Shorefront access and island preservation study

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

J4
1
HT
392
-S56
1978
1.
if
@

71;@ i:4

@v 3.

THE OFFICE OF COASTA4 ZONE MANAIEEAE@h-

SHOREFRONT C, C'Et S

A N D

I
I S L A N D P R Ell R'V A T14@R

S T U D Y

Shorefront Access and Island Preservation Study

Property of CSC Library

Ann Cowey
William Dreyfoos
Denise Fiorovante
Reed Huppman
Sylvia Szee
Jeffrey Treple

and

David J. Brower
Project Director

James W. MacFarland
Project Manager

Richard S. Weinstein
Editor

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management

Washington, D.C.
November 1978

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2344 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

Ackno@wledgements

The very existence of this document is a tribute to the vision and hard
work of many people. Richard Gardner, Director of the Office of Policy and
Program Research, originally saw the need for the study and then provided an
intellectual and managerial environment in which it was possible for the
study to take place. His ability to cut through -complex issues, to. make
order out of seeming chaos, and to offer often badly needed criticism and
encouragement with good humor and patience made a very- difficult task much
easier. Jim MacFarland, Property Acquisition Officer and Project Manager of
the Study contributed greatly to it.

Last but not*least the authors deserve tremendous credit. Ann Cowey is
a part-time --employee of the Office of Policy and Program Research but the
rest were slimmer interns. All had this project thrust upon them about half-
way through the summer of 1971. Even though most were "short timers" with
less than two months left on their internships, they all worked with great
diligence and enthusiasm. My thanks go, to all of these people for making
this report possible and mostly for making it a stimulating and rewarding
experience.

Chapters IV and VII were originally prepared for a Sea Grant project
and will be published as a part of Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-77--48
entitled, "Access to the Nation's Beaches: Legal and Planning
Perspectives."

David J. Brower
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

CONTENTS

SHOREFRONT ACCESS AND ISLAND PRESERVATION STUDY

I. INTRODUCTION

Ii. BACKGROUND

III. SUPPLY OF AND DEMAND FOR BEACHES.

IV. TEE LAW OF OWNERSHIP AND USE OF COASTAL BEACHES

V. SHOREFRONT ACCESS: FEDERAL DIRECTION

Vi. SHOREFRONT ACCESS: STATE DIRECTION

VII. LEGAL TOOLS FOR PRESERVING, PROTECTING AND ACQUIRING BEACH
ACCESS

VIII. URBAN WATERFRONTS

IX. ISLAND PRESERVATION

APPENDICES:

1. Statutes, Regulations, and 315(2) Conc ept Paper

2. Other Federal Programs Relevant to 315(2)

3. State Work Progr s

4. Legislative source materials

5. Analysis of,the Geographic Focus of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction

Background I
Methodology 3

Ii. Background

National Perspective--An Historical Background 7
Coastal Zone Management 20
Legislative History of 305 (b) (7) 22
Legislative History of 315(2) 23
Concluding Remarks 25

III. Supply and Demand

A. Demand 32
B. Supply 36
C. Beach Access 41

IV. The Law of Ownership and Us2 of Coastal Beaches

I. Introduction 51
II. Public Ownership and Use 51

A. Overview 51
B. Public Trust Doctrine 52
C. Implied Dedication 53
D. Customary Rights 56
E. Prescriptive Easements: Florida 58
F. The Great Lakes: Problems with Non-tidal 59
Coastal Beaches

V. Shorefront Access: Federal Direction

Overview 63
OCZM-Interaction with State Shorefront. Access Plans 64
Policies
Program Elements. 65
OCZM - Funded Implementation of State Shorefront Access 66
Plans:' Section 315(2)

VI. Shorefront Access: State Direction

1. Policy Determination 77
2. Needs Assessment and Documentation: Inventory 72

A. Identification of Publically Owned Coastal 73
Resources

B. Selection of Potential Accessways 75

(1) Physical and Environmental Field 75
Inventories
(2) Use of Inventory in the State Access 77
Planning Process
(3) Plan Formulation 78
(4) Public Hearings 80
(5) Program Approval 80
(6) Project-Generation 80

VII. Legal Tools for Preserving, Perfecting & Acquiring
Beach Access

I. Overview of Legal Constraints 81
II. Legislation 83
III. Perfection and Protection of Existing Title 84
and Access
IV. Acquisition of Access 85

A. Acquisition in Fee Simple 86

1. Purchase 86
2. Acquisition in Fee by Gift 88

B. Acquisition of Less-Than-Fee Simple 89

11. Purchase of Easements 90
2. Prescriptive Easements 92
3. Conservation Easements 94
4. Leaseholds 96

C. Other Means of Acquisition 98

1. Eminent Domain 98
2. Implied Dedication 100
3. Trades 102
4. Implied Reservation 103
5. Post Flood Damage Acquisition 104

V. Regulation - Land Use Controls 104

A. Required Pedestrian Access 105
B. Required Dedication of Roads to Provide Access 105
C. Water Access Lots in New Subdivisions 106

VIII. Urban Waterfronts

Introduction 109
Background 110
Federal Interest in the Urban Waterfront .112
Waterfront Access 115
Urban Waterfronts & CZM 118

IX. Island Preservation

A. Overview 123
B. Geologic Typology 125
C. Regions 130

North Atlantic 130
South Atlantic 131
Gulf Islands 134
Pacific 138
Great Lakes Region 141

D. Conclusion .144

E. Island Preservation Program Direction 145

APPENDICES

Appendix One: Statutes, Regulations and 315(2) Concept Paper

1. Congressional findings and general policy declarations of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 1-2

2. Section 3 '05(a)(1) of the Act which authorizes the Secretary
of Commerce to make.grants to States to develop coastal Zone
management programs. 1-4

3. Section 305(b)(7) of the Act which requires that beach access
be a part of each coastal zone management program funded under
the Act. 1-4

4. Regulations issued to explain to the States what they must do
to comply with the beach access provisions of the Act. 1-5

5. Section 3.15(2) of the Act which authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce to make grants to States to acquire land for beach
access. (Congress has yet to appropriate funds to carry out
this section. lm9

6. Concept paper issued by the Office of Coastal Zone Management
in preparation for the issuance of regulations which will
explain how Section 315(2) will be administered. (Regulations'
have not yet been issued.) 1-10

vii

Appendix Two: Other Federal Programs Relevant to 315(2)

I. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Land and Water Conservation Fund 2-3
Outdoor Recreation Technical Assistance 2.-7
Outdoor Recreation Resource Area Studies 2-12
Outdoor Recreation Water Resources Planning Program 2-13
Surplus Property for Parks Program 2-14

Bureau of Land Management
Public Land for'Recreation, Public Purposes, and
Historic Monuments 2-17

National Park Service 2-18
Park and Recreational Technical Assistance 2-21

Fish and Wildlife Service
Surplus Property for Wildlife Conservation 2-23

2. Department of Agriculture
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program 2-25

3. Department of Housing and Urban.Development
Open Space Program 2-29
Federal Flood Insurance Program 2-30

4. Department of Defense
Small Beach Erosion Control Projects 2-32

5. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Highway Research, Planning and Construction 2-33

Federal Aviation Administration
Airport Planning and Development 2-34

viii

Appendix Three: State Work Programs

Introduction 3-1

Alabama 3-5

Connecticut 3-7

Georgia 3-8

Hawaii 3-9

Indiana 3-11

Louisiana 3-12

Maine 3-13

Massachusetts 3-14

Michigan 3-15

Mississippi- 3-23

New Hampshire 3-26

New York 3-27

North Carolina 3-29

Ohio 3-30

Oregon 3-31

Pennsylvania 3-33

Rhode Island 3-35

Texas 3-40

Virginia 3-43

Virgin Islands 3-44

Wisconsin 3-47

Washington 3-49

Appendix.Four: Source Materials

1. Excerpts from A Report on a.Seashore Recreation Area Survey. 4-:2
NPS. DOI. 1955@ pp. 7-13.

2. Our.Vanishing Shoreline. NPS. DOI. 1966 (excerpts). 4-8

3. Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States. ORRRC Study 4-13.
Report 4. Washington: George Washington University, 1962.
Excerpts_, pp. 1-5, 28-31.

4. Report on the National Shoreline Study. DOD. U.S. Corps. 1971. 4-21
Excerpt, p. 13.

5. From.Sea.to Shining Sea. A Report on theAmerican Environment-- 4-22
Our National Heritage. President's Council on Recreation and
National Beauty. Washington: GPO, 1968.. Excerpts, pp. 174-179.

6. Memorandum to Richard Gardner from Dick Rigby concerning the 4-28
legislative history of the beach access and island preservation
provisions of the CZMA. Memorandum includes a copy of "Staff on
the Issue of Beach Access Section of H.R. 3981"--Committee Print.

7. U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering., and Resourcels. 4-40
(Str*atton Commission's) Panel Report, Vol. III. -Science and Envi-
ronment. Excerpts, pp. 111-5, 111-15-17).

a. Stratton Commission., Our Nation and the Sea. Excerpts, pp.. 52-53. 4-42

9. Excerpts from Senate Report 94-277 and House Report 94-878 from 4-44
thelegislative History of the Coastal Zone Management Act of
.1972,@ as Amended in 1974 and 1976 With a Section@by-Section Index.
Washington: GPO, 1976. pp. 755-56, 918-19, 923-24, 949.

10. Funding Authorizations for National Seashores (Table) from "A 4-48
Review of the Acquisition Costs of National Seashores." Congres-
sional Research Services, 1977.

Appendix.Five: Analysis of the Geographic Focus of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund

I. Introduction

Americans are fortunate to have so much shoreline.
In gross terms, there is certainly enough for
everybody to enjoy--enough, that is, if it is both
accessible and available to the public.

ORRRC Report, 1962.

The mountains are still there, the Atlantic Ocean
still crashes its surf onto the rocks as it has
done since the ice age, and there is still some
wilderness. It's just a little farther away now--
on the other side of the fence.

Pat Sherlock "The Best of
Maine Lost to the Rest of
Maine"

Background

In 1972, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act "to preserve,
protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of
the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations." The Act
established the Office of Coastal Zone Management within the Department of
Commerce to assist States wishing to participate through grants-in-aid to
develop programs for the wise management of their coastal resources.
Thirty-three States and territories are in the process of developing or have
already developed management programs. In its passage of this Act, Congress
was recognizing that the coastal areas--where land and water meet and
interact--contain many and unique resources which the Nation relies upon not
only for economic well being, but also for spiritual nourishment and
recreational enjoyment. In addition, Congress was expressing fear that the
increasing developmental pressures which the coastal area is experiencing
from many directions could result in irreparable damage to these valuable
national resources.

The average person, when asked, would no doubt acknowledge and
appreciate the purely economic and ecological values of the coastal zone;
however, it is the recreational aspects which would stir his imagination.
How many countless photographs and memories exist of the "beach," the
f1coast, 11 or the "waterfront?" One envisions sea-drenched bodies and idle
days in the sun; long barefooted walks or sandcastles melting back into the
tide; the nether world of slippery, wave-splashed rocks; stands of
glistening marsh grasses and the sight of ducks from the blind; and harbor
lights and the rope and rust world of the fishing fleet. The list--infiaite
and varied--draws on rich remembrances of very special places.

However, the pictures are not always so bright. Increased private
ownership of shorefront property has fenced off many of these places and
literally barred people from gaining access to them. Too little parking,
the threat of towing, or inadequate alternative transportation measures make
it difficult, if not impossible, for the would-be vacationer to reach his
sandy destination. Similarly, extremely heavy traffic and long lines are
not atypical for boaters and eager fisherman as they vie for limited
launching space. These and other problems of access to the shoreline grew
with population growth, increased leisure and affluence, and the sprawl of
residential and commercial resorts that have typified the last quarter
century.

Increasing national concern over such issues as energy, shorefroat
access, and island preservation, among others, persuaded Congress to amend
the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1976. Two of the new provisions address
access: Section 305(b)(7), the shorefront access planning element, and
Section 315(2), shorefront access acquisition. They were designed to
dovetail -each other: one providing for a planning process and the other
offering a tool for implementation. They read as follows:

Section 305 (b)(7):

The management program for each coastal state
shall include...

A defi nition of the term "beach" and a planning
process for the protection of, a*nd access to,
public beaches and other public coastal areas of
environmental, recreational, historical, esthetic,
ecological, or cultural value.

Section 315(2):

The secretary may, in accordance with this section
and in accordance with such rules and regulations
as the Secretary shall promulgate, make grants to
...,any coastal state for the purpose of...
...a-cquiring",lands to provide for access to public
bea*s.44d 6ther public coastal areas of
envir' onate.atal, recreational, historical, esthetic,
ecological, or cultural value, and for the
preservation of islands. The amount of any such
grant shall not exceed 50 per centum of the cost
of project involved...

These provisions, particularly Section 315(2), are the subject of this
study which was designed to provide a framework for policy and
decisionmaking within the Office of Coastal Zone Management.

Methodology

The study as a whole represents a composite of the work of six authors
(Aan Cowey, William Dreyfoos, Denise Fiorovante, Reed Huppman, Sylvia Szee,
and Jeffrey Treple) under the direction of David Brower. It draws on the.
current literature, plus information and data gathered from interviews with
selected individuals and governmental officials. At the outset, several
features need explaining in order to clarify certain inconsistencies which
can be found and the reasons for the format chosen. First, Section -
305 (b) (7) requires that States must develop a planning process to addres:s
the "protection of" as well as "access to" beaches and other areas. One of
the main intents of this study was to provide a framework for writing the
regulations for the 315(2) provision. As a result, discussion of 305(b)(7)
purposefully eliminates the "protection" aspect and focuses only on the
access planning.

Second, certain inevitable confusion surrounds Section 315(2) because
it actually deals with three subject areas:

1. public beaches

2. other public coastal areas, and

3. island preservation

The planning issues and strategies for these areas can overlap, interrelate,
or be totally independent depending on particular circumstances. The study
reflects this situation and contains certain disparities of emphasis.

For example, this study's heavy concern with "beach" access reflects
not only the importance of, and popular appeal of, the beach as a prime area
of recreational focus, but also the amount of pertinent literature on the
subject as compared with the literature on islands or other coastal areas.
However, this does not mean to imply that the other areas of coastal
attraction should be overlooked. Access to wetlands,_bluffs, scenic natural
areas, and waterfronts, to name a few, offer a different but 'highly
interesting recreational milieu. A chapter has been devoted'to urban
waterfront, only one possible "other coastal area," becau's'e' of- its special
nature, and the fact that it is the coastal area closest to the most people
and those with the least mobility.

Third, island preservation stands alone and was singled out due to its
unique concerns. The island chapter is more technically detailed than any

other because, prior to this study, such a comprehensive description of the
Nation's island resources by type and by region had not been set down in one
source.

With these thoughts in mind, the following format was chosen:

Chapter II gives an historical perspective of shorefront access and
island preservation by tracing national concern in recreational shoreline
and island development. It provides -a background and legislative history
for the Coastal Zone Management Act and especially for Sections 305(b)(7)
and 315(2).

Chapter III discusses the supply and demand question, and also reviews
some of the recreation statistics generated at the Federal and State level
especially where these figures regard availability and accessibility of
beach areas.

Chapter IV presents a legal overview of existing rights of public
ownership and use rights of the coast.

Chapter V suggests Federal direction alternatives for access policy
relating to both 305(b)(7) and 315(2).

Chapter VI reviews shorefront planning activity in several States a nd
developes a model shorefront access planning process.

Chapter VII describes the variety of tools and techniques States may
use to acquire access.

Chapter VIII gives background on urban waterfronts, their potential for
providing increased access, planning considerations, and suggested Federal
direction to shorefront access planning.

Chapter IX gives an overall description of the islands of the Nation by
geologic and regional type to help identify priorities and formulate policy
with regard to island resources. Federal program direction geared to the
315(2) provision is recommended.

The Appendices include: other Federal programs, pertinent statutes and
regulations, copies of State work programs, a concept paper for 315(2), and
th@ -historical legislative source material. Since it is recognized that
achieving the goals of increasing access to beaches and other areas as well
as island preservation will take the creative use of many Federal, State,

and local program dollars used in concert, the section on other Federal
programs is of particular importance. The 315(2) acquisition provision
cannot possibly do the job alone, nor was it designed that way. The Land
and Water Conservation Fund, after all, has available capital which can be
used for the same purpose. However, in respect to this fund, "coastal
recreation projects vie with all other demands for recreational land and
water projects, and the allocation of the money, among nTn-Federal projects,
is left to the discretion of State and local officials."

The 315(2) acquisition provision thus becomes adv"ocate funding for
beach access and island preservation. 315(2) funds were not designed.to
compete with HUD, BOR, or other Federal funding sources. Instead, these
sources should be used together to enable States to better implement their
shorefront planning policies.

George H. Sichl, Recreation and the Coastal Zone, Congressional Resea@;rch,-g
Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. September 1977..

bFmAC9 AMMS ALTEWATIVE5 5TUbY
ALMMKiel: 5WISS 6KY 16hF.

Nil 111,111111a
?ZolbLVA%: L KtTs5 Ge7 -T7W6t& ;v u;m2tS.

ALTERNNTIYE.4"Z TUMnE:L

J_ CMr COUTf@OL -Tile-5 ID rJEEP WAO@5@ CLr
r L'Wit
kT IA

CATh?ILT f UEgFE,)T

TROSLEJAV 1. oCr.A:S@jCOJNLLi OVEJZS)40= 5MALL CAQaFA)
a,, @ z

o1b oczw.
Z. fReOLxvr wJumiES raorn VAP,4 LAK)IIiV(-Z
6

II. Background

National Perspective - A Historical Background

Over the past 45 years, the Nation's coastlines, beaches, and islands
have been the subject of numerous Federally sponsored studies and
commissions. National concern was expressed over a variety of problems ' And
issues. At the outset, it is important to note that while islands were not
singled out for Federal focus until 1969, previous studies involving the
shorelines included islands within their purview and the findings and
recommendations within these studies apply to islands as well as beaches.

The following review of reports and studies serves three purposes: it
creates a background against which to place shorefront access and island
preservation, it build -s up considerable testimony for the concern Congress
has expressed in these issues over a very long period of time, and it lends
credence to the fact that 315(2) should be funded so that States might
expedite their shorefront access planning and preserve their island
resources.

Sensing a need for more public coastal recreation lands, New.Deal
planners, in 1934, obtained funds from the Interior Department to map out.,a
National seashore recreational system along the East Coast. Their report
stated that the seashore of New England was "intensely developed" and that.,.
dense development also was the main feature of much of the New Jersey coast.

The best and most virginal place to accommodate the recreational needs.,
of the population of the mid-Atlantic States, they concluded, would be.an
area running from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, to the tip of Assateague Island.
They justified this proposed acquisition of park land by pointing out that
29 million people lived within a 300 mile radius of this shoreland.

In their still-surviving memo to Interior Secretary Ickes, the planners
expressed their worry over the cost of farmland along the shore in
Maryland's Worcester County, which was running around $25 an acre. On the
other hand, the ocean beach land was cheap, at $4 an acre. Government
dallied. World War II occurred. Today the population in the area within a
300 mile radius of the once proposed park is approximately 60 million
people, rougply double what the 1934 planners felt would justify their
acquisition. However, it took nearly 30 years for this parkland toAe set
aside.

In 1937, Cape Hatteras National Seashore was established through'. he.
National Seashore Program, which requires special legislation
seashore. Twenty-five years elapsed before any others were'7designatadrr@ 1AW"n,

nine more have been added by means of this program. These are: Cape Cod,
Massachusetts (1961); Point Reyes, California (1962); Padre Island, Texas
(1962); Fire Island, New York (1964); Assateague, Maryland and Virginia
1965); Cape Lookout, North Carolina (1966); Gulf Islands, Florida and
Alabama (1967); Cumberland Island, Georgia (1972); and Canaveral, Florida
(1975). Many of these areas were identified earlier by the National Park
Service as priority areas.

Early in 1954, the National Park Service was assigned the task of
ascertaining the remaining opportunities to preserve outstanding stretches
of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts--not only places valuable for scenic
qualities and public recreation, but areas also desirable as sanctuaries for
unique or rare plant and animal communities. The introduction to the Park
Service's report, Seashore Recreation Area Survey of the Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts,2 speaks for itself:

About 20 years ago the Service conducted a seashore recreation
area survey with emergency funds and was able to identify many
important, unspoiled natural areas which seemed deserving of
preservation for future public use and enjoyment. But: time had
passed swiftly; a war had intervened, followed by a period of
great economic growth and development. No one seemed to know how
far development might have spread up and down the coast as a
whole, spilling over into or engulfing the quiet natural areas we
had once known.

The National Park Service had neither the personnel nor the funds
to answer these questions. But as the result of a generous
donation of private funds for the purpose, the Service was able to
assemble a small professional staff and undertake an 18-month
study of the coVt and offshore islands between the Canadian and
Mexican borders.

Of a total of 126 acres classified, the survey identified 54 as most
suitable for public seashore recreation. It recommended the following:

That at least 15 percent of the general shoreline of the
Atlantic and Gulf coasts be acquired for public recreation
purposes. If public agencies acquire half of the suitable
undeveloped seashore land remaining, they would then have,
including their existing areas, the recommended 15 percent.

That highest priority be given to the acquisition of the
following 16 areas:

Great Beach, Cape Cod, Massachusetts [National Seashore]
Fire Island, New York [National Seashore]
Shinnecock Inlet, New York
Padre Island, Texas [National Seashore]
Smith Island,, North Carolina Bogue Banks, North Carolina
[State Park-partial]
St. Joseph Spit, Florida [State Park-partial]

Mosquito Lagoon, Florida [Partial Wildlife Preserve]
Parramore Island, Virginia (Nature Conservancy Preserve]
Kiawah Island, South Carolina
Marco Beach, Florida
Debidue Island, South Carolina
Popham-St. John, Maine Crescent Area, Maine [State Park]
Brazos Island, Texas [State Park-partial]

That prompt action be taken to acquire available beach sites
before the best of the remaining areas are acquired for private or
commercial development. The attention of all persons and 4
organizations in a position to give aid should be solicited.

In the past 20 odd years, 10 of the 16 areas have been acquired for
public recreation or conservation purposes, either fully or partially.
Their methods of preservation are described in the parenthetical comments
adjacent to their names in the above list.

In reference to resource preservation--a concept to be researched in
subsequent studies--it also recommended:

That ample quantities of hinterlands of marsh and swamp,
which provide a valuable habitat for a large and interesting
variety of bird and animal life, be acquired in connection with
acquisition of beach property.

That biotic communities of great scientific interest found
along the seashore be acquired and preserved regardless of the
desirability of the adjoining beach, and that consideration be
given to biotic communities at present in a modified condition but
which might return to a more natural condition if permitted to
remain undisturbed.

That more detailed studies be made of selected coastal areas
of unusual importance, giving consideration to proper boundaries
and loy-range planning for best utilization of recreation
values.

In 1958, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
(O.R.R.R.C.) was created (P.L. 85-470, 12 Stat. 238). Its mission was
essentially three-fold:

To determine the outdoor recreation wants and needs of the
American people now and what they will be in the years. 1976 and
2000.

To determine the recreation resources of the Nation available
to satisfy those needs now and in the years 1976 and 2000..
To determine what policies and programs should b6_@recommended
to ensure that the Veds of the present and future are adequately
and efficiently met.

.The ORRRC p rp sented a report of its findings to the President and
Congress in 1962. One of the reports, Shoreline Recreation Resources of
the United States, dealt exclusively with the Nation's coastline. It is a
benchmark document whose often quoted national shoreline inventory (which
includes the alarming information that only 5 percent of the shoreline is in
public ownership) remains the most comprehensive one published to date.

The significance and difficulties of shoreline recreation were
enunciated in the following passage from the report:

Americans are fortunate to have so much shoreline. In gross
terms, there is certainly "enough for everybody" to enjoy--enough,
that is, if it is both accessible and available to the public.
These particular conditions coasitute a major problem, as all
those familiar with the needs of outdoor recreation are acutely
aware.

Three difficulties now confront us. First, a good deal of
the shoreline is not close enough to where people live to be
widely useful for recreation. Second, some of it is so close to
large metropolitan centers as to be already overwhelmed by people.

A third complicating factor is that most of the shoreline,
especially that near metropolitan centers, is privately owned and
therefore not available for public use.

On the basis of current trends for outdoor recreation, and
recognizing the longstanding popularity of shoreline recreation,
there is little doubt that the demand for recreation shoreline
will be many times greater by 1976 and 2000 than at the present.
It is obvious that long before the end of this century the
recreation shoreline within the radius of large urban populations
will have to be managed with an efficiency unknown today. Outside
of these areas of major impact, some changes in the balance of
public and private ownership will have to be made to accowmodate
public demands for the recreation use of these shorelines.

This noteworthy summary of the shoreline recreation situation remains
as valid today as it did over 15 years ago. Shoreline recreation target
areas were described as follows:

While all of the shoreline has some recreation value, and the
entire shoreline consitutes a recreation resource, not all of the
'shoreline is equally sought out for outdoor recreation. Of the
three categories of shoreline --marsh, bluff and beach--the latter
is by far the most popular kind of shoreline in present patterns
of outdoor recreation activities.

Some shorelines are almost never used, either for recreation
or for any other activity. Others are so overused that their

recreation values are greatly reduced. The important shoreline
recreation targets are those which have the characteristics of (1)
accessibility and (2) availability. Accessible shorelines are
those which are close' enough to large using populations for day.
and/or overnight use. Available shorelines are those whose use is
not restricted by the nature of ownership, high fees, or some
other inhibiting factor.

Both characteristics are essential in any assessments of the
wants and needs of the American people for recreation shorelines
and in any evaluation of the ability of our resources to fill
those needs. In some large metropolitan areas the per capita
amount of accessible and available shorelines is extremely
limited. Shorelines accessible to less densely settled parts of
the country may be used by only a few people. Thus, shoreline
recreation demands are highly concentrated, geographically.

Accessibility--people who seek outdoor recreation do so
within very definite time patterns; these are usually described as
day outings, weekend or overnight trips, and vacations. The most
important of these, in terms of its impact upon outdoor recreation
resources, is the day outing.

Availability--- in general, the only beaches widely available
to the public are public beaches, and even some of these are
restricted. For example, some municipal beaches admit only bona
fide citizens of the municipality. Others practice some form of
segregation or other restriction. The use of private beaches is
normally under the control of the owners, although in some States
access may be gained to the foreshore--the area below high
tide--through public thoroughfares. Because of time and fund
limitations, it was impossible to make an inventory of restrictive
policies of either private or public beaches. The authors have
assumed that public beaches are usually available to anyone.
However, it may be that the extent of adjacent parking areas is
the greatest single fact r restricting the availability of
accessible public beaches.

Shoreline recreation needs were summarized in this passage:

There seems to be little question that the role of the
American shoreline in satisfying outdoor recreation needs is
becoming more important every year. However, the usefulness of
shoreline to satisfy recreation needs varies with the:

1. Type of shoreline,
2. Accessibility of the shoreline,
3. Availability of the accessible shoreline.

ine 1960
Accessible Shorel

6
2 4 2
6

Population Of Recreation 2
Urban Areas Targets
I greater dmn 600.000
2 greater than 1.000.000
3 greater Uw 2.000.000
4 greater dw 3,000,000
6 greater than 4,000,000
a greater am 6.000.000

0 2 0
mdes

Figure

Accessible and Available Beaches

The greatest recreational use pressure is on public beaches
not more than 60-90 miles away, depending upon the highways, or
about 2 hours automobile travel time from metropolitan areas of a
half million or more people. Within this range, the heaviest
demands are normally placed on beaches within 30 miles or 'less
than 1 hour travel time of metropolitan areas. The 19
metropolitan areas which presently have more than 500,000 people
are shown in Figure 1. Circles of 30 and 90 miles radius
respectively have been drawn around these metropolitan areas.
These are the crucial beach recreation targets. The inner circles
are the "bull's eyes." Where the impact areas of a number of
metropolitan areas overlap, use pressure is extremely high.

Inaccessible nonbeach shoreline

The other side of the coin is extreme non-use. The least use
pressure on recreational shoreline is on marsh or bluff coast with
no beach areas and distant from metropolitan centers. While
recreation use of these areas is slight at present, they are often
important as unique superlative examples of bluff or Tarsh
shoreline, as natural phenomena, or as wildlife habitats.

A national policy for the shoreline and recommended Federal
responsibilities were put forward as follows:

The shoreline is a unique resource in many ways. For the
most part, it forms a national boundary. For a single resource, a
shoreline has unusually high recreational qualities. It is
limited in extent. Improper use, pollution, or erosion can
decrease its extent and value. All of these factors can be
controlled to prese-rve recreational values if proper steps are
taken. Shoreline is a dynamic resource physically, a system of
related checks and balances which do not recognize political
boundaries. It is, in other words, a national resource.

As a national resource, shoreline merits a national policy.
That policy should serve three purposes: (1) it should state the
public purpose in the recognition and encouragement of, as well as
the provision of the means for, outdoor recreation; (2) it should
define the roles of the various levels of government by which this
purpose is realized; and (3) it should relate recreation use of
the shoreline to other valid uses.

The Federal Government should be responsible for the
following program:

1. Acquiring, developing, and operating shorelines of
national significance for recreation, scenic beauty,
wildlife habitat, or biotic communities.

2. Optimizing shoreline recreation possibilities
on Federal.lands including defense lands.

3. Assisting State and local governments where
other financial-and technical resources are
not adequate to meet State and local
shoreline recreation needs, especially in
areas of high recreation impact by:

(a) providing financial assistance for
planning, acquisition, and development
of shoreline recreation areas.

(b) providing technical assistance for
planning, acquisition, and development
of shoreline recreation areas.

(c) specifying program standards as a condition
of Federal assistance, including re Yiew and
coordination of State and (local) plans.

The Report emphasized the need for a more thorough study and inventory
of the shoreline resources in this paragraph:

One of the greatest stumbling blocks in evaluating
recreational use of the American shoreline is a lack of
precise information; data on both users and the resource
are badly needed. How many people use the shoreline now,
and for what purposes? How much do they spend on various
kinds of recreation? How far do they travel? How often
do they visit specific areas of the shore? What are the
specific areas of the shore? What are the specific
qualities and traits, mile-by-mile, of the total shoreline,
and what potentials for recreational use do these represent?
It is not possible to plan the intelligent and balanced use
of this precious and limited resource without knowi@@ a great
deal more about the nature of both demand and supply.

Many of these questions remain unanswered.

In 1963, the U.S. Study Commission, Southeast River Basins, recommended
protection of all coastline. recreational values and public acquisition of
four or five larger islands off the coast of South Carolina and Georgia for
-IT
recreational purposes.

In 1965, the White House Conference on Natural Beauty recommended that
public and private protection be extended to all remaining natural
shorelines and, specifically in panels devoted "to water and waterfronts, it
declared that "new techniques for extending the use of waterfront lands to
metropolitan residents should be developed. There if4far too little actual
wate'r's edge available to the typical city dweller."

In 1966, the President directed the Secretary of the Interior to
inventory American islands, and this was the first time islands were singled
out. Previously, as can be noted in the earlier studies, islands were
subsumed under the general category of beaches and shorelines. The
resulting study, Islands of America, published in 1970, revealed that there
were 26,325 islands 10 acres or larger, comprising 28.6 million acres.
Excluding Alaska's 21.1 million island acres, of the 7.5 mi]Jion remaining,
only 1.5 million acres are available for public recreation. IT

The Interior Department report also stated that:

An additional 3 million acres have recreational potential
but are mostly in private ownership and not open to the public.
Nearly half of these 3 million acres lie within 25 miles of
urban populations of 50,000 persons or more; three-quarters of
this "urban" island acreage is either undeveloped or minimally
developed.

Thus, there are almost a million acres of prime, largely
undeveloped, potential recreation land on islands near America's
metropolitan areas.

From these factors and others uncovered in the study, it is
apparent that America's islands are a major untapped national
resource with a variety of lands and locations that could help
fill many types of outdoor recreation needs, especially those of
many metropolitan area 'residents and the fast-growing numbers of
water-oriented recreationists throughout the country.

Many of our islands, particularly those near our growing
metropolitan areas, are threatened with development that would
destroy their distinctive qualities and their recreation
potential.

America's island heritage can be protected ... by
concerted action in both the public and private sectors. This
study recommends two major goals: (1) public control of
representative island areas sufficient to meet public recreation,
scenic, wilderness, historic, and scientific needs; and (2)
restoration and mWtenance of the environmental quality of all
American islands.

The report further pointed out that:

Once an island's remoteness or inaccessibility has been
reduced, it is drastically changed. Once developed, it is
difficult or impossible to restore its natural character. Not
that change always is bad--an island may well be the best
location for an industrial installation or a residential
community--but, because of their fragile nature, development of.
islands should be based upon careful consideration of their wise
use and protection. Since most islands have not yet bee4'.'.
developed, there still is time to consider all aspects of their
environment.

The purpose of this report is to alert the Nation to the
importance of its islands and to identify conservation
opportunities for the various public and private interests
it is recommended that a National System of Island Trusts be
established and that the 19asco Bay Islands in Maine be the initial
component of the System.

In 1973, Senator Jackson introduced a "National Islands Conservation
and Recreation Act" to establish:

* * * a national policy to protect and manage islands of the
Nation which possess unique environmental, recreation, historical,
and cultural values; to authorize a study by the Secretary of the
Interior of our Nation's islands including recommendations of
islands to be added to the national park, wildlife refuge, and
forest systems; to encourage and establish State islands
conservation and recreation programs; to add to the land and water
conservation fund and authorize the provision of a portion of the
additional funds to State and- local governments for the
acquisition of islands and the purchase or lene of Federal
surplus island property; and for other purposes.

The bill did not pass; however, in 1976 the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation (BOR) began updating the 1966 inventory. This update is
scheduled for completion in 1978. The 1976 amendments to the Coastal 2one
Management Act included a provision for island preservation under Section
315(2), to be discussed at length in Chapter IX. To date this provision has
not been funded.

Legislation to put into effect the island trust concept proposed by the
Interior Department's island survey report in 1970 was again offered to the
Congress in the Nantucket Sound Island Trust bill.

As reported bj the Senate Interior Committee on November 26, 1975, the
purpose of this bill was:

To set up a Federal -State- local partnership for land use
planning, preservation, and conservation of the valuable and
threatened resources of the Nantucket Sound Islands. This bill
provides the necessary authority and funding to carry out the
goals and plans of the local residents in a shared and cooperative
effort with all levels of government.

In general the bill, as amended, provided a federal grant to
local commissions for protection and- regulation of development of
the islands in the Nantucket Group:T9

In 1977, President Carter placed emphasis on the barrier islands in his
Environmental Message. He said that:

Coastal barrier islands are a fragile buffer between the
wetlands and the sea. The 189 barrier islands on the Atlantic and

1.6

Gulf Coasts are an integral part of an ecosystem which helps
protect inland areas from flood waves and hurricanes. Many of.
them are unstable and not suited for development, yet in the past
the Federal Government has subsidized and insured new construction
on them. Eventually, we can expect heavy economic losses from
this short-sighted policy.

About 68 coastal barrier islands are still unspoiled.
Because I believe these remaining natural islands should be
protected from unwise development, I am directing the Secretary of
Commerce, the Council on Environmental Quality, and State and
local officials of coastal areas, to develop an effective plan for
protecting the islands.
His report shouig include recommendations for action to
achieve this purpose.

A Barrier Islands Task Force is currently working on recommendations
which are scheduled for completion in 1978.

Between 1966 and 1970, several important studies were carried out which
all placed emphasis on the need for increased shoreline recreation,
especially near urban areas. In 1966, the Commission on Marine Science,
Engineering, and Resources, more commonly known as the Stratton Commission,
was established with a mandate to investigate the broad array of marine
problems ranging from the preservation of our coastal shores and estuaries
to the more effective use of the vast ocean resources. The commission's
report, Our Nation and the Sea, published in 1969, noted that:

A decent concern for preserving life's amenities as well as
economic considerations demands that more adequate provisions be
made for recreational use along the Nation's crowded shoreline.
Access to the shoreline for @he populations that increasingly
are concentrated in urban areas along the coasts and the Great
Lakes will present a major coastal zone problem. Of all the uses
of the coastal zone, recreation uses are the most diversified and
pose some of the greatest challenges to any coastal management
system.
Appearing in the same Commillion's panel report on "Managment and
Development of the Coastal Zone," which formed the basis of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, were these recommendations for immediate
action:

The amount of shoreline available for public use should be
doubled over the next 10 years. Priority should be given to near
metropolitan areas where public area is most urgently needed.
More imaginative attempts are required to integrate recreational
projects with other es of the coastal zone such as conservation
and industrial uses.

As regards Recreation- -Beaches and Parks, the panel reported that:

Competition for land and water is sharpest precisely where
the need for water-based recreation is greatest--near metropolitan
areas. The problem involves not so much the water's physical
amount as its quality and accessibility. Outdoor recreational
facilities are most urgently needed near metropolitan areas.

The competition for land use poses both a challenge and an
opportunity for those metropolitan areas situated near the coasts
and the Great Lakes. Although such areas may not be able to
reserve facilities for the complete range of water-associated
recreational activities, the potential to secure some is shared by
all.

Population pressures on public and outdoor recreation
facilities are exceeding previous expectations by wide margins. A
1965 survey conducted by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
indicated that visits to beaches and seashores in 1980 would total
nearly 10 billion, more than double the same estimate *made in
1960. Projected visits in the year 2000 would be nearly 17
billion, four times the 1960 estimate.

Based on the 1965 survey the most popular summertime
activities ranked in order are: walking for pleasure, swimming,
driving for pleasure, playing outdoor sports, bicycling,
sightseeing, picnicking, fishing, attending outdoor sports events,
boating, nature walks, and camping. Projections for the year 2000
indicate some changes in ranking with the following top eight
activities: swimming, playing outdoor sports, walking for
pleasure 23 driving for pleasure, sightseeing, picnicking, and
boating.

In 1968, the President's Council on. Recreation and Natural Beauty
submitted a report, From Sea t$,@hining Sea, a Report on the American
Environment--Our Natural Heritage,-- and in it, the section on Shoreline and
Islands declared that:

Unfortunately, opportunities to know and enjoy shorelines and
islands are steadily diminishing. Natural shorelines increasingly
are being fenced, bulldozed, paved, and built upon. Increasingly,
scenic stretches of tidelands, beaches, dunes, and seacliffs are
covered with shacks and chalets, hamburger emporiums and parking
lots, highways and billboards, powerplants, and even oil derricks.

It is time to proclaim the principle that all Americans--of
present and future generations --have a right to enjoy the
shoreline experience, and that ocean and lake shoreline with high
quality scenic and recreation values are natural resources to be
conserved and not destroyed.

Regardless of which institutions take the lead, there is an
urgent need for up-to-date knowledge upon which comprehensive and
systematic efforts can be based. . . . There is also need for a
comprehensive nationwide inventory and survey of the best
remaining opportunities for conservation of -natural beauty and
recreation resources of ocean and lake shoreline--in addition to
those directly associated with island and estuarine areas. Such a
study would be a logical follow-up to the National Park Service
inventories of a decade ago; it should determine current status of
shoreline preservation efforts, identify conservation
opportunities for the various levels of government, and focus
renewed public attention on this vanishing resource.

A national shoreline conservation survey would provide an
informed basis for action to protect not only the water's edge but
the total shoreline setting. It could do this by developing model
protective standards for State and local land use controls, and
guides for coordination of planning for public acquisition and
appropriated development of critical areas; for coordination of
programs of technical and financial assistance through the
concerned States; and for technical assistance and incentives to
private landowners to conserve remaining natural shoreline
environments along lines consistent with today's natural beauty
goals.

The Council recommends that increased public and. private
efforts be made to develop comprehensive plans and balanced
programs for use of the Nation's ocean and lake shorelines,
islands, estuaries, and adjoining wetlands that include
appropriate provision for protection and enhancement of their
natural, scenic, recreation., and economic values through:

(1) @ull consideration of shoreline problems
and potentials in comprehensive studies
by appropriate governmental institutions
with responsibilities for planning for
shoreline resources;

(2) State, county and local zoning or other
land use regulation; and

(3) establishment of State or interstate
management commissions, where
25
appropriate.
In 1971 the Corps of Engineers released The National Shoreline Study 26
(authorized in 1968) which, in the following passage, recognizes Federal
concern for beach and shore erosion as a national problem:

Probably the most significant and important problem with
respect to erosion is the loss of beach recreation area, a
valuable natural resource. Counts of users of good beaches less

than one-half mile long show hundreds of thousands of visitors
each year. Coasidering all the beaches of the United States,
there are many hundred million beach visits each year. For
example, annual attendance at the major public beaches on Long
Island totals more than 70,000,000. The most intensive use area
is at Jones Beach State Park, which has an annual attendance of
about 13,000,000, equivalent to 6,000,000 per mile for the
developed area. On the outer part of the island, at Robert Moses
Park,, the annual attendance of 2,000,000 would indicate an
intensity of one-half million per mile. Obviously, beach losses
affect a considerable percentage of our population. The
population expansion and increased leisure time cause rapidly
increasing demands for beach areas. Because the quantity of
beaches is limited, continued loss of beach areas will increase in
importance and economic value. 27 This is of particular significance
near large population centers.

Still another movement was afoot in the late 60's which should not be
overlooked: the effort to pass national land use legislation. Such an 2gt
has yet to be enacted. The "Papers on National Land Use Policy Issues"
published in 1971 in connection with hearings for one of the land use bills
(S. 692) stressed the coastal aspects of land use. Six of nine papers in
the collection were devoted to coastal topics: shoreline recreation,
estuaries, salt marshes, wetlands, and offshore power plant siting.
Familiar themes which had previously received attention were given added
exposure. Federal control of land use was politically unpalatable and
remains so, but the coastal issue, after repeated study and attention,
finally received legislative approval with enactment of the Coastal Zone
Management Act in 1972. This Act declared that "there is a national
interest in the effective manag
weat, beneficial use, protection and
development of the coastal zone," and it created as part of the Department
of Commerce, through NOAA, the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) to
carryout the Act's goals.

Coastal Zone Management

The intent of the Act (see Appendix I for excerpts of the Act) is to
provide Federal encouragement to the coastal States, including the Great
Lakes States, for the protection and wise use of coastal resources. So far,
33 States and territories (out of 34 eligible) are participating in the
program. Through the original Act of 1972, participants are eligible to
benefit in two ways: first, through financial assistance in the forms of
three types of grants: (1) to develop management programs (Section 305); (2)
to operate approved management programs (Section 306); and (3) to help
States acquire estuarine sanctuaries (Section 315(l)). Second, through the
Federal consistency aspect of the Act; whereby, once the management program
has passed through an overall Federal review process and received approval
by the Secretary of Commerce, subsequent Federal actions affecting the
States' coastal zone's must be consistent with the States' coastal zone
management programs, to the maximum extent practical. Federal coordination
is a key feature of the Act, which further provides that in the case of a

Itserious disagreement between any Federal agency and the State in the
development of the program,_" the Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with
the President, shall seek to mediate the differences.

The following 15 Federal agencies were deemed relevant to each State
program: the Departments of Agriculture; Energy; Commerce; Defense; Health,
Education, and Welfare; Housing and Urban Development; Interior; Justice;
Transportation; the Council on Environmental Quality; the Environmental
Protection Agency; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Federal Energy
Administration; the Federal Power Commission; and the General Services
Administration.

In order to meet the requirements of the Act, the States must include
the following "elements" in their management programs:

a definition of the coastal boundaries
a definition of permissible land and water uses which have
significant impact on the coastal waters
a designation of areas of particular concern
a definition of p iorities of uses
a definition of existing authorities by which the State will
exercise control over the land and water uses

a choice of an organizational structure to administer the program
an assurance of public participation in the program development
process

Once the program has been developed, the State can choose one or a
combination of three methods of control: (1) direct State regulation; (2)
local regulation consistent with State- established standards; or (3) local
regulation subject to State review.

The Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management's basic functions are the
awarding of grants and the overseeing and reviewing of State programs (the
latter of which is divided among the management staff and the regional
coordinators or State liaison people). In addition, the OCZM is involved in
the following activities: technical assistance (including coastal zone
information coordination, which also supports an information center), legal
counsel, Federal interagency coordination, public information, special
interest group liaison, and congressional liaison.

Coastal zone management, given the extensive area and the complexity of
issues involved, is tremendously comprehensive. In order to give added
direction and focus to the program, Congress amended the Act in 1976. The
major changes include: the introduction of a Coastal Energy Impact Program;
the addition of three new planning elements addressing shore erosion,
shorefront access, and energy facility siting; and provisions for interstate
grants, research and technical assistance grants, and grants for the purpose.
of acquiring land to provide shorefront access and island preservation.
This last provision, shorefront access and island preservation, (Section'
315(2), in conjunction with the shorefront access planning element, 305
(b)(7), is the subject of the study at hand.

Legislative History of Section 305(b)(7)

Section 305(b) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, states
that "the management program for each coastal state shall include . . . (7)
a definition of the term 'beach' and a planning process for the protection
of, and access to, public beaches and other coastal areas of environmental,
historic, esthetic, ecological, or cultural value" (Sec. 305(b)(7).

Section 305(b), as amended, further states that "no management program
is req fed to meet the requirements in paragraph (7) before October
1, 1978 (Sec. 305(b)(9)).

Funding to complete this requirement is to be derived from Section 305
authorizations, irrespective of whether this requirement is being fulfilled
(prior to 10/1/78) as part of the 305 program development process or as part
of the 306 program implementation process:

"Whenever the Secretary approves the management program of any
coastal state under Section 305, such state thereafter . . . (1)
shall not be eligible for grants under this section (305); except
that such state may receive grants under subsection (c) in order
to comply with the requirements of paragraph (7) of
subsection (b)" (Sec. 305(h)).

The Committee report 30 on P.L. 94-370 (H.R. 3981/S. 586) indicates that
the addition of 3 new planning requirements in the program development
process (Section 305) does - not represent the addition of brand new
considerations into the process in which most States are presently engaged.
Rather the inclusion or expansion of these "implicit" planning elements
represents a decision "to give specific emphasis and support for these
areas.11

With specific reference to Section 305(b)(7), the report notes that:
"The Committee wants, by this requirement, for State Coastal Zone Management
Programs to identify their publicly held coastal areas and to devise
policies which will either provide for their protection, where that is
appropriate as with ecologically significant wildlife areas, and for their
ready access as is appropriate with a public beach. Whereas the present
management programs must include an inventory and designation of 'areas of
particular concern,' this new requirement focuses particular attention on
publicly held properties and directs that plans for their best management be
included in the State program."

Further guidance on the intent of this section is provided in the
following Committee discussion of the need for H.R. 3981:

"Access to public -beaches and other attractions in public
ownership in the coasts has come to be identified as one of the
critical problems facing local and State governments . . . . The
Committee position is that action is needed now to help provide
the needed access, especially in urban areas, and that to wait
will only mean additional expense to the taxpayers. The key again
is that the purchase of such access, as is provided in the
addition to Section 315, . . . be tied to a comprehensive plan.
That is the intent of this new requirement under 305 program
development-tha@i all such purchases fit into an overall program
for each state."

Legislative History of Section 315(2)

Section 315(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act provides that:

The Secretary may, in accordance with this section and in
accordance with such regulations as the Secretary shall promul-
gate, make grants to any coastal state for the purpose of

acquiring lands to provide for access to public beaches And
other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational,
historic, esthetic, ecological, or cultural value, and for the
preservation of islands. The amount of any such grant shall not
exceed 50 percentum of the cost of the project involved.

Funding is provided in subsection 318(a)(7) which provides for sums,
Itnot to exceed $25 million for each of the fiscal years ending September 30,
1977; September 30, 1978; September 30, 1979; and September 30, 1980,
respectively, as may be necessary for grants under section 315(2) to remain
available until expended." As of November 1, 1978, no funds had been
appropriated for the program.

There is not a legislative record in the usual sense of testimony,
i.e., discussions on the floor and in committee report. However, the intent
of Congress in adding subsection 315(2) is plainly stated in what little
legislative history exists. The House Committee Report accompanying the
1976 amendments discussed the shorefront access acquisition provision as
follows:

This authorization complements the new requirement the
Committee has added to section 305 for a beach protection and
access planning process. Because time is of the essence in
acquiring access, particularly in or near urban coastal areas,
it was felt advisable to accompany the planning requirements
with funds to carry out the plans.

The Committee does not intend to authorize the purchase of
lands for beaches or other public uses. The concern is that there
are areas already in public ownership on the shore which, for one
reason or another are not readily accessible to the public.

The Committee's further concern is that in providing the
means of opening up this access, we do not overburden the
resources. That is why this authorization is tied to the planning
requirment of Section 305--the intent is to see to it that this
expanded means of access fits into an overall recreational plan
and that due carh is given to protect areas susceptible of damage
from excess use.

The Senate Report discussed why the bill included these provisions, as
follows:

In recent years--both before and after passage of the Coastal
Zone Management Act--coastal States have realized the increasing
difficulty of assuring public access to and protection of beaches
and islands in the coastal zone. Time is of the essence, since
property values are rising steeply and quickly on waterfront
property.

The Committee is persuaded that providing assistance to the
states for the acquisition of lands for these purposes is amply
justified and in the natioaal interest. With population and
leisure trends pointing to increased demands on limited public
waterfronts, it is imperative to protect these properties. To
wait longer would mean the public will have to pay high55 prices
for the property needed for enjoyment of public beaches.

The inclusion of the island preservation provision is clearly for
a different purpose. The major aim here, legislative history makes clear,
is to put into public ownership those coastal islands now relatively
unspoiled before they are developed intensively. This notion was emphasized
in previous Federal studies as discussed earlier.

From the legislative history, the Office of Coastal Zone Management has
concluded in a concept paper circulated to program managers that section
315(2) is intended to provide ways of getting to areas presently in public
ownership and is not for adding to those areas. Congress did not intend
that these funds be used to add to beach areas; for example, the purchase of
the dry sand area above the mean high tide line (or the ordinary high
watermark in the Great Lakes), delineating where public ownership ends in
certain States, was not intended. Also,, the word "public" appears before
"beaches" and the listing of the other shorefront areas to which access
might be provided. Thus, it is clear that Congress did not intend for
access to be provided to privately held property. However, it would seem
appropriate to provide right of access through private property to public
areas.

Access should be provided according to the criteria established
pursuant to the section 305(b)(7) planning process and must be sensitive to
the areas involved. The island funding provision is to preserve islands
which are largely undeveloped and to keep them in that condition. Some
limited public access to islands purchased under this provision may be
provided.

Concluding Remarks

The survey of Federal reports and studies in the first part of this
chapter indicated a history of national concern in the following general
problems and issues:

The value of the limited coastal resources which are subject to
increased and competing pressures.

The escalating demand for swimming, boating, and other leisure
activities located along the coastline.

Loss of beaches due to erosion.

Lack of access due to private development and inadequate
transportation or parking facilities.

Change in coastline character from natural to developed.

Need for more recreational areas close to metropolitan. centers.

The unique value of islands.

The fragility and the special ecological role of islands,
especially barrier islands.

The passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act gave States an
opportunity to address all of these issues through the mechanism of their
management programs. Section 315(2) and 305(b)(7) place special emphasis on
shorefront access and island preservation and potentially offer a means to
obtain national assistance directed particularly on these areas which were
felt to be especially important.

FOOTNOTES

1
John Fialka, "The Rush to the Shore, reprinted in Congressional Record,
Record, Senate, October 30, 1973, S. 19623-19624.
2 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, A Report on the
Seashore Recreation Survey of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, (Washington,
D.C., 1955).
3 Ibid., p. ii.
4 Ibid., pp. 11-13.
5 Ibid., p. 9.
6 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation for
America, (Washington, D.C., 1962), p. 2.
7 O.R.R.R.C. , Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States, Study
Report 4, (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1962).
8 Ibid., p- 2-
9 Ibid., pp. 4-5.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 The U.S. President's Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty, From Sea-
to Shining Sea, (Washington, D.C., 1968), p. 176.
14 U.S. White House Conference, "Beauty for America," Proceedings of the
White House Conference on Natural beauty, (Washington, D.C., Government
Printing Office, 1965), p. 16.
15 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Islands of
America, (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1970), p.6.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., p. 42.
18 Henry Jackson, Congressional Record, Senate, March 30, 1973, p. 35273.
19 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Nantucket
Sound Island Trust; report to accompany S. 67. (Washington, D.C., Government
Printing Office, 1975). 94th Congress, 1st session, Senate Report No. 94-493,
pp. 9-10.

20 Council on Environmental Quality,@The President's Environmental Program,
"The President's Message to Congress," (Washington, D.C., Government Printing
Office, 1977) p. M-8.
21 U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, Science and
Environment, Volume 1, "Report of the Panel on Management and Development of
the Coastal Zone," (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1969).
22 Ibid., p. 11. 5.
23 Ibid., p. 111. 17.
24 The U.S. President's Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty, From Sea
to Shining Sea, (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1968).
25 Ibid., pp. 175-179.
26 U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, The National Shoreline
Study, (Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1971).
27 Ibid., p. 13.
28 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Papers
on National Land Use Policy Issues, by Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Boston University (Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office, 1971).
29 U.S. Congress, Senate, Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Section
302(a).
30 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Report No. 94-878, 94th Congress,
2nd section, March 4, 1976.
31 Ibid.
32 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, Report, Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1975,
(Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1976), p. 38.
33 U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Commerce, Coastal Zone Management Act
Amendments of 1975, report to accompany S. 586, (Washington, D.C., Government
Printing Office, 1975). 94th Congress, 1st session, Senate Report No. 94-277,
p. 2.

.27

ORO

wop 7.-

4@6

..V'A

III. Supply of and Demand for Beaches

The beaches of this Nation are one of our most valued resources. More
generally, water can also be considered an important resource in terms of
outdoor recreation. Activities defined as water-based include swimming,
boating, and fishing and because of their popularity a 1large portion of
America's outdoor recreation occurs in the coastal zone. In addition, many
shoreline areas have environmental, historical, ecological, aesthetic, and
cultural value.

Beaches can be used to accommodate a wide variety and range of
recreation activities. In the coastal States people participate more in
swimming than they do in any other form of outdoor recreation. The 744
million activity days of swimming per year exceed the participation in the
next most popular activity (walking for pleasure) by nearly one-quarter of a
billion activity days. (An activity day is.defined as one'person engaged in
recreation in an activity for one day.) Boating and water skiing are
projected to be the third and fifth fastest growing outdoor recreation
activities. It has been projected 2that the greatest increases in demand
will be for water-based activities. It is predicted that by 1980, swimming
will be the number one outdoor recreation activity overall, and will havs
experienced an increase of 72 percent over what it was in the year 1965.

Long and continued upward demand trends are apparent in terms of
coastal-based outdoor recreation areas. Increases in the total population
are a significant factor in placing greater demands on coastal areas.
Increases in disposable income and an improved standard of living have also
led to an increased usage of the shoreline. Accompanying this increase in
disposable income is an increase in the amount of leisure time, which also
heightens the demand for water-related recreation. Improvement in
transportation similarly is a factor in increasing the demand placed on our
beaches.

In 1954, the National Park Service conducted a survey of the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts, which documented the use and ownership of coastal
recreation resources. The inventory reported that only 6.5 percent4pf the
Nation's shoreline in this area was in Federal and State ownership. Not
all of this land was dedicated to recreational purposes. Therefore, Federal
and State governments began acquiring land and increasing public ownership.

In 1962, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC)
submitted to Congress a report entitled Shoreline Recreation Resources
in the United States. The total shoreline of the United States was found
be 59,157 statute miles, of which 21,157 was classified as recreation
shoreline (see Table 1). These figures indicated that less than 2 percent
of the total detailed shoreline was in public ownership. Of the shore ine
classified as recreational, only 5.5 percent was publicly owned.

Table 1. Mileage of detailed shoreline, recreation shoreline, public
recreation shoreline, and restricted shoreline, by major
coastlines.*

Public
Detailed Recreatio@ Recreation Restricted
Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline
(Statute (Statute (Statute (Statute
Shoreline Location Miles) Miles) Miles) Miles)

Atlantic Ocean 28,377 9,961 336 263
Gulf of Mexico 17,437 4,319 121 134
Pacific Ocean 7,863 3,175 296 127
Great Lakes 5,380 4,269 456 57

U.S. Total 59,157 21,724 1,209 581

1 Recreation shoreline is measured by the same methods and criteria used by
the Coast and Geodetic Survey. The totals in this table and the State
totals found elsewhere in the study are the result of including all such
measured shoreline that meets the above criteria. These figures will
undoubtedly differ from those published by many States. While some
difference in the totals may be attributed to the inability of this study
to identify all public shoreline areas, a major reason for the
discrepancy is the different criteria used by this study and by the
various States in their reports..

Source: Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Study Report 4,
Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States (1962)

Table 2. National Shoreline Study*

Total Erodible Publicly Public Recreation
Shoreline Location Shoreline Owned Use

Atlantic Ocean and 27,680 6,260 2,130
Gulf of Mexico
Pacific Ocean 4,650 1,240 790
Great Lakes 3,680 650 370

Total 360010 8V150 3,290

NOTE: This study excludes Alaska and Hawaii.

Source: U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, The National
Shoreline Study, (1971)

Approximately half of this public recreation shoreline is restricted for
military use.

The most recent available data on the status of public shoreline is
supplied by The National Shoreline Study, authorized by Congress in 1968.
This study was completed by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1971 (see Table
2). In comparison with the 1962 study discussed above, these figures seem
to indicate a large increase of 2081 miles in terms of public recreational
opportunities. But a problem of interpretation arises when one attempts to
compare these data with that of the ORRRC report. Dennis Ducsik in his
Shoreline for the Public speaks to this point:

The most important difficulty arises from the uncertain
relationship between shore ownership to shore use. Much of
the shoreline reported as used for public recreation may
actually be in private ownership and thus susceptible to the
increasing trend of private owners to restrict public access
as demands increase. Furthermore, data on public ownership
is not disaggregatef to indicate how much is devoted to
recreation purposes.

Ducsik also points out that although the supply of public recreation
shoreline has increased, the percentage used by the public still remains
low.

This imbalance between the supply and the ever-increasing shoreline
demand for resources must be redressed. Measures should be taken to broaden
public access to coastal beaches. A major factor influencing the
recreational use of coastal or water resources is accessibility. The lack
of access significantly diminishes the use of available resources. Man-made
barriers have inhibited the public's access to and use of coastal areas and
water resources. For example, development projects and the construction of
second homes have created walls of private property along our shorelines.

One of the greatest difficulties in assessing the demand and supply of
our coastline is the lack of adequate data. As part of States'
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, surveys funded by BOR are being
undertaken to determine the number of people involved in particular
recreation activities and the amount of use and supply of facilities and
resources. But all of these data yield only aggregate recreation figures
for the individual States. Information pertaining to the supply of publicly
owned coastal resources and the demand to use these resources does not
exist, except for a few isolated instances (for example, Public Beach Access
and Recreation in South Carolina). Studies which do speak to the coastal
zone supply recreation figures only. They do not deal with the importance of
coastal beaches in terms of their aesthetic, ecological, historical, and
cultural value. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, a large part of
the data comes from eleven State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans.
Other surveys were used and reference is made to these reports in the

bibliography. The eleven States used in this study were chosen based on the
availability of pertinent data. Hence, supply and demand figures will
pertain to these eleven States, unless otherwise noted.

DF-MAND

The lure of the sea has been fictionalized at least since the time of
Homer's Odyss;ey. Man has always been drawn to the sea and to its glistening
sandy beaches; Our Nation's shoreline, consisting of over 20,000 miles of
unusual and lovely landscape, is one of our most priceless resources. The
1962 ORRRC study, Shoreline Recreation Resources in the United States,
describes the qualities of land and sea which have attracted man through the
ages:

A feature that does seem to discriminate "the shore" from
other areas, in the public mind, is the coupling of expanse of
view with proximity to the sea or other large body of water.
The broad sweep of water extending to or near the horizon is
invariably associated with "the shore" uniquely. Another
discriminating quality is the existence of a marine climate
and environment, identified by such weather phenomena as the
occurrence of wind from off the water, the temperature
influence of the water, waves aV other weather feature
associated with large water masses.

This Nation is characterized by incr eases and gains. More people, with
growing disposable incomes and ever-increasing amounts of leisure time, have
intensified the demand for coastal beaches and their importance as a
significant outdoor recreation resource. Any survey that is undertaken is
sure to find that beaches and water oriented activities are emphasized
American modes of recreation. The ORRRC makes reference to the presence of
water as a main recreation attraction in its final report:

Most people seeking outdoor recreation want water to sit by,
to swim and fish in, to ski across, to dive under, and to run
their boats over. Swimming is now one of the most popular outdoor
activities and is likely to be the most popular of all by the turn
of the century. Boating and fishing are among the top 10
activities. Camping, picnicking, and hiki@g, also high on the
list, are more attractive near water sites.

Increases in water-related activities have been found to surpass
increases in population. The U.S. Bureau of , Outdoor Recreation's
Outdoor Recreation Trends indicates that for the years 1960 to 1965 the
damand for water-oriented activities such as swimming, boating, and fishing
increased by 18 percent, 15 percent, and 12 percent respectively. The
increases in population were only 8 percent. Projections were also made for

the years 1960 to 1980. They indicated that the demand for swimming will
rise by 72 gercent while an increase of only 2 percent is projected for the
population. In terms of the particular States studied by BOR,
water-oriented activities ranked among the top five for Florida,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and
Wisconsin, and the top ten for the States of Maryland, Virginia, and
California.

Swimming has been found to be one of the most popular water-related
activities. It -has been reported that in terms of user participation,
swimming was ranked 9econd, but by 1980 it will be the number one outdoor
recreation activity. In a 1970 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation report,
swimming and boatil&g were found to have increased by almost fifty percent
from 1960 levels.

In assessing the demand for coastal beaches, several determinants can
be used. In terms of recreational use of beaches, demand is based on
participation rates. But the primary factor contributing to the
determination of demand for coastal beaches should be their accessibility.
Potential users should be able to reach the shoreline and then use it for
whatever their desired activity may be. New Jersey's comprehensive outdoor
recreation plan is one of the few studies in which accessibility is used as
a factor in ascertaining demand. Due to lack of appropriate data, any
demand figures given for specific States will therefore be based on
participation or user rates.

Wisconsin's shoreline and water resources are primary attractions and
the use of water-related facilities has been increasing. This is evidenced
by the fact that the most popular activity in the State is swimming.
Approximately 673,000 people are involved in swimming on the average
seasonal weekend and about twice thH number are expected to participate on
the largest use-day of the season. Swimming ranks first in terms of use
by residents, and in some instances nonresident use may equal or exceed that
of the residents. State-owned beaches were found to have four times as many
users as private beaches. The demand for coastal beaches in Wisconsin is
great, but conflicts withlirivate lakeshore owners has deterred the
fulfillment of this demand.

A growing demand for coastal, beaches and water-oriented activities
exists in many other coastal States (see Table 3). Swimm, ranks number
one in terms of activity days in the State of Michigan. In South
Carolina, in-State vacation activity participation for swimming at beaches
is 84.5 percent and for boating and fishing it is 40.2 percent. These
beach- and water-Wated activities yield the highest percentages in terms
of participation. Participation percentages in beach activities along the
Texas Gulf Coast were projected for several years. By the year 2000,
participation in swimming is expected to increase by 375 percent, fishing by
225 percent, boating will increase by 400 percent, and surfing by 325
percent. Over the projected years, the resources which indicated the

greatest need for access improvement are thcff which show expected increases
in participation, namely beach activities. In the State of Virginia,
beach use and other water-related activities show anticipated incrigses in
activity demand of 60 and 70 percent for the years of 1972 to 1990. Beach
use ranks among the top five activities in the State of Oregon, and other
waterigriented activities rank among the top ten in terms of activity
days.

Table 3. Projected Growth in Shoreline Recreational Activities

Annual Growth Rate Coastal Participation
Activity (Percent) 1975 (Millions)

Swimming 3.8 40
Boating 4.o 14
Fishing 1.8 16

Source: Dennis W. Ducsik, Shoreline for the Public, A Handbook of Social,
Economic, and Legal Considerations Regarding Public Recreational
Use of the Nation's Coastal Shoreline (1974).

According to Massachusett's comprehensive outdoor recreation plan,
swimming, with a response of 41.7 percent ranks first as the activity most
frequently used (see Table 4). None of the other recreation activities can
compare to swimming in terms of its prominence. The demand for coastal
beaches can be demonstrated by the relative importance of a water body on or
near a site. Visitors to particular recreation sites in Massachusetts
elicited responses pertaining to 1@he importance of water bodies as a drawing
factor 98.5 percent of the time. The projected growth is most significant
in terms of swimming in natural bodies of water. This activity already
accounts for the largest liumber of activity days and its projected annual
growth rate is 4 percent.

Due to Florida's physiography, the most popular recreation activities
are beach-oriented. Nearly half of thegesidents and two thirds of the
tourists make use of Florida's beaches. But these have become heavily
congested due to decreasing resource availability, limited accessibility,
and rapidly increasing demand. Much of this pressure comes from a growing
State population along with developmental encroachment upon the beaches by
hotels and motels. The demand for saltwater beach (in units of one thousand
square If et) in 1975 was 64,545 and the projected demand for 1990 equals
87,781. The annual statewide participation rate for beach activitie S22
yields a percentage of 46.6 for residents and 67.6 percent for tourists.
Clearly the demand to use beaches is very high in Florida and it is expected
to increase, placing more pressure on the State's existing supply of
beaches.

Table 4. Summer Recreation Activities: Percent Respondents
Mentioning Activity As Most Frequent

Activity Statewide Boston Springfield

Swimming 41.7% 23.3% 34.4%
Picnicking 2.5 8.3 16.4
Camping 4.8 1.7 8.2
Canoeing and Sailing 3.0 3.3 0.0
Hiking and Walking 7.8 10.0 1.6
Tennis 8.1 0.0 3.3
Golf 3.3 0.0 3.3
Various Ball Sports* 1.8 15.0 11.5
Going to the Beach 4.5 13.3 0.0
Fishing 1.3 3.3 11.5
Bicycling 1.5 0.0 4.9
None/Nothing 8.8 15.0 0.0
All Other 10.9 6.8 4.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Football, baseball, soccer, kickball, etc.

Source: Department of Environmental Management, Massachusetts Outdoors,
Statewide CoTprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (1976).

Swimming ranks as the most popular outdoor recreation activity in New
Jersey. During the peak season there is a demand for approximately 40
million recreation days in New Jersey. Fishing and boating, the second most
popular water-related activities, rank among the top ten outdoor recreation
activities in New Jersey (see Table 5).

New Jersey is the most densely populated State in our Nation. This
density and the many man-made barriers preventing use of beaches, has caused
the demand on existing swimming facilities to be very great. At the present
time, 97 percent of the existing swil .ying facilities are provided by the
private sector and municipal level. High user fees and restrictions
which attempt to limit the use of beaches to residents have created barriers
to public use. On an average weekend day during that year's peak season,
the 1985 recreational demand for swimming is projected tq@4@e 1,117,500
people and in the year 2000 it is expected to be 1,628,100.

Projected demand indicates an increasing use of and need for coastal
beaches. If one takes into account that the American people show a decided
preference for the shoreline, that there has been an increasing use of
coastal beaches for nonrecreation activities, and that many of our beaches
are relatively inaccessible, it becomes clear that means for dedicating more
of our shoreline for recreational purposes must be sought.

Table 5. Ranking by Popularity of Twenty-Three Outdoor Recreation
Activities, 1970 (In Recreation Days, Peak Season Demand)

Swimming 38,731,414
Driving for Pleasure 33,497,825
Walking for Pleasure 29,134,123
Playing Outdoor Games 19,733,592
Picnicking 14,111,780
Sightseeing 12,063,002
Fishing 9,637,482
Boating 7,964,043
Bicycling 7,131,093
Nature Walking 5,636,572
Attending Outdoor Sports 5,537,280
Sledding 5,528,605
Ice Skating 5,014,118
Camping 2,778,600
Hunting 3,728,734
Water Skiing 11823,584
Hiking 1,743,625
Attending Outdoor Concerts 1,683,857
Horseback Riding 1,268,661
Snow Skiing 1,201,668
Sailing 613,631
Canoeing 468,090
Mountain Climbing 63,809

Source: Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Environmental
Review, Outdoor Recreation in New Jersey (1973).

SUPPLY

One of the most pressing problems with coastal beaches is their supply.
Our shoreline is a resource in great demand, yet it is extremely scarce in
terms of public ownership. Approximately 90 percent of this highly
desirable resource is in private control, less than 7 percent is in public
ownership for recreational purposes and Vout 3 percent of the total
shoreline is restricted for. military use. The present supply of publicly
owned shoreline is not adequate to meet the existing demand and is
dramatically short of meeting the projected demand.

The two shoreline characteristics which are most essential in any
determination of the needs of this Nation are accessibility and
availability. The demand for coastal beaches is growing. There are now a
great number of public beaches but the demand exceeds the supply by a wide
margin. This burgeoning demand can be met by making much more of our
shoreline accessible to the public. As the ORRRC report of 1962 emphasizes,

the shoreline is there, the demand to use it is also there, but the means of
getting to many coastal areas does not exist. "Although comparative figures
are not available, it is a valid generalization that certain easily
accessible beaches are more popular and well attended 2thile others less
accessible but equally well endowed are less popular." The report gives
examples of several early accessible beaches in Los Angeles and on Long
Island that are overcrowded while equally good or better beaches receive
much less use due to their inaccessibility.
The tidal coastline of Massachusetts is approximately 1200 i@les long,
but public access to Massachusetts beaches is extremely limited. Less than
175 miles of Massachusetts shoreline is open to the public, but a large
portion of it is rej@ricted by the use of prohibitive fees, regulations, and
inadequate parking. The Massachusetts SCORP states that "since the ocean
beaches of Massachusetts are a resource of statewide if not national
significance, tbf9severe limits on their availability to the public poses a
serious problem.

Swimming has one of the highest participation rates of any form of
recreation. Only part of the demand for swimming is being met and the
demand of those still searching for coastal swimming opportunities is higher
than it is for any other activity.

Salt wate.r fishing in Massachusetts is another coastal activity which
has been on the rise. The amount of participation in fishing in
Massachusetts is greater t4n it is in the combined States of Maine, Rhode
Island, and New Hampshire. Fishing generates substantial income for the
State but it places further demand on coastal access. Even the smallest
access points along the coast can be useful to fishermen. . The supply of
publicly owned access to fishing areas is inadequate. If more shoreline was
accessible and open to the public, Massachusetts's unfulfilled demand could
be met.

One of the most critical problems facing Florida is the decreasing
accessibility and availability of coastal beaches. Out of the nearly 11,000
miles of Florida's shoreline, 1358 miles are sandy beaches. Only 151 miles
of the shoreline have been designated as public beach. Many problems have
handicapped Florida in its efforts to meet the public's demand for these
beaches. The power of eminent domain to acquire lands for outdoor recrea-
tion does not exist. Nor is the public access to beaches and navigable
waters often provided over private lands. Public access has been and is
still being diminished by intensive coastal development projects. The
demand to use Florida's shoreline is great, @yt the supply of publicly owned
beach is not sufficient to meet this demand.

New Jersey's Atlantic coastline consists of 127 miles and it is the
State's single greatest natural resource. Approximately 55 percent of the
State's shoreline is found in the South Shore Region and the remaining 45
percent is located in the North Shore. Nearly 70 percent of New Jersey's
Atlantic coastline is publicly owned and less than 30 percent is owned by
private interests (see Table 6).

Table 6. New Jersey's Atlantic Coastline Ownership 1969

Publicly Owned Privately Owned
Shoreline Shoreline

Percent of Percent of
Total Total Total
Shoreline Length Shoreline Length Shoreline
Region (feet) (feet) M, (feet) M

North Shore 263,646 153,841 58.5 109,805 41.6
South Shore 376,234 298,501 79.3 77,733 20.7

State Total 639,880 452,342 70.7 187,538 29.3

*Source: Department of Environmental Protection, Outdoor Recreation In New
Jersey, (1973)

Although a large percentage of the shoreline is publicly owned, beach
user fees, charged by many of the shore communities, severely limit accessi-
bility. An inadequate supply of parking and launching areas also reduces
the usefulness of the State's coastal resources. The lack of access to New
Jersey's coastline is considered to be a significant factor. Demand for the
coastal beaches is great and despite the access problems, the shoreline
draws hordes of people every hot and muggy weekend. But the relatively few
and easily accessible areas are the most heavily used. Other parts of the
coastline are underutilized because of their lack of accessibility.

Public accessways are considered to be an important factor in meeting
the demand for coastal beaches in Texas. The Texas coastline consists of
2264 miles, but approximately 72 percent of the bay frontage and 56 percent
of the Gulf frontage is considered inaccessible. (Accessible frontage is
defined in Texas' SCORP as coastline that is within one mile of any known
public road. The total amount of accessible open Gulf frontage is 173 miles
and accessible bay frontage is 529 miles (see Table 7).

Private ownership and natural barriers have limited access to Texas's
public beaches. There are only a few roads running along the coastline
which permit visual contact with the Gulf and the ocean. Only three major
highways provide meaningful coastal access and these are heavily utilized.
Therefore, access to many coastal areas must be by boat. But many Texas
counties restrict boat launching access. This situation has left large
portions of the Texas shoreline relatively inaccessible.

Wisconsin has many high quality shorefront resources. Coastal beaches
are numerous in the northern lake.country and the Great Lake counties. The
total number of beaches in Wisconsin is 1261. The private sector is the
major provider of beach facilities but, in terms of area, there is more
public beach than there is private (see Table 8).

Table 7. Texas Shoreline Summary* (in miles)

Gulf Gulf Bay Bay
Frontage Frontage Total Frontage Frontage Total
Accessi- Iaacces- Gulf Accessi- Inacces- Bay
ble ble Frontage ble ble Front
Region/County Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles

24 Calhoun 0 42 42 73 184 260
24 Jackson 0 0 0 14 24 38
25 Harris 0 0 0 35 30 65
27 Orange 0 0 0 2 6 8
27 Jefferson 25 9 34 22 2 24
28 Brazoria 22 11 33 11 67 78
28 Chambers 2 0 2 42 16 58
28 Galveston, 62 0 62 83 70 153
28 Matagorde 10 50 60 32 108 140
33 Aransas 0 19 19 59 112 168
33 Kenedy 0 48 48 0 203 203
33 Kleberg 13 9 22 10 227 237
33 Nueces 22 0 22 73 19 92
33 Refugio 0 0 0 16 36 52
33 San Patricio 0 0 0 33 19 52
34 Cameron 17 16 33 .22 144 166
34 Willacy 0 13 13 2 78 80

Total 173 217 390 529 1,345 1,874

*Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Outdoor Plan, (1975).

Table 8. Swimming Facilities in Wisconsin, 1975*

Beaches
Ownership No. Sq. Meters Sq. Feet

Public
Federal 54 329,117 3,542,704
State 34 419,079 4,511,074
County 138 570,813 6,144,384
Municipal 246 768,301 81,270,194

Subtotal 476 2,087,310 22,468,356
Private 740 812,594 8,746,974
Total 1,216 2,899,904 31,215,330

*Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Outdoor
Recreation Plan, Statewide Analysis, (1976).

Recreation activities dependent on coastal beaches in Wisconsin have
reached a level of participation which can no longer be efficiently
accomodated under present supply conditions. Improved fishing opportunities
in the Great Lakes have resulted in increased demands for facilities which
allow shoreline fishing and also for access to those facilities. Conflicts
have erupted among water users between coastal homeowners and those who have
come to the shore merely for recreation. The upland owner has the exclusive
right to use the beach area between the mean highwater mark and the existing
water's edge. An increase in the public access to Wisconsin's shoreline
needs to be brought about both to meet the rising demand and to ease the
growing tensions between coastal users.

The State of Maryland owns all lands below mean high tide, but less
than 2 percent of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay shoreline is open to public.
This lack of public access is due in part to the fact that a majority of the
land adjacent to the mean IL h
-4 tide mark is either privately owned or within
Federal military reserves. The inaccessibility of many of Maryland's
water resources is obviously a major deterrent to their use.

The California coastline consists of 1154 miles, of whi 0 740 are pri-
vately owned and the remaining 414 are owned by the public. The public
has the right to use any tidal or submerged lands in California. But in
-order to use them the public must be able to get to them. Most of the
uplands are in private ownership, and it has become common practice for
upland owners to ban access or to charge parking o 54 access fees to get to
the State-owned lands beyond.

The lack of public access in the State of Michigan is also significant.
There are 1611 miles of recreational shoreline, of which only 67 miles are
available for public use. Private ownership usually extends to the water's
edge.

The supply of publicly owned coastal beaches in several States is
adequate, but overall, the demand to use this valuable resource is far
greater than the existing supply. The demand for beach activities has been
increasing at a rapid rate. By the year 1980, swimming is projected to be
the number one outdoor recreation activity. But the supply of publicly
owned shoreline is projected to basically remain the same with only a few
increases in acreage. In States in which there is a sufficient supply of
coastal beaches, the demand is still un et due to problems of distribution.
A few popular and accessible beaches are heavily used, while other beaches
of equal quality and value remain underutilized due to the lack of access to
them. In order to meet this growing demand for one of our Nation's prized
resources, more beaches must be made accessble to the public.

Thus it is seen that in many States there are large beach areas owned
by the public or which the public has the right to use (see Chapter IV) but,
to which it has no access. It is also clear that the demand for beaches and
other water recreation resources is great and exceeds the existing supply,
and the demand promises to become even greater.

Beach Access

The surging popularity of beach activities has greatly increased the
necessity of supplying public access to our coastal beaches. By doing so,
it is possible to open up coastal beaches previously blocked by privately
owned and, perhaps, developed property which has inhibited the use of the
available coastline. Many existing watel, access areas are small, extending
from one-fourth of an acre to 40 acres. But access areas are the medium
by which great areas of water and coastline can be made available to the
public.

The extent of use on water access points within publicly designated
recreation areas was inventoried in the ORRRC Study Report 1. The patterns
of use pressure for State and Federal areas were found to be similar. But
for local areas the degree of use was much higher. The study reported that
between 50 and 58 pl6cent of their total recreation areas were being used at
or above capacity. The most common access problem found in public
recreation areas was lack of parking facilities. Local areas once again
reported the heaviest pressure. Out of the total number of water access
areas, 'most are State controlled and the smallest number are managed by
local levels of goverment. But local recreation areas receive the heaviest
use pressure on their water access points. This clearly points to the need
for more public access land.

Many coastal States feel that the problem of public access is an acute
one. They have spoken to the need for more access land to coastal beaches
in their State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORPS). Several
States have established boards or sqt up programs to deal specifically with
the subject of managing and controlling the use of the shoreline.

The State of Texas stresses that a higher priority should be placed on
providing better access to the exj@sting waters and coastal beaches which
offer recreational opportunities. According to that State's SCORP, "Land
access to public recreational waters in Texas should be increased. Texas
has many lakes, reservoirs, rivers and streams, and miles of bay and Gulf
frontage. However, existing public recreah6on areas adjacent to many of
these waters themselves are underutilized". The State of Texas feels that
the public should. be able to exercise its right to use public beaches. In
1959, the Texas legislature passed the "Texas Open Beaches Act" which grants
public use, f rom the mea ii low tide to the vegetation line, of beaches which
have open Gulf exposure. In the State of Texas it is considered public
policy that people have the right to gain access to and to use and enjoy the
coastal beaches.

In defining the recreational goals for Oregon the legislative assembly
acknowledged and announced in Chapter 299, Oregon Law of 1965, that:

It is the public interest to increase outdoor
recreation opportunities commensurate with the growth
in need through necessary and appropriate actions,
including but not limited to, the following:
Provision for access 42 to public lands and waters
having recreational values.

Oregon also has an open beach law whi ch preserves intertidal areas for
public use. The law permits the purchase of private property adjacent to
the ocean shore so that it may be used for public access if it is not
already used for that purpose.

Public access is considered a major element for the recreational use of
Wisconsin's coastal beaches and navigable waters. The Great Lakes are an
underutilized resource existing next to many of Wisconsin's major
concentrations of population. However, the public cannot make use of the
State's water and coastal beaches unless it can lawfully gain access to
them. Wisconsin's Coastal Management Program completed a policy study in
1976 which reported that "a need for public access exists, including harbor
access, ramp access, shore access, pier access, and visual access." IF4

Wisconsin's concern for public access is evidenced by the State's
resolution to provide funding for an Access Aid Program. 4@ isconsin has also
chosen to adopt a public access subdivision requirement. In addition, a
Public Access to Water Program has been developed. The program's funds are
essentially used for the development of ramp access sites. Wisconsin's local
units of government may use this money for the acquisition of lands which
can supply public access by the use of water, road, trail, or throush the
privilege of crossing public or private lands without trespassing. 4t- In
1966, Wisconsin adopted the Water Resources Act both to provide public
access to navigable waters and to prevent the destruction of scenic
shoreline due to development projects.

A high priority is placed on the Great Lakes due to their unique
coastal beaches and their great potential in terms of recreational
opportunities. Hence, public access to lake shoreline is considered to be
one of the most important issues in coastal recreation.

According to 'the Massachusetts SCORP it is the State's policy to "take
aggressive measures to broaden public access to @y astal beaches in the
context of current coastal zone planning efforts." In a study undertaken
to determine the relative importance of negative factors affecting
recreation and other uses of coastal beaches, inaccessibility accounted for
76.7 percent of the total acreage in which this factor was mentioned.
Limited parking and restrictive use by the general public also yielded high
percentages as negative factors. A Public Access Board was established
which further points out the importance of public access as an issue in
Massachusetts. The board examines and indicates areas in which access
should be provided to coastal beaches and waters. In particular, it
arranges for the construction of approach roads, parking areas, and
launching ramps.

The State of Virginia reported that, if legal physical access should be
provided to the many miles of beach and water, projected needs could be
reduced. Virginia's SCORP advises that areas with recreational ocean front-
age should receive favora%@e priority based on their physical
characteristics or location. Providing public access to land and water
resources is also considered to be one of Virginia's general priorities.
Virginia also has a Recreational Access Road Fund which provides for public
access to officially designated recreational or historic areas.

Florida's beach access problem is particularly acute. Development
projects have created walls of hotels and private residences which in many
places make it virtually impossible for the general public to get to the
shoreline. Beach activities constitute the most popular resource-based form
of recreation. Florida's SCORP recommends that a high priority be placed on
acquiring beaches and developing public access to them. The SCORP states
specifically that:

The State should formulate a policy concerning the provision
of public access to beaches. Through its sovereignty, the State
owns virtually all lands seaward of the high mean water line.
Thus, the public has the right to be on that portion of the beach.
But, corridors should be provided to the public in areas of high
demand where uivately owned lands would otherwise seal off access
to the beach.

In the State of New Jersey, a detailed study of the coastal zone and
bays is expected to be undertaken. According to New Jersey's SCORP, this
study will attempt to insure the proper distribution of shore use between
private owners and the general public. The SCORP also makes several
recommendations of what the State's general acquisition priorities should
be. Acting upon these priorities would bring about increased public access
to the coastal zone. A few of these priorities are as follows:

Areas possessing significant natural and cultural resources
including outstanding scenic resources, coastal beaches and
wetlands, natural areas with rare or unique biotic communities,
potential reservoir sites, aquifer recharge areas, flood plans and
historic sites;

Most desirable recreation development sites reflecting
physical suitability and public accessibility;

Public access to recreation resources with unrealized
potential such as 5tays, rivers, lakes, and existing publicly owned
open space areas.

Also mentioned in the SCORP are general access needs. One example is
accessibility in the form of additional launching facilities to unlock the
potential of New Jersey's water and coastal resources. The SCORP further
points out that the State needs to procure rights-of-way in order to provide
boaters legal access to water bodies. Recreational waterways should also be
established with adequate access and supporting facilities.

California's SCORP also suggests that acquisition and development
problems should receive high priority. Acquisition of access lands is
considered to be one of the more urgent priorities. California's waterways
and coastal beaches are limited and valuable resources, not only in terms of
recreational opportunities, but also in terms of their aesthetic and visual
value. A great number of California's waterways and beaches have been
engulfed by metropolitan development projects. One of the SCORP recommen-
dations to alleviate the intense pressure being placed on California's
waterways is that "Federal, State, and local governments should acquire

access to those major waterways with a large potential for recreation on the
water surface or at the * immediate shoreline, where access algie, without
extensive development can provide for major recreational use."

In addition, the SCORP-speaks to the need for lightening the use
pressure that is being applied to California's shoreline. This
recommendation should be directed towards meeting recreational needs in the
coastal zone. California's SCORP advises that "the State of California
should provide more public beac N 2area and more access to the coast in
central and southern California."

California also addresses the coastal access problem and suggests that
a high priority should be given to "areas that will provide for public
access to and protection, preservation, -and recreational use of ocean and
bay frontage. Projects in this category include acquisition and development
projects p r. arily for visitor access and recreational use of the ocean
shoreline."

The State of California has adopted several strong measures to deal
specifically with problems facing the coastal zone. In 1970, California
passed AB493 which prohibits the approval of any shoreline subdivision that
does not supply reasonable public access from the public highways to the
land which lies below the mea 94 high watermark, within or at a reasonable
distance from the subdivision. California's Coastline Commission has also
stressed the need for public access. land. T@e Commission suggests that
exclusive subdivisions (second home developments) need to take more of the
public's needs into consideration, for example providing ptLILlic access to
beaches, before permission for construction will be granted.J*J

In undertaking studies to determine specific coastal access problems,
several other States have spoken to the need for more public access land.
Maryland's SCORP suggests a variety of considerations which should be taken
into account when present and future needs are being assessed. It states
that "a pleasant recreation are Will be heavily used if it is convenient to
large concentrations of people. Maryland's SCORP also feels that the need
for public access land is great. I

The Great Lakes have been facing increasing use of their waterways and
shoreline by those participating in the activities of swimming, boating, and
fishing. As use accelerates, so too will the demand for more and better
access sites. According to the Michigan SCORP, "The purchase and
development of one access site in each lake not presently accessible by the
public would increase the amount of manageable inlanVake surface from the
present 500,000 acres to 600,000 acres in the State."

South Carolina has undertaken one of the most detailed beach access
studies (Public Beach Access and Recreation in South Carolina). The State's
beaches were inventoried and their suitability for intensive use was deter-
mined. Access problems were identified and a Beach Access Acquisition Pro-
gram was devised for recommendations. This study advises that beach access
is definitely a problem in South Carolina and that the legislature should
focus specifically on beach access needs.

The supply of coastal beaches in the Virgin Islands is severely
limited, yielding problems of intense overcrowding. Adding to this
inadequate supply and growing demand is the problem of beach access; the
Virgin Islands' beaches have been severely altered due to shoreline
development. Access has been restricted by the construction of
tourist-oriented projects. In 1971, the Virgin Island's territorial
government enacted the "Open Shorelines Act" (No. 3063) as an attempt to
provide public access rights to the shoreline. As a result of this
legislation, the public has seaward access and both lateral use and access
to the coastline. However, upland property owners may still restrict
public from access to the be-aches, so, the problem remains unresolved.

FOOTNOTES

1 Department of Environmental Protection, Office of-Environmental Review,
Outdoor Recreation in New Jersey (1973).
2 U.S. DOI, BOR, Outdoor Recreation, A Legacy for America, Appendix A, An
Economic Analysis (1973).
3 U.S. DOI, BOR, Outdoor Recreation Trends, (1967).
4 U.S. DOI, National Park Service, Seashore Recreation Area Survey of the
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, (1955).
5 Ducsik, Dennis W., Shoreline for the Public, A Handbook of Social,
Economic and Legal Considerations ReSarding Public Recreational Use of the
Nation's Coastal Shoreline, Cambridge, Ma ssachusetts, (1974), p. 44.
6 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Study Report 4, Shoreline
Recreation Resources of the United States, (1962), p. 11.
7 U.S. DOI, BOR, Outdoor Recreation for America, A Report to the President
and Congress by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, (1962),
p. 20.
8 See U.S. DOI, BOR, supra note 3.
9 U.S. DOI, BOR, The 1965 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities, (1965).
10 U.S. DOI, BOR, The 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities,
Preliminary Report, (1972).

11
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Outdoor Recreational
Plan, Statewide Analysis, (1976), p. vii-2.
12 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation
Plan, (1972), p. 5.
13 Michigaa Department of Natural Resources, Mighigan Recreation Plan, (1974),
p. 27.
14 U.S. DOI, BOR, South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism,
Public Beach Access and Recreation in South Carolina, (1976), p. 110.
15 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Outdoor Plan., (1975), p. 34.
16 Commission of Outdoor Recreation, The Virginia Outdoors Plan, (1974),
p. 36.
17
U.S. DOI, BOR, Oregon State Highway Division, Supplements and Revisions to
Oregon Outdoor Recreation, (1972).

18 Department of Environmental Management, Massachusetts Outdoors, Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, (1976), p. 47.
19 Ibid. at 20.
20 Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks, Outdoor
Recreation in Florida, (1976), p. 92.
21 Ibid. at 140.
22 Ibid. at 88.
23 Department of Environmental Protecti'on, Office of Environmental Review,
Outdoor Recreation in New Jersey, (1973), p. 94.
24 Ibid. at 40.
25 See ORRRC supra note 6.
26 Ibid. at 13.
27 See Department of Environmental Management, supra note 18, at 68.
28 Ibid. at 112.
29 Ibid.
30 Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program, Draft, (1977), p. 2-F/8.
31 See D Iepartment of Natural Resources, Divisions of Recreation and Parks,
supra note 20.
32 Perkins, Kenneth E., Director; Coastal Zone Unit, Memorandum to Richard
Gardner, Deputy Director; Office Coastal Zone Management, "Importance of
Section 315(2) Fundings to Maryland," March 8, 1977.
33 Stanford Law Review 564, Public Use of Coastal Beaches, Vol. 22, (1970).
34 ORRRC, Inventory of Physical'and Administrative Aspects of Shoreline
Recreation, Appendix B, (1962), p.42.
35 ORRRC, Study Report 1, Public Outdoor Recreation Areas Acreage, Use,
Potential, (1962), p. 139.
36 Ibid. at 59.
37 See Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, supra note 15, at 17.
38 Ibid. at 84.
39 Ibid. at 14.
40 Ibid. at 81.

41 Ibid. at 378.
42 See U.S. DOI, BOR, Oregon State Highway Division, supra note 17, at .2.
43 Council on Environmental Quality, Subdividing Rural America, (1962), p. 4-3.
" See Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, supra note 11.
45 Newman, Michael T., Public Access to the Great Lakes, A Policy Stud
(1976), p. 2.
46 Ibid. at 29.
47 See Department of Environmental Management, supra note 18, at 112.
48 See Commission of Outdoor Recreation, supra note 16, at 151.
49 See Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks,
supra. note 23, at 132.
50 See Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Environmental Review,
supra note 23, at 166.
51 Department of Parks and Recreation, California Outdoor RecreatioaResources
Plan, (1974), p. 10.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid. at 42.
54 See Council on Environ ntal Quality, supra note 43, at 111.
55 Ibid.
56 Maryland Department of State Planning, Maryland Outdoor Recreation and
Open Space, Concept Plan 1, (1970), p. 30.
57 See Michigan Department of Natural Resources, supra note 13, at 62.
58 U.S. DOC, NOAA, OCZM, The Virgin Islands Coastal Management Program and
Draft Environmental Statement, (1977), p. 94.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clawson, Marion and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of Outdoor Recreation, The
Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, (1966).

Commission of Outdoor Recreation, The Virginia Outdoors Plan, (1974).

Council on Environmental Quality, Subdividing Rural America, (1962).

Department of Environmental Management, Massachusetts Outdoors,
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, (1976).

Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Environmental Review,
Outdoor Recreation in New Jersey, (1973).

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks,
Outdoor Recreation in Florida, (1976).

Deparment of Parks and Recreation, California Recreation Resource
Plan, (1974).

Ducsik, Dennis W., Shoreline for the Public, A Handbook of Social,
Economic and Legal Considerations Regarding Public Recreational Use
of the Nation's Coastal Shoreline, Cambridge, Massachusetts, (1974).

Maryland Department of State Planning, Outdoor Recreation and Open Space
Plan, Comprehensive Plan 11, (1972).

'Maryland Department of State Planning, Outdoor Recreation and Open Space
Plan, Concept Plan 1, (1970).

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program, Draft, (1977).

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Recreation Plan,

Newman, Michael T., Public Access to the Great Lakes, A Policy Study,
(1976).

The Office of Coastal Zone Management, Barrier Islands and Beaches,
Technical Proceedings of the 1976 Barrier Islands Workshop, (1976).

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Inventory of Physical
and Administrative Aspects of Shoreline Recreation, Appendix B,
(1962).

ORRRC, Study Report 4, Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United
States, (1962).

Perkins, Kenneth E., Director Coastal Zone Unit, Memorandum to
Richard Gardner, Deputy Director Office of Coastal Zone
Management, "Imprortance of Section 315(2) Fundings to Maryland,"
March 8, 1977.

Stanford Law Review 564, Public Use of Coastal Beaches, Vol. 22, (1970).

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Outdoor Plan, (1975).

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan, State
Summary, (1975).

United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, The Virgin Islands
Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
(1977).

'United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Oregon State Highway Division, Supplements and Revisions to Oregon
Outdoor Recreation, (1972).

U.S. DOI, BOR, Oregon State Highway Division, Oregon Outdoor Recreation,
third edition Supplement Abstract, (1972).

U.S. DOI, BOR, Outdoor Recreation, A Legacy for American Appendix A, An
Economic Analysis, (1973).

U.S. DOI, BOR, Outdoor Recreation for America, A Report to the President and
Congress by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, (1962).

U.S. DOI, BOR, Outdoor Recreation Trends, (1967).

U.S. DOI, BOR, Selected Outdoor Recreation Statistics (1971)..

U.S. DOI, BOR, South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism,
Public Beach Access and Recreation in South Carolina, (1976).

U.S.- DOI, BOR, The 1965 Nationwide Inventory of Publicly Owned Recreation
Areas and an Assessment of Private Recreation Enterprises, (1965).

U.S. DOI, BOR, The 1965 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities, (1965).

U.S. DOI, BOR, The 1970 Survey of Outdoor Recreation Activities, Preliminary
Report, (1972).

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Seashore
Recreation Area Survey of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, (1955).

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation Plan,
(1972).

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation Plan,
Stateside Analysis, (1976).

.50

IV. The Law of Ownership and Use of Coastal Beaches

I. Introduction

Can coastal motels fence off their beach area for the exclusive use of
motel guests? Can members of the public fish from the surf anywhere they
want, or use any beach for swimming, sunbathing, or picnicking? To what
extent can owners of beach cottages prohibit others from sitting on "their"
beach or walking across their property to get to the beach?

These questions raise the issue of who owns the beach, and to what
extent the public has a legal right to use the beach and to gain access to
it. The answers to the questions are based on sometimes complex legal
issues and doctrines. This chapter examines these issues and how they have
been treated by courts in several coastal States.

Before examining these cases, it is important to clarify terminology on
two points--what is "ownership" and what is the "beach." Ownership may
include all the rights associated with a parcel of land, such as when the
public owns a park. However, sometimes a number of different people may own
separate rights associated with the same parcel of land; for example, owner
A may have title to the land, owner B may have an easement that gives him
the right to cross the land, and owner C may be in actual possession of the
land by virtue of a long-term lease. All three "own" a part of that land.

On the second point, what is the "beach," for the purposes of this
discussion the "beach" is divided into four parts: the sea, the wet-sand,
the dry-sand, and the upland. First, that area seaward of the mean low tide
line is termed the sea, or sea bed (lake or lake bed in non-oceanic
situations.) Second, the area between the mean low tide and mean high tide
lines, assuming the usual flow of tides, is termed the wet-sand.
"Foreshore" and "tideland" are generally synonymous with this term. Third,
the area inundated only during severe storms, between the mean high tide
line and the line of vegetation or dune line, is termed the dry-sand.
Fourth, that area landward of the vegetation line is termed the upland. The
following diagram illustrates this division.
UPLAND I DRY-SAND I WET-SAND SEA
vegetation mean mean
line high tide low tide
line line

II. Public Ownership and Use

A. Overview

The issue of the extent to which the general public has the right to
use coastal beaches has come before the courts in several States. Major

cases have been decided in New Jersey, California, New York, Oregon, and
Florida. Each of these cases involved different fact situations and
diffe'rent aspects of the beach access and use issue. Each decision was also
based on different legal theories. In the following sections these cases
are examined in terms of the facts involved, the requirements for the
application of the particular legal concept involved, and the case's
implications in terms of the public's right to use coastal beaches.

B. The Public Trust Doctrine

1. Development of the Public Trust Doctrine in the United States

There are certain lands that are owned by the Government in a special
fashion. These lands are different from, for example, a parcel owned for a
fire station site that is purchased when the fire station is needed and then
freely disposed of if that fire station site becomes unnecessary. These
"special" lands are those lands held in trust for the people and are called
public trust lands. Although the government holds complete legal title, it
is not free to act in any way it wishes regarding these public trust lands
because their title is subject to the interests of public, which is the
beneficiary of the trust.

The public trust doctrine has a long legal history. Roman law held the
seashores to be publicly owned, open to the common use of all citizens with
the Government being the supervisor or trustee for these public rights.
Much the same concent was adopted by the English courts well prior to the
American Revolution. LY

Very early in their history the American courts adopted t@is doctrine
and applied it to navigable waters and associated tidelands. In the
leading case on this point, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892 said that these
lands are held in trust for the people so that public rights of navigation,
fishing, and commerce could be preserved. The court further said that the
State could not abdicate its control over these areas3in any fashion that
would diminish the public's rights in the trust lands.

2. General Applicability of the Doctrine to the Wet-Sand Area

As the following chart indicates, approximately three-fourtha of the
oceanic States have held that wet-sand beaches are publicly owned:

Publicly Owned Privately Owned

Alabama New Jersey Delaware
Alaska New York Maine
California North Carolina Massachusetts
Florida Oregon New Hampshire
Georgia Rhode Island Pennsylvania
Hawaii South Carolina Virginia
Louisiana Texas
Maryland Washington
Mississippi

In most of these States, the public ownership of the wet-sand beaches
has been held to be of the "public trust" nature. Whether the private
ownership of wet-sand beaches is also subject to the public trust is a good
question, and one which illustrates a possible limitation on the scope of
the public trust doctrine. This issue arises in those States which have
opened some gf their trust lands to entry-and-grant or conveyance to private
individuals, for it is conceivable that public trust rights have thereby
been extinguished. Fortunately, the general rule applied under these
circumstances is that the grantee cannot obtain better title than that of
his grantor; thus, private parties hold their lands subject to the public
trust.

3. The New Jersey case -- Borough of Neptune City v. Borough
of Avon-by-the-Sea

Avon is a small New Jersey resort community bordering the Atlantic.
The city owned a dry-sand beach that for many years was free to all comers.
In the 1950's the New Jersey legislature allowed cities to start collecting
user fees for the beaches in order to defray maintenance costs. Avon
established such a fee and it was the same for residents and nonresidents.
In 1970, Avon changed their beach fee ordinance so that it would charge
nonresidents about twice as much as residents to use the beach. Neptune
City, a neighboring inland city, brought suit to challenge this change in
the ordinance.

4. Implications of a Public Trust Finding

The first question relative to the public trust doctrine is just what
public rights it- protects. Traditionally, the doctrine only protected
rights of navigation and fishing. Some States, for example New York, have
added a recreational access dimension, saying th@ public has a right to
cross these lands to reach publicly owned areas. Other States such as
Wisconsin and California, have held the doctrine to include public rights of
bathing, swimming, skating, recreation, preservation, and the enjoyment of
scenic beauty.

A second question is the determination of what lands the public trust
applies to. While traditionally restricted to navigable waters and
tidelands (the wet-sand area), many observers feel courts will increasingly
expand coverage to include publicly used dry-sand areas, as was done in the
New Jersey area.

C. Implied Dedication

1. Introduction

A 1970 California Supreme Court case confirmed the public's right to
use two privately owned beaches. In doing so, the court used a legal
concept that could, if followed in 18ther States, have great implications for
the public's right to use beaches.

The court said that, when the public has used a beach for a long time
and has paid no attention to the fact that the beach is privately owned, the

public acquires a legal right to use that beach. The legal concept used to
reach this result was the concept of "implied dedication." Unlike the
commonly used "express dedication," where the private owner signs a deed
granting the land to the public and-some public body formally agrees to
accept the dedication, there are no formalities required for "implied
dedications." The owner's intent to give the land to the public may be
implied from his conduct of not preventing public use of the beach. The
public's acceptance of the dedication may be implied from public use'of the
beach. Nothing need be written by either side--the dedication and acceptance
is implied by their conduct.

2. The California cases -- Gion-Dietz

The decision that used this principle to confirm the public's right to
use the beaches was actually two different cases, involving different areas
and different owners, but consoldiated because the legal issues were the
TZ
same.

The first case involved three lots between a public road and the ocean.
The lots were 70 to 160 feet deep and each had some area level with the road
and a sharp cliff-like drop of 30 to 40 feet to a second area level with the
ocean. It was shown that at least 1900 members of the public freely used
both areas--the upper level for parking and the lower level for fishing,
picnicking, and the like. In more recent years, the city had paved the
upper level and regularly cleaned up trash from both areas. The owners
occasionally posted signs that the area was private, but the signs quickly
blew down and were generally ignored by the public.

The second case involved a small privately owned peninsula jutting into
the ocean, with the beach on the peninsula being reachable only along a
3,000 foot long dirt road connecting the beach to a public road. The public
had freely used both the road and beach for at least 100 years. The owner
involved in this court action bought the property in 1960 and placed a large
timber across the road. It was removed within two hours. Although the
owner occasionally put up "No Trespassing" signs, the public ignored them
and continued to use the road and beach. In 1966, six years after purchasing
the property, a second large log was placed on the road by the owner and
promptly removed by the public. The owner then sent out an earthmoving crew
to permanently close the road. Before the crew could act, the owner was sued
and the case eventually wound up in the California Supreme Court.

In both these cases, the court upheld the public's right to continue
using the beaches and accessways. The key fact leading to this decision was
that the general public used the beaches for a long time (over five years)
just as if these lands were public recreation areas. The court refused to
presume that the owners had given the public permission to use the beaches.
Further, the court noted that even if the present owners wanted to keep the
public out, the conduct of previous owners in not preventing public use
consituted the "implied dedication," and once the dedication to the public
has been made, it cannot be taken back.

'54

3. The Requirements for Finding an "Implied Dedication"

There are two basic requirements for finding an "implied dedication" of
a beach or accessway to the public: (1) the owner's intent to dedicate the
area; and (2) the public's acceptance of the dedication. As both of these
acts are "implied," it is the conduct of the parties that determines whether
the acts have taken place.

On the first point--the owner's intent to dedicate the land to the
public--it is often said that the courts are using a "legal fiction." This
is because in many of these "implied dedication" cases the owner has
absolutely no intent. to give his land away. But the court says that since
the owner was confronted with widespread public use of his land and since he
did not keep the public of f the beach, the court can assume that the owner
wanted to give it away, even if he really did not want to do so. Further,
the court says minimal, ineffective attempts to exclude the public, such as
occasionally posting a no trespassing sign, are not enough to show that the
owner really did not want to give away his land. To do that, he must
effectively keep the public off the beach. This has led some observers of
the California decision to fear that more beaches may now be shut off to the
public as owners attempt to preserve their exclusive private rights.
Finally, the court noted that an "implied dedication" is irrevocab le- -once
it has happened, it cannot be taken back.

The second point--public acceptance of the dedication--may also be
implied. The public use of the beach is the acceptance. @ Active
governmental maintenance of the beach helps in this regard but, as the
second case indicated, it is not necessary. All that is required is public
use over an extended period of time.

4. Impacts of an "Implied Dedication" Finding

Once a c ourt finds that the public has been granted use of a beach
through "implied dedication", the public has a legal right to continue using
that beach ft rever. The owner cannot take the beach back without public
permission.

5. '@Express Dedication"'

A recent New York case establishing a public right to use a beach also
used the dedication coacept--but in this case the court found an "express" 14
rather than "implied" dedication. The case, Gewirtz v. City of Long Beach,
is particularly interesting because the owner of the beach was not a private
citizen. The owner was the City of Long Beach.

The beach land in question was obtained by the City between 1935 and
1937. Following improvements made with State and Federal funds, the area
was opened to the general public as a park in 1936. In 1970, the city
passed an ordinance that would have restricted the use of this beach to
residents of the City of Long Beach and their guests. Nonresidents would
have been excluded.

The New York court refused to let the ordinance take* effect, saying
that by opening the beach to all comers in 1936, the city had intended to
dedicate it to the general public. The actions of the city in maintaining
and operating the park, as well as use by the general public, were said to
consitute acceptance of the dedication.

Thus, once the park had been dedicated to general public use, the city
(like the private landowners in the "implied dedication" cases) had no power
to take the dedication back and exclude nonresidents. For this reason, the
New York court held the city's ordinance invalid.

D. Customary Rights

1. The Oregon Case -- Thornton v. Hay

In 1969, the Oregon Supreme Court announced a decision that some
observers feel could be the most signi Want beach access case in recent
years. In this case, Thornton v. Hay, the court employed the legal
doctrine of "customary rights" to confirm the right of the public to use
Oregon's dry-sand beach area.

The facts of this case are similar to situations ever more frequently
arising across the country- -relatively undeveloped beach areas start
growing, resorts are built, and conflicts arise between resort owners and
members of the public accustomed to freely using the beach area.
This case involved the efforts of Hay, a @motel owner, to fence in a
portion of the dry-sand beach adjacent to his motel for the exclusive use of
motel guests. The publicity generated by this act in 1966 helped trigger,
among other things, legislation recognizing the public's right to use
dry-sand beaches. However, since legislation of this sort cannot change or
determine property rights, the matter of Hay's fence wound up in court.

This occured when, after a 1967 winter storm destroyed his fence, Hay
replaced it without obtaining a permit required by the legislation. The
state went to court seeking an order to force Hay to remove the fence.

In reviewing Hay's claim of a right to exclude the public from this
dry-sand area, the Oregon court noted that ever since the beginning of
recorded history the public had been freely using the State's dry-sand
beaches as if they belonged to the public. Public use of this specific
beach for over 60 years was shown at the trial. At no time had anyone
sought or obtained the upland owner's permissionto use the dry-sand area--
everyone, including,_@4e upland owners had always assumed the public had the,
right to use the area. For these reasons, the court held that the public,
by "customary right," has obtained the right to continue using the drysand
beach.

2. Requirements

"Customary rights" is a legal doctrine developed in England long before
the American Revolution. This doctrine says that where there has been very

long and common use of a defined area, that use becomes legally established
for that area.

There are seven requirements that traditionally have to be met before
it Cal% be said that the public has a "customary right" to use a beach
area:

(1) The use must be "ancient," so long that nobody remembers
otherwise;

(2) The use must have been without interruption, which is to say
that the public must not have been excluded by the upland
owners during this period;

(3) The use must have been peaceable and free from dispute, the
public entering and using the area without resort to force;

(4) The use must have been reasonable and in keeping with the
character of the land;

(5) There must be certainty as to just what land was being used;

(6) The use must have been obligatory for the upland landowners;
that isl the public's use not being subject to the option of
each individual upland owner; and

(7) The use must not be repugnant or inconsistent with public
policy and other laws.

3. The Impact of a Finding of "Customary Rights"

If the court finds the public has a "customary right" to use a dry-
sand beach, upland owners may not exlude members of the public from that
area.

One very important difference between this doctrine and the "implied
dedication" doctrine used in California is that a finding of customary
rights may well eventually apply to very large areas of coastline, not just
to the specific parcel of land involved in the case before the court (as in
the case with "implied dedication"). This was clearly an intention of the
Oregon Court. It specifically said that one of the reasons for choosing
this legal doctrine was to avoid a long series of litigation going down the
coast parcel by parcel to determine public versus private rights. Of
course, individual owners might still bring actions alleging that their land
had not been customarily used by the public, but in a sense the burden is on
,the landowner to show this and defeat a presumed public right to use the
beach.

So, where there is a defined "beach" area (here below the vegetation
line) that the public has freely used as long as anyone can remember, the
old doctrine,of "customary fights" might be used to confirm the public's
right to continue that use.

E. Prescriptive Easements

A recent Florida case raised the issue of whether the public, by using
a beach area for a set period of time in a fashion that conflicts with the
ownerls property rights, can obtain an easement to continue using the beach.
The legal concept at issue here was "prescriptive easements," a legal
concept very similar to that of "adverse possession."
This case, City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama 19 involved a pier owner's
attempt to construct an obseLrvation tower in the dry-saad area next to the
pier. The city granted the permit but, before construction began, the owner
of another nearby observation tower sued to prevent construction. The basis
of the suit was that construction of the tower would interfere with the
public's "prescriptive easement" to use the dry-sand beach area.

The area in question had been used by the public as a public recreation
area for well over- twenty years. The public had freely engaged in
sunbathing, picnicking, and parking in the area. The city had installed
public showers, cleaned up trash, and enforced traffic regulations in the
area. The proposed tower would carry 25 passengers 176 feet above the ocean
and would be a part of the owner's pier-recreation center complex. The
tower was actually constructed before the case was tried.
While both the trial court and the court of appeals 9 ruled that the
tower would have to be removed, the Florida Supreme Court said in a 4-3
decision that the tower could stay. There seemed to be three reasons for
this decision; (1) the court felt that the long public use of the dry-sand
beside the pier was not adverse to, but in furtherance of, the pier owner's
property rights; (2) the tower was consistent with public recreational use
of the beach; and (3) the tower cost $125,000 to construct and an order to
tear it down seemed rather drastic.

2. Requirements for "Prescriptive Easements"

There are five requirements for establishing a public "prescriptive
easement" to use beach areas:

(1) There must be actual use of the property by the general public;
(2) The use must be 2coontinuous (not occasional) and uninterrupted
for a set period;

(3) The use must be open and fully visible to the owner;

(4) The user must be claiming a right to use the property; and,

(5) The use must be adverse to the property interests of the owner.

The Florida decision really turned on this last point--the court's
majority felt public use of the dry-sand beach was not adverse to the
interests of the owner (in doing this the court, to a certain extent, seemed
to confuse adversity to the owner's economic interests with adversity to the
owner's property interests).

3. Impact of a Finding of "Prescriptive Easements"

If it is found that the public has acquired a prescriptive easement for
the use of a specific beach area, then the public has a right to continue to
use the area in the same fashion as bef ore. What has started out as a
trespass becomes, when enough time passes without the owner evicting the
trespassers,, a legal right to use the beach. The owner still "owns" the
property, but cannot do anything on it that would reduce the public's
established right to use it.

For example, if the public over the prescribed period regularly used a
dry-sand area for sunbathing and a prescriptive easement were established,
the public would have the right to continue sunbathing there. The owner
could not evict sunbathers or do anything, such as constructing a building
on the site, that would interfere with the public's sunbathing. The
public's rights, though, are confined to sunbathing--the area could not, for
example, be converted to a public parking lot. Thus, to a large degree, the
use of the property is effectively frozen.

F. The Great Lakes: Problems with Non-Tidal Coastal Beaches

While the Great Lakes are technically "inland lakes" rather than
oceans, their shorelands share many of the attributes and problems of
oceanic coast. Some of the areas have a number of the physical
characteristics of ocean beaches; many areas are also increasingly being
faced with the same public versus private use conflicts that led to the
litigation discussed earlier in the chapter.

Over the years, State and Federal - courts have developed a strong
position that the States must manage the Great Lakes in a fashion to benefit
all residents of the State; that the Great Lakes are public resource that
cannot be appropriated for private gain or use. In fach the U.S. Supreme
Court's landmark kcision on the public trust doctrine, Illinois Central
R.R. v. Illinois., set aside an attempt of the Illinois legislature to
deed away part of the lake bed of Lake Michigan. However, as is the case in
many oceanic States, this doctrine has generally been interpreted only to
protect public rights lakeward of the water line. The "ordinary high water
mark" is usually used to set the division between public and private
ownership in the Great Lakes. In Wisconsin, this line is set by observation
of physical factors; the other Great Lakes States generally use an elevation
for definition of the line.

Apart from the question of whether there are sufficient public parks,
boat launching facilities, and the like, one of the most pressing legal
questions relalive to public use of Great Lakes beaches is this--when water
levels recede, does the public have the right to use that strip of exposed
land between the ordinary high water mark and the actual water line?

Several older cases have held that this strip of land cannot be freely
used by the public, that the riparian owner has an exclusive right to use
these areas. One of the most influential of these deR sions was the 1923
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision of Doemel v. Jantz. While noting a

public right to use any area actually covered by the waters of a navigable
lake, the court accepted the shorefront owner's argument that there was a
greater public need to protect the rights of thousands of lakeside farmers
than to expand the rights of a few hunters and fishermen to walk along lake
fronts. Although this case involved an inland lake, it has generally been
assumed that the Great Lakes shorelaad would be treated the same way. In
the 1930's the Michigan court explicitly applied this concept to the Great
Lakes.

However, these cases were decided in different times and under
circumstances significantly different from those existing today. Several
cases involved inland lakes. It seems that the courts increasingly
recognize that the Great Lakes are different from inland lakes and should be
so treated. Also, the beaches of the Great Lakes are becoming subject to
the same recreational pressures that led to a reevaluation of the laws of
public use of beaches in California, Oregon, New Jersey, and other oceanic
States. Modern cases in Great Lakes States may follow that trend.

FOOTNOTES

1 For a more detailed history of the early development of the public trust
doctrine, see D. Owens and D. Brower, Public Use of Coastal Beaches, 15-26,
and the references cited therein.
2 See Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. (ly Pet.) 367 (1842); Illinois Central
Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892); and Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1
(1894).
3 Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892)
4 See D. Owens and D. Brower, supra note I at 15.
5 The North Carolina situation has been described in Schoenbaum, Public
Rights and Coastal Zone ManaSement, 51 N.C.L. Rev. 1, 7-16 (1972).
6 Borough of Neptune City v. Borough of Avon-by-the-Sea, 61 N.J. 296, 294
A.2d 47 (1972).
7 See, e.g., Tucci v. Salzhauer, 69 Misc. 2d 266, 329 N.Y.S. 2d 825 (Sup. Ct.
1972), modified, 336 N.Y.S. 2d 721, affirmed, 352 N.Y.S. 2d 198 (1973).
8 See, e.g., City of Madison v. Tolzmann, 7 Wis. "2d 570, 97 N.W. 2d 513
(1959).
9 Marks v. Whitney, 98 Cal. Rptr. 790, 491 P. 2d 374 (1971).
10 The importance of this case is reflected in the great number of articles
written about it. For a collection of citations to the articles on the case
in legal periodicals, see D. Owens and D. Brower, Public Use of Coastal Beaches,
101-102 (1976).
11 Such as with dedications for highways or subdivision exactments requiring
dedications for park, open space, or school site lands.
12 Gion v. City of Santa Cruz, Dietz v. King, 2 D.3d 29, 84 Cal. Rptr. 162,
465 P. 2d 50 (1970).

13
The private owner may retain ownership of the beach on record and can sell
his interest in the property since he retains ownership of the underlying fee
interest. However, the public's use rights remain in effect. In other words,
the public has an easement on the property.
14 Gewirtz v. City of Long Beach, 29 Misc. 2d 763, 330 N.Y.S. 2d 495 (Sup. Ct.
1972), aff'd memo., 358 N.Y.S. 2d 957 (App. Div. 1974).
15 State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay, 254 Ore. 584, 462 P. 2d 671 (1969).

16 For a detailed discussion of these requirements, see Note, "The English
Doctrine of Custom in Oregon Property Law: State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay,"
4 Enviro Law 383, 395-410 (1974). Also generally see Owens and Brower,
Public Use of Coastal Beaches, at 140-56 (1976).
18 While the Oregon court is the only modern State court to apply the
doctrine of customary rights in a beach context, the concept is receiving
increasing serious legal consideration. See, for example, Justice Ervin's
dissent in the Florida beach case, City of Daytona Beach v. Toma-Rama, 294
So.2d 73 (1974).
18 294 So.2d 73 (1974).
19 271 So. 2d 765 (1972).
20 The length of this period varies from State-to-State. In Florida it was
twenty years.
21 Discussed in Section B of this chapter.
22 146 U.S. 387 (1892).
23 In addition to seasonal fluctuations (and some daily variation), the
Great Lakes are subject to long term variations in water levels on the order
of, for example, about a six foot variation in lakes Michigaa-Huron.
24 180 Wis. 225, 193 N.W. 393 (1923). This case involved an inland lake
though not one of the Great Lakes. The New York court also reached a
similar result in a similar case in the same year. Stewart v. Turney, 237
N.Y. 117, 142 N.E. 437 (1923). Interestingly,- Justice Cardozo dissented in
this 4-3 decision.
25 Hilt v. Weber, 252 Mich. 198, 233 N.W. 159 (1930); Meridian Township v.
Palmer, 279 Mich. 586, 273 N.W. 277 (1937). The rationale was accepted by
implication in a more recent case involving an inland lake, McCardel v.
Smolen, 399 Mich. 849, 250 N.W. ed 496 (1977). That case, however, found an
express dedication to public use.

V. Shorefront Access: Federal Direction

Overview

According to Section 305(b)(7), each coastal State must address the
question of shorefront access involving an initial assessment of access
needs and a determination of policies to meet those needs. Funding is made
available to the States in Section 305 and, in some cases, Section 306.
Funding to develop and implement these programs is authorized under Section
306 and Section 315(2).

OCZM's role in implementing the Act is divided into three related but
separable parts. These include:

1. Funding and guiding the States' responses to the Section
305(b)(7) requirement;

2. Funding the acquisition of accessways authorized by Section
315(2); and

3. Coordinating OCZM shorefront access with other Federal
programs.

The first part involves OCZM support of access planning and program
development activities. OCZM's emphasis here is with each States's
determination of its access needs and policies. OCZM can aid the States in
making these determinations through both monetary and substantive
assistance.

The second part of OCZM's role involves use of acquisition funds under
Section 315(2). , Acquisition funding supplied by OCZM may constitute one
method of implementing State shorefront access policies@ Because Section
315(2) limits funding to land acquisition, other funding sources will be
necessary to fund other portions of the State policies. It is anticipated
that Section 315(2) funding will be used to supplement and leverage funds
which are available from other sources, but which the States may use to
implement their programs. Examples of departments from which States may
elicit funding are BOR, EDA and HUD.

The third part of OCZM's role involves implementing the consistency
requirements of Section 307 which require that other Federal programs be
consistent with approved State coastal zone management programs. If the
State shorefront access plans and policies are included in these programs
(as 305(b)(1) requires), Section 307 provides a mechanism for implementing
these plans and policies. For example, if BOR money is to be spent in the
coastal zone of a State with an approved management program, that
expenditure must be consistent with the program. It should be obvious,
however, that if the consistency requirement is going to work at all, there
must be a program which is sufficiently explicit that other programs can be
consistent with it. A program that is explicit enough to direct State
expenditures of State funds would probably meet this test. This third facet
accordingly places a burden on OCZM to ensure that the State management

programs contain substantive shoref ront access elements. In addition to
implementing Section 307, OCZM's role might include securing the cooperation
of other Federal Agencies (e.g., by letters of agreement) to facilitate the
implementation of the State shorefront access plans and policies.

OCZM Interaction with State Shorefront Access Plans and Policies

At the initial stage in its interactions with a State, OCZM's role
involves providing substantive guidance and funding to the State's planning
and policy formulation efforts. OCZM may wish to establish formal control
over some aspects and provide only advisory services for others. Methods of
OCZM input include:
1. Regulations and guidelines for 9305(b)(7)
2. Regulations and guidelines for 9315(2)
3. Funding restrictions for �305 and �306

4. Technical Assistance and Workshops

5. Clearinghouse Functions
Regulations currently exist to implement 905(b)(7). However, these
regulations are nonspecific, and require only that a planning process be
established. As such, they do not require any planning, or a plan to be
generated. Consequently, the existing regulations do not amplify in any
real sense the language of the Act.

OCZM couV and probably should provide guidance for the States by
revising the 9305(b)(7) regulations to include substantive requirements,
e.g., that specified elements be contained in the State management programs.
The decision whether or not to amend the regulations entails political
ramifications, including the fact that several States have already done
substantial work on the access portion of their programs. However, two of
these, the Virgin Islands and Massachusetts, have indicated a willingness to
change their programs given substantial OCZM input. Moreover, a number of
States responding to the OCZM issue paper have stated that they are waiting
for OCZM guidance before committing much time to shorefront access.
Inasmuch as the existing regulations provide little guidance, new
regulations might be welcomed by most of the States.
If the 9305(b)(7) regulations are not or canpot be amended, the
substance of the States' access submissions for 9305 approval could
nevertheless be substantially shaped by OCZM guidelines or other advisory
means which list the different program components OCZM would like the State
submissions to contain. The substance of the guidelines would be roughly
the same as amended regulations. Guidelines could be either formal (Federal
.Register publication) or informal' (approval criteria for 305 elements). In
either case, the purpose of developing guidelines is to assist the States
and to promote the development of meaningful access submissions.

The primary purpo'se of writing �315(2) regulations is to set forth the
procedure for implementing -the OCZM acquisition program should funding
become available. However, a secondary purpose could be the shap of
1
tate shorefront plans and policies developed within the context of!3g05 and
306. States contemplating acquisitions will undoubtedly want to use
315(2) funds. If the 315(2) regulations emphasize specified selection
criteria and program foci, the States in all probability would adopt these
orientations in their program.

OCZM assistance-in the form of workshops and information dissemination
appears to be an important vehicle for the development of sound State
programs. Past experience indicates that in many States (e.g., Hawaii), a
number of States and local agencies are currently working on access-related
projects independent of each other, and without knowledge of each others'
existence. One function of the workshops would be to bring these agencies
together to discuss the access needs and implementation capabilities of each
State, and thus to coordinate access activities within each State around the
program development efforts of OCZM.

Workshops are an effective means of providing the States with
programmatic guidance and assistance. Technical assistance in terms of
methods of funding, land use techniques, the leveraging of other programs,
and similar programmatic components could be provided by OCZM and by
representatives of other agencies.

OCZM could operate as a clearinghouse to disseminate access related
inf rmation to the States. This function would require a' person at OCZM to
be Oaware of both the literature and the State programs in order to operate
as a conduit of information. At present, there is no individual at OCZM in
a position to assume this function.

Given the structure of the 305/306 program, OCZM interaction with the
States will be conducted through -the Regional Managers. This interaction
will probably provide uneven assistance unless there is programmatic
guidance for the access program. Accordingly, attention should be paid to
personnel, e.g., either by altering job descriptions, or by adding new staff
to carry out the OCZM program direction function.

Program Elements

There are three generic types of access to beach and coastal resources:
(1) physical ingress and egress; (2). visual access, for viewing the
aesthetic qualities of the coastal zone; and (3) transportation networks
that enable the public to get to the beach and coastal resources. While the
dominant emphasis in the State programs is likely to be physical ingress and
egress, the other types of access are important to a number of States. Any
rational access plan must consider all of the above mentioned types of
access.

The State shorefront access elements should and undoubtedly will
reflect State needs and policies. Although the focus is on State
determinations, OCZM should insist that specific elements are included to

ensure that national goals are not disregarded. Specific programmatic
elements are discussed in detail in Chapter'VI, State Direction. They
include:

- an inventory of beach and coastal recreation resources;

- an inventory of access to these resources;

- an assessment of access needs;

- development of an access policy;

- development of a program to implement this policy;

- if needed, litigation to establish the scope of existing public
rights and the availability of acquisition techniques;

- coordination with other State agencies, e.g., the designated
BOR-State liaison office;

- site-specific acquisition planning;
- determination of how the State proposes to use �315(2)
acquisition money if it becomes available;

- parking and related problems, including transportation linkages.

OCZM-Funded Implementation of State Shorefront Access Plans: �315(2)
State efforts under 9305(b)(7) will undoubtedly include a variety of
approaches for increasing access. Especially where a State has multiple
objectives, a number of different funding sources can and should be drawn
upon to carry out access projects. For example, transportation-r6lated
projects can be funded by DOT and related State agencies. Projects
concerning urban redevelopment can be funded by HUD and perhaps DOT with its
new urban recreation concept. Accm@vay management activities and
litigation can be funded by OCZM under S306. Once their programs have been
approved, States should be encouraged to explore these and other sources for
the implementation of the various aspects of their programs. (See Appendix
Two for examples of relevant Federal programs.)

An issue paper (see Appendix I) outlining alternative methods of using
9315(2) funds was prepared by OCZM and sent to the States in late July,
1977, for comm nt.

The two principal issues raised in the paper deal were the allocation
of Section 315(2) money and the criteria to be used by OCZM in choosing
among projects submitted by the States for funding. These two issues are of
major import in determining how money will be used when it is appropriated.

The States responding to the paper were almost equally divided between
those des' 'n to give OCZM complete flexibility in determining how to
allocate 315(2) fiinds, and those wishing to remove OCZM input entirely by
the use of precise formula. Many responses expressed concern that there be
geographic equity. Those States most concerned with geographic equity
seemed to opt for a precise formula method of allocation. These States
appeared to feel that such a method would assure them of getting something.
The remaining States preferred to give OCZM varying degrees of funding
flexibility but each of these also were concerned with regional (though not
necessarily State by State) balance. In short, there was nothing resembling
a consensus among the responding States concerning the method of fund
allocation, but all were interested in having some measure of geographic
equity.

.Similarly, the States seemed to favor flexibility in project selection
criteria, so that GUM could fund what the States wished to propose. None
of the responses adequately addressed the selection problems OCZM will face
in judging among projects when each of them fulfills the access needs and
policies identified in an approved Coastal Zone Management Program. OCZM's
selection dilemma involves choosing among projects which all will probably
meet the stated requirements for selection.

In short, the State responses to the issue paper were favorable in that
each State expressed a desire for a b_15(2) grant, but their responses
provide no clear guidance to OCZM about how to disburse these grants.

Despite this lack of guidance generally, there seems to be substantial
agreement concerning some issues involved in 9315(2) fund dispersal, though
the mechanics of certain program elements still need to be worked out.
These elements include the following:
1. Projects funded under 9315(2) must be consistent with any
1
pproved Coastal Zone Management Program which addresses
305(b)(7).

2. Fund dispersal should be accomplished by some mechanism other
than first-come, first-served.- In other words, OCZM should
select those projects most worth funding according to some
standard which includes a national perspective. These
standards should be addressed in the Rules and Regulations for
the program.

3. All responding States would like to use variety of aouland
acquisition monies for the State match for 1315(2). These
monies would include operation and management funds, capital
expenditures, funds from other Federal agencies, etc. A
determination of exactly what can and cannot be used for the
State match should be made by the legal staff. The BOR Land
and Water Conservation Fund manual may be instructive, but the
statutory basis for the BOR and OCZM programs are different and
BOR's conclusions, accordingly, may not apply to the Section
315(2) program.

4. Local govern ents will be involved in the operation and
management of the OCZM funded accessways and may be the
governmental units actually providing the State match. OCZM
therefore, needs to adopt procedures for local governmental
involvement in Section 315(2) acquisitions. If the State is
the grantee and is to remain responsible for operation and
management, this should be made clear in regulations and
spelled out in the grants to the State. If pass-through grants
to local go,@ernments are allowed, reverter clauses should be
included in 9315(2) grants to prevent the use of acquired
accessways for non-access purposes. Where Federal funds are
used to assist with the acquistion of local accessways, OCZM
ought to take steps to insure that they are open to all users,
not just local residents.

There are two other major issues which must be resolved in the context
of 9315(2) dispersals. These issues are (1) whether both wet sand and dry
sand can or should be purchased, and (2) project selection criteria.

1. A major focus of Section 315(2) is water-related recreation. The
access provisions are designed to facilitate public recreation in
the coastal zone which, in many cases, is the beach. However, it
should be noted that there is no beach on many parts of the Great
Lakes; similarly, Louisiana's comments to the issue paper point
out that much Louisiana property which is contiguous to water is
not beach, so that access needs for such areas frequently involve
boat ramps and walkways through swamps and marshes. Moreover,
much of the beach-both dry sand and wet sand-is privately owned
in States such as Massachusetts in which the public trust extends
seaward from the low tide line. In these and similar situations,
access to water-related recreation involves access to the water,
which is considered a component under "other public coastal areas
of . . ." in the CZM'Act.

Given the language and the legislative history of the Act, one may
conclude that the purpose of the access provision is to facilitate
water-related recreation by providing access to publically owned
recreation resource. As mentioned above, in some States this will
be the water. Access is authorized to whatever this resource
happens to be in the State in question. Accordingly, acquisition
of dry sand only is authorized in some States and acquisition of
both dry and wet sand is authorized in others. Both the length
and the width of the sand to be acquired is governed by the public
recreation purpose. It would seem that the Act authorizes as much
as is needed to give the public access to, and hence use of,
water-related recreation sites.

This approach is the one favored by several responding States,
with Wisconsin, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Massachusetts
specifically drawing OCZM's attention to this problem.
Conversely, this approach has at least informally been eschewed
by OCZM in the past. Inasmuch as both viewpoints are predicated
on legislative history, it seems most advisable for OCZM simply

to decide on a policy and justify it as much as possible. It is
recommended that OCZM adopt the scope favored by the States and
outlined above.

2. The problem in developing selection criteria is that all proposed
projects must be consistent with the access policies contained in
management programs approved by OCZM. This means that all
proposals will be for projects OCZM can consider both needed and
important. Choosing among such projects must accordingly involve
factors other than the simple determination that the project is
worthwhile and is consistent with the management program. OCZM
should consider the other possible selection criteria. They are:

a. The extent to which OCZM investment in the project will
leverage other money from other programs.

b. The proximity, character, and level of use of other
accessways. A relatively unused accessway a mile from a
proposed access project might weigh against funding the
proposed accessway. Conversely, the opening of new beach
area in an area currently used over capacity would be
especially worthwhile.

C. The aesthetic and/or uncommonly scenic qualities of the
shorefront area.

The demographics of the geographical area which the access-
way will serve. A neighborhood accessway would serve a small
number of people; a State park in the same location would
serve a much larger number and geographical spread of people.
Depending upon the circumstances involved, there may be
substantial reasons for funding or not funding accessways of
similar size and projected usership, in any particular
location.

e. Environmental impact.

f. Transportation parameters, including road capacity,
parking capacity, and accessibility by public
transportation.

g. Unique recreational characteristics.

h. The availability of other funding sources.

i. Proximity to urban populations.

All proposals from a given State should come to OCZM through a
designated State agency.

tit

WWI ffCi

VI. Shorefront Access: State Direction

Suggested elements of an approach to State shorefront access are set
forth below. The key element is direction--each State needs to decide what
it wants to do regarding access, and how it wants to do it. Once these major
decisions have been made, the details can be filled in to provide one
unified structilre.

The following elements are suggested as components:

1. Policy Determination

2. Needs Assessment and Documentation: Inventory

3. Plans Formulation

4. Public Hearings

5. OCZM Program Approval

6. Access Project Generation

1. Policy Determination

The most important process in a State's approach to shorefront access
is the development of a policy focus. This should consist of at least two
components:

a. A Statewide policy regarding access. Such a policy should address
particular access needs in the State and indicate program
directions for meeting these needs.

b. A determination of sources of funds and authority that can be used
to meet some of the program's needs and pursue its directions.

The State's policy determination should indicate how a program of
Federally funded access acquisitions will fit into an overall State access
program. The statewide policy must accordingly be broader than an
assessment of how only Federal funds will be utilized.
A number of States have already addressed access concerns in their �305
and 9306 submissions to OCZM. While most State access policies are still in
developing stages, these can be used to illustrate the kinds of policy
determinations that need to be made.

Virgin Islands. Chapter Six of the Virgin Islands Coastal Management
Program sets forth basic policy considerations for access.

The emphasis is on reversing the trend of hotel and condominium
construction closing off public access to the beach. Three strategies are

oulined: judicial determination of public rights, use of police power, and
purchase. The management program states that purchase of easements is to be
favored over purchase in fee.

The Virgin Islands' program indicates that further work on access will
be done under �306. However, even in the program's current state, it
addresses most of the major elements outlined above. Several means of
acquiring access are emphasized, funding sources are identified, and a
policy regarding the method of acquistion is put forth.

Mass'achusetts. The July 1977 draft of the Massachusetts's 305(b)(7)
submission includes an extensive discussion of the difficulties of
increasing access in a highly urbanized and developed shorefront context. A
key element of the State's access policy involves increasing the
accessibility of public shorefront sites by improving the transportation
system.

The following statements taken from the July draft indicate, in
reference to the State program, that "CZM believes that solving
transportation access problems is the first step to improving coastal
recreation opportunities" (2-F/12). And, "acquisitions must also be
sensitive to the scale of potential recreation appropriate on the site, as
well as the scale of the surrounding community. For this reason, Coastal
Zone Management finds that, generally, acquisition of small dispersed sites
is preferable to acquisition of very large sites" (24/2). Also, "our plan
is to improve transportation and access; to acquire new sites in recreation
poort areas; to expand suitable existing sites through small acquisitions or
encouraging multiple uses; and to improve maintenance" (2-FA3).

While the July draft fails to identify in precise terms how the State
program will be developed and implemented, it does identify a focus.
Details concerning program elements can be generated within the context of
this focus.

South Carolina. The publication, Beach Access and Recreation in
South Carolina, funded by BOR, identifies a third type of Statewide focus.
This report advocates a two-faceted policy toward access acquisition,
involving both large beachfront parks and neighborhood accessways. The
parks focus is a part of the long-range State program for public recreation
along the coast. The neighborhood accessways focus involves governmental
acquisition of access easements, induced by tax benefits where possible.
Again, the development of such foci is the first part of a State shorefront
access policy.

To reiterate the primary reason why States should have policy
determinations is for them to decide early what efforts they should take to
increase access. Once an access policy has been established, a program will
have a specific focus and the State can concentrate on the realization of
specific goals.

2. Needs Assessment and Documentation: Inventory

At the same time they formulate policy determinations, States should
assess access needs. An initial overview of needs can probably be developed

using current recreational data (e.g., SCORPs) and other data regarding
existing access. This overview should be followed by a detailed statewide
assessment of access supply and needs. Most elements of the needs
assessment and documentation can be developed by completion of the inventory
described below.

The inventory is an information gathering tool which can indicate where
access currently exists and what options might be available to increase
access. By conducting the inventory, a State will increase its awareness of
potential access sites--for example, where private easements can be turned
into public; where existing rights-of-way can be preserved and expanded;
where local subdivision ordinances can be used to require dedication of
accessways; where development is impending; and so forth. Once these data
have been compiled, the State can accurately assess the current availability
of beach and coastal recreation resources, and will have the information
needed to plan for access.

The inventory consists of a number of inter-related components,
outlined in detail below. These components are:

a. Identification of publicly owned resources and accessways

b. Selection of potential access areas

C. Physical and environmental field inventories

The inventory should be designed to provide the required physical,
environmental, and ownership data needed for State access planning under
305(b)(7) and 315(2). Using this information, the States should be able to
determine the locations and characteristics of existing and needed access.

A. Identification of Publicly Owned Coastal Resources

The identification of publicly owned resources involves two discrete
elements: an inventory of public beaches and other resources, and an
inventory of access to these resources. Both elements are needed in order
to determine where more access should be provided.

(1) Public Beaches

The focus of the Act is placed on publicly owned beaches. "Public
beaches," within the meaning of the Act, currently exist where States own
beach property up to the mean high tide line or vegetation line. In those
States owning beach only to the mean low tide line, and in the Great Lakes
States, the publicly owned resource is more difficult to identify. These
States do own the submerged sea floor and, in practice, the water. Given
the broad purpose of the Act to increase public use of the land/water
interface, one may conclude that in these States the recreation resource is
the water. The Act focuses on obtaining access to this interface recreation
resource, whether it be land (e.g., beach), water, or both.

In all States, State and local governments may own beaches, shorefront
land, rights-of-way to the beach or water, and access rights. These

proprietary rights are a central concern of the inventory. In all States,
identification of public land should include a parcel-by-parcel inventory of
all shorefront property in which the public holds proprietary rights. In
States which own at least the foreshore (i.e. , "high tide" States), the
inventory of publicly held land should identify the beach by segment,
indicating where public ownership of the dry sand and uplands exists. It
would be advantageous for the States to inventory all publicly owned coastal
properties, not just those contiguous to the water, to determine the
possiblility of trading properties or banking land. By identifying the
parcels of land in which the public holds proprietary rights, the State can
ensure that existing public land is not lost by adverse possession or other
procedures or so encumbered by adjacent development as to destroy the
existing recreational potential.

The Act also authorizes the acquisition of access to non-beach
resources including "public coastal areas of environmental, recreational,
historical, aesthetic, ecological, or cultural value." Most such areas have
been identified and classified by ownership, use, and similar factors by
State or local agencies (e.g. , parks, natural resources departments, or
county planning agencies). An inventory of these areas can probably be
accomplished by culling the appropriate information from existing sources.
Access data can most probably be generated for these resources by using
these same sources.

(2) Public Access to Public Beaches

In addition to outright ownership of beach and other coastal property,
the States, various local governmental agencies, and the Federal government
(e.g., Department of Defense) may already own considerable access to beach
and other coastal resources. Examples may include rights-of-way, dedicated
accessways, and public access rights established by deed provisions or
prescription. Effective access program development requires the States to
ascertain where public right of access currently exists. On the statewide
inventory level, this information does not necessarily have to be in the
f orm of a list of all public accessways--e. g. , it may be suf f icient to note
that the rights-of-way of all city streets perpendicular to the shore extend
down to the water, rather than mapping or describing each in detail.
However, it should be noted that many neighborhood accessways and potential
accessways (e.g., those which can be established as "public" by means of
prescription) will not have been previously identified. At least in areas
in which increased access is the goal of the State program, the State should
make an effort to inventory all existing accessways to public (and
potentially public) beaches and other resources.

(3) Methodology

The initial surveys of public ownership can in most instances be made
from existing records, without the need for on-site physical investigation.
At a minimum, the statewide inventory should identify publicly held lands
and accessways. In addition, to facilitate evaluation of the suitability of
particular sites for accessways, the inventory can include ownership

information about adjoining parcels. Tax maps and existing inventories
should provide most of the needed information if ownership is uncertain or
the possibility of public easements (e.g., by prescription) exists.
Delinquent tax records can be used to identify land to which the public has
acquired some right. In addition, the States should investigate the
possibility that rights-of-way leading to the recreation resource belong in
public ownership, even in the absence of improved roads.

Law students might be used to make field investigations and to review
tax maps, records, and deed books. Local realtors and long-time community
residents might also be of assistance. The product should consist of
annotated lists and maps indicating where public proprietary rights
currently exist and where they could be established.

B. Selection of Potential Accessways

The first part of the inventory involves cataloging coastal resources
by ownership and examining the existing and potential access to those
resources in which the public holds proprietary rights. The. second part of
the inventory involves selecting sites which have the greatest potential for
increased public access. Once this process is complete, detailed
suitability studies can be conducted. The method of site selection will
depend in large part on the directions of the State policy. For example, a
State focusing on increasing recreational opportunities to urban residents
may choose to concentrate its acquisition activities near urban centers, to
the exclusion of nonurban parts of the - coast. Other States that want to
acquire neighborhood access corridors 'will not expend time and money doing
detailed environmental and physiographic analyses of State park-size
parcels.

The Statewide cataloging of the first part of the inventory thus
provides a master list of sites where public access might be increased.
Depending upon its program priorities, a State may want to eliminate some
sites from more detailed examination, at least at the outset. Other sites
also initially may be set aside due to the acquisition mechanisms that would
have to be used. From the master list, a State should select those sites
which are the most likely areas for increasing access. This may be a large
number of sites if the State has multiple policy foci--but the purpose of
this phase of the inventory is to make implementation manageable. Once
these sites have been selected, it is then necessary to conduct detailed
studies to determine the suitability and feasibility of increased public
access for each site.

(1) Physical and Environmental Field Inventories

Once potential access areas have been selected, on-site assessments
should be conducted to determine the relative suitability of each site for
increased public utilization. The field inventory consists of two major
parts: a physical characteristics/ownership component, and an assessment of
environmental impacts.

The following physical factors have been used in the Virgin Islands as
elements of an on-site beach inventory. They are illustrative of the types
of information that can be acquired by field investigation:

--Beach Material

--Beach Texture

--Beach Length and Width

--Recreational Use: Current and Potential

--Shoreline Vegetation

--Geomorphic Characteristics

--Beach Stability

--Adjacent Land Use

--Ownership of Beach, Access Routes, and Adjacent Land

--Parking Availability and Road Capacity

--Development Intensity, Imminence, and Type

--Public Facilities

--Boat Ramp Potential

--Waves and Currents

--Anchorage Potential

--Scenic Qualities (from shoreline, shore overlook, and water
perspectives)

Evaluation of these physical factors can indicate both the suitability
of the resource for public recreation, and the difficulties that may be
encountered in access acquisition efforts.

The environmental component of the field inventory is designed to show
the effects of increased use of the shorefront resources resulting from
increasing public access. Most of this component will involve empirical
inventory techniques, though some elements would be more useful if
analytical methods were used. The Virgin Islands and South Carolina reports
use a low-to-high scale in evaluating the environmental impacts of intensive
public use of factors such as:

--Water Quality

--Air Quality

--Fish and Shellfish Habitats

--Wildlife Habitats

--Wetlands

--Ecosystem Continuity

--Vegetation Integrity and Diversity

In addition, env-ironmental assessments can evaluate the sensitivity of
the recreation resource to change, the ecological uniqueness of the site,
and educatibnal/preservation values inherent in the site.

The level of detail of the physical and environmental components of the
inventory will vary form State to State. Ideally, the inventory should
discuss the environmental and recreational parameters involved in using each
site, and make suggestions as to future use. However, considerably less
detail may be sufficient to differentiate among potential access sites and
pKovide information required for Environmental Impact Assessment. In some
States substantial information may already exist in agency files, contracted
studies, SCORPs, aerial/satellite inventories, and similar sources. Such
sources and Federal programs, such as the developing National Heritage Trust
Classification System, may also suggest inventory elements and evaluation
criteria. These sources may provide substantive data that can confirm the
findings of the physical and environmental components of the inventory.
However, there is no substitute for an on-site inventory, and these other
sources should supplement, not replace, the inventory procedures described
above.

(2) Use of the Inventory in the State Access Planning Process

Given the ownership information and phys i cal/ environmental data
acquired in the first two stages of the inventory process, it should be
possible to formulate discrete project descriptions for each area
inventoried. Such descriptions would map potential accessways, include
estimates of cost and method of acquisition, and discuss such variables as
parking availability and road capacity.

Each potential access project can be evaluated using the data acquired.
Examples of criteria that can be used in evaluating projects are:

--Accessibility

--Beach/Resource Quality

--Potential for Multiple Activities

--Environmental Damage Potential

--Existing Access

--Cost (relative to the amount of recreational benefit realized)

--Imminence of irreversible commitment to non-public uses if the
site is not acquired

These or other criteria would be selected according to the State's policy
focus.

Using the evaluation criteria, projects should be grouped according to
priority, as done by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission in
their Recommended Coastal Properties for Public Acquisition (1976). Each
priority group can list a number of projects which will vary by cost,
feasibility of acquisition, and location. The end product of such a
grouping will be a listing of projects arranged according to their ability
to meet State access needs. Selection of projects can then be made from
this listing.

3. Plan Formulation

The State access program should seek to effectuate the acquisition
policies developed in Step I of the plan. The exact nature of the program
will vary from State to State. Some States may wish to plan only discrete
projects. Others may wish to develop a continuing program of inventorying,
access protection and acquisition, and litigation. Regardless of the output,
the program formulation phase of the access plan should include the
following elements:

A. Implementation, Operations, and Management Determinations. The
State should determine what levels of govern ent and which
agencies will be responsible for the operation and management of
the accessways acquired as part of the program. In addition, the
plan should examine complimentary programs administered by other
State agencies (e.g., the BOR State Liaison Office) and outline
means of coordinating access activities throughout the State.
Even if the State CZM office can mandate some degree of
coordination by negative comments under the 307 consistency
regulations, this type of input should be considered secondary to
active cooperation among State (and local) agencies.

B. On-going Inventory and Planning. The State should decide what
types of continuing investigative and planning efforts will be
made regarding access acquistion and recreational needs.

C. Site Identification Process. The access plan should indicate the
procedure the State' will use to identify new Access sites and
develop project proposals. The mechanics of site
identification--e.g., using local planning staffs or interns to
review county deed records--should be as specific as possible.

D. Tools Analysis. The access plan should address the various
mechanisms available for access acquisition, and should discuss
the legal and political feasibility of using each tool in the
State's acquisition program. This type of analysis is illustrated

in the Public Access to Ocean Beaches report prepared by Brower
et. al. for North Carolina's Sea Grant program.

E. Public Ownership Litigation. Extent of public beach ownership
Te_.g., to mean low tide or mean high tide lines) can be identified
in most if not all coastal States and will be an initial inquiry
of the Inventory. However, in many States, conclusions as to
public ownership are based on old case law or statutes which have
not recently been tested in litigation. Litigation. of the
ownership question might result in new interpretations which would
increase the public's proprietary rights. This occurred in 1976
in Georgia, where the landward limit of public ownership was
changed from the mean low tide to the mean high tide line.

Similarly, legal doctrines that can be used to establish public
rights of access often have not been tested in the courts. As the
Gion-Dietz decisions in California demonstrate, new judicial
interpretations of property law concepts can have a substantial
effect on the public's access rights to the beach, and on rights
to use upland areas for recreational purposes (See Chapter IV).

Litigation on these issues could potentially increase the public's
rights in some States, and would in any event establish
conclusively what these rights are. However, litigation is
expensive. Accordingly, one use of Section 306 program money
could involve underwriting the cost of litigation issues relating
to beach ownership and access

F. Site-Specific Acquisition Planning. Many States should rank
potential access projects and decide that certain projects should
be funded and need detailed planning. Site-specific planning
could involve coordination with transportation plans or local
government land use plans. In addition, facility designs for
boardwalks, restrooms, and parking facilities to be used (with
slight variations) in all acquisition projects might be developed
in the access planning process.

G. Multi-Year Approach. The access plan is the programmatic device
through which the State should seek to accomplish its access
goals. Accordingly, it should look past short-range funding of
individual projects and attempt to coordinate both Federal and
State acquisition efforts. The plan approach should emphasize
long term increases in access and resource use, coordinated under
the State's access policy, rather than merely the immediate
acquisition of a few properties.

The product will be a process through which access may be
increased and will also be a detailed evaluation of specific
projects to be used in this process.

4. Public Hearings

The product of the foregoing will be a definition of what the State
intends to do, where it intends to do it, and how it proposes to do it.
Most, if not all, of these definitions will be made with no input from the
public at large, including those individuals in coastal areas who may be
affected by the State's access acquisition efforts. Accordingly, it is
advisable at this stage to hold at least one public hearing in the State's
coastal area to ascertain public reaction to the access plan. These public
hearings would presumably be conducted in accordance with existing NOAA/OCZM
hearing requirements, with provision made for consideration of written
comments and revision of the access plan based upon both oral and written
comments.

S. Program Approval

Once the access plan has been prepared aq public hearings have been
held, the State Program must be approved under 5305(b)(7). Such appro 1 is
essential to trigger the operation of the consistency requirements of Z07.
Once the Program is approved, each access project (of all agencies, not just
the State CZM agency) should show how that project will fit into the State's
access objectives, and how it is consistent with the elements of the State
program.

6. Project Generation

Once the State Program has been prepared and approved by OCZM, the
State's efforts will focus on individual access projects. Again, each
project should be consistent with the approved State Program, with
sufficient flexibility allowed to enable the State to take advantage of
unexpected acquisition opportunities.

VII. Legal Tools for Preserving, Perfecting,
and Acquiring Beach Access

I. Overview of Legal Constraints
The prevalent pattern of beach ownership involves public ownership of
the wet-sand or foreshore and private own 'ership of the dry-sand and uplands.
The access problem can be defined by reference to this ownership pattern,
using the example of a public highway running parallel to the ocean. The
road itself is publicly owned. Accordingly, the public has the right to use
the road, though such use does not necessarily include the right to park
along it. The land on the ocean side of the road, the upland area, is
privately owned, and may or may not be developed. The land to the ocean
side of the uplands is the dry-sand, again in private ownership and usually
belonging to the owners of the adjoining upland. Seaward of both the upland
and the dry-sand is the wet-sand or foreshore, which the public owns and has
the right to use. Thus the public has the right to use the road and the
wet-sand. However, the public has no right, either of ownership or use, in
the lands in between--the upland and the dry-saad. The access problem by
and large concerns the way in which the public obtains the right to proceed
from the road down to the foreshore.

Access accordingly involves the availability to the public of beach and
ocean recreational resources. This definition of the access problem leads
to three important points. The first is that the public currently does have
the right of aceess to many beaches and other ocean areas. Examples of such
areas include municipal beaches, State parks, and National Seashores, as
well as beaches already served by accessways. It should be remembered that
the access with which we are concerned involves the public's EjstLt of access
to the beach. This should be distinguished from permissive public use of
private property as an accessway.' For instance, a beachfront property owner
who sets up a pavilion and encourages members of the public to park, use his
facilities, and walk over his property to get to the beach does not give the
public a right to use his property, and may withdraw his permission at any
time. There are, nevertheless, a substantial number of beach and ocean
recreational areas to which the public currently does have the right of
access. The problems are that there are not enough accessways and those
that do exist are not always located where they are easily accessible to the
public.

The second point is that, while more beach access is needed, this does
not necessarily mean that all of the upland should be declared open for
public access to the rest of the beach. Littoral owners have proprietary
rights that must be protected. Increased public access can and should be
coordinated with the use of private land, and public utilization of the
beach need not interfere with littoral owners' enjoyment of their land.
Local governments should be selective in choosi ng accessways for acquisition
that are compatible with both public and private use. Moreover, once public
accessways have been acquired, public management and maintenance of beaches
and accessways is essential to continued use and enjoyment of the beach by
both littoral owners and the public. With regard to the protection of

private rights and uses, a beach access program accordingly involves
maintenance and management as well as the initial acquisition effort.

The third point is that there may currently exist a large number of
potential accessways in which the public currently has or can easily acquire
proprietary rights. Examples of such areas include rights-of-way which lead
down to the foreshore and which have been offered to the public but have not
yet been accepted by the appropriate local government body. A check of the
titles of beachfront property may reveal other instances in which the public
can perfect title to accessways. Similarly, there may exist areas which are
currently dedicated to the public but which are neither used nor maintained
by the governmental body to which the land was dedicated, and hence are
subject to having dedication withdrawn. The public rights in this type of
property can be preserved through adequate maintenance and management of the
accessway and the beach resource to which the accessway leads. In many
communities, access problems can be substantially alleviated by perfection
and preservation measures which involve discovering who currently has rights
of access and use, and then acting accordingly. These generally will be
less costly than outright acquisition measures, easier to implement, and
quicker to bring about.

The basic problem remains: more access is needed in appropriate
locations to increase the amount of beach available to the public. Means of
obtaining access can be classified within three general approaches: (1)
legislation, (2) perfection and protection of existing access, and (3)
acquisition of new accessways. Legislation, as exemplified by the Texas
Open Beaches Act, can simplify the task of access acquisition, but should
not be considered essential to any beach access program- -adequate.
legislative authority already exists in most jurisdictions to facilitate the
use of at least some acquisition strategies. Perfection and preservation
measures, as discussed above, should provide the groundwork for any beach
access program. This simply means that any program should begin with full
knowledge of the existing situation and a solid legal base. To increase the
amount of beach access available to the public, acquisition strategies
generally will be required. Many of the tools for acquiring access involve
the application of general property law concepts to a beach access context.
These tools can and should be used in concert to most effectively acquire
increased public access. It is anticipated that use of acquisition tools
will form the core of most access programs. The selection of tools will
depend upon a variety of factors, including local circumstances and access
needs, existing legal authority, and available resources.

Efforts to acquire public access to beaches may generate litigation,
particularly by owners of beachfront properties. As a preliminary matter,
therefore, the acquiring entity should anticipate legal challenges which
emanate from the Federal and State constititions. (See Godschalk, Brower,
McBennett, and Vestal, Constitutional Issues of Growth Management, ASPO
Press, 1977; and Godschalk, Brower, Herr, and Vestal, Responsible Growth
Management: Cases and Materials, in press.) Two major challenges should be
anticipated.

The first challenge is based on the constitutional doctrine that States
retain all power not expressly or implicitly given to the Federal government

by the United States Constitution or preempted by Federal legislation.
Under this doctrine the States have created local governments and have given
them the power to engage in certain activities. Unless State enabling
legislation authorizes local governments to perform a given function (i.e.,
the acquisition of land and the regulation of its use), they may not do it.
To avoid challenges based on lack of authorization, the specific enabling
language of these delegated powers should be reviewed before local
governments adopt acquisition strategies.

The acquisition tools most likely to raise constitutional challenges
are those which, without compensation, require a private owner of beachfront
property to provide the public with access across his land to the beach.
(Banta and Callies, The Taking Issue.) The Fifth Amendment provides that
private property is not to be taken for a public use without just
compensation. The Fourteenth Amendment due process clause extends this
restriction to the States. Thus, since local governments derive their power
from the States, this extends to them as well. The landowner burdened by
beach access obligations imposed by the local government may object that his
property has been taken for a public use for which he should be compensated.
The courts in North Carolina require that compensation be paid if the
owner's property has been rendered valueless for normal uses (State v.Joyner,
23 N.C. App. 27) or for practical purposes (Roberson's Beverages, Inc. v.
New Bern, 6 N.C. App. 632; Helms v. Charlotte, 255 N.C. 647, cited in
Strong's North Carolina Index 2d, section 30, Municipal Corporations)
by the local action. Local governments must be sure that their actions
do not exceed the limits of the police power, or else compensation to the
burdened' landowners will be required, making acquisition an expensive
proposition.

The following sections outline the tools that can be used to increase
public access within each of the three approaches outlined above, with
greatest emphasis given to acquisition strategies.

II. Legislation

The legislative approach to access acquisition involves the statutory
establishment of public rights to beach utilization and access, or
evidentiary presumptions which favor public rather than private use.

The legislative approach to the acquisition of beach access is
exemplified by the Texas Open Beaches Act [TEX. STAT. ANN. Sec. 5415(d)
(Vernon Supp. 1972)] which has been in effect since 1959. The statute is
predicated upon the right of the public to free and unrestricted use and
enjoyment of the beach.

The Act creates several presumptions and instructs the State Attorney
General to enforce them. It creates a presumption that the public enjoys a
prescriptive easement to use the area between the mean low tide and the line
of oceanfront vegetation,' or if there is none, the., line two hundred feet
landward of the mean low tide. It also creates the presumption that title
to littoral land does not entitle its owner to exclude the public from using
this part of the beach or the part below. Both of these can be overcome on
a sufficient showing of facts by the landowner that no prescriptive right

exists. The Act also creates a presumption that the public has a
prescriptive easemenl for purposes in ingress and egress to beaches owned by
the State and to beaches over which the' prescriptive easement extends.
However, it does not create a right or presumption for the public to cross
the uplands landward of the vegetation line to reach to reach the beach
(Eckhardt, "The Texas Open Beaches Bill," in Texas Law Institute of Coastal
and Marine Resources, The Beaches: Public Rights and Private Use,
Conference Proceedings, Jan. 15, 1972). This seemingly results in the
anomaly that, in exercising its presumptive rights to use the beach, the
public cannot get to. the beach when this requires crossing the uplands over
other than existing public access routes. Whether this approach works
depends on the amount of access currently' available to the public.
Accordingly, other States considering legislative solutions to the access
problem might consider incorporating presumptions for the public's right to
use the uplands, as well as the dry-sand, for access purposes.

A Federal Open Beaches Bill [H.B.. 1976, 94th Congress, 1st Session,
1974; the Bill is discussed in Black, "Constitutionality of the Eckhardt
Open Beaches Bill," 74 Col. L.R. 439 (1974)] has been proposed in the last
several years by Congressman Bob Eckhardt of Texas, and will probably be
proposed again in the present session of Congress. This bill is a variant
of the Texas Open Beaches Bill, but would probably be less effective in
securing public access because of its deference to State property law. As
currently proposed, this bill would make Federal money available to State
governments involved in acquisition of beach access, and would create
Federal policies supporting the public's right to use the beaches. However,
inasmuch as similar provisions have already been passed as part of the
Coastal Zone Management Act, it is questionable whether an Open Beaches Bill
would in fact change existing Federal policy. To facilitate increased
public access, the bill would authorize the Federal courts to make
declaratory judgments concerning the respective rights of the public and
littoral owners, meaning that Federal courts would determine title under
State law. Whether or not the bill can effectively increase public access
is conjectural, especially inasmuch as Federal courtswill be constrained by
existing State law and will be unable to initiate new approaches to property
rights as has been done in some State courts [e.g., State ex rel. Thornton v.
%
Ha , 254 Ore. 584, 462 P.2d 671 (1969); Gion v. City of Santa Cruz, 2,C.3d 29,
415 P.2d 50 (1970)).

III. Perfection and Protection of Existing Title and Access

In many coastal communities, there exist a large number of accessways
which the public would have a legal right to use given requisite prior
action by city and county governments. Some of these accessways are
currently in use by the public for purposes of beach access. Others are
not. In either case, the types of accessways under discussion involve those
in which the public has title or can acquire title with relatively minimal
effort. The emphasis is twofold: (1) to take effort to preserve the
public's right to use, where that' right currently exists, so that public
access cannot in the future be withdrawn; and. (2) to perfect public titlte
where local governmental action is required to establish the public's right
to use land for access purposes. In many situations, both perfection and

preservation techniques will be required--first to establish the public's
right to use, and thereafter to maintain that right. In many situations,
the same techniques will be required for both perfection and preservation.

In a beach access context, perhaps the two most useful perfection and
preservation tools are the erection of signs identifying public accessways
and the public maintenance of access areas.

Such actions can serve a variety of purposes. For example, the
dedication of subdivision streets is contingent upon acceptance by the
appropriate city or county government. Such acceptance is also required for
dedicated alleyways, which may be platted or otherwise offered to local
government. Although express acceptance is one method to ensure that a
legal dedication has in fact occurred, withdrawal of the dedicated streets
and.alleyways is still possible if the local government fails to use the
dedi-cated property in some active manner. Maintenance has been held not
only to constitute an acceptance of an offer to dedicate by implication, but
also is sufficient to defeat any efforts to withdraw dedicated land.
Accordingly, where dedicated roads, rights-of-way, or alleyways can be used
to afford public access to the beach, local governmental maintenance of
these areas, such as marking these areas with signs and providing waste
receptacles and similar litter cleaa-up services, will both perfect and
preserve the public's right to use these areas for beach access purposes.

This makes apparent the need for detailed and accurate title searches
as part of an inventory of existing and potential access areas. The
emphasis should be on discovering both those areas in which the public has
or may easily establish a legal right to use accessways and also those in
which a legal right to public use either has not been established or can be
abrogated by the acts of others. The specific tools employed to preserve
and protect access will of necessity depend upon the particular defects in
title. However, most defects can probably be solved by such relatively
simple measures as posting signs, doing some minimal amount of maintenance,
or the undertaking of similar action evidencing the public's commitment to
the land in question as a recreational resource. In some instances,
litigation may be required to establish public rights or enjoin private
attempts to abridge those rights. All of these activities will of course
involve some expenditure on the part of local government. These
expenditures should be relatively low where the public either has title or
can easily perfect title. In any event, these expenditures should be less
than those incurred by application of virtually all of the acquisition tools
which follow.

IV. Acquisition of Access

Access to beaches can be acquired in a number of ways, including
purchase, donation, establishment via litigation, and application of land
use control mechanisms.. The various tools and techniques for acquiring
access are presented in the following section. Each tool is analyzed in
terms of advantages and limitations, innovative applications, and use in
combination with other techniques.

Following are a number of characteristics that are inherent in all
acquisition activities:

� Access acquisition is generally expensive. As a r esult,
governments should seek to acquire only the degree of ownership
necessary for the type and quality of access desired. In many
cases, this will mean acquiring less-than-fee simple ownership.

� Acquisition of property is often a slow process for governmental
agencies; and conversely, property suitable for access may be on
the market for only a short period of time. Historically, private
sector organizations (e.g. , The Nature Conservancy) have assisted
governments in making land acquisitions. These organizations can
and should be used to help facilitate beach access acquisition.

� Governmental access acquisition programs will be most effective if
they are based upon clearly established objectives. These
objectives should specify the types of access having highest
priority in the acquisition program. Moreover, the available
resources and access tools should be used to carry out these
objectives.

A. Acquisition of Fee Simple

1. Purchase

a. Description

Purchase of fee simple title is the most direct means of acquiring
access to beachfront recreation areas for the public. All that is involved
is the purchase of property by State or local government. Unless combined
with other tools, such as eminent domain, the governmental purchaser is
limited to property available on the market. ' In addition, the governmental
purchaser must compete with other potential buyers, which may have the
effect of inflating market prices. As a result, purchase of fee simple
title is likely to be the most expensive acquisition tool.

b. Beach Access Application

Effective use of this tool in a beach access context is dependent upon
the location of land purchased. For example, purchase of a narrow strip
from a roadway to the foreshore would be much less expensive than purchase
of a wide strip of beachfront property. Purchase of such narrow strips
would of course be dependent upon the availability of a seller. However,
given availability, purchase of narrow accessways, combined with acquisition
of nearby land for parking, would probably be a feasible tool in most
developed beachfront areas.

Purchase of fee simple title. is also applicable to the acquisition of
beachfront parks. Land purchased for parks could include entire islands or
portions thereof, beachfront property, or both land contiguous to beachfront
property and strips of land purchased to afford access from the park to the
beach.

C. Experience

The State of Oregon is currently conducting a purchase program to
provide public areas for beach recreation. The Oregon program divides the
coastline into discrete sections. The goal is to provide a public
recreation area within each of these sections. In most instances, the
recreation areas consist of a small amount of parking, scattered picnic
tables, overlooks from cliffs, and access to coves and similar scenic
portions of the beach. The emphasis of the Oregon program is on purchasing
as much land as rapidly as possible but limiting improvements upon the land,
as opposed to a strategy of purchasing only a few selected parcels of land
and intensively developing these for public use.

The State of South Carolina has over the years purchased oceanfront
islands or parts of islands for preservation and public recreation purposes.
As a result, there currently exists along the coast a series of State parks
which provides the public with both access to the beach and support
facilities such as picnic areas and improved campsites. The 1976 report,
Public Beach Access and Recreation in South Carolina (by Hartzog, Lader, and
Richards, funded by B.O.R.), cites the need for even more publicly owned
parks along the coast to meet increasing public demand. The South Carolina
acquisition approach involves geographically large areas and considerable
recreation improvements, in contrast to the Oregon strategy of acquiring
numerous small parcels and making only minimal improvements. Such large
parcel acquisitions seem particularly appropriate to a coastline like South
Carolina's, which consists of numerous small islands.

Several highly developed communities in Florida, such as Boca Raton,
have financed beach and uplands acquisitions by means of public bond issues.
This has been positively received on the ground that if beach recreation
areas are not acquired now they will be the sites of commercial development,
leaving the local residents without access to use of the beach.

d. Meth6ds of Application

(1) Neighborhood Scale

On a neighborhood scale, acquisition of fee simple title would most
likely be used to provide narrow accessways from public roadways to the
beach. Acquisition of land would also be an appropriate tool for providing
parking areas contiguous to such accessways. Small beachfront lots might
also be purchased to provide for both access and public parking. At the
neighborhood level, purchase might be combined with other tools, such as
condemnation and prescriptive easement, to provide public pedestrian access
between privately owned tracts of land, especially in locations where such
accessways are platted.

(2) Municipal Scale

At the municipal level, fee simple purchase is most appropriate for the
establishment of municipal beaches. Such beaches would presumably require
some degree of intensive development and periodic maintenance by municipal
government. Important variables would be public demand and the expected
degree of use of the facility, the resulting size requirement for the
facility, and the cost of the facility in light of its location.

The establishment of municipal beaches can be used as a planning device
to concentrate commercial beachfront development. Especially if I@eachfront
property has not yet been intensively developed, combinations of public
acquisition and land use management techniques like zoning can be used to
plan beachfront land use, and thus help manage such common beachfront
problems as dune protection, sewerage, adequacy of road and parking
facilities, etc.

(3) Regional/State Scale

At this scale, purchase of fee simple title is perhaps the most
appropriate means for acquiring land to be used as State parks. Examples of
land purchased for this purpose would include islands, or portions of
islands, or any large acreage in coastal areas which include some beachfront.
property. Although use of this tool might be expensive, it can be argued
that fee simple acquisition is the only tool for acquiring sufficient
acreage for State parks.

2. Acquisition in Fee by Gift

a. Outright Donation

Outright donation of land for public purposes has long played an
important role in public resource development. As of 1960, for example,
over 30 percent of the Federal, State, and county parkland in the State of
New York had been acquired through donations. Outright donation is still a
highly desirable method of conveying property because of its relative
simplicity and because it gives the organization entrusted with the land the
freedom, within reasonable limitations, to vary uses of the property to meet
needs and conditions in the future. The tax savings realized from a
donation of land are great. Aside from the avoidance of any further real
estate taxes or estate taxes on the land value, maximum savings are obtained
from Federal and State income and capital gains taxes.

The major conservatory organizations- -both national and regional--have
historically given assistance to governments involved in acquiring land
donations. Almost all local governments are permitted to receive charitable
donations of land from public-spirited citizens. Possibly the main reason
charitable donations of land are not more common across the Nation is that
it does not occur to public officials to ask.

When a landowner decides to donate his property to an organization or
governmental agency, it is the landowner's prerogative to include
restrictions in the deed of transfer. Such restrictions can ensure that the
land will be managed and used according to the donor's wishes. However, the
govern ent must accept the conditions attached to the grant.

Donors who place restrictive language in the deed should be aware that
the restrictions will most likely have an effect on the fair market value of
the property. Through restrictions, the donor is effectively retaining some
rights, and these rights have value; thus, the value of the restrictions
will be considered in any appraisal of the land.

One such restriction is commonly referred to as a '@reverter" clause.
By including a reverter clause.in the deed, will, or other instrument of
transfer, the donor can specify that title to the land or interest in land
conveyed will revert to its former owner or to a third party if it ceases to
be used for the purposes defined in the instrument.

When a landowner gives his land to a government entity, he is generally
permitted to deduct from his Federal income tax the fair market value of the
property (or a lesser amount if a lesser estate is given).

b. Bargain Sale

In many cases, a landowner cannot, for some reason, simply give his
land to an organization or government agency, and the alternative of
purchasing the property at a bargain sale price should be explored. A
bargain sale is a purchase price at less than the appraised estimate of fair
market value.

If the owner of a piece of property feels that he has to receive some
actual cash for his land, a bargain sale is often a very attractive
alternative to the owner, especially if he has a low cost basis on the
property and a big income. The long term capital gains tax which results
from the sale of appreciated property can have an adverse effect on an
individual's adjusted gross income. The long term capital gains tax allows
the seller to put all of his original cost of the property and one-half of
the profit from the sale into his pocket, without any taxes. The other half
of the profit is added to the seller's adjusted gross income before
deductions, and unless there are some sizable deductions to shield this
additional income, the increased taxes can have an adverse effect on the
seller's ordinary income. By adding one-half of the profit to his ordinary
income, the seller will probably be pushed into a higher tax bracket, which
adversely affects not only his profits from the sale, but also the net after
tax return on his ordinary income.

A bargain sale to a governmental body at less than appraised fair
market value not only gives the donor a deduction with which he can shield
his adjusted gross income, but also may provide a simple way for the owner
to realize fair market value without actually placing the property on the
open market.

B. Acquisition of Less-than-Fee Simple

In order to understand the concept of less-than-fee, it is useful to
think of the rights associated with a property as a bundle of sticks. Each
of these sticks can be thought of as representing some particular property
right. For instance, one stick might represent the right to exclusive
possession of the land. Another might be the right to develop the land. In
theory, the owner of property in fee simple holds the entire bundle of
sticks, except those retained by government through police power, taxation,
eminent domain, and escheat. The property owner, therefore, is free to use
his property in any manner he wishes as long as it does not conflict with
existing governmental rights and laws.

When property is acquired in fee simple, all of the rights associated
with the property are transferred from the original owner to the acquiring
party. The acquiring party thus becomes the new property title holder and
is free to use the land as desired within the scope of his rights.
Less-than-fee acquisition, on the other hand, involves the granting by the
property owner of a limited right or set of rights to a second party. The
rights granted are always less than the total bundle of rights possessed by
the property owner. As a result, the property owner continues to hold the
title to the land and is free to use the land in any manner which is
consistent with the rights conveyed to the acquiring party.

1. Purchase of Easements

a. Description

An easement is the right to use someone else's land in some
specifically designated manner. In most cases, easements involve a specific
right to travel over a landowner's property. The most common situation
involves a landlocked person who must travel across his neighbor's land in
order to reach a road. In general, an easement is limited to a specific use
by a particular person or persons. If an easement is granted to a person or
a unit of government it is called an easement in gross. If granted to an
adjoining landowner it is an easement appurtenant. Easements are also
categorized as affirmative or negative. An affirmative easement is a right
to use land, as in the right of access over land described above. Negative
easement precludes some use of land, as in a scenic easement, which might
prohibit a neighboring landowner from erecting a building which would block
a view.

Easements may be acquired by deed, in which case the right to use
another's property is generally purchased. Or they may be acquired by
prescription where, if certain legal requisites have been satisfied,
continued and prolonged use has given the user the right to use someone
else's land. Purchase and prescription will be discussed as separate tools.
Purchase of easements is described below.

Easements are generally purchased in circumstances in which it is
unnecessary or infeasible to purchase the land itself--i.e., only some
rights to use the land, such as the right to pass over it, are needed. In
the absence of the use of such tools as eminent domain, there is no
requirement for a landowner to sell an easement. Accordingly, easements are
likely to be expensive, particularly when the -user desires an easement on a
particular piece of property. However, landowners may be persuaded to grant
easements because of the tax consequences involved, including a decrease in
the valuation of their property for property tax purposes in addition to the
potential ability to avoid paying capital gains tax on the income derived
from the sale of the easement. Generally speaking, the viability of
purchase of easements as a tool for acquiring access is conditioned upon
most of the variables discussed in the section regarding purchase of fee
simple title.

b. Beach Access Application

Easements are most appropriate as walkways from a public road, across a
landowner's property, to the beach--i.% down to the foreshore, which is
owned by the.State. In many instances, this will accordingly mean a right
to travel from the State-owned road to the State-owned beach. Easements are
particularly useful either where (private) walkways from a road to the beach
have already been designated on recorded plats, or along the lot lines of
property being used for purposes not inconsistent with a public walkway to
the beach. Easements may also be procured across residential beachfront
property, particularly where the landowner needs the money.

The major caveat involved in acquiring access easements is that the
accessway must lead.to the beach from an area which is accessible to the
public. This means that road capacity and probably parking facilities of
some sort must be available if an access easement is to be useful to the
public. In addition, as with purchase of fee simple title, purchase of
access easements requires a willing seller. In the case of access
easements, owners of beachfront property may be induced to sell easements if
their property can be revalued for taxation purposes.

C. Methods of Application

(1) Neighborhood Scale

On the neighborhood scale, acquisition of access easement would seem to.
be most useful for providing local residents with access to the beach.
Where beachfront subdivisions were sold with reference to a plat on which
accessways were delimited, or with covenants assuring lot owners access to
the beach, landowners may already have legal access. In addition,
subdivision residents may have acquired the right of access to the beach via
prescription. Accordingly, easement acquisition is probably not necessary
in most beachfroat subdivisions as a means of providing subdivision
residents with access to the beach.

Using a slightly more expansive definition of neighborhood, there may
be many residents of beachfroat communities who lack access to the beach
other than by trespass (i.e., those living in near-beach but not beachf ront
lots). Easement acquisition can be used to provide access for these people.
Particularly if the route selected for easement acquisition is one already
in use as an accessway--such as a route reserved for use by subdivision
residents--and sufficient parking is available, this tool can effectively
procure public access at a fairly insubstantial cost.
(2) Municipal Scale

At the municipal scale, the local government involved must decide
between acquiring neighborhood access easements, as discussed above, or
using easements to provide access to high-use beach facilities, such as
municipal beaches, or combining the two. In the context of high-use
facilities, easements could be used to provide access to the public along
the commercial strip, or similarly to enable the public to reach the beach
without disrupting existing beachfront land use.

(3) Regional/State Scale

At this scale, easement acquisition is perhaps most effectively used in
combination with other access acquisition techniques. For example, scenic
easements might be acquired over mar*land property contiguous to State
parks, or access easements to the marsh might be provided to enable the
public to use these areas for fishing, boating, etc. Depending on the area
involved, easements could also be used to afford access to the beach in
situations in which the landowner might not be willing to sell fee simple
title.

d. Experience

Broward County, Florida, has purchased three easements, each ten feet
wide and six hundred feet long, from the coastal highway to the beach over
currently undeveloped land just north of Pompano Beach. While there is no
provision for parking, these easements do provide beach access to the
residential communities on the landward side of the coastal highway.

Another - frequent use of easements has involved scenic easements,
easements which are designed to preserve the aesthetic attractiveness of an
area by prohibiting unattractive land use. In the 1930s, the National Park
Service began to acquire scenic easements along the Blue Ridge and Natchez
Trace Parkways. Scenic easements have also been used to preserve the
shoreline along Oregon's Willamette River and to protect the views along
Wisconsin's Great River Road.

A different kind of easement has been used by the Fish and Wildlife
Service in the "pothole" country of Minnesota and the Dakotas, where
easements were purchased to protect the natural breeding habitat of ducks
and other wild fowl. These easements stipulate that farmers will not burn,
fill, or drain the wetlands located on their property.

Within the beach access context, easements have been acquired through
the development permit process. Although this does not involve outright
purchase, the governments have exchanged something just as valuable as money
(the right to develop) for the easements (see the following sections dealing
with trades and with required dedication of roads and alleyways). An
example of this sort of transaction occurred in Malibu, California, where
the builder was required to open a five-foot easement over his property so
that the public could get from a nearby highway to the beach. Many other
States use this technique.

2. Prescriptive Easement

a. Description

Generally speaking, prescription refers to the process by which one
person obtains the right to use another's land in some specified manner.
Title remains with the original landholder. However, because of continued
use of the landowner's property by some other party, the law recognizes that
party's right to continue that use. The landowner's land is accordingly
encumbered by the easement holder's right of use.

The requirements for establishing a prescriptive easement vary from
State to State. Generally speaking, the requirements include the continued
use of someone else's land for a considerable number of years, such as ten
or twenty. Such use must be adverse, meaning that the landowner must not
give permission for the use, and usually must be notorious in the sense that
the landowner could easily have discovered the use and taken steps to
prevent it had he cared to do so. Once the requirements for prescription
have been met, the user has acquired a right to continue his use. In other
words, this use cannot be interfered with by the landowner or his
successors. If the legal requirements are met, prescription approximates
the common notion of squatters' rights--that is, if one squats for long
enough on a piece of property, he gets to keep that property.

b. Beach Access Application

Prescription in a beach access context can refer to two distinct
phenomena: (1) acquisition of the right to pass over privately held land in
order to reach the beach, and (2) acquisition of the, right to use the
dry-sand and uplands for recreational purposes. Arguably, public rights in
the foreshore will have as their practical consequence public ability to use
the dry-sand but not necessarily the uplands for recreational purposes.
Accordingly, the principal uses of prescription in a beach access context
will be found in obtaining access to the beach and use of the uplands.
Prescription may be used effectively to obtain or perfect the right to use
the beach as well.

In many, perhaps most, beachfront communities, the public has regularly
used certain paths to reach the beach. If such public use satisfies the
requirements for prescription, primarily as to duration of the use and
adversenessl then the public has acquired a right to use that particular
accessway and dry- s and/up lands irrespective of the desires of the title
holder of the land. It must be noted that continued or habitual use of an
accessway may not necessarily result in a public easement by prescription.
The public acquires an easement only when it can be shown that the use has
been made by the public at large. For example, if only the residents of a
particular subdivision used a particular path to the beach, and met the
requirements for prescription, those subdivision residents but not the
public would acquire the easement. Similarly, if a Girl Scout troop for the
requisite number of years used a pathway without permission of the owner,
the troop in question, or perhaps the Girl Scouts as a whole, would acquire
an easement of passage or access by prescription, but the public would have
acquired no such right.

While there currently may be many accessways that are legally
obtainable for use by the public by means of prescription, most such routes
have not been legally established. Easement by prescription, to be legally
recognized, must generally be established through litigation, followed by
the recordation of the encumbrance upon recorded title. Local government
may wish to so establish easements by prescription as a method of obtaining
access. However, documentation and litigation do involve some cost, and de
facto access may be preferable to the expense of securing legally recognized
access.

C. Experience

Prescription is a traditional property law concept. It can be applied
to beach access contexts in the same manner that it is applied in regard to
any other property. For example, the Florida Supreme Court in City of
Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, 294 So.2d 73 (1974), applied traditional
concepts of adverseness to overrule a lower court decision which had upheld
the public's prescriptive acquisition of access to and use of the beach.
Other courts, such as the Texas Appellate Court in Seaway Co. v.Attorney
General, 375 S.W. 2d 923 (Tex. Civ. App. 1964), arguably display a willingness
to find that the public has prescriptively acquired access to the beach, and
accordingly construe both facts and the law in the manner more likely to result
in prescription than would traditional modes of analysis.

d. Methods of Application

(1) Neighborhood Scale

Most prescriptive easements of access to the beach will be on the
neighborhood scale--that is, prescriptive easements will be established over
the passageways that local people use to get to the beach. Locally used
accessways will also be the easiest to prove in litigation, so long as there
are local people who have used or know of others using the accessway in
question for the requisite number of years.

(2) Municipal Scale

Prescriptive easements for access can also be established at the
municipal scale where there are beaches that local residents customarily use
and have used for the requisite number of years. If such beach areas exist,
the public may also be able to acquire via prescription the right to use the
dry-sand and uplands areas for recreational purposes. The public may also
be able to acquire by prescription the right 'to park vehicles in specified
areas adjacent to paths leading to the beach.

(3) Regioaal/State Scale

Prescription is probably not a viable tool at this scale. However, if
a State wishes to acquire for recreational purposes land the public has
continuously used in a manner that satisfies the requirements for
prescription, the State might be able to use this tool in conjunction with
other tools to acquire the property more easily, and at a lower price.

3. Conservation Easements

a. Description

A conservation easement is a method by which a landowner can secure
both present enjoyment of his land and future limitations on the land's use.
Pursuant to authorizing this statute, the landowner conveys the easement to
a governmental entity or authorized private organization. The terms of the
easement preclude certain uses of the land. The owner retains title. The
effect is to encumber future. uses of the land, in that future owners must

take title subject to the terms of the easement. Depending upon the terms
of the easement, the effect of a conservation easement may accordingly be a
substantial reduction in the market value of the land. To facilitate use of
this technique, tax benefits in the form of reduced property taxation
valuation may accrue to the landowner so encumbering his land.

A conversation easement is thus essentially a preservation technique.
It involves taxation mechanisms, such as reduction in property valuation for
tax purposes, as an inducement for landowners to use this technique. In
theory, conservation easements constitute the donation of proprietary rights
to the public, and accordingly could constitute an important acquisition
tool in any beach access strategy. However, as illustrated in the
discussion below concerning beach access application, use of this tool
without substantial controls can lead to increased restriction rather than
increased public access.

b. Beach Access Application

In a beach access context, the most likely application for conservation
easements will involve large tracts of property which have not yet been
developed. The effect of conservation easements in these tracts will vary
depending upon the terms of the easements. The stringent easement, such as
one precluding the removal of all trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, may
have the practical effect of limiting future land use to open space. If the
terms are so written as to preclude roadways or pedestrian paths through the
property, the use of conservation easements may effectively preclude future
development, keep the beachfront property in large tract private ownership,
and preclude public access over this property to the beach. In such a
situation, the landowner would be reducing the market value of his land, but
his efforts would also have helped insure his continued ownership and
enjoyment of the land at a lesser rate of taxation. In return, the public
would have received a guarantee of future open space, but not of the ability
to use this open space.

A further effect of such conservation easements involves the valuation
of other property along the beach. By the taking of large tracts off the
market via the conservation easement mechanism, beachfront property not so
encumbered would greatly appreciate in value due to what amounts to market
manipulation. The consequence in terms of public access is that the public
may be shut off from most beach areas and unable to pay the price for the
land that is available.

The above description applies to the forms of conservation easements
that have been used to date. Arguably, a variant form of conservation
easement could be used to obtain public access via this mechanism. In many
situations, a landowner will contract to donate his land via a conservation
easement on the condition that his property is revalued for taxation
purposes. Similarly, the governmental or private entity receiving the
easement could condition that receipt upon provision for public access.
This essentially involves negotiation, and a willingness on the part of the
governmental or private entity involved not to take everything offered at
first blush.

Statutes authorizing the use of conservation easements and the ability
of governmental and private entities to accept them can be amended to
require that the management of the proprietary rights so obtained will be
consistent with certain public purposes or general welfare provisions. One
of these can be the provision of public access to recreational facilities.
Other similar purposes could be environmental preservation, habitat
management, and so forth. Similarly, tax statutes can be written
specifically for revaluations concerning conservation easements, with
revaluation allowed only on the condition that such public access be
provided.

C. Experience

The most prevalent use of conservation easement has been in Maine.
Under Maine statutes 33-667 and 33-668, "conservation restrictions" are
defined and authorized for acquisition by any governmental body having power
to acquire interest in land. Section 33-668 distinguishes this mechanism
from any other governmental power to acquire property, including by gift.
The Maine program is administered through the Maine Coastal Heritage Trust.
This organization promotes the use of conservation easements as a
preservation technique, and is the principal entity in Maine acting as
recipient of the rights donated in conservation easements. While -this
program seems to have been successful in acquiring many ecologically
important areas of the Maine coast for preservation, it has been criticized
on the ground that use of the conservation easement technique has not
increased public utilization or access to open space and recreation areas.

d. Methods of Application

Use of this tool is limited to areas where beachfront properties still
exist in large tract ownership. So long as the governmental entities
involved can exact public access to the beaches from the grantor as a
condition for accepting the conservation easement, this appears to be a
viable tool for acquiring recreation rights as well as access rights on
either the municipal or regional/State level.

4. Leaseholds

a. Description

Leaseholds are a second commonly used less-than-fee technique. Under a
leasehold agreement, the owner of a parcel of land (lessor) grants an
interested party (lessee) the right to use the land in a specified manner
for a limited period of time. The leasehold thus creates and transfers to
the lessee restricted rights, generally referred to as the leasehold estate,
and reserves to the lessor all remaining property rights, known as the fee
estate. At the time of lease expiration, the restricted rights revert to
the lessor. Usually the lessor and lessee have contractually decided what
the state of this reversion should be before the rights are initially
granted.

While leases are most frequently utilized as a legal instrument for the
renting of buildings and structures (e.g. apartments, stores, offices,

etc.), they can be applied to any number - of other uses including the
provision of farming rights, public fishing and hunting rights on private
lands, and public access rights across someone's property.

Two basic variations of the standard lease are commonly used. The
first involves the inclusion of a renewal clause within the contract. This
simply permits the renewal of the lease at the time it expires, provided the
lessor and lessee desire to use this option. The second variation, known as
the option to purchase clause, allows the lessee to buy the fee estate
outright prior to the expiration of the lease. Often this clause is
inserted when the lessee is uncertain about the relative value or utility of
a particular parcel of land. By acquiring certain affirmative rights and
then exercising them for a period of time, the lessee can determine whether
or not fee simple investment is desirable.

Aside from these basic characteristics, leases have a number of other
general traits which must be considered before one decides whether
leaseholds are particularly suitable for access purposes. These traits are
presented below.

Advantages Disadvantages

� Leasing is flexible relative o Lessor and lessee may not
to possible length of contract always be able to agree on
term and types of affirmative term of lease or interests to
interests which can be be included therein.
included.
o Leasing rates are adversely,
� It is usually less expensive affected by development
than purchase of fee interest. pressures.

� Basic ownership remains with o Lease may not necessarily
property owner. reduce the owner's tax
liability.
� In some States lessor may be
exculpated from personal and o Responsibility for personal
property losses to those and property damage liability
using the land for recrea- may be unclear.
tion.
o May not solve problem (need
� Leasing is generally for access) in the long run.
accepted and understood by
the public and the courts.

� Rights granted do*not take
away future rights to full
use of property by lessor.

� Public entry and use can be
limited to specified months
and purposes, permitting
some continued use by lessor
during other times.

Advantages

� Contractual nature of agree-
ment helps to identify more
clearly the maintenance/
enforcement roles.

� Might be a partial solution
where no other solution is
possible.

b. Beach Access Application

In the beach access context, leases can be used to serve a variety of
needs and factual circumstances. Immediate needs for access can be served
by leasing access across developed or undeveloped land while long-term needs
are being analyzed and long-term plans drafted. Leases can also be used to
demonstrate to a landowner who is suspicious of the harm that might be done
by the public travel across his land that the harm is minimal and fully
compensated by the cash payments provided by the lessee for the lease or by
reduced property taxes. If the local government or other lessee has a duty
to maintain the accessway and responsibly carries out that duty, this would
contribute to the creation of a positive perception by the suspicious
landowner. Having made this demonstration, the lessee could urge the
landowner to dedicate the accessway to the public or could negotiate lease
extensions at a reduced rate of compensation. If the landowner is
unfavorably impressed, the local government still has the option of eminent
domain available to acquire access over the property.

C. Other Means of Acquisition

1. Eminent Domain

a. Description

Eminent domain is the process by which govern ental entities can
acquire proprietary interests in privately held land in exchange for
compensation, regardless of the owner's willingness to sell. . Generally
speaking, the governmental entity may condemn whatever land it chooses so
long as its actions are consistent with a public use or benefit involving
the land in question. Compensation is usually fixed at fair market price,
though there may be evidentiary problems in establishing exactly what this
is.

b. Beach Access Application

In a beach access context, eminent domain has a variety of
applications. One is to condemn property in fee, and thus to acquire land
for access-related purposes such as parks, parking lots, and so forth.
While eminent domain may be used effectively in some circumstances, it has
the drawback of being expensive. A second and less expensive application of

eminent domain in a -beach access context is to condemn easements, that is,
public rights-of-way, over privately held property; title thus remains in
private ownership, but is encumbered by the public easement for purposes of
access.

This second application--using eminent domain to acquire access
easements--can be used in a variety of contexts. In many coastal
subdivisions, accessways (usually paths through the dunes) exist for use by
landowners in the subdivisions. Many of these are retained in ownership by
the subdivider, who simply does not sell strips between platted lots. Other
such accessways may be held by littoral owners subject to a private easement
in favor of the subdivision landowners, or subject to prescriptive easement.
Where such accessways are recorded on plats, condemnation appears to be a
particularly useful and inexpensive method of acquiring public access. The
right-of-way is set out in metes and bounds; the land is already subject to
use for purposes of access, so that.additional use will only marginally
affect property values and in. fact the land may already have a limited
access easement recorded against it. Easements which are recorded in
littoral land deeds but are not shown on plats may be more difficult to fix
by metes and bounds, but these still present the advantages of similar
existing use. In such situations, it would seem that the governmental
entity could condemn an access easement across the existing accessway and
pay only a minimal sum because the property is already encumbered by
existing easements or covenants.

In many coastal areas, there are a large number of platted accessways
and possible road extensions down to the beach. Eminent domain exercised in
these contexts for purposes of acquiring access easements appears to offer
an inexpensive and readily available means of public access in these areas.
Although some litigation may be expected contesting both valuation and the
location of accessway chosen, it would seem that this use of eminent domain
presents a comparatively facile method for acquiring access.

C. Experience

In the beach access context, eminent domain powers have been used
almost exclusively for fee simple acquisition. As has been mentioned, the
principal difficulty with fee simple acquisition is not so much a legal as a
practical problem: the costs of condemning substantial areas of beachfront
property are higher than most States and municipalities can afford. The
problem is illustrated by three recent examples.

In the early 1970s, the County of Hawaii condemned a park site at
Kalapana Black Sand Beach. In doing so, it had to conf ront: (1) the
difficulty of surveying a piece of ocean-front property, a task complicated
by special laws relating to shifting boundary lines; (2) the problems
inherent in appraising unique and commercially valuable land, the value of
which may be greatly inflated because of speculation; (3) the possibility of
litigation with the landowner; and (4) the realities of obtaining money for
compensating the landowner. [County of Hawaii v. Sotomura, 55 Hawaii 176,
517 P.2d 57 (1973), cert. denied, 419 F.Supp. 95 (D. Hawaii, 1975)).

Since 1970 the State of Florida has been using eminent domain to
acquire beachfront property. Between 1970 and 1973, it acquired ten miles
of beach lands at a cost of one million dollars per mile. (Miami Herald,
April 22, 1973@) California, on the other hand, recently exercised eminent
domain over a one-mile stretch of beach at a cost of six million dollars.
(Los Angeles Times, January 31, 1971, B, p. 1, col. 6).

2. Implied Dedication and Express Dedication

a. Description

If a residential lot is sold with reference to a recorded plat on which
roads or rights-of-way are designated, the purchaser has a right to use
those roads and rights-of-way as an incident to title. Often such roads and
rights-of-way will be expressly dedicated to the general public as well
(required dedication is dealt with separately later in this chapter). In
other cases, the doctrine of implied dedication enables a court to find that
recordation of streets, alleyways, etc. , or other acts constitute a
dedication of those features to the public. An implied dedication may be
found to exist whenever there is a transfer of title. It may be shown by
some act or course of conduct on the part of the owner from which a
reasonable inference can be drawn or which is inconsistent with any other
theory than that he intended to dedicate. Therefore, it can arise from
activity other than recordation. For example, if a purchaser buys land that
has been used for an extended period of time by the public for access
purposes, and he does not subsequently seek to prevent such use, it may be
argued that the purchaser intended to donate to the public an access
easement over his land. This concept has obvious ties to prescription and
adverse possession, but with the concept of adverseness removed. The
landowner is construed to have a donative intent--that is, he intended to
give to the public the property rights in question. However, the evidence
used to prove an implied dedication may be substantially similar to that
used to prove prescription--i.e. continuous and uninterrupted use with the
knowledge of the landowner. Implied dedication can accordingly be seen as
an alternative to prescription in those circumstances in which adverse use
cannot be established.

Express dedication poses no such proof problems--the dedication itself
establishes public rights of use, consistent with applicable statutes and
ordinances. Accordingly, where a road or right-of-way has been expressly
dedicated in a beach access context, the public has acquired access.

b. Beach Access Application

In the context of residential subdivisions, implied dedication can be
used to argue that subdivision roadways and alleyways have been dedicated to
the public. This is especially important in those subdivisions in which
alleys between beachfront lots can provide accessways from a roadway to the
beach. In such circumstances, successful invocation of implied dedication
will have the effect of securing a public accessway from a public road
within the subdivision to the beach. In addition, in those subdivisions in
which existing roads can be extended down to the beach, use of implied
dedication will have the effect of securing a public accessway from a public

100

road within the subdivision to the beach. Also, in those subdivisions in
which existing roads can be extended down to the beach, use of implied
dedication to establish rights to the right-of-way can afford not only
pedestrian access to the beach but also vehicular access to the beach. In
either situation, the establishment of public rights in the subdivision
streets should have the effect of allowing public parking along these
streets, with the caveat that some improvements might have to be made if the
streets are not paved or are too narrow to allow both parking and through
traffic.

The non-subdivision application of implied dedication involves the
establishment of public rights in existing routes that are permissively used
for access purposes. Whether or not this application.of dedication can be
used to supplement prescription depends on the interpretation of State law,
and may well not be available.

In reference to beach access, express dedication is applicable to those
beachfront roads and rights-of-way that have been expressly dedicated. Such
roadways already- afford the public legal right of access--accordingly the
emphasis in express dedication is to discover (e.g. , by title search) and
utilize existing dedicated roads and rights-of-way, and to encourage the
express dedication of new streets and rights-of-way.

C. Experience

The doctrine of implied dedication has been used in both the Texas and
California courts. In Seaway Co. v. Attorney General, 375 S.W. 2d 923 (Tex.
Civ. App.), the Texas Appellate Court found that an easement for purposes of
access had been dedicated to the public through implication as a result of
over a century of use of the beach by the general public for recreational
purposes. There had been no interference with public enjoyment of the area,
and the public had never sought permission from anyone to use the beach.
The court applied roadway precedents to the beach context without discussing
their suitability or referring to earlier beach access decisions in other
States.

In Gion v. City of Santa Cruz and Dietz v. King, 2 C.3d 29, 465 P.2d 50
(1970), the California court set forth guidelines indicating when public use
of the beach and adjacent parking facilities would ripen into an implied
dedication of the property in question. However, as noted in 22 Stanford
Law Review 564 (1970), the criteria set forth by the court amount to use of
prescription under the name of implied dedication.

d. Methods of Application

(1) Neighborhood Scale

Implied dedication would seem most applicable in the context of
particular roads and accessways. These of necessity will be at the
neighborhood scale, although litigation to establish public rights in these
areas might be limited to locations which would afford public access to
highly used (e.g. municipal) beaches. Especially within subdivisions,
parking is likely to be a problem. Accordingly, planning is necessary to

101

ensure that the municipality seeks to establish access easements by implied
dedication only in those areas where it is unnecessary to expend large
amounts of money to improve roadway and parking facilities.

(2) Municipal Scale

The advantage of using implied dedication as a means of establishing
the right of access in areas currently used by the public for access
purposes lies in the ability to establish what amounts to a public beach,
and access thereto, without the expenditure of public funds (except for
litigation). This may be possible in many areas traditionally used by the
public for access purposes with the landowners' permission (which,
accordingly, makes prescription unavailable under most State laws).

(3) Regional/State Scale

It seems. unlikely that this tool will have significant application at
the regional or State scale. However, its use depends upon the factual
circumstances in each case, which may make application of this tool
desirable.

3. Trades

a. Description

There are,two principal means by which trading can be used as a tool to
acquire access. The first involves the exchange of access rights for
development or use modifications or for commitments to assume maintenance
responsibilities. This was the approach adopted by the City of Greensboro,
North Carolina. That city amended its zoning ordinance [ 23-33.5 (1975)]
exempting residential lots abutting open space dedications from the minimum
lot size otherwise required by the ordinance. This was done in an effort to
obtain open space dedications on flood plains. It is apparent that such an
approach could be used in the beach access context as well. However, unless
the specifies of such an approach are fully reported in advance of their
implementation, there is a serious problem of abuse by the body evaluating
the benefit received. This could lead to contract or spot zoning which
would be overturned by the courts, to political kick-backs, and to
instability in local development patterns.

The other principal use of trading involves the exchange of land. If a
local government or the State owns, non-beachfront property for which it has
no immediate or foreseeable need, such property could be exchanged for
beachfront property having similar value. Here the dangers of abuse are
less, because the exchange would follow objective appraisal of both parcels.

b. Beach Access Application

Trading is most appropriate for new development proposals. When land
which is desirable for access purposes is the subject of private development
planning, the local or State government which owns non-beachfront, tradable
land should alert the private developer of the availability of that land
which it owns. For example, if beachfront property has been platted in

102

fifty foot wide lots, as it frequently is in residential zones, and the
developer proposes to develop commercial uses, the fifty foot wide lot is
not as valuable to him as a larger, Yaon-beachfront lot would be. Therefore,
if the local or State government owns non-beachfront land which has a two
hundred foot frontage on the coastal highway, the private developer, in
keeping with good economic sense, should be willing to trade his fifty foot
wide lot for the larger parcel. Any difference in land values can be
compensated for in money or in additional land or in development rights
modifications.

The Federal government has often traded land in order to obtain a
larger, unified parcel where it had previously held title to scattered
pieces of land. This has enabled the government to establish parks and
parkways which it could not otherwise have done as effectively or
efficiently.

4. Implied Reservation

a. Description

Where the State has previously owned a parcel of land used by the
public, it is possible to argue that the grant from the State to private
parties was not unencumbered, but instead reserved for the public's use an
easement allowing passage over or use of the land. The rationale underlying
this tool is that the State did not intend to relinquish well-es tab li shed
public rights of use or access, and accordingly reserved by implication such
rights for the public. This essentially involves a policy determination,
inasmuch as there is likely to be no hard evidence indicating intent.

b. BeachAccess Application

In a beach access context, the argument in favor of implied reservation
is predicated upon State ownership of the foreshore and public use of the
beaches. The argument is that the State, in selling or granting the upland
and dry-sand, could not reasonably have intended to deprive the public of
access to the State-owned foreshore. A right of public access to the
foreshore, via reasonable ways of access, was retained. This argument could
apply only in those situations where the State at one time did own the
beachfront property, and subsequently transferred title to private
ownership.

C., Experience

As illustrated by the Texas court's rejection of the doctrine of
implied reservation in Seaway Co. v. Attorney General, 375 S.W. 2d 923 (Tex.
Civ. App. 1964), the problem with this tool involves proof of an intent to
retain rights in land granted away. The Hawaii courts have been willing to
use this doctrine given sufficient evidentiary substantiation. See Town and
Yuen, "Public Access to Beaches in Hawaii: A Social Necessity," 10
Hawaii B. J. 3 (1973).

103

5. Post Flood Damage Acquisition

a. Description.

The National Flood Insurance Program (administered by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development) is not directly applicable to
the acquisition of beach access. The program does require local governments
to institute some type of subdivision controls in order to qualify for the
program (Section 1910.3 of the new regulations, 41 F.R. 46976), but there is
no requirement that any such regulation deal with beach access problems.
Although provisions relating to beach access could certainly be made part of
any such subdivision regulations, as discussed in other sections of this
chapter, any such effort would be tangential to the Flood Insurance Program
itself.

b. Beach Access Application

The importance of the Flood Insurance Program to beach access falls not
within the implementation of the insurance program itself, but rather with
the mechanics of the program once loss has been incurred. Under the
National Flood Insurance Act (42 USC 4102), the Federal government is
authorized to purchase properties "damaged substantially beyond repair"
rather than pay the insured to reconstruct whatever was on the property
before the damage occurred. In practice, this may allow for purchase
whenever there is greater than 50 percent damage. The provisions of this
section allow the Federal government to sell, lease, donate, or otherwise
transfer the property thus acquired to any State or local agency which
agrees to use the property for a minimum of forty years for whatever "sound
land management" practices HUD has determined applicable. This statute and
the regulations promulgated pursuant to it provide both State and local
governments with an opportunity to negotiate with the Federal government for
the transfer of lands which have sustained substantial flood damage.
Although apparently this approach has never been tried, it could provide
accessways for the public and at the same time prevent the recurrence of
damage in hazardous areas. For example, if a structure built in a washover
were "damaged substantially beyond repair," it could be acquired and the
land cleared and used for access. Whether a State or local agency could
encourage HUD to make use of this opportunity by offering to pay the
difference between that which HUD would normally pay to compensate for the
damage sustained and outright purchase ought to be explored.

V. Regulation - Land Use Controls

A variety of land use control techniques can be used to provide public
access to beaches whenever beachfront property is being subdivided or
developed. Some of these techniques involve direct requirements for the
provision of access. Others may be employed to enable local governmental
bodies to encourage the provision of access by developers of oceanfront
property during the design of the development. Many of these tools must be
used in conjunction with other tools in order to acquire access.

The techniques discussed have all been used previously. Many of them
have been used in oceanside communities and have been applied in oceanfront

104

contexts. It should be noted that all of these techniques involve use of
the police power, and hence are dependent upon the existence of adequate
enabling legislation.

A. Required Pedestrian Access

1. Description

This tool simply requires that as a matter of public policy public
pedestrian access to the beach be provided as part of any beachfront
development. Provision may be made for the design and construction of the
accessway, for whether the requirement is applicable to both subdivision and
commercial development, for whether the requirement is applicable only to
certain classes of development, and so forth.

The easiest method of requiring pedestrian access is through a city or
county zoning ordinance. Beachfront property can be zoned as
recreational/ residential, with the access provision being one of the
requirements of the zone. Such designation could apply to all beachfront
property, commercial as well as residential uses.

2. Experience

Section 96 of the Currituck County, North Carolina, Zoning Ordinance,
adopted in October, 1971, creates a Recreation Residential Zone as one of a
number of zones the ordinance establishes. One requirement of the
Recreation Residential Zone involves the provision of public accessways, of
not less than ten feet in width, from a public roadway to a recreation.area
(defined to include rivers, sounds, and beaches) for each development
involving more than six hundred feet of recreation resource frontage. It
should be noted that development may be either commercial or residential,
and that the developer is allowed to locate access anywhere on the property.
The ordinance requires that the accessway connect the public recreation
area--in this case the beach, meaning the foreshore--to a public roadway.
This requirement may effectively make the dedication of subdivision roads to
the public a necessary condition to meeting the zoning requirements;
arguably, it may also require the appropriate local governmental body to
accept the offer of dedication made by the subdivision developer.

B. Required Dedication of Roads to Provide Access

1. Description

This tool affords public access to beaches by requiring that roads or
rights-of-way be extended to the foreshore and dedicated to the public.
Application of required dedication will normally involve three distinct
requirements:

(a) The extension down to the foreshore of all
roads and rights-of-way not parallel to the
beach.

105

M Public dedication of all such roads and
rights-of-way not parallel to the beach.

The purpose of this tool is to provide vehicular and/or pedestrian
access either to the foreshore itself or to a point very near the foreshore,
with pedestrian access down to the foreshore on a dedicated right-of-way.
Although only the first two elements listed above are required in order to
provide this type of access, in most instances practical considerations will
mandate the third element of requiring dedication of all subdivision roads.

Although this tool is most applicable to new subdivisions, it might
also be appropriate in those commercial development situations in which an
existing road (perpendicular to the beach) either dead-ends at the property
being developed or fails to continue across the developed property. In
these situations, a requirement that the right-of-way be extended across the
developed property down to the foreshore would work in a similar manner to
the required dedication of subdivision roads.

2. Experience

The recreational/residential zone established in the Currituck County,
North Carolina, Zoning Ordinance (October, 1971) requires the extension down
to the foreshore of all roads and rights-of-way not parallel to the ocean in
all developments having a minimum of six hundred foot beach frontage. This
requirement applies to all developments- -meaning both residential and
commercial. It might be noted that while streets running parallel to the
ocean are not covered by the dedication requirement, the further provisions
of this zone, requiring pedestrian access from a public roadway, effectively
requires dedication of parallel roads in most circumstances. The total
impact of the Currituck ordinance is to require dedication of all roads and
rights-of-way for those developments having sufficient beach frontage (i.e.
600 feet).

C. Water Access Lots in New Subdivisions

1. Description

As a general rule, a governmental body cannot require the dedication of
a subdivision lot to public use without first paying for it. However, in
beachfront subdivisions, it may be possible to effectuate this same result
and provide public access to the beaches with either nominal or no cost to
the governmental body involved. This result can be achieved either through
use of what has been termed "water access lots" alone, or by using water
access lots in conjunction with eminent domain.

Water access lots refer to strips of property fronting a public street
and having beach frontage as well. Such lots are usually narrow and on the
ground are probably indistinguishable from accessways. However, water
access lots are platted as lots, and accordingly are not construed to be
part of any roadway system.

106

The method of providing public access by use of water access lots
involves two steps. The first is to require, by subdivision control
ordinance, that in any beachfront subdivision development containing
interior lots (i.e., without beach frontage), water access lot or lots must
be provided for the benefit of the interior lot owners. In other words, the
requirement provides for access for the entire subdivision, but not the
public. The ordinance can require that each water access lot either be
dedicated to the public or transferred in fee to the interior lot owners.

If dedication is made to the public, and Accepted by the appropriate
governmental authority, then the public has acquired the right of access
across the water access lot to the beach. However, if the subdivision owner
chooses to transfer title to the water access lot(s) to the interior
property owners, the public at large still has no right to use that (those)
lot(s) unless the land is either purchased or taken by eminent domain.

Eminent domain is well suited to use in situations where title has been
transferred to the interior property owners. Because there are so many
owners, the lots would be effectively inalienable; condemnation would be the
only way to acquire the lots. The cost of the land taken would be the
difference between the market value immediately before condemnation and the
market value immediately thereafter. In the case of a water access lot
which is platted as such and can be used only for that purpose and is owned
and used by a large number of people already, it is arguable that allowing
more people to use the lot for access decreases the market value of the
property little if at all. Accordingly, acquisition of an access easement
by means of condemnation would cost little if anything. Arguably, the price
of eminent domain should be the taxes which the interior lot owners must pay
on the water access lot, presumably capitalized.over a reasonable number of
years.

Silm arizing, water access lots can be used in two ways to afford public
access to the beach:

(1) by dedication of water access lots to the
public, or

(2) by using eminent domain in favor of the public
to acquire an access easement over the water
access lots held in fee by interior lot
owners.

2. Experience

Section 4.9 of the Subdivision Regulations adopted by the Town of
Carolina Beach, North Carolina, on May 3, 1973, requires the provision of
water access lots for any interior lot-containing subdivision adjoining the
sound, the Cape Fear River, the intracoastal waterway, or the Atlantic
Ocean. Water access lots must be no less than ten feet in width, and must
be provided in the ratio of one lot fbr each 600 feet of shoreline frontage.
Water Access lots must adjoin a public street, which means that at least
some if not all subdivision streets must be dedicated to the public. The
Carolina Beach regulations provide that water access lots must either be
dedicated to the public or transferred in fee to the common ownership of the
interior lot owners. The town must agree to accept such dedication.

107

108

VIII. Urban Waterfronts

Introduction

Most people responding to terms like "shorefront" and "coastal" think
immediately of the ability to savour a sea bath, soak up the sun, gather
shells, build a sand castle, cast a line, launch a boat, or glimpse wave
splashed rocks and glimmering waters. These perceptions, accurate as they
may be, disregard waterfront images closer to home and rather mock the fact
that the majority of our Nation's population lives in cities or metropolitan
areas defined by coastal water. Nine of the ten largest Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the Nation are coastal.

Historically, the coastal cities--the important seaports of their day
and the centers of economic power and commerce--were the key links of trade
and transport. Time and changing technologies have altered this pattern and
left a good bit of derelict land and deteriorated waterfront in their wake.
The urban waterfront, once a hub of activity, has been walled off (both
literally and psychologically) from the inhabitants of most American cities.

With few exceptions, such as Chicago and San Francisco, the image of
the American coastal city at the water's edge is hardly notable, in dramatic
contrast to the much painted, photographed, and praised foreign counterparts
to which thousands of people flock, crossing oceans to do so. Millions of
people flee the cities and suburbs in this country in a mad dash, or crawl,
to a shoreline miles from home to enjoy the water and its pleasures.
Further millions remain behind, lacking either the means or mode to travel
to the water.

Increasing opportunities for more people to enjoy water-related
activities was the Congressional intent when the shorefront access planning
element and the shorefront access/island preservation acquisition program
were included in the 1976 amendments. The language "to provide for access
to public beaches and other public areas of environmental, recreational,
historical, esthetic, ecological, or cultural value, and for the
preservation of islands" does not explicitly mention urban waterfronts.
However, all of the above characteristics can be found in urban coastal
areas, particularly historic, cultural, and the aesthetic areas. The
language of regulations promulgated for the planning element is noteworthy
with regard to the urban issue and access to the urban population:

In determining access requirements, States
should consider both physical and visual access.
The emphasis, however, should be on the provision
of increased physical access. Special attention
should be given to recreational needs of urban
residents for increased shorefront access.
-Physical access may include, but need not be
limited to, footpaths, bikepaths, boardwalks,
jitneys, rickshaws, parking facilities, ferry
services and other public transport.

109

In determining the needs for protection of
public coastal areas, States should consider such
factors as (a) environmental, aesthetic, or
ecological preservation (including protection from
overuse and mitigation of erosion or natural
hazards); (b) protection for public use benefits
(including recreational, historic, or cultural
uses); (c) preservation of islands; and (d) such
other protection as may be necessary to insure the
maintenance of environmental, recreational,
historic, esthetic, ecological, or cultural values
of existing public shorefront attractions.
Existing public shorefront attractions may be
broadly construed to include, but need not be
limited to: public recreation areas, scenic
natural areas, threatened or endangered floral or
faunal habitat, wetlands, bluffs, historic,
cultural or Irchaelogical artifacts, and urban
waterfronts.

To overlook the enormous potential of a waterfront which could be used
to satisfy a full city population's desire for water-related recreation,
open space, and overall enjoyment is a dreadful oversight. It seems all the
more wasteful in terms of both energy and land consumption when recycling
vacant or forgotten areas within the city could reduce transportation costs
and alleviabe development pressures on the remaining non-urbaa natural
acreage.

As merely an option on the long list of possible inclusions under
"other coastal attractions," urban waterfronts are not properly underscored.
The issues of reclamation and reuse of waterfront areas, plus the provision
of access to and along the urban coastline, deserve special attention. This
chapter will give some historical background on the urban waterfront,
highlight Federal interest in the issue, and discuss waterfront access as
well as the problems and potentials of this overlooked resource.

Backgrou d

From the day in 1620 when the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, and for two
hundred years or more thereafter, coastal settlements were of prime
importance to the Nation. Old maps show that the important cities of the
day were harbor-oriented. Etchings and paintings document the busy social
and commercial life of these early towns. Their ports were the gateways to
the New World. Cargo from around the globe transferred between hands on
their docks. Seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century
structures --houses, assembly halls, churches, streets, shops, and
warehouses --stand today as architectural relics of that bygone era. Some
continue to be used, others are venerated as museums, still others hide
beneath scars of decay.

As the Nation grew, dependence on ports as keystones of the economy
diminished. The status of the city waterfronts changed from parlor to

110

backroom as the effects of the industrial revolution, population growth,
railroad imperialism, the automotive avalanche, and the dizzying
technological changes of the postwar era totally altered economic and social
development.

The city expanded away from the water's edge. The harbor continued to
serve the city, but in a lesser capacity. Rather than being the focal point
of town life, it became only a piece of the metropolitan and regional whole.
The integrated yet heterogeneous way of life was replace by a more
fractionalized one. Housing and commercial uses segregated themselves and
moved away from the wharves, leaving fishing, shipping, and water-reliant
industries to overtake the area. Adjacent wetlands were drained and filled
as more land was needed. The water lost its ability to absorb the
increasing amounts of waste deposited in it. Overtaxation of its
assimilative capacity resulted in pollution, loss of aquatic life, and the
destruction of harbor amenities. The situation reached a point which led
one observer to note:

The common urban waterfront is hardly
approachable, much less swimmable, encrusted with
wharves, switching yards, sewage outfalls, and
other industrial barnacles. It is the true civic
outcast, the ghetto of ghettos, familiar on;y to
longshoremen, sanitary engineers, and carp.

In the waterfront area of many an American city, a rough and tumble enclave
or simply a vacant.area remains where once a total community thrived.

Certain technological changes in the last 20 years are responsible foi
the further decline of the urban waterfront. First, the shift from
break-bulk to coatainerization in the shipping industry caused a geographic
shift from the old, downtown ports to newer areas, because container
operations require a change of scale. That is, there is a need for more
acreage for back-up space, deeper and wider channels for the ships, and
access to good transportation. Secondly, the truck and interstate system
overwhelmed the railroads as the primary transportation linkage for cargo.
Many industrial concerns moved away from the congested, older waterfronts to
take advantage of road networks located elsewhere. Thirdly, long distance
voyagers who with well-wishers in tow once flocked to the piers of ocean
liners now board jets. What ocean cruising remains today is centered in
warmer weather areas. 3 Fourthly, bridges spanned bays and rivers, making
ferry boats obsolete. The gaping slips, rotting piers, empty warehouses,
carless rails, and deteriorating, vacant buildings that pockmark the
coastline stand in mute testimony to these changes. "No swimming" warnings,
flotillas of rubbish, debris, and murky water literally present the water
pollution story. Because the waterfront has lost its prominence in the
economic as well as the social lives of most American cities, the
deterioration of the urban coastal shoreline has received little attention.
However, the past 20 years have witnessed increasing interest in the
waterfront.

Federal Interest in the Urban Waterfront

"If the economy no longer requires so much
industry or commerce on the waterfront, why cannot
we consider it for more pleasurable uses? The
answer is: we can. Oar urban waterfronts can be
treated as a new resource

-- Christopher Tunnard.

In 1965, the White House Confe4ence on Natural Beauty devoted an entire
panel. to "Water and Waterfronts." Amidst the discussion, the panel
highlighted the following four recommendations pertaining to urban
waterfronts:

1. Water and waterfronts need special treatment in
all city plans. Historic waterfronts, especially,
should be preserved, restored, and
protected--Annapolis, Savannah, New Bedford,
Alexandria, Newport, Rhode Island [sic], and many
others. Waterfront land and access should be
gradually limited to those activities which
actually require waterfront location or access.

2. To improve urban planning we recommend the
establishment of Urban Waterfront Districts,
somewhat along the lines of the historic and
highly successful Soil Conservation Districts.
Existing watershed protection programs should be
modified to include multipurpose protection, not
only in the agricultural areas where this now
applies, but in urban areas as well. The same
assistance that is extended to farmers should be
extended to suburbanites and city residents.

3. New techniques for extending the use of waterfront
lands to metropolitan residents should be
developed. There is far too little actual water's
edge available to the typical city resident. The
arts of the architect and landscape architect
should be coupled with the engineer's skills to
open up the edge to populace. Fill and rubble
should be used creatively as a resource, rather
than as a waste material, to complement the urban
design plan. At the same time, we acknowledge the
dangers involved and strongly urge against further
filling of major bodies of water unless this is
done in accordance with an urban plan.

4. Urban renewal powers should be used in a
comprehensive way to improve waterfronts and set
them free from transportation barriers, blight,
and dumRs in order to@realize their environmental
values.

112

No "Urban Waterfront Districts" have been forthcoming; access to the
waterfront remains a universal problem, a
,V many waterfront plans are "still
stuck in the hope chests of city halls. , Nevertheless, something of a
waterfront renaissance began and continues to emerge. In the 1960's, the
fruits of urban renewal were being seen. Numerous rehabilitation and
renewal projects funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
channeled money into old waterfront areas. Over eighty cities have been
identified as involved in some sort of wa@erfront project, whether code
enforcement or full scale areawide renewal.

In 1964, the Journal of Housing devoted an entire is Iue to waterfronts,
and declared that "Renewal is Recovering the Waterfront." Many cities such
as Boston, Newport, and Baltimore give stunning evidence of the change, yet
the subject remains as alive today as it did then. Thus Arthur Cotton
Moore's comment in a 1977 issue of the same Journal that "waterfronts are
one of the major chi9s coastal cities have when it comes to entering people
back downtown again" can easily be followed by this excerpt from the 1964
issue:

"The basic human interest in the amenities and
attractions of water bodies, together with the kinds of
dramatic proposals which waterfront locations stimulate,
results in a high degree of public excitement over waterfront
development. Where this type of land is available in or
close to an urban center, the most obvious re-uses are
quality housing and recreation, including marinas, aquariums,
restaurants, the theatres, promenades, etc. If the location
is close enough to the downtown center, it might.also be
attractive for prestige commercial buildings."

The analysis above is from Daniel Ahern, executive
director, Boston Downtown Waterfront Corporation--but it
could well have come from almost any of the 12 cities whose
waterfront reports were received for this Journal issue. In
almost all cases, cities reported a more than gratifying
degree of citizen, newspaper, business, industry, and
official support for proposals to concentrate renewal
processes on waterfront areas. Along with the support, many
indicate, came a good many suggestions and ideas about just
what the best use of valuable and sought-after waterfront
land might be. But even in cases where all the ideas,
suggestions, and "pet projects" of the community didn't get
incorporated into final waterfront renewal plans, there's
been no report of any lessening of communityl6athusiasm and
support for renewal of the waterfront areas.

In the early 70s, well over thirty coastal city waterfronts were being
studied or designed for through the "City Edg?l " and other programs funded
by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). With all this interest in
waterfront areas, both the HUD and Endowment efforts were focused on the
waterfronts coincidentally rather than by direct policy. However, the
current NEA grant program, "Liveable Cities," underscores the issue by

113

citing "Watfffront Enhancement" as a possible category in its application
guidelines. HUD has never had nor does it have a direct waterfront
restoration policy.

The thread of national concern to provide recreational and leisure
areas close to home--that is, near urban centers--can be found in numerous
reports as documented in Chapters Two and Three. One particular study of
note is the 1969 Stratton Commission report, which recommended that
increased amounts of shoreline should be made available to the public and
that "priority should be given to near metropolitan areas where public areas
are most urgently needed. More imaginative attempts are required to
integrate recreational projects wq
+ other uses of the coastal zone such as
conservation and industrial uses."

In 1973, when introducing his "National Island Conservation and
Recreation Act," Senator Jackson entered the following remarks for the
record regarding development pressures and the recreation situation:

These pressures to develop idle island land are
particularly severe on islands near our urban centers. It is
an astounding fact that, at a time when urban beaches and
playgrounds are rendered nearly useless by overcrowding and
when "no trespassing" signs are sprouting at an
ever-more-rapid pace along shoreline once available for
public use, there are situated less than 25 miles from cities
of 50,000 or more persons almost 1 million acres of
undeveloped or minimally developed island lands--l million
acres of beaches, fields, and woods. Our urban youngsters,
indeed all of us, deserve the opportunity to escape the
ever-present asphalt of the cities and to explore these
"treasure islands."

The failure of the administration and the Congress to
act to protect our islands is particularly unfortunate at
this time when pressures for development coincide with
rapidly increasing demands for recreation--demands which will
be even more acute in the decade ahead. A 1967 study of the
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation concluded that the greatest
increase in America's recreational interests would come in
activities which are water based or related. It found, for
example, that by 1980 swimming would be the No. I outdoor
recreation activity, increasing 72 percent between 1965 and
1980. Yet, on the mainland virtually all the beachfront
readily accessible to our urban areas has already been
dedicated to one or another use--too often a use other than
recreation. With careful planning and wise govern ental
actions, the nearby islands can and should be dyawn within
the recreational ambit of our urban population.

While Jackson's bill was not passed, other Federal measures devoted to
urban recreation are noteworthy. The National Park Service took on an urban
dimension with the establishment of the Gateway National Recreation Areas

114

beginning in 1972. Three such areas are so designated: New York Gateway,
which links several unconnected areas of parkland; Golden Gate near San
Francisco; and Cuyahoga near Cleveland. More recently, in response to 15
congressional request, the BOR conducted a Preliminary Urban Parks Stu y,
published in January 1977, in which the problem of access to waterfront
amenities was repeatedly cited. This study also examined possible sites
worth nominating as Federal urban parks--the majority of the handful
recommended are coastal. At the same time it recommended the BOR study,
Congress also considered a broader, more comprehensive urban recreation
study.

In September 1976, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 was
amended to include a section which set forth requirements for an urban
recreation study to be carried out by the Bureau of Outdoor RecreaWn.
Twelve of the seventeen metropolitan areas studied are coastal.
Indications from the draft reports show that waterfront potential is being
singled out for attention in New York, Boston, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit
and other cities. Also noted were the probl?Ts of highway barriers, ' I
access, and the popularity of urban fishing. As part of its final report,"@
Lack of

the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation will surely present Congress with
recommendations regarding the urban waterfront.

These more recent events, combined with the present administration's
and HUD's emphasis on revitalization of the cities, bode well for the
reclamation and opening up of the urban waterfront.

Waterfront Access

A whole book could be written on American
river banks alone, for they form the biggest
single waste of opportunity in the whole
environment. And not only rivers--some places
(fishing and tourist places), even actually
manage to turn their backs on the sea. Just
how disintegrated can urban life get?

-- Ian Nairm, The American Landscape

Few of the world's great cities are so richly
endowed with waterfront as New York. The place, in
fact, is a physiographic freak, defined by ocean,
bay, and sound as well as fractured by the outwash
of the Hudson River. It is so wet a city; and yet,
for all the water, New Yorkers this summer may well
have felt a bit like Coleridge's mariner, perched
not so much in the palate as in spirit. To be sure,.
there are beaches, but not enough to absorb the
nearly sixty million bodies pressed upon the sand
each summer. There are also magnificent views--from
warehouse windows. And almost everywhere the water-
front townscape of New York is characterized by
decaying piers, elevated highways, and cyclone fences.
Is
115

It were as if New York had turned its back upon the
water to stare instead into its own behavioral sink.
Aquatically, New York is but a litmus to the Nation.

-- Constance Stallings

Although written over ten years ago, these comments have validity today
despite the fact that many localities have indeed opened up and reclaimed
their waterfronts. . In many cases, they have done so "in 1gpite of rather
than because of current institutional and public policy.' Much has been
done, but much still needs doing.

As discussed earlier, many factors account for the neglect of the
waterfront. That certain themes and issues can be identified as common to
waterfronts serves to point out the complexity of the situation. The
commonalities are summarized as follows:

1. Cin&!rella syndrome: Typified by the existence of many vacant,
deteriorated, obsolete, or underutilized structures, as well as by
the waterfront's secondary status in comparison with the downtown
or outlying portions of a metropolitan area.

2. Aesthetic and cultural potential: Of both the manmade and natural
features of waterfront and water area.

3. Environmental concerns: Water and air quality, wetlands protection
shoreline maintenance, erosion control, and storm and food damage
control.

4. Competition of uses: Residential; recreational, parks, walks;
commercial; tourist; industrial; power generation; waste disposal;
marinas; ports and shipping; transportation (all modes); and land
use, water-dependent uses, and water usage.

5. Legal and institutional constraints: Riparian rights, multi-level
jurisdictions (state/local/regional/Federal), lack of coordination,
and self-interest.

6. Economic considerations: Tax issues; kinds and amounts of funding
available to plan, assemble 'land, redevelop md/or restore environ-
mental quality; and money market conditions.

Just as a waterfront should be considered an integral part of an entire urban
and regional fabric, so should the questions of waterfront access: both
physical--to and along the water's edge by various modes of transportation,
including water--and visual--from the shoreline as well as from upland areas.
Being part of this broad fabric makes waterfronts different from beaches or
less developed areas of the coastline. In addition, the urban shoreline is
normally bulkheaded in some fashion, leaving no gradual intertidal space
between the land and the water.

Opening up the waterfront would enable people to gain access to the
water for traditional waterscape values, such as swimming, fishing, boating,

116

and the like. Additionally it would permit them to enjoy skylines defined
and dramatized by water and allow people to participate in, as one stud
summarized it, "urban/ technology/ industrial interpretation activities,"
which translates into the fun of watching port activity. Furnishing access
would be futile if an area were deteriorated, trash-ridden, and polluted, or
if it were clouded by the fear of crime. For these reasons, waterfront
access demands--in addition to perpendicular paths or auxiliary parking--the
following considerations:

1. linear pathways along the shoreline

2. parks, public open spaces, or plazas

3. visual access

4. methods of overcoming physical barriers such as freeways, major
streets, barbed wire, and chain link fences

5. creation of a safe environment

6. renewal or recycling of the deteriorated and abandoned areas

7. multi-use of land and building areas.

Examples of successfully completed waterfront projects that include one
or more of the above characteristics can be found around the country. In
Annapolis, Maryland, the waterfront scheme includes a lively public
cobblestone plaza rimmed by restaurants, bars, and shops giving ample room
for people to congregate and enjoy the harbor with its many pleasure-boats.
Baltimore's Inner Harbor renewal area provides enough space to accommodate a
citywide festival which draws thousands to the promenades and plazas.
Newport, Rhode Island, transformed its once deteriorated downtown waterfront
area into a site of bustling activity. Housing, shops, restaurants, service
facilities, marinas, and fishing concerns fill the area. Public walkways
and plazas enable people to gain access all along the very lively harbor.
In Newburyport, Massachusetts, the extensive historic restoration is
occurring mostly upland. However, a large public park/promenade is
presently under construction along the waterfront itself. Ample parking has
been put in place to help people enjoy and use the adjacent historic area
and the future waterfront park.

While New York City has indeed turned its back on its miles of
waterfront, the city does contain some excellent examples of using
waterfront potential. The promenade on top of the East Side Highway was an
early example of imaginative use of air rights to provide pedestrian access
to the East River. The South Street Seaport piers show the potential these
areas have for recreational enjoyment. In Brooklyn, an innovative
reclamation project underway under direction of the Parks Council made, in
the words of the project director, "roses bloom where ferries once docked"
and transformed a small area lodged between a sugar warehouse and a molasses
tank farm into a park for the benefit of the neighborhood and factory
employees alike.

117

In Boston, an overhead freeway creates a barrier, more psychological
than real, between the newly rehabilitated Quincy market and the waterfront
park environs. Design, material, and lighting have been used to bridge the
gap and encourage pedestrians to overcome the barrier.

Besides renewal or acquisition methods--the tools most used in the
above cases--there are other ways which could be used to open up the
waterfront to the public. For example, subdivision controls could require a
developer to provide a promenade, plaza, or park area along the shoreline
for public use. Or a public agency could lease portions of industrial
properties for recreational uses like pic'nic areas, boat launchings, or
pathways. Other less-than-fee simple tools could be used to acquire
easements for access roads, paths, or walkways.

Providing a wide and varied range of access to and along a well-used
waterfront would fulfill several very important objectives. For example, it
would:

Create recreational and open space areas--"bright
breathing edges"--to urban dwellers,
close-to-home, and thereby help satisfy this
identified critical neeed and also reduce fuel
consumption by providing an alternative to the
long car ride. Reclaim and recycle abandoned or
vacant areas which are a tax drain, a visual
blight, a physical hazard, and a wasted resource.
Re-use of these areas for housing, industry or
commerce could stem the need for sprawl and thus
save 'not only natural landscape acreage but also
the cost of providing new infrastructures.

21
Enhance the overall livability of cities.

Coastal Zone Management Programs offer an opportunity for States and
localities to take measures to meet these objectives. The urban coast,
however, has received relatively low priority to date, either at the State
or national level.

Urban Waterfronts and CZM

There is no direct reference to urban factors per se in the Coastal
Zone Management Act; however, Section 305(b)(3) specifies that among the
"elements" which must be included in the management program is an "inventory
and designation of areas of particular concern within the coastal zone."
Federal regulations clarify this point:

It should be noted that geographic areas of
particular concern are likely to encompass not
only the more often cited areas of significant
and natural value or importance, but also (a)
transitional or intensely developed areas where

118

reclamation, restoration, public access and
other actions are especially needed; and (b)
those areas especially suited for intensive
use of development.

Eight representative factors were spelled out which might be helpful to
the States in their task of designation. Specific mention was given to "areas
of urban conc2itrations where shoreline utilization and water uses are highly
competitive." Four of the other factors cited could easily relate to an
urban setting:

areas of . . . unique physical feature,
historical significance, cultural value and
scenic importance.

areas of substantial recreational value and/
or opportunity.

areas where.developments and facilities are
dependent upon the utilization of or access
to the coastal waters.

areas of unique geologic or topographical
significance2ho industrial or commercial
development.

In the December 1975 draft threshold papers, circulated as a follow-up to
the Federal regulations, several sections dealt with the urban question.
In the paper on Boundaries, five acceptable approaches were presented: (1)
Biophysical, (2) Administrative, (3) Uniform, (4) Multiple, and (5) Urban
or Greatly Altered Areas. The latter was elaborated on as follows:

Urban or Greatly Altered Areas: One intent of
the Act is to prevent undue disruption to natural
coastal ecosystems involving both land and water
areas. In many coastal areas, whether urbanized
or otherwise extensively modified, natural systems
relationships between land and water may be unduly
complex and difficult, if not impossible, to
define, or of relatively small importance. In
these areas, the State may define inland
boundaries on the basis of other factors relating
the strong influence of waters upon the land;
including, but not limited to, dependence,pf use
upon water sites or visual relationships."

The threshold paper on Geographic Areas of Particular Concern indicated
that the States mus h consider "areas of urban concentration" in their
designation process. This wording leaves ample room for the urban areas
to be eliminated in State programs after some "consideration." Other than
those mentioned above, no direct policies have been set forth dealing with
the urban issue.

119

However, the passage of 305(b)(7) and 315(2) provides further--though
indirect-- reference to the urban coast. As mentioned above, the 305(b)(7)
provision and regulations addressed and recognized the need to increase
access to the public shorefront particularly for urban residents and
included "urban waterfronts" in the list of public coastal attractions.
Therefore, a State with a highly urbanized coastal zone which fails to
address the urban issue in its shorefront access planning element would not
be fulfilling the congressional intent as expressed in the legislative
history. In other words, a State's shorefront access planning element
should include an analysis of the public beaches and other public coastal
attractions within, perhaps, a fifty mile radius of its large urban areas
and it also should give potential high priority, where possible, to the
access areas so identified. Funds under 315(2), as available, could then be
used to acquire such access areas.

120

FOOTNOTES

U. S. Department of Commerce, N.O.A.A., "Coastal Zone Management
Development Grants," Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 83, April 29, 1977, Sec.
920.17, pp. 22044-22045.
2 Wesley Marx, The Frail Ocean, (New York: Ballantine Books, 1969), p.
143.
3 For fuller discussion see Mitchell Moss, "The Redevelopment of the Urban
Waterfront," paper presented at A.I.P. Conference (San Antonio, Texas,
1975), pp. 9-13 or CZMJ article.
4
U.S., White House Conference, "Beauty for America," Proceedings of the
White House Conference on Natural Beaut , (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1965).
5 Ibid*, p. 16.
6 Bess Balchen and Jack Linville, "The City Waterfront: Ending an Era of
Neglect," Nation's Cities, (April, 1971), unpagiaated.
7 For listing refer to Appendix in Arthur Cotton Moore, !@t 11., Bright
Breathing Edges of City Life. Planning for Amenity Benefits of the Urban
Water Resources. (Springfield, Va.: N.T.I.S., 202, 808, 1971).
8 it
Renewal Is Recovering the Waterfront, Journal of Housing, No. 5, June,
1964, pp. 236-256.
9 Edwin C. Daniel, "Norfolk Used CD Money to Leverage One Hundred Million
Million Dollars for Waterfront Redevelopment, Journal of Housing, 11:76, p.
540.

10
Daniel Ahern quoted in "Waterfront Renewal: Re-Use Plans in the Cities."
Journal of Housing, No. 5, June, 1964, p. 249.
11 Author's review of National Endowment for the Arts Draft Ten Year:
Report of the Art and Architecture Program: By Design.
12
National Endowment for the Arts, Architecture and Environmental Arts,
Application Guidelines, "Livable Cities," April, 1977, p-3.
13 U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, (Our Nation
and the Sea), Panel Report, Science and Environment, Vol. III, p. 111-5.
14
Henry Jackson, Congressional Record - Senate, October 30, 1973, p. 35274.
15 U.S. Department of the Interior, A Preliminary Urban Parks Study,
(Washington, D. C., January 19, 19771. -
16 U.S. Department of the Interior Urban Study (PL 94-422) Field Study
Handbook, March 1977.

121

17 Author's review of sample of draft reports, July, 1977.
18 New England River Basins Commission, Urban Waters Special Study (Boston:
N.E. River Basins Commission, June 1975), p. 127.
19 Ann Breen Comez, The Urban Coastal Zone: Its Definition and a Suggested
Role for the Office of Coastal Zone Management, (Masters Thesis G. W.
University, 1976), p. 59.
20 U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, The Use of Less-Than-Fee Simple
Acquisition as a Land Management Tool for Coastal Programs. (Preliminary
Draft), July 1977, p. 61.
21 Arthur Cotton Moore, Bright Breathing Edges, a. cit.
22 U.S., Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, "Coastal Zone Management Program Development Grants," Federal Register
38, No. 229, November 20, 1973, Sec. 920.13, p. 33046.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, OCZM, "Threshold Paper #1: Boundaries," draft (Washington, D. C.,
December 8, 1975), p. 6, (typewritten).
26 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
I
tion, OCZM, "Threshold Paper #3: Geographic Areas of Particular Concern,"
draft (Washington, D.C., December 8, 1975), p. 3 (typewritten).

122.

IX. Island Preservation

Preface

The purposes of this chapter are to describe both the various types of
coastal islands belonging to the United States and the pattern of occurrence
of these island types, and to present a general description of the develop-
ment and preservation status of these islands. A geologic classification
has been used to divide islands into five different types. The islands of
the country are then discussed on a regional basis, using the Federal
Office of Coastal Zone Management's regional breakdown.

The five regions are as follows: North Atlantic, which includes Maine,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey; South
Atlantic, which includes Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia; Gulf-Islands, which includes Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Puerto Rico, and the U. S. Virgin Islands;
Pacific, which includes California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii,
Guam, and American Samoa; and Great Lakes, which includes Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

Because of great variation and wide geographic distribution, bedrock
islands are discussed very briefly in the opening description of geologic
types and then discussed in greater detail within each regional description.

Introduction

Islands have long fascinated man. Sepa rated from the continents by
surrounding waters, even a coastal island is more a part of the sea (or
lake) environment than it is an extension of the mainland. Isolated,
remote, homes to gulls and other coastal and marine creatures, islands are
places of mystery and refuge.

In ages past, islands were often shrines or places sacred to the gods.
The Isle of Anglesey, off the coast of Wales, was long sacred to the druids
of ancient Britain. A smaller island, just off the southwestern shore of
Anglesey, is still known as Holy Island. Delos, in the Aegean Sea, was
known throughout the ancient world as the island of the Greek god Apollo. A
number of Great Lake islands are called Manitou, after the deities of the
Algonquian Indians who inhabited the region.

As men became seemingly more sophisticated, islands were used for other
purposes, particularly military ones. Fortified islands were ideal
defensive positions and defended coastlines, harbors, and shipping channels.
The Pacific theater of World War II consisted of leapfrogging campaigns
through the islands of the Pacific. Even today, major strategic military
positions are on islands far from any continent.

Islands have served numerous unappealing functions. They have been
famous prisons, such as Alcatraz;, Devil's Island, a French penal colony in
-40 the Caribbean; and St. Helena and Elba, where Napoleon was exiled. A number of

123

small islands in harbors along the United States coast were infamous
quarantine stations where European immigrants were kept in squalid ghettoes
awaiting admittance to the United States. In recent times, islands have
been suggested as sites for nuclear power plants or disposal areas for
polluted dredge spoil from the harbors of port cities.

But the same island qualities that once instilled a sense of awe in men
of the distant past are still attracting men today. The dream of finding a
remote, tropical desert isle is almost universal. Sir Thomas More placed
his Utopia on such an island. Austin Tappan Wright's utopia was Islandia,
an island continent far from the other troubled continents of the world.

Islands are among the most popular resort areas in the world. The
Bahamas, the Virgin Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, and Tahiti are but a few
of the internationally known island paradises visited by millions of people.
Many of the small islands are filled to capacity during periods of peak
visitation and reservations for living quarters on them must be made far in
advance. Even remote islands with harsh climates, such as Ecuador's
Galapagos Islands and Scotland's Hebrides, are being visited by
unprecedented numbers of people. The Galapagos Islands contain spectacular
examples of divergent evolution in an isolated system, a frequent island
characteristic which is of great interest to scientists and, apparently, to
tourists. The isolation and unique qualities of island life are the
attractions of the-Hebrides and other islands, such as Smith and Tangier
Islands in the lower Chesapeake Bay. These last two islands, which support
small commercial fishing communities, have become extremely popular tourist
spots.

The desire to live on an island is as strong as the desire to visit
one. As Thoreau once observed:

An island always pleases my imagination, even the
smallest, as a small continent and integral part
of the globe. I have a fancy for building my hut
on one. Even a bare, grassy isle, which I can see
entirely over at a glance, has some undefined and
mysterious charm for me.

In the last 25 years, as increased prosperity and leisure time have
fueled the demand for second homes, island real estate has rocketed in
value. All too often island development projects are subsidized by public
funds disbursed through various Federal agencies. Ironically, many of these
same islands are exclusive communities closed to the public. In addition,
development projects frequently destroy the same natural, scenic, and other
aesthetic qualities which originally attract people. The qualities of
isolation and lack of disturbance have drawn so many people to islands that
many of the remaining untouched islands are fast becoming critical habitats
for wildlife, as many islands support unique or rare examples of natural
biological communities. Islands also play an important role in coastal and
marine ecosystems, and any major disturbance on an island's land surface has
a direct and frequently adverse effect on the adjacent marine or lake
environment.

124

Wild, pristine islands are - rapidly becoming a rarity in the United
States. Few islands have been preserved simply because they are islands,
but there is an intangible quality common to all islands which makes them a
unique resource.

Some islands are suited for large scale recreational use and/or
controlled development, some for only limited visitation, and some only to
be preserved in their natural state. The need to protect this fragile,
vulnerable, and frequently threatened natural resource has not been
answered. The need to keep certain islands isolated has not been fully
recognized.

Geologic Typology

The islands of the U. S. can be divided into five basic geologic types:
bedrock islands, the most numerous and widespread; barrier islands and
beaches, which include most of the delta islands of Atlantic and Gulf coast
in addition to other coastal plain sediment islands; glacial till islands,
which occur off the southern New England coast; and limestone and coral
islands.

Bedrock Islands

Bedrock islands are the most abundant and widespread islands in the
U. S * The greateft number of bedrock islands occurs off the coasts of
Alaska and Maine. Other major groups are the various Great Lakes islands,
the Channel Islands off southern California, the San Juan Islands in Puget
Sound, the Hawaiian Islands, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

Many of these are offshore hilltops or ridgetops which have become
islands because of post-glacial sea level rise. These are usually of the
same rock type as the adjacent mainland coast. Most oceanic bedrock islands
are the peaks of volcanic mountains that have reached above sea level
because of enormous accumulation of lava and/or local crustal uplift.

The ecosystems found on these islands vary tremendously with climate,
from arctic tundra to tropical rain forest. Most of the larger of these
islands have well developed soil profiles and support forest communities or
grasslands. Many of the smaller islands and some of the undisturbed larger
islands are extremely important breeding grounds for many species of coastal
and pelagic birds and also for a number of species of marine mammals (seals,
sea lions, walruses, and sea otters).

In general, these islands are suited for limi ted development. They
generally have soil conditions suitable for septic systems and have
sufficient groundwater supplies.

125

Barrier Islands

Barrier islands are long, narrow, beach-dune ridges paralleling much of
the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. On the Pacific coast, barrier beaches occur
across the outlets of some bays and at the junctures of many of the rivers
with the sea. Barrier islands and beaches are geol2gically recent
formations of unconsolidated sediments (usually sand). They frequently
enclose estuaries between their landward shores and the mainland.

Barrier islands are dynamic systems in fluid equilibrium with powerful
oceanic and meteorologic forces and they are constantly changing shape in
response to these forces. Also, they support unique ecosystems adopted to
this unstable environment. Many barrier islands have four distinct ecologic
zones: beach-dunei freshwlter sloughs and wetlands, maritime forests, and
tidal salt marsh wetlands.

The most significant ecologic function of barrier islands and @eaches
is their enclosure and protection of a series of coastal estuaries. These
Areas are vital food producing and nursery grounds for over two-thirgs of
the commercially important fish and shellfish of the Atlantic coast. In
addition, the entire barrier island-estuarine ecosystems are a crucial
habitat for many species of wildlife, particularly coastal birds.

Barrier islands and beaches also protect the mainland from the ravages
of storms and hurricanes. The beaches and dune ridges offer little
resistance to stom waves, but absorb and dissipate their tremendous force..
Flooding and overwash are natural processes to which barrier island and
beach ecosystems are adapted and these processes are the mechanism by which
the islandg migrate landward and keep abreast of the world's slowing rising
sea level.

For these reasons, most barrier islands and beaches are highly unsuited
for development. The shifting, unstable nature of the islands and their
susceptibility to flooding should be strong deterrents to building.

In addition, their youthfil, very permeable, sandy soils are unsuited
for septic tank drainage beds. Sewage effluent can flow into the aquifer
and pollute drinking water or the adjacent marine environment. Groundwater
supplies are frequently inadequate for large scale usage, and the aquifers
are sometiWes polluted by salt water intrusion when groundwater supplies are
overdrawn.

Lastly, the specialized ecologic communities of the barrier islands and
beaches are fragile and easily destroyed by development, which, in addition,
reduces the aesthetic value of these islands.

Delta and Coastal Plain Sediment Islands

Delta and other coastal plain sediment islands (usually low, eroding
islands of unconsolidated sediments) are found in the South Atlantic and
Gulf regions (physiographically known as the coastal plain), and in the
Great Lakes.

126

Delta islands are most numerous in Louisiana, where much of the coastal
plain is formed by the Mississippi delta. The deltaic environment is a
dynamic system, and the landforms are temporary. Delta islands are
continually forming and disappearing in response to the constant processes
of erosion pd accretion which are powered by tidal currents, wave action,
and storms.

There are thousands of marsh and mangrove islands and occasional
hammocks in the delta, which is an enormous and complex estuarine system of
extensive tidal mudflats) tidal marshes, mangroves, and tidal creeks and
bays. The entire area is low and wet with a series of parallel wooded
ridges known as cheniers (relict dune ridges which were incorporated into
the delta as alluvial sediments accumulated and the delta grew Gulfward).,,
Infrequently salt domes protrude above the marshes as forested "oases." lu

The delta islands are a vital part of Louisiana's phenomenally
productive estuarine system. Yearly catches of estuarine dependent fish and
shellfish in Louisiana exceed one billiohpounds, a value of 60-70 million
dollars for 11,000 to 12,000 fishermen. The area is also a prolific
habitat for many species of coastal birds,. watff fowl, and other wildlife
including several rare and endangered species. Many of the islands are
important bird breeding colonies.

The delta islands are primarily undisturbed and not subjected to any
development pressure because of their low, marshy nature. However,, _f e rtaia
islands are leased or owned by oil companies for pipeline purposes.

A small but productive delta environment occurs at the mouth of the St.
Claire River, near Detroit, Michigan. These wetlands are an important
habitat for migratory waterfowl.

Coastal plain sediment islands occur in the Chesapeake Bay of Maryland
and Virginia, and along the South Atlantic and Gulf coasts in lagoons behind
barrier islands. These islands were once parts of the mainland but have
become separated by a combination of erosion and rising sea level. Many are
separated only by salt marsh.

These islands are ecologically similar to the adjacent mainland, having
similar soils and hydrology and supporting the same vegetation and wildlife.
They are frequently subject to rapid erosion which accelerates as the
islands decrease in size.

Glacial Till Islands

Glacial till islands occur along the Massachusetts coast and are the
dominant island type along the northeast coast south to New York City. The
major islands, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, Block Island, and Long Island
are glacial end moraines: large mounds of unconsolidated sand, silt, clay,
gravel, and boulders deposited At the southernmost extent of the Wisconsin
glacier about 10,000 years ago. Many of the smaller islands to the north,
such as the Boston Harbor Islands, are drumlins (similar to moraines but
smaller and of slightly different origin) which have become -islands because
of post-glacial sea level rise but have been altered from their original

127

shapes by currents, winds, waves, and tides. 15 Dominant coastal features on
these islands are high, eroding bluffs and barrier beaches enclosing salt
ponds.

The larger islands support inland forest and grassland communities
similar to those found on the adjacent mainland. Many of the smaller
islands, such as the Elizabeth Island in Massachusetts, support maritime
forest communities which, incidentally, also occur on some of the barrier
beaches flanking the larger islands. h ach, dune, and salt marsh
communities surround most of the islands.

Salt ponds are significant coastal features which are biologically
similar to estuaries. They are shallow bays, closed off from the sea by
barrier beaches except for small outlets-which support large beds of eel
grass (Zostera marina). They are fringed by salt marsh. Salt ponds differ
from estuaries because they lack a strongly defined fresh water sourceffd
their outlets are intermittently closed by littoral drift deposition.

.Salt pond communities, like estuaries, are vital food producing and
nursery grounds for fish and shellfish. They are also important habitats
for many species of waterfowl, including herons, gulls, and terns.

Many of the smaller uninhabited islands and undisturbed portions of
some of the larger islands are important breeding areas for coastal birds
and are also superb examples of beach and dune communities. Monomoy and the
sand shoal islands off Nantucket Island support th1gonly breeding colonies
of gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) in U. S. waters.

Many of the larger glacial till islands, inhabited since colonial
times, are extremely popular slimmer resorts. Further development, if within
ecological' constraints, is possible without severe environmental
degradation. These islands are generally of sufficient elevation to be safe
from flooding. Soil condition!@Cpuitable for septic systems exist, and there
are good groundwater supplies. However, shore erosion is a problem along
the shores of these islands.

Limestone and Coral Reef Islands

A number of limestone and coral reef islands occur off the southern and
western coasts of Florida. The largest group of these islands is known as
the Florida Keys. The Keys are a chain of Pleistocene limestone knoll s21
stretching 135 miles from south of Miami, Florida, westward to Key West.
Further west are the Marquesas Keys, which are included along with a few of
the smaller islands off Key West, in the Key West National Wildlife Refuge.
Approximately 47 miles west of the Marquesas are the Dry Tortugas. This
isolated group of islands is now the Fort Jefferson National Monument.

The Keys are outcrops of two different limestones. The upper Keys are
Key Largo limestone, an ancient reef, while the lower Keys from Big Pine Key
to Key West are comprised of Miami Oolite, a marine deposited limestone
precipitate. The upper and lower keys support different flora and fauna
coincidental with the change f59m the ancient reef substrate to the
limestone precipitate substrate.

128

These islands support the only tropical ecosystems found in the -
continental United States. One of their major vegetation communities is the
tropical hardwood hammocks. These are scattered throughout the Keys but are
the dominant forest type on the northern Keys. Pinelands, of a Caribbean
slash pine species, are the dominant forest type on many of the southern
Keys. A number of other plant species found nowhere else in the Keys, and
the endangered Florida Key deer, are associated with the pinelands. Most of
these unusual woodland communitiff have been destroyed by clear cutting for
lumber and development purposes.

The cactus hammock on Big Pine Key is another small but unique
botanical community. This area of approximately 100 acres contains several
species of cactus found elsewhei@F4only in Cuba and the Bahamas and.one
variety endemic only to the Keys.

Extensive mangrove forests and tidal flats surround the Keys. These
areas are vital contributors to the marine food web and serve as important
habitats for many species of fish and wildlife. Many commercially important
fish and shellfish are dependent on these areas. Mangrove forests are also
important rookery areas for numerous coastal bird spec . and are important
for shoreline protection and as a buffer during storms. 2H

Coral reefs are another remarkable and fragile feature of the Keys.
These are the only living coral reefs in the continental United States (the
Flower Garden Reefs are 100 miles off Galveston, Texas). Coral reefs are
considered to be among the most biologically productive of all IY9:ural
communities and support an astonishing assemblage of marine life. They
are important fishing grounds for both commercial and sport fishermen and
are popular recreation areas for divers and boaters. They are also
extremely sensitive to any type of environmental pollution or disturbance.
A number of the reef s off qe Keys are alrea .dy under great stress, while
others are completely dead.

The Keys are basically unsuited for development for a number of
reasons. They are a high flood-risk area because of very low elevation and
local hurricane related tidal surges of 8-1/2 feet above mean sea level.
Eighty-five percent of the total land area of the Keys is less than five
feet above mean sea level. Statistical flood probaWity for the islands is
estimated to be at least once every fifteen years. Soil conditions all
over the Keys are unsuited for septic systems because of high soil and
bedrock porosity and the extremely high, tidally-influenced water table.
Water pollution from sewage effluent and urban runoff has had a severe 79
adverse impact on the coral reefs and the marine environment as a whole.

Another problem associated with development is the dredging and filling
of mangroves which is done for boat access channels and to create land for
development. These practices destroy and damage the mangroves and the
resultant increase in turbidity and siltation in the coastal waters has a
destructive Affect on coral reefs and the entire coastal marine
environment.

Other limestone islands are scattered along the western coast of
Florida between Tampa and Tallahassee. These islands are geologically and

129

ecologically similar to the Florida Keys. Cedar Key is the only
substantially developed island in this area.

REGIONS

North Atlantic Region

The North Atlantic region has islands of three types. Bedrock islands
predominate off Maine, New Hampshire, and northern Massachusetts. Glacial
till islands are the major type from Boston south to New York City. Some
barrier islands occur in the northern part of this region and are the sole
type of island along the New Jersey coast.

The bedrock islands of this region are glaciated hilltops or ridgetops
separated from the mainland by post-glacial sea leveh rise. There are
approximately 3,000 islands and barren rocks off Maine and there are also
a few scattered off New Hampshire and northern Massachusetts. Some of these
are the last pristine islands in the Northeast.

Glaciation accounts for the rugged and frequently spectacular scenery
associated with these islands. Most vegetated islands are covered by the
typical northern mixed forest found on the mainland coast. Some have ialand.
ponds or bogs. A few rare species of arctic plants are endemic to certain
Maine islands. The average nine foot tide covers a wide, rocky intertidal
zone with rich seaweed and invertebrate communities. Some of the best
examples 32 f natural seaweed communities found in the U. S. occur on these
islands.

Many of the islands are impfftaat nesting sites for a great number of
seabirds, waterfowl, and herons. Two species of seabirds (razorbill 'auk,
Alca torda, and common puffin, Fratercula a@2tica) nesting on these islands
breed nowhere else in the United States. Thirty-two islands are
considered important habitat for harbor and 3�ray seals, and eleven are
breeding and whelping areas for harbor seals.
The Northeast is heavily Piwulated, containing approximately one-third
of the total U. S. population. All the major cities are coastal and the
coast has traditionally been the major resort area. The majority of the
large islands have long been resort communities, and the demand for second
homes in these areas has increased steadily.

In 1970, the citizens of Martha's Vineyard, a popular resort island in
Massachusetts, created the Vineyard Open Land Foundation to control rampant
developmpt and preserve land for conservation, recreation, and aesthetic
reasons. In 1974, the State of Massachusetts, recognizing the severity of
the situation, enacted legislation to create the Martha's Vineyard
Commission, a regulatory land use commission.

Similar development pressures beset the other islands of this region.
It would appear that inaccessibility has been the major deterrent to
development. All the islands with ferry service or bridges have been

130

developed to some degree (except for Plum Island, 'New York, which is the
Department of Agriculture's Animal Disease Laboratory).

A number of islands and parts of others are preserved as National
Seashores or National Wildlife Refuges. Some of these are: Fire Island
National Seashore, a barrier island off Long Island, New York; Monomoy
Island National Wildlife Refuge, a barrier island off Cape Cod,
Massachusetts; Plum Island, Massachusetts, most of which is the Parker River
National Wildlife Refuge; Isle au Haut and much of Mt. Desert Island, which
comprise Acadia National Park in Maine. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife
Service owns several small bird nesting islands in Maine and is in the
process of surveying others.

Certain States have been active in protecting islands for recreation
and conservation. Rhode Island has developed a plan to make the
Narragansett Bay Islands a State park accessible only by ferry service.
Massachusetts and the City of Boston have similiar plans for the Boston
Harbor Islands. Common goals are the supplying of much-needed recreation
areas for the urban populace and the preservation of valuable wildlife
habitats.

Massachusetts has also been granted a conservation easement with first
option to buy on the Elizabeth Islands. These islands are the last
substantial undeveloped glacial till islands and are currently held in trust
by several families.

The State of Maine's Bureau of Public Lands has developed the Coastal
Islands Registry program which is investigating ownership of the Maine
Islands. Islands which are in questionable ownership or unclaimed will be
transferred to the State and used for recreation or conservation purposes.
The State owns few islands at present.

Private conservation organizations concerned with islands have been
most active in Maine because, it is the last State in this region with a
substantial number of islands in private ownership. The Maine Coast
Heritage Trust manages conservation easements for interested private
landowners. At present, there have been granted 63 easements which protect
70 islands. Another 55 easements protect portions of 1 18 other islands.
Total protected acreage is between 6,000 and 7,000 acres.

The Nature Conservancy has also been active in island preservation in
this region. It owns 20 islands and has purchased or aided in the purchase
of three islands which have been transferred to the National Park Service,
the State of Maine' Department of Inland Fisheries and Game, and the Town
of Yarmouth, Maine.

South Atlantic Region

Barrier islands are the primary type of coastal island in the South
Atlantic Region. Barrier islands and beaches form an almost continuous -
chain along the entire South Atlantic coast and enclose and protect a series
of highly productive estuaries. Other islands in this region are the

131

coastal plain sediment islands and marsh islands both of which occur in the
estuaries behind the barrier islands and in th e Chesapeake Bay.

Barrier islands are unsuited for high density residential or resort
development. However, this has not prevented the development of these
fragile islands. Many have been heavily developed as resort communities,
and the communities continue to expand.. Ocean City, Maryland, a popular
resort on a barrier island, has grown steadily since 1950. The number of
dwelling units constructed there per year increa46d approximately 900
percent between 1967 and 1972, from 484 to 4,091. Other barrier island
resort communities in this region have experienced similar growth patterns.

Barrier islands, however, are superb recreation areas and can be used
as such with minimal adverse environmental impact if the islands are managed
within certain ecological constraints. Assateague Island, a barrier island
off the Atlantic coast of Maryland and Virginia, is visited by over two
million people a year. Visitation has increased 18 perce %@ each year since
this National Seashore was opened to the public in 1967. Despite this
substantial human impact, the island still functions as a vital coastal
ecosystem and is crucial habitat for hundreds of species of birds and other
wildlife.

The enormous demand for coastal real estate has created great
development pressure on the remaining undeveloped barrier islands. For
economic reasons, many of the impoverished, rural, coastal counties of this
region (particularly in Georgia) are in favor of development. County tax
assessors consider the "highest and best use" of the land to be high density
residential developme , and they assess privately owned barrier island
property accordingly. 4T St. Catherine's Island was assessed at $4.5 million
in 1970 and at $11.2 million in 1975 (it must be noted that some of the
increase was due to changes in the State tax law). The @.qnprofit foundation
owning the island has challenged the increases in court.
Ossabaw Island, Georgia, the largest (21,600 acres) privately owned,
undeveloped mainland island in the country, was assessed at $628,828 in 1970
and $1,868,644 in 1975. Ossabaw is owned by two families who say they
cannot afford the sharply rising property taxes. Both owners are opposed to
developing the island but would like to realize some of its value, which has
been estimated to be between $8 and $20 million. The Nature Conservancy has
proposed a complex 4arrangement which, if agreeable to all parties, will
protect the island.

Various Federal programs directly or indirectly encourage barrier
island development by supplying funds which aid developers in overcoming
certain inherent problems that complicate barrier island development. Some
of these problems are inaccessibility, soil conditions inapprmriate for
septic tanks, flooding during storms, and limited water supply.

The U. S. Coast Guard is the major agency responsible for issuing
bridge permits, though at present it has no policy related to the long or
short range impact of bridge construction on sensitive natural areas. St.
Philips Island, South Carolina, is considered by some conservationists to be
the most significant undisturbed barrier island in the South Atlantic region
in terms of natural systems. However, it is facing imminent development

132

pending' issuance of a Coast- Guard bridge permit. 46 The Coast Guard is in
the process of approving the enlargement of the Kiawah Island bridge at the
request 49f the Kuwaiti owners, who plan to develop a luxury resort on the
island. '

EPA grants, under Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972 which deals with sewage treatment plants, have eliminated a once
major development problem on barrier islands. These plants are designed for
high density communities, but no consideration is given to the carrying
capacity of the islands or the other problems involved with barrier island
development. There are now eight islands (four in North Carolina, three in
South Carolina, and one in Georgia) obtaining Federal funds under the 491
program for construction or expansion of sewage treatment facilities.

The National Flood Insurance. Program, administered by the Flood
Insurance Administration (HUD), was designed to prevent develo 9W ent in flood
risk areas but, unfortunately, can have the opposite effect. In some
cases, financing organizations are now more inclined to make loans to
private individuals or corporations for development or building projects on
barrier islands because of guaranteed Federal insurance money.

Most barrier islands have only limited groundwater resources which can
be overdrawn; water frequently has to be piped from other sources for resort
communities. In the community of Avon, on the Outer Banks of North
Carolina, a new, large subdivision has caused frequent well failures. The
Farmers Home Administration has approved loans totaling $375,000 to finance
the cogatkuction of a six mile pipeline from Avon to another source of fresh
water.

The fate of most of the barrier islands in this region has been
decided. Many have been significantly altered by development. Other entire
islands or parts of islands are permanently protected under Federal
ownership as National Seashores or National Wildlife Refuges. All the
States of this region, off their respective coasts, own some of the islands
in the form of State parks or wildlife refuges.

The Nature Conservancy has been the most active private organization
involved in protecting the barrier islands of this region from development.
The Conservancy owns or holds controlling shares of six of the Virginia
barrier islands, which they intend to preserve as undisturbed, natural
areas. As previously mentioned, the Conservancy was instrumental in
arranging a plan for the future protection of Ossabaw Island, Georgia. The
Conservancy also arranged the transfer of Cedar and Murphy Islands from
private ownership to the State of South Carolina. It also has attempted to
purchase St. Philips Island, South Carolina, from the owner who plans a
1,250 unit resor5% development. In this instance, the Conservancy has not
been successful.

Many significant barrier islands remain in private ownership and as
such are not permanently protected. Five 51s lands in South Carolina are
immediately threatened with development. TheseL are St. Philips,
Daufuskie, Dewees, Pritchard's, and Kiawah Islands. Large parts of Isle of
Palms, South Carolina, and Topsail (Ashe) Island, North Carolina, face
development in the future. (For a complete inventory and status report on

133

the barrier islands of the South Atlantic Region, see Inventory of the
Barrier Islands of the Southeastern Coast, by Langdon Warner and David
Strouss, 1976.)

Coastal Plain sediment islands occur in the sounds, bays, or estuaries
behind barrier islands and in the Chesapeake Bay. Most are part high ground
and part marsh. Many are all marsh. Some of these islands support small
fishing communities, but most are in private ownership and are used for
agricultural purposes, or second home sites, or are undeveloped. A few have
been developed as'resorts.

In general, the pressure for development is less on islands of this
type than on the ocean-fronting barrier islands. Second home construction
is the major form of development. Because of access problems and
availability of mainland waterfront property of an identical nature, these
islands are not in great demand. Large parts of many of these islands are
salt marsh and are not protected by wetland laws. Rapid erosion is
frequently a serious problem along the shores of many of these islands.

Preservation efforts providing permanent protection are few. Poplar
Island in the Chesapeake Bay belongs to the Smithsonian Institution and is
used for ecological research. The northern half of Smith Island, also in
the Chesapeake, is a National Wildlife Refuge. The southern half supports
three small fishing communities. Bloodsworth Island is used for target
practice by the Patuxent Naval Station.

Wye Island, a coastal plain island on the eastern shore of Maryland,
was the site of major controversy ov6r development versus preservation. In
1974, a large scale community development plan for the island was firmly
rejected by local county interests. The frustrated owner then held an
auction to dispose of the land in parcels of sufficient size to comply with
local zoning laws. Bids were so far below the owner's expectations that all
were rejected. The State of Maryland has contracted to buy the major
portion of the island from the would be developers for $5.3 million. 'The
State has obtained $2.1 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
for the purcH se. The island will then be leased for farming as it has been
in the past.

Gulf-Islands Region

Barrier Islands

The Gulf Coast and Caribbean Islands Region contains a variety of
island types. Barrier islands are the dominant coastal type, occurring
along much of Florida's Atlantic and Gulf coasts and along the coasts of the
other four Gulf States. Delta islands occur off the Louisiana coast,
limestone and coral reef islands occur off Florida's western and southern
shores, and Puerto Rico and the 'Virgin Islands are volcanic, bedrock
islands.

134

The barrier islands of this region are similar to those of the South
Atl7antic Region, serving the same natural functions and presenting the same
difficulties and problems for development. Some of the barrier islands of
this region are backed by mangrove wetlands instead of salt marshes, but the
biological role is the same.

In general, barrier island development pressures are not so great in
this region except in Florida, where resort and second home development is
extensive. Some of the Louisiana barrier islands are developed as
facilities for oil and gas storage.

All the barrier islands and beaches off Florida's east coast are
accessikle by bridge and are developed to some extent. Seven are urban
areas. Development pressures are powerful on Florida's lower west coast
also, but many of the barrier islands are accessible only by boat and are
mostly undeveloped. In general the limiting factor for development is lack
of bridge access.

Sanibel Island, an 11,000 acre barrier island on Florida's west coast,
is a good example. Sanibel became a popular tourist spot in the 1950s, but
could be reached by ferry only. A causeway to the island was completed in
1963, precipitating a ten year building boom which had a severe
environmental impact on the island. Zoning would have allowed a population
of more than 90,000 (present peak season population is 12,000). In 1974,
after ten years of only partially successful efforts to control development,
the citizens of Sanibel voted to incorporate the island and become a
self-governing entity. Shortly thereafter the new Sanibel Planning
Commiss n began work on a comprehensive land use plan which is now in
effect.

Similar development pressures confront other Florida barrier islands.
Marco Island, near Naples, became the center of a controversy in 1975 when
the Army Corps of Engineers refused to issue a permit to developers for the
filling of 2,200 acres of wetlands. 'A large part of the island had already
been developed by using dredge and fill techniques to create artificial
ground out of mangrove wetlands. The Deltona CorporaticT6 (the developer)
has initiated a lawsuit challenging the Corps'9 decision.

At present, the majority of the Florida barrier islands are in private
ownership, and many are only partially developed.

Two undeveloped islands on the west coast, accessible by boat only,
belong to the State of Florida, as do two other islands and parts of fi
others that have bridge access and are recreation areas or State parks.

A number of islands and parts of others are in Federal ownership; the
majority are National Wildlife Refuges. Crooked Island is an Air Force base
and parts of Perdido Key and Cape Canaveral are National Seashores. The
westernmogh barrier island of Florida is part of the Gulf Island National
Seashore.

As previously mentioned, the barrier islands of the other Gulf Coast
States are generally undeveloped.. Much of the island acreage is privately
owned. A number of these islands are owned by oil companies, and extensive

135

oil and gas pipeline and storage facilities exist on some islands. A few
islands are developed to some extent as resort or second home communities.
Parts of three islands are urbanized. Matagorda Island, Texas, may be 0
available for other purposes now that the Air Force has discontinued use of
the island. Three of the Mississippi barrier islands, plus Chandeleur,
Grand Grossin, and Breton Island in Louisiana; and most of Padre Island,
Texas, are owned h the Federal govern ent as National Seashores or National
Wildlife Refuges.

Delta Islands

The delta islands along Louisiana's coast are ephemeral, marshy
islands, so development pressure is nonexistent. Recreational use by sport
fishermen is the primary type of usage. Some dredged channels for oil and
gas pipelines bisect some of these islands and pumping stations for
pipelines are scattered through the area. These are usually constructed on
marshy islands built up by dredge and fill or built on raised platforms set
on pilings. These islands are generally flooded by high tides and as such
are under State ownership, except for the few which have been sold to oil
companies. A nunihar of these islands are incorporated in State wildlife
management areas.W

Limestone and Coral Reef Islands

The limestone and coral reef islands of Florida are unique and fragile
islands which are ecologically and physically unsuited for development.
However, large parts of the Keys are in private ownership and developed.
Many of the undeveloped areas are held by real estate speculators and are
ripe for development. In addition, present high land values and high tax
assessmentgiare sometimes forcing development of areas that should be
preserved.

The greatest number of these islands, the Florida Keys, have been
subjected to intense development pressure, but are now an area of critical
State concern under the 6?rms of the Florida Environmental Land and Water
Management Act of 1972. Destruction of the Keys' unusual environment,
loss of life and property from hurricanes, and corresponding expenditures of
public funds for disaster relief and flood insurance are some of the reasons
for the critical area designation.

Large tracts of land and many islands are under Federal protection as
the Everglades National Park and the Great White Heron, Key Deer, and Key
West National Wildlife Refuges. The State of Florida owns Bahia Honda Key
which is a recreation area and the State also maintains the John Pennekamp
Coral Reef Underwater Park off Key Largo. They recently acquired two other
Keys, Lignumvitae and Shell, with the assistance of the Nature Conservancy.
The Nature Conservancy, in coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service,
has also purchased Snipe 6J(ey to become part of the Great White Heron
National Wildlife Refuge.

The other limestone islands are scattered along Florida's west coast
between Tampa and Tallahassee. These islands are small and few in number.

136

They are very similar to the Keys and are basically unsuited for
development. Development pressures are minimal for these islands. Cedar
Key is the only one of this group which has been substantially developed.
It supports a small commercial and sport fishing oriented community.

A number of the other limestone islands in this,,area belong to paper
companies which own large tracts of coastal property.04

The smaller islands off Cedar Key are the Cedar Key National Wildlife
Refuge. The Chassahowitz and St. Marks National Wildlife Refuges also
protect a number of islands. Much of the coastal zone in this area is under
State protection as wildlife management area.

Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands

Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands are volcanic islands formed
approximately 100 million years ago. The lowland, coastal plains of Puerto
Rico and St. Croix (in the Virgin Islands) are areas of accumulated alluvial
and marine sediments and ancient coral reefs which ere deposited or formed
during various eustatic fluctuations in sea level. 0

The islands support tropical ecosystems including a number of rare and
endemic species. The islands are fringed with beautiful beaches and
mangrove wetlands, and offshore coral reefs. The coastal waters and islets
are highly productive fishing grounds and are important habitat and breeding
grounds for several endangered species, sggh as the hawksbill sea turtle,
the brown pelican, and the humpback whale.

Puerto Rico, the easternmost island of the Greater Antilles, is
approximately 3,421 quare iles in area and supports a total estimated
S 01
population of 3.2 million. Puerto Rico's economy is based on sugar cane
agriculture, industry, and tourism. While much of the island is either
developed or is used for agriculture, a number of significant natural areas
remain though they are unprotected. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's
Coastal Management Program includes plans to preserve important inland and
coastal natural areas including small islands and coral reefs.

Two of these areas are the island of Mona and its smaller neighbor,
Monito, located off the southwest shore of Puerto Rico. Mona is an
approximately 13,570 acre, uninhabited limestone island which supports a
dry, Caribbean coastal forest. Included in the flora and fauna of the
islands are many endemic species. 6F-

A number of the other small, uninhabited offshore islands are included
in proposed marine sanctuaries described in the Puerto Rico Coastal
Management Program.

The other major offshore islands of Puerto Rico are Vieques, 32,950
acres, and Culebra, 7,700 acres (for further information see The Culebra
Segment of the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program, OCZM,
Washington, D. C.). Both are inhabited by small populations supported by
subsistence agricuLbire, fishing, and tourism. A U. S. Marine base is
located on Vieques.

137

The United States Virgin Islands are a group of three large islands and
more than 60 smaller islands and "cays," approximately 40 miles east of
Puerto Rico. St. John (20 square miles) is adjacent to St. Thomas (28 70
sqiare miles), while St. Croix (84 square miles) is 40 miles to the south.

The Virgin Islands' economy is dependent on tourism. The islands have
been heavily developed as resorts since the 1950s. As a result there has
been a significant, adverse environmental impact. Erosion and siltation
have been the greatest problems and have sererely reduced the water quality
and degraded the coastal marine environment. Few natural area remain on
the developed islands.

The need for land use planning, controls on building, and preservation
of certain natural features of the islands is recognized in the Virgin
Islands Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Parts of the islands are under Federal protection. The Virgin Islands The Virgin islands
National Park consists of half of St. John and much of its surrounding
waters. Four other small islands are in Federal ownership also.

Twenty-eight other cays or islands are owned by the Virgin Islands
government. Twenty-two other islands are in private ownership.

PACIFIC REGION

The islands of the Pacific region can be divided into the West Coast
islands, the Alaskan islands, and the oceanic islands. The major islands of
this region are almost exclusively some type of bedrock island; they support
a variety of ecosystems because of climatic differences.

There are few large islands along the coasts of California, Oregon, and
Washington. The major islands are the Channel Islands off southern
California and the San Juan Islands in Puget Sound, Washington. The
Farallon Islands are a small group of rocky islands 25 miles west of San
Francisco which are under Federal protection as a National Wildlife Refuge.
Numerous sea stacks and rocky islets occur along the entire Pacific coast.

Channel Islands

The Channel Islands consist of eight large islands and numerous smaller
coastal islets or rocks, located between 10 and 75 miles off the southern
California coast. Geologically these islands are extensions of coastal
mountain ranges and were once connected to the mainland, becoming separated
during the Pleistocene period. During the millions of years that these
islands were separated from the mainland, and each other, a number of
distinct, endemic species evolved. These include 80 flowering plants, 15
birds, 15 mammals, 2 salamanders, 2 lizards, and 16 land molluscs. Also
present are large stands of rare Torrey Pine and the largest stand of Giant Sunflower Tree (Coreoposis) remaining in the world. Six species of seals
including the reare Guadelupe fur seal (Arctochephalus philippi townsendi) Six species of seals,
and the sea otter (Ashydra Lutra) and a number of coastal and sea birds are
on these islands as breeding grounds and rookeries. Rich, unpolluted kelp

138

beds abond off many of the islands, and the waters are productive fishing
grounds.

The islands are also important archaeological sites. Evidence found on
Santa Rosa Island proves it to be among the oldest known inhabited areas in
North America. Additional studies of 50 ancient Indian villages have shown
that San Miguel and Santa, Rosa were inhabited during the last 10,000 years.
Cabrillo, the Portuguese exp rer who discovered California, died and was
buried on San Miguel in 1543. 11%,

Most of the land area in the Channel Islands is on the privately owned
islands of Santa Catalina, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz. The resort town of
Avalon, at the south end of Santa Catalina, and 800 more acres of land on
that island are open to the public. The remaining 42,185 acres are
maintained by the Santa Catalina Island Conservancy (not related to the
Nature Conservancy) for educational and recreational purposes. A few other
areas are developed and there are plans for limited development in the few
unincorporated areas on the island.

Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz are undeveloped except for a few ranch
buildings and are used for grazing livestock. At one time there were plans
for a $20 million resort development on 6,000 acres of property at the
eas5srn end of the island, but Santa Barbara County's zoning laws prevented
it. National Park Service acquisition plans, in 1967, for Santa Rosa and
Santa Cruz have not been realized.

The other islands are under Federal ownership. Santa Barbara and
Anacapa Islands are in the Channel Island National Monument., San Nicholas
and San Clemente are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.
San Miguel is a seal sanctuary administered by the National Park Service,
U.S. Navy, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department
of Fish and Game.

San Juan Islands

- The San Juan Islands are a group of islands in Puget Sound, Washington,
with a total land area of 177 square miles. In three counties, there are
457 true islands, islets, or rocks, of which 175 are named, and th@te are an
additional 311 reefs or ledges which are inundated at high tide. The
largest islands (along with their sizes given in square miles) are: Orcas
57, San Juan 56, Lopez 29, Shaw 8, Blakely 7, Waldron 5, and Decatur 3.

These islands are also partially submerged mountains and have been
heavily glaciated. There are 15 peaks above 1,000 feet, with the highest
point being the 2,409 foot Mt. Constitution on Orcas.

The San Juans support much the same ecosystems found elsewhere in the
Puget Sound area: coniferous forests; salt marshes, and freshwater marshes
and lakes. However, the various undisturbed islands of this archipelago are
of great value because of their pristine condition. Bald eagles, ospreys,
and a number of species of seabirds and other birds use these islands as
nesting areas, and the islands are also important habitat for a number of
marine mammals. There are alao superb intertidal and subtidal communities
around some of these islands. 77-

139

The majority of the San Juan islands are in private ownership. San
Juan and Orcas are the most developed. Lopez is predominantly rural and
used for agriculture. These three are all accessible by public ferrv
service from Vancouver Island in Canada and the mainland of Washington.
Many of the other islands are indhabited but accessible only by private boat.

Approximately 12,500 acres (ll percent of the land) in the San Juans
are publicly owned. Only 1,500 acres, or 1.2 percent, are specifically
preserved as natural areas. The rest are used for parks or recreation
areas. Federal and State agencies involved and the respective number of
acres they own are as follows: National Park Service, l,748.5; U. S. Coast
Guard, 344.16 Fish and Wildlife Service, 232.07; Bureau of Land Management, nd Management,
158; State Parks, 6,192; Washington Department of Naatural Resources, 1,873;
University of Washington, 1,154; and the Washington Department of Game,
171.

The Nature Conservancy also own the 273 acres which comprise Waldron
Island. This organization has been the most active private conservation
group involved in this area and has designated specific sites worthy of
preservation.

Alaskan Islands

The 5,000 plus islands, totaling 21 million acres in Alaska are the
greatest number of islands in any State in the United States. The
majority are bedrock islands, but there are also barrier and delta islands.
Development pressures are almost nonexistent and all but a few islands are
in public ownership.

Oceanic Islands

The Hawaiian Islands are volcanic mountains with narrow fringes of
sedimentary rock (alluvial and marine sediments) on some of them.
oldest islands are at the northwest end of the chain. The volcanoes have
subsided in some cases, leaving coral atolls. The islands become younger to
the southeast, ending with hawaii, the youngest and largest islands. The highest peaks, Mauna Loa, 13,796 feet, and Mauna Kea, 13,677 feet, and the
most active volcanoes, are on Hawaii. The eight main islands (Hawaii, Maui,
Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanzi, Niihau, and Kahoolawae) comprise 91 percent of
the total 6,425 square miles in the chain.

The Hawaiian Islands support a unique and fascinating ecosystem. Over
2,500 species of higher plants as well as one entire family of birds and
numerous other species of birds, mammals, and insects are endemic to
Hawaii. The high mountains and prevailing northeasterly winds combine to
create drastically different climatic situations on these islands and there
are resultant diverse, natural communities. Coral reef and tropical seaweed
communities surround the island. The offshore waters are productive
fishing grounds and are an important habitat for various species of whales
and other marine mammals.

140

Development has been intense on some of the main islands, but it has
generally been limited by accessibility, water resources, an12 the
availability of good swimming beaches and other coastal features.

Kahoolawe (Island), which contains areas of significant archaeological
value, is leased by the Navy and has been used as a bombing range. Public
sentiment is very much against this usage, but the situation has yet to be
resolved.

Lanai (Island) belongs to the Dole Pineapple Company and is used for
agricultural purposes.

Niihau is owned by a single family and is being used for agricultural
purposes. It contains the best example of a native Hawaiian culture, and
visitation has purposely been limited to protect this situation. The State
of waii has long term interests in this island and may someday acquire
it.

The Pacific Trust Islands, Guam, and American Samoa will not be covered
in this report.

GREAT LAKES REGION

The islands of the Great Lakes are almost exclusively sedimentary
bedrock islands. Some delta islands occur in the extensive delta at the
mouth of the St. Claire River, northeast of Detroit, Michigan. A few sand
spit islands are also scattered around the Great Lakes shores.

The Great Lakes islands serve much the same function as their marine
counterparts. They provide an important habitat and nesting area for many
coastal birds (gulls, terns, herons) and waterfowl. Their nearshore waters
are important habitat for juvenile and adult stages of many of the important
commercial and sport fishes of the Great Lakes. Many of the islands are
unspoiled and of great value as wilderness areas. Others have great
potential as recreation areas for the large urban centers of the region.

The remoteness and inaccessibility of many of the Great Lakes islands
have discouraged large scale development. All of these islands are
accessible by boat only; many of the large sil er resort islands are
accessible by seasonal ferry service. Development pressures are increasing,
however, as more people use the Great Lakes coastal zone for recreation and
vacationing. A substantial number of islands are under State and Federal
protection, but the majority are in private ownership. These islands will
be discussed State by State.

Minnesota

A number of very small islands occur off the Lake Superior shore of
Northeastern Minnesota. Twenty very small, previosuly unclaimed islands are
now under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Land Management. A
number of other islands adjacent to the Canadian - U.S. border are also
under Federal control as the Grand Portage National Monument.

141

Wisconsin

The Apostle Islands and Green Bay Islands are the major islands in
Wisconsin. The -Apostles are located in Lake Superior approximately 50 miles
east of Duluth, Minnesota. The Green Bay Islands are a chain of islands
extending from Wisconsin's Door Peninsula across the mount of Green Bay to
Michigan's Garden Peninsula.

The Apostle Islands are a large group (21 islands, 54,922 acres in
total land area) of remote islands which were recognized in several studies,
including Islands of America (1967, BOR), for their scenic and wilderness
qualities. These islands were threatened with real estate development until
1970 when they became the major portion of the Apostle Islands National
Lakeshore. Madeline Islandl the largest in the group (15,262 acres), is
still privately owned and has a substantial summer population.

Eight of the 16 Green Bay Islands are in Wisconsin. Total land area is
approximately 20,480 acres. Washington, the largest island at 14,437 acres,
is in private ownership and has a small permanent population in addition to
a larger summer population. Three smaller islands, Gravel, Spider, and Hog,
are National Wildlife Refuges. The Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission,
in Green Bay, Wisconsin, has recommended that the other islands become pW
of a joint Wi s cons in-Michigan interstate park or protected natural area.

Michigan

Michigan has far more shoreline and more islands than do the other
Great Lakes States. Michigan's shores border Lakes Superior, Michigan, 0
Huron, and Erie. Numerous islands occur along this extensive coast.

The majority of the, islands are in private ownership and are only
partially developed with summer residences. Others are completely
undeveloped. The State of Michigan has partial ownership of many of the
private islands.

A few of these islands are heavily developed and inhabited year round
by at least a small population. Chief among these are Gross Ile, which is
in the Detroit River and is actually a suburb of Detroit, Michigan; Mackinac
Island at the western end of Lake Huron, a State historic park; and Beaver
Island, in northern Lake Michigan.

Mackinac is a popular summer resort area. Congestion on the island
during peak summer periods has resulted in a ban on automobiles, which had
come over in the past on the ferry. Visitors now tour the island on
bicycle, horse, or foot.

Beaver Island, the largest island in Lake Michigan, is half in private
ownership and half State forest. This island is accessible by ferry and has
been considerably developed with summer cottages.

Other partially or substantially developed islands, not in single
ownership, are Sugar Island, Neebish Island, Bois Blanc Island, a few of the
Les Cheneaux Islands, and parts of Drummond Island and the adjacent
142

Potagannissing Bay Islands. Numerous other islands, in 8grivate ownership,
have only summer cottages or are completely undeveloped.

Many of the undeveloped, privately owned islands are protected from
large scale develolaent under Michigan's State Shoreline Protection and
Management program.ou This strongly enforced program can protect islands of
natural value from development plans which would have an adverse
environmental impact.

A large amount of island acreage in Michigan is in Federal ownership.
The major port@r is Lake Superior's Isle Royale National Park, which totals
133,844 acres. North and South Manitou Islands, in Lake Michigan near
Traverse City, Michigan, are part of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore. A number of other islands in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron make
up the Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The four Huron Islands in
Lake Superior are also a National Wildlife Refuge. Four other islands in
Michigan belong to the Coast Guard. Many other small, unsurveyed islands
are now under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

Private conservation organization action has been limited in this
region. The Nature Conservancy assisted the State of Michigan in
transforming South Manitou Island into a Natural Area Preserve. This island
is now part of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Seashore. A small
bird-nesting island in Thunder Bay, off Lake Huron, is preserved as a
wildlife habitat by the Eastern Michigan Nature Association.
The Michigan delta islands, at th mouth of the St. Claire River, are
an important wetland-wildlife habitat. Large areas are owned by the State
of Michigan as wildlife management areas. However, substantial portions at
the northern ends of the islands and along the shipping channels have been
developed as second home sites, using dredge and fill techniques. This area
will eventually be protected from further development by Michigan's
Shoreline Protection and Management Program.

Ohio

The major United States islands of Lake Erie are all in Ohio. They are
Kelley's Island and the Put-in-Bay Islands, north of Sandusky, and Lucas
Island, at the mouth of the Maumee River within the Toledo city limits.

Kelley's Island and the eleven Put-in-Bay Islands support small
permanent populations and large summer populations, having long been popular
sil er resorts. The islands have been extensively develoggd over the years,
but strong zoning laws 'now protect remaining open spaces.
Of the 4,252 acres 4 land area divided among these islands, 768 acres
are in public ownership. Parts of the Kelley and South Bass islands are
State parks. Another small parcel of South Bass, Perry's Victory and
International Peace Monument, is a National Monument. Green Island (20
acres) is a National Wildlife Refuge.

143

New York

The major U. S. islands of Lake Ontario are in the State of New York.
There are eleven substantial islands in the eastern end of the lake, west of
Watertown, New York. All of these - islands are privately owned and are
accessible by private boat only. There is a small Coast Guard light
installation on Horse Island.

Grenadler, Fox, and Stony Islands are partially developed. The other
islands are undeveloped. There are no future plans for development; nor are
there any restrictions or provisions to prevent development.

Little Galoo Island supports a ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis)
nesting colony which is very large. This --island is one of the northernmost
known nesting sites for this species. A number of other colonial nesting
birds, including the black crowned night heron and the double crested
cormorant, use this island.

An additional 1,800- or so islands, of varying size, occur in the St.
Lawrence River. These islands are collectively known as the Thousand
Islands. Second home shoreline development has been extensive on these
islands. Almost all the islands are in private ownership. A few have
shipping channel light installations operated by the Coast Guard.

The islands of the U.S. are an extremely valuable and threatened
natural resource of national significance. Physical isolation has protected
many islands from the haphazard development of the mainland, but the demand
for coastal real estate has mushroomed and islands are increasingly
succumbing to intense resort and second home development pressure. The
natural value, carrying capacity, and, in many cases, the complete
unsuitability for development of some islands are often ignored.

Islands are of great biological value as an integral part of the
coastal ecosystem because of their high ratio of land-water interface. The
land-water ecotone is the most biologically productive zone on Earth and it
is a key to aquatic food chains. Any major disturbance on an island's land
surface will have a direct and frequently adverse effect on the adjacent
marine or lake environment.

Relative isolation and lack of serious disturbances have made many
islands refuges and critical habitats for diverse forms of aquatic and
terrestrial life. Some coastal islands are the only breeding grounds
remaining in the U.S. for many species of seabirds, sea turtles, and marine
mammals.

Undisturbed islands are important for research in ecology, evolutionary
biology, and environmental sciences. They represent finite, functioning
ecosystems in an unaltered state, and are a vital source for increased
understanding of natural processes. Scenery, vegetation, and wildlife once
common on the mainland occur on some islands, while others support unique,
specialized communities.

144

Many islands, and particularly barrier islands, are of significant
economic value because their shallow coastal waters and sheltered coves and
bays are an important habitat for juvenile and adult stages of many
commercial fishery species. Barrier islands and some other islands also
serve a vital function as offshore barriers to oceanic storms. Without this
protection along much of our low lying coast, hurricane damage would be far
greater than it is.

ISLAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM DIRECTION

In attempting to implement any Act of Congress it is natural to turn to
the legislative history of the Act to gain a complete understanding of what
Congress intended in passing it. In the case of Coastal Zone Management Act
amendments concerning access and islands, however, there is, for all
practical purposes, no legislative history. Senator Hollings, in
introducing the Bill, said, "This Bill recognizes the importance of ... the
protection of islands," but that is of little importance unless one
constructs a distinction between "preservation" and "protection." Thus, in
addition to the language of the Act, there are only the earlier studies
referred to earlier in this report to look at. It can reasonably be assumed
that these reports came to the attention of Congress in its deliberations
and therefore can be used to help understand, if not the words of the Act,
at least the environment which led to its adoption.

The clear concensus of these earlier reports is that islands are very
special places and ought to be preserved as a part of our natural heritage.
There is no clear consensus on specifically how or for what purpose they
should be preserved, however (see Chapter Two of this report). It would
appear that what would amount to a "national policy" or "statement of
national interest" can be constructed from these many reports and that one
could assume that it was this policy or interest that Congress was
attempting to implement when it adopted the island preservation language of
Section 315(2).

Congress used the term "preservation." Webster's defines preserve as
follows: "To keep or save from injury, or destruction; to guard or defend
from evil; to protect; save." Current environmental jargon assigns a
somewhat more rigid or rigorous definition to the term and would argue that
to preserve an island would involve maintaining it in the natural state with
little or no intrusion by humans. If one assumes that Congress intended the
more rigorous definition, the impact of the section is minimized, since
there are few pristine ecosystems to which it could apply, if any. Thus,
one should probably conclude that Congress intended to use a definition
corresponding roughly to Webster's.

This does not necessarily mean that no development, whatsoever, can
take place. It simply means that to preserve an island, the historical uses
of the island should be taken into consideration, in conjunction with future
uses, and examinatioa of these uses and their effects on the island
ecosystem.

145

Congress limited the section further by restricting the use of grant
money to "acquiring land." There are a number of techniques that could be
used, but Congress restricted the use of Federal funds to this one
technique. There are a number of reasons why Congress may have chosen to do
this. One is that it may have felt that this technique by itself was
adequate; or more probably, Congress felt it wanted a measure of permanence
that land acquisition could provide. It may also have assumed that the
Federal funds were going to be used to leverage other funds and other
preservation techniques.

Congress clearly intended that other funds should be involved, since it
established the grant as a fifty percent match. It did not, however,
explicitly restrict the use of the non-Federal funds to land acquisition.
The terms of the Act are "50 per cent of the cost of the project involved."
The question is, does "project" refer to "preservation" or "acquisition"?
If Congress had intended that "project" mean "acquisition" would have used
the same word "acquisition" or a pronoun meaning, by construction,
Itacquisition," since that is the nearest significant term. But Congress
chose a different word and, therefore, one can only assume that it intended
a different meaning. Here the only other reasonable meaning is
f1preservation." Hence, one can reasonably assume Congress intended that the
Federal funds involved in any island preservation project be spent for land
acquisition, but that the "remaining cost of the project" could be derived
from other types of cost by attributable to the ultimate goal of island
preservation.

Thus, a reasonable interpretation of the language is that island
preservation efforts funded in part by 315(2) can include the preservation
and/or conservation of the island ecosystem. The preservation activities
financed by Federal funds are limited to land acquisition, but the remaining
part of the project may include other preservation activities. (See O11B
Circular A 102.) Using an interpretation like this would give the Act-a
more broad and at the same time more sound result.

The Act does not require a direct link with the State management
programs other than through the consistency requirement, which may be
enough. Certainly, Congress would not have intended that one part of the
Act operate without concern for the other parts, especially when it
deliberately required through the consistency requirements of the Act that
programs created by other Acts be consistent with this one. Thus, it is
reasonable to assume that any island preservation project should be
consistent with the State management program, and the planning for islands
under that program. This need not be a complex thing, nor need it preclude
the "targets of opportunity" approach to acquisition. It could, however,
insure that there is a preservation policy that the specific acquisition
would fit into: a network of existing Federal, State and local policies that
would operate to maximize the return on the Federal investment.

In addition to the island preservation plan, a proposal should contain
much of the same information required for estuarine sanctuary proposals.
But, in addition, information regarding development pressures, ecological
and geological characteristics, and multiple use potential will be

146

54 Conservation Foundation, 1976 Barrier Island Workshop. A Reconnaissance
Inventory of Barrier Islands and Beaches by Steve Gilbert and John Clarke.
Draft of May 16, 1976, Washington, D. C. May, 1976.
55 Clark, John. The Sanibel Report; Foundation of a Comprehensive Plan
Based on Natural Systems. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D. C.
1976.
56 Moser, Donald. "A Manprove Island Saved from Bulldozers by the Amy Corps
of Engineers." Smithsonian. Jan uary, 1977.
57 Supra note 54.
58
Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Personal Communication, Paul Temlet, Program Coordinator, Coastal
Resources Program, Louisiana State Planning Office, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
August 9, 1977.
61 Supra note 21 at p. 105.
62 Personal Communication, William Millhouser, Gulf-Islands Regional
Coordinator, Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Washington, D. C.
63 Supra note 39.
64 Supra note 62.
65 U. S. Department of Commerce. Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program,
Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Washington, D. C. June, 1977 at p.
1-1. The Virgin Islands-Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement at pp. 17-21.
66 Ibid., Virgin Islands at p. 21.
67 Ibid., Puerto Rico at p. 1-1.
68 Ibid., Puerto Rico at pp. 1-17,18.
69 Ibid., Puerto Rico at pp. 1-18.
70 Ibid., Virgin Island at pp. 17-21.
71 Ibid., Virgin Islands .,'at pp. 53-58.
72 Ibid., Virgin Islands Appendix C-1.
73 U. S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. "Channel
Islands, California, Preliminary Study." Island Study: Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, U. S. Department of Interior, Washington, D. C. February, 1968
at pp. 25-33, 60-69.

153

74 Ibid., at pp. 69-71.
75 Ibid., at p. 34.
76 Nature Conservancy, Northwest Office. San Juan County, Washington;
Inventory of Natural Areas on Private Lands. Portland, Oregon. January,
1975 at p. 85.
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid.
79 U. S. Department of Interior Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Islands of
America, Washington, D. C., Government Printing Office. 1970 at p. 16.
80 Hawaii, University of. Atlas of Hawaii, University Press of. Hawaii,
Honolulu, Hawaii. 1973.
81 Ibid.
82 Personal Communication, Grant Dehart. Pacific Regional Coordinator, OCZM,
Washington, D. C. August, 1977.
83 Ibid.-
84 Bay Lake Regional Planning Communication.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid.
87 U. S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. National Parks and
Landmarks. Government Printing Office, Washing@on, D. C.-1972.
88 Supra note 85.
89 Personal Communication, Charles Henderdorf, Director for Center for Lake
Erie Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. August 22, 1977.
90 Great Lakes Basin Commission, Great Lakes Basin Framework Study; Appendix
12, Attachment A: Great Lake Island Inventory, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1975.
91 Personal Communication, Tom Cutter. National Resource Planner, St.
Lawrence-Eas tern Ontario Commissionl Watertown, New York. August 22, 1977.
92 Ibid.

154

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Clark, John. The Sanibel Report: Formulation of a Comprehensive Plan
Based on Natural Systems. The Conservation Foundation,
Washington, D. C. 1976.

Gibbons, Boyd. Wye Island. Baltimore and Loagon: The Johns Hopkins
University Press. 1977.

Articles and Periodicals

Conservation Foundation. "Barrier Islands and Beaches: A Threatened,
Fragile Resource." The Conservation Foundation Newsletter.
August, 1976.

Cullimore, Donald. "Fighting to Save the Barrier Islands."
Environmental Action. April, 1977, pp. 3-6.

Johannes, Robert E. "The Life and Death of the Reef." Audoboa.
September, 1976, pp. 36-41.

Kolb, Larry and Tanner Girard. "Cumberland: The End of a Fairytale."
National Parks and.Conservation Magazine.

Medders, Stanley. "California's Channel Islands." National Parks and
Conservation Magazine. October, 1975. Miller, H. Crane. "The
National Flood Insurance Program: A Quest for Effective Flood
Plain Development." Environmental Comment. June, 1977.

Moser, Donald. "A Manprove Island Saved from Bulldozers'by the Army
Corps of Engineers." Smithsonian. January, 1977.

Soucie, Jerry. "The Need for a Boat." National Parks and Conservation
Magazine. February, 1977, pp. 4-7.

"What's Uncle Sam Doing with the Islands He Owns?" Smithsonian.
September, 1975.

Plans and Reports

Bay Lake Regional Commission. Recreation Alternatives for the Grand
Traverse Islands - Michigan and Wisconsin, Bay Lake Regional
Planning Commission, Green Bay, Wisconsin. 1976.

California. - California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission.
California Coastal Plan, San Francisco: California Coastal Zone
Commission. December, 1975.

155

Conservation Foundation. 1976 Barrier Islands Workshop. A
Reconnaissance Inventory of Barrier Islands and Beaches. By Steve
Gilbert and John Clark. Draft, May 16, 1976. Washington, D. C.
May, 1976.

Conservation Foundation. Barrier Islands and Beaches. Technical
Proceedings of the 1976 Barrier Island Workshop, Annapolis,
Maryland. May 17-18, 1976. Technical Sponsor NOAA, OCZM.
Washington, D. C. 1976.

Florida.- Florida Department of Natural Resources. Coastal
Coordinating Council. Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management Study
(Executive Summary and kt-las). Tallahassee, Florida. June, 1974.

Florida Regional Coastal Zone Management Atlas: Region 3.
Tallahassee, Florida. June, 1974.

Florida Regional Coastal Zone Management Atlas: Region 5.
Tallahassee, Florida. June, 1974.

Great Lakes Basin Commission. Great Lakes Basin Framework Study:
Appendix 12. Shore Use and Erosion, Attachment A: Great Lake
Island Inventory. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1975.

Hawaii, University of, Department of Geography. Atlas of Hawaii.
University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. 1973.

Louisiana. Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine
Resources. Louisiana Government and the Coastal Zon@, 1972,
Louisiana. March 31, 1972.

Maine. Maine State Planning Office. Maine Coastal Plans, Quarterl
Progress Report. June - August, 1975. Augusta, Maine. November,
1975.

The Nesting Habitat of the Leach's Storm Petrel in Maine and Its
Relevance to the Critical Areas Program, by Joe Cowgen, State
Planning Office. A report prepared for the Maine Critical Areas
Programs, State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine. September 20,
1976.

The American Island in Maine and Its Relevance to the Critical Areas
Program, by Stuart S. Fefer. A report prepared for the Maine
Critical Areas Program, State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine.
March 1, 1977.

Birds in Maine and Their Relevance to the Critical Areas Program, by
Henry Tyler, Jr., State Planning Office. A report prepared for
the Maine Critical Areas Program, State Planning Office, Augusta,
Maine. March 17, 1977.

156-

Massachusetts. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. Ecosystems and
Resources of the Massachusetts Coast. Intitute for Man and
Environment, by Carl Conlozzi, et al., Boston, Massachusetts.
1975.

Massachusetts. Department of Natural Resources. Boston Harbor Islands
Comprehensive Plan Summary. Prepared for Massachusetts Department
of Natural Resources , by Metropolitan Area Planning Council.

McEacham, John and Edward L. Towle. Resource Management Programs for
Oceanic Islands. Wildlife Management Institute, Wire Building,
Washington, D. C. March, 1972.

New York Water Resources Commission. Summary Appraisal; Developing and
Managingthe Water Resources of New York State. New York State
Waster Resources Commission, Division of Water Resources, New York
State Conservation Department, Albany, New York. 1967.

Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy Preserve Directory. The
Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 1974.

Nature Conservancy. Virginia Coast Reserve Stu , Volume I and III.
Arlington, Virginia. March 31, 1976.

Nature Conservancy. Northwest Office. San Juan County, Washington:
Inventory of Natural Areas on Private Lands. Portland, Oregon.
January, 1975.

Rhode Island, University of, Coastal Resources Center. Rhode Island's
Coastal Natural Areas: Priorities for Protection and Management,
by George L. Seaway. Marine Technical Report No. 43. Kiagston,
Rhode Island. 1975.

Bay Islands Park System. Prepared by Coastal Resources Center,
University of Rhode Island in association with the Departments of
Natural Resources and Community Affairs, Statewide Planning
,-Program and Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. March 1, 1974.

U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Islands of
America. Washington, D. C. , Government Printing Office. 1970.

U. S. Department of Commerce. Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program.
Office of Coastal Zone Management. NOAA, Washington, D. C. June,
1977.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics, Bureau of
the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1974.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1974.

U. S. Department of Commerce. The Virgin Islands Coastal Management
Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Office of
Coastal Zone Management. NOAA, Washington, D. C. August 5, 1977.

157

U. S. Department of Interior. National Park Service. National Parks
and Landmarks. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
1972.

Vineyard Open Land Foundation. Looking at the Vineyard. Vineyard Open
Land Foundation, West Tisbury, Massachusetts. 1973.

Warren, Langdon and David Strouss. Inventory of the Barrier Islands of
the Southeastern Coast. Open Space Institute, New York, New York.
October, 1976.

Warren, Langdon. That Status of the Barrier Islands of the
Southeastern Coast. Open Space Institute, New York, New York.
November, 1976.

Unpublished Material

U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. "Channel
Islands, California." Preliminary study. Island Study: Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation. U. S. Department of Interior, Washington,
D. C. February, 1968.

"Greenwood Island Group, Michigan." Bureau of Outdoor Recreation:
Lake Central Regional Offices. 1968.

"Report on Casco Bay (Island), Maine." Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Northeast Regional Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. December
29, 1967.

"Report on Vinalhaven (Island) in Penobscot Bay, Maine." Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, Northeast Regional Office, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. December 28, 1967.

Maine State Planning Office. "A Summary of the Register of Critical
Areas." Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine. June 16,
1977.

Maine Department of Marine Resources. "Critical Marine Mammals
11
Habitats--Gulf of Maine, by David Richardson. West Boothbay
Harbor, Maine. February 14, 1975.

Personal Communication and Contacts

Cottrel, Barbara. Coastal Islands Registry, Bureau of Public Lands,
Maine Department of Conservation. June 28, 1977.

Cutter, Thomas. Natural Resource Planner, St. Lawrence - Eastern
Ontario Commission, Watertown, New York. August 22, 1977.

158

Dehart, Grant. Pacif ic Regional Coordinator, OC221, NOAA, Washington,
D. C. August 10, 1977.

Hendendorf, Charles E. Director for Center for Lake Erie Research,
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. August 22, 1977.

Hoover, William. Ocean City Planning and Zoning Administration, Ocean
City, Maryland. July 14, 1977.

Templet, Paul. Program Coordinator, Coastal Resources Program,
Louisiana State Planning Office, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. August
9, 1977.

Tyler, Henry. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine. June 30,
1977.

Wolberton, Charles. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing,
Michigan. August 23, 1977.

159

Appendix One

1. Congressional findings and general policy declarations 1-2
of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

2. Section 305(a)(1) of the Act which authorizes the Secretary 1-4
of Commerce to make grants to States to develop coastal
zone management programs; and Section 305(b)(7) of the
Act which requires that beach access be a part of each
coastal zone management program funded under the Act.

3. Regulations issued to explain to States what they must 1-5
do to comply with the Section 305(b)(7) beach access
provision of the Act.

4. Section 315(2) of the Act which authorizes the Secretary 1-9
of Commerce to make grants to States to acquire land for
beach access.

5. Concept paper issued by the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 1-10
ment in preparation for the issuance of regulations which
will explain how Section 315(2) will be administered. (Regu-
lations have not yet been issued.)

COASTAL ZCNE MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1976 (P.L. 94-370)
INCORPORATED INTO THE
AL ZONE KANM2XENT ACT OF 1972 (P. -583)
C0hST L. 92

AN ACT

To establish a national policy and develop a national program for the management,
beneficial use, protection, and development of the land and water resources of
the Nation's coastal zones, and for other purposes.

Be it onacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That the Act entitled wAn Act to provide for a
comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program-in marine science, to
establish a National Council on marine Resources and Engineering Development, and a
Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, and for other purposesp,
approved June 17, 1966 (80 Stat. 203), as ed (33 U.S.C. 1101-1124), is further
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title:

TME III --- MANAGEM= OF THE COASTAL ZCNE

TITW

Sec. 301. This title may be cited as the OCoastal Zone management Act of 1972:."

CONMUWICNRL FnMINGS

Sec. 302. The Congress finds that

(a) There is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use,
protection, and development of the coastal zone.

(b) The coa tal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commercial, recreational,
ecological, industrial, and esthetic resources of inmediate and potential value to'.
the present and future well-being of the Nation.

(c) The increasing and competing demands upon the lands and waters of our
coastal zone occasioned by population growth and economic development, incluaing
requirements for industry, commerce, residential development, recreation, extraction
of mineral resources and fossil fuels, transportation and navigation, waste disposal,
and harvesting of fish, shellfish, and other living marine resources, have resulted
in the loss ot living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, permanent
and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use,.
and shoreline erosion.

(d) The coastal zone, and the fish,.shellfish, other living marine resources,
mid wildlife therein, are ecologically tragile and consequently extremely vulnerable
to destruction by man's alterations.

(e) Important ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values in the
coastal zone which are essential to the well-being of all citizens are being
irretrievably damaged or lost.

1-2

(f) Special natural and scenic characteristics are being damaged by ill-planned
development that threatens these values.

(g) In light of competing demands and the urgent need to protect and to give
high priority to natural-systems in the coastal zone, present state ana local
institutional arrangements for planning and regulating land and water uses in such
areas are inadequate.

(h) The Key to more effective protection and use of the land and water
resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full
authority over the lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the states, in
@ooperation with Federal and local governments and other vitally affected interestso.'
in developing L-mid and water use programs for the coa tal zone, including unified
policies, criteria, standards, methods, and processes for dealing with land and
water use decisions of more than local significance.

(i) The national objective of attaining a greater degree of energy self-
sufficiency would be advanced by providing Federal financial assistance to meet
state and local needs resulting from new or expanded energy activity in or affecting
the coastal zone.

DBCLARATICN OF POLICY

Sec. 303. The Congress finds and declares that itAs the national policy (a) to
preserve protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources
of the ;@tionls coastal zone for this and succeeding generations, (b) to encourage
and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal
zone through the development and implemention of management programs to achieve , -
wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone giving full considera-
tion to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as to needs for
economic development, (c) for all Federal agencies engaged in programs affecting
the coastal zone to cooperate and participate with state and local governments arc
regional agencies in effectuating the purposes of this.title, and (d) to encourage
the participation of the public, of Federal, statef ano local governments and of
regional agencies in the development of coastal zone management programs. With
respect to implementation of such management programs, it is the national policy to
encourage cooperation among the various state and regional agencies, including
establishment of interstate and regional agreements,!-nperatiVe procedures,
and joint action pwftlmlarly regardiM programs-

1-3

MANAGEMENr pRoGm DEvELcPmEur GRANTS
Sec. 305. (a) The Secretary may make grants to any coa tal state-
(1) under subsection (c) for the purpose of assisting such state in the
development of a management program for the land and water resources of its coa tal
zone; and

(b) The management program for each coastal state shall include each of the
following requirements:

(7) A definition of the term "beach- and a planning process for the protection
Of, and access to, public beaches and other public coastal areas of envirormiental,
recreational, historical, esthetic, ecological, or cultural value.

1-4

22036 RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 15--Commerce and Foreign Trade Discussion of Major Comments and (c) Definition of "other public coastal
CHAPTER IX--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND NOAA RESPONSE areas": One commentator asked whether
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION SHOREFRONT ACCESS PLANNING the planning process for other public
coastal areas could be applied to areas
* PART 920--COASTAL ZONE MANAG (a) Definition of "Beach": Two com- inland from the shoreline but within the
MENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GRANTS mentators felt the term "beach" was not coastal zone. Another commentator re-
Revised Regulations defined sufficiently. One of these com- quested discussion of what constitutes
AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmos- mentators felt that the term should be other public coastal areas and recom-
pheric Administration, Commerce. expanded to include dunes. The other mended inclusion of barrier Islands, wet-
felt the regulations should' define lands, bluffs, wildlife refuges and urban
ACTION: Final Rule. "beach." Conversely, one commentator waterfronts.
SUMMARY: These final regulations felt that defining "beach" in terms of NOAA Response: NOAA feels that the
amend existing program development physical and public characteristics was appropriate emphasis for the subsection
grant regulations to define procedures by too complex and that the regulations em- 305(b) (q7) planning process is on shore-
which Coastal States can meet the new phasized unnecessarily the process of front Public coastal areas. Other public
planning requirements and the require- defining the term. areas Inland from the shoreline but in
ments for preliminary approval con- NOAA Response: NOAA feels that a the coastal zone can be addressed under
tained In the 1976 amendments to the definition of beach should not be part of other aspects of the basic program devel-
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. these regulations as the physical char- opment. In particular the requirements
acteristics of a beach vary widely among having to do with geographic areas of
EFFECTIVE DATE; May 30, 1977. different geographic regions. The danger particular concern. Similarly. while

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON- of providing a definition Is in overlooking % 920.17 (b)(5) now Includes wetlands,
TACT: certain types of areas, or of limiting a bluffs, etc., as examples of other public
State's ability to take a more compre. coastal areas. it Is anticipated that
Carol Sondheimer, Chief Program hensive or creative approach than that preservation requirements for these
Planning, State Programs Division provided for In the regulations. NOAA types of areas will already have been ad-
Office of Coastal Zone Management. has revised %920.17(b)(6) to permit dressed as part of basic program develop-
202-634-1672. States to define beach in terms of either ment, especially In addressing the re-
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : physical or public characteristics. NOAA quirements for areas for preservation
Pub. L. 94-370. signed on July 26, 1976, has added the word "dunes" to 1920.17 and/or restoration. Accordingly, it is an-
amended the Coastal Zone Management (h)(6) as a physical characteristic to be ticipated that the primary focus under
Act of 1972 as amended.(18 U.S.C. 1451, considered in definiing beaches. It is not this specific planning requirement will
et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the the intent of these regulations to empha- be on the need for increased access to
"Act." As a result of amendments made size the process of defining the term other public coastal areas, except in the
to section 305 of the Act It Is necessary "beach" at the expense of developing a case of Islands which may not have been
to Issue these regulations on the new process for identifying and responding to considered for preservation or access
subsections 305(b) (7), (8) and (9) and shorefront access and Protection needs. purposes as part of previous basic pro-
new subsection 305(d), to insure that Accordingly. the discussion of defining gram development.
coastal States understand the new re- the term "beach" has been de-empha- (d) Definition of "Access": Three com-
quirements for development and subse- sized by shifting that discussion to mentators expressed approval of the con-
qunt approval of coastal management % 920.17(b) (6), Instead of retaining that ceptt of "access" contained in the pro-
Programs. discussions as %920.17 (b) as it ap- posed regulations. One of these commen-
peared In the proposed regulations. tators was concerned, however, that "ac.
On December 6, 1976, the National (b) Definition of "Public": Three re- cess" not be read to encourage excessive
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration viewers had comments addressed to what construction of highways or parking fa-
(NOAA) Published Proposed amend- should be considered "public" beach and cilities. A fourth commentator suggested
ments (41 FR 53418) to existing Part 920 other "Public" shorefront areas. one that recognition be given to the need for
regulations which cover requirements for commentator felt that NOAA regulations access by public transportation, espe-
the development of coastal zone manage- should mandate the definition of pub- cially for urban areas. This same re-
ment programs, pursuant to section 305 lic." Another commentator did not sup- viewer felt the term "lateral access" was
of the Act. The Proposed amendments port the concept of "public" being con- sufficiently explained. Another reviewer
contained guidance to coastal States as; sidered In terms of other than public questioned whether a broader interpre-
to the requirements for meeting a new ownership, particularly as no examples tation was intended for "access" under
planning element on shorefront access were Provided of what was meant by subsection 305 (b)(7) of the Act than
and protection (subsection 305 (b)(7) of "other demonstrated public interest." that intended for subsection 313(2) of
the Act), a new planning element on en- Conversely, a third commentator rec- the Act.
ergy facility (subsection 305 (b) (8)), and ommended that States use a definition of NOAA Response: NOAA does not feel
a new planning element on shoreline "public" as comprehensive as existing that the discussion of physical access
erosion (subsection 305 (b) (9) ). The pro- State law allows. encourages construction of highways or
posed regulations also detailed the re- NOAA Response: NOAA does not feel parking facilities. if anything, the
quirements for preliminary approval it appropriate to define, and thereby pos- emphasis is on small scale, public access
(subsection 305 (d)). sibly to limit, the term "public," given ways and transport. It should be further
Written comments were requested by variations among State laws. NOAA ac- noted that the language of subsection
February 7, 1977. As of that date, sub- cepts the recommendation that States 315(2) of the Act restricts the use of
stantive comments had been received use as comprehensive a definition of those funds to acquisition of lands or
from twenty-seven reviewers. Twelve re- "public" as existing State laws allow. interest in lands and therefore can not-
viewers addressed the shorefront access This has been incorporated into % 920.17 be used for highway construction. In
planning requirement Twenty-one com- (b)(6) as a, minimum requirement. response to the comment that attention
mented on the energy facility planning NOAA believes that ownership is not should be given to access needs of urban
process. nine on the shoreline erosion the sole determinant of a beach or shore- residents. language recommending this
planning element, and eleven on the pre- front area being "public." Examples of as a special consideration has been added
liminary approval process. These com- "other demonstrated Public interest" in- to I 920.17(b) (2). "Lateral access" is in.
ments have been considered in prepar- clude, but are not limited to, easements, tended to refer to areas above mean
Ing these final regulations. Major com- leases, licenses or traditional and ha- high tide, or the ordinary high water
ments and NOAA responses are discussed bitual usage. These examples have been mark in the Great Lakes, which could
below. added to % 920.17 (b) (6). be considered as a means for increasing
*Part 920 has been superceded by part 923 (Fed. Reg. 41,
March 1, 1978). However, 923.25 remains nearly identical to 920.17,
and the rest of the above is included here for historical purposes.

1-5

22037 RULES AND REGULTIONS

access to the shorefront only where a (h) Comments beyond the Scope: A the protection of and access to public
State does not have a reasonable amount number of comments were received. beaches, including a definition of the
of public shorefront areas above mean which are beyond the scope of this term "beach," and other public coastal
high tide or the ordinary high water specific planning requirement.These in areas of environmental, recreational,
mark. Finally, NOAA believes the term elude: historical, esthetic, ecological or cultural
"access" was intended to be interpreted (1) Comments addressed primarily to value. (8) a planning process that, at a
more broadly for planning purposes requirements of subsection 315(2) of the minimum, provides for the anticipation
under subsection 305(b)(7) of the Act Act. These comments will be addressed and management of Impacts from energy
than for acquisition purposes under sub- at the time regulations for subsection facilities likely to locate in, or-which may
section 315 (2). NOAA believes that a 315(2) an promulgated: significantly affect, the State's coastal
coastal management program. which Is (2) Comments suggesting any major zone, and (9) a planning process for as-
developed pursuant to section 305 of the Federal actions resulting from this plan- sessing the effects of shoreline erosion.
Act, may consist of more than those ning process would be subject to the Na- and evaluating methods to mitigate the
elements which an specifically fundable tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969 impact of such erosion and/or to restore
pursuant to other sections of the Act. (NEPA, Pub. L. 91-190, as amended). areas adversely affected by such erosion
(e) Comments on "Development of
State Policies": One commentator in-
dicated that requiring "development" of * * * * * *
state policies for access and/or protec- 22041
tion does not take into account that
existing State policies may be adequate. Basic to this whole process is an
Conversely, another commentator sug- identification of the issues and problems
gested the proposed regulations did not that confront or will confront a State's
provide adequate recognition for the pos- coastal zone and, relatedly, an articula-
sibility of States having to adopt addi- tion of specific goals, objectives, policies,
tional authorities for access or preserva- standards, guidelines and/or regulations standards, guidelines and/or regulations
to address these issues.
NOAA Response: In response to both States may have up to four years of
comments, % 920.17(a) (3) has been program development grants, pursuant
changed to refer to "articulation of State 22040 to subsection 305 (c) of the Act, to develop
policies . . .. approvable coastal management pro-
ning Process Requirements: One com- The guidelines contained in this part for Coastal Zone Management de-
mentator misinterpreted the Intent at are for grants made pursuant to section termines at the completion of each grant
the requirements As Dot Permitting use 305 to develop a coastal zone manage- that satisfactory progress Is being made
of section 305 funds for developing a ment program that will meet the require- towards program approval. A State may
planning process for protecting a ments for program approval of section submit a management program for pre-
providing Access to other public coastal 306 of the Act. These guidelines are to liminary approval, pursuant to subsec-
areas. This is, in fact, one of the purposes insure that management programs de- tion 305(d) of the Act, at any point in
of this new section 305 planning require- veloped by participating States will meet the program development process when
ment. The same commentator mis- the requirements for program approval. the State's program is sufficiently well
understood that the genereal planning These latter requirements are contained developed and described to allow the
process (beyond defining the term in 15 CPR Part 923. The requirements Associate Administrator to make a de-
"beach") does in fact apply to other pub- contained in 15 CPR Part 920 are in- termination that the program would be
lic coastal areas as well as public beaches. corporated into and expanded upon in fully approvable when submitted for
Another reviewer did not realize that 15 CPR Part 923. Accordingly, the two action 306 Approval.
the planning process required by a new sets of regulations should be read to- Following consideration of comments
subsection 305(b)(7) of the Act is a part gether to assure State coastal manage- received and other relevant Information,
of basic, overall coastal program develop- ment program will be developed In such there arxe adopted below revised final
memt. As such, this element Is subject a way as to meet the approval criteria of regulations describing the procedures
to all the requirements for program app- section 306. Where there are differences for applying for program development
proval as part of the overall program. in the Part 920 and Part 923 regulations grants pursuant to section 305 of the
Finally, one commentator was concerned the Part 923 requirements control. Act.
that provisions far providing access not In general terms, section 305 requires
be read to apply to private Individuals. a management program to include (1) Dated: April 25, 1977.
There is nothing in these regulations that the boundaries of a State's coastal zone, T. P. GLEtter,
can be read to require private individuals (2) a. definition of land and water uses Assistant Administrator for
to provide access. However, the matter that have direct and water uses Administration.
of how best to provide additional shore- on coastal waters and thereby are sub- For the sake of clarity and ease of
line access, if there is a need for such ject to the terms of the management reference, the entire 15 CFR Part 920 by States In the development of their tion of geographic areas within the is reprinted below. New additions made
management programs. Thus, there also coastal zone which are of particular con- final as a result of issuance of these
is nothing in these regulations to cern to the State. (4) guidelines for regulations are %%920.17, 920.18, 920.19,
Subpart E, and %%920.60 and 920.61. Ac-
preclude States from requiring private priorities of uses within geographic areas cordingly, 15 CFR Part 920 is revised
individuals to provide shorefront access of particular concern, including spe- as follows:
assuring such access, and if State con- an identification of the means by which Subpart A--General
stitions and laws do not prohibit such the State, together with other govern- Sec.
920.1 Policy and objectives.
a requirement. mental entities, if appropriate, shall 920.2 Definitions.
(g) Miscellaneous Comments: One exert control over land and water uses 920.3 Applicability of air and water pollu-
commentator suggested that reference subject to the management program (6) tion control requirements.
to "mean high tide" be expanded to read a description of the organizational struc- Subpart B--Content of Management Programs
"or the ordinary high water mark in ture and intergovernmental arrange- 920.10 General
the Great Lakes. This suggestion has ments sufficient to develop and maintain 920.11 Boundaries of the costal zone.
been accepted and is reflected in %920.17 an effective and coordinated manage- 920.12 Land and water uses subject to the (b) (3) and (b) (4). ment process, (7). a planning process for
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 83--FRIDAY, APRIL 29,1977
1-6

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Sec. proprite for increased access and/or
920.13 Geographic areas of particular con-
cern.
920.14 Means of exerting State control over
land and water uses.
920.15 Designation of priority use guide-
lines.
920.16 Organizational structure to imple-
ment the management program. 22042
920.17 Shorefront access planning.
920.18 Energy facility planning. Subpart B--Content of Management
920.19 Shoreline erosion/mitigation plan- Programs
ning. 920.10 General.
Subpart C--Research and Technical Support (a) These guidelines for section 305 of
920.20 General. the Act have been structured to parallel
Subpart D--Public Participation the language and sequence of require-
920.30 General. ments of the Act.
920.31 Public hearings.
920.32 Additional means of publi par-
ticipation.
Subpart E--Preliminary Approval

920.40 General.
920.41 Eligibility for consideration.
920.42 Approval criteria.
920.43 Review/approval procedures.

Subpart F--Applications for Development Grants

920.50 General.
920.51 Administration of the program.
920.52 State responsibility
920.53 Allocation.
920.54 Geographic segmentation.
920.55 Application for initial grant.
920.56 Approval of applications.
920.57 Amendments.
920.58 Application for second year grants.
920.59 Application for third and fourth
year grants.
920.60 Application for three new planning
elements.
920.61 Applications for preliminary ap-
proval.

AUTHORITY: (Sec. 305, Coastal Zone Man-
agement Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-583, 86
Stat. 1280, as amended by Pub. L. 94-370, 90
Stat. 1013).

Subpart A--General

920.1 Policy and objectives.

(a) This part establishes guidelines
on the procedures to be utilized by coastal
States to obtain program development
grants pursuant to section 305 of the
Act, sets forth policies for the develop-
ment of coastal zone management pro-
grams, and sets forth criteria for pre-
liminary approval of State manage-
ment programs.
(b) Coastal management programs de-
veloped by participating States shall
comply with that policy of the Act which
requires States to give full consideration
to ecological, cultural, historic, and
esthetic values as well as to needs for
economic development. As a result of
consideration of these values and needs,
States will identify issues and problems
that confront or will confront their
coastal zone and, relatedly, will articu-
late specific goals, objectives, policies,
standards, guidelines and/or regulations
to address these issues within the con-
text provided by these regulations.
(c) Comment.Statutory Citation, sec-
tion 303:

The Congress finds and declares that it 22044
is the national policy *** (t)o encourage
and assist the States to exercise effectively
their responsibilities in the coastal zone 920.17 Shore
through the development and implementa-
tion of management programs to achieve the
wise use of land and water resources of the
coastal zone giving full consideration to eco-
logical, cultural, historic, and esthetic values
as well as to needs for economic development.
* * * * * *

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 83-FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 1977

1-7

RULES AND REGULATIONS

shaws, parking facilities. ferry services in terms of characteristic physical ele-
and other public transport. To the extent ments (e.g., submerged lands. tidelands.
that the provision of perpendicular ac- foreshore, dry sand area, line of vegeta-
cess to public shorefront areas Is Insuf- tion, dunes) or in terms of public char-
ficient to meet the purposes intended by acteristics (e.g., local, State or Federal
this subsection, It is appropriate for ownership, or other demonstrated public
States to consider lateral access. What interest such as easements, leases, li-
this means is that where a State does censes, or traditional and habitual
not have a reasonable amount of public usage) . At a minimum. the definition of
shorefront area above mean high tide what constitutes a public beach shall be
or above the ordinary high water mark, as broad as that allowed under existing
in the Great Lakes, then provision of State law or constitutional provisions.
perpendicular access may not serve a States should take into account special
sufficient range of purposes In terms of features such as composition (e.g., non-
increasing or enhancing the publics' sand beaches), location (eg., urban or
ability to get to and to enjoy shorefront riverine beaches), origin (e.g., manmade
amenities. In such cases, consideration beaches) and fragility (e.g., areas of
of the need for areas above mean high shifting dunes). Where access may be
tide, or the ordinary high water mark complicated by questions of ownership
in the Great Lakes, is appropriate. Visual and use of the foreshore or dry sand
access may Involve, but need not be beach States are encouraged to define
limited to, viewpoints, setback lines, beach in terms of its component parts,
building height restrictions, and light especially at the mean high tide line, or
requirements. the ordinary high water mark in the
(4) As part of this general planning Great Takes. Finally, in defining the term
process, States should develop a proce- "beach." States shall provide a rationale
dure which will allow for the eventual explaining the relationship between the
identification of specific areas for which definition developed and access and pro-
provision of access through acquisition tection needs.
will be appropriate during program
implementation. In conjunction with
developing this procedure. States shall
identify local, State or Federal sources
for accomplishing particular access pro-
posals. Particular attention should be
given to coordination of management
objectives with funding Programs pur-
suant to subsection 315 (2) of the Act.
and pursuant to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (16 U.S.C. 460 et seq.)
and other statutes as may be appropri-
ate. It should be noted that the access
referred to in this subsection is broader
than the types of access that may be
acquired using subsection 315(2) funds
which is limited to the acquisition of
lands or interests in lands for purposes
of providing access to public shorefront
and/or for the preservation of islands.
(5) In determining the needs for pro-
tection of public coastal areas, States
should consider such factors as (a) en-
vironmental, esthetic or ecological pres-
ervation (including protection from
overuse and mitigation of erosion or
natural hazards), (b) protection for
public use benefits (including recrea-
tional, historic or cultural uses). (c)
preservation of islands, and (d) such
other protection as may be necessary to
insure the maintenance of environmen-
tal, recreational historic. esthetic, eco-
logical or cultural values of existing
public shorefront attractions. Existing
public shorefront attractions may be
broadly construed to include. but need
not be limited to: public recreation areas.
scenic natural areas, threatened or en-
dangered floral or faunal habitat, wet-
lands, bluffs, historic, cultural or archae-
ological artifacts, and urban waterfronts.
(6) The purpose of defining the term
"beach" is to aid in the identification
of those existing public beach areas re-
quiring further access and/or protection
as a part of the State's management
program States should define "beach"

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42. NO. 83--FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 1977

1-8

ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES AND BEACH ACCESS

sec. 315. The Secretary may, in accordance with this section and in accordance
with such rules and regulations as the Secretary shall prmulgate, make grants to
any coastal state for the purpose of

(2) acquiring lards to provide for access to public beaches and other public
coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, esthetic, ecological, or
cultural value, and for the preservation of islands. The amount of any such grant
shall not exceea 50 per centum of the cost of the project irwolved; except that, in
the case of acquisition of any estuarine sanctuary, the Federal share of the cost
thereof shall not exceed $2,000,000.

1-9

Section 315(2)

Shorefront Access/Island Preservation

I. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to present the preliminary recommendations
of the Office of Coastal Zone Management on the content of regulations
implementing subsection 315(2). These regulations are necessary be-
cause of the addition of this new authority in the amendments to the
Coastal Zone Management Act approved in 1976. Implementation of the
program is subject to appropriations.

The recommendations contained here are prelimInary and subject to change
based on the comments,received. These preliminary recommendations
are based on an initial set of questions and issues identified by
the Office of Coastal Zone Management as requiring resolution in the
regulations and circulated for comment.
Proposed Regulations will be publisbed in the Federal Regiiter on or
about September 30. Reviewers are encouraged to comment on both this
preliminary paper and the Proposed Regulations. Interim Regulations
are scheduled to be published in December 1977. The regulations
implementing section 315(2) should be read in the context of the
planning requirements mandated in section 305(b)(7). States are
required by that subsection tb develop aplanning process for the
protection of and provision of access to public shorefront attracti:ons.
Under section 315(2), funds are available:
(1) to acquire access to public sborefront attractions and

(2) to preserve islands.

II. Language of the Act

Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act provides that:

"The Secretary may, in accordance with this section and in
accordance with such rules and regulations as the Secretary
shall promulgate, make grants to any coastal state for the
purpose of ... acquiring lands to provide for access to public
beaches and other public coastal areas of environmental, recrea-
tional, historic, esthetic, ecological, or cultural value, and
for the preservation of islands.. The Amount of any such grant
shall not exceed 50 percentum. of the cost of the project involved;
except that, in the case of acquisition of any estuarine sanctuary,
the Federal share of the cost thereof shall not exceed $2 million."
(Section 315(2)).

Funding is provided in subsection 318(a)(7) which provides for sums,
"not to exceed $25 million for each of the fiscal years ending

1-10

September 30, 1977; September 30, 1978; September 30, 1979; and
September 30, 1980, respectively, as may be necessary for grants under
section 315(2), to remain available until expended." As of July
1, 1977, no funds had been appropriated for the program.

111. Intent

The intent of Congress in adding subsection 315(2) is plainly stated
in the legislative history. The House Committee Report accompanying
the 1976 amendments discussed the sborefront access acquisition-
provision as follows:

"This authorization complements the new requirement tbe-Committee
has added to section 305 for a beach protection and access plan-
uing process. Because time is of the essence in acquiring access,
particularly in or near urban coastal areas, it was felt ad-
visable to accompany the planning requirements with funds to
carry out the plans.

"The Committee does not intend to authorize the purchase of lauds
for be-aches or other,public uses. The concern is that there are
areas already in public ownership on the shore which, for one
reason or another, are not readily accessible to the public.

"The Committee's further concern is that in providing the means
of opening up this access, we do not overburden the resources.
That is why this authorization is"tied to the planning require-
ment of section 305 - the intent is to see to it that this
expanded means of access fits into an overall recreational
plan and that due care is given to protect areas susceptible.
of daimage from excess use."l

The inclusion of the island preservation provision is clearly for a
different purpose* The major aim here, legislative history makes
clear, is to put into public ownership those coastal islands now rela-
tively un poiled before they are developed intensively. Tm introducing
the original legislation in 1975, Senator Ernest F. Hollings stated:

"This bill recognizes the importance of...the protection, of
Islands, areas which have been experiencing ever-increasing
developmental and recreational pressures in recent years."

From the legislative history, the Office of Coastal Zone Management
has concluded that section 315(2) is intended to piovide ways of
getting to areas presently In public ownership and is not for
adding to those areas. Congress did not intend that funds from this
section be used to add to beach areas, such as the dry sand area-above
the mean high tide line (or the ordinary high watermark in the Creat
Lakes) delineating where public ownership ends in certain states.

Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments-of 1975 Report, Eo use Committee
an Merchant Marine and Fisheries, March 4, 1976, pp. 38.

Also, the word "public" appears before "beaches" and the listing of
the other shorefrout areas to which access might be provided. Thus,
it is clear that Congress did not intend for access to be provided to is
privately beld property. However, it would seem appropriate to
provide right of access through private property to public areas.

Access must be provided according to the criteria established pur-
suant to the section 305(b)(7) planning process and must be sensitive
to the areas involved. Thus, access to ecologically valuable areas
will be markedly different from access to a public beach, for
example.

The island funding provision is to preserve islands vhich.are largely
undeveloped and to keep them in that condition. Some limited public
access to islands purchased under this provision may be provided.

IV. Policy and Objectives

The legislative history of this section of the Art makes it clear
that its framers perceived the lack of access to public sborafront
attractions, particularly beaches, as a major-national problem which
the Federal government must address through the vehicle of state
coastal zone management programs. Congress has authorized a program
which would make funds available to states for the purpose of
increasing the ability of the public to gain access to coastal lands
and waters which it already owns. Thus, Congress has implied a
broad program objective and has indicated that section 315(2) funds
are to be used-to acquire 'lands or interest in lands as one means of
achieving this objective.

Congress also recognized the intense developmental pressures on
coastal islands and authorized funds to acquire these islands for
the purpose of preserving their natural integrity.

V. Kel Terms

Cost of ProJect: If one assumes that the intent of section 315(2)
is to increase the ability of the public to use those shorefront
attractions which it already owns, nuch more than simple land
acquisition is involved. Although it is c *lear that Federal funds must
be used for acquiring interests ii land only, a project designed
to increase 'sborefront access udght well include capital
expenditures (eogo, pavement of parking areas), transportation costs
(e.g., shuttle buses) or maintenance (e.g., litter.pickup, protection.
against vandalism, liability insurance). Thus, the non-Federal
matching share may come from a variety of sources and need not be only for
land acquisition purposes. The "cost of project" will apply to the
overall effort designed to increase shorefront access, so long as the
Federal share is.for land acquisition. The same rationale will be
applied to island preservation projects: those costs should be
associated with a "project" designed to preserve the environmental,
recreational, historical, esthetic, ecological.and/or cultural value

1-12

value of islands.

Access to: The term "access" as used in this section can include both
physical and visual access. In providing for physical access, this
may include but need not be limited to land for walkways, roads,
boardwalks, bikeways, boat-launching areas for island access, parking
facilities, for example. Visual access could include but not be limited
to viewpoints, scenic easements and overlooks.

Public Beach: The term "public beach" carries over directly from the
shorefront planning provision in which-the states are required to define
the term "beach" and as stated in the 305(b)(7) Regulations:

"Ile purpose of defining the term "beach" is to aid in the identi-
fication of those existing public beach areas requiring further
access and/or protection as a part of the State's management
program. States should define "beach" in terms of characteristic
physical elements (e.g., submerged lands, tidelands, foreshore,
dry sand area, line of vegetation, dunes) or in terms of public
characteristics local, State or Federal ownership, or other
demonstrated public interest such as easements, leases, licenses,
or traditional and habitual usage). At a minimum, the definition of
what constitutes a public beach shall be as broad as that allowed
under existing state law or Constitutional provisions-r States
should take into account special features such as composition
(e.g., non-sand beaches), location (e.g., ur%au or riveriue beaches),
origin (e.g., man-made beaches) and fragility (e.g., areas of shifting
dunes). Where access may be complicated by questions of ownership
and use of the foreshore or dry sand be'ach, states are encouraged
to define beach in terms of its component parts, especially at the
mean hig;h`-@tide line, or the ordinary high watermark in the Great
Lakes. Finally, in defining the term "beach", states shall
provide a rationale explaining the relationship between the definition
developed and access and protection needs." .

Other'public coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical,
ecological or cultural value. These public shorefront attractions,
as stated In the 305(b)(7) Regulations. . .)' may be broadly construed
to include, but need not be limited to: public recreation areas,
scenic natural areas, threatened or endangered floral or faunal
habitats, wetlands, bluffs, historic, cultural or archaeological artifacts,
and urban waterfronts" and applies to this subsection of-the Art as
wen.

Preservation 6f Islands: This phrase means protecting the environmental,
recreational, esthetic, ecological, cultural and/or historic values
of islands, or parts thereof.

1-13

VI. Eligibility Requirements

The legislative history states "'Although not stipulated in R.R. 3981,
it is understood that states must have substantially completed the
public area protection and access planning process required under
Section 305(b)(7) before being eligible to receive grants under Section
315(2)."* OCZM proposes the following two alternatives in order to be
eligible for planning process.

1. Completion of the 305(b)(7) planning requirement in the event
funding becomes available in FY 78.

2. Program approval under Section 306 If funding becomes available
in FY 79. In the event funding becomes available in FY 78,
OCZM must be in position to move quickly and allocate the funds
during that year. Completion of the 305(b)(7) planning process,
but not program approval under Section 306, vill allow more
states access to grant monies. The question becomes moot if
funding becomes available in FY 79, since the great majority
of states ace scheduled to have, their program approv" -under
Section 306 by- therr.

VII. Allocation of Tunds

In order to make the'Section 315(2) Program viable, and to.insure-continued
funding in subsequent 11ii-al years'S OCZ'H favors an allocation-methodology
that at least in the initial years of funding will en ure that all
appropriated acquisition funds are spent,'preferably on innovative
projects having a relatively high degree of visibility. Therefore, OCZM
proposes that all funds allocated under Section 315(2) not be arbitrarily
@Rpportioned between shorefrout access or island preservation projects.
Within this initial framework OCZM has considered a number of different
methods for allocating funds among proposed projects. In evaluating
the respective merits of these alternative methods, OCZM suggests that
reviewers consider the followihg factors:

A. The procedure for project funding should not be so burden-
some or time-consuming as to foreclose acquisition oppor-
tunities that become available to the states.

B. Adodnist rative delay should be minimized.

C. Acquisition should be well underway shortly after obligation
by OCZM of funds for a given project, hence time is a critical
factor.

*Legislative History of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended in 1974 and 1976 with a section-by-section index, Dec. 1976,
P-949.

1-14

D. Funding available for s315 (2) acquisitions will be quite limited,
6
especially given the total number of potential projects that
will be eligible for funding within all 34 coastal states and
territories.

E. Funding alternatives that stress geographical equity will
eliminate certain types of land acquisitions. For example,
if $10 million were appropriated, and each region were to
be allocated $2 million the purchase of an island costing
$3 million would uot be possible.

F. Some projects may take longer to plan than others. It is
possible that allocation methods heavily stressing geographical
equity may iuadvertantly favor mediocre projects which can
be proposed more quickly than complex but more innovative ones.

OCZM is considering four alternate methods for allocating s315(2)
funds. The following alternatives are proposed in the c;nlext of one
'method of funding for shorefront access and island projects. However,
If desired, one alternative.might apply to shorefront access and another
to island preservation (eig., Alternative 03 apply to allocation of
funds for beach access, and Alternative #4 for island's).

Alternative #1

Funds will be alloca. ted directly to the coastal states and territories
using the s305 grants allocation formula. Under this formula, 1%
of the appropriated funds will be ' given to each eligible state. Of
the remaining funds, 40Z will be allocated on the basis of coastal
population; 402 will be allocated on the basis of miles of shoreline;
and 202 will be allocated for projects having national significance,
at OCZM's discretion. No state will-be allowed to receive more than
10% of the total amount appropriated in any fiscal year.

Considerations

A. States would select projects based upon state, rather than
national, criteria. Except for the 20% discretionary funds,
there would be little reflection of' national -n'eeds I- and priorities.

B. Funds would potentially be available to all eligible states
In each fiscal year. States unable to provide matching money
ed develop projects would have their funds.reallocated to
other states.

C. Most states would receive relatively small amounts of money -
perhaps too small for the acquisition of islands or substantial
access projects.

1-15

Alternative #2

Funds will be allocated equally to all five OCZH coastal zone -nage-
ment regions. State proposals will be Judged on the basis of criteria
to be set forth in regulations,-afid funded from the money available
In the applicable state's region. Tz the event that projects funded
within any region in the first nine months of the fiscal year do not
exhaust the available funds, the unused funds can be transferred to
projects in other regions, at OCZM's discretion.

Considerations

A. This method would roughly balance only the geographical
distribution of projects funded each fiscal year and not
consider other factors.

B. Each individual state is not assured of having projects
funded.

@C. If all or most of a region's allocation had already been
committed, unexpected acquisition opportunities could not
be acted upon.

Alternative #3

Using the 8305 grant allocation formula, the funds for each state will
be aggregated by region. Once aggregated at the regional level funds
would be allocated to the states based not on any allocating formula,
but instead on criteria which are discussed in this paper. This
alternative method would be similar to Alternative #2, with the exception
that the'funds for each region would not be uniform.

Considerations

A. Imstead of geographical balance, this method would emphasize
distribution based upon population and amount of coastline.

B. The constraints on project funding discussed for Alternative
f2 above would also apply.

Alternative #4

States win submit project proposals, and funds will be allocated
among these proposals on the basis of criteria to*be contained In
Tegulations and discussed In this paper. There will be only one
national pool of funds, from which all projects will be funded.

1-16

Considerations

A. This method provides maximum flexibility to fund those projects
nation-wide which OCZM believes will meet the most critical
shorefrout access and island preservation needs.

B. This method would allow OCZM to take advantage of unexpected,
innovative, or highly visible acquisition opportunities,
especially island purchases which in some instance might require
larger amounts of money.

C. In any given year, funds might be concentrated in some areas,
to the exclusion of others. Selection criteria might accordingly
need to ensure that over a number of fiscal years, projects
funded under s33.5(2) approximate some geographical or other
distributiomal standards.

VIII. Criteria for Selection

Under allocation Alternative 01, only very broad criteria would be
needed for individual projects. The assumption here is that the states
will set priorities A ag projects in the 305(b)(7) planning process.
Under the other three alternatives OCZM would be in the position of
allocating limited funds amon& competing project proposals. Selection
criteria would emphasize equitable distribution of funds to the extent
practicable ;with minimal administrative delay-

To the extent that OCZM is involved in project selection (Alternatives
#2, 3, and 4, and the discretionary portion of Alternative fl), grant
proposals will be reviewed and judged on the basis of criteria to be
contained in regulations. OCZM proposes to use the set of criteria
set forth below. Although some criteria will differ depending upon
whether a project is'classified under shorefront access or,island
-preservation, there are a number of common factors that can be considered
by OCZM in reviewing all project proposals. OCZ14 proposes that these
general criteria include:

l.. A showing that the proposed project is consistent with the
goals and priorities established by the s305(b)(7) planning
process. This would consist of coordination with existing/
proposed state and local land use and recreation plans, and
transportation plans and syitems.

2. A showing of the need for the particular project

1-17

3. An evaluation of the environmental impact of the project.
Environmental assessments will accompany all project proposals,
and environmental impact statements will subsequently be required
if warranted.

4. A demonstration that state and local agencies have sufficient
legal authority. to acquire and manage the property.for
vhich.fundiug is sought.

Additional proposed criteria for evaluating proposed shorefront access
projects would include:

1. Proximity to population centers.

2. Use of innovative acquisition techniques - e.g., less than
fee simple purchase.

3. Local support for the project.

Addit-i-L -proposed criteria for evaluating the proposed acquisition
of islands-or portions of Islands would include:

1. Assessment of the ecological role of the island.
2. Evaluation of the social benefits (e.g., w-Lldlife refuge, is
storm barrier, visual amenity, etc.) that would result from
acquisition.

3. The threat of impending development or alteration of the island's
ecosystem.

While the states=, t submit sufficiently detailed information to
enable OCZM to meaningfully evaluate the relative benefits of proposed
projects, OCZK is concerned that -the application process for Individual
projects be relatively simple. It is anticipated that most of the
detailed information required In the S315(2) regulations can be gen-
erated in the 9305(b)(7) planning process, and that time delays will
be m4nimal in those states which have addressed acquisition issues In
their g305(b)(7) plans.

1-18

Appendix Two. Other Federal Programs
Related to Beach Access

In this Appendix, Federal programs that may have some relevance to a
beach access program are described. The beach access provisions of the
Coastal Zone Management Act have been described in Appendix One and are not
repeated here.

There is a wide variety of programs described. Some are acquisition
programs, many are not. Some will have imm diate application, others will be
useful only under peculiar circumstances, some, perhaps, will never be useful.
They are all listed, however, because it was felt that each one might be of
help.

In some instances, the programs are cross-referenced by means of code
numbers taken from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, an excellent
reference point for further information on specific programs. Other sources
are the BNA Environment Reporter and Housing and Development Register, which
usually contain the relevant statutes and regulations.

2-1

CONTENTS

1. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Land and Water Conservation Fund 2-3
Outdoor Recreation Technical Assistance 2-7
Outdoor Recreation Resource Area Studies 2-12
Outdoor Recreation Water Resources Planning Program 2-13
Surplus Property for Parks Program 2-14

Bureau of Land Management
Public Land for Recreation, Public Purposes, and
Historic Monuments 2-17

National Park Service 2-18
Park and Recreational Technical Assistance 2-21

Fish and Wildlife Service
Surplus Property for Wildlife Conservation 2-23

2. Department of Agriculture
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program 2-25

3. Department of-Housing and Urban Development
Open Space Program 2-29
Federal Flood Insurance Program 2-30

4. Department of Defense
Small Beach Erosion Control Projects 2-32

5. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Highway Research, Planning and Construction 2-33

Federal Aviation Administration
Airport Planning and Development 2-34

2-2

Department of the Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Land and Water Conservation Fund

Probably the most significant support for coastal recreation comes
through the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LAWCON). BOR
administers LAWCON as a program of financial assistance grants to States for
facilitating outdoor recreation planning, acquisition, and development
activities; and the fund also provides for the acquisition -of National
recreation lands by the Federal goverment. Since 1965, Federal grants of
over $1 billion have been made to the States, territories, and the District of
Columbia under LAWCON. Well over half of these funds have benefitted
water-oriented recreation projects (including but not limited to access
projects). A major portion of the water-oriented projects have been in the
fo.ur coastal areas, but the fund encompasses all water areas.

Authorization

P.L. 88-578; 78 Stat. 897, as amended through enactment of P.L. 95-42,
Sta .) as of June 10, 1977. 16 U.S.C. 4601, et seq.

Coastal/Recreational Responsibilities and Uses
Tools and Techniques

LAWCON provides for:

(1) acquisition of lands for Federally administered parks, wildlife
refuges, and recreation areas; and
(2) matching Project Grants for State recreation planning, and State and
local land acquisition and development.

Under the "Federal side" (not less than 40 percent of the total fund),
money is provided only for the acquisition of national recreation and
conservation lands (See Acquisition Authority below). Under the "State side"
(about 60 percent of the total fund), grants are provided to States and their
political subdivisions for acquisition and development of public outdoor
recreation areas and facilities. These project grants must be matched by not
less than an equal amount of non-Federal funds.

ARauisition Authority, Purposes

On the "Federal side," acquisition programs must be approved by Congress.
Recreation resources which may be acquired by the Federal government include
National parks, seashores, lakeshores, forests, wild and scenic rivers,
trails, national recreation areas, historic areas, wildlife refuges, and
natural and wilderness areas.

2-3

On @he "State side," acquisition and d evelopment grants may be used for
projects such as picnic areas, inner city parks, campgrounds, tennis courts,
boat launching ramps, bike trails, outdoor swimming pools,
and support and access facilities such as roads, water supply, etc. There
are several restrictions on the types of projects that may be funded:

(1) Facilities must be open to the general public and not limited to
special groups. (Assistance is available only for public projects.)
(2) Development of basic rather than elaborate facilities is favored.
(3) Priority consideration generally is given to projects serving urban
populations.

Organizational Structure
Operations and Management

On the "Federal side," it is important to note that BOR does not manage
any lands. Under LAWCON, management of the national recreation lands is
divided between the Department of Interior's National Park Service, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service.

On the "State side," fund monies are not available for the operation
and maintenance of facilities. The spbnsoring agency must permanently
dedicate the project to outdoor recieation and assume responsibility for
operation and maintenance.

Funding and Assistance

Sources of revenue

(1) Sale of Federal surplus real porperty;
(2) Federal motorboat fuels tax;
(3) Outer Continental Shelf mineral receipts.

Obligations (project grants)

FY 75 $165,107,948
FY 76 175,840,000
FY 77 est.175,516,000

Range and Average of Financial Assistance (project grants)

$150 to $5,450,000; $68,178

At the beginning of FY 1976, nearly 14,500 State and local projects had
been approved for funding. Approximately 46 percent of the money obligated
was for use by State agencies, 13 percent for counties, and 41 percent for
cities. (Remember, this is all included in the 60 percent of the Fund
appropriation that is for assistance to States; the remaining 40 percent is
for Federal land acquisition.)

2-4

Under certain conditions, all or part of the project sponsor's matching
share may be from certain other Federal assistance programs, such as Title I
Community Development Funds. Funds are available for obligation during the
fiscal year in which appropriated and for the two following fiscal years.
Complex projects may be broken down into stages.

Coordination

Related Programs (Numbers are code numbers found in the "Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.")

-Public Land for Recreation, Public Purposes and
Historic Monuments 15.202
-Outdoor Recreation Technical Assistance 15.402
-Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property 39.002

As noted above, lands acquired by BOR under LAWCON are administered by
the National Park- Service, Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Land
management, and the Forest Service.

Eligibility

Only the State agency formally designated as responsible for the
preparation and maintenance of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan (SCORP) is eligible to apply for planning grants. For a State or its
political subdivisions to receive grants, it must develop a SCORP and update
and refine it on a continuing basis. The Fund provides matching planning
grants and technical assistance to States for such purposes.

The State -designated agency may apply for assistance for itself or on
behalf of other State agencies or political subdivisions such as cities,
counties, and park districts. Treated as States are the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam. Indian tribes which
are organized to govern themselves and perform as municipal governments also
qualify for assistance. Individuals and private organizations are not
eligible.

Application Procedures and Requirements

Project proposals are submitted to BOR through the State Liaison Officer
designated- by the Governor. The SLO has the initial prerogative of
determining acquisition and development project eligibility, priority need,
and order of fund assistance within the State. He must furnish assurance that
each project meets high priority recreation needs shown in the action program
portion of the plan.

Applications are to undergo A95 review. The applicant is to furnish
basic environmental information or evaluation, and BOR will determine if an
environmental impact statement must be prepared.

2-5

BOR estimates, rather optimistically it would seem,
approval/ dis approval time to be approximately 20 days for acquisition and
development projects, and approximately 60 days for planning projects.

Relationship Between LAWCON and 315 (2)

References

1. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, As Amended (through
Enactment of P.L. 94-422, September 28, 1976). 16 U.S.C. 9 4601-4,
et seq. (See Appendix A)

2. Executive Office of the President; Office of Management and Budget,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402, p. 463 (15.400).

3. The Federal Ocean Program, Report of the President to the Congress
on the Nation's Efforts to Comprehend, Conserve, and Use the Sea,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

4. "Programs," Environment Reporter, Volume of Federal Laws, The Bureau
of National Affairs, Inc., 1231 25th Street, N.W. , Washington, D.C.
20037, pp. 51-4361--51-4364.

5. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Recreation Grants-ia-Aid Manual,
Section 460.

6. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Land and Water Conservation Fund (pamphlet).

2-6

Department of the Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Technical Assistance

A. Informational Aspect

One focus of BOR's Technical Assistance Program is to provide advisory
services and counseling and dissemination of technical information to other
Federal agencies, governmental units, and private interests in order to
increase the number and quality of public recreation areas, facilities, and
opportunities.

Authorization

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Organic Act; P.L. 88-29; 77 Stat. 49; 16
U.S.C. 1-3- Act of June 23, 1936; 49 Stat. 1894.

Coastal/Recreational Responsibilities and Uses Tools and Techniques

The informational source of the Technical Assistance Program is BOR's
Outdoor Recreation Information Clearinghouse which contains over 8,500
references. BOR applies technical information useful in planning,
developing, financing, and managing outdoor recreation programs and related
research and educational activities. Technical assistance is also given to
State and local governments relating to applications for Federal surplus
property for public parks and recreation, and Historic Monument purposes in
cooperation with GSA's Disposal of Federal Surplus Real Property program.

Acquisition Authority

This segment of the Technical Assistance Program is not an acquisition
program.

Operations and Management

Technical assistance is available under this program with regard to the
operations and management of outdoor recreation areas.

Funding_Assistance

No funds are provided to any public or private entities under this
program.

2-7

Coordination

Consultation is available to other Federal agencies assisting States or
localities or private entities in providing outdoor recreation
opportunities. As noted above, assistance is also given to States and
localities relating to applications for GSA's Dispersal of Federal Surplus
Real Property Program.

Eligibility

Anyone engaging in conducting outdoor recreation programs may receive
assistance or information.

Application Procedures and Requirements

Informal request addressed to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's
regional offices.

Related Programs

-Land and Water Conservation Fund 15.400
-Outdoor Recreation Technical Assistance 15.906
-GSA Surplus Property Program

Information Contacts

James W. Cook (202) 343-7962
Division of Cooperative Services
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240

References

1. Executive Office of the President; Office of Management and Budget,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402, p. 464 (15.402).

2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
A Technical Assistance Program (pamphlet).

B. Public-Private Partnership

The second focus of the Technical Assistance Program is working with
State and local govern ents and private interests in order to obtain private
contributions of land or money and support for public outdoor recreation
areas, facilities, and programs.

2-8

Authorization

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Organic Act; P.L. 88-29; 77 Stat. 49;
16 U.S.C. 1-3. Act of June 23, 1936; 49 Stat. 1844.

Costal/Recreational Responsibilities and Uses--Tools and Techniques

The program employs two approaches. One is locating a land resource in
any region with outstanding public recreation potential land and then in
cooperation with local officials, developing an acquisition program which is
suitable for private contributions. Contributions may include donations of
cash, land, facilities, leases, and easements, or bargain sales.

The second approach is to identify private interests with potential
recreation resources and then to develop programs to make their resources
available to the public in a variety of ways ranging from *outright donation
of the resources to a public agency, to opening the area for public agency.
Below are three brief examples of cooperative efforts by Federal, State, and
local governments and the private sector to meet the recreation needs of
urban areas.

The Dolese Company/Kerr Foundation

in 1976, the Dolese Company decided to make available to Oklahoma City
a 157-acre tract of land (formerly used as a sandpit mine), for a city park
to be known as the'Oklahoma City Youth Park. The Company donated 89 acres
and the city purchased 69 acres. The value of the 89-acre donation was
estimated at $1,400,000.

This project received a broadbase support from several philanthropic
and civic organizations. The Kerr Foundation pledged $1,000,000 and other
civic organizations pledged an additional $1,500,000 for the development of
the park complex which will include bike, hiking, and jogging trails, picnic
and day camping accommodations, a small lake, playgrounds, sports fields,
and support facilities. BOR provided an initial $700,000 for the
acquisition of the 69 acres.

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. R.O.W.

The Bureau assisted Wisconsin Electric Power Company by assessing the
recreation potential of its Rights-Of-Way, informing local recreation
departments of its availability, and providing technical assistance for
trail development on the rightsofway.

Wisconsin Electric owns over 100 miles of electric utility R.O.W.
radiating from Milwaukee and has a policy to encourage the use of these
lands for public recreation. Four county recreation departments have
developed and presently administer approximately 20 miles of bicycle-hiking
trails on these R.O.W. and many more miles are planned for development as
local funds permit.

2-9

St. Joe Minerals Corporation

In 1975, the St. Joe Minerals Corporation donated an 8,500 acre tract
of land, located 60 miles south of St. Louis, near Farmington, to the State
of Missouri for development as a State park. The 8,500 acre tract, valued
at over $2,000,000, was no longer needed for mining purposes by the
corporation.

Acquisition Authority

Under this program, the State or local government is the recipient of
the land. BOR has no acquisition authority. If BOR considers it to be
desirable for land to be held in escrow, so to speak, for a recipient, an
arrangement with the Nature Conservancy is often worked out.

Operations and Management

The recipient of the land is responsible for its operation and
management. In some cases ownership of the land is retained by the donor,
and it is operated by the recipient under a management agreement.

Funding and Assistance

Since the Legacy of Parks Program was initiated, land valued at $213
million has been transferred to State and local govern ents for park and
recreation purposes. During Fiscal Year 1976, 137,077 acres and 75 miles of
trail, valued at over $25 million, were added to the public outdoor
recreation estate. Of this,, 62,483 acres and all of the trails, valued at
over $13.5 million, were acquired at little or no cost to the recipient
public agency. The Technical Assistance Program is designdd to add to the
public outdoor recreation estate with a minimum of Federal expenditures. At
the current level of effort, over $20 worth of public recreation property is
obtained for every Federal dollar expended on this program.

Coordination

Many of the private interest actions under the Technical Assistance
Program interface with the Land and Water Conservation Fund and further its
objectives. Private donations are frequently utilized for matching fund
grants to help State and local agencies take full advantage of available
recreation resources.

EligibilitZ Requirements

There are no specific eligibility requirements for potential State and
local government recipients unless Federal funds are used in the project.
Thus, a project does not necessarily have to conform to a State's SCORP.

2-10

necessary. The following list indicates the type of information project
proposals should contain:

1. Description and map.

2. Classification by type of island.

3. Description of major physical, geographical, biological, and
hydrological characteristics.

4. An assessment of ecological uniqueness of the island and
surrounding waters.

S. An assessment of the ecological representativeness of the island
and surrounding waters.

6. Discusson of any special historical, archeological, cultural, or
other aspect of the island and surrounding waters.

7. Identification of ownership.

8. Description of planned or anticipated land and water uses and
controls for contiguous areas.

9. An assessment of existing development pressures.

10. Description of existing and potential uses, and conflicts that can
be anticipated if the area is- not acquired for preservation
purposes. Description of potential uses, use restrictions, and
conflicts anticipated if the island is acquired for preservation
purposes. Description of potential uses, use restrictions, and
conflicts anticipated if the island is acquired for preservation.

11. Descriptions of benefits of acquisition, including leveraging of
other programs or funds.

12. Assessment of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of
acquisition, including the economic impact on the surrounding
community (particularly if only part of an island is to be
acquired).

13. Demonstration of authority to acquire and manage.

14. Description of proposed management techniques, managing agency,
and budgeting.

15. Discussion, including cost and feasibility, of alternative methods
for acquisition, control, and protection of the island that would
not involve OCZM funding.

The above information should be used as the basis for an Island
Preservation project proposal for the island in question. This proposal

147

should be prepared by the State to fit within its coastal zone plans
regarding islands and should detail how the island will be managed once it
is acquired.

These ideas have been discussed in the concept paper and the State
responses to that paper. Based on the assumption that funding will be
limited and that continued and/or increased funding is dependent, at least
in part, on the impact of the program, it would appear that an approach
which would give maximum impact in terms of the purpose of 315(2) would be
desirable. Assuming that funding will be limited, and that each project is
going to be expensive (if it is going to have any chance of succeeding) only
a limited number of projects will be funded each year. This means that
there will be some sort of stated or unstated competition. Proposals will
compete with each other for the limited funds available in an overt or
covert contest. An open contest would have the advantage, in theory at
least, of encouraging the contestant States to put forward their very best
proposal, with the result being that only the very best projects in the
country would be funded each year. To carry the notion of a competition one
step further, a panel could be commissioned to evaluate the proposals"in
much the same way that other agencies evaluate proposals. Of course, OCZM
would have to establish criteria to be used in the evaluation process,
whether it is done by panel or by staff.

These criteria should be predicated on OCZM's programmatic focus (e.g.
ecosystem preservation and/or multiple use involving recreation). Specific
factors used by the National Park Service to determine whether a particular
site is nationally significant include the existence of:

1. Outstanding geological formations or features significantly
illustrating geologic processes.

2. Significant fossil evidence of the development of life on Earth.
3. An ecological community significantly 'illustrating characteristics
of a physiographic province or a biome.

4. A biota of relative stability maintaining itself under prevailing
natural conditions, such as a climatic climax community.

5. An ecological community significantly illustrating the process of
succession and restoration to natural condition following
disruptive change.

6. A habitat supporting a vanishing, rare, or restricted species.

7. A relict flora or fauna persisting from an earlier period.

8. A seasonal haven for concentrations of native animals, or a
vantage point for observing concentrated populations, such as a
constricted migration route.

148

9. A site containing significant evidence illustrating important
scientific discoveries.

10. Examples of the scenic grandeur of our natural heritage.

Additional factors may include:

1. The extent to which OCZM investment in the project will leverage
other money from other programs.

2. The extent to which funding from other sources is available.

3. Projected usership of the island for purposes consistent with the
Island Preservation Plaa/Program.

4. Transportation parameters relating to island use.

5. Unique characteristics. This may include the fact that a
particular island is the only one left for preservation or
recreation acquisition by the State.

6. Cost, including the possibility of phased acquisitions.

7. Development pressures.

8. Alternate projects that could give substantially the same
preservation results.
Even if 315 (2) is not funded, there may be some' merit in urging the
States to think in terms of island preservation as a part of their
management programs. Both Congress and the President have indicated their
interest in islands, and the Barrier Island Workshop and the Barrier Island
Coalition may well add fuel to this fire. It would seem only proper for
OCZM to play some sort of role in the effort to attain this goal and the
State management programs may be a means. Also it would seem to be in the
States' interest to do so. 315(2) may or may not be funded, but there is
probably going to be some- sort of program directed at islands, and the
States with adequate island programs already developed would be in a
position to take advantage of any opportunities that arise.

Islands are superb recreation areas. They have a strong aesthetic and
romantic appeal which can be impaired or destroyed by insensitive
development projects. In addition, large parts of many developed resort
islands are permanently closed to the general public. Comparatively few of
the total number of islands in the continental United States are permanently
protected from real estate speculation and unrestricted development.

Wild, unspoiled islands are a unique part of this country's natural
heritage. There are certain intangible qualities common to all islands which
cannot be experienced in any other physical setting. Islands should be
preserved to invoke these feelings of wonder, adventure, peace, or seclusion
in future generations as they have in past generations.

149

FOOTNOTES

Islands of America. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1970 at
pp. 16 and 18.
2Neuhauser, Hans. "The Wildlife Resources of Barrier Islands" from "Barrier
Islands and Beaches" Technical Proceedings of the 1976 Barrier Island
Workshop. Annapolis, Maryland, May 17-18. Conservation
Foundation Technical Sponsor Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA
Washington, D.C. 1976 at p. 37.
3Warren, Langdon, The Status of the Barrier Islands of the South-
eastern Coast. Open Space Institute. New York New York, November 1976 at
p. 2.
4LaRoe, Edward T., "Barrier Islands as Significant Ecosystems."
from Barrier Islands and Beaches at p. 3.
5Clark, John, "The National Interest in Barrier Islands and Beaches:
Natural Resource Values." from Barrier Islands and Beaches at pp. 47-48.
6Godfrey, Paul J., "Comparative Ecology of East Coast Barrier Islands,
Hydrology, Soil, Vegetation." from Barrier Islands and
Beaches, at pp. 5-6.
7LaRoe, supra note 4, at p. 2.
8Ibid.

9
Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources.
Louisiana Government and the Coastal Zone, 1972. Louisiana, March, 1972, at
p. 21.
10 Louisiana State Planning Office, Unique Ecological Features of
the Louisiana Coast. By Buck and Associates, for Coastal Resources Program,
Louisiana State Planning Office. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. June 1976 at pp.
33-35.
11 Louisiana Advisory Commission on Coastal and Marine Resources, supra note
9, at p. 19.
12 Louisiana State Planning Office, sUra note 10, at p. 1.
13 Personal Communication, Paul Templet, Program Coordinator Coastal
Resources Program, Louisiana State Planning Office, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
August 1977.
14 Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program. Ecosystems
and Resources of the Massachusetts Coast. By Carl Colozzi, et. al.
Institute for Man and Environment. Boston, Massachusetts. 1977 at p. 5.
15 Ibid.

150

16 Ibid., at p. 41.
17 Ibid., at pp. 26-27.
18 Ibid., at p. 28.
19 Maine Department of Marine Resources, "Critical Marine Mammals
Habitats--Gulf of Maine," by David Richardson, West Boothbay Harbor, Maine.
February, 1974.
20 New York State Water Resource Commission, Summary Appraisal, Developing
and Managing the Water Resources of New York State. New York State Water
Resources Commission, New York, Division of Water Resources, New York State
Conservation Department, Albany, New York. 1967 at pp. 28-29.

21
Florida Department of Natural Resources - Coastal Coordinating Council.
Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management Study, (Executive Summary and Atlas),
Tallahassee, Florida. June, 1974 at p. 105.
22 Ibid., at p. 105.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., at p. 106.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid., at p. 107.
28 Ibid.) at p. 7.
29 Ibid., at p. 107.
30 Ibid., at p. 108.
31 Personal Communication, Barbara Cottrel, Coast Islands Registry, Bureau of
Public Lands, Maine. Department of Conservation, June 28, 1977.
32 Personal Communication, Hank Tyler, Maine State Planning Office, Augusta,
Maine. June 30, 1977.
33 From series of reports for the Maine State Planning Office, Augusta,
Maine. Cowger, Joel. Alcid Nesting Habitation on the Maine Coast and Its
Relevance to the Critical Areas Program. September 20, 1976. The Nesting
Habitat of the Leach's Petrel and Its Relevance to the Maine Critical Areas
Program. September 20, 1976. Fefer, Stuart S. The American Fider in Maine
and Its Relevance to the Critical Areas Program. March 1, 1977. Tyler,
Henry. Wading Birds in Maine and Their Relevance to the Critical Areas
Program. March 17, 1977.
34 Ibid., Alcid Nesting Habitation . . . at p. 1.

151

35 Marine Department of Marine Resources. "Critical Marine Mammals
Habitats - Gulf of Maine," by David Richardson. West Boothbay Harbor,'
Maine. February 14, 1975.
36 U. S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics, Bureau of
the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1974. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1974.
37 Vineyard Open Land Foundation. Looking at the Vineyard. Vineyard Open
Land Foundation, West Tisbury, Massachusetts. 1973 at p. ii.
38 Personal Communication, Janet Blank. Maine Coast Heritage Trust, Bar
Harbor, Maine. June 30, 1977.
39 Nature Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy Preserve Directory. The Nature
Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 1974.
40 Personal Communication, William Hoover. Ocean City Planning and Zoning
Administration, Ocean City, Maryland. July 14, 1977.
41
MacFarland, J. W. , Lade, K. P. , and Shope, J. H. Virginia Coast Reserve
Study: Volume III. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia at p. 133.
42 Warren, Langdoa. The Status of the Barrier Islands of the Southeastern
Coast. Open Space Institute, New York, New York. November, 1976 at p. 17.
431bid., at p. 16.
44 Warren, Langdoa. An Inventory of the Barrier Islands of the Southeastern
Coast. Open Space Institute, New York, New York. October, 1976 at pp.
253-254.
45 Supra note 42 at p. 10.
46 Ibid., at pp. 13-14.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid., at p. 12.
49 Miller, H. Crane. "The National Flood Insurance Program: A Quest for
Effective Coastal Floodplain Management." Environmental Comment, June, 1977
at p. 5.
50Supra note 42 at p. 14.
51 Ibid., at p. 19.
52 Ibid., at pp. 17-20.
53 Gibbons, Boyd. Wye Island, Baltimore and Landen: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1977.

152

@pplication Procedure

A State or local government with particular recreational needs may
contact the Bureau in order to locate a donor, but frequently a project is
initiated by the donor.

Information Contacts

James W. Cook (202) 343-7962
Division of Cooperative Services
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240

References

1. Executive Office of the President; Office o f Management and Budget,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402, p. 464 (15,402).

2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
A Technical Assistance Program (pamphlet).

Relationship with 315(2)

The Technical Assis"tance Program could be used as a valuable adjunct to
the program that is developed under 315(2). This program is normally used
for the acquisition of large tracts of land to be used as recreation areas,
but is also used for acquiring access, especially water access in the
Southeast and Great Lakes regions. In either case, the two programs could
be combined, where feasible, to mutial benefit. Private donations could
also be used by State and local governments to match 315(2) grants.

2-11

Department of the Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Resource Area Studies

BOR undertakes studies of the suitability of areas for designation as
national parks or recreation areas, and wild and scenic rivers or trails.
Designation of wild and scenic rivers has-been a major effort of this program
under recent years. The major importance of this program to 315(2) beach
access is its study of coastal barrier islands. President Carter directed the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce to study these
islands, and this office represents the central thrust of Interior's efforts.

Information Contact

Department of the Interior (202) 343-4793
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Robert Eastman
Office of Resource Area Studies William Rennebohm
Washington, D.C. 20402

2-12

Department of the Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Water Resources Planning Program

The Outdoor Recreation Water Resources Planning Program has two major
purposes: first, to protect outdoor recreational resources from the ravages
of development, and second, 'to ascertain the outdoor recreational resource
development potential of a particular water resource development according
to each State's SCORP. The Bureau accomplishes these purposes through
participation in the formulation of comprehensive basin studies and
proposals for water (and related land) resources under the aegis of the
Water Resources Council, and study of proposed water resource developments
and reports by various Federal agencies (Bureau of Land Management, Soil
Conservation Service, Army Corps of Engineers). The Bureau also reviews
Federal Pow'er Commission license applications and environmental impact
statements with regard to outdoor recreation resources in power projects.
Technical assistance is provided to private utility companies for planning
recreational development at hydroelectric and nuclear power projects.

Information Contact

William Lawson (202) 343-7668
Outdoor Recreation Water Resources
Planning Program
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240

Related Program

Water Resources Council Planning Program 65.001

While this is in no way an acquisition program, a 315(2) access program
might in some instances be able to complement coastal recreation proposals
developed or reviewed under Water Resources Planning. Some exchange of
information between the Water Resources Planning office at BOR and OCZM
would, therefore, be in order.

2-13

Department of the Interior General Services Administration
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Surplus Property for Parks Program

The Secretary of the Interior may transfer to eligible applicants,
including States and their political subdivisions, land surplus to the needs
of the Federal government for public park and recreation purposes. The
responsibility for administering the program has been delegated to BOR.

Authorization

The disposal of surplus Federal real property is authorized by Section
203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act *of 1949. 63
Stat. 385, as amended, 40 US.C. 484,, and is administered by the General
Services Administration (GSA). Surplus real property may be conveyed for
purposes other than recreation. The conveyance for public park and
recreation purposes specifically is authorized by Section 203(K)(2) of the
Act (40 U.S.C. 484(K)(2).

Tools and Techniques

Surplus property may be conveyed for public park and recreational use
at discounts up to 100 percent. The law required that deeds of conveyance
to State or local governments of surplus property provide that the propetty
transferred by used and maintained for public park and/or recreation uses in
perpetuity, and that if the property ceases to be so used, it shall revert
to the United States. Specific deed restrictions to protect the interest of
the Federal government are placed on the property.

Acquisition Authority

Normally BOR merely assists GSA in the transfer of the surplus property
to the buyer. BOR has no acquisition or management authority for itself.

Organizatioaal Structure

When any Federal agency determines that real property under its control
is not required by that agency, it is reported to the GSA, which notifies
other executive agencies of the availability of the property. If within 30
days no agencies have notified GSA of their interest, the property becomes
Itsurplus. 11 "Notices of Availability" are transmitted to appropriate State
and local governments by BOR and GSA. Upon receipt of an acceptable
application, BOR may request assignment of the surplus property from GSA.
When the property is so assigned, BOR initiates actions for property
conveyance. Surplus property which is not deeded to public bodies may be
offered for sale to the public on a competitive bid basis by GSA.

2-14

Operations and Management

The acquiring agency is responsible for the operation and management of
the property conveyed to it.

Funding and Assistance

As of July 13, 1977, over 683 properties, comprising 84,594 acres and
valued at over $265 million, have been added to the Nation's recreation
estate by the Surplus Property for Parks Program.

Coordination

BOR and GSA cooperate in the implementing of the Surplus Property for
Parks Program.

Related Programs

-Public Land for Recreation, Public Purposes and
Historic Monu eats 15.202
Bureau of Land Management

-Surplus Property for Wildlife Conservation
.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

-Surplus Property for Historic Monument Purposes 39-002
BOR and GSA

Eligibility

Any State, county, city, town, municipality, or instrumentality is
eligible to apply. The prospective applicant must be able to attest that
the property is suitable for public park and recreation purposes; aad that,
when developed, it will meet recreation needs identified in the State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The applicant must also set
forth a schedule of development and a financial plan which will result in
orderly, early development of the property for public use. The approved-
plan is referenced in the deed of conveyance, and any amendments must be
submitted for secretarial approval.

Ap2lication Procedure

Assistance in applying for surplus property may be obtained at any of
BOR's regional offices. Range of approval/ disapproval time is 3 to 6
months.

2-15

Information Contacts

Charles Montgomery (202) 343-7962
BOR Surplus property Program
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240

References

1. Executive Office of the President; Office of Management and Budget,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402, p. 637 (39.002).

2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Surplus Property for Parks and Recreation (pamphlet).

3. General Services Administration, Disposal of Surplus Real Property
(pamphlet).

Relationship with 315(2)

Theoretically, 315(2) could be combined with the Surplus Property for
Parks Program where a State or local agency requires surplus property in a
coastal area and needs to acquire access or improved "access to the property.
A large portion of the surplus property offered to State and local
governments are obsolete defense sites, a few of which are in coastal areas,
particulary in Texas. Several old Nike sites near urban centers have been
or will be available.

Property under the Surplus Property for Parks Program is, to repeat,
available to State and local governments at discounts up to 100 percent,
while the Federal share of 315(2) acquisition is limited to 50 percent.

2-16

Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Public Land for Recreation, Public Purposes, and Historic
Monuments

Almost one-third of the Nation's land is owned by the Federal
government. BLM manages about 60 percent of the Federal land estate, and
thus, a staggering 20 percent of the land in the United States. In some
western states, about 90 percent of the land is Federally owned. BLM
supports recreation that is compatible with its view of its land stewardship
objective, and has recently taken a more active role in meeting outdoor
recreational needs.

Under the Recreation and Public Act of June 1 4, 1926, as amended; 43
U.S.C. 869, 8694; qualified Federal, State and local government agencies,
and also nonprofit associations and corporations may. lease or purchase
available BLM land for recreation, historical monuments, and "public
purposes." (Assistance is not available in the original thirteen States,
Hawaii, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas or West Virginia.) The significance of
BLM's recreational activities is limited by the distribution of its
holdings. BLM lands are located almost entirely in the western States, and
a great preponderance of the lands are inland. So, while BLM occasionally
engages in coastal recreational activities (most notably in King Range
National Conservation Area in California), the availability of this
limitation, however, should make it easy for OCZM to monitor BLM's costal
activities.

References

1. Ditton, Robert B. and Stephens, Mark, Coastal Recreation: A Handbook
for Planners and Managers, OCZM/NOAA U.S. Department of Commerce,
January, 1976, pp. 216 217.

2. Executive Office of the President; Office of Management and Budget,
Catalog of Federal Director Assistance, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20102, p. 452 (15.202).

2-17

Department of the Interior
National Park Service

The National Park Service is an important land management agency
throughout the country, including the coastal zone. Its domain consists of
about 300 units (located in 47 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands), comprised of national parks, monuments,
historic sites, recreation areas, lakeshores, seashores, preserves, natural
landmarks, battlefields, and military parks.

Ditton and Stephens have described some of the responsibilities of the
National Park Service (Ditton, Robert B. and Stephens, Mark,
Coastal Recreation: A Handbook for Planners and Managers, OCZM/NOAA, U.S.
Department of Commerce, January, 1976):

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

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

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

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

2-18

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

Following NPS evaluation, sites which appear to qualify for inclusion are
submitted to the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites,
Buildings and Monuments for its recommendations to the Secretary of the
Interior concerning their eligibility for registration.

In requesting registration, property owners agree to comply with basic
management and protection practices prescribed by the program. (pp. 211
to 214; footnotes omitted) .

National seashores are natural coastal areas set aside for the
preservation and public recreation use of their naturally significant scenic,
scientific, historic, or recreational values, or a combination of those
values. They usually contain fairly extensive acreage.

National Recreation Areas, such as the Gateway and Golden Gate areas
mentioned above, are of special interest because of the criteria NPS uses to
evaluate the suitability of sites to be National Recreation Areas. These are
reproduced below.

National Recreation Areas: The following criteria are established for the
evaluation and selection of areas proposed for Congressional designation as
National Recreation areas in the National Park System. These criteria modify
those issued in the Recreation Advisory Council's Policy Circular No. I of
March 26, 1963.

The following criteria are to be applied to all proposals:

-National Recreation Areas should be spacious areas containing
outstanding natural and/or historic features and providing significant
recreation opportunities.

-National Recreation Areas should be located and designed to achieve
comparatively heavy recreation use and should usually be located where
they can contribute significantly to the recreation needs of urban
populations.

-National Recreation Areas should provide recreation opportunities
significant enough to assure national, as well as regional, visitation.

-The scale of investment, development, and operational responsibility
should be sufficiently high to require either direct Federal involvement
or substantial Federal participation to assure optimil public benefit.

2-19

-Within the National Recreation Area, outdoor recreation shall be
recognized as a primary management purpose; however, such management
shall be compatible with the protection of the natural and historic
resources.

Information Contact

Raymond S. Freeman
Planning and Development Division
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20402

References

1. Ditton, Robert B. and Stephens, Mark, Coastal Recreation:
A Handbook For Planners and Managers, OCZM/NOAA, U.S. Department of
Commerce, January, 1976, pp. 2-11 2-14.

2. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Criteria for Parklands (pamphlet).

2-20

Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Park and Recreation Technical Assistance

The National Park Service provides technical assistance to State and
local agencies in planning, developing, and managing their park and
recreation areas.

Authorization

. Park, Parkway, and Recreation Area Act of June 23, 1936; P.L. 74-770;
16 U.S.C.. 17.

Tools and Techniques

Assistance consists of technical and advisory services on such matters
as agency organization, operation, and maintenance of park systems,
personnel training, historical and archaeological programs, and general
development planning. Reimbursement is usually required if planning is
accomplished by the National Park Service.

Acquisition Authority

This program has no acquisition authority.

Operations and Management-

As stated above, technical assistance is available under this program
with regard to the operations and maintenance of park systems.

Funding Assistance

As stated above, technical assistance is available under this program
with regard to the operations and maintenance of park systems.

Funding Assistance

No funds are provided to public agencies under this program.

Relationship to 315(2)

States and other grantees under 315(2) could take advantage of the
assistance offered by this program.

2-21

During 1975, about 6,000 inquiries for technical information were
answered and 350 State and local agencies and Indian tribes were provided
with technical assistance.

Coordination - Related Programs

-Outdoor Recreation Technical Assistance 15.402

-Park Practice Program 15.907

-Training Institute for Park and 15.911
Recreation Management

Eligibility and Application Procedure

States and local units of government and Indian tribes may apply for
assistance under this program. A letter to the appropriate regional
director explaining the need for assistance is required.

Information Contact

Chief. Division of Federal, State, and (202) 523-5169
Private Liaison
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240

Reference

1. Executive Office of the President; Office of Management and Budget,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402, p. 483 (15.906)

2-22

Department of the Interior General Services Administration
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Surplus Property for Wildlife Conservation

The Secretary of the Interior may transfer to States land surplus to
the needs of the Federal government for Wildlife conservation purposes.
Hence, this program may be related to coastal access and island preservation
efforts. The responsibility for administering the program has been
delegated to USFWS.

Authorization

The overall disposal surplus of Federal real property is operated by
the General Services Administration (GSA) under the authority of Section 203
of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949; 63 Stat.
385, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 484. Surplus real property for wildlife
conservation is specifically covered by P.S. 537; 16 U.S.C. 667b-d.

Tools and Techniques

Surplus property for wildlife conservation is conveyed to States for
wildlife conservation purposes at no cost to the States. The law requires
that deeds of conveyance to States provide that the property transferred be
used and maintained for wildlife conservation purposes in perpetuity, and
that if the property ceases to be so used, it shall revert to the United
States.

Acquisition Authority

Under this particular act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has no
acquisition authority. Normally BOR assists GSA in the transfer of the
surplus property to the State.

Organizatioa Structure

When any Federal agency determines that real property under its control
is not required by that agency, it is reported to the GSA, which notifies
other executive agencies of the availability of the property. (When the
land is available to Federal agencies as "excess," USFWS may acquire it
under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.) If within 30 days no agencies
have notified GSA of their interest, the property becomes "surplus."
"Notices of availability" are transmitted to appropriate State and local
governments by USFWS and GSA. Upon receipt of an acceptable application,
USFWS may request assignment of the surplus property from GSA. When the
property is so assigned, USFWS -initiates actions for property conveyance.
Surplus property which is not deeded to public bodies is generally offered
for sale to the public on a competitive bid basis.

2-23

Operations and Management

The acquiring agency is responsible for the operation and management of
the property conveyed to it.

Funding and Assistance

Examples of properties recently transferred under this program include
Fishermen's Island, Plum Tree Island, and Wallops Island (a former NASA
installation), all in Virginia, and Amagansett Light Station in New York.

Coordination

BOR and GSA cooperate in the operation of the Surplus Property for
Parks Program.

Related Programs

-National Migratory Bird Program

-Surplus Property for Parks
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

Eligibility

Only States are eligible to receive surplus property for wildlife
conservation purposes.

Information Contact

Richard E. Corthell (202) 343-6649
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
1717 H Street - Matomic Building
Washington, D.C.

Relationship with 315(2)

While the Surplus Property for Wildlife Conservation Program is
certainly no substitute for island preservation under 315(2), it could, in
some instances, achieve a similar purpose.

2-24

Department of Agriculture
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans
Farmers Home Administration
and
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
(Small Watershed Program)
Soil Conservation Service

The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program in the Department
of Agriculture includes phree basic activities:

Watershed Operations - Cooperation in establishing works of improvement to
reduce erosion, flood water, and. sediment damage. The development of
recreational facilities may be a by-product of these operations.

Flood Prevention Operations - Establishment of works of improvement for
flood prevention may also include the development of recreational facilites.

Loans - Loans are made to help finance the local share of the cost of
implementing watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.

Authorization

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, P.S. 83-566. 68
Stat. 666, 16 U.S.C. 1001. et seg., as amended, provides for cooperation
between the Federal government apd the States and their political
subdivisions in a program to prevent erosion, floodwater, and sediment
damages in the watersheds of rivers and streams; to further the
conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water; and to
further the conservation and proper utilization of land.

Coastal Recreational Res2onsibilities and Uses
Tools and Techniques

The Act provides for technical and financial assistance for the instal-
lation of works of improvement, usually either land treatment measures or
structural measures. Structural measures such as floodwater retarding
structures, stream channel improvements, stabilizing and sediment control
structures, water storage structures, and others may enhance or encourage
recreational development. The Federal government will provide a share of
the cost of installing improvements for agricultural water management, fish
and wildlife, and recreational development. (The latter includes the cost
of minimum basic facilities for public health and safety and
access to recreational areas.) Local organizations must pay all costs of
improvements for other purposes.

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans are available to local
organizations to finance the local share of costs of inst@lling planned
works of improvement. Loans are administered by the Farmers Home Adminis-
tration.

2-25

Acquisition Authority

This is not an acquisition program. Local organizations must acquire
water rights and furnish land, easements, and rights-of-way for all
structural measures. However, up to one-half the cost of land, easements,
and rights-of-way allocated to public fish and wildlife and recreational
developments may be paid with Federal funds.

Organizational Structure

The Farmers Home Administration is responsible for making loans to
sponsors of projects. No loan may be made until the Soil Conservation
Service and the local organization have agreed on a plan for works of
improvement and the project is approved for operations.

Operations and Management

Local sponsoring organizations are responsible for operating and main-
taining completed works of improvement on non-Federal lands and reservoirs
and recreation areas.

Funding

Range and average of financial assistance (SCS)

$20,000 to $14,000,000; $2,000,000

In FY 1975 a total of 473 projects were in some stage in construction
and 396 had been completed. At this time we are unable to determine what
proportion of these include recreational uses.

Range and average of financial assistance (FmHA; loans)

$7,230 to $5,000,000; $300,000

Loans Made

FY 1975 $20,175,000 25 loans
FY 1976 23,400,000 est. 29 loans est.
FY 1977 23,400,000 est. 27 loans est.

Coordination

All projects must undergo A95 review. (See also Organization
Structure)

2-26

Related Programs

-Irrigation, Drainage, and Other Soil and Water Conservation Loans 10.409

-Soil and Water Loans 10.416

-Resource Conservation and Development 10.901

-Soil and Water Conservation 10.902

-River Basin Surveys and Investigations 10.906

-Flood Plain Management 12.104

Eligib lity

Any State agency, county or groups of counties, municipality, town or
township, soil and water conservation district, flood prevention or flood
control district, or any other nonprofit agency with authority under State
law to carry out, maintain, and operate watershed works of improvement may
apply for assistance from SCS. To qualify for the FmHA loan, the agency
must also have authority under State law to obtain, give security for, and
raise revenues to repay the loan and to operate and maintain the facilities
to be financed with the loan.

Ap2lication Procedure

Application to SCS may be made through the State field offices of SCS.
An environmental impact statement for a project is frequently, but not
always, required. An environmental impact statement is required for the
loan program. Loan applications are filed with county FmHA offices. After
an application has been reviewed by the County Supervisor and the County
committee, it is referred to the State Director who has approval authority.

These Agricultural programs are not exclusively coastal or
recreational. but it is interesting to note that Federal money can be used
to provide a share of the cost of recreational development and access to
that development. In the context of watershed development, it would
generally be more appropriate to use this program to provide access, because
we usually will not be talking about beaches, but about reservoirs.
Occasionally, however, it is possible that beach access will be part of
watershed development.

References

1. Executive Office of the President; Office of Management and Budget,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402, pp. 31, 64 (10.419, 10.904).

2-27

2. "Programs," Environment Reporter, Volume of Federal Laws, The Bureau of
National Af f airs, Inc. , 1231 25th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20037,
pp 51-0241 51-0245.

2-28

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Open Space Land Program

This program must be spoken about in the past tense, because HUD's
categorical grant programs, such as open space and urban beautification,
have been replaced by community development block grants. It might be
informative, however, to summarize what the Open Space Program, established
in 1961, did do. It authorized matching grants of up to 50 percent to
States and local agencies for acquisition and limited development of, among
other things, open space for park and recreational purposes. Proposed
projects had to be in areas of "urban character" (which included suburbs).
High priority was not given to the preservation of scenic or ecologically
significant areas, which would seem to afford a low priority to beach
acquisition. However, one commentator noted that "the most pressing needs
for water-oriented recreation opportunities are in urban areas where they
can be made available to less mobile, lower income groups" (Ducsik, see
below, p. 143).

In its prime, the Open Space Program served many aon-recreatioaal
objectives. Now, under community development block grants, localities have
much greater discretion over how grant funds are to be spent. Although open
space remains a valid purpose for community development funds, it appears
that most recipient communities have what they consider to be more critical
needs for the funds.

Reference@,s

1. Ditton, Robert B. and Stephens, Mark, Coastal Recreation: A Handbook
for Planners and Managers, OCZM/NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce,
January, 1976, p. 2-26.

2. Ducsik, Dennis W., A Handbook of-Social, Economic, and Legal
Considerations Regarding Public Recreational Use of the Nation's
Coastal Shoreline, MIT Sea Grant Program, 1974, pp. 142-3.

3. Executive Office of the President; Office of Management and Budget,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402, p. 425 (14.218).

2-29

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Flood Insurance Program
42 U.S.C. 4102, et seg.
National Flood Insurance Act P.S. 90-448

The Flood Insurance Program itself is not directly applicable to the
acquisition of beach access. Regulations do require local governments to
institute some type of subdivision controls in order to qualify for the
program, but there is no requirement that any such controls pertain to beach
access. Provisions relating to beach access could be developed, but any
such effort would be tangential to the Flood Insurance Program itself.

The importance of the Flood Insurance Program to beach access falls
with the mechanics of compensation once loss has been incurred. Once a
flood disaster, probably a hurricane, has occurred, Section 1362 of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 4103) authorizes the Federal government to purchase insured
properties "damaged substantially beyond repair" rather than pay the insured
to reconstruct whatever was on the property before the disaster occured.
Section 1362 then allows the Federal goverment to sell, lease,. donate, or
otherwise transfer the property to any State or local agency which agrees to
use the property for purposes "consistent with sound land management and
use" for at least forty years. thus, State and local governments are
provided with the opportunity to acquire lands which have sustained substan-
tial hurricane damage.

The major difficulty with Section 1362 is that as of June, 1977, funds
have never been appropriated to implement it. However, administrators are
studying the feasibility of implementing this section as both a valuable
floodplain management tool and as a means of insurance recovery. A policy
on Section 1362 may emerge in 1978.

Another possible access-related use of the National Flood Insurance Act
arises from regulations which will require local governments in identified
erosion-prone areas (yet to be determined) to establish a setback for all
new development from the ocean, lake, bay, riverfront, or other body of
water in order to create a safety buffer of natural vegetation which will be
appropriate for wildlife habitats and open space purposes such as recre-
ation. Program administrators are presently developing prototype base maps
to delineate erosion-prone areas along the barrier islands, beaches, and the
Great Lakes. Hence this aspect of the Act could prove beneficial to both
beach access and island preservation.

References

1. Brower, David J. , Dreyf oos, William W. , and Stroud, Nancy E. , The Beach
Access Problem: Or, Why You Can't Go Swimming Even If You Own the
Beach (Draft), Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, May, 1977, p. 97.

2-30

2. "Floodplain Management," Environmental Comment, June, 1977, The Urban
Land Institute. 1200 18th Street, N. W. , Washington, D.C. 20036.

2-31

Department. of Defense
Department of the Army,
Office of the Chief of Engineers
(Army Corps of Engineers)
Small Beach Erosion Control Projects

Section 102 of the 1962 River and Harbors Act, as amended; P.L. 87-874,
33 U.S.C. 426g; authorizes the Corp of Engineers to aid State and local
agencies in controlling beach and shore erosion of public shores. The Corps
designs and constructs each project. This is not a large program; for
instance, in 1974 only three projects were under construction, and the
Federal cost limit per project is $1,000,000 or 70 percent of the cost of
the project, whichever is lower.

Under this program the non-Federal s poasoring agency must agree to
"provide and maintain" necessary access roads, parking areas and other
public use facilities. This includes the possibility that beach access
facilities be provided.

Reference

1. Executive Office of the President; Office of Management and Budget,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Govern ent Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402, p. Ill (12.101).

2-32

Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Highway Research, Planning and Construction
(Federal-Aid Highway Program)
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973;
93-87; Title 23 U.S. Code
as amended; Federal-Aid Highway
Amendments of 1974; P.L. 93-643

A portion of the enormous Federal-Aid Highway Program may be directed
to roadside beautification, recreation (including access roads to recreation
areas), bikeways, pedestrian walkways, fringe and corridor, parking areas and
rest areas. Since grants to State and local agencies under this program are
estimated at over $6 billion for FY 1977, even a very small fraction of this
can be significant to a particular project. DOT funds, it would seem, can
be used for coastal highways and parkways, rest areas including water
access, and bicycle trails. It might be appropriate for this liaison to
take place on the State level.

References

1. Executive Office of the President; Office of Management and Budget,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Govern ent Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402, p. 563 (20.205).

2. The Federal Ocean Program, Report of the President to Congress on the
Nation's Efforts to Comprehend, Conserve, and Use the Sea, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, p. 56.

2-33

Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Airport Planning and Development

The FAA provides technical and financial assistance to public agencies
for the planning and development of airports under its Airport Development
Aid Program (ADAP) and Airport Planning Grant Program (PGP). The FAA also
coordinates its airport planning with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and with local planning departments so that consideration is
given to the use of land surrounding airports for park and recreation
facilities. The FAA encourages such consideration because recreational uses
are among the few uses compatible with airport operations.

References

1. Executive Office of the President; Office of Management and Budget,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402.
-Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) 20.102, p. 560
-Airport Planning Grant Program (PGP) 20.103, p. 561.

2. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Office of
Planning, Massachusetts Outdoors Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan, December 1976, p. 56.

2-34

Appendix Three

State Work Programs

Section 305(b)(7) of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires that each
coastal State management program include a definition of the term 'beach' as
well as a plan for identifying access and/or protection needs of public
beaches and other coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historic,
aesthetic, ecological or cultural value.

Of the thirty coastal States and three territories, thus far (October
1977) sixteen have submitted complete work programs.

The following table summarizes the current status of each State's work
program. The States are listed alphabetically within their coastal region. A
'Yes' response in the program column indicates that the State has submitted
a work program to the Office of Coastal Zone Management which, if carried
out, will meet the requirements of Section 305(b)(7). An 'Incomplete'
indicates that the State has failed to provide a detailed work program or
that the submitted program lacks specific information pertaining to funding
or time necessary for completion of the task. A blank in this column indi-
cates that no program at all has been received.

The third column ($) is the State's projected budget figure for the
mpletion of 305(b)(7) requirements. In most cases, the reader can examine
the State's work program for a breakdown of State and Federal share. Copies
co

of the work programs follow the table.

The final collimn, 'work program,' provides more specific information
with respect to each State program. In most cases, the reader is referred
to a copy of the pertinent section of the work program.

The cost of the work programs vary a great deal. Rhode Island's
program is expected to cost $2,147. Oregon's will cost $55,000. Time
requirements differ, too, ranging from a low of four months to a full year.

SHOREFRONT ACCESS WORK PROGRAMS

North Atlantic Region

State Program $ Work Program

Connecticut Yes 7,500 see attachment

Maine Yes 11,370 see attachment

Massachusetts Incomplete see attachment

New Hampshire Yes 16,900 see attachment

New Jersey

New York Incomplete see attachment

Rhode Island Yes 2,147 see attachment

South Atlantic Region

State Program $ Work Program

Delaware

Georgia Incomplete 9,300 see attachment--awaiting
rules and regulations

Maryland

North Carolina Incomplete see attachment

South Carolina

Virginia Incomplete see attachment

Gulf/Islands Region

State Program $ Work Proiram

Alabama Yes 5,200 see attachment

Florida

Louisiana Yes 17,165 see attachment

Mississippi Yes 15,000 see attachment

Puerto Rico Yes 45,482 see attachment

3-2

Texas Yes 41,053 see attachment

Virgin Islands Yes 15,151 see attachment

GreatLakes Region

State. Program $ Work Program

Illinois

Indiana Yes 15;000 see attachment

Michigan Yes 15,735 see attachment

Minnesota

Ohio Yes 10,000 see attachment

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin Yes 4,400 see attachment

Lacific Region

State Program $ Work Program

Alaska

California

Guam

Hawaii IncompLete 14,400 see attachment

Oregon Yes 55,000 see attachment

Washington Yes 50,902 see attachment

16 yes $357.705

3-3

Alabama

10. Shorefront Access

Obiective:

The State must develop a planning process that can identify public

shorefrort areas appropriate for protection and/or increased access.

The term "beach" must be defined to aid in the identification of

those areas that will be included under this worIAC element and to

provide a rationale explaining the relationship between the de'Lini-

tion of "beach" and access and protection needs. Access and protec-

tion needs must be evaluated to determine requirements of the State

program to meet Federal regulations.

Method:

The follcwing tasks must be undcrtaken to provide the technical back-

ground for this work element:

a. The term "beach" must be defined as, it applies to the

Shorefront Access requirements of the Federal Regula-

tions. After the definition is established those areas

classified as "beach" must be identified and portrayed

on suitable maps.

b. A procedure must be developed for assessing the access and

protection requirements of the beach areas.

These two work items will form technical basis for developing poli-

cies pertaining to access and/or protection, for developing a method

of designating shorefront areas as CAPCs, and for identification of

existing programs that can be applied to man3gement needs. The policy

work will not be undertaken as a part of this grant period but will be

undertaken in the following year.

3-4

Al abama

Manpower Requirements:

One man-month of CAB'staff time will be applied principally to

suoervise contractual work. The major work wLll be undertaken by

the Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium, the Department of

Conservation and Natural Resources, the South Alabama Regional

Planning Commission, or another suitable contractor.
0

Titiie Schedtile:
The detailed time schedule i@ givenlin the following chart:

WORK ITEM MONTHS
1 27 37 4 5 -6 7 3 9 -10 _.LZ
1. Definition of "Beach"
and Identification
of Areas

2. Develop Procedure for
Assessing Areas and
Protection Require-
ments

Funds:
$2,200 for CAB staff and $3,000 for contractual work.

Total: $5,200

3-5

Connecticut

3. Objective: To investigate various methods of improving public
access to water based recreational activities.

During the second year an inventory of shoreline
recreational areas, points of public access, and marinas
was initiated. In light of recent amendments to the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, work on this
inventory will be continued. In addition, methods
of improving public access will be investigated including
public acquisition and multiple use incentives. A
planning process for protecting and imprbving public
access will be initiated in conjunction with the Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP).

Product: Written report with inventory and
recommendations for future ac.tion.

3-6

Georgia

Task 7-4: Beach Access:

A task description will be'developed for this
planning element upon publication of final Rules
and Regulations promulgated under the Coastal
1.one Management Act of-1976

3-7

Hawaii

Program Component Objective:

To identify, develop, and adopt policies, plans, and programs to address the
problem and concerns evidenced in Hawaii's coastal areas.

FY 1977-78 Work Program Component:

A. Description of Major Tasks:
1. Develop guidelines as appropriate to further specify the objectives
and policies of the program for consideration by the 1978 Hawaii
State Legislature, utilizing to the extent applicable the comprehensive
coastal resource and regulatory network inventories developed as part
of the first through third-year work programs.

2. Prepare criteria for shoreline management area boundary amendments
for compliance with the objectives and policies of the Hawaii CZM
Program as required by Act 188, SLH 1977.

3. Continue identifying geographic-specific problem areas as a basis for
specifying potential areas of particular concern and develop
appropriate policy and criteria for the designation thereof. Existing
statutes provide processes for future designations of potential areas
of particular concern. Ihese will be properly identified in the "306
submission."

4. Formulate and integrate the shoreline access, shoreline erosion, and
energy facility siting elements into Hawaii CZM Program as required
by the 1976 amendments to the National Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972; and

5. Prepare revisions to the 306 submission document and environmental
impact, assessment as appropriate.

B. Participants:

DPED; University of Hawaii; Federal-State-County governmental agencies;
and the several CZM Advisory Committees.

C. Products:

1. Appropriate reports on the findings and recommendations resulting from
the completion of Federal and State planning and management requirements

2. Designation of additional areas of particular concern and applicable
designation criteria;

3-8

Hawaii
Continued

C. Products:

3. A revised 306 OCZM submission document to include an Environmental
Impact Assessment; and

4. Appropriate technical planning supporting documents.

D. Costs and Man-Month Estimates and Master Contract Workload Allrocations:

A. 1. $ 8,000 -- 3 man-months Contract No. 1

A. 2. $10,800 -- 8 man-months Contract No. 1-4

A. 3. $ 7,000 -- 6 man-months Contract No. 1

A. 4. $14,400 -- 12 man-months Contract No. 1-4

A. 5. $10,400 -- 8.5 man-months Contract Nos. 1-4

E. Progress, Problems, and Opportunities:

The major thrust of the first and second-year work programs under this
component involved two major phases: data and resources inventories and
Problem analyses. This work provided the prime technical basis for the
specification of an overall policies framework and implementation
structure for carrying out the Hawaii CZM Program.

Under the data and inventory efforts conducted during FY 1974-75 and
FY 1975-76, nine management purposes were identified for which coastal
zone management might be undertaken. In addition, as an initial step
under the data inventory and analysis efforts conducted during FY 1974-75
and 197S-76 of this work effort, four prototype areas were selected on
the basis of interviews with County planning officials and technical
investigations on the area's representativeness as a prime example of
the coastal physiography, hydrography, near-shore processes, and
economic conditions common to many areas of the State's shoreline. One
area on each of the four Counties was identified for the purpose of
conducting the analyses of inland boundary alternatives. A preliminary
examination of biophysical factors and current and anticipated land use
impacts on coastal waters, in each of the study areas suggested several
criteria for locating inland boundaries, areas of particular corcern,
data -requirements and needs, and impediments to achieving each management
purpose. The application of U-2 imagery and remote sensing provided
added information on the wetlands qf the State and Kauai's sand resources,
vegetation, reefs, estuaries, and other characteristics. Various
information systems were also explored as to feasibility of application.
In addition and as a basis for determining and assessing direct and
significant impacts of land and water uses on the coastal zone environ-
ment, statewide mapping or resource claims and claimants was also
initiated.

3-9

Indiana

57.0 ShoreFront Access Planning

Purpose:

To identify public shorefront areas of environmental, recreational,
historical, esthetic, ecologicali or cultural value appropriate
for increased access and/or protection and provide for proper
management to satisfy access/protection needs.

Work Elements:

.1 Define the term "beach" (utilizing the definition derived in
work element 221.8) and identify public areas that fit the
definition.

.2 Identify and assess other public coastal areas besides beaches for
environmental, recreational, historical, esthetic, ecological, or
cultural value. The majority of the inventory was completed-during the
first year so these data will be utilized in this task.

.3 Determine the access and/or protection requirements of identified
areas.

4 Articulate State policies pertaining to shorefront access and/or
protection indicating how the State'smanagement program will
address access and/or protection requirements.

.5 Coordinate with adjacent states in developing this element.

.6 Obtain advisory committee input throughout the development of this
work el emen t.

Product:

A statement of state policy regarding shorefront access and protection.
Inclusion of appropriate access information into a model established to
assist decision-making.

Schedule:

Aprtl 1, 1978 - October 31, 1978

Budget:
Federal Non-Federal TOTAL
In-house $74--,2_50 @ 2,750 7,000
Contractual 8,000 --- 8,000

$15,000
(SPSA and Regions ]A & 2)

SPSA Man-months: 4

3-10

Louisiana

Shorefront Access Planning

Document recreational opportunities and constraints of barrier islands,
beaches and other potential recreational areas in order to provide coastal
parishes. with suggested means for furnishing public access to desirable
areas not currently being utilized for recreational purposes. Address new
recreational access requirements of the 1976 Amendments to the National
Coastal Zone Management Act. The work will be closely coordinated with
Tasks II-E and X.

Task VIII-A. Review past work of coastal zone management agency
Burk & Associates $3,000 and others to identify public and quasi public
In-house 1/4 M/H beaches, shorefronts and other areas of shore-
front recreational value.

Task VIII-B. Develop list of possible areas for acquisition
Burk & Associates $5,000 under 315 (2) funding with approximate size,
In-house 1/4 M/M facilities and cost requirements.

Task VIII-C. Explore other possible sources of funding for
Burk & Associates $5,9000 list B above with explanation of availability
In-house 1/4 M/M or nonavailability of each source. Prepare mans
of each parish or parish base at 1:125,000 showings
information developed above.

Task VIII-D. Develop suggested policies and management tech-
Burk & Associates $2,000 niques for each item on list B above.
In-house 1/4 M/M

TOTAL TASK VIII IN-HOUSE 77 78
1 M/M $2,165 J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A S

FP
VIII-A.

VIII-B. D M D FP

VIII-C. FP

VIII-D. FP

Maine
TASK 5.01

PREPARATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON IMPROVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ACCESS
TO THE MAINE COAST FROM A LECGAL PERSPECTIVE

Objectives: To determine if any changes in the existing laws affecting access are

desirable and if so, what the changes should be.

Description: This project will determine if any changes in the existing laws are desirable

and conduct the legal research required to identify ways to update existing law so as to pro-

vide increased access to marine and other public waters in the Coastal Area, if such chances

are felt to be desirable.
Data and Studies Available: Henry, Harriett P. and Halperin, D.J., "Maine

Low Affecting Marine Resources" University of Maine School of Law, 4 Vols. 1969-70.

Henry, Harriet P. "Coastal Zone Management in Maine: A Legal Perspective" Maine

State Planning Office, 1973.

Delogue, Oland E. and Gregory, D.D., "Planning and Low In Maine" Maine

Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, 4 Parts, Bulletin

Numbers 653-1967; 654-1969; 660-1968; 675-1969.

Implementation: This task will be performed by the Maine Attorney General's

Office.

Time Schedule: Quarters 1 through 4 of the grant period.

Federal Cost and Value of State and Local Contributed Services:

$11,370

3-12

TASK 7 PLANNING FOR 1976 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS Massachusetts

A.- Obiective

The aim of this work task is to plan a strategy for Massachusetts' use
of'new funds available from the 1976 Coastal Zone Mtnagemeat Act
Amendments.

B.- Approach and Techniques

Assuming commercially recoverable resources are discovered on Georges
Bank, the facilities likely to locate in Massachusetts are service
bases, pipeline landfalls, terminal, and gas processing plants.
Depending on factors aside from Georges Bank operations, industry has
not excluded the possibility of platform fabrication yards, pipecoating
yards, and refineries in New England. The benefits of these facilities
could be increased regional employment and tax revenues to municipalities.
Problems may accrue to smaller, less densely populated towns, in terms
of requiring expenditures for housing, water, sewerage, and social
services, which, because of the rapid and temporary nature of such
activities, may not be covered in the form of tax revenues.

The 1976 Cojastal Zone Management Act Amendments authorizes $ 1.2
billion for assuaging these potential problems. Rules, regulations,
and funds are likely to flow in the next 6-12 months. The Lt. Governor's
Office of Federal-State Relations will hire a legislative coordinator and
an assistant to keep track of regulations and funding levels related to the
Amendments as they evolve. The coordinator will also work with Massachusetts
agencies to determine the terms and conditions under which Massachusetts can
use funds under the Amendments to the fullest extent.

C.- Work Elements/Products

l.- Review and analyze the legislation and regulations to ascertain:

a) The quantity of funds likely to be made available to
Massachusetts;

b) The timing of the availability of the funds;

a) For what purposes.

2. Outline work items for whieb the'Iunds might be used, including a
timetable for discussiou and lead agencies; examples of topics
are:

Developing r-r-itaria and a process f42@r 4ispe-rs-ing funds to
localities;

Identifying vork items for inter-state coordination.

3.- Monitor further Congressional action on the Amendments.

PERSON MONTHS - 12
3-13

Michigan

SUB-TASK B.6. Amendments

Description: Develop 4 planning process that can identify public

shorefront areas appropriate for increased access and/or

protection. Develop a planning process that can manage

the impacts from energy facilities in or affecting

Michigan's coastal area.

Product: Reports on Michigan's energy and access planning processes.

Percer.t of Task 8 Vosts.

Estimated Man Months: 39.2

Percent of Sub-task to be Completed: 100%.

3-14

COST ESTIMATES BY TASK PROGRAM YEAR 1978 Estimated
No. of Direct Costs Estimated Estimated Estimated
Staff Man (Salaries & Indirect Contractual Total
Tasks and Sub-Tasks* Assigned Months Fringe) Costs Costs Costs
A. "305" Program Deficiencies 8 21.3 39,042 6,522 - 43.364
1. National interest - 5% 2 1.1
2. Organization & authorities - 40% 4 8.5
3. Federal consistency - 50% 4 10.6
4. Areas of particular concern - 5% 2 1.1

8. Coastal Program Administration & Mgt. 20 155.1 290,120 47,493 5,900 343,513
1. Grant administration - 6% 5 9.8
2. Technical assistance - 13% 7 19.6
3. Coordination - 6% 6 9.8
4. Public information & education - 5% 10 7.0
5. APC process - 3% 2 4.9
6. CZM Act amendments 25% 6 39.2
7. Audit- 1% 2 2.0
8. Interstate coordination - 1% 3 2.0
9. Implementation of State Shorelands 8 60.0
Act - 39%

C. Supportive Program Activities 7 19.6 36,663 6,002 196,000 238,665
1. Sand Dune Act implementation - 19% 2 3.7
2. Improvement of permit processes - 43% 3 8.5
3. Wetlands value study _ 6% 2 1.6
4. Marina site location Inventory - 13% 2 2.5
5. St. Clair Flats inspection - 2% 2 0.3
6. Aerial photography - IS% 2 3.0
D. Local/Regional Programs (covered in - - - 192,208 190,208
Task B-3)

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS 366,625 60,017 392,108 818,750

Michigan

TASK D

LOCAL/REGIONAL PROGRAMS

Following is a description of tasks to be conducted during the duration

of this grant application by local and regional agencies. Under the

headina "TASK D. Local/Regional Programs", Coastal Program specific.

concerns, goals and objectives are described as they relate to each of

the five broad sub-task descriptions. Subgrants to Michigan's coastal

regional planning and development agencies to conduct activities re-

lative to some or all of the five sub-tasks are listed separately at

the conclusion of the overall TASK D program descriptions. Details of

contractual arrangements with the sub-grantees, will be concluded within

two months oil this grant award.

3-16

Michigan

SUB-TASK O.S. Anendments

eneray
access
Specific Concerns: Michigan's Coastal Prooram. must encourage and provide
for use activities which are compatible with coastal
resources, neighboring activities and have a tolerable
imDact on the environment in its broadest context.

The Coastal Program must combine impler*ntation and
10
planning as authori2ed in the incentive, police, pro-
prietary and spending programs provided in existing
legislation.
Goals: Help coordinate the operation of federal, state, regional
and local programs that influence activity in Michigan's
coastal area.

Protect coastal land, water and air resources frorm
detrimental uses and activities for the public health,
safety and welfare.
Encourage and support local u 'nits of government io carry
out coastal management responsibilities in an effective
and efficient manner.

Objec'Eives: Prepare an inventory of federal, state, regional and
local agencies that operate in or impact upon the coastal
area.

Identify the respective roles and relationships between
programs and agencies.

Develop effective working relationships with agencies
to assure consistency wiih the goals of Michigan's
Coastal Program.

3-17

Michigan

Investigate the natural suitability of coastal lands
for human habitation, industrial, co-,wercial or recre-
ational activity.

Review and evaluate projects which may cause irreversible
damage to coastal resources.

Involve the full range of authorities in preventing
destructive coastal activities and in restoring resources
damaged by past act'ivities.

Support the enforcement of' state and federal standards
for air and water quality to assure sustained and im-
proving environmental quality.

Support and assist coastal governmental units in plan-
ning, regulatory and development programs.

Develop and distribute technical information and re-
ference documents on coastal problems and issues.

Assist local govern-mental units in dealing with the
federal government on coastal manners.

Description: Inventory existing and planned energy facilities; identify

and assess associated impacts; assess site suitability

for such facilities; identify legal and other techniques

for coastal management of facilities and/or impacts.

Assess and designate public areas requiring access or

protection; identify legal and other techniques,'and
funding programs io provide for access or protection;

develop mechanism for refinement and implementation of

necessary management techniques; provide public infor-

mation on recreational resources, activities and location

3-18

14ichigan

TASK E-3. Shore Front Access Planning

Description: Present a strategy for the development of a planning process
that can be used to identify public shorefront areas appropriate for in-

creased access and/or protecti-on. -Included will be consideration of:

1. A procedure for assessing public recreation areas requiring access

or protection.

2. A definition of Vie term "beach" and an identification of public

areas that meet that definition.

3. Articulation of state policies pertaining to shorefront access and/or

protection.

4. A method for designation of shorefront areas as Areas oil Particular

Concern (either a's a class or as specific sites) for protection

and/or access purposes, if appropriate.

5. A mechanism for refinement and implementation of necessary inanage-

went techniques if appropriate.

6. An identification of funding program and other technique that can

be used to neet management needs.

Prepare a report on Michigan's strategy for meeting these requirements.

State: This task will be the responsibility of the state during the

Extension Period.

Regions: No involvement.

Contracts: None.

Docu:nents: A Report on Michigan's Strate@W for Shorefront Access Planning.

3-19

14ichigan

Subqra@ts to Michigan's Coastal Regional Plannini and Developmert Agencies

Contractors/Costs

Region I Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 529,000.

Region 4 Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Conr.-ission 'S 5,000

Region 7 East Central Michigan-Planning'and Development $34,500
Regional Commission

Region 8 West Michigan Regional Planning CCamission $ 6,500

Region 9 Northeast Michigan Council of Governments $25,000

Region 10 No rthwest Michigan Regional-Planning and Development $15,400
Commission
Region 11 Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning and $29,808
Development C=mission

Region 12 Central Upper Peninsula Planninig and Development $15,000
Regional Commission

Region 13 Western Upper Peninsula Regional Planning Commission $25,000

Region 14 West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development $ 51000
Co m.- i ssi on

Estimated Total Cost: $190,208

Product: Work programs and products relating to sub-task items
D.1 through D.5 above.

Estimated Man Months: 7.9

Estimated Costs: $15,735

Percent of Task to be Completed 100%

3-20

MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL WORK PROGRAM
THIRD YEAR GRANT

Provided in this part is the work program which will beaccomplished during the

three-month supplemental grant period.

Four major tasks are outlined that will address the additional Section 305 elements

of the Coastal Zone Act Amendments of 1976. Most of the work activities are

scheduled to be'supplied by contract with various planning agencies and research

institutions. The tasks are:

1. Shorefront Access Planning

Activities within this task are grouped into two categories: the first

is a legal assessment of beaches; the second addresses beach planning

needs.

A. Beach Legal Assessment
An analysis will be made of the Mississippi Code of 1972 and relevant

judicial decisions to determine the existing laws and state policies,
if any, which govern Mississippi's beaches. This investigation shall
consider but not be limited to 16,he follow*ing topics:

(1) existing legal derinition of the term "beach"
M
2) rights of the public to access to beaches
rights and responsibilities of riparian rights owners
(4) responsibility of owners re: taxes, etc.
(5) responsibility for mainienance of beaches
(6) responsibility for funding of maintenance
7) authoriLy to create beaches
protection of shoreline by bulkheads, groins, breakwaters, etc.

3-21

MISSISSIPPI
B. Shorefront Planning

Physical access to the beaches of the Mississippi Sound is not a

major problem in.two of the three coastal counties of the state.

Within these counties there are over 20 miles of open 'beach of the

state's 69 miles of coastline.

Since beach access problems are similar in Hancock and Harrison

County but different in Jackson County, this task will be developed

separately. * An investigation will be made of Harrison and Hancock

County that will address such user demands as parking, recreational

amenities, including sun shelters, restrooms, fishing piers, and

other features needed by the user. Consideration will also be

given to Cat and Deer Islands.

In addition of addressing those "Out Front" demands, attention will

be given to 'the Back Bay of Biloxi and St. Louis Bay.

Access problems in the areas need to be identified along with
recomr.endaticns for increased usage of these waters by local
residents. This may include but will.not be limited to the need
of additional boat ramps, water parks, piers, and shelters.

Jackson County's requirements differs from those of the western

counties, in that access is very limited in the central portion of

the county. Both of the county's cormunities of Ocean Springs and

Pascagoula have public beaches; however, no assessments have been

made that addresses both existing and anticipated user demands and
the capability or suitability of the beaches..

Additional assessment will be made of access to the Jackson County

portion of the.Back Bay of Biloxi, the bayous of the county, and the

3-22

MISSISSIPPI

Pascagoula River system. This assessment will be similar to those
proposed for Hancock and Harrison Counties.

SHOREFRONT ACCESS PLANNING
cost and Support:

1. Beach Legal Assessment

(To be supplied by the Sea Grant Legal Program; no cost to the
program.)

2. Shorefront Planning

Hancock and Harrison Counties $9,000

This specific task will be developed by contract with Gulf Regional
Planning Commission (GRPC)

Jackson County $6,000

This specific task will be developed by contract with the Jackson

County Planninq Commission

TIME: September 1. 1977 - November 3.0, 1977

3-23

New Hampshire

COASTAL Z014E FIANAGEKENT WORK PROCRAM

PROCRAM CATEGORY NO. 3 Shorefront Access

WORK ELDIENT NO. A Shorefront Access Procedures/Mechanisms (New)

ESTDIATED -COMPLETION TIME: June 1978 FEDERAL GUIDELINE REF. : 923-18

Description of Tasks and Work Products

S-RRC - Defines "Beach" and identifies area subject to definition; identifies
public areas of environmental, recreational, historic, aesthetic or cul-
tural importance requiring access and/or protection; relates data to
previous inventory and designation work on APCs; recommends specific
measures to protect or acquire these areas; identifies existing pro-
grams which could be used for management purposes. Work Product:
Written report with above data.

WP Develops state policies on access and protectioz of public shorefront
areas; identifies mechanisms to implement management techniques.
Work Product: Portion of management program.

ESTIDLkTED FUNDIVz-,
ACENCY FY 78

OCP 6,900

S-RRC 10,000

TOTAL FUNDINC: 16,900

MANPOWER DATA

Total Man Months Allocated from OCP Staff: FY 78

Professional 3

Clerical 1

Remarks:

3-24

New York

Task 2.5 - Public Access Planning Process.

- prepare a definition of what constitutes a "beach" and "public
access" for purposes of the Coastal Management ProcTZM.

- Ioc,ate existing public access sites and recognized areas of
visual importance and identify need for improvement of existing
access sites and/or desirability for protection.

- determine need for additional access and identify potential for
additional public and visual access.

- cxamine present public land holdings and identify shore access
needs in relation to uses and centers of population.

3-25

New York

- investigate the opportunity for multiple use - Joint development
of coastal dependent sires with specific regard to provision of
public access.

- identify areas of fragfle resources where public access should
be limited or conditionally restricted.

- consider the need to designate some major existing or potential
public or visual access sites as areas of pa@rdcular concern.*

- develop a management -program for public and visual access
including coordination of existing acquisition programs and recom-
mendations for new programs and policy guidelines for the
private role in the access program.

Task 2.6 - Recreation Resources.

- summarize and update the Statewide Comprehensive Recreation
Ban and other inventories of coastal recreational resources
and estimates of use and future demands.

- analyze existing and proposed recreation development in the
coastal area with regard to sponsor, type, adequacy and need
for provision of additional recreational opportunities.

- identify areas of potential recreational opportunity or develop-
meat that could be made available by future water quality improve-
ment,

- identify areas with strong pressures for development of seasonal
horries'and invesrigate effects on the opportunity of public recre-
ational experiences in the coastal area.

- develop policies and management programs for public recreational
resources in the coastal zone, including beach, water dependent
activities and necessary transportation facilities.

3-26

North Carol i na

3. Addressin- Three New Planning Elements The three new

planning elements that have been added to those origi-

nally within the FCZILA will be addressed in Fiscal Year

1977-78. These are coastal access, energy facilities

siting, and shoreline erosion. Each of these elements

must be studied and a plan for each must be developed

and written into the Management Plan by October, 1978.

This process is just beginning and the specifics have

not yet been determined. We are requesting contractual

funds to address these planning elements with the under-

standing that CZM approval will be required before any

contracts can be initiated.

3-27

Ohio

3-4.1 BEACH ACCESS

rurp2.bZe: To develop a planning process that can identify public shorefroat
areas appropriate for protection and/or-increased access.

Method: Pursuant to 1976 Amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act, the
Division of Water will define the term "beach", and will develop a planning
process for the protection of, and access to, public beaches and other public
coastal areas of environmental. recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological,
or cultural value. This process will be coordinated with shoreline municipali-
ties and park districts, and with related divisions of the Ohio Department of
Nautral Resources.

End Product,: A work paper summarizing recommendations.

Work SteTm:

- Establish coordination with other agencies.

- Define the term "beach" and identify public areas subject to the
delinition.

- Formulate a procedure for assessing public areas requiring access
andYor protection.

-.Develop State policies pertaining to shorefrone access and/or
protection.

- Fo-zmulate-a method for designation, if appropriate, or shorefront
areas as areas of particular concern for protection and/or access
purposes.

- Prepare a mechanism for. continuing refinement and implementation
of necessary management techniques.

- Identify existing programs that can be applied to meet beach
0
access and/or protection needs.

- Coordinate analysis with other agencies.

- Prepare work paper.

Present work paper to appropriate parties for review and discussion.

Budget: Division of Water $10,000

Schedule: 9/30/77 - 3/31/78

3-28

uregun

GRANT WORK PROGRAM

Public Shorefront Access and Protection

Objective: To provide information and methods to assist local
governments and state agencies in determining access and pro-
tection needs for existing public coastal shorelands; to describe
and improve, as necessary, processes for addressing those needs
through comprehensive planning (Goals 5, 8, 16, 17, 18, and 19)
and other public programs for management of public lands (e.g.
Departnent of Transportation (DOT), Parks Division, State Parks
and Beach Access Programs; Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Angler Access program; Division of State Lands (DSL) and State
Board of Forestry access policy; and local and federal programs);
and to describe state policy toward shorefront access and pro-
tection.

Task 1: Describe existing shorefront access and protection
programs of local government and state and federal
agencies. D *escribe the planning process for those
programs. Determine whether each process meets
state goal requirements; meets local, state and
federal needs for access to and protection of public
lands; and is adequately coordinated with the local
comprehensive planning program.

Develop criteria with coastal cities and counties
and state and federal agencies for determining and
incorporating public land access and protection
needs in comprehensive plans. -

Where improved planning processes or coordination
are called for work with applicable public agencies
to complete improvements.

$11,000 Grant - DOT
2,000 Grant - DLCD
10,000 Match - DOT, IN-KIND
TOTAL $23,000

Task 2: Prepare a comprehensive inventory of public lands
within the coastal shoreland planning area defined
in Goal 17. Inventory all local, state and federal
lands from county inventories or records. Determine
the purpose of existing public ownership and any
special public values associated with the land. De-
termine the extent of public use of the land. Deter-
mine what access or protection, if any, exists for
each parcel.

3-29

Oregon

The product of this task will be county by county
index maps of all public coastal shorelands and a
catalog to go.along with each map of the information
gathered on each ownership. The catalog will be
prepared so that it can be easily expanded, updated
and information is readily retrievable. This inventory
will provide information for comprehensive plans
and public access programs and will provide a com-
plete record of public shorelands which potentially
could be traded f or private lands as a means of
providing access.

$30,000 Grant - CONTRACT
1,000 Grant - DLCD
2,000 Match - IN-KIND
TOTAL $33,06-0
Grant Total for 305 b(7) Grant - $44,000
Match - $12,000

3-30

Puerto Rica- SCHEDULE ALLOCATION COSTS
12. SHOREFRONT ACCESS PLANNING Nov. I.- June 30 DNR - Major responsibili- Total - $45,482
ty for conductining inven-
In order to satisfy the requirements of 923.18, tory, field work, topping,
DNR will undertake additional study to develop and preparation of draft
"Doe a planning process that can identify public access plan. DNR - 38,838
shorefront areas appropriate for protection
and/or increased access." Third-year work hag PI.B - 861
identified a number of aspects where additional PB - support role
work, including research, inventory and legal RMFA - 5.783
clarification, is needed in order to develop
such a process. Thin task will begin during RFMA - Support role in
the second half of the fourth year and will preparation of inventory
continue,into the first year of 306 work. form and review of staff
Development of the shorefront access planning outputs, particularly as
process will involve 3 general types of. work--- related to meeting feder-
inventory and field work; planning, and legal al requirements.
work.
12-1. Development of an inventory form to be utilized Nov. 1 Dec. 30
in surveying the current access situation.
The inventory will first be utilized on a
test basis for the northeast and/or southwest
coasts. Maps will be prepared reflecting
the data collected, includtng areas deemed
accessible and inaccessible.
12-2. The data and maps will be reviewed (a) to Jan. 1 April 30
determine if modiciation of the inventory
procedure is needed, and (b) to analyze the
current and potential types of access in the
test area(s). Following modification, if
necessary, field work and inventory will
continue for other parts of the coast as time
allows. Review and planning for additional
areas will continue as results of field work
are available. output will be sectional
summaries and accompanying maps.

SCHEVULE ALLOCATroN- -COSTS
12-3. A draft access plan using the sectional sum- May 1 June 30
maries and maps, will be developed which can
assess public areas requiring access and/or
protection as APC's and other means to ensure
continued access, including acquisition. The
draft plan will include an evaluation of the
need for Commonwealth purchase of additional
accessways and identification of high priority
areas and an analysis of sources available
for acquisition.
butput of Task 12 will be a draft access plan
which includes policy statements and implemen-
tation measures.
Notes It is anticipated that during the first-
year 306 work, the draft plan will be
revised following legal clarification
of a number of specific issues which will
affect implementation.

Rhode Island

2) Shoref.ront and Beach Protection and Access Planniniz
Procesz

A
-icle 1, Section 17 of the Rhode Island state con-
rt
stitution declares: "The people shall continue to enjoy
and fully exercise all the rights of fishery and the
privileges of the shore." During the past 20 years,
the state has taken the following steps to protect this
constitutional mandate-

a) In may, 1956, the Rhode Island General Assembly
passed a resolution creating a Special Commission
to Discover Public Rights of Way to Water Areas
of the State. In 1958, upon the recommendation of
the Special Commission, the General Assembly per-
manently established the Commission on Discovery and
Utilization of Public Rights-of-Way which, in 1970,
published the State of Rhode Island Public Rights-cf-
Way to the Shore identifying 146 public rights-of-way
in twelve cities and towns along the statels coas'
01
line. These rights-of-way were located by the use
of aerial- photographs, and are being marked by the
state Department of Natural Resources in cooperation
with abutting proper-y owners. Fifty-three of the
1@8 have been det-ermined appropriate for supplernental.
development for recreational use based on evalua-
tion of their terrain, access, location, and. zoning
of the surrounding, area. All 1A8 have been denoted
on a state map (scale I ince = 8,888 feet) published
in 1973.

b) The'Rhode Island Coastal Resources MAnagement Council
was legislatively created in 1971, and is granted
authority over any development or operation within,
above, or beneath the tidal water below the mean
high water mark (G.L. R.I. 1956, 46-23-6(B)), and
over shoreline protection and physiographic features
(G.L. R.I. 1956, 46-23-6(B(d)). Coastal physiographic
features are defined as those natural geologic fea-
tures above mean high water that are presently being

3-33

Rhode Island

shaped and modified by tidal waters. These include
but are not limited to, beaches, barrier beaches,
sand spits, bluffs, cliffs, and scarps dir"tly
inland of the mean high water mark or a beach, or
a coastal wetland (State of Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Council Plan Policies and Re
ulations, 15-4-2)'. The Council recognizes the value
of the coastal region for recreation activities and
shall pernit recreational development in those in-
stances which makes the best use of scarce shore-
lines, which does not'. interfere with the public right
of access to the shoreA and which does not damage
valuable natural areas scenic vistas (State of Rhode
Island Coastal Resources Management Council Plan
Policies and Regulations, 12-5).
c) Technical Paper Number 21, Protection and Control
of the Saltwater Shore Area, prepared by the State-
wide Planning Program-and a consultant and pvblished
in May, 1972, explores methods of protecting and mod-
ulating use of the land area irnmediately adjoining
the salt water shoreline. An area extending along
the state's entire saltwater shoreline, including
islands, coves, peninsulas, tidal rivers and reaches
and salt ponds, was defined through the applicat-ion
of seventeen criteria reflecting both natural and
man-made characteristics.

d) Public Shore Privileges-in Rhode Island by the Yale
Legislative Services, published in March, 1973,
contains legal citations providing background for
the creative use of Article I, Section 17, and put
specific content into and defines some of the rights
and privileges to the shore.

e) The "Final Report of the Chairman" of the Rights-
of-Way to the Shore Ccmmission, published in March
1976, recortmends the termination of the Commission
mandate and transfer of the remaining phases of the
Commission's work to the 'State Properties Committee,
the Statewide Plannin 4- Program, and the State Depart-
ment of Natural Resources.

f) The Coastal Resources Center two volume study, Marine
Technical Report No. 4, Rhode Island's Bars-ier Beaches,
has inventoried, mapped and described.the character-
istics of all,of the state's barrier beaches, and
reports on the options for sound management of the
resource.

3-34

Rhode Island

9) Report Number 23, Plan for Recreation, Conservation.,_
and Open Spacc (ScoRp)s published January, 1976, by
the Stati-wide Planning Program. as part of the'Statg
Guide Plan, inventories and maps at 1:24,000 (USGS
quadrangle sheets),, the state's entire salt beach
frontage, as defined by use, by federal, state, local
and private ownership. The SCORP identifies 23 miles
of beach on the 419 total miles of coastline. It
Is estimated that 59 percent of the state's beaches
are held in public ownership.

h) The draft State of Rhode Island Coastal Resources
Management Procgrani, Spring, 197b, describes the
state's coastal nanagement. program and process, and
is being revised according to coTmnents obtained from
OCZM.during an intensive pre-submission review.
"Appendix A: Coastal Resources Inventory and Assess-
ment" describes under transitional systems, boulder
beaches, high energy sand beaches and dunes, and low
energy sand beaches.

I) The Bay Islands Park: A Marine Recreation Plan,
Au,o;ust, 1976, proposes the development of an island
park recreational system in Narragansett. Bay, utili-
zing surplused federal holdings, state-owned proper-
ties, an-d state acquisition of selected privately
owned properties.

Rhode Island's Coastal Natural Areas: Priorities
for Protection and Manag-@-rnent, University of Rhode
Island Marine Technical Report No. 43 identifies 28
sites alont- the state's coastline selected as having
the natural qualities highest in value to the state.
These areas are suggested for incorporation in'to the
Coastal Resources Management Council Plan, Policies
and Regulations. Of the areas listed, most can be
categorized as salt marshes, coastal pond complexes
or scenic cliff/rock outcrops.

3-35

Rhode Island

2) SHOREFRONT AND BEACH PROTECTION AND ACCESS PLANNING PROCESS

CRC a) Define the term,beach and identify public areas subject
to the definition

CRC b) Develop a procedure for assessing public areas requiring
DNR access and/or protection as part of the process for ident-
ifying geugrphic areas ot particular concern.

CRMC c) Develop state policies pertaining to shorefront
DNR access and/or protection.
CRC,

CRC d) Develop a methodolo y fordesignating shorefront areas
'9
.C
DNR as areas o.L. particular concern for protection and/or
access purposes.

CRMC e) Develop a mechanism for continuing refinement and im-
DNR plementation of necessary management techniques.

DNR f) Identify existing programs that can be applied to
CRC n. anagernent needs.

-e the planning process with the State Compre-
DNR g) Coordinat
hensive Cutdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP).

CRC h) Identify specific areas for which access through ac-
quisition, including funding under the provisions of
section 315(2) of the CZM Act, will be appropriate
during the program implerientation.

DNR JL) Research rights-of-way to the shore in co=nunities
pxeviously not surveyed by the Public Rights-of-Way
to the Shore Commission.

3-36

Texas
The purpose of this task is to inventory beaches curreptly open to the
public, estimate current and projected use demands, identify issues not
adequately addressed by present state policy, and identify or recommend a

planning process that can meet management needs pertaining-to shorefront
access. Specific issues considered will include the environmental and safety

aspects of vehicle traffic and the adequacy of parking facilities.

This task will be conducted by the staff of the-General Land Office

and supervised by a special steering committee composed of the Land Commissioner,

the Chairman of the Parks and Wildlife Commission, and Senator A. R. Schwartz,

Chairman of the TCMC. This steering committee is needed because the responsi-

bilities for protection and development of recreational shorefront along the

stil,atels coast are divided between the General Land Office and the Parks and

Wildlife Department, and the legislature has, during the tenure and at the

behest of Senator Schwartz, taken an active role in beach and coastal policy

and development. Use of this steering committee to di*rect and coordinate thlis

task assure the relevance MF the work to the programs *being administered by the

Parks and Wildlife Department and by the General Land Office, and it will further

assure that the work products are timely and in point for use by the Senate

Interim Beach Study Committee chaired by Senator-Schwartz. Recommendations will

be made by June 1, 1978 and presented to the legislature, the Senate Interim

Beach Study Corimittee, and the Natural Resources Council.

Sub-Task 1: The technical staff will propose a definition of

"beach" for the purposes of the Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Act and on the basis of currently available maps

of-state, federal, and locally owned ldnds, determine

currently accessible beaches.

Sub-Task 2: The Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan and other documents,

such as the studies which preceded passage of the Open

Beaches Act, will be reviewed for access demand pro-

3-37
jections and recowendations. Updated information

Texa s
from state, regional, and local agencie4 will be sought,

and public involvement will be solicited. Issues to

be considered include areas of desirable (demanded)

access, areas of currently restricted access, areas

of congestion due to excessive demand, and areas of use

conflict (parking, public encroachment on private land,

dune areas suffering because of beach access, waste

control problems. traffic and security problems, offroad

vehicle problems, concession problems).

Sub-Task 3: Legal and Institutional Analysis. Among the issues

examined will be the enforcement of open beaches laws,

the capability of cities and counties in beach planning,

and Corps of Engineers authority and programs in beach
protection and nourishmen-v.

Sub-Task 4: Integr ation of Island Access and Hazard Policy. Improved

island/beachfront access may increase the number of lives

and the amounts of prope.-Ity risked to coastal hazards such

as hurricanes. Consideration must be given to means to

limit,risk while.affording maximum use of recreational

waterfront.

Sub-Task 5: Formulation and Selection of Recommendations. Shorefront

access is in some states severely limited by topography

and the patterns and rights of waterfront ownership. The

situation is somewhat'different in Texas, where wetlands

and other valuable natural areas may need the protecticn

of inaccessibility; and enjoyment of themiles of accessible

Gulf beaches may require limitation of longitudinal access

by motor vehicles. In sum, conflicting policy interests

must be considered. The recommendations of this task will

3-38

Texas

deal with the adequacy of state policy in substantive

policy areas--such as means to provide lateral and/or

perpendicular beach access, needed state purchase of land

or access, improved highway access--and with issues

concerning the establishment of an improved management

process for shorefront access if the present system appears

inadequate. The CMP Advisory Committee will play an

iinportant role in developing the final recommendations.

3-39

Virginia

508 SHOREFRONT ACCESS

5D8.l INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS

Beach sites. Potential, suitable, and planned beach sites will
r
be identified.

Public access. Issues and problems with respect to public
access will b described, and a summary of existing public
access conditions will be prepared.

508.2 PLANNING

Guidelines. Guidelines to assist local governments in planning
for beach sites will be prepared.

Programs for access. Programs and methods for establishing
public access w e identified and proposed, including
guidelines for local governments.

SHOREFRONT ACCESS

Office of Commerce and Resources $ 1,651
Virginia Institute of Marine Science 8,022
Commission of Outdoor Recreation 14,723
$ 24,396

3-40

Virgin Islands

101. Shorefront Access (Section 305(b) (7))

This requirement will be treated either as a separate work element

sched.uled for completion following the 306 submission, or it will

be integrated into the 306 document. If the latter course of action

is necessary, the shorefront access issues will be included in the

various program elements, particularly those elements dealing with

permissible use, geographic areas of particular concern, and imple-

mentation authorities. Regardless of the approach, the substance

of the process will be the same, resulting in "a definition of the

term beach and a planning process for the protection of, and access.

to, public beaches and other coastal areas of envi ronmental, historical,

aesthetic, ecological procultural value."

A. Approach_and_Techniques

1. A definition of the term "beach" will be developed. The

definition will be in terms of physical components (line of

vegetation, foreshore area, etc.), and use patterns.

2. A procedure will be developed for identifying public beaches

and other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational,

historical, aesthetic, ecological or cultural value that

require protection or access. "Public areas" will be defined

in terms of customary use, as well as governmental or non-

profit ownership.
In assessing these public areas, special attention will be

directed toward identifying the attributed and resource

potentials of the various offshore islands and cays. This

effort will be conducted in conjunction with the Department

of Conservation and Cultural Affairs.

Virgin Islands

3. The criteria in this assessment will be integrated into

the APC designation process.

4. A procedure will be developed which will identify specific

areas which will require the acquisition of access rights.

5. An inventory will be developed identifying existing funding
programs (federal and territorial) which may be utilized for

access and/or protection purposes.

6. Development of policies and program which will insure pro-

tection/access forpublic areas will be instituted. Special

attention will be given to utilizing legal doctrines such as

customary use and implied dedication as a means of protecting

public access rights.

Additionally, the feasibility of using other techniques, such

as requiring publi c access guarantees as a condition for

coastal zone permit approval, will be investigated.

7. Development of a mechanism for continuing refinement and

implementation of necessary management techniques will be

undertaken.

B. Plans, Products, Studies to be Produced

The completion of the Shorefront Access element will result in

the incorporation of this analysis into the existing APC, per-

missible use and authorities elements, and as the land and water

use designations. Maps will be pruduced indicating the location

and extent of shorefront areas of environmental, historical,

aesthetic, and ecological value. These maps will supplement the

resource inventory maps initiated in the first grant year. The

assessment of the offshore islands and cays will culminate in the

3-42

Virgin Is4ands

publication of an atlas which details the analysis and recommend-

ations for future use.

C. Data

The preponderance of data to be used in completing this element

will be from inventories of the land ownership, value, location,

etc. legal and resource analyses, and public and governmental

input from the first and second year programs. The assessment of

offshore islands and cays will be completed in conjunction with

an analysis presently being conducted by the Department of Con-

servation and Cultural Affairs.

D. Manpower Requirements

No. Position

I Director, Bureau of fish and Wildlife (C & CA)
1 Assistant Director of Planning
I Landscape Architect
2 Associate Planners
2 Planning Assistants
I Draftsman
1 Administrative Secretary
I Clerk Typist
I Administrative Officer

E. Time Schedule

In House Staff 6 man-months

Time Period 2 months

F. Cost

Consultant.Fee $1,000

Federal $12,122

Non-Federal 3,029
Total $15,151

3-43

PART A: WORK PROGRAM Wisconsin

Introduction

Among the Amendments of 1976, (P.L. 94-370) incorporated into' the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) were three new planning require-
ments added to Section 305(b) Management Program Development Grants. They
are as follows:

11(7) A definition of the term "beach" and a planning process for the
protettion of, and access to, public beaches and other public
coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical,
esthetic, ecological, or cUltural value.

"(8) A planning process for eneray facilities likely to be located
in, or which may significant-ly affect, the coastal zone, in-
cluding, but not limited to,.a process for anticipating and
managing the impacts from such facilities.
(9) A planning process. for (A) assessing the effects of shoreline
erosion (however caused), and (8) studying and evaluating ways
to control, or lessen the impact of, such erosion, and -to re-
store areas adversely affected by such erosion.
"No management program is required Im n*et the requirements in
paragraphs (7), (8@ and (9) before October 1, 1978.1'
This supplement to the third year Section 30S grant includes the necessary
activities to meet these three requirements. This supplement also requests
a tfime extension for one of the work elements of thi third year grant, de-
vel@pment of a clearinghouse model.

Current Status of Wisconsin Coastal Management Progran

Wisconsints Governor has submitted for approval under Section 305 the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program (see Appendix C.). The Governor was sent a letter
indicating preliminery approval on September 12. 1977,* from the Acting Adminis-
trator of the Office of Coastal Zone Managrament, U.S. Department of Con.,-@erce
(see Appendix D.). The Wisconsin Coastal Managemen4- Program will nvi undprgo
an extensive federal review under the National Environmental Policy Act, leading
to implementation of the Section 306 Program in mid-19748. Wisconsin will com-
plete the new Section 3CS(b) (7. 8 and 9) requirements under this supplement-al
grant by the October 1978 deadline and submit them as an amendment to the
approved Section 306 Program. (See also Part C: Calendar of Future Events).

Shorefront Access Planning Process

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will document Wiscohsin's
compliance with Section 305(b)(7). Because of past DNR and Coastal Management
Program efforts, the work will only take an estimated four months,.October 1977
to February 1978, at a cost of $4,400 ($3,520 federal funds with $880 state
match). The funds will support the salary ($2900) and fringe benefits ($620,
22X) of a limited term planning analyst. The DNR will provide the Mtch in the
form of supervision and agency review of the resulting document.

3-44

Wisconsin

The objective is to develop a procedure to identity access requirements and
a means to coordinate the acquisition and protection of shorefront areas with
the present institutional apparatus. The work to be completed includes:

1. An updating and analysis of public access work completed in 19741
1975 under the Coastal Management Development Program;

2. Review and coordination with LAWCON Plans developed by local
governments and the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(SCORP); and,

3. A review of the current means for shorefront access identification
and acquisition and sugg-est-ions for its modification to meet the.
requirements of the State Coastal Management Program.

Project Asency Federal Fundin%-4 State Match Total.
Shorefront Access Dept. of Natural
Planning Process Resources $ 3,520 S 680 $ 4,400

1-45

Washington

MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 19, 1977

TO: File

FROM: Chris Dillon

SUBJECT: Washington Application for 3 New Planning Elements

Per telephone conversation today with Mike Kirk of the grantee's
staff, estimated task costs and man-months per taskare as follows;

Task One - Beach Access $50,902 6MM

Task Two - Energy facility
Siting $62,397 3MM

Task Three - Erosion $10,451 3MM

Mr. Kirk also informed me that the A-95 review period for this
application had ended and no additional comments were received.

With his concurrence revisions were made to idems 3., 12. and 13. of the
SF-424.

He indicated that the Western Regional Office of Audits would probably
audit this grant.

3-46

Washington

SECTION 305 GRANT REQUEST
0 (REVISIONS)

PROBLEM STATEMENTS

A. BEACH ACCESS:

Wa0ington's marine shoreline is mostly in private ownership thus_
making publicly owned areas extremely valuable for public recreation.
Approximately 60% of the saltwater tidelands in the State were sold
by the State to the adjacent upland owners between statehood in 1889
and 1971 when the legislature decreed an end to this practice. About
1,160 miles of marine tideland remain th State ownership today, but
much of this is generally inaccess'ible to the public, except by boat,
due to the fact that the upland property abutting the beach is in
.private ownership. Another complicating factor is that approximately
25% of the publicly owned beach areas cannot be used for recreational
purposes since they are leased for various types of aquaculture. Still
more complicating factors are that the topography of the Puget Sound
region (which contains the bulk of the State's population) contains a
substantial percentage of high bank or bluff topography which is not
conducive for access to beach areas, a substantial portion of marine
shoreline is contained in islands which are accessible only b@ boat
(including some publicly owned land) and there has been only partial
success in establishing public access areas in private developments.

From the above it is apparent that although Washington State is
especially well endowed with marine shorelifies, the areas available
to the public are relatively few in number. The planning process to
be developed for beach access will attempt to expand the areas avail-
able to the public in order to disperse the extreme pressure exerted
on those areas that are currently available.

3-47

Washington

TASK DESCRIPTIONS

The following-are the revised task description based on the requirements contained
within the revised regulations for Coastal Zone Management Program Development
Grants in the April 29, 1977, Federal Register.

TASK ONE - BEACH ACCESS

A planning process will be developed which will include:
1. a procedure for assessing public areas requiring access or protection;
2. a definition of the term-"beach" and an identification of public areas
which meet that definition;

3. articulation of State policies pertaining to shorefront access and/or
protection; and

4. an identification of funding programs and other techniques that can be
used to meet management needs.

Point one and the second part of point two will be carried out by a contractor.
The contract amount will not exceed $21,946. The first part of point two and
parts three and four will be carried out by Department staff.
4
The methodology to be employed in development of this planning process will, in
part, involve the following:

A. Development of a definition for the term "beach":

The Department will form an ad hoc advisory team to assist in developing
a definition for the term "beach". This team will include members from
federal, state and local government agencies. The definition to be
developed will be comprehensive enough to encompass the wide range of
beach morphologies existent in the State of Washington which are suitable
for some form of public recreation.

B. Development of procedure for assessing public areas requiring access or
protection:

Department staff, selected staff from other agencies and the Department's
contractor will develop a procedure for assissing public areas requiring-
access or protection. The ad hoc advisory committee will oversee the
selection of the criteria used in the assessment.

The procedure will likely involve:

1. analysis of the location and*extent of existing public ownership
of shorefornt and tideland areas;

2. analysis of existing plans for acquisition of additional shorefront
areas by public agencies as stated in the Statewide Comprehensive

3-48

Washington

Outdoor Recreation Plan, local government park and recreation plans,
acquisition programs of State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies
etc.;

3. analysis of the distribution of existing public access points in-
relation to the population distribution within the State;

4. development of a system for identifying shorefront areas requiring
protective measures as opposed to public access; and

5. development of criteria regarding the suitability of potential
public access areas including such considerations as compatibility
of adjacent uses, physical characteristics of the site, proximity
to population concentrations and environmental characteristics.

C. Identification of public areas which meet the definition of the term
9each":

Based on the definition of the term "beach" the Department's contractor
will inventory the marine shoreline areas of the State and identify those
areas which meet this definition. The contractor will then prioritize
those seleced stretches'of mareine shoreline in ierms of their suitability

8 above. Specific parcels will not be identified in order to avoid
speculative investiment, but rather shoreline segments will be delineated
which contain parcels or areas which meet the general criteria for
acquisition.

3-49

Appendix Four: Source Materials

1. Excerpts from A Report on a Seashore Recreation Area Survey. 4..;2
NPS. DOI. 1955, pp. 7-13.

2. Our.Vanishing Shoreline. NPS. DOI. 1966 (excerpts). 4-8

3. Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States. ORRRC Study 4-13
Report 4. Washington: George Washington University, 1962.
Excerpts, pp. 3-5, 28-31.

4. Report on the National Shoreline Study. DOD. U.S. Corps. 1971. 4-21
Excerpt, p. 13.

5. From Sea to Shining-Sea. A Report on the American Environment- 4-22
Our National Heritage. President's Council on Recreation and
National Beauty. Washington: GPO, 1968. Excerpts, pp. 174-179.

7. U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resource's 4-40
(Stratton Commission's) Panel Report, Vol. III. -Science and Envi-
ronment. Excerpts, pp. 111-5, 111-15-17).

8. Stratton Commission. Our Nation and the Sea. Excerpts; pp. 52-53. 4-42

9. Excerpts from Senate Report 94-277 and House Report 94-878 from 4-44
the Legislative History of the Coastal Zone Management Act of
.1972, as Amended in 1974 and 1976 With a Section-by-Section Index.
Washington: GPO, 1976. pp. 755-56, 918-19, 923-24, 949.

10. Funding Authorizations for National Seashores (Table) from "A 4-48
Review of the Acquisition Costs of National Seashores." Congres.-
sional Research Services, 1977.

4-1

Excerpts from A Report on a Seashore Recreation Area Survey. NPS. DOL.
1955. pp. 7-13.

SMwARy OF FINDiNGS AND RECOMNDATIONS

Of the 1,700 miles of general shoreline constituting the
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts,, there are 240 miles, or 6-g' percent, in
Federal and State ownership for public recreation purposes.

Within these 240 miles there are 39 areas: 2 national
parks., 1 national seashore recreation area and 36 State seashores.
There are in addition 4 national wildlife refuges with ocean
beaches which are not primarily utilized for public recreation.

Over 50 percent of the 240 miles Is contained in the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area and in Acadia and Ever-
glades National Parks. However., neither Acadia nor Everglades
National Park contains much beach.frontage suitable for seashore
recreation activities.

The 1955 seashore survey identified and reported upon
126 undeveloped areas. Of this total 72 were eliminated from
further consideration because they lacked recreation potentialities
or were unavailable for public use.

The remaining 54 areas were believed to be of interest'to
local, State or Federal agencies as possible public seashores.
These 54 areas, which contain about 640 miles of beach and comprise
17 percent of the shoreline of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, con-
stitute the major remaining opportunities for conservation of sea-
shore resources.

Of the 54 areas most suitable for public seashore recre-
ation, 6 of the areas and one-third of the total beach mileage are
in one State - Texas; two of the 54 areas were considered to be
superior to all the others. (Twenty-eigbt areas were judged to be
of exceptional importance and the respective States are negotiating
for 8 of these.)

There was a striking parallel between this recreation sur-
vey and the two-year inventory of the wetlands of the United States.,
conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Of the 54 most desirable
areas listed by this survey., all but 6 had been rated in the wetlands
inventory as possessing high or moderate value of birdlife.

Within the most densely populated section of the seashore.,
between Massachusetts and Delaware@, there are 18 undeveloped areas
containing 118 miles of coastline. The.extreme importance of ac-
quiring additional seashore in this region is vividly emphasized by

4-2

RePort on Seashore Recreation Area Survey.

the conclusion of the recent Yale University City Planning survey:
that the entire 600-mile area of the eastern seaboard from Portland,
Maine, to Norfblk@ Virginia, can be designated as a single, linear
city containing one-fifth of the Nation's population.

In 1935 a survey of undeveloped se ashore areas conducted
by the National Park Service recommended that 12 major undeveloped
areas with a total shoreline of 439 miles be preserved as national
seashores. Only one of the 12 areas--Cape Hatteras--was set aside
for this purpose, and 10 of the 2.1 areas which were reco nded for
preservation in 1935 are now in various stages of private or com-
mercial development.

The movement to buy up seashore property for commercial
and private use has had its greatest impetus since 1945., and an
economic boom in seashore property is a phenomenon of the entire
coast. Extensive and costly developments now line mile after mile
of seashore which before World War 32 was uninhabited.

One of the areas recommended as a national seashore in
1935 vas 30 miles long and could have been purchased for $26oooo.
Less than 9 miles remain undeveloped today, and the cost of pur-
chasing the land now would be more then $1,,000,000--an increase
in value of 1200 percent in 20 years.

A second area selected in 1935 was--and is--accessible
only by boat. Despite this haAdicap, the island has been subdivided
and a majority of the 5,,000 lots sold--with no access in sight.
The price has skyrocketed from $26 an acre to $65 a front foot.

Every factor exerting influence on the pattern of use of
the seashore will tend to make conditions far worse in coming years.
Outdoor recreation is fast becoming a major industry. More and more
persons and interests will be competing for less and less available
beach.

The Census Bureau estimates that in 20 years--by 1975--
the population of the United States will jump to over 200,000,000.
The fact that the population will nearly double in 50 years does not
mean the number of visitors to the beach will merely double.

From 1934 to 1954 the number of visitors to the national
parks increased from 6.,000.,000 to 48,000,000. In 40 years, the
ratio of visitors to the national parks to total population has
increased from 1 in 300 to 1 in 3. Within the 20-year period, 1934-
1954, visitation to New York State Park beaches has increased from
5,000,000 persons to 61,000,000.

4-3

1. Report on Seashore Recreation Area Survey.

Considering these facts, it is recommended:

That at least 15 percent of the general shoreline of the
'Atlantic and Gulf coasts be acquired for public recreation purposes.
If public agencies acquire half of the suitable undeveloped seashore
land remaining, they would then have, including their existing areas,
the recommended 15 percent.

That highest priority be given.to the acquisition of the
following 16 areas:

Great Beach, Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Cumberland Island, Georgia
Fire Island, New York
Shinnecock lalet,-New York
Padre Island, Texas
Smith Island, North Carolina
Bogue.Banks, North Carolina
St. Joseph Spit, Florida
Mosquito Lagoon,Ylorida
Parramore Island, Virginia
Kiawah Island, South Carolina
Marco-Beach, Florida
Debidue Island, South Carolina
Popham-St. John, Maine
Crescent Area, Maine
Brazos Island, Texas

That prompt action be taken to acquire available beach
sites before the best of the remaining areas are acquired for private
or commercial development. The attention of all persons and organi-
zationis in a position to give aid should be solicited.

That the acquisition of areas be related as directly as
possible to the distribution of tributary population, excepting
those areas that are of such outstanding-quality that the n*eed for
their preservation justifies acquisition regardless of location.

That ample quantities of hinterlands of marsh and swamp,
which provide a valuable habitat for a large and interesting variety
of bird and an-Imal life, be acquired in connection with acquisition
of beach property.

That biotic communities of great scientific interest found
along the seashore be acquired and preserved regardless of the de-
sirability of the adjoining beach, and that consideration be given to
biotic communities at present in a modified condition but which might
return to a more natural condition if permitted to remain undisturbed.

7hat more detailed studies be made of selected coastal areas
of unusual importance, giving consideration to proper boundaries and
long range planning for best utilization of reareation values.

4-4

I. R ort on Seashore Recreation Area Survey.

THE REMAINM OPPORTUNITIES

The survey group Inspected and reported upon 126 un-
developed axess in the 18 States along the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts. A brief description and evaluation of each is contained
in the following pages. The 54 most outstanding areas are grouped
below and listed from north to south., and the 16 areas judged to be
of highest priority for acquisition and conservation by a public
agency are underscored.

Maine:

Roque Island
Castine
Popham-St. John
Pemaquid
Prouts Neck-Scarboro
Crescent
Crescent Surf

Massachusetts:

Plun Island
Duxbury Beach
Great Beach (Outer am., Cape Cod)
Sandy Neck
Monomoy Island
Nantucket Island
Marthas Vineyard
Washburn Island
Naushon Island
Horseneck

]Rhode Island:

Charlestown Beach

New York:

Gardine rs Island
Shinnecock Inlet
Fire Is land

New Jersey:

Idttle Egg Harbor
Seven Mile Beach

Delaware:

Rehoboth Beach North

4-5

1. Report on Seashore Recreation Area Survey.

Maryland:

Assateague Island

Virginia:

Assateague Island
Parramore Island
Hog Island

North Carolina:

Core Banks
Shackleford Banks
Bogue Banks
Onslow Beach
Federal Point
Smith Island

South Carolina:

Waiter Island
Debidue Island
Kiawah Island

Georgia:

Ossabaw Island
St. Catherines Island
Sapelo Island
Cumberland Island

Florida:

Melbourne Beach-Vero Beach
Mosquito Tagoon
Keys (Big Pine, Summerland, Cudjoe, Ramrod,
No-Name, Big Torch, Middle Torch)
Marco Beach
St. Joseph Spit

Mississippi:

Horn Island
Ship Island

Louisiana:

Grande Terre Island

4-6

Re2ort on Seashore Recreation Area Survey.

Texas:

East coast
Galveston Island
Stephen Astin Island
Matagorda Peninsula
Padre Island
Brazos Island

4-7

2. Our Vanishin& Shoreline. NPS. DOI. 1966 (excerpts).

what the survey found out

oreboding is the only wo'rd that ade- seashore recreation area, and 36 State sea-
quately describes the situation so clearly pic- shores. In addition there are eight national
tured by the survey. wildlife refuges, plus a few small keys and
islands, with ocean beaches that are not pri-
In summary, the findings show that al- marily used for public recreation. A few
most every attractive seashore area from counties and municipalities own and operate
Maine to Mexico that is accessible by road public beaches.
4 has been developed, has been acquired for
development purposes, or is being considered 3. More than half of the 240 miles is
for its development possibilities. contained in the Cape Hatteras National Sea-
shore Recreational Area (North Carolina)
The few accessible and undeveloped and in Acadia and Everglades National Parks
beach sites left are scattered sparsely along (Maine and Florida). Neither of the national
the coast. They are small-and they arego- parks contains much beach frontage suitable
in- fast. Inaccessible beach sites, including for seashore recreafion.
offshore islands, are almost the only hope for
preservation today. Even many of these are 4. The seashore survey identified and
being purchased by real estate interests for reported on 126 undeveloped areas. Of this
subdivision purposes. total 72 were eliminated from present con-
sidcration because they lack recreation poten-
A few statistics sharpen up the picture: tialities or are unavailable for public use.

1. Of the 3,700 miles of general shore- 5. The reniainino* 54 areas arc believed
line constitutina the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, to be of interest to local, State, or Federal
only 6y2 percent, or 240 miles, are in Federal agcncies as possible public seashores. These
and State ownership for public recreation 54 areas, cont-aining about 640 miles of beach
Uses. and comprising 17 percent of the shorelille
of the Atlantic and Gulf coasLs, constitute the
9. Within these 240 miles are 39 areas major remaining opportunities for conserva-
in 14 States: two national parks, one national tion of seashore resources. (Happily, States

4-8

2. our Vanishing Shoreline

are already negotiating for portions of eight of our Nation for seashore recreation. Five
of the 54 areas.) of the areas are of considerable historical im-
portance, and four more may be of national
6. There. is a striking parallel between significance for wildlife conservation pur-
this recreation survey and the tu!o-year inven- poses.
tory of the Nvetlands of the United States con-
ducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Of Within this small booklet it would not
the 54 most desirable areas listed by the rec- be possible to review the details of all the
reation survey, all but six had been rated in shoreline locations found by the survey to
the wetlands inventory as possessing high or be desirable for public use. Several areas,
moderate value for birdlife. however, are specially suitable; a brief pic-
ture of three of these will add flesh and blood
7. Of the 54 areas most suitable for pub- to the statistical bones we have just con-
lic seashore recreation, six of the areas and sidered.
one-third of the total beach mileage are in
Texas. 1. Cumberland Island in southeast Georgia
is considered by the survey to be Elie best
8. Within the most densely populated of its type-the low-lying lands separated
section of the seashore, between Massachu- from the mainland by stretches of niarsh and
setts and Delaware, lie 18 undeveloped areas rivers or estuaries.
containing 118 miles of coastline. The ex-
treme importance of acquiring additional
seashore in this region is vividly emphasized This "sea island" is t1iought to Contain
by the conclusion of Elie recent Yale Univer- practically all the desirable features for pub-
sity City Planning Survey: that the entire liC enjoNllient. It is sufliclend% large to inain-
600-mile area of the eastern seaboard from Lain C0111111unity conditions of its plant and
Portland, Maine to Norfolk, Virginia, can be 2ninial life. lidost of the beach is exception-
designated as a single, linear city containing ally attractive. lt has fresh-WaLeT ponds. The
One-fifth of the Nation's population. dunes are splendid, and fairly well under
control by vegetation. The ocean waters are
9. The 54 undeveloped stretches of sea- warni.xviLh normally drainatic surf effect.
shore selected by the survey range in size
from one mile long to 100 miles. Some are Considering that much timber cutting
located within three hours driving time of has been done on the island, the forest is in
our greatest population centers. All are excellent condition. Fine live oaks, with rich
within one-day travel distance of hundreds fern growth on trunks and linibs, and hung
of thousands of people. with Spanish moss, are abundant. Sea and
shore bird% abound; the island COIlLains a
10. At least two and possibly five of the good varietv of aninials. Fishing in the adja-
areas may be of significance to all the people Cent waters is excellent. NN.ritli a cliniate sini-

4-9

2. Our-Vanishing Shoreline

ilar to Florida but soniewhat less exLreinc in dunes are imposing and usually well stabi-
summer, there arc few places on Lhe Atlantic lized by vegetation. Only at the unique
coast where wore days in the year favor being Sunken Forest is there any considerable
out of doors. growth of trees, but this forest is a gem of its
kind: dominated by American holly Lrees,
This and similar sea-islands along the some several hundred years old, with an ac-
coast played a thrilling role in the New World companiment of sassafras, shadbush, red
Adventure. Here France and Spain vied With cedar, and pitch pine.
each other for the friendship of the Indians:
along this coast Spanish and English colo- Elsewhere the vegetation consists of
nizers fought each other. A Spanish armada beach grass, bayberry, beach plum, winged
of 50 ships and 2,000 soldiers sailed from sumac, reindeer moss, and some pitch pine.
Havana in 1742 and attacked the British for- In places along the bay there is a fairly good
tification on the island. Archeological explo- growth of eelgrass, providing food for wild-
ration may well uncover here facts of con- fowl.
siderable historical meaning.
Because of the tempering influence of
The possibilities of developing Cumber- the Atlantic Ocean, the climate of Fire Island
I.and Island for public recreation and cultural is mild for its northern position. It is one of
enjoynienL are considered to be exceptional. the few beach areas on the Atlantic which
face the sun throu-hout the day.
2. ThL souLh shore of Long Island, New
York is the most convenient seashore recrea-
tion area for the largest population center of The extent of this seashore makes it well,
the United States. VV ithin a small geograph- suited for concentrations of pleasure seekers,
ical radius are gi-ouped not less than nine and also for those who delight in a degree of
million people. The State, of course, has isolation. Historically, the whole stretch of
done much to provide facilities for satisfying coast here is rich in sea adventure.
the yearning for a day at the ocean edge,
but already overloaded conditions are to be
obsen-ed at such places as Jones Beach, Gilgo 3. WhenGosnold, in 1602, cruised along
the outer ann of the peninsula we now call
and CapLree State Parks. The western end Cape Cod and named it for the VaSE schools
of Fire Island is occupied by Fire Island State of fish he encountered in those waters, he
Park-, but the opportunity exists, according landed on what he described as a "white,
to the survey, to make public use of that part sandy and very bold shore." The French
of the magnificent 32-mile barrier beach that explorer Champlain saw it later and called
is still relatively undeveloped. it Cape Blanc for its gleaining sand dunes.
.The Fire Island area is a long, narrow Finally, on a November day in 1620, the
stretch of sand reef, varying from several hun- Pilgrims of the Mayflower turned back into
dred yards to a mile wide. The beach is wide, a harbor, now Provincetou-n, fearing the dan-
clean, and gently sloping, insuring safe and gerous breakers and shoals, and later found
enjoyable swimming in most places. The what seemed a better haven at Plymouth.

4-10

2. Our Vanishing Shoreline

None of these adventurers were seeking Sea, shore, and land birds, together with
fine beaches and a shoreline for recreational an interesting community of animals, offer a
purposes. Three hundred years and more perpetual source of delight to lovers of the
were to pass before the survey party was to wild.
speak of this strip of 30-odd miles in these
terms: Cape Cod is noted as one of the ten most
popular salt-water sport-fishing locations in
"There is no longer any comparable the United States. Occasionally whales are
area in the New England region that seen off shore. Many of the city dwellers of
exhibits all the outstanding values de- New England and New York who have suf-
sirable and suitable for excessive sea- fered under the humid blanket of a "hot
shore recreation. For these reasons alone, spell" are familiar with the refreshing sea
the Great Beach area of Cape Cod breeze of this shore.
merits preservation as a major public
seashore of the North Atlantic coast." There is little opportunity along the
New England coast for exploring undis-
Here is an area not more than 300 miles turbed or remote areas of beach, dunes, and
distant by highway from all six capitals of forests in search of enjoyments other than
the New England States and metropolitan physically recreational. If the Great Beach
New York. area had the status of a major public sea-
shore, it would unquestionably attract in-
Great Beach contains, in its shoreline creasingly large numbers of peoplc from the
and the adjacent land, practically every fea- Country at large and from Canada, besides
ture desirable for preservation for ordinary those who would come from New England
recreational purposes and for the additional and metropolitan New York. At the same
use of historical and nature study. In spite time it would preserve a representative part
of its ready accessibility, it has the priceless of a unique land-and-sea-scape.
feeling of remoteness. It is the longest stretch
of beach in the New England shoreline.

Along the northern part of Great Beach
the surf is occasionally too powerful and the
slopes too abrupt for the best swimming. But
other sections with long gradual slopes pro-
vide bathing for those who do not find the
water too cold.

Along parts of the shore, cliffs rise as
high as 150 feet; behind them spread forests
and shrubs with many fresh-water lakes.
Dunes on the north end are spectacular, some
more than 60 feet high.

4-11

2. Our Vanishing Shoreline

rerCommendations for action

s a result of the survey, the National tribution of population except where biologi-
Park Service makes these six recommenda- cal, historical, or other values supersede.
tions:
1. That at least 15 percent of the general 4. That ample quantities of hinterland
shoreline of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts be of marsh and swamp, which provide a valu-
acquired for public recreation purposes to be able habitat for a large and interesting va-
administered by Federal, State, and local riety of bird and animal lifc, be acquired in
agencies. If the public agencies acquire half connection With beach property. Where such
of the suitable undeveloped seashore land areas can provide a fresh-water habitat the
remaining, they would then have, including variety will be greatly enhanced.
their existing areas, the recommended 15 5. That plant-animal communities of
percent. great ecological interest found along the sea-
2. That prompt action be taken to ac- shore be acquired and preserved regardless
quire available beach sites before the best of of the desirability of the adjoining beach; and
such areas are acquired for private or com- that consideration be given to such communi-
mercial development. The critical situation ties now in a modified condition which might
deserves the attention of all persons and or- return to a more natural condition if per-
ganizations in a position to give aid-wom- to remain undisturbed.
ens' clubs, chambers of commerce,. historical
societies, service clubs, universities, conserva- 6. That further land use studies be made
tion groups@ etc. of selected coastal areas of unusual impor-
tance, giving consideration to proper boun-
3. That the acquisition of areas should daries and long range planning for the best
be related as directly as possible to the dis- use of recreation values.

4-12

3. ORRRC Study Report 4 (Excerpts, pp. 3-5, 28-31j

Shoreline Recreation Resources

of the United States

Report to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
by The George Washington University

Washington, D. C. 1962

4-13

3. ORRRC Study Report 4

CHAPTER ONE

WHAT ARE THE SHORELINE RECREATION WANTS AND NEEDS
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOW, AND WHAT WILL THEY BE
IN THE YEARS 1976 AND 2000?

Answers to the questions of present and future extend to which young people actually partipate. The
needs will be discussed separately. It is first nee- greatest need for recreation opportunities is among
essary to understand what measures of present needs the lower income urbanites.
can logically be made before it is possible to project Delaware Basin Study.-A study of the Delaware
these into the future. In general no real distinction River Basin, prepared for the National Park Service
Will be made between 1976 and 2000, except to point by the Gallup organization, Indicates that all classes
out that some situations have greater immediacy than of people share the desire for a great participation in
others. outdoor recreation. Sixty percent of the people queried
preferred a rural setting for day outings, and 42 per-
Present Shoreline* Recreation Needs oent preferred the outdoors for weekend vacations. 2/

Behind the wants" and "needs" of people for Wafer and outdoor recreation
shoreline recreation, or my type of outdoor recrea-
tion, is the contemporary public attitude toward rec- A National Park Service report published in 1960
reation Itself as a legitimate activity. American states. In part. that ... probably the major portion
believe now, as they always have, that the devil Of outdoor recreation is associated with water
guides Idle hands." the growing fund of leisure areas ... The sales of outboard motors. over
time in this country has made Americans keenly half a million annually for the past several years,
aware of the problems leisure can present We need we testimony to the great number of persons who
to be kept busy. Americans are basically "doers" participate In recreational boating, estimated to be
they are action-minded; they will not be satified with as many as 40 million In any survey of outdoor
activities which place them In observer roles. sports, swimming is sure to be one of the most
popular, and water skiing is rapidly gaining In
Signifigance of outdoor recreaton popularity. All such evidence emphasizes the im
portance of water features in American forms of
The very traits which have given our society much outdoor recreation.
of its dynamism and spirit are those which can. un-
harnessed, produce increased crime rates, social Popularity of shoreline recreation
delinquency, higher rates of insanity, and suicide,
to mention but a few social evils. There is a direct Of the many outdoor recreation "environments."
relationship between the increase In leisure time in mountains, seacoast deserts, and woodlands, the
the last decade and the increase In the need for shoreline appears to have an unusually strong appeal
"substitute" activities which will keep Americans for Americans. In the Gallup study mentioned above.
buy and occupied. Perhaps Americans need to be a marked preference was shown for the seashore.
at more active "off the job" than "on the job." The New Jersey seashore was the first choice for
It is just as important to plan for full employment of 48 percent of the respondents, and second choice for
leisure energies as it is to plan for full employment 21 percent when asked about their preferred area for
at economically productive energies. and the primary a day outing. In contrast, the Pocono Mountains were
outlet for these inherent American energies should the first choice of 23 percent and the second choice of
be some form of outdoor recreation. 24 percent. For weekend outings, the figures were
43 and 21 percent for the seashore and 30 and 23
Indictor of outdoor recretion demand percent for the Poconos. Seventy-seven percent of
the people questioned had been to the New Jersey
Youth Survey.-In a study to determine what young seashore at some time, while 35 percent had been to
People in the National Capital Area do with their spare
time, the answers of over 60,000 young people In the 2Summory of Outdoor Recreation Activities in
ft through 12th grades suggest that a "large and the Population Living in the Region of the Delaware River
unfulfilled demand,exists for Most &the outdoor basin," property by the.National Park Service from a reportm
sports.. 1 The study revealed comapratively little prepared by Audience Research. Inc., Princeton, N.J.. January
difference between neighborhoods in the expressed 1958
desire for sports. but very great differences In the
Water recreation Needs in the United States 1960-2000
Edward B. Olds What Young People Do and Want To Do In U.S. Senate Selec Committee an National Water Resources
May 1960
Ther Spare Time Health and Welfare Council of the National Boating," National Association OF Engine and Beau Monu
Capital" Area. Washington, D.C., 1960. factures New York, N.Y.. 1960.

4-14

3. ORRRC Study Report 4

the Pocono Mountains. 5/ These two recreation sit" lines are those which are close enough to large using
were the two most popQw discovered by the mmmy. populations for day mWor overnight use. Availabi
They are equally accessible to the people living in shorelines are those whose use Is not restricted by
the Delaware River Basin. . the nature of ownership, high fees. or some other
In the year preceding the interviews upon which inhibiting factor.
the Gallup study was hued, 24 percent of the popula-
tion of the area, constituting 45 percent of the vaca- Both characteristics are essential in any assess-
tioners. spent at least some of their tims at the New ments of the wants and needs of the American people
Jersey shore. for recreation shorelines and in any evaluation of the
Popularity of the shoreline to no accident. Coastal ability of our resources to fill those needs. In some
areas provide opportunity for a wide variety of active large. metropolitan areas the per capita amount of
or passive pleasures such as: accessible and available shoreline is extremely
limited. Shorelines accessible to less denselysettled
Activities exclusively "coastal"- parts of the country may be used by only a few people.
Surf-riding. Thus. shoreline recreation demands are highly con-
SiduRving (spearfishing, underwater explora- oen&sted, geopaphically.
tion).
Beachcombing. Accessibility.-People who seek outdoor recrea-
Coastal hunting and fishing. tion do so within very definite time patterns; these
Activities associated with water bodies- are usually described as day outings. weekend or
Swimming. overnight trips, and vacations. The - Important
Boating (motorboaling, "iling. canoeing). of these, in terms of its impact upon outdoor recrea-
Water Siding. tion resources. is the day outing. The Gallup study
Fishing. cited earlier indicated that, of the 71 percent of the
Activities not limited to coasts or water bodies- people questioned who had been on any day outing
Hiking and walking. during the past 12-month period, one-half had been
&Mning. on at least 10 day outings during that period. Of this
Bird watching. 47 percent who had been on overnight or weekend
Horseback riding. trips, half had been on at least three such trips.
Picnicking. FIfty-four percent of the people questioned haA
Camping. been away from home on a vacation during the pre-
Photographing. sketching. painting. ceding 12 months.
Sightseeing (scenic, scientific. historical). The day outing to the basic unit of outdoor rea-
Nature study (biological. geologic. botanical). restion at present. The Delaware Basinpeople queried
Shorelines afford easy, active forms of recreation. drove a median one-way distance of 63 miles on day
Going into the surf is fun whether one swims or not. outings, or a driving time of about 2 hours. This is
it isn't necessary to be a mountain climber to take not necessarily the pattern everywhere. Data pub-
walks along the beach, and beachoombing is an ac- Ushed by the National Park Service in 1941 showed
tivity that appeals to everyone from toddler to considerable differences in average day outin dis-
octogenarian. tances from one part of the country to another. This
While all of the shoreline has some recreation is borne out by the recently published California
value, and the entire shoreline constitutes a rec- Public Outdoor Recreation Plane/ which reported an
reation resource, not all of the shoreline to equally average one-way distance of 35 in-iles for day outings
sought out for outdoor recreation. Of Me three and an average distance of 75 miles for overnight
categories of shoreline-may-sh, bluff. and beach-.- trips. The authors of this report are inclined to
the latter is by far the most popular kind of shore- belIqve that at the present time people will drive
line in present patterns. of outdoor recreation one way about 2 hours, a distance that may vary from
activities. 30 miles to as much as 90 miles, for such outstanding
Here, land and water are easily accessible; the recreation sites as ocean beaches provide.
violence of breaking surf and the war= safety of
relaxing sands are but a step &part. the stimulation Of course, when beaches are closer than this,
of the foreign environment of the water and the they will be used more heavily. About three-quarters
relaxation of sunbathing are nowhere else so easy of the people in California live within an hour' a drive
of choice. Physical sport and reents' relaxation are of a beach. accounting in part for beach popularity
equally available. in that State. The following table shows bow long
people spent en routs to three public beaches in the
Shere4ne m"afian koym cram metropolitan New York area on a summer Sunday In
Some shorelines are almost never used, either 1959.
for recreation or for any other activity. Others are New York City's beaches are so accessible that
so overused that their recreation values are greatly eight beaches had an estimated total allendanm in
reduced. The important shoreline recreation targets 1959 of 65,595,204, according to that city's reply
are those which have the characteristics of (1) ac- to the municipal facilities questionnaire. Unquestion-
cessibility and (2) availability. Accessible shore- ably accessibility to a keyfactor in use-and in planni
for the future. The Massachusetts report, "Public
1'"Summary of Outdoor R*c samion Activitie" " Delaware
River Basin," op. cit. J/Part 1. Mar. 25,1960, Sacraine so, Calif., p. 26.

4-15

3. ORRRC Study Report 4

Table 1. Estimated range and average traveltime of Summary of Shoreline Recreation Needs
user of three beaches in do metropolitan Now York
region, Summer 1959/ There seems to be little question that the role
of the American shoreline in satisfying outdoor
One-way Jones Beach Orchard Beach Great Kills recreation needs is becoming more important every
over time (percent of Beach year. However. the usefulness of shoreline to satisfy
(range in travelers (percent of recreation
Minutes) travelers 1. Type of shoreline.
needs varies with the:

2. Accessibility of the shoreline.
0.15 ......... 17.0 69.2 46.8 3. Availability of the accesible shoreline.
0-30 ......... 34.7 75.2 65.3
0-45 ......... 71.2 100.0 84.8 Access" and available beaches
Less than 1 how 83.9 100.0 94.7
Over I hour... 16.1 .... 5.3 The greatest recreational use pressure is on
Average* One-way public beaches not more then 60-90 miles away,
traveltime in depending upon the highways, or about 2-hours auto-
Minutes ..... 40.2 23.51 27.5 inobile traveltime, tram metropolitan areas of a half
millIon or more people. Within this range the heaviest
2/Adapted From "The Race for Open Space, " final report of the demands are normally placed on beaches within 30
Park, Recreation and Open Space Project of the Tri-State Now miles or less than 1-hour traveltime of metropolitan
York Metrpolitan Region, Regional Plan Association, Inc., area . The 19 metropolitan areas which presently
Now York, September 1960, table 17, p. 34. have more than 500,000 people are shown on figure 1.
2,Traveltime is a weighted average based on the distance from Circles of 30 and 90 miles radii, respectively, have
each county's population center to each park, via mow mods been drawn around these metropolitan area . These
at normal. are the crucial beach recreation targets. The Inner
circles are the "bull's-eyes.11 Where the impact
areas of a number of metropolitan areas overlap,
Outdoor Recreation." had this to say about public use pressure Is extremely high.
beaches: Ioccessible nonbeach shoreline

Massachusets, Is fortunate in having a sys- The other side of the coin is extreme nonuse.
tem of public beach the estimated Peak ca- The least use pressure on recreational shoreline
pacity of which is 385.000 people-8.5 percent to on marsh or bluff coast with no beach areas and
of the population. distant from metropolitan centers. While recreation
However, So percent of the ocean beach use of these areas is slight at present, they are often
capacity lies within the Metropolitan Parks Important as superlative examples of bluff or marsh
District, where 2 million people, more than shoreline. as unique natural phenomena or as wildlife
40 percent of the States, Is population live. With- habitat
in this district, where the beaches can ac-
commodate 15 percent of the resident popu- Immediate Shoreline
lation, use on peak days tames their capacity
heavily. 7/ In between these two extremes of use and non-
use are Intermediate pressures on recreational shore-
Availability.-In general. the only beaches widely line, depending upon such matters as extent of
available to the public a" public beaches, and even overnight and vacation demand for shoreline. relative
some of these are restricted. For example, some qualities of the available shoreline, and the effects
municipal beaches ad-it only bona fide citizens of of land management decisions on availability for
the municipality. Others practice some form of recreation
segregation or other restriction. The use of private The authors of both the California plan and the
beaches is normally under the control of the owners, Gallup study agree that the median distance traveled
although in some states access may be gained to the to an outdoor reeation site for overnight or week-
foreshore-the area below high tide-through public end vacations Is about 90 to 15 miles. This does
thoroughfares. Because of time and fund limitations, not really produce any great change in beach recreation
it was impossible to make an inventory of restrictive targets except to widen them a bit in some cases
Policies of either private or public beaches. The and to increase the potential use in many others.
authors have assumed that public beaches are usually That to to say, people in the Delaware Basin who go
available to anyone. However, it may be that the to the Now Jersey shore for day outings may also
extent of adjacent parking areas to the greatest single go there for weekends and for their vacations.
factor restricting the availability of accessible public Vacation users may travel farther than day outing
beaches. and weekend users, thus considerably extending the
area from which use pressure originates.
While shoreline probably serves a much smaller
proportion of the public for long vacations than it
Public Outdoor Recreation" Department of National Re- does for day and weekend outings, vacation use is
source The Commonwealth of Massachussets 1954 Important because of the amount of the resource

4-16

3. ORRRC Study Report 4

needed to support vacation use. Vacation users.
along with weekend outing users. require bowing
and associated services that we not required by
day outing users. In this case the nature of the
use tends to spread people more thinly over the
resource than does day outing use.

4-17

3. ORRRC Study Report 4

CHAPM FOUR

WHAT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS WILL ENSURE THAT PRESENT AND
FUTURE RECREATION NEEDS ARE ADEQUATELY AND EFFICIENTLY
MET?

Basic to any policies and program recommended we public funds to provide outdoor recreanon taca-
for wise and efficient use of the shoreline recreational ities that are in no sense restrictedto the use of local
resource is an understanding of the exftwwly signif- residents.
icant role this resource-activity relationship plays izL
Amertcau life. Outdoor recreation should be recoip-
n' Fed as a necessity in American life. It should too Va rWos-of fhe We& of gavenvow*
widely encouraged for all American citizens,.without
regard to economic or social levels. In other words
it should be a public responsibility to recognize: In achieving these purposes, the various Mvels of
to encourage, and where necessary, to provide the gover ument have different responsibilities; they share
means for. outdoor recreation. Outdoor recreation the necessity, however, of the fullest cooperation in
should become a more important part of the pattern effectively plann utilization of a national resource.
of the lives of all Americans. Federal Responsibilities.-The Federal Govern-
men'! should be responsible for the following program
A NaNanal FoRcy for the Shomfim 1. Acquiring. developing, and operating shore-
lines of national significance for recreation.
The shoreline is a unique resource in-many ways. scenic beauty@ wildlife habitat, or biotic
For the most part, it forms a- national boundary. communities.
For a single resource, a shoreline has unusually 2. Optimizing shoreline recreation possibil-
high recreational qualities. It is limited in extent. itles on Federal land including defense
. . use, pollution. or erosion can decrease Iands.
its extent and value. All of these factors canto 3. Assisting Rate and local governments where
controlled to preserve recreational values if proper other financial and technical resources are
steps are taken. Shoreline is a dynamic resource not adequate to meet State and local share-
physically. a system of related checks and balances, line recreation needs, especially In areas
which do not recognize political boundaries. R In., of high recreation impact by-
in other words, a national resource. (a) providing finen tal assistance for plao-
As a national resource. shoreline inerits a nationak ning. acquisition. anid development of
policy. That policy should serve three purposes: shoreline recreation areas.
(1) it should state the public purpose in the recognition (b) providing technical assistance for plan-
and encouragement of, as well as the provision of ning, acquisition, and development of
the means for. outdoor recreation; (2) it aboliddeff shoreline recreation areas.
the roles of the various levels of government by (c) specifying program standards as a con-
which this purpose to realized; and (3) it should dition of Federal assistance, including
relate recreation use of the shoreline to other valid review and coordination of State and
Us". plans.
State Responsibilities.-The State governments
no pub& pwPo" shmild be responsible for the following program.
1. Acquisition, development, and operation of
Public agencies should recognize the present shoreline areas as part of State outdoor
and future significance of outdoor recreation in recreation plans, including-
American life; they should encourage broad partic- (a) aborellpes of more than local and less
tpation; and they should help provide the facilities than national significance.
for participatiom (b) shorelines serving more than local
Recognition of Significance.-All levels of govern- areas.
ment should have adequate statutory powers and 2. Maximization of shoreline recreation op-
administrative organizations to assess outdoor rec- portunities on existing State land.
reation wants and needs and to develop and implement 3. Designing a shoreline plan and arranging
,onrdinstted program which will effectively meet development and operation of shoreline
those needs. recreation areas, including-
Encouragement of Outdoor Recreation.-All levels (a) cooperation with local govertunents and
of goverment should encourage an increased public coordination of local plans.
awareness of the advantages and benefits of partic- (b) cooperation with Federal plann' and
ipation in outdoor recreation as an essential activity. assistance progr
Provision of Means.-AU levels of government (c) cooperation with other Stat inregional
should. when necessary to meet recreation needs, prolcram.

4-18

3. ORRRC Study Report 4

4. Assistance to local governments to meet use. Here also there kre problems of water pollution
local shoreline recreation needs by: and general destruction of natural recreation values
(a) finsincial aid. because of unsightly and hazardous structures. smoke.
(b) technical help. noise, and the like. Since metropolitan areas are also
(C) specification of standards, including re- the areas in which the demands for shoreline recrea-
view and coordination in State p1m tion are greatest, special policies need to be applied.
Local Itesponsibilities.-The local governments rather than the general ones described in the foregoing
diould be responsible for the following program. paragraphs. The uses which may dominate metro-
1. Plann' , acquisition, development, and op- politan areas may not only be destructive of recrea-
oration of locally important shoreline tional values, but they are highly competitive. Once
recreation areas as part of a a)mprehen- Industrial and transportational. shoreline sites have
eive local recreation plan. been established it to in anypractical sense impossible
2. Cooperation with State and Federal pro- to displace them for recreational use except with
grams of financial and technical assistance. overwhelming popular support and exceptional funding.
3. Coordination of -shoreline plans with Sta A reasonable attitude is that these uses are so essen-
P1 . tial to the people who live in these great population
local governments particularly must recognize concentrations that they cannot and should not be ex-
the need for systems of regulation and control of cluded. -On the other hand. they should not be per-
competing shoreline uses which fully recognize rec- mitted to destroy the recreational value of adjacent
yeation as a legal claimant to Its appropriate portion shoreline: the nuisance they tend to generate should
of the shoreline. be subject to public control. At the same time, metro-
politan recreational demand to so great and so funds-
lteaeahcm Us* Viwoo-w 01her Uses mentally important that new private residential build-
of the Shoreline bg projects ought not to be permitted to compete
successfully with public provision of recreational
In terms of total mileage, the chief forms of land shoreline. Where recreational demands for theshore
use an most of the American sboreline are probably are great. as is the case in most metropolitan areas,
recreation and agriculture, with the third largest use the public policy should be to provide as much rec-
perhaps being defense, I.e., shoreline areas held by reational shoreline as possible without putting impos-
the Federal Government in the interests of the national sible restrictions on vital competing uses.
defense in some sense, Transportation and industry
use a negligible proportion of the total shoreline: Progroon Recommended to Implement
#1- a" concentrated uses which cannot be expected Sumeded Policies
to occupy very large shoreline areas even in the year
1 2000 If present trends continue. It would be possible to recommend an entire galaxy
The recreational land is largely in private owner- of public programs designed to meet the needs of
ship-for summer homes, to an important extent. 1960 Immediately and to establish a timetable of
Agriculture exists where there is no real competition acquisition and development for the projected needs
for am of the shoreline, because agriculture simply of the year 2000. However, such a statement would
could not compete with -not of the other uses. be more idealistic than pragmatic. Soma very basic
For the most part, the shoreline to better suited preliminary programs are needed now to -A pos-
for outdoor recreation than It Is for the most other sible Intelligent plannin for the future.
am. It should be recognized, then, that the shoreline
Constihites a primary outdoor recreation resource of Shoreline we and inventory data
We Nation, and that the greater part of it will even-
tally be needed for recreation; its present use should One of the greatest stumbling blocks in evaluating
either be for recreation or for some use which either recreational use of the American shoreline is a lack
Gomplements certain Make of recreation (wildlifepre- of precise information; data on both users and the
M 9 a, plant or animal community preservation) or resource are badly neededi. How many people use
does not destroy its recreational qualities. it is un- the shoreline now, and for what purposes? How much
dOubtedly the case that in the long run the major com- do they spend on various kinds of recreation? How
Petition for the greater part of the American shoreline far do they travel? Haw often do they visit specific
will not be a-on differing forms of use but between areas of the shore? What are the specific qualities
Private versus public ownership for recreation. In and traits, mile-by-mile. of the total shoreline, and
the final analysis public agencies will have toface the what potentials for recreational use do these repre-
"lem of providing more and more recreational sent? It to not possible to plan the Intelligent and
dhoreline, thereby changing the balance of owner- balanced use of this precious and limited resource
ship from private to public. because private use Is without knowing a great deal more about the nature of
xestr ctive. both demand and supply.

M -1-Man arOUS WnsaSon of bask nahwW pla-ming unift
LArge urban concentrations present unusual and U has been po inted out that the shoreline environ-
"tPecial" cams of shoreline use. In these areas oon- went is a dynamic one that does not respect political
Idd6rable proportions of the shoreline may be devoted boundaries. Usefulplann' for recreational and other
tO transportation and industry and even to residential uses of this resource requires knowledge of the extent

4-19

3. ORRRC Study Report 4

to which development in one area will affect mono A sudy of management of the recreation
other area What are the basic components of this shoreline in target areas
system? What areas constitute "domains" within
which planning must take place? Classifying the shore- Metropolitan, high-impact beaches represent one
line in these terms will be one of the first applications of the knottiest problems of shoreline recreation.
of Me information gained through a detailed shoreline Where Public beach can be extended. it cannot be ex-
inventory. tended indefinitely; them is a limit to both the resource
and the radius of accessibility. This does not mean
that the problem cannot be solved. It may be neces-
Experiments in recreation use sary to introduce totally new concepts Into the use of
recreational shoreline in high Impact areas. Perhaps
the beach area per person ratio can be changed by
The recreational potential of bluff and marsh shores permitting only alternate day use in some fashion, or
has hardly been recognized in the overwhelming pref- by staggering working hours or days in the beach
erence shown for beach shoreline. It is necessary to season. Perhaps some of the shoreline demand can
know the recreational potential of all types of shore- be diverted by the development of lake beaches or by
line if imaginative and creative development of this increasing the number of swimming pools. Perhaps
potential is to result in optimum use. One of the best beaches can be made where they do not now exist.
possible ways to develop an understanding of the shore- The present system of managing public city beaches
line-recreation complex is the operational approach- needs to be investigated with the objective of increas-
to experiment in shoreline recreation development, ing the number of people who can be served without
to use now ideas and designs, to create now programs destroying the natural qualities which people seek at
and to see how well these work out. The Newport Bay beaches. Optimum effective management will be nec-
and Mission Bay developments in southern California essary long before the year 2000.
are examples of the possibilities of this approach- Conclusions

There Is a crisis In shoreline outdoor recreation.
An analysis of administrative arrangements and The shoreline Is vanishing in the sense that private
intergovernmental relationships ownership is inhibiting public use. 'Mere is a need
for action now, if the public is to develop a real under-
standing of its shoreline outdoor recreation needs and
Most existing administrative organizations are not how these can best be met. But there is need for co-
capable of planning for or managing the future recrea- ordinated,planned action-based on adequate informa-
tional shoreline. There is need for administrative tion and upon clear statements of public policy-so
innovation if Nation. State, ad community we to be that the action Is continuing not sporadic. The public
jointly responsible for the wise use of the shore. must:
Realistic planning must take into account the dynamic Know the importance and value of outdoor recrea-
"domains" of the shoreline which cut across and tion.
encompass many governmental jurisdictions. The Know what this Nations outdoor recreation re-
possibilities of cooperative arrangements, interstate sources are.
compacts. Federal-State commisions. and regional Understand that policy formulation must precede
authorities are many and diverse. It is essential that planning.
studies be undertaken to determine bow to establish Know that planning can only be implemented by
effective programs without arousing the jealousies coordination.
and animosities that can be associated with intergov- Understand that coordination depends in large part
ernmental problems. upon administrative structures.

4-20

4. Report on the National Shoreline Study. DOA, U.S. Corps. 1971 (Excerpt)
p. 13.

recreation area, a valuable natural resource.
Counts of users of good beaches less than
one-half mile long show hundreds of thousands
of visitors each year. Considering all the
beaches of the United States, there are many
hundred million beach visits each year. For
example, annual attendance at the major public
beaches on Long Island totals more than
70,000,000. The most intensive use area is at
iones Beach State Park, which has an annual
attendance of about 13,000,000 equivalent to
6,000,000 per mile for the developed area. On
the outer part of the island, at Robert Moses
Park, the annual attendance of 2,000,000
would indicate an intensity of one-half million
per mile. Obviously, beach loses affect a
considerable percentage@of our popuiation. The
Population expansion and increased leisure
time cause rapidly increasing demands for
beach areas. Because the quantity of beaches is
limited, continued loss of beach areas will
increase in importance and economic value.
This is of particular significance near large
population centers.

Residential use of the shore is attracting
increasing portions of our populatiorL With
limited zoning and regulation in eroding areas
and in areas subject to flood and wave damage,
Shore Use and ReLUW Factom such privately owned property is particularly
vulnerable. At many locations it is impractical
Probably most significant and important for an individual owner to protect his property
with respect to erosion is the loss of beach from flanking by waves or development

4-21

5. From Sea to Shining Sea. A Report on the American Environment--Our National
Heritage. President's Council on Recreation and National Beauty. Washington:
GPO, 1968. (Excerts, pp. 174-179).

Easeements that permits acces to shorelines in private ownership could allow
more people to enjoy unspoiled beaches.

SHORELINES AND ISLANDS a memorable apartness from the pressures and routine
of everyday living.
The encounter between man and sea offers one of the Unfortunately, opportunities to know and enjoy
most rewarding of all human experiences. Standing at shorelines and islands are steadily diminishing.Natural
the edge of the continent, confronting the ocean, each shorelines increasingly are being fenced, bulldozed,
man may be his own Ulysses or Balboa. paved, and built upon. Increasingly, scenic stretches of
the edge of the sea has special meanings for the tidelands, beaches, dunes, and seacliffs are covered with
beachcomber who walks the tideline, watching for the shacks and chalets, hamburger emporiums and parking
flotsam; for the bather who absorbs the sun's relaxing lots, highways and billboards, powerplants and even
warmth; for the surfer who pits his skill against the oil derricks.
white charging combers; for the skindiver who explores It is time to proclaim the principle that all Ameri-
unearthly undersea beauty. cans--of present and future generations--have a right
Similar experiences may be found along the shore- to enjoy the shorelline experience, and that ocean and
lines of the larger lakes, including stretches along the lake shoreline with high-quality scenic and recreation
Great Lakes where wind and water have created tower- values are natureal resources to be conserved and not
ing dunes and cliffs in the millenia since the great destroyed.
glaciers scooped out these hollows at midcontinent. Instead of ribbon development sprawling along the
Natural islands, whether surrounded by fresh or salt water's edge, shoreling conservation calls for concentra-
water, offer in addition a special sense of detachment, tion of commercial and residential development in

4-22

5. From Sea to Shining Sea.

Islands are a national resource of great potential, and their protection
requires the attention of concerned public officials and private citizens in
joint cooperation efforts.

limited areas. It requires both Jones Beaches for mass
use in metropolitan areas and Olympic Peninsula
Beaches for enjoyment of pristine coasts, It requires
that large sections of each type of shoreline be retained
in their natural state-the headlands and coves of New
England; the flat expanses of sand and salt marsh along
the Southeastern coastal plain;the dunes and cliffs of
the Great Lakes; the sand dunes, estuaries, and seacliffs
of the Pacific Coast, and the varied shorelines of islands
from the Washington San Juans to the Florida keys,
from Maines spruce-covered rock isles to the Channel
Islands of southern California and the lava cones of
Hawaii.
As each shoreline is different, each is also is part of an
interrelated natural system; change in one part affects
other parts. Thus, many shoreline problems are inter-
state problems. Those in Chesapeake Bay or Long
Island South, for example, require interstate action and
coordination. Today, however, unless acquired for pub-
lic use by some level of government, shoreline protec-
tion depends primarily on use of State and local govern-
metn authority to control land use. There is not effective
use of this authority along shorelines in most States at
this time.
Despite this, the Nation is showing steadily increas-
ing awareness of the many values concentrated along its
coastalstrips.

In 1934, a National Park Service xurvey identified
those reaches of undeveloped ocean shoreline with high-
est value for public recreation and recommended State
or Federal acquistion. But few areas were acquired by
the States. And into the 1950's the National Park System
included only one National Seashore, at Cape Hatteras,
N.C.

During the 1950's the National Park Service again
inventoried significant remaining undeveloped stretches
of Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, and Great Lakes shoreline
with high recreation and scenic value. These studies
showed that many of the best opportunities identified

4-23

5. From Sea to Shining Sea

One of the problems in administering shoreline recreation areas is the
threat of overuse destroying the natural quality of the area.

20 years before were already lost, and provided a solid
basis for a "save-our-shorlines" program.

In 1962, the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission reported that of some 60,000 miles of ocean
and Great Lakes shoreline in the 48 contiguous States,

5. From Sea to Shining Sea

symposiun on the future of the State's coastline, a
coastal preservation system of interrelated scenic and
recreation areas was proposed.
In 1966, the President directed the Secretary of the
Interior to inventory American inland and offshore
islands, to suggest principles for island conservation, and
to propose by 1969 action recommendations for conserv-
ing island resources with highest natural, scenic, and
recreational values. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
is conducting this study in cooperation with other
Federal agencies and the States.
In 1966, in the Marine Resources and Engineering
Development Act, the Congress called for development
of a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated
national program in marine science. The Act established
the National Council on Marine Resources and Engi-
neering Development, and an advisory Commission on
Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. The Coun-
cil has established a committee on multiple uses of ocean
shoreline, but is not authorized to exercise continuing
coordination of an overall coastal shoreline protection
program.

In 1967, California's Legislature established a State
Advisory Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources
to define the public interest in the coastline and to rec-
commend legislation to protect it. Oregon's Legislature
reconized public rights to ocean shores between high
and low tide. Michigan began inventorying its Great
Lakes shoreline and islands. Washington authorized a
State Seashore Conservation Area along the State's
coastline.
In 1967, Federal-interstate river basin commissions
were established to plan and coordinate planning for
water resources and "related land resources" in three
regions with ocean and Great Lakes shoreline: The Pa-
cific Northwest, the Great Lakes, and New England.
Other such commissions will be established. These com-

4-25

5. From Sea to Shining Sea.

Industry the Great Lakes shoreline with natural bring
for the recreation .

missions, established under the aegis of the Water Re- kinds of Federal-interstate institutions as those being
sources Council, have an opportunity to concern considered to conserve the Hudson and Potomac rivers
themselves with shorelines-ocean and lake, as well as and their settings may provide new patterns for coop.
river. Their effectivness as vehicles for ocean and take crative action. The feasibility of establishing a national
shoreline preservation will depend in part on whether coastal scenic preservation system also should be
the individual commissions give this a high- priority; considered.
their attention may be preempted by problem more The Council urges full consideration of the natural
directly associated with rivers. To be effective in this beauty values of ocean and take shoreline by river basin
field the commissions will have to represent the many commissions, and by other Federal, interstate, and State
public and private interests concerned with protection institutions, and urges State and local governments
of shoreline natural beauty and recreation values. Some to protect shoreline values through regulation, tax
may decide to set up advisory units and task forces incentives, and purchase-
for this purpose In 1967, the Water Resources Council Regardless of which institutions rake the lead, there
adopted a policy urging river basin commissions to fully is an urgent need for up-to-date knowledge upon which
consider shoreline resources and approved the use of comprehensive and systematic efforts can be based.
funds available under Tide III of the Water Resources The federally sponsored nationwide study of islands
Planning Act for such planning. is scheduled for completion in 1968. And the Congress
At the Federal level, the Administration has asked is considering legislation calling for an inventory and
study of the Nation's estuarine resources. (See page
the Congress to authorize two new national lakeshores: 171.)
Sleeping Bear Dunes, Mich., and Apostle Islands, Wis.
Where shoreline conservation is not effective the es- There also is a need for a comprehensive nationwide
tablishment of special State and interstate shoreline inventory and survey of the best remaining opportunities
commissions should be considered. Such innovative ties for conservation of natural beauty and recreation
State-sponsored efforts as the San Francisco Bay Con- resources of ocean and lake shoreline-in addition to
servation and Development Commission and New those directly associated with island and estuarine areas.
York's Hudson River Valley Commission, and such new Such a study would be a logical followup to the National

4-26

5. From Sea to Shining Sea.

Planting dune grass helps to control the erosion of beaches by natural
processes.

Park Service inventories of a decade ago; it should The council recommends that increased public and
determine current status of shoreline preservation private efforts be made to develop comprehensive
efforts, identity conservation opportunities for the vari- and balanced programs for use of the Nation's ocean
ous levels of government, and focus renewed public and lake shorelines, islands, estuaries, and adjoining
attention on this vanishing resource. wetlands that include appropriate provision for pro-
A national shoreline conservation survey would pro- tection and enhancement of their natural, scenic,
vide an informed basis for action to protect not only recreation, and economic values through:
the water's edge but the total shoreline setting. It could (I) full consideration of shoreline problems and po-
do this by developing model protective standards for tentials in comprehensive studies by appropriate govern-
State and local land-use controls, and guides for coordi- mental institutions with responsibilities for planning
nation of planning for public acquisition and appropri- for shoreline resources;
ate development of critical areas: for coordination of (2) State, county, and local zoning or other land use
programs of technical and financial assistance through regulation; and
the concerned States; and for technical assistance, and (3) establishment of State or interstate management
incentives to private landowners to conserve remaining commissions, where appropriate.
natural shoreline environments along lines consistent
with today's natural beauty goals.

4-27

6. Memorandum to Richa rd Gardner from Dick Rigby concerning the legislative
history of the beach access and island preservation provisions of the
CZMA- Memorandum includes a copy of "Staff on the Issue of Beach Access
Section of H. R. 3981"--COMmittee Print.

This report is organized as follo-..7s: the inclusion of the "beach
accessil provision is traced chronologically from its origin in the
Senate to the revision ia the House and final incorporation in the
conference report. At each stage, whatever background or detail that
seems appropriate is developed.

Senate

The motivation for including a beach access provision in the initial
version of S. 586 introduced February 5, 1975, was the enlargement and
enhancemant of the coastal zone program. The National Ocean rolicy

4-28

6. Rigby to Gardner memo.

Study staff in the Senate, an outgrowth of the Commerce Coumittee
Oceans and Atmosphere Subcommittee headed by Senator Ernest Hollings
(D - S.C.) was, during 1974, concerned about the viability of the
program. Threats to it were seen from the land use planning legislation
then on the Administration's agenda, from legislation amending the Outer
Continental Shelf legislation auf from an Administration proposal deal-
ing with energy facility siting.

The major rival was perceived to be the Senate Interior Committiee. It
was, in 1974 pushing both land use planning legislation which at one
time would have subsumed the coastal program and OCS reforms, includ-
ina, a "Coastal States Fund." Pending before the committee were two
I C@
bills introduced in 1973 by the chairman, Senator Henry Jackson (D-
Wash.). These were S. 2621, providin g a Federal declaration that the
public has the right of access to all beaches, and S. 2622 which pro-
vided for the protection and management of islands which possessed
environmental, recreational, cultural or historic values.

John Hussey, staff director of HOPS, saw the coastal management law
as an "umbrella" act for all major Federal programs dealing with the
coasts. The converse of this was to.see proposals such as those of
Senator Jackson as threats to the success of the coastal mana-ament
effort by diluting the Federal effort, providing rival funds and a
focus outside of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

At Hussey's insistence, beach and island access and protection were
added to S. 586. Opposition to this was voiced by the coastal zone
office which was cooperating with Hussey in preparation of the proposed
amendments to the orivinal act.
Q

Because the concepts were borrowed from the Senate Interior Cormlttee
and because the NOPS staff knew one of the-Senate Interior staff (Steve
Quarles) was particularly interested in the island preservation pro-
vision, an apparently deliberate effort to obscure the provision of
funds for beach access and island preservation was made. The original
version of S. 586, in fact, contains a confusing authorization which
amends an incorrect section of the original act and is-worded incor-
rectly.

The original S. 586 in part 7 includes the following:

"Section 306(c)(9) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1461), as redesignated
by this Act (306 is not redesignated) is am-ended by (1) inserting after

1
See'Kitsos-Rigby history of S. 586, in progress, for detailed
treatment of the background leading to initial introduction of S. 586. The.
analysis here is based on interviews with John Hussey November 5, Bob Lane
November 12 and Robert Knecht November 5.

4-29

6. Rigby to Gardner memo.

IlBeaches and Islands" after "Estuarine Sanctuaries" (this is backwards),
in the title thereof; (2) deleting the period at the end of the first
sentence thereof and inserting in lieu thereof",and grants of up to 50
percentum. of the costs of acquisition of lands to provide for protection
of and access to public beaches and preservation of islands.'

Fifty million is authorized for fiscal years 1975 through 1980 for these
purposes.

The other related provisions in the original S. 586 added "recreationalff
to the coastal valuesbeing endangered in the findings section, inserted
"islands" in two portions of the definition section (304) and added a
definition of beach, namely what the states determine in the new program
requirement of section 305, which was to provide a "general plan for the
protection of access to public beaches and other coastal areas of environ-
mental, recreational, historical, esthetic, ecological and cultural value.
Such plan shall include a definition of the term 'beach'."

One thing to note at this early stage is, first, that the essential
elements, if in somewhat confused form, of what was finally enacted
are in place and, two, that a conflict between protection and provision
of access is included. Whereas the specific authorization talks about
providing for "protection of and access to public beaches and preservation
of islands," the additional program element in section 305 calls for a
plan for the "protection of access" and has*no requirement for island
preservation.

One of the few comments on the record before Senate adoption of the
beach access provision, in remodeled form, is the introductory state-
ment on February 5 by Senator Hollings. In this, the emphasis is an the
energy crisis, the Outer Continental Shelf resources and the burdens to
be placed an coastal communities. In discussing the other provisions of
of S. 586, Senator Holling s mentions as the last item the "importance
assuring the protection or and access to public beaches and the protection of
islands," noting they were under increasing development pressures.

The statement continues:

"What is needed - and what this amendment provides - is
a-requirement that each State coastal zone management program include
as a prerequisite to receiving management grants under section 306,
0
measures to facilitate protection and access to public beaches for
.recreational, historic or esthetic purposes, and to assure protection
of coastal islands."

Senator Hollinos went on to state that the problem with previous bills
0
on beach access is that they raised constitutional questions. (See below
discussion of Congressman Eckhardt's legislation.) Because states are
confronted with difficulties in paying condemation costs for assuring

4-30

6. Rigby to Gardner memo.

access to beaches a'nd island preservation, Senator Hollings went on,
$50 million a year is authorized.

In the version of S. 586 adopted by the Senate on July 16, 1975, access
and island provision is relocated to the authorization section. The find-
in&s definition and new program requirements remained ess@ntially the
same. All the legislation said at this stage was that $50 million was
authorized a year, until 1985, "for the acquisition of lands to provide
for the protection of, and access to, public beaches and for the pre-
servation of islands under section 306(d)(2) . . .

The section 306 reference was merely an attempt to anchor the authorization
to something in the original bill. The subsection chosen is that which
requires a state program to demonstrate there exists authority to acquire
land.

Those looking for supporting evidence of.the justification for the
provision, or an explanation, in either the committee report accompanying-
the bill or in the floor debate will be disappointed.

The floor debate did not touch the subject. The conraittee report (No.
94-277) contains approximately one page of justification under the "key
provisions" section. The argument is basically that property values in
the coast are increasing and the time to act to provide access and to
protect islands is now. Four letters from state coastal zone management
officials to Senator Hollings in support of the provision, states which
had identified beach access and/or island preservation is critical problems are
cited. The states are Maryland, Florida, California and Guam. The letters carte in
response to a request from the coastal zone office for supportive comments
an S. 586 which could be used, as was the case here, in making the case
for passage.
9@

Letters to Senator Hollings were used because the hearing record
established by VOPS both in 1974 and 1975 dealt with the offshore
petroleum issue almost exclusively.

House

There does exist in the House a legislative record of sorts on the
question of beach access. Since 1969 Congressman Bob Eckhardt (D-Tex.)
has introduced "open beaches" legislation. in 1973 the bill, H. R. 10394,
reached the hearing stage. On October 25 and 26, Congressman Eckhardt
served as chariman of the Subcommittee on 'Fisheries and Wildlife,
Conservation and the Environment of the House Merchant Earine and
Fisheries Cormittee.

The hearing record (serial No. 93-25) constitutes the only thorough
0
discussion of the beach access question. However, the tv-o days ware
devoted in large measure as the constitutionality of a-Federal decla,ration

4-31

6. Rigby to Gardner memo.

of the public's presumptive right to.have access to beaches. The bill
is also important because it is acknowledged to be the model for Senator
Jackson's beach access legislation which, as discussed above, inspired
the inclusion of a provision of this name in S. 586.

The definition of "beach" in H. R. 10394 may be instructive. It is first
declared to be "the area along the shore of the sea affected by wave action
directly from the open sea." The definition goes on to say that typically
sandy beaches are those below the vegetation line to the sea. In the case
-of beaches without vegetation lines, the beach is up to 200 feet inland from
the mean higherhigh tide.

The importance of this definition is that Congressman Eckhardt's bill would
have Congress declare that the beaches are "impressed with a national interest
and that the public shall have free and unrestricted right to use them as a
co=on. . ." mindful of private property rights.

Congressman Eckhardt took as his example a state law in Texas he was
instrumental In passing as well as a statute in Oregon of a sinilar nature.
Most witnesses, including the Department of Interior, were negative and raised
serious questions about the legality of the Federal Government attempting to
0
make a nationwide policy in an area with distinct state approaches to shore-
line property rights.

Many of the copiments made singled out the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
as the proper vehicle for accomplishing the objectives of the legislation.
Typical was this comment filed by Nathaniel P. Reed for the Department of
the Interior:

"We believe the objective of H. R. 10894 can be accomplished under current
authority provided in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P. L. 92-583).
Through effective management and efficacious use of their land use regulatory
authority as contemplated in that Act, the states will be able to provide
protection against further encroachment and to meet the need for preservation
of our Nation's beaches as part of the comprehensive land use planning processes
for the coastal zone."

The hearin- record did establish the relatively small a=unt of coastline of
the country in public ownership and the growing demand for access to beach areas.

The original H. R. 3981, the House version of S. 586, was in fact a direct copy
-of the original S. 586. It was introduced on February 27, 1975, well in advance
@-of the time the Senate perfected its bill. What happened post the Senate passage
is thatthe Oceanography Subcommittee Chariman, Congressman John-Hurphy (D-N.Y.),
requested the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service to prepare a
rieVised bill. This was done and H.-R. 3981 was reintroduced on September 29.

-and findings sections
@Thecleaned up version of H. R. 3981 kept the definition
changes from S. 586.

4-32

6. Rigby to Gardner memo.

in section 305, the language of subsection (b)(7) was revised to make
reference to a "planning process" for the protection of and access to,
public beaches and other coastal areas of varied vlues.

The specific authorization for beach access funding was moved from
its very obscure location in S. 586, only in the funding section,
to the estuarine sanctuary portion of the original act. However, it
was included under the "Coastal Research and Technical Assistance"
part of U. R. 3981 and was missed by many readers of the bill.

The revised H. R. 3981 renamed the estuarine sanctuary section to add
I'and beach access" to the title, as the original S. 586 attempted to
do. H. R. 3981 divided the subsection into two components, the first
for estuarine sanctuarie* and the second for 50 percent grants (as with the
sanctuary program) for the costs of acquisition of "access to public beaches
and other coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical,
esthetic, ecological and cultural value." This language is identical
to the new program development requirement in section 305.

The authorization was'cut to $25 million per year for five years. The
lowered amoilut was a gesture to the opposition to the section voiced
by some of.the staff involved and in an attempt to make it less vulnerable.
A reason for separating the sanctuary section into two subparts was to
make the beach access provision easily cut if necessary, without kiliing
the entire section.

The House did hold hearings directly on the proposed amendments to the
coastal law. They too were dominated by the energy impact fund question.

In fact, only one witness spoke favorably about the beach access provision
and one witness was questioned on the subject. William Haeks, Chief,
Water Development Services Division in. the Michigan Department of Natural
resources, testified:

"In Michigan, were nearly 80 percent of the shoreland is
in private ownership, the establishment of adequate public access
to beaches, and the preservation of island and beach areas of environ-
mental, recreational, and esthetic value is an ever-increasing problem."
He also testified to the need to acquire many of the state's undeveloped7
islandsin order to protect them,'although this authorization was not
included in R. R. 3981 at this stage.

Robert Knecht was asked specifically his opinion of the beach.access-provision,
and responded it was premature. "I think it is a little early to say that
that particular dimension needs to be added to the program," he concluded.

The first real scrutiny of the provision camte during the'markup@;sessiqrs@,
in the Oceanography Subcomnittee an October 7 and 8. The issue was raised
C,
by Congressman Philip Ruppe (R-Irlich.) who, however, failed 'tu cleaL.K1
-:y. state
his objection and succeeded in clouding the issue for merl@ers avd-staff-

4-33

6. Rigby to Gardner memo.

A successful amendment did develop out of the discussion, namely the
suggestion of Congress-an Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) that the language
be made clear that access was to be provided only to publicly-held
beaches and other public attractions, avoiding the specter that public
access would be provided for privately-held coastal prope-rty.

As it was, Congressman Ruppess motion to delete the 'Provision failed
by one vote, with Chairman Murphy casting four negative votes by
proxy.

Congressman Ruppe's initial line of attack was that access to private
beaches was contemplated. Congressman DuPont (R-Del.) supported the
elimination on the grounds it would attract opposition when the bill
came to the House floor. Chairman Murphy opposed, pointing out access
to-public beaches had always been "implied" in the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act and that the purpose of the new provision was to make sure of
its inclusion.

At one point Mr. Ruppe stated that the provision "gets into land use
plannin-" which would draw opposition on the floor. Congressman
CharlesXosher (R-Ohio) later stated that coastal zone vanagement.
involved land use planning. "All of this is land.use planning, and I do
not think we should have that as an evil catch-phrase, even though the
public may look upon it, some, of them, that way," Mr. Mosher stated. He
cast the lone Republican vote against the Ruppe amendment, which was the
margin by which it was defeated.
C.

During the discussion, a staff paper on the issue was brought into the
record. It is attached. It attempts to find what it can in the record
to support the inclusion of the beach access provision, reaching as far
back as the 1969 Stratton Commission report.

During the floor consideration, only Congressman Ruppe addressed the
beach access provision. He stated that he supported the new planning
requirement in section 305 but thought it premature to include funding
until the program development process was complete. He did not call
for a vote on the question.

The House report accompanying the-bill (No. 94-878) contains a number
of discussions about the several provisions pertinent to the beach
access provision. The -report makes the point in several places that
the acquisition funds authorized in section 315 are to be used only
pursuant to the overall plan called for in section 305 pro-ram development.
0

"The Committee position is that action is needed now to help pTovide
the needed access, especially in urban areas, and that to wait will only
mean additional expense to the taxpayers. The key again is that the
purchase of such access, as is provided in section 315 be tied to a

.4-34

6. Rigby to Gardner memo.

comprehensive plan. That is the intent of the new requirement under---@@:-
section 305 program development -- that all such purchases fit into
CX
an overall program for each state," the report states. Later, the.-*_-
requirement that states be substantially completed in their program
development work in section 305 before being eligible for.funding
under section 315(b) is made explicit.

Conference

Almost all of the record of the conference deliberations is not
available. It consisted of extensive staff negotiations which included
for much of the time representatives of the Administration. The Admin-
istration's position was that the beach access provision was at the
head of its list of negatives among the non-energy impact fund items in
the legislation. It was understood by all that the bill would not be
vetoed over the beach access authorization if an acceptable compromise
was worked out on the impact fund.

On the occasion when the Administration representatives first raised
a question about the beach access provision, the inquiry was understood
to be about how there was no precedent for such matching assistance.
The Hbuse staff responded with a number of specific precedents, most
uotably the Laud and Water Conservation Fund. However, the Administration
spokesman probably meant to state their opposition was on the grounds of
the precedent this provision would establish within the coastal zone program.

Since both House and Senate bills included a beach access provision, it had to
be in the final bill, according to the House rules. The conference com=3.ttee
report contains a single paragraph describing the final version of the beach access
CY 0
provision. The paragraph simply states that the final language follows the Rouse
provision authorizing 50 percent matching grants and includes the Senate
provision for grants for island preservation. The final version adopted
the form of the House bill in making the authorization a part of the
estuarine sanctuary provision, as its second part.

The floor debate on the conference report, brief in both House and
Senate, barely contains references to the beach access/island preservation
provision.

4-35

6. Rigby to Gardner memo.

STAFF COMMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF BEACH
ACCESS SECTIONOF H.R. 3981-
COMMITTE PRINT

The need for planning for access to the areas mentioned
in section 315 (as redesignated) and obtaining rights of
way, easements and other land acquisitions to provide nec-
essary access is discussed here in connection with the
Subcommittee's discussion on October 7, and Representative
Ruppe's proposed amendment to delete thos provisions from
the Committe Print of H.R. 3981.
This discussion pertains to the background, or legisla-
tive history, of the CZM Act with respect to addressing the
subject of access to those areas.
This committee's Report on the CZM Act in 1972, empha-
sized that the state programs were intended to cover areas
of importance to the coastal zone although not specifically
enumerated (pg. 17). The Committee said "Those (other areas)
to be considered for coverage should certainly include
recreation, transportation protective requirements for...
open space and esthetic values."
Of course, as noted in the Committee Report on the CZM
Act (pg.18), the reported bill and the CZM Act requires
that the state have necessary land acquisition authority
in order to be able to implement its program (section 306 (d)
(2) of the CZM Act).

4-36

sized that the state programs were intended to cover areas

6. Rigby to Gardner memo.

The Report of the Stratton',. _-,Co@unis s ion was relied upon

and cited (pg. 9 of the Committee Report) by this committee

in developing the original CZ14 Act.

Among other things the Stratton Commission Report

states, "The Commission recommends that provision be made

for public recreation and public access to the water in

urban areas be included in the planning . . . Federal funds

should be conditioned upon the provision of such public

recreation and access. . . .

One of * the Panel Reports from which the Stratton Com-

mission Report was consolidated (Volume 3) relates, "it is

often not necessary* to buy all the rights to open 'land in

order for the rublic to enjoy its benefits. Only the

rights needed should be purchased, such as the riglit of

access. Such lands, of course, would include those of

recreational, cultural, environmental or historic signifi-

cance.

C atton Con.-
The primary Panel Report leading to the Str

mission Report as to "Coastal Zone ManagemearYE"' -wras Vol=ne I.

it is stated there in discussing options to meet recreational

pressures for access to coastal areas, "Foremost among t1h6-se

C costly, the
options are easements and acquisitions. Least

4-37,

.6. Rigby to Gardner memo.

fbi@jmer' is preferred wben it can serve an explicit purlpose as

protecting aesthetic and cultural values" (pg. 111-153).

Note,"' acquisition of access in H.R. 3981 includes the acqui-

sition of interests in lands such as obtaining easements or

'rights of ways and the Secretary will assure that the state

has selected the most reasonable available access device.

This Panel recommended a 2/3 Federal, 1/3 State cost sharing

program for coastal access (pg. 111-154).

The Panel included in its list of coastal recreational

pursuits, nature walks, sightseeing and swimiming (pg. 111-17).

rThe Report of the Senate Commerce Corunittee with respect

to,tbe original CZM Act is quoted in its Report with respect

to S.586: "The Cow-mittee's report on the CZM Act of 1972

provided suggestions on possible ingredients of a state CZM

Program, without limitation. We specifically mentioned

#ecology. recreation including beaches. . . open space,

including educational and natural preserves, scenic beauty

and public access to the coastline and coastal and estuarine

areas both visual and physical"'-

Of course, the present Act specifically refers to the

recreational and aa-sthaLic resources of the coastal zone

which should be protected and provided for- It also now

refers to "important ecological cultural, historic and

4-38

6. Rigby to Gardner menlo.

aesthetic values in the coastal zone which are essential to

the well being of all citizens.

in summary, it should be made clear that this Section

does not authorize or allow the purchase of beac1has or other

coastal areas. It only authorizes the acquisition of access

to these areas. Also, as noted above, such access need not

be in the form of a fee simple interest, but can be in the

nature of an easement or right-of-way.

4-39'

7. U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resource's (Stratton
Commission's) Panel Report, Vol. III. Science and Environment. (excerpts,
pp.

5. The amount of shoreline available for public
use should be doubled over the next 10 years.
Priority should be given to near metropolitian areas
where public areas are most urgently needed. More
imaginative attemps are required to intergrate
recreational projects with other uses of the coastal
zone such as conservation and industrial uses.

IV. RECREATION-BEACHES AND PARKS

Competition for land and water is sharpest
precisely where the need for water-based recre-
ation is greatest-near metropolitan arm. The

7. Scierice Ld Environment

problem involves not so much the water's physical for the yea 20DO indicate some changes in ranking
mount as its quality and accessibility. with the following the top eight actmties: swim@-
Outdoor recreational facilities are most ming, playing outdoor sports, walking for pleasure,
urgently needed near metropolitan areas. As a driving for pleasure, sightseeing, picnicking, and
ued urbanization, three-quarters of boating.
result of contin
the U.S. population will live in these sires by the The present shoreline gien to ie"16ron'@`&Irlj
.turn of the century, and they will have the greatest shown in Tables 4 and 5.8 At present ab&if 6ki
requirement for outdoor recreation. per cent of the taial recreational sli6ceGe is -M-
Table 4 public ownership. To meet diiiiands 'it 4i con.
sidered essential that abo ut 15 per cent
REGIONAL SHORELINE ALLOCATION available for public use.'
Detailed Recree- Public recre- Private enterprise plays an important role in
Shoreline shoreline tion *don outdoor recreation in coastal areas, a role not
location (statute shoreline shoreline always recognized. The enormous private invest-
miles) (statute (mtute
miles) aglow ments in such resort cities ag Atlantic City, Miami
Beach, and their numerous but smaller counter-
Atlantic parts provide services and facilities for people
Ocean ..... 28,= 9,961 33.6 seeking a variety of outdoor recreation experience
Gulf of
Mexico .... 17,437 4.319 121 ranging from bigIpme fishing to lounging on the
Pacif ic patio of a luxury hotel with a seascape as
Ocean ..... 7,863 3,175 296 background.
Great The technical relationships between recreation
Lakes .... 5,480 4.269 456 and other uses are complex. Partially treated
US. total.. 59.157 21,724 1,209 _ domestic sewage may xender water unfit for
swimming or drinking but may act as a fertilizer
The competition for land use poses both a for fish production. Some recreational uses are
challenge and an opportunity for those metro- incompatible with others, eg., water skiing and
politan areas situated near the coasts and the Great fishing. What share of the salmon supply should be
Lakes. Although such areas may not be able to re- allocated for food and what for recreation? Rarely
serve.facilities for the complete range of water- will the answer be all or none; more likely it will
associated recreational activities, the potential to be a mtional balance of vilue& On the other hand,
secure some is shared by all. certain rare environments like the Indiana dunes
Population pressures on public and outdoor must be reserved intact or lost completely.
recreation facilities are exceeding previous expec- Perhaps more than in any other coastal appli-
tations by wide margins. A 1965 survey conducted cation new concepts of engineering and tech.
by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,' indicated nology can assist or join with other uses. For
that visits to beaches and seashores in 1980 would example, large new offshore port complexes also
total nearly 10 billion, more than double the same could serve as public recreational sites. Shorelines
estimate made in 1960. Projected visits in the year an be lengthened by dredging new harbors and
2000 would be nearly 17 billion, four times the spoil can be used to create islands and peninsulas.
1960 estimate.
Based on the 1965 survey the mor. popular
summertime activities ranked in order are: walking,
for pleasure, swimming, driving for pleasure, playw
ing outdoor sports, bicycling, sightseeing, picnick-
ing, fishing, attending outdoor sports events,
boating, nature walks, and camping. Projections
$Shoreline Recreation Resources pf the United States,
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Re-
7Department of the interior, Outdoor Recreation port No. 4,1962.
rmnds@ April,1967. 90kff VdnirhingShoreffne, 1966.

4-41

8. Stratton Commission. Our Nation and the Sea. (exerpts, pp. 52-53).

Intensification of Coastal Zone Usage

The most intensive uses of the coastal zone
occur at the water's edge. Seaward the prob-
lems become fewer if not simpler, and at the
edge of the continental shelf, problems of
conflicting uses are the exception today.
But- and this is a point the Commission
must stress- problems of multiciple uses of the
coastal zone are moving seaward. The Panel
Report on Management and Development of
the Coastal Zone identifies many areas where
the uses of the coastal zone are increasing.
As use of offshore lands is intensified, the
need for better management practices will
become more urgent.
Theoretically the Nations shoreline
Shoreline Development could be increased almost without
limit. For example, a study by the
Patterns of shoreline development vary Department of Housing and Urban
widely from areas to area depending upon Development has established the
local topography and economic interests. engineering feasibility of multilevel,
Across the Nation and throughout the de- floating coastal cities.
veloped countries of the world, the pressures
on shoreling space have mounted dramatically satisfied by construction of two artificial is-
over the past 20 years and are certain to in- lands from channel-dredging spoil.
crease. Private housing has exercised and will con-
The reasons are clear: the shift of the tinue to exercise the greatest demand for
population from rural areas to the cities (the shore property; for example, the Boca Cliega
Nation's seven largest metropolitian areas are Bay area off the west coast of Flordia has
on the Great Lakes or the sea coast), the been completely transformed by housing de-
spread of suburban development into coastal velopments in the past 20 years. But there
areas, and the increased affluence and leisure are other needs that must be met; heavy in-
time of a large part of our population. dustry, traditionally located on the water's
Theoretically, the Nation's shoreline could edge, seeks a cheap source of industrial water,
be increased almost without limit, and the a simple solution to waste disposal problems,
construction of artificial islands and new har- and ready access to raw material. Pollution
bors and the use of similar techniques to abatement requirments have lessend some-
create shoreline will continue in those areas what the desirability of a waterfront indus-
where demand warrants these actions. In San. trial location, but recent trends in shipping
Diego harbor, for example, pressures for have increased the demand for deep water
additional shoreline space have been partially frontage. Deep water access will be essen-
tial to the future competitiveness of steel and
other U.S. industries which process large

4-42

8. Our Nation and the Sea.

volumnes of heavy raw materials. Any plan for A decent concern for preserving life's
the use of the coastal zone must seek to ac- amanities as well as economic considerations
commodate heavy industry. demands that more adequate provisions be
Future shoreline development also must made for recreational use along the Nation's
provide for additional transportation and crowded shoreline. Today, marine recreation
power generating facilities. From the Civil ranks high in economic importance (Table
War through World War II, a vast network 3-1); according tothe Bureau of Outdoor
of piers, warehouses, and railroads was con- Recreation, by the year 2000, marine recrea-
structed about the perimeters of the Nation's tion in terms of user- days will quadruple.
ports. Today, these facilities are being re- Access to the shoreline for the populations
placed slowly by freeways, airports, special- that increasingly are concentrated in urban
ized bulk cargo and container loading areas along the coasts and the Great Lakes
facilities, and housing. The transition is will present a major coastal zone problem. Of
extraordinarily difficult and will require all the uses of the coastal zone, recreation
planning and coordination of public and uses are the most diversified and pose some
private activities on a wholly new scale. of the greatest challenges to any coastal man-
Electrical power production had doubled agement system.
during every decade of this century. An in-
creasing percentage of new power plants will
use nuclear fuel, and the disposition of waste
heat is an increasing problem. Is is estimated
that by 1980 the power industry will use for
colling one-fifth of the total fresh water run-
off of the United States. An increasing num-
ber of plants will be located along the shore-
line, competing for valuable land, warming
the local waters, and posing major threats to
the regional ecological balance.

Table 3-1 A Comparative Summary of Recreational Activity
In Coastal and Offshore Areas

Type of Recreation Participants Annual expenditures
millions millions of dollars
1964 1975 1964 1975
Swimming 33.0 40.0 1,500 2,000
Surfing 1.0 4.0 50 200
Skin Diving 1.0 3.0 300 900
Pleasure Boating 9.6 14.0 659 1,000
Sport Fishing 8.2 16.0 760 1,300

Total 52.8 77.0 3,260 5,400

4-43

Excerpts from Senate Report 94-277 and House Report 94-878 from the L@Aislative
History of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as Amended in 1474 and 1976
With a Section-by-Section Index. Washington: GPO, 1976. pp. 755-56, 918-19,
923-24, 949.

6. Fund8 for Public Acem to Beachee tutd Praervatim Of 18kIId8
In recent years-both before and after passage of the Coastal Zone
Management Act--wastal States -have realized the increasing diffi-
cult of assuring public access to and protection of beaches and islands
in tKe'coastal zone. Time is of M essence, since property values are
rising steeply and quickly on vraterfront property.. stance to the States
The committee is persuaded that providing assi
for the acquisitions of lands for these purposes is amply justified and
in the national interest. With population and leisure trends pointing
to increased demands on limite public waterfronts, it is imperative to
M
rotect these properties. To wait longer would mean the public will
e to pay higher prices for the, 'Property needed for enjoyment of
public beaches.
A number of States have cited beach access problems as critical in
correspondence with the committee. Maryland reports that only 3 per-
cent of the Chesapeake Bav shorelands are publicly owned. In its cor-
respondence with Senator Hollings, -the State notes:
The beach provisions of S. 586 would provide a planning
element to Maryland,s fledgling public beach access program,
and would. double the purchasing power of limited State
funds that are alreadT committed to purchasing beach lands.
'Thistincreased fundiig could provide impetus for extending
our beach access program to, the Chesapeake Bay shoreline.
Similarly, the Florida Coastal Coordinating Council wrote to Sen-
ator Hollings:
This section will enable Florida to contend with develop-
ment pressures that are threatening to close off public access
to Florida's numerous beaches; this is R problem which. up to
the present, Florida has had substantial difficulty in dealing
with.
The California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission endorsed the
beach and island provision of S. 586 and reported that:
Strong efforts to increase public access to the ocean coast
are contained in the preliminary coastal plan that is now the
subject of 20 public hearings in California.
The director of planning for Guam owed:
The Guam 1* islature has recognized the serious access
Ap
problem its citizens face, and has passed legislation relative
to this problenL Having Federal funds available to help
implement their efforts will improve our effective

4-44

9. Legislative History H.R. 94-878

The other two new 305 program requirments are to provide a plan-
ning process to provide access to and protection for public beaches
and other public coastal areas, and to control the effects of shoreline
erosion in states where this is a major problem.
Access to public beaches and other attractions in public owership
in the coasts has come to be identified as one of the critical problems
facing local and state governments. As William Marks, Chief, Water
Development Services Division, Bureau of Water Management, De-
partment of Natural Resources, State of Michigan, stated to the Com-
mittee:

The inclusion of a greater emphasis on the importance of
islands and beaches, and the concomitant availability of addi-
tional funding for such purposes, is commendable.

In Michigan, where nearly 80 percent of the shoreland is in
private ownership, the establishment of adequate public ac-
cess to beaches, and the preservation of island and beach areas
of environmental, recreational, and esthetic, value, is an ever-
increasing problem.

The Committe position is that action is needed now to help pro-
vide the needed access, especially in urban areas, and that to wait will
only mean additional expense to the taxpayers. The key again is that
the purchase of such access, as is provided in the addition to section
315 (redesignated) to tied to a comprehensive plan. That is the intent
of this new requirment under 305 program, development- that all such
purchases fit into an overall program for each state.

4-45

9. Legislative History, H.R. 94-878.

f. The Committee has made two alterations to the newly designated
section 315 (former 312).
First, the title and coverage of the section is enlarged to become
"Estuarine Sanctuaries and Beach Access," the latter provisions being
new. The new subsection (b) authorizes the Secretary to make grants
up to 5o percent to acquire access to such public areas in the coastal
me as beaches, plus areas of environment, historic, esthetic, ecolog-
ical or cultural value.
This authorization complements the new requirement the Committee
has added to section 305 for a beach protection and access planning
process. Because time is of the essence in acquiring access, particularly
in urban coastal areas, it was felt advisable at this time to accompany
the planning requirement with the funds to carry out the plans.
The Committee does not intend to authorize purchase of lands for
beaches or other public uses. The concern is that there are areas already
in public ownership on the short which, for one reason or another, am
not readily accessible to the public.
The Committee's further concern is that in providing the means of
opening up this access. we do not overburden the resource. That is why
the authorization for funds is tied to the planning requirement of sec-
tion 305--the intent is to see to it that this expanded means of access
fits into an overall recreational plan and that due care is given to pro-
tect areas susceptible of damage from excess use. The Committee be-
lieves that incorporating the expanded access authorization with a
comprehensive program that includes designation of areas of critical
concern offers this assurance.

4-46

9. LegislativeHistory, H.R. 94-878.

Beach acce88 pravi&im
(19) This section makes a major additiozi'to the estuanine sanc-
tuary provision of the original,. Azt. This is accomplished A;st by
renaming the section "Estuarine. Sa@qctuaries and Beach Acces�"
rather than referring only to the sanctua:ries.
Subsection (b) authorizes the SecretiLry"to make 50 percent match-
ing grants. the same percenta e as with grants to acquire -estuarine
sanctuaries, for the purchase of mean of access to public beaches and
other publicly-held attractions along the cda#.
This provision is in 'he needs identified b7 &-n
response to t umber: of
states for early action to protect the @publicls access to areas alre4dy
in public ownership but in danger of 6eiri
g, blocked from- re&dy-us by
property developmenVaearby.
In addition to beach properties for. which abeess would- be pro-
vided, access to -other public areas of iniet6st could be purchased.
These areas include those of environmental, recreational, historical,
esthetic, ecological, and cultural value. These are the identical areas
which state programs must include in the new planning requirement
added to the development of state management programs under sec-
tion 305.
In the case of public areas of ecological or esthetic interest, for ex-
ample, the access which would be permitted by the use of matching
funds under this subsection.would naturally be limited. The Commit-
tee understands that access to such precious areas will be strictly
limited according to the sound management principles which state,
management programs are to include.
Although not stipulated in H.R. 3981, it is understood that states
must have substantially completed the public area protection and
access planning process required under section 305 (b) (7) before being
eligible to receive grants under subsection 315 (b). This is to insure that
purchases made pursuant to this subsection are in harmony with the
overall state management program and that they are in keiping with
the balanced approach. contemplated in subsection 305 (b) (7). The
planning process mandated there is to provide both protection of and
access to public areas; the purchase of means of access to these same
public areas should conform to this process.

4-47

10. Funding Authorizations for National Seashores (Table) from "A Review
of the Acquisition Costs of National Seashores," Congressional Research
Services, 1977.

CRS-3

TA.BLE'-1'--

FUNDING AUTHORIZATI .ONS FOR NATIONAL SEASHORES

Subsequent Amount of
Date Appropria- Appropria- Acquisition
Siishore-' Authorized tions tion-Date Increase Reason for Increase

Cape Cad,- ..Aug. 1961 $16,000,000 May 1970 $17,500,000 original cost esti-
Mass-. mates too low; land
price escalation

Point@ R-eyes, f:'Sept. 1962 $14,000,000 Oct. 1968 5,135,000 Original cost esti-
mates too low; land
Avr. 1970 $38,365,000 price escalation; a
land exchange pro-
vision failed; and
more lands were added
to the unit (about
26,000 acres).
96-f-$ 5,000,000 Oct. 1968 $ 6,810,380* To satisfy claims
Padre Island, Sept. I
Texas awarded following
July 1969 $-4,129,829* condemnation suits.

Fire Island, Sept. 1964 $16,000,000
New York

Assateague Sept. 1965 S116,250,000 March 1972 $ 4,800,000 To satisfy claims
Island, Md. awarded following
condemnation suits.

Gulf Islands, Jan. 1971 $ 3,120,000 Apr. 1972 $ 342,000 Size of unit in-
Miss., Fla. creased by 100
acres.

Cumberland Oct. 1972 W,500,000
Ga.

Cape Jan; 1975 7,9419000-
Canavaral,
Fla.

Subtotal $78,811,000 $78,276..943

interest. Final cost was S12,134,943.

4-48

10. Funding Authorizations.

CP.S-4

TABLE.L.

FUNDING AUTHORIZATIONS FOR NATIONAL SEASHORES
(CONT-D).-

SubsequenL Amount of
Date Appropria- ApproprEa- Acquisition
Seashore Authorized tions tiou Date Increase-' Reason for rzereasq..

Cape Hatteras, Aug. 1937 None Aug. 1956 150,000 Federal funding 9f
N..C.*** laud acquisition
approved.
June 1968 $ 2,500,000 To satisfy-claims-
.awarded following _-
condemnatioh suit-s.

Cave Mar. 1966 3,200,000** Oct. 1974 $ 4,703,000 Si=e of unit
i.ookout, increased.
N.C.***

TOTAL $82,011,000 $85,729,943

For Development as well as acqui,&ition..

Units with significant land donations.

1. Sources for f i*ures are the several piiblic- laws originally. autnorizing the
national seashores or those subsequently amending the authorizations.

2. Tbe reasons for increa.se in cost are derived frozi reviev-of-th---pub@@...
laws, committee report's and hearings on the various seashores.

4-49

APPENDIX FIVE: ANALYSIS OF THE GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS OF THE LAND AND WATER

CONSERVATION FUND

Formulae used:

TA cc M Total Acquisitions for Coastal Counties In dollars
Tee A,+C Total for Coastal Counties with Acquisition and Combination
( Acquisition + Development ) grants In dollars

TC cc ft Total Combination grants-for Coastal Counties in dollars
Tcc A+C Total for Coastal Counties with Acquisition and
Combination grants in dollars

TA cc M Total Acquisitions for Coastal Counties in dollars
STA Total State Acquisitions in dollars

TC cc M Total Combination xrants for Coastal Counties (countl
STC Total State Combination grants (count)

5-1

TA TC -Ti M TCcc
ME ION I c c $ c c c c
-ST m s rc
T c c A+C Tcc A*C M A

4dl T 1@ 5,
2. 6OZ, ]Z9. k6 4,ol3.25-
10.464,016,.w 10.404.016 . 46 .51431,424.50 17
ALASKA
.385 925 .738 1

3,Q2.536.;6 10,252 7 3121Z. 16.- 6 2
8.343,401-76 .18,343,401-76 14,569,812.17 12
OREGON
.38 .0012 @22o;& ol66#ao

Z.987 [email protected] 421.923.46 [email protected] 2
2' - 7-
14.452,741..44 14,452,741.44 .12,541,425.73
WASHINGTON

.55 .03 .64 .50

REGION III

4J.651,484.23 48,651,484.23
;d,
CAL IFURNIA ?59,832.99 64,092.765.87
.67 .76

7.417,963.91 6N.,.304.18, 7.41Z.963.21 2
r 806-36 12,54?. 36 7.956,322-95
HAWAII 129 A79 2

.6o
.53 .93 1

6MN - 2
T7-,-6-50- 2
AMEVV SMIOA

TA cc TC cc M TA cc M TC cc
T- T A+C ST STC
cc A+C M cc M A

15,000
79,000
GUAM

REGION III
No Coastal Counties)

MG ION IV

'298, 2,96'.'551
21.
'Al.- 8'
47-8. @2. 595-19
ILLINOIS 22,701,447-T5
.94 e44

2
-.1316.41
@q 2 3(0
..2,351,609.2 2,351-609.2 8,114-,770.27
INDIANA
.05
.15 04

8 w
op -K"'3L4-34
22,567,113P.IT2-- 22,567,113.42 -1-&, 2 16, 6? 1
MICHIGkfl-
V
922***
024 .52,
042
298.02 2.008.5 29N 122
MINNESOTA 19470.2?9.32 16470,279-32 16,11B.14,0.69 39
1 .02 -.025
..203 .003.3

TC
Tc TA CC-
Ac c c- c c
ST
c
T T A*C STc
C*C",k+c cc

6
6
12.177 153,700 12. -12.21
8 J1 15,225,785.41 29,045,56565 19
15,@2517-
OHIO
.80 .01009 .42 .0526

6
4.o7o.62o.86
4,oZR.620 86 2640285.91 29
7,760,025.9 7.760,02 16,413,422-33
WISCONSIN 5.68
o34 o25 .21
.52

REGION v

m 622,734.o4 3334079.12
[email protected],12 390-20,289.45
3,494,052.13 3,4940052.13
MABAMA
i'llo io4,
.178

23,858 00 .4
23,80,009.45
29.7B4,478.45 29,784,478.45 29,327921
FLORIDA
.813
.80 .0105

4-36.500 436,500
-1,-4bW, 5 2 6 10.409,070.23
GEORGIA - C7
.04
631
74,542 50,000 Z@L542
832,965.5 - 832,965.5 2,193,803.49 .18
MISSISSIPPI
.689 o6 o34 .05-se

TA cc TC cc TA cc M TC cc
T cc A4C M Tcc A+C STA 775 ST C

2,444,779. 94,637-19 2,414,779.54 4
NORTH CAROLINA 3.1859577-41----!@ 3.185-577.16 10,729,165.45 79

.76 .03 @.27 .05

@.722,777- 1,44,714.48 2.779 777,97
5.576.-134.F3 5.576.134.6T 94:[email protected]
SOUTH CAROLINA 7.3
.50 .376:
.2

2
6
aui i -2
WJO99 9
PUERTO RICO

.765

2 51, Z4
_0.25
1818,9134.11
VIRGIN ISLANDS

.31

REGION YI

it,
90 i id.26 -.22a A,
a -
115,766,&3.o9 19,0y@,M.'41'
CONNECTICUT

188..
200.OOD 9.4t.2".-68
19.4.@!, 260.88 W
il2,226,368.94 112,226,368*94 9,554.260.88
DELAWARE
ol6 .989

TA TC TA' M TC
cc c c c c ---C-C-.
T A+C ST M ST
cc A+C cc A C

1.362,578.47 77. 7 14
1.346.9 3,362,578.4 28
MAINE 6.779,050-29 6,779,050.29 69783,782.02
"49.
.496 0198

11.850,059,49 U149
236,35ll7l- 11.850.0,
15,871015-05 15,871#145-05- 19,843,981-91 7
MARYLAND
.746 .015 .60

4,708P &476i 0
47 A.708J22.47
MASSACHUSEVS 22,310,223..0.7 22,310,223.07 15,078V 365.02
.21 .30 .31 *833see

Ln 940139.21 711.516.23 94,139,25
J, 2,439,226.56 2,439,226.56 3,642,023-97 41-
NEW HAMPSHIRE

'7
GL21
.038 .30

60021,381.42 6.o2l'- 181.42
14,008,542.76 14.009,542.66
NEW JLTbEY
.4?5 .43

[email protected] 10.925.448.98
10,925,448.98
51,267,834-19 51,267.834-19 17,280,443.5 17
NEW YORK
.213 .038 .63 .53
859,759.97 150,000 850,759-92 2
8,456,9136.18 8p456,986.18 7. 044. 3 2- 2. 8 5 -r
PEWYLVANIA .10 o4 .11

TA TC TA M tc
T cc M T cc A+C ST cc ST cc
cc A+C cc A c

3.131.186.47 93,176.06 3,131,186.47 4
MODE ISLAND 23,509,820.9 23,509,820.9 3,181,922.47 -Tf7

013 0004 098

6,74i,@!6.26 47
5,454.o52.
12,598,969.11 12,598,969.11 :21,106,484.17 2V
VIRGINIA'
2'
.53 04@ .3

RMION VII

17,783444.21',
t,4
17821,Mb-.'2f,, 1 L _B- 563 4
7 .- '.. I
29
17,71 12,236,407-79
17,719..512047 9.0 5i
WUISIANA
.6@
,44 tip.

6.Q7.268. 1.8Z2.ol4.07 6,837,268.53--
TEXAS 15,697.09257-7 15,09?.092.41 17,096,254-97 71
1266
0435

3 v
_7 7,
TV

TA Igitione for all Coastal Counties In dollars
---I'tates in dollars
NT Total National Acquisitions for Coastal
A.
Tc into for all Coastal, Counties icountL-
Total Watiqnal Corwination gr 3-t6-s-Tcount)
to for Cca;tal St

?c
Th
NT NT
C
k

238j7?a- 159
471;817';638.37,1 625
e, r

1505 .23

TA lotalAcquisitions for all Coastal Counties in dollars
ST Total-State Grants (Acquisition, Planning, Development) in dollars

TC Total Combination grants for all Coastal Counties (count)
7TG Total State Grants (AcquiAitiong Planningg Development) (count)

Total Adquisitions for all Coastal Counties In dollars
NT Total National AcquisiticIns for Coastal States in doll to
1 4
TC@ Total Combination grants for all Coastal Counties (co 0
NT YOT n grant
-ij-Natimal Combin'ati a for Coastal States ount)
j j

U1
I 'TA TC TA,
TC
STG -ST6 14T NTC

238,377.03%.66 139 238,377,834.66 159
1,012,66P@1;625.4 @71,817,638.37 625
5P

.236 .12 .505 .25

A
r 1

1 1111011
3 6668 00001 1140