the river,and many.other factorsmay change the.relation-
ship of downstream benefits to on-site benefits and the up-
dated master plan would.state the new operating constraints
as well as detailed proposals for people and resource man-
agement in the ensuing five-year period. Some of these
issues and an approach to analyzing them have been explored
a
at the Tenkiller Ferry.WRDP.

In this process, inefficient, small Corps operated
facilities could be phased out in favor of larger, more
.efficient facilities that can return.a larger portion of
operations and maintenance costs through collection-of fees
and charges.

aWarner, L. D.j D. D. Badger, and G. M. Lage. 1973. Impact
Study of the Construction and Operation of the Tenkiller
Ferry Lake,.Oklahoma. Oklahoma'State University, SF1'1lwater,
Oklahoma.

7-16

5. Land Ac
quisition@
Key parcels of land, primarily.at low MRL ratio
lakes, should be acquired to insulate Corps facilities and
hi
reso4rces from adverse contiguous Uses of land.

7-17

BEST SELLERS NTIS
FROM NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE

An Inexpensive Economical Solar Heating System for Homes
N76-27671/PAT 59 p PC $4.50/MF$3.00

Viking I: Early Results
N76-28296/PAT 76 p PC$2.00/MF$3.00

Energy Fact Book 1976, Chapters 1 through 21
ADA-028 284/PAT 32 p PC$11.75/MF$3.00

Security Analysis and Enhancements of Computer Operating
Systems
PB-257 087/PAT 70 p PC$4.50/MF$3.00

Evaluation of the Air-to-Air Heat Pump for Residential Space
Conditioning
PB-255 652/PAT 293 p PC$9.25/MF$3.00

Monitoring Groundwater Quality: Monitoring Methodology
PB-256 068/PAT 169 p PC$6.75/MF$3.00

An Air Force Guide to Software Documentation Requirements
ADA-027 051/PAT 178 p PC$7.50/MF$3.00

The Production of Oil from Intermountain West Tar Sands
Deposits
PB-256 516/PAT 98 p PC$5.00/MF$3.00

Analysis of Large Scale Non-Coal Underground Mining
Methods
PB-234 555/PAT 581 p PC$13.75/MF$3.00

Who's Who in the interagency Energy/Environment R and D
Program
PB-256 977/PAT 35 p PC$4.00/MF$3.00

Local Area Personal Income, 1969-1974. Volume 2: Central
and Northeastern States
PB-254 056/PAT 578 p PC$13.75/MF$3.00

Feasibility of Considerably Expanded Use of Western Coal
by Midwestern and Eastern Utilities in the Period 1978
and Beyond
PB-256 048/PAT 61 p PC$4.50/MF$3.00

Availability of Potential Coal Supply Through 1985 by
Quality Characteristics
PB-256 680/PAT 121 p PC$5.50/MF$3.00

Flat-Plate Solar Collector Handbook: A Survey of Principles,
Technical Data and Evaluation Results
UCID-17086/PAT 96 p PC$5.00/MF$3.00

HOW TO ORDER

When you indicate the method of pay-
ment, please note if a purchase order is not
accompanied by payment, you will be billed
an additional $5.00 ship and bill charge. And
please include the card expiration date when
using American Express.

Normal delivery time takes three to five
weeks. It is vital that you order by number
or your order will be manually filled, insur-
ing a delay. You can opt for airmail delivery
for $2.00 North American continent: $3.00
outside North American continent charge per
item. Just check the Airmail Service box. If
you're really pressed for time, call the NTIS
Rush Handling Service (703)557-4700. For a
$10.00 charge per item, your order will be
airmailed within 48 hours. Or, you can pick
up your order in the Washington Informa-
tion Center & Bookstore or at our Springfield
Operations Center within 24 hours for a
$6.00 per item charge.

You may also place your order by tele-
phone or if you have an NTIS Deposit Ac-
count or an American Express card order
through TELEX. The order desk number is
(703) 557-4650 and the TELEX number is
89-9405.

Thank you for your interest in NTIS. We
appreciate your order.

METHOD OF PAYMENT
Charge my NTIS deposit account no.
Purchase order no.
Check enclosed for $ Name
Bill me. Add $5.00 per order and sign below. (not avail-
able outside North American continent.) Address
Charge to my American Express Card account number
CITY. STATE. ZIP

Card expiration date Quantity
Signature Item Number Paper Copy Microfiche Unit Price* Total Price
Airmail Services requested PC MF

Clip and mail to:
NTIS
National Technical Information Service
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE All prices subject to change. The prices Sub Total
Springfield, VA 22161 above are accurate as of 3/77. Additional Charge
(703) 557-4650 TELEX 89-9405 Foreign Prices on Request. Enter Grand Total

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14111289 8