Cover Page

Contents

Preface
Letter

SECTION I

Orientation
Summary

SECTION II

History
Needs
Geography
Historic Sites
Competitors
Economic Aspects

SECTION III

Federal Lands
State and Interstate
Local

SECTION IV

Division of Responsibility
Local
State
Federal
Circulation

SECTION V

Educational Opportunities

Principles of Acquisition and Development

State Recreation Surveys.—There is a general agreement among those consulted as to the necessity of some form of State-wide study or survey as the basis of a program of acquiring lands to be devoted to recreation. The method of conducting such surveys has varied greatly among the several States, ranging all the way from that undertaken for Wisconsin in 1908 by John Nolen, consultant in city planning, in which four sites were recommended for acquisition, to the Iowa conservation plan of 1932, which covered every form of conservation activity. The belief that surveys are worth undertaking, but that public mention of specific areas is undesirable, is indicated in the Connecticut survey of 1913, and in the statement of Richard Lieber, president of the National Conference on State Parks, to the effect that "such a survey should be the work of one or two men who can keep their mouths shut." Most of the published results of such surveys have in fact been fairly specific concerning areas to be acquired.

State surveys are a basic necessity in any effort to place and keep a State system of recreational areas free from inclusion of low-grade properties. Against the idea of complete secrecy regarding areas found worthy of inclusion is the argument that when the essential details of a program are publicly known and public support of it is based on intelligent knowledge, it is easier to defend it in case of attempts to break it down.

It is recommended that State park, recreation reserve, and monument acquisition programs be based on and proceed from a comprehensive survey of the State's actual and potential outdoor recreational resources. Such a survey should seek to determine, as far as possible, the needs of the people of the State for facilities for outdoor use of their leisure time with respect to the total amount of such needs, the kinds of facilities required to meet them, the ideal pattern of distribution of such facilities, the extent to which such needs are being satisfactorily met by existing facilities, and whether publicly or privately owned. The survey should also attempt to ascertain the location and the probable cost of acquisition, development, and operation of those areas which, if brought into State or other public ownership, could be made to meet those needs satisfactorily.

In the cases of all areas proposed for public acquisition such a survey requires a careful appraisal of their public values as against their values if left in private ownership. It should include careful consideration of the several public purposes—recreation, forest protection, stream control, and wildlife protection and production—to which they might be put. It should also determine as nearly as possible—taking into account the distribution of the population of adjacent States and the extent to which their leisure time needs are being met or are likely to be met—the amount of use which proposed recreational areas are apt to render to out-of-State visitors.

Bases of Selection.—It is recommended that in the selection of any areas for recreational use the following factors be considered:

1. "Where a site offers unusual or unique features, which are not duplicated or perhaps even approached elsewhere in the State, the strongest possible reason exists for including it in any proposed system, even in the face of serious obstacles."¹

---

¹ Evison, Herbert, editor, A State Park Anthology, Washington, D. C., National Conference on State Parks, 1930, see chapter Planning a System of State Parks for Connecticut, by Albert M. Turner, p. 78.

---

2. Its scenic quality, by comparison with that of other areas considered for inclusion in the system, as well as with those within easy reach in neighboring States either included or likely to be included in their systems.

3. The extent of desirable lands possible of acquisition and the probable adequacy of such lands to furnish the quantity and kind of recreation which the area would be designed to supply.

4. The actual or potential variety and quantity of active recreation procurable in it, outside of those portions where certain values indicate the wisdom of relatively complete preservation.

5. Its probable ability to yield all or a large part of its cost of operation through legitimately imposed and reasonable fees for special services, or certain forms—limited as to duration and extent—of exclusive occupancy.

6. Its location with respect to population which might be expected to use it and to competition of other areas offering similar facilities.

7. The significance of its historical, archeological, and scientific values, and their relation to other areas within the State which possess similar or related values.

The entire system should be based on careful studies of the future growth of the State and should be closely tied in with the complete plan for the State and region.

Gifts to State Recreation Systems.—As a corollary of the preceding suggestions, it is recommended that any proposed gift of lands, or lands and waters, for recreational purposes be subjected to most careful scrutiny to ascertain its adequacy or the possibility of so adding to it as to make it adequate; that it be accepted only if it fits satisfactorily into the pattern of holdings determined for the State as a whole; and that assurance be given that it is not hedged about by such reservations as enable the prospective donor to retain all values by which he sets any store, such as mineral or water-power rights—the ultimate use of which may injure or impair its recreational value while avoiding the necessity of paying taxes upon it. The State should in all cases possess complete title to its recreational properties.

Bases for Establishment of Boundaries.—It is recommended that the States, in acquiring State parks, monuments, and recreation reserves, bear particularly in mind both the kind and quantity of possible use, and that they exert special effort to obtain an adequate extent of territory to care for that use.

The principal factors in determining adequacy appear to be these:

1. Complete inclusion of such extraordinary scenic, historic, prehistoric, and scientific features as are proposed to be preserved in the area.

2. Inclusion of ample additional areas susceptible of development for such intensive and wearing public use as is likely to occur so that the features themselves may be cared for without destruction or impairment of their extraordinary values.

3. Inclusion, in the case of State parks, of sufficient area to provide extensive use amid unspoiled and relatively unmodified natural surroundings where a feeling of spaciousness and complete separation from manmade things and the ordinary daily preoccupations of men prevades.

4. Inclusion of sufficient buffer area between the boundary of the park, monument, or recreation reserve, and all points of concentrated use to discourage the establishment of "parasite" business undertakings.

5. Inclusion, wherever possible, of territory of such extent and character as will provide a reasonably satisfactory year-round habitat for the wildlife to be found within it.

It is recommended, as a corollary of the preceding, that whenever any State is under the unfortunate necessity of acquiring any area piecemeal, public use be prohibited, so far as possible, until such time as it may be permitted without the danger of adverse effects—from the standpoint of the State—on the values of such additional lands as are planned ultimately to be included within the park.

Elimination of Undesirable Holdings.—Since it appears that most States have included in their recreational systems certain areas which are either almost wholly of local value, or which yield (and will probably always yield) so small a recreational return that the State is not justified in continuing to operate them, it is suggested that State park agencies undertake a careful study of their holdings and an analysis of the amount and kind of their actual or potential recreational service, with the idea of eliminating from their systems those holdings that manifestly do not belong there.

Scenic Easements.—It is recommended that in the case of areas, such as certain monuments and recreation reserves, in which a relatively small extent of public ownership will supply sufficient space for all necessary or desirable public uses, the States supplement such public ownership with easements on adjoining property, by which use of such property for undesirable purposes may be prevented. Such easements are equally desirable in the case of State parks where it is impossible or unduly costly to obtain such protection by means of land purchase.

Limitations on Types of Public Use.—It is recommended that the types and extent of public use to be permitted on any State park, monument, or recreation reserve be carefully determined in order to prevent destruction of those values—scenic, historic, prehistoric, scientific, or active-recreational—by means of which the establishment of the area as a public property for public use was originally justified. This recommendation does not necessarily preclude any form of healthful recreation from these areas, but does involve a careful weighing of all values possessed by the area and of the relative value of all uses to which it may be put. It should be borne in mind that there are millions of acres of land on which golf, tennis, archery, and other active recreation may be enjoyed, but that areas of fine forest, or natural meadow, as well as streams, waterfalls, lakes, and ocean front of unmodified natural beauty are relatively rare. Particularly to be guarded against is the widespread tendency to place active recreational use on the State monument type of holding, which, more often than not, is wholly unsuited for it.

Limitation of Areas of Intensive Public Use.—In order to facilitate administration, it is recommended that the necessary modification of natural features be kept to a minimum, to avoid pollution of streams, and to reduce fire hazard, and that the number of locations to be devoted to intensive and wearing use in any State park be limited to one or to the smallest number possible.

Need of Nonpartisan Administration and Qualified Employees.—It is recommended that the States recognize the selection, planning, and administration of State recreational areas—parks, monuments, and recreation reserves—as a specialized field of governmental activity; that selection of members of boards or commissions and of administrative officials and employees should be wholly on a basis of ability and character, free from partisan political considerations. Every effort should be exerted to attain continuity of policy and permanence of employment of qualified personnel. The necessity of employing trained and experienced persons in selection of sites, in delimitation of suitable boundaries, in planning development, and in execution of development should be particularly stressed.

In view of the wide variety of park administration organizations to be found in the several States, and particularly in view of the fact that the successful administrative machine depends for its success more on the type of men who compose it than on the particular form or organization, it is difficult to be specific as to the type of administrative organization which most nearly approaches the ideal. It is believed, however, that in general the grouping of various conservation efforts in a single department under a commission proves the most satisfactory. Essential features of such an organization seem to be:

1. A nonpartisan board or commission, the terms of whose members are "staggered" in such a way that a majority of the membership will always have served at least 2 years. Such an arrangement encourages continuity of policy and makes it difficult for any governor during a single term of office to change completely the complexion of the board. The functions of such a board are those of establishing policies, deciding budgetary requirements, passing on major fiscal matters, and selecting the executive head of the department. Active participation in administration is not included in the functions of the board.

2. Selection of an executive head for the entire department, who should possess broad understanding of the whole field of conservation and of the proper relationships of its various parts.

3. Coordination of divisions within the department dealing with parks, forests, fish and game, and any other specific conservation functions.

Whatever the organization, it is felt to be particularly important that administration of parks and other purely recreational areas should not be subordinated to any other branch of conservation, either forestry or fish and game.

Legislative Provisions.—In addition to such provisions in law as are required to define and establish the agency which is to be entrusted with administration of State parks and areas of closely related character, any park act should contain the following provisions if it is to be reasonably adequate:

1. The governing board or commission, established in the act, would be empowered to acquire lands for State park, parkway, monument, and recreation re serve purposes, and to develop and administer such properties for the purposes for which they are established.

2. It would be specifically empowered to accept or reject lands, whether donated, devised, or bequeathed, for inclusion in the State's system of recreation areas, or funds to be utilized for acquisition, development, or operation of such lands.

3. It would be empowered not only to make direct purchases of lands but also to exercise the right of eminent domain.

4. It would be authorized to set aside, for park or other recreational purposes, such lands as are already in State ownership and not required for other purposes.

5. It would be authorized to undertake surveys and studies to determine the State's facilities for recreation, its needs, and such areas as might be acquired in order to meet those needs.

6. It would be empowered to employ such administrative and technical assistance as might be required in order properly to plan, develop, and maintain the areas which it is to administer, and to meet, with available funds, such costs of acquisition, development, and maintenance.

7. It would have the power to undertake such development of the areas it administers as would safeguard their scenic, scientific, historic, and wildlife values, and add to their usefulness for recreation and education.

8. It would have the power to make and enforce regulations relating to the protection, care, and use of the areas it administers, and violation of any such regulation should be made a misdemeanor. It would also be authorized to enforce and to delegate to others authority to enforce the laws of the State on the areas it administers.

9. It would be authorized to impose such fees as it might deem reasonable and proper for use of such facilities as might be provided in the areas it administers.

10. It would be authorized to enter into agreements with private parties for operation of services within the areas it administers. The act could well name a limit—perhaps "not to exceed a period of 5 years"—for the duration of any such concession agreement.

11. Because it is desirable from the standpoint of human safety, as well as wildlife conservation, any State park act should include a clause prohibiting hunting on any park, monument, or recreation reserve

Support of State Recreational Undertakings.—The recreation "plant" of the States is now worth approximately $170,000,000. It is still in many respect incomplete, even in those States which have gone ahead most soundly and with the most generous financial support. It is not, in the ordinary sense, a money-making plant; its earnings and its dividends are in forms which, for the most part, cannot be expressed adequately in dollars and cents. There can be no doubt that it needs protection; that public use of it could not very well be prevented even if it were desirable to do so; and that use should be regulated in such a way that it may be enjoyed safely and beneficially.

It is therefore recommended as desirable that the legislatures of the several States provide regular and adequate funds for the orderly acquisition, development, and maintenance of such areas as are found suitable for inclusion in their recreational systems.

Advisory Services.—It is recommended as sound and economical that those agencies entrusted with administration of parks, monuments, and recreation reserves be so equipped as to personnel and funds for the handling of recreation problems, that they may not only concern themselves with these problems as they arise in connection with parks, monuments, and recreation reserves, but may also supply consultant service in connection with recreational use of State forests and other State-owned open spaces.

The sound development, operation, and use of lands for recreation may require constantly or occasionally the services of the architect, the landscape architect, the civil engineer, the sanitary engineer, the forester, the plant pathologist, the biologist, the wildlife expert, the public health expert, the expert in soils, the erosion control engineer, and a wide variety of other technical services.

Fees.—Since use and enjoyment of State parks, monuments, and recreation reserves is not, and probably never will be, on such a completely equitable basis as to provide actual equality of opportunity for all the people, it is recommended that a part of all of their cost of operation be borne by those who use them, through payment of reasonable fees for any special service rendered, for the privilege of limited exclusive occupancy of any part of an area, or for individual use of any sports or other recreation equipment. This may include fees for use of supervised and protected parking spaces, for camping and picnicking, for fuel, for bathing, for rental of locker or dressing room, and for rental of boats and canoes. Such income should either be available, under proper restriction, for expenditure by the administrative authority or should be set up in a special fund in the State treasury for appropriation for park, monument, and recreation reserve purposes.

Exclusive-Use Occupancy.—In accordance with the practically unanimous opinion of leaders in the State recreation field, it is recommended that no form of long-term exclusive occupancy of any portion of any state park, monument, or recreation reserve such as leases for erection of summer homes be permitted. By "long-term" is meant for more than a single season, and such occupancy for as much as a single season should be subject to termination at any time.

Construction of Facilities.—Although certain facilities, such as hotels, housekeeping cottages, restaurants, and stores, are necessary to proper enjoyment of many State parks, it is recommended that structures to be utilized for these purposes be built by the State.

Operation of Facilities.—It is further recommended either that the State operate all such facilities directly, or that it provide for their operation by means of a concession contract awarded on the basis of the ability, financial reliability, and character of the park operator; never on competitive bidding. The latter arrangement is considered inimical to the public interest.

Highway Construction.—In a large number of cases, State parks have been opened up to extensive highway development, with consequent serious impairment of their natural characteristics; in other cases, they have been seized upon as adjuncts of State highways which have been routed through them primarily because of their State-park status.

Besides introducing an inharmonious element into the parks, the latter practice adds to the difficulties of administrative control. It is, therefore, urged upon the States that this problem be carefully studied and that, in general, roads be limited to those required to provide access to a central point, or central points, and those needed to make one or two fine scenic features relatively easy of access.

It is further earnestly recommended that the practice of building trunk highways, or any but purely park roads, through State parks be prevented wherever possible.

Although in a few States park roads are constructed by State highway departments or by county road authorities, final control of location and design should always rest with the authorities charged with park administration.

Preservation of Natural Conditions.—Because preservation of natural conditions is one of the primary objectives for which State parks, as herein defined, are established, and because that involves not only preservation of forests and plant life and prohibition of hunting, but, so far as possible, nondisturbance of plant and animal life and living conditions, it is urged:

1. That in every State park a liberal portion of its total area, where natural conditions are at their best, be left completely undisturbed without attempt at clean-up or improvement, free from roads, and with only a limited amount of trail.

2. That such areas be so bounded as to provide, if possible, satisfactory, year-round habitat for the non-migratory wildlife species to be found therein.

3. That wildlife conditions be made the subject of careful study in connection with any State park acquisition program, to the end that sanctuary areas of reasonably adequate extent may be provided wherever possible.

4. That all development plans for State parks be carefully checked to ascertain the probable effect of the proposed development on wildlife.

5. That any necessary introductions of animals and plants into State parks be limited to indigenous species already found in the area or that have in the past been native to it.

6. That hunting in State parks be prohibited as foreign to their character and purpose and dangerous to other users of the parks.

Probable Extent of State Park Lands Desirable for the United States

Although the figure of 1 acre of park or playground area to each hundred inhabitants is generally accepted as a desirable minimum for the cities of more than 10,000 population, there is not, and probably never will be, any agreement as to a minimum ratio between State and national park acreage and population. Several variables are responsible for this situation.

In a great many States, use by nonresidents is an important factor to be considered. Maine, for instance, has a comparatively small population, but no sound planning for parks can be made upon that basis alone.

The coast, the hundreds of lakes, the forests, the mountains and streams of Maine offer such opportunities for outdoor recreation that any system that Maine might establish would be certain to have a very large degree of use by nonresidents—probably equal in a well selected system to that of residents of the State.

The same factor is important in New England, and in the Western States.

Another factor is the vast difference in active recreation capacity of various types of land. A comparatively small park fronting on or containing a body of water capable of use for bathing, fishing, and boating possesses high capacity for active recreation. At the other end of the scale, perhaps, is the desert, such as California has included in the Borego Desert Palm Canyon State Park—an extraordinarily fine possession because of its profusion of desert flora and fauna, its hidden groves of palms and the rugged mountains which hem it. The desert has a strong attraction for many people. Essential to maintenance of its character unmodified is control of an extensive unit of area. Its comparative lack of value for other uses makes such control possible at low cost. However, it is wholly unsuited for intensive recreation.

In addition, fairly complete inclusion of scenic features of outstanding quality in State parks frequently requires the taking of large acreage, by no means proportioned to expected amount of use. Mount San Jacinto State Park in California and the Greylock Reservation in Massachusetts are examples of this type of State park.

For the country as a whole, the authors of "What About the Year 2000?"², published in 1929, estimated a probable ultimate need of between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 acres for State parks. On the basis of State-by-State calculations, which attempt to take account of both the extent and variety of State parks in each State and the probable volume of use, this need is estimated to be 7,680,000. This figure does not contemplate any considerable increase in New York's State park properties. If all of the States, except New York, were to acquire approximately the acreage estimated as desirable, and New York carried out its complete purchase program in the Adirondacks and the Catskills—which would involve about 2,000,000 acres more—the estimated total would of course be subject to modification by that amount.

---

² Joint Committee on Bases of Sound Policy, What About the Year 2000? Harrisburg, Pa., McFarland, 1928, 168 pp., maps, plans.

---

The State-by-State estimate is shown in table XXX.

---

¹ 225,000 acres included here are in Big Bend State Park, which will become a part of the proposed Big Bend National Park.

---

Continued >>>

Last Modified: Fri, Sep. 5, 2003 10:32:22 am PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/recreational_use/chap4-3a.htm