ABSTRACT A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES PERTAINING TO PUBLIC OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS by Anthony Francis Abar The purpose of this study is to review and analyze recreation land classification schemes utilized by agencies, organizations, and individuals to classify the public recreation areas of the United States. The expanding demand for recreational Opportunities has created an awareness of the need for planning to insure an adequate supply of available lands and facilities. Classification systems are a valuable aid in recreation planning programs. However9 their value is not limited to such uses. Information for this study was obtained from available literature, and materials from federal and state recreation-oriented agencies throughout the country. A review of past classification efforts at the local, state, and federal levels is followed by an investigation. of the present activities of a number of agencies--at each of these levels-- related to recreational land classification° The classification systems investigated were analyzed in light of several considerations presented at the outset of this study“ The guiding hypotheses for this thesis were: 1. Many different types of recreation land classification schemes have been, and are being, used in the United States--due to variations in the motives underlying individual classification efforts, and the variety of criteria on which such classification systems are based. . 2. There are examples of classification systems-~perhaps a single system--that are being ad0pted or recognized by a number of agen- cies concerned with the provisions of recreation opportunities--as a manifestation of an expanding desire to achieve homogeneity among such classification programs and schemes throughout the country. In general, the evidence revealed in this study supports the validity of these hypotheses. Classification systems at. all agency levels serve a number of functions, are based on a variety of criteria, and thus vary greatly, in form and content, throughout the nation. However, classifications supported by several agencies or organizations with nation- wide influence have been adapted by a number of agencies concerned with the provision of recreation Opportunities, thus providing some semblance of unity among existing recreation classification schemes. Recommendations based on the findings of this study are concerned with: 1) the separation of criteria in individual classification systems; 2) the integration of local and state with nationwide classification pro- grams; 3) the establishmwt of a continuing organization to coordinate and guide recreation land classification efforts at all levels. A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES PERTAINING TO PUBLIC OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS By Anthony Francis Abar A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource DeveIOpment 1967 ACIQ‘IOWLEDGE MENTS For their generous assistance in the preparation of this thesis, I am deeply indebted to many persons whom I should like to thank. First to my major professor, Dr. Milton H. Steinmueller, Associate Professor, Department of Resource Deve10pment, Michigan State University, for his guidance and suggestions both in the deve10pment of the t0pic and in reading the early draft. To Mr. Louis F. Twardzik, Associate Professor, Department of Resource Development and Dr. R. Keith Hudson, Assistant Professor, Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, for many helpful comments and their interest in acting as members of my committee. To Dr. Raleigh Barlowe, Chairman, Department of Resource Development, for making my Master's program both intellectually stimulating and financially feasible. To the many federal and state agency personnel who con- tributed information about their agencies' programs. To members of the Parks and Recreation and Recreation Resources Planning Divisions of the Michigan Department of Conservation who generously made many documents available. To my wife for her patience and perseverance. Anthony Francis Abar ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................. LIST OF APPENDICES .................................. Chapter I. BACKGROUND ............................... Introduction ............... . .............. The Nature of Recreation ................... Recreation and Land . .,. .................... The Need for Flaming ..................... Data Collection in Planning ................. Value of Classification Systems . . . . . . . ....... Justification of Study ....................... Purpose of Study .......................... Hypothesis ............................... Methods of Data Collection .................. Limits of Study ............................ II. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE--THE LOCAL LEVEL . Early Parks .............................. Early Lo‘cal Recreation Studies .............. Sample Classification Systems ooooooooooooooo III. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE--THE STATE LEVEL . Early State Parks ...... Early State Recreation Area Studies °°°°°°°°° Early National Park Service Studies ,,,,,,,,,, Examples of State Recreational Land Classifications 0000000000000000000000000 iii 44 47 5'? 68 7O 73 77 82 Chapter VI. VII. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE--THE FEDERAL LEVEL ...................................... Early Federal Parks and Recreation PrOperties . Deve10pment of the National Park System ...... Other Federal Agencies Administering Recreation Areas ........................ Examples of Federal Recreation Land Classification Systems ................... Summary Comments ....................... PRESENT STATUS--THE LOCAL LEVEL ........ Recent Local Recreational Land Classification Schemes ............................... General State Recreational Land Classifications . Examples of Recent State Level Recreation Land Classification Systems ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Summary Comments ........................ PRESENT STATUS-—THE FEDERAL LEVEL ...... Bureau of Outdoor Recreation ................ Other Federal Recreation Land Classification , Schemes ............................... SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary ............................. ‘. . . . Conclusions ............................... Recommendations .......................... APPENDICES .......................................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................... iv 96 98 102 110 113 124 126 129 137 140 148 167 169 171 174 197 198 198 203 207 211 231 Appendix LIST OF APPENDICES Correspondence and State Agencies Receiving Request ................................... Correspondence and Federal Agencies Receiving Request ........................... Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Classification System ................................... Definitions adOpted in the 1959 National Forest Recreation Survey .......................... National Association of Soil and Water Conserva- tion Districts Recreation Inventory Forms:- Public and Private .......................... Page 212 218 221 223 228 CHAPTER I BACKGROUND Introduction A substantial amount of recent literature has been devoted to the subject of leisure in modern American society. Leisure is the time remaining after an individual has secured whatever he considers the "necessities" of life. Leisure is not a new phenomenon--a segment of the population in practically every society has experienced periods of time which could be utilized in whatever manner, or for whatever purpose, a person desired. The unique feature of leisure in present American society is that it has been extended to such a large pr0portion of the popu- lation. Leisure is no longer limited to the "elite" or "privileged" class. Our era has been described as the age of "mass leisure. " The percentage of the p0pulace that experiences leisure is greater in this nation than in any other society; the amount of free time each individual has is also at an all-time high. Many of the same forces that have provided today's American citizen with unprecedented quantities of leisure time have also enabled him to secure an unequalled standard of 1iving—-characterized by high diSposable personal income and resulting in exploding demands for con- sumer goods and services. 2 Increased leisure facilitates the solution of many problems, but, at the same time, poses a number of Other problems Social scientists, from a variety of disciplines, have commented on the probable impact widespread leisure will have on the members of Our somety. It is not the purpose of this paper to review or add to the content Of these hypotheses. Time and Space and the limited background of the author in this area do not permit an examination at the level required for prOper treatment of this subject matter. Closely related to, and often found in combination with, literature discussing leisure are a number of works concerned with recreation... Recreation is one way of utilizing leisure time. Although recreation is not synonymous with leisure, the two concepts are receiving dual attention in a number of publications with titles such as, "The Leisure Age, its Challenge to Recreation. 1 An increase in total pOpulation, together with a number of techno- logical, economic and social factors has provided a situation in which participation in leisure-oriented activities, including recreation, is increasing at a phenomal rate. In some cases, Americans are begin- ning to find that their demand for recreation. areas, facilities, or programs is outstripping the present supply. What is true about recreation in general, is especially true of those recreation experiences that utilize an outdoor setting. The ‘ 1Norman P. Miller and Duane M. Robinson, The Leisure Age, ICts Challenge to Recreation (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing 0., 1963). skyrocketing demand for outdoor recreation is evidenced by an increasing number of studies on all levels-t- federal, state, and local. The most notable study was undertaken by the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) appointed in 1958. In its summary report, Outdoor Recreation for America, presented to the President and Congress in 1962, the Commission stated: The demand for outdoor recreation is surging. What- ever the measuring rOd . . . it is clear that Americans are seeking the outdoors as never before. And this is only a forecast of what is to come. Not only will there be many more people, they will want to do niore, and they will have more money and time to do it with. The Nature of Recreation Many authors have wrestled with the problem of suitably defining and listing characteristics of recreation. NO attempt will be made here to derive an "ideal" definition from an extensive review of the numerous existing statements. However, it is felt that this matter is of central importance and deserving of more than passing attention. In addition, this section will also include a few brief comments on the role of recrea- tion in man's life. Mr. Charles Doell has summarily commented on the problem of defining recreation. In the many attempts to define recreation, a lot of hairsplitting has taken place and many words and paragraphs and pages have been written about.it. Not all of that voluminous 1Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 25. 4 discussion can be brushed off as mere exercise in semantics for there can be delicate shades of interpre- tation important for those philosophically inclined. For the moment . . . it is sufficient to say that recreation is the refreshment of mind or body or both through some means which is in itself pleasureful. If one thinks about this a little, it will be noted that almost any activity or mental process may' be recreation depending largely upon the attitude assumed in the approach to the process itself. . . . Recreation, then, is difficult, if not impossible, to define in terms of specific activities. What is recreation to one individual may not be to another individual; and what is recreation at one time, may, at another time, be something else to the same individual. The California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan emphasizes the wide scope of Outdoor recreation alone: Outdoor recreation is many things to many people. It is the vigorous exercise of a football game and the silent contemplation of a desert sunrise. It can engage the complete attention of a hundred thousand people. It can be the solitary occupation of but one. It can be out- of—doors, within a wonder- land of m 's construction or within the untouched wilderness of nature. ‘ In choosing a definition of outdoor recreation for the purpose of this study, a comprehensive statement was desired. In its broadest sense, outdoor recreation is seen as leisure time activities which take place in, or otherwise utilize, an outdoor setting. It is recognized that outdoor recreation is only one of many possible uses of leisure time. It 1Charles E‘. Doell, Elements of Park 'and Recreation Adminis- . tration (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Burgess Publishing Co., 1963), p. 3. 2California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan (Sacramento: Cali- fornia Public Outdoor Recreation Plan Committee, 1960), II, p. 17. is also admitted that this definition does not consider an individual's mental attitude. However, the definition intentionally includes all persons who utilize the out-Of-doors for purposes other than securing the "necessities" of life. For, all individuals who recreate in the out-of-doors, regardless of their mental state at the time, may utilize the same facilities, inhabit the same areal space and participate in the same activities or programs, and deserve the same considerations. In other words, a person who is not, in the philosophical sense of the word, a "recreationist," may, for all practical purposes, be considered as one by the individuals or agencies providing recreational Opportunities. Man's needs for recreation and recreational areas has been sup- ported with a variety of rationales. The argument is Often given that, in our highly complex world, peOple need a place to escape from the turmoil of daily living. Other authors have described the desire for outdoor recreation as an outward manifestation of man's ingrained animal instinct to return to, and associate with, nature. In the dynamic of city life the demand for recreation represents a reaction against the psychOphysical complexity of life introduced by centralization and industrialization and reveals a tendency to reverse the prevailing spatial relations. The appearance Of a demand for recreation is evidence of the loss of environmental integrity. 1 Still others have correlated increased health, happiness, and mental bal- ance with participation in outdoor recreation activities. Royal Copeland, 1Arthur Glickson, "Recreational Land Use," Man's Role in Chang- ing the Face Of the Earth, ed. William L. Thomas, Jr. (Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press, 1956), p. 897. M. D. , in an address at the seventh annual meeting of the National Confer- ence on State Parks, even declared it a moral Obligation to frequent recrea- tion areas. You can increase your expectation of life five years by making prOper use Of the public parks and playgrounds. You should do this, not only because it will add five years to your career, but because neglect of your body is a sin against Almighty God. The validity of such statements is not indisputable. But regardless of the reasons for which an individual recreates, and regardless of the type of recreation one seeks, there are two facts which cannot be denied or neglected: (1) The demand for outdoOr recreation Opportunities is in- creasing at a rapid rate, and (2) "outdoor recreation is inseparably tied to the land and its waters. For each and every type there must be t 2 space. " Recreation and Land "Each year as people seek the outdoors in increasing numbers, the pressure has mounted on the available outdoor resources of the nation. "3 In order to relieve this pressure, additional lands must be devoted to outdoor recreation and more efficient use will have to be made of existing recreational lands. Many of the areas that are presently 1Royal S. Copeland, "Public Parks and Health, " A State Park Anthology, ed. Herbert’Evison (Washington, D.C.: National Conference on State Parks, 1930), p. 33. ‘ 2 3Oregon Outdoor Recreatign (Salem, Oregon: Oregon State Highway Department, Parks and Recreation Division, 1962), p. 5. California . . . Plan, 11, p. 17. reserved for recreational purposes were purchased, or otherwise acquired, with little forethought as to who, or what purpose, they would serve. George Butler has noted this fact with respect to urban recreation lands: Many cities in acquiring land for parks have given little thought to the function they were intended to serve or to factors such "as size, topography, and location that affects the areas suitability for serving these function. 1 For a number of reasons, to be identified in later chapters, the problem of inefficient use of recreation space is frequently found at all levels-- federal, state, and local. Today, with competition among various potential uses of available land intensifying, the type, location, and other characteristics of land set aside for any purpose must be well planned to insure satisfactory, if not maximum, returns on resource investments. Recreation too must enter into our plans. This is becoming more and more important as populations increase and the work week shortens, leaving the general public with more and more leisure time. People are going to seek Open spaces regardless of whether or not public land is available and much worry and difficulty will be overcome if sufficient foresight is used to plan for just this eventuality. The Need for Planning Land use planning may assume a variety of forms, cover a wide range of considerations, and be conducted at any one of a number of levels of sophistication. Here, it is thought of as any form of rational action 1George D. Butler, Municipal and County Parks in the United States--194o (New York, National Recreation Assoc., 1942), p. 5. 2E.L. Ward, Land Use Programme (Toronto, Canada: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, 1961), p. 7. undertaken for the purpose of resolving land use conflicts, or arriving at solutions to land use problems. Once again, a precise definition is sacrificed for the sake of inclusiveness. The pros and cons of land use planning have been extensively argued elsewhere. It is not the author's intention to deveIOp a synopsis of the arguments concerning general land use planning. Rather, a limited number of statements specifically related to recreation planning will serve to document the importance of planning for the provision of present and future recreational Opportunities. In a recent address before the National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Mr. Daniel Ogden, assistant director for Plarming and Research with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, stated that, "The outdoor recreation needs of the American peOple can be met in our time only if we deliberately strive to meet them. "1 Flaming can be effected at a number of political levels. However, the recreational travel patterns and activities of people are not confined by political or legal boundaries. A person who normally resides in a city may seek the rural setting of a nearby county, or, occasionally, desire a "wilderness exper- ience" for which he might have to travel to another state. On the other hand, a person who lives in a rural area may visit a nearby, or distant, city to recreate. To attempt to provide Opportunities for every possible form of recreation within each municipality, metropolitan area, county, or even each state would result in the redundant and wasteful use of resources. 1Daniel M. Ogden, Jr. , "The Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan, " Remarks before the 19th Convention of the National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (Portland, Oregon, 1965), p. 1. There is clearly a need for coordination among all political levels for the provision of recreational Opportunities as well as for meeting a number of other human needs or desires. This fact is concisely stated with reference to recreation in the publication Oregon Outdoor Recreation: We believe that, in order to Obtain the greatest recreation benefit . . . continuous coordinated planning is needed by all agencies: federal, state, and local. That the provision of recreation areas and Opportunities must be shared by governmental agencies at all levels, is further emphasized in the following statements: Outdoor recreation is a public good for which the Nation, its States, and its local governments and the private Sector share the responsibility. NO single agency of government can plan for recreation without affecting the recreation planning of other agencies. Over-all coordination should be the responsibility Of the level of government which cag best assist all levels of government in meeting their needs. The need for recreation planning and the benefits derived from coordination are not recent realizations, as attested by the following statement from the 1937 Yearbook published by the National Park Service: The need for coordinated, Nation-wide study of the country's park, parkway, and recreational area requirements has begin recognized by Federal and State authorities for many years. 1Oregon . . . Recreation, p. 2. .zOgden, p. 1. 3California. . . Plan, I. p. 72. 4 1937 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress (Washington: U- S- Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1938), p. 7. 10 A related suggestion was made by the Utah State Planning Board a few years later: "Agencies on all levels supply recreation--their efforts would be more effective if coordinated through a correlated plan of development involving all agencies. " The United States Forest Service (Region Nine), in its publication, Forest Recreation Handbook, expressed the following view on recreation planning, more than 30 years ago: National Forests, being managed for the“ greatest good to the greatest number, must administer recreation as one of the major resources to be protected, fostered and developed for its maximum use as determined by public demand. Plans must be made to meet this demand so that each recreational area will render its greatest service. 2 It should be mentioned here, for the sake of clarification, that recreation planning cannot be properly undertaken in a vacuum--isolated fI‘Om other types of planning. Recreational resources should be con- sidered as one segment of the total supply of resources. Then, decisions r egarding the present and future uses of these resources should be made and evaluated in light of the economic, social, and political institutions of the society. In other words, recreation planning should, when possible, be integrated into a larger, more comprehensive planning effort. L. H. Weir has stressed the importance of including recreation planning as a \ Ut 1Study Report of the Park, Parkways and Recreational Areas of \ah (Utah State Planning Board and National Park Service, 1939), p. 22. Agr . 2Forest Recreation Handbook (Washington: U. S. Department of leulture, Forest Service--Region Nine, 1934), foreward. 11 section of over-all city planning: "The allocation of areas for recreation must be considered an integral and fundamental part of general city 1 planning. " The California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan further attests to the need for a broad outdoor recreation planning approach: Advanced planning which considers all land uses is essen- tial in meeting total needs for recreation. Where possible, recreation should be integrated with compatible nonrecreational land uses. Finally, Bowdy provides a summary of the reasons underlying the growing interest in comprehensive metrOpolitan planning; and argues for the integration of recreation planning into an overall land use plan- ning effort: This interest in comprehensive land use planning has been due, in part, to the realization of a definite need for more and larger coordinated facilities to serve the expanding development taking place in . . . metrOpolitan regions. Also of significance in the growth in importance of regional com- prehensive planning has been the growing awareness that all avaflable resources of a given region must be utilized and coordinated in the most sensible and economic fashion in terms of long-range needs. Planning for recreation and Open space on the regional level is only a logical step toward coordinating that portion of the region's resources lending themselves most benefg- cially to this use with the needs of other land use types. 1L. H. Weir, Parks--A Manual of Municipal and County. Parks, Vol I (New York: A. S Barnes and Co., 1928), p. 48. 2California . . . ‘Plan, .11, p. '72. 3William W. Bowdy, "The Review of an Approach Determining .Land Suitability for Regional Recreation and Open Space " (unpublished gaster' s Thesis, Department of Urban Planning, Michigan State niVersity, 1964), p.4 12 A number of statements further arguing the need for planning to meet expanding recreational demands could be included here. However, since such statements will be interspersed throughout later portions of this paper, the point will not be belabored here. Data Collection in Planning So far, this paper has progressed through the following stages: 1) a recognition of expanding "mass leisure" in our society, . 2) the Significance of increased leisure and other technological, economic, social, and demographic trends on the demand for recreation and outdoor recreation, in particular, 3) the need for recreation planning in order to meet increased demands, and 4) the value of coordinated, comprehensive Planning efforts for the provision of recreational opportunities. At this Point, one particular aspect of the planning function will be investigated, after which, the purpose of this thesis, its value, and limitations, will be identified. Barlowe has divided the planning process into three steps and four substeps, as follows: i 1. Assumption or determination of the objectives to be . sought. 2. Formulation of the plan or policy to be followed: a) research or study concerning the nature of the problem situation, the resource base, and other factors that maybe affected by the plan; b) discovery and analysis of various alternative solutions or approaches that can be used; c) choice of the alternative or combination of alternatives . . . to be used; and ' d) the formal drafting of the plan in written or graphic form. 13 3. Execution of the plan. 1 Warren has, similarly, stated that "there are five distinct steps in planning for recreational deve10pment. " 1. Formulate goals and policies. 2 Make inventory of existing facilities and needs. 3. Evaluate existing areas and facilities. 4. Prepare plans for facilities. 5 Carry out plans. There may be variations in the amount of detail, or in the termin- ology used in each of the above statements. However, it is apparent that each author envisions the same basic format for planning--whether for Planning in general or for recreation planning, in particular. One feature of the planning process which shall be emphasized here is the collection of background materials for the purpose of under- standing the facts upon which decisions are to be based. This may be referred to as the inventory phase. . Planning efforts frequently go astray because they are based more upon wishful thinking than upon a sound under standing of the facts. . . . The weight of our plan- ning experience shows that a good working knowledge of the problem situation is a necessary prerequisite to successful planning. Area planners always find it desir- able to assemble as much information as possible con- cerning their problems and the nature and potentialities of the resource base with which they work. They \ N 1Raleigh Barlowe, Land‘Resource Economics (Englewood Cliffs, 9W Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1958), pp. 468-469. ('W 2Phillip Warren, Jr. (ed. ), County Parks and Recreation ashington, D. C. : National Association of Counties, and National eel‘eation Association, 1964), p. 117. 14 often devote major portions of their time to objective re- 1 search and to the accumulation and analysis of factual data. Although, at first this phase may seem rather mechanical and com- paratively simple, it is often a complicated endeavor. "The relatively simple matter of finding out what has, is, and might be going on, is in reality a major effort. "2 The crucial role that an inventory plays in the planning process is noted in the following passages. An organization for total resource deve10pment must prepare and initiate plans for action. But understanding cur- rent situations, problems and potentials is a prerequisite for realistic goals and plans. 3 It is an essential element of planning to know the con- dition, capabilities, and functions of land and the controls which may have been placed on the development of this lan prior to the analysis and preparation of future land plans. The job of assembling data is as vital for recreation planning as it is for any other type of planning. For example, inventories should be taken 0f existing recreation areas and facilities and also of areas that have poten- tial for future development--or preservation--for recreation purposes. One author has summarized the situation thusly: "Without knowing what you haVe you cannot plan intelligently for what you need."5 \ 1Barlowe, p. 469. 2Warren, p. 121. 3Total Resource Development in Montana-~No. 3 Fact Finding (BOZeman, Montana: Montana State College, C00perative Extension erVice, n.d.), p. 2. t . 4Frank William Brutt, "The Land Inventory Data Bank and Elec- l$31110 Data Processing in Planning" (unpublished Master's thesis, Partment of Urban Planning, Michigan State University, 1964), p. 3. 5Warren, pp. 114- 115. 15 Inventories may, and should, gather information which covers a number of aspects of the resources that will be dealt with while preparing and executing the plan. That is, a number of criter ia, such as the owner- ship, present use, or future capabilities of land, should be simultaneously or singularly investigated in order to provide valuable information about the resources under consideration. The vital need for sufficient, accurate background information, or inventories, in recreation planning is repeatedly verified by testimonies from planning organizations and individuals regarded as authorities in this area. The following statements are samples of such convictions: An organization established to provide an adequate recreational resource base cannot put forth its best effort- unless it has the tools to work with, and the tool in this case is accurate information. . . . There is a need for basic research in the relationship of natural environment to recreation; a present recreation land use inventory and g a recreation land use capability inventory. 1 In 1937, the National Park Service, referring to the, then, recently authorized nationwide Park, Parkway and Recreational- Area Study, which that organization was charged with coordinating, stated that: . . In order to plan on a nationwide scale to meet the park and recreational needs of the people, planners must know the extent of areas and facilities already existiné and how much and in what way they are being used. . . . Meyer and Brightbill commented on this need in their text, State \Recreation: \ i A 1Canada, :l‘he Canada Land Inventory, Area Resource Development dministration, Report No. 1 (Ottawa: Department of Forestry, 1965), p. 9. 21937 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress, p. 7. 16 Only through surveys, studies, appraisals and inventories can the recreation resources, deficiencies and needs be effectively measured, systematic plans deveIOped and a course charted. Finally, the Tulsa MetrOpolitan Area Plaxming Commission provides an example of where the need for an adequate inventory was realized and met, in order to satisfy future recreation demands: In order to determine future public recreational facility needs by type and general location, a thorough inventory and aznalysis of existing facilities has been accomplished. Value of Classification Systems The urge to classify--arrange in groups according to some natural or artificial criteria-«appears to be deeply seated in man. He has dili- gently striven to classify, to greater or lesser extents, many of the organisms andobjects that surround him and collectively constitute his environment. Land, and particularly land used for recreation, has not escaped his efforts. The purposes of land classification work . . . vary greatly. ' Broadly speaking the objective of land classification is to influence people to make wise decisions about land and its use. 1Harold D. Meyer and Charles K. Brightbill, State Recreation (New York: A.S. Barnes and Co., 1950), p. 110. 2197 5 Metropolitan Tulsa Public Recreation Land Need (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, 1960), p. 5. 3Land Classification in the United States (Washington, D. C. : National Resource Planning Board, 1941), p. 20. 17 The value of land classification, in general, was so obvious to the National Resources Planning Board that, in 1941, it recommended: That land classification be recognized as desirable and in many cases essential in the appraisal of land re- sources, in the solution of land-use problems, in the formulation and execution of land use programs, in the integration of different programs of land use, and in the development of policies under which the country's land resources will be utilized for thelgood of local, State, regional, and national interests. The above statements could be applied equally well to recreation land as to land in general. They also serve to indicate part of the value I of land classification in the provision of recreation opportunities. Classification is a tool of planning and is commonly related to the inventory phase of planning. Since the objective of land classification is to plan a suitable use for our land, the principles of land—use planning should provide the directive for land classification. 2 Recreation lands are so numerous and so diversified in terms of area, use, natural characteristics, development potential, and a host of other criteria, that the need for sorting them into a logical classification system becomes imperative. Marion Clawson stressed the need for a classification of recreational areas in Land for the Future: There are so many kinds of outdoor recreational activities, so many types of areas upon which they are 1Ibid., p. 23. 2Canada, G.A. Hills, The EcolOgical Basis for Land-Use - Planning (Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, 1961), Research Report No. 46, p. 143. 13 carried on, so many organizations providing recreation, that the whole situation becomes confusing unless there is some bas1s for classfiymg the areas. Classification schemes are a valuable part of recreation planning programs. However, the value of a good classification system is not limited to its direct application as part of a planning effort. One way in which classifications are valuable, either as part of or exclusive from planning programs, is in the determination of the adequacy of recreation areas or facilities. A number of adequacy standards--that have been proposed and empirically tested for suitability--are gaining acceptance among agencies that manage recreation areas. An example is the general “ten acres of land per one thousand population- standard which is meant to apply to urban-type recreation areas. This ten- acre total has been broken down into a number of areas which provide various forms of recre- ational experiences. To determine if a specific region meets the pre- scribed standard--and thus, possesses an "adequate" system of recreation areas--it is necessary to classify the lands devoted to recreation, in that region, according to the classes defined by the standard. Other recommended standards have been suppOrted by several organizations. At times, it has been suggested that the number of acres in each class be increased or decreased per population base. At other times, the classification of areas associated with the suggested standards have been modified or changed entirely. This may lead to some confusion as to the difference between classifications and standards--or to the 1Marion Clawson, Land for the Future (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, 1962), p. 136. 19 conclusion that they are synonymous. Classification refers to the desig- nations and descriptions of types of recreation lands within a "park system. " Standards refers to the development of a schedule of the amount of land or facilities considered necessary or desirable to satisfy the needs of the people of a locality. Total acres of land devoted to recreation purposes alone would not be a satisfactory indication of the "adequacy" of a park system. To be more meaningful, a classification of different types of recreation areas is devised and acreage requirements assigned to each class of areas. Classification systems could also be valuable if they allowed for the comparison of recreation opportunities in one area with those of other areas. This would permit comparison of data for one area with that of a similar area, or with state-wide or national statistics. When combined with data on population, or other indicators of demand, the ability of one area's recreation facilities to handle demand could, for example, be ranked with that of other areas, or compared with the national picture. This is especially important today, when federal grants- in- aid are being awarded to States or their subdivisions partially on the basis of "need. " The classification of areas, according to functional purpose, could reduce inefficiency in the provision of recreational opportunities. There might be several agencies, at various government levels, responsible for managing recreation lands or otherwise providing recreational Opportuni- ties in the same region. The function of their programs, facilities, and lands may overlap in many cases. The utilization of a uniform 20 classification system could serve to indicate redundant or inadequate efforts on the part of these agencies. In addition, the chance to learn and benefit from the experiences of others is afforded if it is possible to draw connections between other situations and one's own situation. A comparable system of recreation land classification would facilitate easier and more complete utilization of information circulated among agencies. . A further benefit derived from the classification of recreation areas was suggested by the Wisconsin Conservation Department. In appendix A of its Long Range Planning Report--1963, the Department included a number of "Selected StatuatoryQuotations for Reference to Conservation Department Responsibflities. " One such quote reads as follows: The [Conservation] commission shall also have author- ity to collect, compile and distribute information and litera- ture as to the facilities, advantages and attractions of the state, the historic and scenic points and'places of interest within the state . . . and to plan and conduct a program of information and publicity designed to attract tourists . . .to encourage and coordinate [the efforts of other public and private organizations . . . for the same purpose. . . . The type of program suggested in this directive could be significantly aided by a recreational areas classification system which thoroughly and clearly informed recreationists of the qualities of such areas. The value of programs to attract tourists is being widely acknow- ledged by regions and states that are attempting to stimulate or maintain 1Long-Range PlanniJ_i_g Report, 1963--Wisconsin Conservation Department (The Wisconsin Conservation Department and Schellie Asso- ciates, 1963), p. 105. 21 their economic growth. South Dakota serves as an example of a state that has realized this potential. People . . . are attracted to areas offering diverse attractions and are willing to pay for quality services, thus recreational services and facilities of an area are vital elements affecting economic growth and development.I Visit--Seechenic and Historical Illinois State Parks and Memor- £13,2 a publication of the Illinois Department of Conservation, is one of many such brochures issued by agencies involved with recreation, to acquaint people with the recreational resources of a particular area. As an aid to the uninformed recreationist, the Department listed each state recreation area under one of four classes: State Parks, State Memor- ials, State Conservation Areas, and State Forests. The recreational opportunities available at, or the significant features of, each area were described; and the location of each area was given. It is evident from the above examples that a good classification system is extremely valuable for recreation planning, and a host of other purposes. Up to this point, no explanation of what is considered a "good" classification scheme has been given. Two factors, which will be dis- cussed here, are terminology and uniformity--other factors will be examined in a later section. For present purposes, terminology might 1Guidelines for Determining Recreation Potentials in South Dakota (Brookings, South Dakota: South Dakota State College, Cooper- ative Extension Service, n.d.), p. 1. 2Visit . . . See--Scenic and Historical Illinois State Parks and Memorials (Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Department of Conservation, n. d. )0 . 22 also be thought of as clarity of nomenclature. A basic problem with many classification schemes being used today is a lack of clear understanding, for example, of what types of areas are included in any one category, and similarly, in which specific category a given area of land should be placed. Terminology, in a sense, is directly connected to the second factor of uniformity, or, as thought of here, comparability of data among differ- ent classification systems. Again, partially due to a misunderstanding of terminology or lack of clear category definitions, there is a general lack of possibilities for comparison of data in one classification system with that of another. Another reason for the lack of comparability among many classification systems is that they are usually devised to serve a limited purpose--e. g. , they may cover a small area, with peculiar characteris- tics, or have been designed to solve a problem of limited scape; or they may differ due to the interests of .the agency which contrived the scheme. Even when classification is undertaken in the same area and by the same agency, uniformity, and hence, comparability may be lost, over a period pf ti_1_r_1_e_, due to a number of factors, such as changes in agency policy or changes in methods of collecting data. ' Partly because the idea of coordinated recreation planning is a relatively recent concept and partly due to a general lack of funds for comprehensive and coordinated recreation planning, adequate programs of inventory, or data collection, and classification are few and far be- tween. When one realizes the importance of outdoor recreation, in terms of the amount of land devoted to the provision of this product, the dearth of information on this resource assumes great importance. 23 Outdoor recreation in America today is a major land use. It involves a quarter of a billion acres of public land and perhaps equally as much private land. Over 90 percent of the population participates annually. About 12 percent of the acreage of the United States, or 283 million acres, is in nearly 25, 000 designated public recreation areas. Nearly all of the areas, and more than 4/ 5 of the acreage (234 million acres) are in the 48 con- tiguous states. Coordinated efforts to study outdoor recreation problems, demands, areas, and other features—-particularly on the inter-state and national 1evels--first appeared on any significant scale during the 1930's, as part of the emphasis, at that time, on nation-wide planning and re- source conservation. However, these efforts, and more recent efforts, although valuable, were not sufficient to meet the needs for accurate and uniform data necessary to facilitate coordinated recreation planning. ". . . In many cases items of data are not fully comparable from one agency to another. "3 Clawson has commented on the need for comparability of data that has been collected and categorized: .Considering the present and prospective impor- tance of outdoor recreation, the sc0pe for improvement and greater conformity in data collection and classification is large indeed. 1The New Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (Washington, D. C. : U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, n. d. ). 2Public Outdoor Recreation Areas. Acreage, Use, Potential, Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report #T (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 1. 3Marion Clawson, Statistics on Outdoor Recreation (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc. , 1958), p 4Ibid., p. 3. 24 The Parks and Recreation dLlVlSlOn of the Oregon State Highway Department. has expressed, in a general. way, the fact that improper or confusing terminology may create problems during the outdoor rec reanon planning process: Early in the study, problems were encountered that hinged on prOper classification of the parks and other state recreational units. Areas of vastly different sizes and quality of attraction were dumped together under the same designation. Flaming was made difficult because of. the different images in the public mind created by this confu- sion of designation. The lack of uniform and comparable data among different agencies is understandable, since many of. the agencies that. have collected data on recreation have not done so with the intention of combining or comparing that information with data gathered by agencies with similar interest, programs, or objectives. For the most part the data have been collected on the basis of administrative need, with convenience of collection a considered factor, and always within the limitations (often severe) of the funds available for data collection and analysis. When scarcity of funds is combined with the relatively narrow sc0pe of administrative needs of many agencies and when the variety of types of recreation provided by these agencies is realized, the fact that much of the data collected is limited in use to the specific purpose for which it was compiled is not surprising. However, to realize the cause of a problem in no way lessens the degree to which it is a problem--and 1Oregon. . . Recreation, p. 108. 2Clawson, Statistics on Outdoor Recreation, p- 1.. 25 the lack of uniformity in recreation classification systems presents a number of problems. Several of the benefits that might be secured through the utilization of comparable recreation classification systems, have been described above. The following statement by Bowdy reveals one problem resulting from an inability to compare classes of recreational areas; and suggests a further benefit that would accrue from the adoption of classification systems characterized by greater possibilities forinter- agency comparisons. No absolute standard or formula exists for determin- ing the size or physical make- up of regional recreation and open space facilities partially because there has been a variance in basic terminology or facility types from one section of the country to another. For example, regional park facilities have been referred to as county parks, regional parks, regional reservations, resource parks, conservation parks, and other similar terms. The values associated with uniform programs of inventorying and classifying recreational land areas will be expanded in a later section. However, there is one further advantage which should be mentioned here: comparisons of an area, or areas, over a period of time: Historical comparisons of land use are often extremely important. This obviously requires data about earlier periods of time, for comparison with the present. Often it is impos- sible now to obtain accurate detailed data about some earlier time period . . . we should recognize now that historical com- parisons will be highly valuable in the future also. 2 William Brutt has expounded‘on the value of information that can be used to compare the characteristics of land from time to time. Although \ 1Bowdy, p. 49. 2Marion Clawson and Charles L. Stewart, Land Use in Formation-- Meal Survey of U. S. Statistics including Possibilities for Greater MK (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns HOpkins Press, Resources for Ii uture, Inc., n;d.), p. 47. 26 he was referring to land in general, his comments apply equally well to recreation land alone. Land use . . . information is also valuable in determining the areas of development, the types of development, growth trends, future needs, and future problems as they may occur in certain places. For instance, comparative analysis of land uses withinan area taken on a‘three or five year basis can be helpful in indicating changing development patterns and aid' in the plan- ning of schools and parks. 1 Considerations in the Development of a Classification Program The National Resources Planning Board's report on Land Classifi- cation in the United States was published in 1941. One of the factors dis- cussed in this report was the categories utilized to classify land resources. In thinking of the land- classification process it should be kept in mind that, in order to be meaningful, the classes or categories into which the bodies of land are segregated are related, that is, they represent groups or parts of a system. The Board continued: Tidal marshes, sandy soils, oil fields, and golf courses might be present in an area, but they are not related phenomena and can not be assigned to classes in a logical system of classes. Tidal marshes, rocky headlands, and sand dunes, however, are related phenomena and can be assigned to classes in a systematic diviSion of shore features. 3 Some thirty years later, Clawson and Stewart prepared a critique of statistics regarding land use in the United States. In Land Use Infor- m, published in 1965, these authors related the following observation: 1Brutt, p. 28. 2Land Classification in the U. S. , p. 1. 3mm. 27 Part of the problem for land data has been a con- fusion of concepts. Ideas of sharply different kinds have often been intermingled in data series. To this has been added difffrences in definitions within some of the various concepts. The central proposition in each of the above statements is that any classification of data should be based on only one criterion or closely related criteria. That is, several unrelated criteria or "concepts" should not be embodied in the same classification scheme. What are these cri- teria; how many are there; and are they applicable to a classificatiOn of recreation lands? These questions are discussed below. Land Classification Criteria In 1941,. the National Resources Planning Board stated that "land- classification activities in the United States fall into five categories, each representing a distinct type of land classification. "2 It added, however, that "the recognition of these five types is largely the result of the point of view and scope of the report. "3 The five types of land classification listed by the Board were as follows: Type 1. Land classification in terms of inherent characteristics Type II. Land classification in terms of present use Type 111. Land classification in terms of use capabilities Type IV. * Land classification in terms of recommended use Type V. Land classification in terms of program effectuation Clawson and Stewart, p. 2. Land Classification in the U. S. , p. 3. WNH Ibid. , p. 2. .5 Ibid. 28 The report included a brief discussion of each type of land classifi- cation. Brief statements, identifying the nature of each type have been agglomerated below: Land classification in terms of inherent character- istics classifies . . . the qualities given to land by nature. More specifically, type I classification deals directly with the soils, the slopes, the minerals, and similar surface and sub- surface features. - The second type of land classification is concerned with the present uses of land. . . . In most cases . . . this type of land classification is undertaken for some major objective. To this end, most land-use maps deal with some major land use such as agriculture, forestry, recreation, settlement or transportation. - In type III land classification bodies of land are classified in terms which show their capabilities for use. More specifically, type III classification answers these two questions: What will be the probable results if a given body of land is put to a particular use; and, conversely, what land-use practices are necessary to bring about a given result? In the fourth type of land classification, bodies of land are assigned to classes according to recommended use. The end-purpose of land classification contemplates some form of action which puts desired land uses into effect. This action may involve a modification or a complete change in existing uses. Therefore, its accomplishment involves decisions as to the time when recommended land ‘ uses will be carried out. Type V' classifies the land accord- ing to these management decisions. . . . ' Clawson and Stewart distinguished nine separate "concepts" about land. These "concepts" can be considered as criteria for land classifi- cation. 1Ibid., pp. 3-7. 29 1. Location . . . if the location of a tract of land . is properly identified, then data from any source describing that particular tract can be associated with that location. 2. Activity on the land: for what purpose is this piece of land or tract being used? 3. Natural qualities of the land, including its surface and sub- surface characteristics, and its vegetative cover. 4. Improvements to and on land. 5. Intensity of land use, or amount of activity per unit of area. . 6. Land tenure. Who owns land, who uses it, and what is the relationship between them? 7. Land prices, land market activity, and credit as applying to land. 8. Interrelations in use between different tracts of land. 4 9. Interrelations between activities on the land and other economic and social activities. 1 The central importance of "activity on the land" was stressed. This criteria was described as a "common ground for many interests. " . . . One common ground for many different interests ‘ in land is the activity on land. This concept is also basic to almost all others. For instance, the relevant natural quali- ties of land depend almost entirely upon the activity to be carried out upon that tract of land; improvement on land likewise depends very largely upon the kind of activity; the meaésure of intensity also depends upon the activity; and so on. The desirability of keeping various criteria for classification separated was re-emphasized. This position was developed as follows: . . . "pure line" data series are highly desirable; that is, two or more of the previously discussed concepts should not be intermingled in a single data series." One data series should deal with activities . . . another, with land tenure . . 4 . ' still another with type of improvements . . . and so on . . . . If each type of data is separately identified and .1Clawson and Stewart, pp. 2-4. 2mm, p. 4. 30 geographically located, then it can be interrelated in the analysis stage for any desired geographical area or purpose. This doesnot mean . . . that a-variety of information" cannot be collected in the same survey. . . . However, the essen- tial point is that each data series should be recorded sepa- rately in order that it include but a single concept. Several criteria have been presented above. It is not intended to suggest that all criteria for land classification have been covered in such a brief discussion. There are perhaps as many different criteria as there are reasons for classifying and types of information which will aid in achieving desired goals. The above discussion of criteria involved land classification in general. However, the discussion could apply specific- ally to recreation land with few, if any, modifications. Other Considerations Two other basic considerations were emphasized in Land Use Information. These recommendations were based on the findings of a special committee, organized by Resources for the Future, which studied land statistics for the purpose of developing a system for handling land use data. The recommendations were: 1. In field enumeration or other data assembly at the basic state, activities as observed or reported should be recorded with maximum detail and with the minimum of pre- classification or grouping. . . . This leads to more accurate recording of activity, and, more importantly, the data so obtained and coded may be either grouped into broader classes . . .‘ or used in any detail desired. In this sense, the classification is a flexible one; its basic cate- gories may be re- aggregated any number of times in order to fill local requirements or for special studies. IIbid. , pp. 6-7. 31 2. Data from whatever source should be recorded separately for each parcel . . . [i.e.] the smallest tract of land identifiable on the ground or by enumeratiOn. . In addition to the above considerations, the impact of modern data processing equipment on data collection and analysis programs was dis- cussed. However, the land data bank has been discussed at length else- where, and no detailed account will be presented here. 2 Ogden has commented on the use of such equipment in the preparation and effectua- tion of the future nationwide outdoor recreation plan being prepared by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation: In collecting the data for the Plan, we will have assembled a valuable bank of specialized information of all major aspects of recreation supply, demand, and needs. Stored on automatic data processing equipment, it will be available to all levels of Government and to private organizations to assist them in the development of their programs. 1%. , p. 5. 2For a further discussion of the use of electronic data processing equipment in land inventory and classification programs see: (1) Frank W. Brutt, "The Land Inventory Data Bank and Electronic Data Processing inPlanning, -" M. U.P. thesis, Dept. of Urban Planning, Michigan State University, 1964. Brutt relates his personal experiences with electronic data processing equipment as a Senior Planner for the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission of Pulaski County, Arkansas: A step-by- step analysis of the value of this equipment in the planning program. (2) ' Land Use--A Procedural Manual for Collection, Storage, and Retrieval of Data (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commis- sion, 1965). Beginning with a discussion of the need for'better land- use data-«data that is accurate, up-to-date, easy to regroup, and uniform' (to permit comparisons over a period of time, and/or'with data gathered in other studies at all levels)-‘ -to facilitate better decision making, this manual suggests how electronic data processing can help to meet these needs. 3Ogden, p. 7. 32 These tools are also being utilized by other agencies concerned with recreation. Their use by the U. S. Forest Service will be discussed in a later chapter. Finally, the committee organized by Resources for the Future to study land use data felt that a continuing organization should be established to coordinate and update land data collection efforts throughout the nation. The adoption, by such an organization, of the ideas presented in the report (and presented above) would, in time, provide much more uniform land data in this country. The major advantage of adOpting these ideas, the Committee suggested, "is the greatly improved data that will be made available for research, for planning, and for administrative decisions."1 Justification of Study Aristotle once said: "It is natural for men to want to know. "2 In our present society, it would be difficult to justify the search for and compilation of data, on any subject, without rational support of such statements. Ours is a nation which looks for economic or social justifi- cation for practically all of its endeavors. It is also a nation character- ized by a desire to maintain its present, rapid economic growth. Clawson and Stewart have recently remarked that, "the existence of . . . adequate statistics about itself . . . is one of the distinguishing characteristics of an economically advanced, as compared with an 1Clawson and Stewart, p. 9. zWeir, p. 5. 33 economically retarded, nation. "1 It has been shown, above, that various individuals and agencies have advocated the collection and classification of statistics on land, and recreational land in particular. It has been stressed that statistics on the recreational use of land are extremely valuable and should be gathered as carefully and extensively as data on any other land' use. Further, the value and necessity of proper classifica- tion schemes for efficient planning and provision of recreation areas was documented. In 1958, Clawson stated: "As far as is known, no generally accepted and widely used system of recreational area classification has been adop- ted. "2 The year, 1958, was also significant--with respect to outdoor recreation--in that it was the year in which the President's Outdoor Recre- ation Resources Review Commission was established. This commission, in its report to the President and Congress, in1962, recommended the adoption, on a nationwide basis, of a six- category system for classifying recreation lan " ". . . in order to provide a common framework and to serve as an effective tool in recreation management. "3 The situation which the commission felt necessitated the adoption of such a classification system was concisely sketched in its summary report, Outdoor Recreation for America: Over the next 40 years, recreation uses of land and water resources will come into vigorous competition with demands for wood, minerals, agricultural crops, highway development, industry, residential construction, and 2 1Clawson and Stewart, p. 1. Clawson, Statistics . . . p. 13. 3 Outdoor Recreation for America, p. 96. 34 commercial. enterprise of many kinds. To assure present and future generations of Americans outdoor recreation Opportunities of adequate quantity and quality, more effec- tive management of land and water resources and more careful planning are urgently needed. Management policies governing public recreation lands vary among agencies and change according to public demand, political pressures, and economic and social imperatives. These agencies have developed their own approaches, criteria, and, in some cases, classifications in order to carry out their responsibilities for outdoor recreation deve10pment. These policies reflect the diverse Objectives and statutory responsibilities of the various agencies. The result is a diversity of management prac- tices, some duplication and gaps, and, in many cases, less than optimum resource utilization. This Situation, aggravated by the lack of consistent standards for recrea- tion management, constitutes a major Obstacle to a balanced national program. 1 The actual classification system prOposed by the Outdoor Recrea- tion Resources Review Commission will be examined in a later chapter. It will suffice to say, here, that the Commission's report--and subse- quent events growing out of the Commission's efforts--created a renewed interest in coordinated planning for the provision of recreational Oppor- tunities. The Commission's suggested classification system has been adopted by the federal agencies managing outdoor recreation lands. In addition, a number of states have recognized this system in state planning efforts. Other state and local agencies continue to use, or are deve10p- ing, classification schemes of their own. Other state agencies are appar- ently Operating in the absence of a recreational land classification of any sort. Inna, p. 95 35 As previously noted, there is general agreement on the need for coordinated planning and supplying of land for recreational purposes. It follows--and this fact is becoming widely recognized--that there is a need for greater coordination and exchange of data among all agencies charged with the provision of recreation opportunities. The classes recommended by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission are not ideal. There is little doubt that, "implementation of this system would be a major step forward in a coordinated national recreation effort."1 However, indications are that the system lacks the detail and sophistica- tion to effect truly adequate coordination of efforts. There is, then, a need for research to develop a more satisfactory system for classifying recreation areas. The first step in the deve10pment of an improved classification system, as in any research effort, should be an investigation to determine what has already been accomplished. Knowledge of past efforts frequently proves to be extremely valuable in solving present problems. In this case, for example, a suitable classification system might possibly be synthe- sized from existing or formerly used schemes. Even if a solution is not so easily attained, such knowledge may prove to be valuable in a number of other ways. And the review will insure that present programs do not, unknowingly, duplicate previous efforts. Ibid. , p. 7. 36 Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to analyze past and present classifica- tion schemes pertaining to the recreational use of land: to determine the criteria on which they are based, the extent to which they are uniform or comparable, and to suggest modifications and improvements. The study will analyze both past and present recreational land classification schemes to determine what value, if any, they might contribute to the development of a "universal" classification system--one which could suitably encompass all types of recreational land, urban or rural, provided by agencies at any political level in this nation. A principal intention is to include classifi— cation schemes from as varied sources as possible--in order to gain insights from a broad range of examples. For this reason, the study will cover classification systems used at the federal, state and local levels. As far as the author is able to determine, no study of this nature has been previously undertaken. Literature on classification schemes, particularly on the genesis or rationale of recreation area classification schemes, is drastically scarce. The dedication of a park or playground area is far more likely to be recorded than the inception of a system for categorizing such lands. Literature covering the history of parks or recreation areas at the federal, state, and local levels has been intermit- tently assembled and published. The National Park and state park move- ments have been rather thoroughly documented. Similarly, the general deve10pment of local parks and recreation areas is well reported in a 37 number of publications. The deve10pment of recreation in some of the larger or more prominent metropolitan areas, or county, municipal, regional and other state subdivisions has been assembled by historians. However, to the best of this author's knowledge, a history of classifica- tion systems concerning land use for recreation has never been compiled. Such an achievement would be a valuable first step toward the development of a system which could be utilized on a nationwide basis. The benefits of such a system have been outlined above. Due to a lack of data in proper form, it was necessary to refer to related events, such as the dedication of recreation land, in order to supply historical perspective. Also because of the lack of precise data, the actual time at which many of the classifications to be reviewed were conceived or put into practice can only be estimated. However, a historical review, of this nature, is not valuable for its chronological arrangement of events. Rather, it serves as a rational framework for the investigation of back- ground data. A further objective of this study is to determine the extent and value of present classification programs and systems. As far as possible, the satisfactoriness of schemes now in use, as judged by persons or agen- cies familiar with given systems will be evaluated. The possibilities of instituting an adequate, uniform, nation-wide, recreational land classifi- cation system will be explored. 38 Hypotheses Two hypotheses will serve to guide the general direction of research efforts throughout this study. These guiding hypotheses are: 1. Many different types of recreation land classification schemes have been, and are being, used in the United States--due to variations in the motives underlying individual classification efforts, and the variety of criteria on which such classification systems are based. 2. There are examples of classification systems--perhaps a single system--that are being adapted or recognized by a number of agencies concerned with the provisions of recreation opportunities-~as a manifes- tation of an expanding desire to achieve homogeneity among such classifica- tion programs and schemes throughout the country. The nature of these hypotheses and the character of this study do not permit a statistical verification of these hypotheses. In this sense, they are not formal hypotheses, rather, they are guiding hypotheses. Cumulative evidence that either supports or discredits these hypotheses will be recognized in the summary of this thesis. Methods of Data Collection A thorough literature review was conducted to provide information on past, and some present, classification schemes. In order to supple- ment readily available data on classification systems now being used or planned, a letter requesting such information was sent to each of the state and federal agencies involved with recreation planning or the provision of 39 outdoor recreation opportunities. As a further attempt to gather the latest data available on this subject, the library of the Recreation Resources Planning Division of the Michigan Department of Conservation was utilized. This agency receives complementary c0pies of many recreation plans-- especially at the state level. Limits of S’ufly Before proceeding further, the limits of this study must be defined. First, only public recreation areas will be considered--i. e. , areas ad- ministered by governmental agencies, regardless of political level. This limitation was necessary, not because the private recreation sector is considered to be less important, but, rather, because "data is not avail- able as to recreational use of privately owned land. "1 There have been a few recent attempts to inventory the private sector, however, data is so sparse that it would be of little value for our purposes. Secondly, the study will survey only classification systems which pertain to recreation lands, not the facilities or "improvements" which exist on these lands. Categories of recreation facilities, developments, or improvements are not considered to be relevant to this study. This study is primarily "land oriented"--the emphasis is on the land where recreation takes place. To include classifications of recreation facilities in this study would sacri- fice some of its coherence and make it somewhat unweildy. A number of classifications include facilities such as stadia or swimming pools under a "special, " or "miscellaneous" areas class. 1Clawson, Land for the Future, p. 149. 40 Here, facilities will be mentioned only in such a general way with no further subdivisions considered. This author is aware of the fact that many factors other than land--as a physical resource--must be contemplated if planning is to be successful. An itemization of what factors are important would be a colossal task in itself. For the sake of coherence, and because of the emphasis on land resources throughout this paper, no attempt will be made to discuss the myriad of "non- land" factors encountered and inves- tigated by planners. Although they are extremely important, they are not of concern here. This study will not be limited to classifications of areas which have been dedicated exclusively for the provision of recreational oppor- tunities--such as municipal playgrounds or national parks. A number of properties-exemplified by state and national forests--provide recreation in addition to other products. On such lands, recreation may be con— sidered as a primary, secondary, or equally valued product. This study will encompass classifications which have been utilized, or have been proposed, to classify lands of which recreationis either the exclusive use, or one of several benefits. In this thesis, the terms recreation lands, recreation areas, and recreation properties are used interchangeably-mo distinct meaning is _ assigned to each of these terms. All three terms are meant to refer to any or all recreation places, either in the narrow or broad sense, as described above. 41 One final limitation will be mentioned here. This is a study of recreational land classifications being utilized in the United States. References may be made to other countries whenever it is felt that their inclusion will enhance the quality of the study. However, the implica- tions and conclusions are noted with reference only to the United States. This is, then, a review and analysis of past and present classification schemes pertaining to public, outdoor recreation areas of the United States. In the following chapters a historical perspective and the present status of Outdoor recreation classification programs at the local, state, and federal levels will be presented- -after which a summary and conclu- sions will be given. No attempt will be made to derive a classification system that would be applicable to all recreation areas in every section of the country. Such a task is beyond the scope of this study. It is hoped that future researchers will attempt to develop such a classification sys- tem and that this study might serve as a useful beginning or as back- ground information for any project of this nature. CHAPTER H HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE--THE LOCAL LEVEL The term "local" has been utilized along with the headings state and federal in referring to the several political or legal levels at which recreational opportunities are provided. This division is recognized merely for convenience. If it were possible to do so in an orderly fashion, all recreation areas would be examined without recourse to any such separation. However, park and recreation areas have been traditionally segregated, for discussion, along these lines; and this basic division has become entrenched in the literature on recreation, as is evidenced by the titles of numerous publications. A number of treatises deal with the subject of recreation on only one of these 1evels—-or perhaps a combination of two levels; such as state and federal or state and local. Although there is a general understanding of what is included under the heading "local level, " it is felt that this point should be clarified in order to prevent any possible confusion. It would be much easier to describe what is not meant by the "local level"--it does not include public areas under federal or state ownership or control. However, such a negative definition is not very informative. The local level is thought of as including any political 42 43 subdivision of a state. The National Park Service, in its 1938 study of the Recreational Use of Land in the United States, included the following sub- divisions under "local systems. " Metropolitan recreational areas County recreational areas Municipal recreational area Township recreational areas Doell, in his text, divided the park systems of the country into: 1) cities and their suburbs, 2) metropolitan and county, 3) the States, and 4) federal resources.2 Cities and their suburbs, and metropolitan and county would come under the title of local level. The local level, then, covers a wide range of state subdivisions when evaluated in terms of size, type of legal authority, p0pulation involved, or a number of other criteria. It. includes cities, townships, counties, metr0politan areas, special districts, or any combination of such areas--such as inter-county or regional areas. However, regional areas which involve a major part of a state or significant portions of two or more states have been arbitrarily assigned to the state or federal ‘ level. No attempt will be made to deal individually with each of the types of units that are included within the local level. There are very definite similarities in many of the classification systems existing at the local level. However, numerous exceptions to, 1Recreational Use of Land in the United States, Part XI of the Report on Land Flaming (Washington: U. S. G0vernment Printing Office, National Park Service, 1938), p. 15. 2 Doell 44 or deviations from, the general pattern have evolved during the classifi- cation of local recreation areas. Mr. Doell, while referring to local recreation areas, stated that: There appears to be no one standard of classification ad0pted by all national organizations and accepted and adhered to by all authorities throughout the continent. About the time the professionals have adhered pretty much to one classification, others are proposed in other directions so that finally there is no unanimity at all. In spite of this, there is great similarity in all of these classifications, the difference being mostly in nomenclature and in the degree to which the list is broken down into finer subdivisions. In this review, a general historical deve10pment will be outlined and examples of classifications ad0pted in several specific areas will be exam- ined. The degree of similarity, as well as diversity, can be evidenced from the case histories of these specific areas. Early Parks In a general sense, the beginning of outdoor recreation in America probably closely coincides with the arrival of the first settlers. Early settlers had far less time for recreation than the members of modern American society. However, time during which one could refrain from the rigorous schedule of securing the necessities of life did exist during this early period of American history. The idea of the "common" was intro- duced to American settlements by colonists from Europe. The common or green typical of many New England towns has its roots in the American colonial period, and although such areas were established for reasons other than recreation, their recreational values eventually assumed a 11bid., p. 15. 45 dominant role as these communities grew. One of the most noteworthy examples of such early municipal public areas is the Boston Common, established in 1634, which has iserved the citizens of Boston for over three hundred years. It would be misleading, however, to portray a general picture of early American communities having extensive and diversified systems of public recreation areas serving the needs of all the people. The city com- mons were notable exceptions to a general lack of any types of public recreation areas in existence, until the middle of the nineteenth century. Doell has described the early status of recreation lands in American cities before that time: Public squares, plazas and commons (all of small acreage) had been introduced into many of the American cities at the time of their original settlement; but no large park for a suitable recreation grounds for people had been established. (There was such a total lack of respectable places for wholesome recreation that a walk through a wen-zmamtained cemetery was a suitable recreation for genteel folks). These "commons, " or "greens, " and "plazas" were the only city lands set aside "specifically for park purposes until the middle of the last century when Central Park was established in New York Ci "3 "To this day the creation of New York's Central Park in the 1850's remains the out- standing example of foresight in acquisition. "4 1C. Frank Brockman, Recreational Use of Wild Lands (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. , Inc. , 1959K pp. 49- 50. 2 Doell, p. 8. 3Brockman, p. 51. 4Outdoor Recreation for America, p. 14. 46 Although Central Park is generally regarded as the first municipal "park, " the literature on the history of recreational lands could prove to be quite confusing to the unwary reader who may come upon a statement attesting to the fact that: "The event which is generally accepted as dis- tinctly marking the beginning of the recreational movement in this country was the opening of the sand garden in BostOn in 1885. "1 This confusion is due to a heretofore neglected distinction between what may be called the "park" (or "passive" type of recreation area) and the "recreation" (or "active" recreation area) movements. The following passages serve to distinguish, somewhat, the emphasis that was present in each movement: [Early "park" designers and advocates] recognized that the supreme functional use of parks was for the recrea- tion of the people, but the type of recreation they advocated was of a passive and semi- active kind, the dominant ideal being peaceful enjoyment amid beautiful surroundings of a naturalistic kind. Beginning in the eighties with sand courts for children and outdoor gymnasiums in the Charlesbank area of Boston, the so- called "playground movement for children, " expanding into the "recreation movement" comprehending all age groups in the two succeeding decades exerted a most pro- found effect on the entire piogeer conception of parks and their recreational functions. As Doell has pointed out, "it was during this thirty to forty year period [the first thirty to forty years of the twentieth century] that the .words 'parks' and 'recreation' began to mean different things to different people. . . . "3 Recreation areas, as used in this thesis, refer to the 1Municipal Recreation Administration (Chicago: The International City Managers' Association, 1948), p. 35. 2Weir, p. xx 3Doell, p. 10. 47 broad spectrum of lands dedicated to the provision of all types of recrea- tional opportunities--active and passive -- and not to special types of "recreation" areas, distinguishable from "parks. " The idea of dedicating land to the provision of recreational oppor- tunities spread to a number of other local areas: The Chicago City Council created Lincoln Park in 1864. 1 In 1892 Boston undertook a c00perative project with its suburban cities; a metropolitan park district was set up to save forest lands and waterfront territory for public use, and to construct connecting parkways. In 1895 Essex County, New Jersey, established the first County Park system in the United States, followed by Hudson County, hbew York, in 1902 and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, in 1910. In 1915, Cook County and Du Page County, both in Illinois, took advantage of the powers given to counties under the Forest Preserve Act of 1913 and started to acquire forest preserve areas which to a considerable degree serve the same functions as county parks. The first county parks in Michigan were also established in Muskegon County in the same year. Early Local Recreation Studies In spite of a number of notable examples of recreation land acquisi- tion or development during the last half of the nineteenth century, "the greatest expansion in city and county parks deve10pment has . . . occurred since the turn of the century."4 Many communities had not yet realized the 1Brockman, p. 13. 2Elizabeth Halsey, Development of Public Recreation in Metropolitan Chicago (Chicago: Chicago Recreation Commission, 1940), p. 180. 3County Parks--A Report of a Study of County Parks in the United States (New York: Playground and Recreation Association of America, " 1930), p. 1. 4 Brockman, p. 51. 48 value of, or the need for, dedicating land for this purpose. To a great extent the county parks and park systems in existence today are the result of the initiative, generosity and far-sightedness of private citizens rather than of the act- tion of public officials. Recreation plarming, in any form, was seldom undertaken. Even less effort was made to acquire recreation lands in accordance with an over-all planning program. However, the need for planned efforts to meet demands was rapidly being recognized. Before 1900, little thought was given to the acquisition of public open spaces according to a citywide plan. Individual parks and play areas were acquired by purchase, gift, or otherwise, because they filled some local or neighborhood need. With the growth of the city planning movement, after the turn of the century, cities began to study their park and recreation needs on a citywide basis and to prepare plans for meeting them. There developed a need for relating recrea- tion areas to other parts of the city plan. . . . Today recrea- tion Spaces are recognized as onez of the major factors to be considered in the city plan. . . . When one is aware of the lack of emphasis placed on local recreation planning before the turn of the century, the absence of any developed or publicized classification system before that time can be more easily under- stood. There appears to have been little thought given to the collection of data on local parks or recreation areas during the first two decades of the present century. Any exchange of opinions or data regarding these areas-- such as standards, location requirements, acreage, or other items--must have taken place on an informal or person-to-person basis. As far as can 1County Parks . . ., p. 56. 2Municipal Recreation Administration, p. 73. 49 be determined, the first organized study of local recreation areas-- involving more than a few contiguous political or legal entities--was not conducted until the mid 1920’s. Interest in local recreation area planning, and thus, in the collection of data, was spurred by several developments. One factor which caused increased interest was the expansion of local recreation programs and areas. George Butler stated in 1930 that, "with a few notable exceptions, the county park system is primarily a develop- ment of the last decade. " The past ten years . . . have seen a marked interest in county parks in many sections of the United States. Several remarkable park systems, most of them in counties located in or near metropolitan districts, have been developed and in many other counties one or more parks have been established. 1 A second event of extreme importance to the development of the recreation movement and the collection of data on recreation areas, was the founding of the Playground Association of America in 1906, "the pur- pose of which, as stated in its constitution, was 'to collect and distribute knowledge of and promote interest in playgrounds throughout the country. 2 "V . . . With the formation of the Playground Associa- tion of America, it [the recreation movement] received new impetus and competent national leadership. A monthly maga- zine, The Playground, was started; field workers were employed; a central clearinghouse for information was estab- lished; publications were issued; and annual play congresses were organized. 1County Parks . . ., p. 1 2Municipal Recreation Administration, p. 38. Ibid. 51 The title of the Playground Association of America was changed to the Playground and Recreation Association of America in 1911, and in 1930, to the National Recreation Association. This organization has been a leader in deveIOping standards, promoting programs, and collecting and distributing data, with reference to recreation at the local level. Another incident of great importance to the collection of data on outdoor recreation occurred in the mid 1920's: In May, 1924, President Coolidge convened the confer- ence known as the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation. One of the results of the conference was the definite request that an inventory of the outdoor recreational resources of the American people be taken for the purpose of securing adequate data on which to base plans for a nation-wide systematic planning for outdoor recreation. Action was quickly taken to comply with this request. The first comprehensive study of municipal and county parks in the United States was conducted in 1925-26 by the National Recreation Association [at that time, the Playground Association of America] at the request of the National Confer- ence on Outdoor Recreation. This study was carried on under the direction of a national committee and with the c00peration of the American Institute of Park Executives. A similar study was conducted in 1930 by the National Recreation Association with the c00peration of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. The usefulness of these two reports and the rapid expansion of park areas and facilities . . . made it apparent that a further study was most desirable. Therefore, the 1Weir, p. ix. 2Butler, Municipal and County Parks . . . , p. v. 52 National Park Service in cooperation with the National Recreation Association made a study of municipal and county parks in the United States in the year 1935. 1 A general lack of available information about local recreation areas suggests that few, if any, attempts had been made to devise a scheme for classifying those areas before the original survey, by the National Recrea- tion Association in 1925- 26. This author's literature review failed to uncover any type of recreation land classification system used , or pro- posed, before that time. Information of any sort--dealing with local recreation systems or areas-- prior to 1925 was practically non- existent. The situation on the county level in 1930 is revealed below: The effort to secure information on county parks has revealed the fact that in very few sections of the country has the subject received serious consideration by either public officials or private groups. The lack of information on the part of many state and county officials with reference to existing county parks . . . was surprising. . . . Only a few counties have issued printed reports and the available data concerning $evelopments in most of the other counties is very limited. In the 1937 report by the National Recreation Association and the National Park Service--which presented the results of the 1935 municipal and county parks study conducted by those agencies--the following state- ment was made: Failure to give any indication as to the nature of their park properties suggests that many cities have not 1Municipal and County Parks in the United States, 1935 (Washing- ton: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1937), p. ix. 2County Parks . . ., p. xi. 53 given consideration to the specific purpose or functions which their parks are designed to serve. These conditions suggest that it is desirable that each city make a careful study of existing park properties to determine not only the most effective use to which each area may be put, but the additional types of prOperties which are needed in order that the park system may render a well-rounded service. 1 Recreation planners at the local level face the same problem that confronts state and federal level recreation agencies in trying to devise an adequate recreational land classification scheme: Because of varied local conditions and recreation interests, habits, and desires of people, present-day recrea- tion systems comprise many different types of properties developed for a variety of uses. ‘ Probably the first attempt to place similar types of recreation areas in distinct categories was included in Parks--A Manual of Municipal and County Parks in 1928. The classification was devised by L. H. Weir, director of the 1925- 26 study of municipal and county parks conducted by the Playground and Recreation Association of America in conjunction with the American Institute of Park Executives. The classification was based on the results of that study, as was a major portion of the entire publica- tion. The original classification scheme, along with Weir's comments, is reproduced below: Among the various types of park and recreation areas actually in use in American communities it is possible to distinguish the following more or less clearly: 1. Children's Playgrounds. These are of two types as follows: 1. Playgrounds for children of kindergarten age and under. 2. Playgrounds for children from five to fourteen years of age. 1Municipal and County Parks . . . , p. 10. .2Municipal Recreation Administration, p. 74. 54 II. Neighborhood Playfield Areas or Neighborhood Playfield- Parks III. Miscellaneous Types of Active Recreation Areas 1. Bathing beaches on river, lake or ocean. 2. Golf courses 3. Athletic fields and stadiums 4. Municipal camp sites IV. Areas in which Landscaping is a Predominating Characteristic 1. Ovals, triangles, circles and other areas of very small dimensions 2. "Intown" park areas or neighborhood parks 3. The large park areas 4. The reservation or forest park V. Boulevards and Parkways VI. Areas Devoted tO a Specific Educational-Recreational Purpose, and in Which Landscaping is a Prominent Feature 1. Botanical gardens 2. Arboretums 3. Zoological parks or gardens VII. Miscellaneous Areas f Sites for bath and swimming centers 2. Sites for community houses 3. Sites for museums of different types 4. Sites for utilitarian structures and uses In actual practice there is not always the clear line of demarcation among these several types of areas as indicated above. . . . In fact, the inclusion of several types of areas in one area is more the rule than the exception, but there are a sufficient number Of exceptions to make it worth while to take note of the possible classification as presented above. 1 The intended uses Of a number Of these categories are fairly self explanatory. However, a few comments on several classes may be necessary for clarification. Children's Playgrounds are intended for the "active Open- air play" of children in both Of the designated age groups. Neighborhood playfield-park areas are primarily designated to provide Opportunities for the "Older boys and girls, young men and young women 1Weir, pp. 14- 15. 55 and all other actively inclined adults, to engage in all manner of outdoor games and Sports. . . . "1 Under Class IV areas, the primary purpose of ovals, triangles, and other properties in this sub—class, "is that of embellishment of the neighborhoods in which they are located. "2 The function of "intown" park areas or neighborhood parks was not concisely stated. However, this sub- class and the large park areas and the reserva- tion are all intended to provide a tranquil setting for "passive" or "semi- active" types Of recreation. Elsewhere in the same publication, Weir added two extra classes to those presented above: 1) cemeteries and 2) streets. One criticism Of local recreation classification systems, which will be expanded in a later chapter, was touched upon in Weir's comments. Classification schemes developed for application to local recreation lands are, generally, insuf— ficiently detailed. That is, they deal with an entire area and not the various "sub-units" which may be present within an area. The degree of uniformity and stability-~0n a nationwide baSiS--Of classification systems pertaining to local recreational lands is evidenced by a series of four publications prepared for the Playground and Recrea- tion Association of America, and later the National Recreation Association, by George Butler. These works, published in 1928, 1938, 1947, and 1958, contain a classification and explanation of the purpose and features of the various local parks and other recreational areas. Other authors and organizations modified the basic classification to greater or lesser 1 Ibid., p. 25.. 2 Ibid. , p. 34. 56 degrees, but the core classes remained essentially unchanged during this period of time. The original classification as presented by Butler in 1928 together with the recreational opportunities they were to provide, or segment of the population they were to serve, is presented below: Play lots or kindergarten playgrounds for children of pre- school age. Neighborhood or children's playgrounds primarily for boys and girls up to 12 or 14 years Of age. Neighborhood playfields sometimes called district playgrounds which are primarily for the active play Of young peOple over 14 and adults, although they usually contain a children's playground. Athletic fields for organized games and sports for young people and adults. Large parks which are primarily landscaped areas but which may provide facilities for active play of children and adults. Reservations which are large areas usually outside the city limits and which are available for camp- ing, pi'cnicking and other activities. In addition to these Six types of properties are the many Special areas, such as golf courses, camps, bathing beaches, and tennis courts. The 1938 classification differed from that Of 1928 in that M areas were treated as a definite class rather than an additional note. The only change between these two classifications and the classifications used in 1947 and 1958 is that the latter two included athletic fields under the Special areas category and not as a separate category. Also, in 1947 and 1958 Butler added the class "other properties, " under which he in- cluded the square or plaza; the neighborhood park; and the parkway. 1George D. Butler, Play Areas: Their Design and Equipment (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1928,Tp. 1. 57 Butler stated that the square or plaza "serves as a breathing space in a crowded district or affords the setting for a public building. " Referring to the neighborhood park he indicated that "this property is usually designed as a landscape area or takes advantage of some scenic feature such as a valley, woodland, ridge or outlook. "1 The intended purpose or use made of this area was not established by Butler. The parkway was identified as "an elongated park that Often serves to connect large units in a park system. . . ."2 Sample Classification Systems The classification scheme proposed by the National Recreation Association, as reported by George Butler, has been reviewed above. This agency played a leading role in collecting and coordinating data on local recreation areas across the country; and promoting uniform standards and nomenclature for such areas. This organization, in view of the huge task it faced, has been highly successful. However, agreement On the nomenclature, function or purpose, and other features of local park and recreation areas, is far from unanimous. The great number Of local agencies responsible for the provision of recreational opportunities, and the diversity Of the areas they administer, make any attempt to achieve homogeneity extremely difficult. 1George D. Butler, Recreation Areas: Their Design and Equip- ment (New York: The Ronald Co., 1958), p. 4. 2mm. 58 Recreation areas are Of many types, which differ widely in functions, Size and development. New types and functions have evolved to meet expanding recreation inter- ests and needs. . . . Opinions differ as to the functions and requirements Of the various types, but there is considerable agreement as to their important features. 1 In this section, a few selected examples will be cited to establish the degree to which local classification schemes are comparable and to note variations. Classification systems used by local recreation- oriented agencies or those classifications found in studies Of the recreational use Of local areas, will be used as examples. The report on municipal and county parks in the United States, based on the 1935 study by the National Park Service and the National Recreation Association, summarized the types Of properties under the following categories. Small parks Neighborhood parks Children's playgrounds Neighborhood playfields Large parks Reservations or forest parks Miscellaneous active recreation areas Educational-recreational areas Boulevards and parkways Airports 2 Miscellaneous No attempt was made to explain the types Of use these areas were sub- jected to, what segment Of the population used the areas, or the charac- teristics of individual areas within a category. There was much uncertainty as to which category individual areas should be placed in. AS previously 1 Ibid., p. 1. 2Municipal and County Parks . . ., p. 13. 59 indicated, many of the local park or recreation agencies surveyed had never evaluated the areas they administered according to any such scheme. In 1938, the National Park Service categorized municipal recreation areas according to the following classes: 1. Children's playgrounds 2. Neighborhood playfields or playfield parks 3. Miscellaneous recreational areas 4. Landscaped areas a) Neighborhood or in-town parks b) Large parks c) Educational-recreational areas1 This classification appeared in Recreational Use Of Land in the United States, Part XI of the Report on Land Planning. The Similarity between this scheme and the categories presented in the 1935 municipal and county parks study is Obvious. Both of the above study reports were preceded by the 1930 publica- tion, County ParkS--A Report Of a Study of County Parks in the United SE93. This study was conducted by the Playground and Recreation ASSO- ciation Of America and the editorial work for the report was accomplished by George Butler. It Should be remembered that the other publications by Butler--mentioned above--were concerned with municipal recreation areas, and, except for the first publication (1928), were completed after this report. Although no formal classification scheme was presented in this report, Butler felt that county recreation lands could be logically lRecreational Use of Land in the U. s. , p. 105. 60 arranged into several distinct categories based on Size, location, and use criteria. The ensuing statement presents his observation of the county recreation Situation at that time: A study Of the existing county parks and park sys- tems . . . reveals five outstanding types of properties. One of these types, found primarily in metropolitan districts, is the park of from 25 to 100 acres or more providing a playground, ball fields, and a variety Of other recreational facilities and also wooded or Open areas. It serves many of the functions of the neighborhood playfield and the landscape park in the municipal park system and is generally located in or near one Of the towns or cities in the county. Another type is the park of 150 to 500 acres, generally located outside the city limits. It may provide a playground and ball field but it is used primarily for such activities as picknicking, unorganized and tourist camping, winter Sports, nature study, and if there is a stream or lake in the park, as is frequently the case, for boating and swimming. A golf course is sometimes installed. Frequently the site for this type Of park is selected because it contains waterways, dells, woods or some other scenic or natural features which make it especially suited for park purposes. A third type of area found in many park systems is the outlying reservation Of 500 to 5000 acres. The purpose of providing such areas is to preserve for the use of the people woodlands and other areas of natural beauty which can be developed for such recreational uses as camping, picknicking, nature study, horseback riding, winter and water sports. SO far as possible the reservation is preserved in its natural state. Another type of property found in most Of the county park systems in metropolitan districts is the parkway. This type Of area serves to provide pleasure drives from the city to the surrounding country and frequently connects the various units in a county park system. . . . They vary in width from 200 to 500 feet throughout their entire length and occasionally widen out to 1000 feet or more thus providing areas that may be de- velOped into playgrounds, playfields or picnic areas. One other type Of park found especially in the sparsely populated counties deserves special mention. It might be 61 termed the rural country park and its function is to provide a center for the outdoor recreational activities Of the people of the county. In many sparsley populated counties . . . there are very few if any municipal parks accessible or available for the use‘of the peOple. Therefore, one or more parks have been provided by the county. In addition to the five types of areas mentioned there are of course many other of varying sizes and uses. . . . For the most part, however, the areas briefly described include the outstanding types of county park properties. Publications like those mentioned above played a Significant part in formulating local recreational land classification schemes during the late 1920's and the 1930's. AS has been seen, the efforts Of the National Recreational Association--and its predecessor, the Playground and Recrea- tion Association Of America--and particularly the writings Of one man, George Butler, were very influential in homogenizing and publicizing the standards, nomenclature, and classifications applied to local recreation areas. But, not all recreation agencies complied with the guidelines prO- vided. In some instances there were disagreements on nomenclature; in other cases, it appears that the definitions or descriptions, standards, and intended functions assigned to various areaS--and the degree Of sophistica- tion with which areas were classified--were points Of divergence. The following classification systems, utilized in several local areas, will be analyzed, primarily to determine the titles, definitions, and intended uses given for various areas. In 1934, the St. Paul (Minnesota) City Flaming Board conducted a recreation survey of that city. According to the Board, "in making the 1C0unty Parks O o 0, pp. 2' 50 62 recreation survey of St. Paul it was found necessary to make a classifi- cation of all parks and playground areas according to Size of the former and uses of the latter. " The Parks were classified as, (a) those containing areas under Playground supervision, (b) neighborhood parks, (c) small triangle parks, and (d) drives and park- ways. Similarly the Playgrounds were classified as (a) those having full supervision, all seasons, (b) those having partial supervision, and (c) athletic fields and play areas having occasional supervision such as umpiring at games and superintending the maintenance of courts and fields. Here, to state the Obvious, we have a deviation from the NRA classifica- tion; and a classification scheme based on a different set Of criteria. The parks and recreation areas of Chicago, Illinois, were classi— fied in still another manner in 1937. At that time, Chicago parks were under the supervision of two controlling governmental agencies: the Chicago Park District and the Bureau of Parks, Recreation and Aviation. The Chicago Park District was created in 1934 by the consolidation Of 22 former park districts and is a separate municipal entity from the city of Chicago--while the Bureau of Parks, Recreation and Aviation is under the jurisdiction of the city. In addition to the areas administered by these two agencies, the Cook County Forest Preserve lands, which pri- marily serve Chicago residents, are controlled by the Cook County Forest Preserve District. The first classification encountered in the Chicago Recreation Survey of 1937 is that Of the Chicago Park District. 1Recreation Survey Of Saint Paul, Minnesota (St. Paul: St Paul City Planning Board, 1934), p. 21. 63 The Chicago Park District classifies its parks in three major groups, according to their functional activities: major parks, those with large acreage and city-wide interests; neighborhood parks, with smaller acreages, equipped with fieldhouse and outdoor facilities to minister to individual com- munity needs; minor parks, without fieldhouses and with incomplete or no physical or active recreation equipment. When the Chicago Recreation Commission included both Chicago Park District and Bureau. Of Parks, Recreation and Aviation lands in one classification, it devised a separate scheme with the following categories: Large parks Neighborhood parks Minor parks Baby parks Parkways2 Later in the survey report, the Chicago Recreation Commission listed what it entitled "types of play facilities included in parks." In actuality, this was another classification of recreation areas or "sub- areas, " not "facilities. " Types of recreation lands included in the classi- fication were: "playgrounds, playfields, athletic fields and neighborhood parks. "3 The definitions and intended functions of these areas were very Similar to those given by the NRA for. areas Of the same title. Several years later Elizabeth Halsey classified the recreation areas of Chicago according to a scheme devised by "experts in the field Of recreation. " In Halsey's words: "Experts in the field Of recreation have classified recreation areas according to function. " 1Arthur J. Todd, Chicago Recreation Survey--Public Recreation, I (Chicago: Chicago Recreation Commission and Northwestern Univer- sity, 1937), p. 98. 21mm, pp. 98-99. 3mm, p. 103. 64 1. Children's playgrounds of at least two types, the small play lot within the city block for the very young children, and the 3-10 acre lot for children Of school age. 2. Neighborhood play-field parks Of ten or more acres for older children and adults, containing football fields, baseball diamonds, and usually a field house for indoor recreation. 3. Miscellaneous types of areas which serve one activity, such as golf links, tennis courts, archery ranges, and the like. 4. Landscape areas of different Sizes. . . . 1 After citing this classification, Halsey divided the acreage of Chicago's recreation areas among the various classes in the system. The city of Toledo, Ohio, provides an example of an area where the classes proposed by the National Recreation Association were closely adopted. In the 1945 Recreation Plan for ToledoL Ohio, the following classes are listed as "the most important types of properties comprising a well- balanced system:" The Neighborhood Playground is the chief outdoor play center for children up to fifteen years of age. The Playfield provides many facilities primarily for young maple and adults, although it may include a neighborhood playground. A Large Recreation Park is an area, preferably with Open lawn, meadow and woodland, which provides an attractive setting, for such activities as hiking, day camping, picnicking, winter and water Sports, nature study, and a variety of other activities. The Country Park or Reservation is a larger property, generally outside the city limits, which is kept largely in its natural state and where people may find a change from city life and enjoy nature and the Out- Of-doors. The Neighborhood Park, primarily a landscape park, is designed to provide open Space and beauty. It is used only incidentally for organized recreation. lHalsey, pp. 140-141. 65 Special Recreation Areas, which are developed for a particular use, include the golf course, bathing beach, picnic center, camp, athletic fields or stadium. The Parkway, an elongated park with a road running through it, is found chiefly in metropolitan areas. In 1946, the Detroit City Flaming Commission released the publica- tion Proposed Systems of Recreational Facilities. In this work the follow- ing classes were listed and described: The playlot The playground The playfield The major park Special facilities2 This classification scheme provides an example of both oversimplification and nomenclatural difficulties. Flaylot, playground, and playfield, in the Detroit scheme, were described as similar to areas of the same titles in schemes previously examined. The major park was comparable to the large park described by Butler or the large recreation park described in the Recreation Plan for Toledo, Ohio. The class, special facilities has been referred to else- where as: special recreation areas, miscellaneous active recreation areas, and miscellaneous recreation areas. Coming somewhat closer to the present, it can be seen that the problem of lack of uniformity still exists. A publication entitled "Planning 1Recreation Plan for Toledo, Ohio (Toledo: The Toledo Council Of Social Agencies, 1945), p. 18. 2Proposed Systems of Recreational Facilities (Detroit, Michigan: Detroit City Plan Commission, 1946), pp. 6-15. 66 Facilities for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, " issued by The Athletic Institute in 1955, contained a set Of standards for several types of recreation areas. "In view Of its authorship and wide distribution the report has unusual Significance. "1 . . . Much traditional terminology is abandoned; the terms "playgroun " and "playfield, "which have been used almost universally by planning authorities, do not appear in the report. Area titles in the report are expressed in terms of "park- school" or "park recreation center" and the desirability of combining the recreation area and the school site is indicated at both the neighbor- hood and community levels. The report proposed that every type of area should include a unity with a "park- like" character. . . . The neighborhood park, which is widely recognized as a distinct type of recreation area, is not included in the list Of planning units. In view of the departure from the use Of familiar terminology, which characterizes the report, it is not surprising that the arga titles it proposed have not been more widely adopted. The above examples serve only as a minute sample of a much larger universe. However, the Situation portrayed is probably fairly representative Of the overall Situation, with respect to local recreational land classification schemes, during the time covered by these examples. Mary Virginia Frye studied the historical development of municipal parks in the United States in 1964. Her summary statement could be extended to apply to all local recreation areas: 1Planning Recreation Facilities (New York: National Recreation Association, 1959), p. 18. 2mm. , p. 19. 67 AS the park movement Spread, needs were recognized and attempts made to devise descriptive park nomenclature and classification systems as well as standards for measuring park adequacy. Although important contributions were made by park management and allied fields, and although some standards, particularly for neighborhood playgrounds and playfields were generally accepted by the mid-twentieth cen- tury, park nomenclature, classification, and standards remained in a state of flux--a fertile field for further study and refinement. 1 1Mary Virginia Frye, "The Historical Development Of Municipal Parks in the United States: Concepts and Their Application" (unpub- lished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1964), Dissertation Abstracts (1965), p. 6568. CHAPTER III HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE--THE STATE LEVEL Several authors have traced the deve10pment Of the state park move- ment in the United States. NO attempt will be made to summarize the entire sequence of events that constitutes the highlights Of this movement. Nor will the subject matter of this chapter (or the chapter on the present status of the state level) be limited to a discussion Of classification. - schemes involving only state Links. Other agencies of state governments [other than agencies administering state parks] have properties having recreation possibilities. . . . The properties involved are state forests, state wildlife reftiges and nature preserves, and in some states still others. These areas are "managed" by several different types of agencies; Often for a number of purposes in addition to, supplying recreation places. In many such areas, recreation is an incidental product of the land, or management practices. The intention here is to include all classes of areas owned or controlled by state agencies that provide Opportunities for recrea- tional pursuits, in any form Or to any degree. Classification systems devised by state agencies that include recreational areas provided by local and/ or federal organizations will lDoell, pp. 51- 52. 68 69 also be considered. That is, any recreational land classification deveIOped by an agency with statewide authority will be reviewed in this chapter. In addition, classification schemes devised by other agencies, organization, or individuals, that apply primarily to state areas will also be reviewed. A word on terminology is necessary here due to the relatively re- cent growth Of the state "recreation" movement--as opposed to the state "park" movement. This dichotomy is similar to that which evolved on the local level; and which will be seen later at the federal level. Again, the difference lies in the functional purpose Of an area or the types Of oppor- tunities Offered at each area. "Recreation" areas are "activity" or "user- oriented" areas, while "park" areas are "natural" or "resource-based" areas where "passive" or "semi- active" forms of recreation are compat- ible. The historical development and emphasis of each movement has been summarized by Twardzik: State park agencies generally limited their concern to acquiring and developing areas of state-wide, historic, scientific, or scenic significance, much like national parks, and provided only those recreational activities compatible with the natural scene; it being dominant. Certain southern states introduced a new concept and built parks with "incom- patible" facilities on man- made recreation resources; federal reservoirs. Michigan established state recreation areas in southeastern Michigan in 1933- 34. . . . 1 Again, the author wishes to make no distinction between parks and other recreation areas. Except when cited in a classification scheme or otherwise specifically noted, the author's use Of the terms state park or 1Louis F. Twardzik, A Recommended Recreation Frogam mfor the State of Michigan, A Report to the ConservationJ Commission to Implement the Governor's Recreation Policy, June 6,1962, p. 16. 70 state recreation area is meant to refer to all areas controlled by agencies at the state level, that provide recreational opportunities. For example, when referring to the state park or recreation movement, a general definition encompassing all such recreation areas is intended. However, a number of classifications differentiate between state parks and state recreation areas and assign specific standards or other distinguishing characteristics to each type of area. In these instances, the specific definition assigned each type of area should be realized. Early State Parks The States are the basic units of government in this country, and through their colonial predecessors, they antedate both the cities and Federal Government. Yet, for a number of reasons, their part in the outdoor heritage Of the Nation has been less extensive than that Of the other two levels. Only in recent decades have they begun to assume the proad responsibilities that must inevitably be theirs. The preceding statement summarizes the predominant Situation with respect to the provision of outdoor recreation by state level agencies. This is not because the practice Of the states providing recreational oppor— tunities was initiated any more recently than federal or local participation in such programs. In fact, the first state park area was dedicated many years before our first National Park was established. Probably the earliest park areas in this country were established through an ordinance Of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in New England in 1614, when it decreed that "Great 1Outdoor Recreation for America, p. 16. 71 Ponds," bodies of fresh water over ten acres in extent Should be forever Open to the public for "fishing and ' fowling". . . . The public right to these "Great Fonds" is still maintained.1 The "Great Ponds" might be loosely regarded as "state" recreation areas, even though Massachusetts was a colony at the time. They were the first areas set aside as public "recreation" lands by a governmental body comparable to the states. However, the area that is formally considered to be the nation's first state park was not dedicated until more than two cen- turies later--and a state park "movemen " of any significance did not deveIOp until after the begiming of the twentieth century. California, New York, Michigan, and Minnesota, previous to 1900, had each conserved some natural scenic area: the Yosemite, Niagara Falls, Mackinac Island, and Birch Coulie, respectively. The rapid deve10pment of State parks, however, came much later. John Ise has described the establishment Of the country's first state area dedicated for "public use, resort, and recreation"--the Yosemite Valley in California. 3 In 1864 Congress turned Yosemite Valley over to the state Of California, not the entire National park as we now know it, but only Yo-Semite Valley--the "Cleft" or "Gorge" -—and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove. . . . The boundaries were indicated only vaguely, to be determined exactly later. California accepted the grant in 1866. . . . 4 1Beatrice Ward Nelson, State Recreation Parks, Forests and Game Preserves (Washington, D. C. : National Conference on State Parks, Inc., 1928), p. 3. 2Halsey, pp. 182-83. 3AS will be developed in the next chapter, the valley was given back to the federal government--to be included in the larger Yosemite National Park--in the year 1905. 4John Ise, Our National Park Policy, A Critical History (Balti- more, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961), pp. 52-54. 72 The second state reservation of recreation land in the United States was not established for some twenty years after Yosemite had been accepted. The establishment of a reservation at Niagara Falls, New York, climaxed an eighteen year effort. Efforts to preserve from defacement one Of our greatest natural wonders, Niagara Falls, began in 1867, culminated in 1885 in the dedication Of Niagara State Reser- vation aS New York's first state park. The earliest state forest preserve was also created by the New York legislature in 1885. A few years later Minnesota entered the field, establishing, . . in 1889, the Birch Coulie Park, a battleground of the Souix War of 1862. o 'o O Then, in 1895, the first large, extensive state park was created when the nucleus of the Palisades Interstate Park of New York and New Jersey was acquired--an out- door area accessible tO a great population. Also in 1895, the state Of Michigan established its first state park, on Mackinac Island. Twenty years before, Mackinac Island had been set aside as the nation's second national park. Deve10pments On the island detracted from its quality and suitability as a national park, and so, "in 1895 an amendment to the sundry civil act authorized the Secretary of War to turn the park over to the state of Michigan for a state park, but for no other purpose. "3 These early examples of state lands dedicated to the pro- vision of recreation opportunities were the distant forerumers of the state park and recreation Systems of our day. However, the establish- ment of such areas in any Significant number did not occur until well into lNelson, p. 4. 2Ibid., p. 5. 3Ise, p. 49. 73 the first half Of the twentieth century. Several authors have correlated the burgeoning Of state park areas with the rise in popularity Of the automobile. . . . It was not until automobiles became fairly numerous and sufficient good or fair roads had been built to permit ready access to areas at a distance from centers of popula- tion, that the State Park movement may be said to have been fairly launched. Actually, the increase in state provision of such areas was probably due to several factors. Public demand for outdoor recreation areas was rising. Automobile production, education, income, and leisure were all Significantly increased after World War 1. Several events, in addition to increased demand, stimulated the establishment of state parks and other areas suitable for outdoor recreation. Halsey has summarized the major influences as follows: The rapid development Of state parks . . . has been stimulated by the conservation movement following Theodore Roosevelt's Conference Of Governors in 1907, by the National Conference on State Parks in 1921, by the growing public demand for recreation areas which might be reached by auto- mobile travel, and by the administrative policies Of Franklin D. Roosevelt, including work relief and the study Of national resources. Early State Recreation Area Studies The establishment of the National Conference on State Parks was an important event in the promotion Of the state park concept. This organ- ization promoted the acquisition Of "land and water areas suitable for 1Herbert Evison, A State Parklknthology (Washington: National Conference on State Parks, 1930), p. 7. 2Halsey, pp. 182-83. 74 recreation" by all levels Of government. One Of its early contributions toward the attainment of "adequate" park areas "within easy access of all citizens of every state" was to promote a nationwide study of state park lands across the country. Nelson has recounted the establishment of the Conference and its early achievements below: Realizing the need for an organization which would give further stimulus to this movement for the provision Of outdoor recreational opportunities, a meeting was called in Des Moines, Iowa, in 1921, by a group Of well-known con- servationists to consider the organization of an association. The National Conference on State Parks was organized as the result Of- the meeting. Among the most outstanding accomplisMents due to the work of the Conference are the survey of state parks and forests conducted in 1925 and 1926, and the organization of regional conferences. As far as can be determined, this was the first survey of state level recreation lands ever accomplished in this country. The data compiled in this study were presented in a 1928 publication entitled, State Recreation-- Parks, Forests and Game Preserves. No attempt was made to formulate a classification scheme based on the findings Of this study'. A state-by- state account of recreation lands was presented, with the majority of areas being referred to as either state parks, or forests, or game preserves. This basic distinction of three types Of recreation areas can be traced back to the "Objects" of the Conference: The Objects of this Conference are to urge upon our governments, local, county, state and national, the acquisi- tion of additional land and water areas suitable for recreation, 1Nelson, p. 6. 75 for the study Of natural history and its scientific aspects, and the preservation of wild life, as a form Of the con- servation of our natural resources, until there Shall be public parks, forests and preserves within easy access Of all the citizens . . . Of the United States. . . .1 A perusal Of this study report reveals, however, that the recrea- tion lands found in the states were listed under several additional cate- gories, based on a variety Of criteria--such as administering agencies and natural features of the land. A list of the various area titles reported 5 is presented below: National parks National forests National game refuges Palisades interstate park State parks State forests State game refuges State monuments (historic and scenic in value) Game preserves Historical parks Next, each individual area reported by the states was classed as one or a cOmbination of the following "types:" Memorial Natural wonder Physiographic Stockade Scientific Modern Historical Geological Forested Archaeological Recreational The majority of the areas were typed as historical, forested, physio- graphic, scientific, or memorial. However, no explanation or definition of the above classes was given in the report. The assumption seems to 1Ibid. , preface. 76 have been that the titles were sufficiently self- explanatory. AS will be shown, however, there are Often great variations in the quality, purpose, and other characteristics of state recreational areas bearing the same title. On the other hand, areas with different titles may be quite Similar in most other respects. In 1926, according to the National Conference on State Parks, the only formal recreation classification applied to the lands of a particular state existed in Ohio. According to the Conference's report: Ohio has five distinct classes of areas which preserve scenic, historic, and forest lands, as well as provide protec- tion for thewildlife of the state. They are public parks, sometimes classified as state parks, state forests, forest parks, historic parks, and game preserves. The title, public park, was given to five abandoned reservoirs, formerly used in comection with a state canal system. State forests were established primarily for purposes other than recreation. However, they were to be used for game refuges and for hunting, in addition to their primary purpose of conserving forests. Historic parks included properties of "archeological and historic interest. " Another class of preserve is the state forest park, which includes areas of outstanding scenic state importance, virgin forests, or unusual formation. . . . They represent the best of the state's scenery. NO artificial development other than the construction Of trails is permitted. 2 The game preserves were required to have "natural woodland and cover for the protection of game. " Hunting and trapping were prohibited in these areas. 1Ibid., p. 209. 21bid., p. 212. 77 Early National Park Service Studies The next important recreation study to include state areas was conducted by the National Park Service in 1934 at the request of the National Resources Board. This report was actually one part Of a larger report on National Flaming and Public Works in Relation to Natural Resources sub- mitted to the President by the National Resources Board in accordance with an Executive order. . . . The Service was asked by the National Resources Board . . . to prepare a report on "Recreational Use of Land in the United States," which was published as Part XI of the Report on Land Flaming. The 1934 report was an attempt to Obtain, on a very Short notice, an over-all picture of recreational land use and the pfoblem of making adequate provision Of lands for such use. The report issued in 1938 was not based on any detailed studies of the various states, as later reports were to be. However, a few important problems were recognized, such as the lack of a satisfactory classification for state recreation prOperties. The bulk, in number and extent, Of State properties which have been established primarily for recreation are called State parks. Familiar as that term is, it is well-nigh meaningless, or perhaps it may be said to have a Slightly different meaning in each Of the a. . . States. . . . Only a few States have distinguished between their scenic and active- recreative prOpertieS, and those primarily of historic or scientific importance by designating the latter as monuments. 2 1A Study Of the Park and Recreation Problems Of the United States (Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1941), p. VI. 2 Recreational Use Of Land in the U. S. , p. 85. 78 Further, it was recognized that there was very little distinction among areas on the basis Of Size or quality. While most State recreational areas are called State Parks, the parks: themselves vary fr0m large, important areas to small tracts of little value. The lack Of adequate classes created problems of misuse of a number Of "park" properties: Lack of distinction between holdings of the monument type and State parks has naturally resulted in lack of distinc- tion in use. This has Shown itself particularly in the tendency to place active recreation uses on monument areas which are badly suited to them. 2 Before formulating its recommendations with respect to the State level, the National Park Service consulted a number of persons "possessing either long experience in State park administration, or serious students Of the whole broad subject of recreation." AS the report stated: The majority Of those persons consulted were agreed that some form of classification of State recreational holdings was desirable, though the suggested classifications submitted by them varied widely in number and definition.3 "As one means of assuring suitable administration practice with respect to each classification or type, and in Order that the using public may have a reasonably definite concept Of the character of the various types," the National Park Service recommended that State agencies re- sponsible for administering recreation lands "give serious consideration to the following proposed classification of such prOperties:" 1Ibid., p. 15. 2Ibid., p. 39. 3Ibid., p. 117. 79 State ParkS--State parks are those areas of considerable extent in which are combined either superlative scenic charac- teristics and a fairly varied Opportunity for active recreation or distinctive scenic character and exceptional Opportunity for active recreation. Essential to the character Of any State park is the pre- servation Of the native landscape and Of native fauna . . . active recreation-use facilities Shall not be permitted to destroy or materially to impair valuable landscape features Or to injure wildlife or its natural habitat. . State Recreation ReserveS--State recreation reserves are those areas which, lacking scenic distinction, supply such opportunity for active recreation as entitles them to be con- sidered a part Of the State's responsibility. State MonumentS--State monuments are those holdings established for public use wholly or dominantly because of their historic, archeological, or scientific interest on which even the simplest types of active recreation, if permitted at all, are sub- ordinated to the primary purpose for which such: monuments are established. State WaysideSuState waysides are those small areas Situated along or close to highways, administered by the high- way department in cooperation with the park administrative agency. They are designed to provide the highway traveler with places where he may stop to rest and to picnic. . . . State Parkways-State parkways probably need no definition beyond calling attention to the fact that they embrace an elongated park with a road running through it--in contradic- tion to a highway possessing a broad right-Of-way. 1 Shortly after the 1934 study Of the Recreational Use Of Land in HE United States was conducted by the National Park Service, an extremely significant piece of legislation--With respect to recreational land studies and planning--was enacted. This was the Park, Parkway and Recreation Study Act Of 1936. The Park, Parkway and Recreation Study Act passed by Congress as Public 770 1/ 2 and approved by President Roosevelt on June 23, 1936 . . . authorized the Park, Park- way and Recreational-Area Study . . . [the study was to be] 1 Ibid. 80 conducted by the National Park Service with the c00peration of other Federal agencies and the States and their civil divisions. . . . The purpose of this act was explained in 1941 by Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Department of the Interior: It has become generally recognized in recent years that, while the provision of areas and facilities for public recreation is a proper function of government, separate, unrelated attempts at planning for this purpose cannot adequately provide for the increasing requirements of our people. The ultimate objective of the Park, Parkway, and Recreational-Area Study . is to establish a basis for coordinated, correlated recre- ation land planning among all agencies—-Federal, State, and" local--having responsibility for park and recreational develop- ments. Under this act the various states were to formulate state-wide plans and programs dealing with recreational problems in the individual states. Forty— six States and the Territory of Hawaii conducted such studies in cooperation with the National Park Service. Based to considerable extent upon the information obtained through these state studies, the National Park Service . . . prepared a report on a Nation-wide basis entitled 'A Study of the Park and Recreation Pr0blem of the United States. "3 This report was published in 1941 by which time thirty- six states had completed their studies. 11937 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Pr0gress, p. 7. 2Park and Recreation Pr0blems of the U.S. , p. V. 31942 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1942), p. 14. 81 According to the 1937-Yearbook--Parks and Recreation Progress, published by the National Park Service, "a standard system of procedure and forms has been established for recording and organizing inventory data. "1 The intention was to produce state plans with a high degree of comparability, so that regional, interstate, or Nation-Wide planning, based on the "State unit, " could be facilitated. Although there was a good deal of similarity among the various state reports, they did "vary considerably in scope and content, depending upon the time and facilities available for making the studies. "2 In its 1941 publication, A Study of the Park and Recreation Problem of the United States, the Park Service aggregated state recreational proper- ties under the heading, 1. State Parks and other State Areas, Primarily Recreational, 2. State Forests, and 3. State Wildlife Areas. Referring to the first heading, the statement was made that: The properties included in this [class] are variously designated as parks, monuments, recreational reserves, parkways, historic sites, memorials, and waysides. Each of these terms is subject to wide variation in meaning in the different States, several of which use the designation "park" for recreational and cultural holdings of all sorts. One result of failure to distinguish between the several types of property included in State recreational systems is the tendency to place certain types of development on areas not suitable for them. 3 A summary of the recommendations in each state report was pub- lished in the 1942 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress. Among other 11937 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress, p. 8. 2 3 1942 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress, p. 14. . . . Park and Recreation Problems of the U. S. , p. 50. 82 recommendations, the deve10pment of "proper" nomenclature and classifi- cation systems applicable to state recreational holdings was urged in several of these reports. Examples of State Recreational Land Classifications The major portion of this section will be devoted to a review of classification schemes included in past state recreation plans, or reports of a similar nature. However, several classification systems devised by national agencies or organizations, or individuals of recognized authority, will also be included. A number of the state reports were developed in cooperation with the Park, Parkway, and Recreational Area Study-~others were prepared independently. The report on Recreation in South Dakota serves as an example of one of the earliest state recreation plans. 1 . The report covered recreation at the municipal level; State recreation areas; and National Forests, National Parks, and National Monuments. In addition to discussing the recreational lands of the state accord- ing to managing agency or level of responsibility, they were broken down by ”type" or attractive features. Although no formal classification was suggested, individual areas were listed under the following headings and sub- headings: 1Recreation in South Dakota, A Preliminary Report (Brookings, South Dakota: South Dakota State Planning Board, 1935). ' 83 Scenic Areas and Scenic Highways Historic and Archeological Sites A. Archeological Sites B. Forts, Battlefields, and Early Settlements Detailed descriptions of the individual areas in each class were provided in the report. The Utah State Plarming Board published the Study Report of the Park, Parkways and Recreational Areas of Utah in 1939. 1 Recreation properties in the state were categorized by the agency responsible for administering the area. The Agencies listed in this report were: National Park Service United States Forest Service United States Biological Survey State Board of Park Commissioners State Historical Society State Road Commission State Fish and Game Department The State Historical Society did not actually own or control any lands, but rather, collected data pertaining to the history of Utah. The extent of Utah's state park system is revealed by the following statement: The one existing area under the jurisdiction of this body [State Board of Park Commissioners] is the old State House at Fillmore, occupying O. 37 of an acre and is the only official State Park in Utah. 2 County and metropolitan recreational facilities were also mentioned in this report although it was admitted that "little information pertaining to county parks is available. " It is not surprising, then, that a classification system for the recreation lands of the state had not been developed in 1939. 1 2 Study Report . . . Utah. Ibid., p. 26. 84 The Washington State Planning Council also resorted to listing recreational areas primarily by the organization or level of government controlling such areas. In its 1941 Park, Parkways and Recreational Areas study report, the Council stated: Recreational facilities are interpreted herein to include: (1) primary transportation facilities, (2) national parks and monuments, (3) U. S. Biological Survey areas and ' game preserves, (4) U. S. Forest Service recreational areas, (5) state parks, (6) State Game Department areas, game farms and fish hatcheries, (7) county parks, (8) metropoli- tan and municipal non- urban parks, (9) organized camps, and (10) private or commercial recreational establishments equipped for diversified activities. 1 Although a classification of recreational prOperties based on owner- ship criteria may be useful, it fails to indicate what types of Opportunities are available on these lands, and provides very little information by itself. Land ownership information is very important. However, a classification scheme based on this criteria alone is unsuitable for most purposes--such as planning to meet future recreation needs. In the 1946 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress, the recrea- tion lands of Washington were listed as follows: In 1946, Washington State Parks totaled 47, 725 acres, with 51 state parks, 3 historical monuments, 3 geological exhibits, 7 forest parks 6 tide and shoreland recreational areas, and 9 waysides.2 1A Study of Parks, Parkways and Recreational Areas--State of Washington (Olympia: Washington State Planning Council, 1941), p. 34. 21946 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress (Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1946), p. 115. 85 Nowhere in the Washington study report were these classes mentioned, however. The Park, Parkway, and Recreational Area Study prepared by the Massachusetts State Planning Board in 1941 included a classification of the recreational areas of that state. The report lists both the recreation lands of Massachusetts, and the agency that controls each type of area. Only the types of areas will be presented, since it is the lands, not the administrative agencies, that are of interest here. The following types of areas were listed as "state-owned recreational acreagez" Parks and reservations Fore'sts--with recreational developments Forest--with no recreational development Wildlife sanctuaries Wildlife refuges Game farms Fish hatcheries Wayside picnic sites Special areas Parkways Demonstration forest1 Most of these classes are fairly self- explanatory. The reservation cate- gory included beaches, woodlands, and historical monuments. The "special area" referred to a tract of land (Province Lands) at the tip of Cape Cod, set aside as a natural area of sand dunes and beaches with no developed recreational facilities on the area. In addition to this classification of state owned lands, the Massa- chusetts report contained a second group of classes and their definitions. 1Park, Parkway and Recreation Area Study (Boston: Massachusetts State Flaming Board, 1941), p. 27. 86 The definitions were credited to the National Park Service. These classes and their definitions are reproduced below: The word Park is a generic term, used to designate all types of areas established and maintained wholly or dominantly for recreation. A Monument is a park area set aside primarily because of its possession of scenic, historic, prehistoric, or scien- tific qualities, or any combination of these, and is character- ized by the maximum degree of preservation and protection of those qualities. A Parkway is an elongated park of which a principal feature is a pleasure vehicle road throughout its entire length. Abutting property, as in the case of any park, has no right of light, air, or access. A Wayside is a park, usually of limited extent, estab- lished as an adjunct of a highway, and providing the highway traveler with a location, in public ownership, where he may stop for rest, for picnicking, or to enjoy an attractive view. A Trailway is an extended and continuous strip of land under public control, through ownership or easement, established independently of other routes of travel and dedicated to recreational travel by foot, bicycle or horse. The following types of areas set aside under public control for purposes other than recreation, many times can and do offer recreational opportunity in addition to their primary function: A Forest is an area set aside primarily for timber production or watershed protection. Wildlife reservations may be grouped under the follow- ing three classifications: A Wildlife sanctuary is an area set aside and maintained for the inviolate protection of all its biota. A refuge is an area wherein protection is accorded to selected species of fauna. A preserve is an area set aside and maintained for the production of all, or certain designated species of wildlife on sustained yield baSis. 1 The National Conference on State Parks published a state— by- state history of the state park movement in the 1946 Yearbook--Park and Recreation 11bido, pp. 12-130 87 Progress. These historical accounts, being necessarily brief, seldom included references to classification systems. Of the several states in which distinct categories of recreational properties were cited, only a few examples merit attention. A review of the majority of the classifi- cation schemes included in that publication would not contribute any new facts to those which have already been presented. The classification. sys- tems of Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have been selected as examples from the 1946 Yearbook and are presented below: The state of Georgia developed a classification system to apply to its recreational holdings based on the opportunities provided at, or the primary purpose of, each type of area. A state-wide system of parks has been started to consist of the following types of areas: State Parks: Those areas of considerable extent which are selected because of scenic, scientific or educa- tional-recreational value. State Parks as such are conceived to be vacation-type recreation areas . . . the provision of facilities for active recreation use must not be permitted to detract from or destroy outstanding landscape value or to injure native flora or fauna on the area. State Recreational Areas. Those areas which are lacking in unusual scenic distinction but nevertheless pro- vide an opportunity for active recreation of a day- use type. . . . State Memorial Parks. Historic areas deemed worthy of preservation in order graphically to portray the State's history. Where sufficient land is available, day— use recrea- tional facilities may be developed. Natural Resources Reservations. Areas . . . to be used for a threefold purpose-~(1) forestry demonstration 88 plots, (2) wildlife and game refuges and demonstration areas, and (3) limited recreational areas which provide pionicking, hiking and similar facilities for day-use activities. Pennsylvania possessed a considerably different classification scheme than Georgia. Pennsylvania has a Public Park System consisting of one hundred and six (106) parks, classified as follows: 1. State Forest Picnic Areas: These areas, as the name implies, are for picnicking, or day-use . . U 0 O 0 0 C OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO areas, offering the following facilities: bathing, boating, fishing, tenting, overnight cabins. 3. State Parks: These are generally classified as historical, their value being some shrine, either national or of a local nature. ' 4. State Forest Monuments: Parks under this cate- gory are more or less naturals, some physical feature that is being saved as the big trees in an area, some gorge, or rock formation. The state of Wisconsin divided its recreation lands into: Scenic parks, Historical-Memorial parks, Roadside parks, and State Forests. No definitions were given for these categories--they seem quite self— explanatory; however, the specific recreational Opportunities available at a roadside park, or any of the other types of areas, could vary con- siderably. One fact becomes quite evident from the above examples: the titles and definitions utilized in state recreation land classification schemes were far from uniform and universal. They were often formulated to apply 11946 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress, pp. 38- 39. 2Ibid., p. 98. to the lands of a specific state, which makes direct comparisons among the states difficult, if not impossible. Although there seemed to be a de- gree of uniformity on basic terms, such as state park and state forest, modifications and completely different categories were frequent occur- rences. The number Of titles applied to these areas increased as the state recreation and park movement progressed. In 1946, the National Park Service reported that a total of forty-two different titles were being used to refer to the state recreation properties across the country. These, the Park Service grouped into six major classes, as follows: 1. PARKS Parks Forest Parks Major Parks Minor Parks Recreational Parks State Parks Recreation Areas Recreation Grounds Recreation Reserves Tide and Shore Land Recreational Areas Reservations Lake Reserves Forest Picnic Areas Group Camps Federal Areas (R. I.) 3. PARKWAYS Parkways 2. HISTORIC srrss, MONUMENTS, MEMORIALS, ETC. Historic Sites Historic Memorials and Monuments Historic Monuments Historical Monuments Parks (Historical) Memorial Parks Memorials Memorials and Monuments State Memorials Monuments Monuments, Statues, etc. Forest Monuments Scientific Sites Geological Exhibits Cemeteries Indian Mounds . WILDLIFE AREAS Wildlife Areas Wildlife Preserves Game Preserves 90 5 . FORESTS 6 . WAYSIDES Forests Waysides1 Forest Camp and Picnic Grounds Forest Nurseries Forests and Refuges Forest Reserves There is nothing inherently wrong with a classification system con- taining a large number of classes. The point that is intended to be empha- sized here is the ambiguity and apparent redundancy of a number of the above classes. For example, what criteria distinguish a Minor Park from a Major Park? Or, is there a difference between a Recreation Area and a Recreational Area? How do these differ from Recreation grounds or Recreation Reserves? How does one distinguish Historic Sites from Historic Monuments, or Historical Monuments, or Historic Memorials, or Parks (Historical)? How does one determine the similarities or differences among the lands in each class? What criteria are these classes based on--if there is any one set of criteria used to identify their differences. The classification of recreational properties in Oregon, in 1946 pro- vides a vivid example of a system developed to apply only to the areas of a single state. Included within these classes are lands of varying acreage, attractive features, and ownership. Yet, no attempt was made to denote which criteria the classification was based on. A summation reveals that 59, 123 acres of varied classifications are directly under the control of the [Oregon] State Parks Department. Of the acreage 42, 342 acres are state-owned and 16, 781 are owned by the United States and 1Ibid., following p. 122. 91 under some form of lease to the State for: park purposes; There are thirty seacoast parks with 11, 333 acres; thirty-four designated as "river and waterfall parks, " 12, 697 acres; twenty-one areas are "mountains, headlands and overlooks',’ with 4, 336 acres; twenty- nine "timbered way- sides" have 10, 275 acres; three "cutover waysides" contain 5, 302 acres; three "junior waysides" with 5, 400 acres, are to be preserved under cOOperative agreements with the United States. These together with the John Day Fossil Beds area of 1, 895 acres and the Umpqua sand dunes with 2, 636 acres constitute the major park subdivisions. The smallest park unit is a triangular monument site at Government Camp, on the south slope of Mount Hood, with an area of twenty- five square feet. . . . The largest is the Cove- Palisades State Park with 7, 146 acres. . . . The great diversity of the types of state recreational areas is exemplified by the descriptive titles applied to these areas in Oregon. In 1950, the report], Recreational ReSources of the People of Minnesota indicated that the lands controlled by the Minnesota Division of , State Parks include, "26 state parks, 5 memorial parks, 3 recreational reserves, 1 scenic reserve, 13 state waysides, and 9 state monuments. . . . "2 No attempt was made to describe the nature of these areas or their functional purpose. The report on the State Parks of Michigan in 1957 included several classifications which are worth noting here. The first classification is a general designation of individual areas: lIbid. , p. 97. 2Recreational Resources of the People of Minnesota, Report of the Governor's Advisory Committee on Recreation (St. Paul, Minnesota, 1950), p. 28. 92 Technically, all units of the state park system, regard- less of type, are state parks, but, for convenience and better understanding of the distinction between types they are classi- fied in three main categories-—state parks, state recreation areas, and state historic sites. To qualify in any of these categories a unit should have a sufficient degree of natural beauty, historic interest or recreational usefulness, or a combination of them. The size and location of an area, and the kind and excellence of its attractions, determines its qualification as a state park unit and its classification in the state park system. The types of areas included in each class were described as follows: Units classified as state parks vary greatly in size, kind and quality of their natural features, and the variety of their attractions. Collectively they incorporate features of outstanding natural beauty. . . . [State recreation areas] are large areas convenient to centers of dense pOpulation, with a diversity of natural fea- tures and impressive natural beauty. They are suitable for many types‘of intensive and extensive recreation. . . . A state historic site is a small area important for its historic interest, with or without scenic values, and having little or no significance for active recreation. A second "classification" was, in reality, a listing of various "sec- tions" within state parks and recreation areas reserved for specific uses. Reservations for specific purposes include: nature study areas, nature reservations, scenic sites, natural area preserves, wildlife sanctuaries, historical and archeological preserves, project areas, field trial areas, geological pre- serves, [and] forest museums. 3 A final classification system included in the Michigan report covered "certain parts of state parks and recreation areas" dedicated by I‘Stitte Parks of Mic_h_igany A Report of the Past--A Lgok to the Future (Lansing: Michigan Department of Conservation, 1957), p. 31. ZIbid., pp. 32-33. 3Ibid., p. 33. 93 the Conservation Commission, on the recommendations of the Michigan Natural Areas Council. They were: Natural Area Preserve--An area of land having dis- tinctive characteristics, dedicated to the preservation of natural conditions for lasting public enjoyment and educational benefits. Natural Study Area--An area of land having Special significance in natural history, dedicated for the preservation of conditions in combination with the development and use of facilities for conservation education, the study and enjoyment of nature, and/or research in the fields of conservation and natural science. Scenic Site--An area of land having unusual scenic values, dedicated for the preservation and enjoyment of natural beauty. Nature Reservation--An area of land having distinctive natural features set aside for maximum preservation of natural conditions consistent with-the deve10pment and use of facilities for the enjoyment of nature and extensive types of recreation, and for the prOper Operation of the administrative unit. Frank Brockman has conceived a tripartite classification scheme for state parks based on the recreational opp0rtunities available at a par- ticular area or the important features of the area. In Brockman's words: In spite of their wide variety, state parks can be grouped logically into three principal classes. 1. Utilitarian areas, developed primarily to foster physically active recreational interests. . . in - which significant interests are generally lacking. 2. Significant areas, containing unique or important geological, biological, archeological, or: histori- cal features typical of a particular state . - physical facilities are usually held to a minimum. 3. Scenic or dual purpose areas, which, owing to their larger size, often combine the qualities of the two ~ former types. - Generally they offer Opportunity‘for varied outdoor recreational activities . . . in a- scenically attractive and usually natural setting. 2 Irma, pp. 33-34. 2Brockman, p. 37. 94 It may be said that the number of different titles assigned to state recreational properties has constantly increased since the first such areas were established. The various states have devised their own classes without considering the nomenclature and definitions applied to similar types of lands in other states. There has been little concern about the problems this creates when trying to compile this data for interstate or nation-wide studies. From 1946 to 1955, the number of categories for state recreational areas (reported by the National Park Service) increased from 42 to 55. (This may be due to more comprehensive reporting as well as new titles being created.) In 1955, the National Park Service grouped the 55 different cate- gories of areas reported by State park and State historical agencies, under three general headings: State parks, State historic Sites, and State parkways. The State waysides administered by State park agencies have been placed under State parks, but waysides administered by highway departments and other agencies have been omitted from this tabulation. State forests and State wildlife areas have also been omitted Since these areas are not administered primarily for recreation use. The following classification of areas indicates which categories have been placed under each of the three headings: 1. State Parks State parks Major State parks Minor State parks Interstate parks State reservations Reservations Gardens State recreation areas State recreational areas Recreational areas State recreational reserves Waysides Wayside parks Roadside State parks Group parks Arboreta Refuges Sanctuaries Public fishing lake reservations State land recreation areas Conservation areas State preserves 95 1. State Parks (cont'd) State recreation reserves State scenic reserves COOperative recreation areas State recreation grounds State beach parks Reservoir lakes State lakes Canalways State lake reserves Development areas State waysides Marine parks State canalways 2. State Historic Sites State historic Sites Historic memorials Historic sites State monuments Historical- Memorial State parks Monuments State memorial parks Historical monuments State memorials State shrines State historical monuments Battlefields Historical parks Marker sites Museums 3. State Parkways State parkways Interstate parkways Parkways Memorial highways1 This was, then, the state level recreational land classification situation at the beginning Of the sixth decade of the twentieth century. 1State Parks--Areas, Acreages, and Accommodations (Washing- ton: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1955), p. 2. CHAPTER IV HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE—-THE FEDERAL LEVEL The role of the federal government in providing recreational Oppor- tunities has expanded from one primarily of "preserving" areas of natural or scenic beauty to one encompassing much more "active" and diversified responsibilities . Federal agencies carry out a variety of recreation functions in serving the general public. Several of them control prOperties such as parks, forests, wildlife pre- serves and reservoir areas, which contain facilities used for recreation. Some provide advisory service in connec- tion with the planning, Operation and maintenance of Federal state and local recreation areas and facilities, whereas others serve through the publication of literature and COOperation with national, state and other agencies. . . The Federal Inter-Agency Committee on Recrea- tion, established in 1946, . . . serves as a clearinghouse for the exchange of information and the consideration of recrea- tion problems of concern to the member agencies. Only those agencies administering recreation prOperties will be con- sidered in this chapter, however, since the classification systems applied to such areas are of primary interest in this thesis. Historically, the federal lands used for recreational purposes have consisted primarily of the national parks and other areas now administered 1George D. Butler (ed. ), Recreation and Park Yearbook--1961 (New York: National Recreation Association, 1961), p. 1. 96 97 by the National Park Service; and the national forests--or, as they were first designated, "forest preserves"--managed by the Forest Service]. Other federal lands which provide recreational Opportunities are adminis- tered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Indian lands are held in trust by the United States Government and are considered to be privately Owned prOperty. However, several tribes have Opened their lands to the public for recreation use--for the purpose of realizing a revenue in return. "Indian lands constitute a con- siderable outdoor recreation resource."1 The Bureau of Reclamation does not deve10p recreation areas adjacent to its reservoirs, but rather, transfers this function to other qualified government agencies--federal, state, or local. These points will be returned to later. Federal recreation lands--due to their location, usually far from the centers of pOpulation—-were not heavily used in the early days of their existence. However, this Situation has changed. The phenomenal increase in the rate of use of these lands is widely recognized. The situa- tion was such that in 1964 Clawson felt that: "Outdoor recreation is the use of federal lands which affects thelargest number of peOple. "2 Such . 1Federal Agencies and Outdoor Recreation, ORRRC Study Report No.13 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 47. 2Marion Clawson, Man and Land in the United States (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1964), p. 114. 98 a statement says nothing of the absolute numbers that seek recreational Opportunities on federal areas. Figures of this nature are difficult: to obtain, with any real degree of accuracy, and are even more difficult to translate into meaningful and comprehendible quantities. Suffice it to say that recreation on federal lands has reached a point where conscientious efforts are needed to meet the public demands. Federal agencies cannot assume a passive position with respect to satisfying the recreation needs of the peOple. Among other things, planning programs are needed. Inven- tories and classifications, it has been established, are necessary parts of any such planning efforts. Early Federal Parks and Recreation PrOperties In 1872, Yellowstone National Park was set aside by Congress as the first national park in the country. Eight years prior to that date, the Yosemite Valley had been ceded to the state of California as the nation's first state park. The reservation of Yellowstone and the events leading up to that historical act are familiar to practically all serious students of the park movement--these events need not be reviewed here. 1 The establishment of Yellowstone was a marked reversal of the dominant land policy of the time .. This point was emphasized by Ise: 1The reader who is interested in a detailed account of the Yellow- stone episode and/ or the national park movement in general, is referred to John Ise's Our National Park Policy, A Critical History. 99 The reservation of this large tract of over two million acres of 1am --larger than a couple of the smallest eastern states--with its wealth of timber, game, grass, water power, and possible minerals barred from all private use, was so dramatic a departure from the general public land policy of Congress that it seems almost a miracle. This was the period when any bill for getting rid of public lands was likely to get the support of Congress . . . when only a few idealists gave thought to the interests of tine peOple as a whole, particularly the future interests. Mackinac Island, in Michigan, was established as the country's second national park in 1875. However, developments on the island were not in conformance with national park standards, and the area was event- ually returned to the state. The reversion of this land to the state of Michigan has been discussed in the preceding chapter. Eighteen years after the Yellowstone reservation, three other national parks were established--all in the state of California. In 1890 the Sequoia, General Grant (incorporated into Kings Canyon National Park in 1940), and Yosemite National Parks were established. In the case of Yosemite, Federal park lands surrounded the state- controlled Yosemite Grant, which was not receded to the Federal government until 1906. Just before the turn of the century, on March 2, 1899, Mount Rainier National Park, the fifth of these areas, came into being. 2 Sequoia National Park was established "as a 'public park or pleasure ground' to save the Giant Forest of Sequoias" in September of 1390.3 A few days later . . . another act was passed, estab- lishing Yosemite and General Grant as "reserved forest lands, " and adding to Sequoia. . . . Congress thought of 1Ise, p. 17. 2Brockman, p. 59. 3Ise, p. 35. 100 the new areas as forest reservations, although the Forest Reserve Act was not passed until the next year. . . . 1 Shortly after the act which established Yellowstone National Park had been passed by Congress, the first bill calling for "the preservation of the forests of the national domain" was introduced. Several attempts to pass such legislation failed. Finally in 1891, a bill containing the following section was "rushed" through the Senate and the House of Representatives: Section 24. That the President of the United States may, from time to time, set a part and reserve, in any State or Territory having public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not as public reservations, and the President Shall, by public proclamation, declare the establishment of such reservations and the limits thereof. 2 This piece of legislation, commonly referred to as the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, paved the way for the establishment of what is, today, a nationwide system of national forests. 3 Less than a month after President Harrison has signed the Forest Reserve Act, he set aside the "Yellowstone Park Forest Reservation" as the first "forest reserve. " 1Ibid., pp. 55- 56. 2Samuel T. Dana, Forest and Range Policy: Its Deve10pment in the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. , Inc. , 1956), p. 100. 3"The section authorizing the President to set aside forest reserves . was attached to the bill in violation of the rule forbidding the inclusion of any new material in a conference-committee report, . . . that it was prepared in considerable haste is indicated by the fact that it is not even a complete sentence, the transitive verbs "set a part and reserve not being following by any object. This grammatical slip, however, has not lead to any question as to the intent or the validity of the act." (Dana, p. 101.) 101 Thus the Yellowstone region had the distinction of being the birthplace of both the national park system and the national forest system. During the next two years Harrison proclaimed fourteen additional reservations in various parts of the West. . . . Unlike the national parks, the national forests (forest preserves) were not set aside primarily because of their "aesthetic" or "recreational" values. The early proponents and administrators of these forest lands felt that their value lie in providing the more tangible resources such as water, timber, forage, and the like. Today, national forests play a strategic part in meeting the public demand for outdoor recreational opportunities. Recognition of the potential value of forest lands for recreational purposes developed slowly, at first. Brockman has noted that although the establishment of Federal forest reserves was urged by parties with interests in other forest values, "early legislation relative to those areas can be interpreted as providing for public recreational use. "2 Recognition of the recreational values of the national forests at the highest level is noted for the first time in the annual report of the Chief of the U. S. Forest Service . . . for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1912. . . . Finally, in 1918, the U. S. Forest Service employed F. A. Waugh to make a five- month's field investigation of national forest lands. . . . This was the first official Forest Service study of recreation; it is important in that it recognized recreation as one of the major uses of the national forests. Recreation, however, was not given specifgc financial support by the U. S. Forest Service until 1922. Lack of adequate funds has been a serious problem in the proper administration of the national parks also. For a number of years it was 1Dana, p. 102. zBrockman, pp. 70-71. 3Ibid., p. 72. 102 assumed that the early parks would be self- supporting. 1 Even after the error in such reasoning had been revealed, appropriations were unreal- istic in light of the increasing burden being placed on national park facilities. Development of the National Park System The areas administered by the National Park Service presently number more than two hundred, and are listed under sixteen different headings--inc1uding the White House and the National Capital Parks. This section, by cursorily tracing the acquisition of these areas, will serve to clarify the nature of these areas and the rationale, or lack of one, for the titles applied to several categories in the system. It is hOped that this more detailed review will be of further value by indicating various merits and/ or adverse qualities, an awareness of which would be helpful in the formulation of any recreational land classification system. Much of the historical information and evaluation presented in this section was drawn from John Ise's study of Our National Park Policy. We might begin by attempting to define what a national park is, and distinguish it from another class of areas in the National Park System-- national monuments. The early parkS--Yellowstone, Yosemite, Sequoia, General Grant, and Mount Ranier--and a number of other areas are all designated as national "parks." National Parks are frequently described according to several criteria: natural features, purpose of establishment, 1Ise, p. 56. 103 size, degree of deve10pment, and a few others. It is generally agreed that national parks are areas of "superlative" scenery and containing features of nationwide Significance. But to attempt to distinguish national "parks" from national "monuments" on such criteria is next to impos- sible; except in a very general way. Superintendent of National Parks, R. B. Marshall, said in 1917 that the principal difference between a monument: and a park is that a national monument is merely made safe from encroachment by private interests and enterprise, while a national park is in process of deve10p- ment by roads and trails and hotels to make it a convenient resort for peOple to visit and enjoy. This has some truth in it, but it is not altogether correct; some national monu- ments . . . are "deveIOped" in somewhat the same way as national parks, and some national parks . . . have few or no roads or hotels within park limits. . .Horace Albright, later Director of the National Park Service, [said in 1911] that they were "practically identical" but that monuments were usually smaller. This comes near the truth. Nearly all the national parks are areas of outstanding grandeur or of outstanding merit in some respect; national monuments are areas which are not sufficiently outstanding to justify park status, yet have some scenic or otlier value which calls for government protection and control. The criterion of "quality" of an area is not satisfactory for dis- tinguishing monuments from parks. There is quite an overlap between "higher quality" monuments and "lower quality" parks. A number of areas which were first designated as national monuments were later changed to national parks. The manner in which each type of area may be established is the principal difference between them. 1ise, pp. 154-155. 104 Generally speaking, National Parks are established to conserve an assemblage of outstanding features which constitute superlative scenery. National Monuments, in most cases, are established to conserve outstanding histor- ical or scientific features. The main difference is in the authority under which they are established-.- ' National Parks are established by specific acts of Congress. National Monuments maLbe established by specific acts of Congress or by Presidential proclamation. 1 Authority to establish "national monuments" was vested in the President by the Antiquities Act of 1906. It is commonly felt that this legis- lation was prompted by a concern for the preservation of archeological ruins in the Southwest region of the United States. That act authorized the President of the United States "to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments. " . . . Administration of the national monuments was delegated to the Secretary of the Department already having jurisdiction over the lands in question. In effect, this meant the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and War. 2 All national monuments were later placed under the administration of the National Park Service by the Reorganization Act of 1933. Ise had the following comments about the term "monument" used in the Antiquities Act and still present in the Park Service's classification of areas: 1Your National Parks--A Brief History, with Questions and Answers Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1961). 2Dana, p. 154. 105 The word "monumen " presently applied to reser- vations under the act was not well chosen, for a great variety of objects were reserved. Battlefields, forts, mountains, canyons, cliffs, glaciers, sanddunes, islands, caves, deserts, trees, cacti, birthplaces of famous men, church missions and homesteads; most of these cannot appropriately be called "monuments." Perhaps "national reservations" would be a better word, although "national monuments" has been used so long that its meaning is not obscure to those familiar with the subject. Prior to 1916, each national park was a separately organized and administered entity. All of the parks were the responsibility of the Secre- tary of the Interior, who was unable to give much attention to these areas. Realizing the need for greater unity of direction, Congress acted to estab- lish the National Park Service in 1916. The act directed the Park Service to regulate the use of these areas in such a way as to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."2 At the time of its establishment the National Park Service was given jurisdiction over fifteen national parks then in existence, as well as twenty-one national monuments. "3 In the early nineties Congress inaugurated a policy of establishing national military parks, battlefield sites, historic sites and memorials: Chicamauga and Chattanooga“ National Military Park and “Antietom Battlefield site in 1890, Shiloh National Military Park in 1894, Gettysburg National Military - frk in 1895, and many others in the years following. 1Ise, p. 154. 2Ise, pp. 191-92 sBrockman, p. 68. 41se, pp. 161-62. 106 These areas were eventually included in the national park system. They were placed there by President Franklin Roosevelt, exercising the authority given to him by Congress in the Reorganization Act of 1933. Roosevelt at first, issued a very broadly stated order for reorganization. A second order was issued the following month "making more explicit the reservations to be transferred: eleven national military parks . . . two 'national parks' . . . ten 'battlefield sites' . . . ten national monuments, mostly military and historical; four 'miscellaneous memorials, ' and eleven 'national ceme- teries. "'1 Ise summarized the transfer of properties and added his opinion concerning the nomenclatural classes involved, as follows: Altogether a bewildering array of historical park areas were shifted to the Park Service on June 10, 1933. . . . The classification of such areas was more confusing than it need have been. There is no reason, for instance, why Gettysburg should be a national military park and Antietam a national battlefield site. The Park Service has worked on the prgblem and in 1940 made a beginning at a reclassification. Two years later another significant act concerning the Park Service was approved by Congress and the President: In August 1935, the Historic Sites Act was approved to provide for the establisMent of National Historic Sites and for the protectio and administration of historic areas of national interest. The Antiquities Act of 1906 had been applied almost exclusively to archeological structures, mostly cliff dwellings and pueblos in the south- lnogg.,.p. 353. 21913., p. 425. 3 Your National Parks--A Brief History . . . 10'? western region of the United States. Areas of scenic or scientific impor- tance were also reserved under this act. The Historic Sites Act, however, declared it a national policy to preserve historic American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national importance, for the inspiration and benefit of the people. During the 1930's, the National Park Service also acquired its first "parkways. " The distribution of money for relief work during the depres- sion enabled several parkways to be built--most of them in the South. This factor, coupled with interest generated by the Park, Parkway, and Recrea- tional Area Study Act of 1936 prompted the addition of areas of this type to the growing national park system. The second parkway to be considered [by Congress] and the first to be provided for, on June 30, 1936, was the Blue Ridge Parkway, to connect the Skyline Drive in Shenan-' doah National Park and the Great Smokey Mountains National Park with a road running along the crests of the Appalachian Mountains, a distance of 477 miles. 1 "The next parkway established, two years after Blue Ridge, was the Natchez Trace. "2 This parkway was to run from Nashville, Tennessee, to Natchez, Mississippi. The bill for this area passed Congress and was signed by President Roosevelt in 1938. Once again, Ise noted an inconsistency in the classification of national park areas--this time with respect to "parkway" areas. There is an inconsistency in the naming of Blue Ridge [National Parkway] and Shenandoah National Park. Blue Ridge, somewhat the finer of the two, is a national parkway, 1 2 Ise, p. 416. 1mm, p. 418. 108 while Shenandoah, which is essentially Skyline Drive, is a national park. They sfiould both be either national parks or national parkways. Also during the 1930's, the Park Service administered its first "national recreation area, " Lake Mead, above Hoover Dam; and designated Cape Hatteras, on the coast of North Carolina, as a "national seashore. " And so the classes of areas in the National Park System grew in number until in 1961 the system included the following types of areas: National Parks National Battlefield Sites National Monuments National Historic Sites National Historical Parks National Cemeteries National Military Parks National Memorials National Memorial Parks National Parkways National Battlefield Parks National Capital Parks National Battlefield National geashore Recreational Areas National Recreation Areas were not included above since they are not part of the National Park System, but rather are areas administered by the Park Service through a c00perative agreement with other government agencies. The lone National Seashore Recreational Area was Cape Hatteras--this term was later shortened to National Seashore. It should be noted that the above classification of National Park areas was not purposely devised by the Park Service as an aid or tool for the management of the areas it administers. The multiplicity of titles was explained by the National Resources Planning Board in 1941. Ilse, p. 422. 2Your National Parks--A Brief History, . . . 109 The large number of categories applicable to areas in the national park system is due to the fact that prior to 1933 several departments of the Federal Government were respon- sible for reservation and administration of areas now in the national park system. Some of the categories involving reservation of similar types are established under different legislative authorizations. The same type of reservation, for example, may be set up as a national historic park by act of Congress, a national monument by proclamation of the Presi- dent, or a national historic site by designation of the Secretary of the Interior. 1 Thus, the designation for a particular area may be a function of how and when it was established, rather than an attempt to describe its position or role in the entire national park system. This classification scheme is widely published, however, and undoubtedly puzzles many readers. It should be further realized that classes based on a criterion such as type of area--for example, scenic or historical--would be extremely difficult to apply to national parklands due to the nature of many of the areas within the system. Ise has stated that, "some units in the park system could not be easily and precisely classified. Some parks and monuments are both scenic and historical. 2 There is room for improvement, however, and as Ise pointed out, the National Park Service has been working on the problem and hopes "to achieve some simplification. Anything done would have to have Congressional approval because Congress gave the names to most of them in setting them up. "3 1Land Classification in the U. S. , p. 88. 3151a. , p. 425. 21se, p. 533. 110 Official designations of the areas administered by the National Park Service have been given by Congress, except for National Monuments established by Presidential proclamation and National Historic Sites designated by the Secretary of the Interior. 1 Other Federal Agencies Administering Recreation Areas It is the purpose of this section to discuss in capsule form the federal agencies, and the prOperties they administer, which provide oppor- tunities for recreational experiences. The National Park Service and Forest Service have been examined above. Several other agencies control areas which are also important to the total recreation complex. Fish and Wildlife Service The Fish and Wildlife Service, primarily through the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife within the Service, provides recreational Opportunities for the American public. The Service is primarily concerned with the pro- tection and improvement of wildlife resources. It does so through programs of research and the operation of national wildlife refuges, fish hatcheries and other such areas. Public Law 87-714, of September 28, 1962, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to develop and manage national- wildlife refuges, game ranges, national fish hatcheries, and other conservation areas for "appropriate or secondary use for public recreation, to the extent that such use is compatible with the primary purpose of such areas." 1Your National Parks--A Brief History, . . . 2Stewart L. Udall, Annual Report, 1963--The Secretary of the Interior (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 296. 111 Bureau of Land Management In 1958, the Secretary of the Interior approved a formal public recreational land use policy, proposed by the Bureau of Land Management. 1 The Bureau of Land Management has exclusive responsi- bilities for about 60 percent, or 464 million acres, of federally ownedl ds. More than half of this area is in the State of Alaska. Virtually all of the Bureau of Land Management's properties are open to public recreational use. However, there are only a few BLM areas which have been improved for this purpose. "Recreation facilities first were constructed on public lands, the O&C lands in western Oregon, in 1960."3 A lack of sufficient appropriations has hampered the deve10pment of any significant improvements, for recreation purposes, on BLM lands. However, these lands possess latent potential for meeting future recreation demands. Corps of Engineers The Corps of Engineers, by authority of the Flood Control Act of 1946, is empowered to construct, maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities on 4 reservoirs under control of the Department of the Army. It has been the policy of the Corps to provide only "basic" recrea- tional facilities, and to induce state and local government agencies to 1Brockman, p. 33. 2Public Land Statistics--l964 (Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management, 1964), p. 1. 31mm, p. 71. 4Brockman, p. 32. 112 provide any additional services and/ or facilities that may be desirable. Attendance at Corps of Engineers reservoir areas has increased rapidly in recent years. Tennessee Valley Authorig TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority] was created in 1933 as a regional resource development agency based on the concept that all the resources of a river basin are inter- related and should be deve10ped under one unified plan for maximum effectiveness. 1 The impoundments created by TVA dams have provided excellent Opportunities for recreational pursuits. The Authority has long recog- nized the value of the recreational resources it administers. It has been a past policy of the TVA not to directly develop or administer any recrea- tional facilities or sites. However, it does make lands available to other governmental agencies, as well as private groups or individuals, for recrea- tional use and deve10pment. Bureau of Reclamation The Bureau of Reclamation has no general authority to deve10p the recreation potential of its reservoirs. Yet, the recreation resources available at these areas are being utilized by an ever increasing number 0f visitors. "The Bureau seeks to turn over to some other agency, federal, state, or local, the administration of recreation on most reservoir areas." 1ORRRC . . . Report No. 13, p. 10. 2Clawson, Statistics. . . , p. 58. 113 Bureau of Indian Affairs The Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior is trustee for approximately 56 million acres Of Indian lands which, although embodying important recreational potentials, are not yet widely used by the general public. 1 The main recreational uses Of Indian lands are hunting, fishing and tourism. In order to hunt or fish on Indian prOperties, a person must pur- chase a Special license in addition tO a state license. As demands for recreational resources increase in the future, the use Of Indian lands may expand. The potential exists; the choice Of capitalizing On this potential rests with the various Indian tribes. Examples Of Federal Recreation Land Classification Systems This section will review classification schemes utilized or proposed by federal agencies responsible for administering lands which provide recreational Opportunities to the public. Also, in order to gather together any loose ends, classifications suggested by organizations or individuals that encompass recreation prOperties at all levels will be included here. In 1933, the United States Forest Service published A National Elan for American Forestry. In this report the types Of recreational areas Within national forests--as viewed by the Forest Service at that time--were listed; and several were defined. The motive for contriving a scheme Of this nature was also indicated, as follows: 1Brockman, p. 34 114 The varied purposes Of those who seek recreation in the forest . . . necessitate recognition Of several distinct types Of recreational forest areas. . '. . Each Of these types has its special standards Of size, beauty, and administration. . Superlative areas . Primeval (natural) areas . Wilderness areas . Roadside areas Camp- site areas . Residence areas . Outing areas1 QMHUOWCP' The definitions for the first four Of these classes were included in the report and are given below: "Superlative areas" are localities with unique scenic values so surpassing and stupendous in their beauty as to affect almost everyone who sees them. "Primeval areas" are tracts of virgin timber in which human activities have never upset the normal processes Of nature. 2 "Wilderness areas" are regions which contain no per- manent inhabitants, possess no means Of mechanical conveyance, and are sufficiently spacious that a person may spend at least a week or two Of travel in them without crossing his own tracks. "Roadside areas" are the timber strips along m s and also lakes, rivers and all other boat: and canoe routes. In the 1938 study report of the Recreational Use Of Land in the United States, the National Park Service utilized the same headings in classifying "recreational forest areas. " However, the definition Of super- lative areas had been changed to "include national parks and areas in the national forests that meet similar standards. "5 The following definitions were given for camp site, residence, and outing areas: 1A National Plan for American Forestry, p. 471. 21pm. 3mm, p. 473. 4Ibid., p. 475. 5Recreational Use Of Land in the U. S. , p. 78. 115 Campsite areas include areas specially designated for the use Of- camping. Residence areas provide space for private homes, hotels and resorts, group camps, stores, and services of various sorts. Outing areas are intermediate between primeval areas and commercially Operated timber tracts. 1 The definitions Of primeval, wilderness, and roadside areas were similar to those in the 1933 report by the Forest Service. By 1941, recreation developments and use on the National Forests had diversified to the extent that a some- what more SOphisticated classification was required. . . . The Annual Statistical Report for calendar year 1941 illus- trates the breakdown which was adopted in that year, and with a few minor changes, was used through calendar year 1964. 2 A copy of the Annual Statistical Report for 1941 was included along with other materials sent by the Director of the Division Of Recreation Of the Forest Service. The following categories were used to summarize attendance data for "recreation areas" in all Forest Service regions for the 1941 Annual Statistical Report: Campgrounds Recreation residences Picnic areas Wilderness areas Winter sports areas Other forest areas 3 Organization camps Highways, roads and water routes Hotels or resorts The Forest Service also classifies areas to be managed for recrea- tional purposes as: dominate (or dominant), coordinate, or subordinate. b 1Ibid. , p. 93. 2Materials sent by Mr. Richard J. Costley, Director, Division Of Recreation, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (paper en- titled "The Annual Statistical Report, 1941"), Oct. 3, 1966. 3Ibid. 116 This, however, is not a classification Of types Of recreation areas, as such. Rather, it is a management guide to Specify the priority recreation is to be given, vis- a-vis other activities or uses in an area. For example, in an area where recreation is considered the dominate use "no other forms of occupancy or utilization shall be allowed to impair appreciably the recrea- tional or inspiration values. "1 In an area. where recreation is considered as coordinate, it "will be regarded as a major service and provided for in proper relation to, and in coordination with, other uses and services. "2 If recreation is designated as a subordinate use Of an area, it "shall not be provided for and may be discouraged if major considerations Of public inter- est or administrative necessity warrant such action. "3 In 1938, the Department of Regional Planning Studies Of the Tennessee Valley Authority published The Scenic Resources Of the Tennessee Valley. The Department noted the difficulties involved in attempting to classify "types Of nonurban outdoor recreation areas:". [Use Of recreation areas] may be very intensive, involving thousands Of persons daily, or it may bring only a few visitors during a year. . . . Recreation areas may vary in size from a fraction of an acre tO hundreds of square miles. Their scenic value may range from the nominal tO the superlative. They may be under the jurisdiction Of public agencies, or under private control. They may be known as parks, aorests, playgrounds, camps or by various other names. 1Forest Recreation Handbook, p. 2. 2Ibid. 3Ibid. 4The Scenic Resources Of the Tennessee Valley (Washington: Tennessee Valley Authority, 1938), p. 212. 117 Presented below are the classes and subclasses--together with abbreviated descriptions-—utilized by the Department Of Regional Planning Studies to classify the types of areas needed to serve the recreational needs Of the people in the region. 1. Regional areas A. Outing areas 1. Intensive-use areas 2. Developed scenic areas B. Conservation areas 1. Wilderness areas 2. Monuments II. Travelways A. Motorways 1. Parkways 2. Freeways 3. Highways 4. Byways B. Trailways C. Waterways D. Airways E. Waysides Regional areas for recreation are tracts . . . with sufficient inherent interest to attract. more than local patronage. The outing area is a public recreation area to which one may go . .' . for physical recreation or for diversion. An outing arealshould be Of attractive but not superlative scenic character. There were two major types of outing areas described in this pub- lication: intensive-use areas and deve10ped scenic areas. Intensive-use areas "receive the brunt Of concentrated, active recreation," while developed scenic areas are intended to provide for "extensive recreational use in relatively natural surroundings. "2 11bid. 2The Scenic Resources Of the Tennessee . . . , pp. 212-213. 118 Conservation areas "are so designated because their primary pur- pose is conservation Of the tract involved. "1 In contrast, recreational use is the primary consideration on Outing areas. Wilderness areas were defined much the same as the Forest Ser- vice's wflderness areas, described above. Thus, the definition Of wilderness areas is not included here. Monuments were defined as "conservation holdings established wholly or dominantly because Of their Significance from the point of view Of history, natural science, or archeology. "2 Four subcategories Of travelways were distinguished: motorways, trailways, waterways, and airways. NO definition was given for the broad category travelways. Four types Of motorways were distinguished: Park- ways, freeways, highways and byways. A parkwa is an elongated park with a road (single or divid'ed running through it. Normally, it has restricted traffic (pleasure traffic only) and administrative or physical control Of access. A freeway is a motorway of varied or uniform width Of right- Of-way, with unrestricted traffic, but with physical control Of access. A highway is a traffic-way Of more than local significance, having usually, but not necessarily, a uniform width Of right- Of-way, with unrestric- ted traffic and access. A byway resembles a highway in all but its purely local traffic significance. Trailways are systems of independent recreational trails, as contrasted with trails that occur only as features within regional areas.- Trailways and parkways are the only type Of travel- way purely recreational in character. As compared with motorways, the pace Of their use is slower and permits more leisurely contacts with nonurban environments. 1 Ibid., p. 213. 2Ibid., p. 214. 3 Ibid., p. 215. 119 Recreational waterway was defined as the "environment Of recrea- tion water travel. As such, the definition excludes limited water areas, Of which localized recreational use is made. " Airways, needless to say, referred to flying for recreation. Waysides are stopping places along or closely adjacent to travelways (except airways)which are intended to increase the convenience and enjoyment Of travel thereon. Four- general types Of waysides areas may be recognized . . . Observation pqints, picnic grounds, overnight camps, and scenic Spots. An Observation point was merely a parking Spot adjacent to a high- way, from which one could view a scene or Object of interest. Picnic grounds were areas for picnicking found along a travelway. Overnight camps encompassed a wide range Of areas and facilities designed for over- night use by recreationists. A scenic spot was "a roadside feature of con- siderable yet incidental interest . . . worth preserving, but not of sufficient 2 importance to be a motoring Objective in itself. " The 1938 National Park Service study report on the Recreational Use Of Land in the United States provides, among other things, a breakdown Of the several types Of "wildlife reservations" on the basis of their uses. The report stated that: . . . The various forms Of wildlife utilization provide different types Of recreation, and since these different types Of recreation frequently demand conflicting uses within a Single wildlife area, it is desirable tO define types Of wildlife areas according to their uses. Wildlife Sanctuary--A wildlife sanctuary is an area set aside and maintained for the inviolate protection Of all Of its biota. lIbid. , p. 216. ZIbid. 120 This is the type Of area which is set aside for the pleasure of seeing and studying the biota, and is not subject to hunting, trapping, or any other commercial utilization. Refuge--A refuge is an area wherein protection is accorded to selected species Of animal life. Refuges . . . involve the protection of the selected species for some particular purpose, whether that purpose is a matter of aesthetics, scientific investigation, hunting, or commerce. Other forms Of animal life predatory upon or adversely affecting the selected forms within the refuge might be controlled. Preserve--A preserve is an area set aside and main- tained for the production and/ or harvesting Of wild animal. life On a sustained yield basis. Wildlife Preserve is an area set aside and maintained for the production and harvesting Of any or all forms Of the native biota on a sustained yield basis. A Game Preserve is an area set aside and maintained for the piiOduction and harvesting, or harvesting only of game animals. In 1959, the National Advisory Council on Regional Recreation Plan- ning issued a publication entitled A User- Resource Recreation Planning M. The specific purpose Of this effort was "to develop acceptable methods for expressing the values Of recreation and park areas and Open space in order that these lands uses may compete equally with other accepted demands for the use Of land. "2 The Council urged research to identify "user groups," according to the type and quality Of recreation experience each user required. Persons with similar recreation requirements would be identified as common members of a particular user group. Recreation plaiming efforts, 1Recreational Use Of Land in the U. S. , p. 4. 2A User-Resource Recreation Planning Method (Hidden Valley, Loomis, California: National Advisory Council on Regional Recreation. Planning, 1959), p. 38. 121 the Council suggested, should seek "to establish some general relationships between the future recreation requirements of user groups and the recrea- tion potential Of the resource types. "1 The Objective of a plannirg program should be tO maintain a balance between users and resources. It is the "resource types" which are Of interest here. The resource types discussed in the publication were: Natural reservations, natural developed areas, man-developed areas, and Open space. . . . The variety and gradations Of all areas that may be classified as natural reservations defy concise description. In terms Of this study, natural reservations include all kigds Of native landscapes that are largely undisturbed by man. Natural developed areas included national, state, county and local park lands. Broadly defined, natural developed areas include lands that are dedicated to public enjoyment and that recognize man as ecologically dominant. This resource permits man to manipulate and design the environment to better satisfy his comforts and desires. A brief definition Of [ man-developed areas] . . . might be those areas and facilities that are designed and constructed by man and are primarily concerned with satisfying the social, . physical and cultural recreation requirements Of large num— bers of people. In most cases the natural setting is less impor- tant than the development or the services that are provided. ' . . . The Open space recreation resource properly includes both public and private lands. . . . The recreation use of these areas might be important but would always be considered as a secondary benefit. 11bid., p. 37. 2m” p. 38. 3Ibid., pp. 33-39. 122 The Council realized that these classes were probably not satis- factory for inventorying all Of the recreational resources of an area. It stated that, The four resourcetypes that are described . . . here do not represent all the types that might appear from the detailed pilot studies. Also these broadly defined resource types may need to be subdivided for practical use. 1 In 1959, Brockman stated that "a great variety of recreational areas are listed by the U. S. Forest Service. " These may be segregated into two major groups: the first includes lands which are retained in essentially their natural condition, while the second is composed of areas having a recreational potential which can be most advantageously ~ realized by means of certain types of physical development. In Recreational Use of Wild Lands, Brockman synthesized the various recreational areas recognized by the Forest Service in several Of their publications. These areas and their definitions or descriptions are presented below: Wilderness and Wild Areas. The definition applied to wilderness areas in the 1933 Forest Service report (above) describes the character of both wilderness and wild areas. The two areas are distinguishable only by size: wild areas vary from 5, 000 to 100, 000 acres and wilderness areas are greater than 100, 000 acres in size. Primitive Areas and Limited Areas. The primitive area class was rescinded and replaced by wilderness and wild areas. However, lands 11bid., p. 37. 2Brockman, pp. 164-65. 123 designated as primitive areas retain their status until revoked by the chief of the Forest Service. Primitive areas were less restrictive than their successors: Roads and timber cuttings were allowed in primitive areas. The designation Of limited areas was instituted to protect the recreational values of certain tracts Of land until future studies could be undertaken to determine the eventual management practices On these areas. "In effect, the classification of limited area represents a recreational Option which prohibits road development, provision for motorized transportation, com- mercial cutting Of timber, and occupancy under special—use permit, except by special approval of the Regional Forester. " Roadless Areas. "Extensive units Of land generally qualifying as wilderness but embodying important codominant economic assets are classi- fied as roadless areas. "1 Virgin Areas. "Units of land less than 5, 000 acres in Size in which there has been virtually no disturbance Of natural vegetation are referred to as virgin areas. " Scenic Areas. Scenic areas are less than 5, 000 acres and contain unique Or outstanding scenery. Developments in scenic areas are kept at a minimum. Geological, Archeological, or Historical Areas. "These are Of varying size but Of sufficient extent to protect and preserve Specific lBrockman, p. 168. 124 interests of these types found on the national forests. "1 Recreation Zones. Recreation zones are areas in which commercial development, use, and occupancy is prohibited or limited to enhance recrea- tional experienceS--examples are areas adjacent to roads, trails, water- fronts, and Observation sites. Campgrounds and Picnic Areas. These areas require no definition. Suffice it to say that facilities are provided for use by recreationists, and campgrounds and picnic areas are usually separated. Sports Areas. "Summer outdoor sports and related interests which . . . . 2 are in keeping With forest env1ronment are encouraged on sports areas. " Winter Sports Areas. Skiing, skating, tobogganing, snowshoeing, and other such sports are provided for in winter Sports areas. Organization Camp Areas. "Facilities . .. . necessary for the accommodation Of organized groups are deve10ped on organization camp areas. "3 Summary Comments Several federal agencies administering lands which provide recrea- tional Opportunities had not considered a formal classification of such areas by 1960. Those classification systems which had been deve10ped were Often somewhat less than adequate. It is doubtful that comparisons of data among agencies, based on the existing classification schemes, 11516., p. 169. 2Ibid., p. 171. 3Ibid., p. 172. 125 could have been easily facilitated. Each agency developed a classification scheme to suit its own needs. In some cases, such as the National Park Service classification, these systems appear to have evolved with little thought given tO their functional prOperties. CHAPTER V PRESENT STATUS--THE LOCAL LEVEL Several recent Congressional Acts have stimulated the planning, acquisition, and deve10pment Of areas suitable for the provision Of recrea- tional Opportunities. One example of such legislation was the Housing Act Of 1961. Title VII Of this Act authorized the Open Space Land Program administered by the Urban Renewal Administration of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. 1 This program provides technical and financial assistance to State and local public bodies in the acquisition Of Open Space lands in urban areas for park, recreation, conServation, scenic, or historic purposes. The term "Open space" has been applied to a wide variety Of types of areas and consequently it is difficult to define concisely. Mrs. Ann Louise Strong, writing for the Urban Renewal Administration, has described the "characteristics" of Open space: Urban Open space land is that area within an urban region which is retained in or restored to a condition in which nature predominates. It may be used for recreation, 1On September 9, 1965, the Housing and Home Finance Agency was superseded by the Department Of Housing and Urban Deve10pment. 2A Place to Live, The Yearbook “Of Agriculture--1963 (Washington: U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1963). p. 334. 126 127 conservation, preservation Of scenic Or historic sites, Or for controlling the location and timing Of urban development. 1 It can be seen that the intended function of Open space land is not limited to the provision Of recreational OppOrtunities. However, recrea- tion is an important, if not primary, product of many Open space lands. The federal government will share the cost of acquiring Open space lands Only if the areas are being acquired in conformance with a compre- hensive plan for the state or local unit. Financial assistance for compre- hensive planning programs can also be received fr0m the Urban Renewal Administration--these grants were authorized by section 701 of the Housing Act Of 1954, as amended, and are commonly referred to as "701" funds. The new Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 amended the Open- Space Land Program to provide increased help to communities for acquiring and developing urban Open- space lands, and for creating small parks in built-up areas. Another significant act pertaining to recreation planning and recreation land acquisition was the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Act Of 1958. The duties Of the Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Com- mission, authorized by this act, were: TO determine the outdoor recreation wants and needs Of the American peOple now and what they will be in the years 1976 and 2000. 1Ann Louise Strong, Open Space for Urban America (Washington, D. C. : Department of Housing and Urban Deve10pment, Urban Renewal Administration, 1965), p. 1. 21bid., p. 84. 128 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 be recommended tO insure that the needs of the present and future are adequately and efficiently met. After three years of research, the Commission presented its report to the President and the Congress. The Commission's recommendations were divided into five general categories: A National Outdoor Recreation Policy. Guidelines for the Management Of Outdoor Recreation Resources. Expansion, Modification, and Intensification Of Present Programs to Meet Increasing Needs. Establishment Of a Bureau Of Outdoor Recreation in the Federal Government. A Federal Grants- in-Aid Program to States. 2 The Commission devised the following recreational resources classification system, and proposed that it be adapted on a nationwide basis: Class I - High— DensM Recreation Areas Areas intensively developed and managed for mass use. Class II - General Outdoor Recreation Areas Areas subject to substantial development for a wide variety Of specific recreation uses. Class 111 - Natural Environment Areas Various types of areas that are suitable for recreation in a natural environment and usually in combination with other uses. 1Outdoor Recreation for America, p. 2. ZIbid. , p. 6. 129 Class IV - Unique Natural Areas Areas Of outstanding splendor, natural wonder, or scientific importance. Class V - Primitive Areas Undisturbed roadless areas characterized by natural, wild conditions, including "wilderness areas. " Class VI - Historic and Cultural Sites Sites Of major historic or cultural significance, either local, regional, or national. This classification scheme will be examined further in Chapter VII under a discussion of the federal level. It has been outlined here since it is impor- tant at the local and state, as well as federal, levels. Not enough studies have been conducted, or literature published, to evaluate the extent to which the six-fold classification proposed by the Outdoor Recreation Resour- ces Review Commission has been applied to local recreation lands. It is doubtful that this classification will supplant existing classifications for urban recreation areas. The Commission did not include certain types Of urban recreation areas in their study considerations. The Act establishing the Commission explicitly stated that "'Outdoor recreation resources' shall not mean nor include recreation facilities, programs, and Opportunities usually associated with urban development such as playgrounds, stadia, golf courses, city parks, and zoos . "2 Recent, Local Recreational Land Classification Schemes The metropolitan planning commissions Of Knoxville and Knox County, Tennessee, and Tulsa, Oklahoma have shown that the recreational area designations supported by the National Recreation Association-- 1Ibid., p. .7. 21bid., p. 191. 130 presented in Chapter II--continue to strongly influence classifications devised by individual agencies at the local level. In 1960, the park system Of Metropolitan Tulsa was "classified into components based upon the area . ,,1 and primary age group served. TotlotS--The totlot is a small recreation area designed for the use Of pre- school age children. It is used in multi- family areas as a substitute for the individual backyard. Playground--The playground is primarily designed for elementary school age children and has approximately the same service area (approximately one-half mile) as the elementary school. Playfields--The playfield is designed to serve junior and senior high school age children and young adults. . . . Its function is to provide the more active types Of recreation, such as field and court games. Area Parks--The area park is designed to serve all age groups and normally serves a major section Of the city. The primary function Of the area park is to provide large areas Of scenic landscape for the city dweller within which he can escape the noise and rush Of urban living. Special FacilitieS--The Special facility is a special use area such as the arboretum, flower 2garden, conservatory, amphitheater, stadium or parkway. The Recreation Plan Of Knoxville and Knox County, Tennessee classified outdoor recreation areas as: Playgrounds, neighborhood parks, playfields, district parks, and special use areas. A comparison Of the ' Knoxville and Tulsa classification systems will serve tO demonstrate the discrepancies in nomenclature and descriptions that continue to exist among local classifications. The classes cited in the Knoxville report are identified below. 11975 Metropolitan Tulsa . . . Land Need, p. 5. 2Ibid., p. 6. 131 Playgrounds--Playgrounds are primarily for children of five to fifteen years Of age and are usually located adjacent to an elementary school. Neighborhood Parks--The purpose Of a neighborhood park is to provide a passive Open space as well as an active recreation area within walking distance Of all houses. It serves all ages. . . . Playfields--The playfield provides facilities for the use Of teenagers and adults. District Parks--The park should provide quiet with emphasis on natural features such as lakes, hills, woods, etc. . . . Special Use AreaS--Special use areas are those which function separately from a park. These are uses such as golf courses, zoos, marinas. Doell has cited the classification system utilized in a study involv- ing the Dallas, Texas, park and recreation system. This classification system is "substantially the same" as the classes published by the National Recreation Association. These classes are merely outlined below, since they have already been discussed under the same or similar headings: Playlot Playground (neighborhood Park) Playfield (includes athletic field) Large park Parkways, ornamental areas, special parks Reservations and preserves Regional recreational areas Doell has stated that this system "is representative Of the average of all such classifications and standards expressed in a reasonably brief way. "3 The classification system proposed by the National Recreation 1Recreation Plan--Knoxville and Knox County, Tennessee (Knox- ville: MetrOpOlitan Planning Commission, 1961), pp. 7-11. 2Doell, p. 16. 3Ibid., p. 15. 132 Association has apparently continued to act as a homogenizing force among local recreational area classification systems. However, numerous varia- tions--and completely different schemeS--remain in existence. The Allen Organization--Park and Recreation Planners--prepared a comprehensive park plan for the Department of Parks of Evansville, Indiana. This plan, presented to the Department of Parks in 1964, included a proposed park system for Evansville and a classification of the various types of parks to be included in this system. Five major types of park areas are to be included in the prOposed Evansville park system. They are as follows: 1. The City-Wide Park. This has city-wide appeal because Of its size, facilities and natural features. In this cate- gory, location is not of major importance as it is accessible to peOple from all parts of the city by car. The Inter-Neighborhood Park. The function Of this type of park is to serve a group Of surrounding neighborhoods, and the immediate neighborhood in which it is located. . . . Here location is important and theoretically a park of this type should be located to serve areas within a mile radius. The Neighborhood Park. This is by far the most impor- tant type in a park system, and the one most frequently lacking. The neighborhood park places a facility in a locality where peOple live and spend 80 percent Of their time. Open Space. This type Of park is any open space suitable fO—r park treatment. It can be a small area, 20, 000 square feet, in a subdivision, a street island or the flood plain Of a stream valley. Specialized Parks. Parks that are developed primarily for a Special use fall in this category. 1Comprehensive Park Plan--Evansville, Indiana (Benning- ton, Vermont: Allen Organization, 1964). 133 Golf courses and museums were cited as examples Of "specialized parks. " This classification is based on several criteria; size, location, and type Of use are important in the description of several Of the classes. This classification also provides an example Of the lack Of specific definition given tO the term "Open space. " Several recent publications have stressed the importance of the County's role in providing recreational areas. In 1964, the National Association Of Counties, and the National Recreation Association jointly published County Parks and Recreation "to provide practical guidelines for county governments in filling the parks and recreation "vacuum" that exists between the nearby municipal playgrounds and the far-away State or Federal Parks. "1 The counties are recognizing that their special role is: tO acquire, deve10p and maintain parks and tO administer public recreation programs that will serve the needs Of communities broader than the local neighborhood or municipality, but less than state-wide or national in scope. The County Of Santa Clara (California) Planning Commission viewed the parks, recreation, and Open space resources of that county in a some- what unique manner. Each existing park in the county was listed and described under the general heading Of either developed parks or under- deve10ped parks. The Commission also distinguished three kinds Of Open spaces in their Parks, Recreation, and Open Space planning report: 1Warren, p. iii. 2Ibid., p. xiii. 134 Agricultural Open space; functional Open space; and parks and recreation spaces. Agricultural Open space included farms and orchards. Functional Open Space included a variety of areas from cultural and educational institutions tO airports, watershed preserves, and golf courses. Existing and prOposed parks and recreation spaces were grouped into several categories distinguished primarily by the resource base, Or topographical location, Of the areas. The classes Of parks and recreation Spaces presented in the Commission's report were: Mountain parks Valley floor parks Marine parks Reservoir parks Streamside preserves Recreation roads and trailways1 Smithee described the park system of MariCOpa County, Arizona, and indicated that the following classification scheme was established from "national standards and guides" to apply to the recreation lands Of MariCOpa County: 1. Urban Parks - are located in the center of the area served, comprising one Or more neighborhoods and include facili- ties for large crowds in concentrated areas. 2. Semi-Regional Parks - serve a large community and/ or two Or more Small communities. These parks are best located on the perimeter Of the area served and include special urban facilities that require large plots Of land such as golf courses, gun ranges, stadiums, auditoriums, and other semi-regional facilities. 3. Regional Parks - serve regions of the metrOpOlitan area and are best located 10 to 20 miles from the urban district. . . These parks are designed to allow the solitude de- sired so much by the individual and his family and to 1A Plan for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (San Jose, California: County Of Santa Clara Planning Commission, 1962), p. 14. 135 escape the togetherness which has been imposed upon - us in the urban areas. 4. Parkways - are . . . median strips Of highways and streets which are landscaped. The Detroit MetrOpOlitan Area Regional Planning Commission divided the types Of areas it suggested were necessary to serve the recrea- tional needs Of a metrOpOlitan region into three separate classes. Regional Recreation Lands Plan, issued in 1960, described such areas as regional parks, special facilities, and resource preserves. These lands were described in the following manner: Regional Parks. Large parks that take advantage Of a scenic attraction. About one-half Of the park is left in its natural state to provide a setting for picnicking, swimming, and rest- relaxation--the major use Of the park. More intensive use areas are also provided. Special Facilities. Areas developed for limited functions (such as a beach or parkway) and do not provide a wide range Of activities. Resource Preserves. Land with unusual scenic or wildlife features left in its natural state. Minimum development war- rantsd but may have areas for camping, fishing, winter sports, etc. These categories distinguish areas with different degrees Of develop- ment and "range, " Of Opportunities available to the visitor. The classifica— tion for Maricopa County's park system was, in comparison, based parimarily on location Of, and types of facilities provided at each area. In County Action for Outdoor Recreation published in 1964, the National Association Of Counties and the Citizens Committee for the ORRRC 1Warren, pp. 90-91. 2Regional Recreation Lands Plan (Detroit, Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, 1960). 136 Report recommended the adaption, by county agencies, Of the sixfold classification system developed by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1 Sufficient time has not elapsed to determine the extent to which counties have applied this classification system to their recreation lands. Literature concerning county parks and recreation data is notably lacking. Edward Crafts, Director Of the Bureau Of Outdoor Recreation, has remarked that, "one Of the greatest needs, it seems to me, .is for adequate statistical information about county activity in outdoor recreation. "2 1County Action for Outdoor Recreation, pp. 26-27. 2Warren, p. 140 CHAPTER VI PRESENT STATUS-—THE STATE LEVEL Section 701 Of the Housing Act of 1954, which authorized federal cost sharing for state and local comprehensive planning programs, provided incentive for recreation planning efforts at the state level. Eight years later the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission submitted its report to the President and to the Congress. In its report, the CommiSSion noted that the states should play a key role in the effort to meet outdoOr recreation demands. In a national effort to improve outdoor recreation Opportunities, State governments should play the pivotal role. They are more advantageously Situated than either local units or the Federal Government to deal with many current recreation problems. . . . The States occupy a key position--the middle level in our complex system Of government. They deal with other States, work with a great variety Of agencies at the national level, and are responsible for guiding and assisting all the political subdivisions within the State-~villagtfs, cities, towns, counties, and metrOpOlitan regions. Prior to the Commission's report and the establishmmt of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, in 1962, "some 20 Of the Nation's 50 States had made surveys of their future needs for outdoor recreation. "2 State park agencies were frequently understaffed and Often lacked adequate funds for land acquisition or development, and planning purposes. In light Of f 2 1Outdoor Recreation for America, p. 137. Ibid. , p. 138. 137 138 the situation, the Commission recommended that each state "prepare a long-range plan for the development Of outdoor recreation Opportunities. " State governments must clearly intensify their cur- rent activities if they are to fulfill their responsibilities as major suppliers Of outdoor recreation Services. A first requirement is the deve10pment of a comprehensive plan. The plan should take account Of the total State re- source base and of demands from residents and visitors. It should identify Objectives. It should estimate the funds needed. Finally, it should set forth {he successive steps necessary to achieve the Objectives. Perhaps the most significant legislation to encourage statewide comprehensive recreation planning was the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. One Of the purposes of this Act was to assist in the provision of recreational Opportunities by "providing funds for and author- izing Federal assistance to the States in planning, acquisition, and develop- 2 ment of needed land and water areas and facilities. . . . " The Act authorized the Secretary Of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the States-mot tO exceed 50 percent Of the cost--for planning, acquisition, or development purposes. TO be eligible for federal assistance, the States were required to deve10p a comprehensive statewide Outdoor recreation plan. A comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan shall be required prior to the consideration Of the Secretary (Of the Interior) of financial assistance for acquisition or deve10pment projects. The plan Shall be adequate if, in the judgement Of the Secretary, it encompasses and will pro- mote the purpose of this Act. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1Outdoor Recreation for America, p. 139. 2Public Law 88- 578 88th Congress, H.R. 3846, September 3, 1964. 78 Stat. 897 . "Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. " 139 The Secretary may provide financial assistance to any State for projects for the preparation of a comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation planwhen such plan is not 1 otherW1se available or for the maintenance of such plan. The responsibility for administering the Land and Water Conser- vation Fund and for reviewing the comprehensive plans submitted by the states rests with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the United States Department Of the Interior. Each Of the several states have designated or established an agency which is responsible for the preparation Of its com- prehensive recreation plan. A number of these state recreation planning agencies have applied the classification system devised by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, and promoted by the Bureau Of Outdoor Recreation, in their planning programs. However, a number of state agencies have deve10ped separate classification schemes which they apply to the recreation lands they administer, or to other recreation areas in their state. In this chapter, classification schemes developed by state recreation planning agencies, or other state agencies concerned with recreation, will be reviewed. In addition, classification systems deve10ped by agencies at other than the state level, that were judged to be most appropriately pre— sented in this chapter, will be included. An effort was made to gather the most recent information available on classification programs at the state level. Several general references 1Ibid., p. 5. 140 were readily available. To supplement these sources, a request was sent to one or more agencies concerned with outdoor recreation in each state. A cOpy of this letter and a list of the state agencies to which it was sent are presented in Appendix A. Thirty state agencies responded to this request. A number Of these agencies were able to send a cOpy of their state outdoor recreation plan. Additional plans were secured from the library of the Recreation Resources Planning Division Of the Michigan Department Of Conservation. In all, 22 state recreation plans, or preliminary recreation plans, were reviewed. Many pertinent materials, other than state recreation plans, were also received from the state agencies. General State Recreational Land Classifications One event appears to have had a profound affect in providing some sem- blance of unity to recreation land classification schemes at the state levels: A Committee of the National Conference on State Parks conducted a study for the purpose of developing criteria for evaluating lands prOposed for inclusion in state park. systems. The Committee's report, adOpted in 1954 by the Board of Directors of the Conference, was published in Guideline,1 in 1957, "in the belief that the criteria may serve as standards for use by the States."2 1Guideline is one of three publications issued jointly by the National Conference on State Parks, the American Institute of Park Executives, and the National Park Service. Guideline, Design, and Grist are published to "provide a means of exchanging views and concepts, structural and other technical designs, and Operational information in concise and lucid form for the benefit of park and recreation people everywhere." (Guideline, Apologia) 2"Suggested Criteria for Evaluating Areas for Inclusion in State Park Systems," Park Practice Guideline (Washington, D. C. : National Conference on State Parks, 1957), Policy and Planning, p. 5. 141 In their report, the Committee grouped areas commonly found in state park systems into six classes: parks, monuments, recreation areas, beaches, parkways, and waysides. The introduction to the Committee's report, together with the classes and definitions it prOposed, is presented below: State park systems are usually comprised of areas Of scenic, scientific, historical, archeological, or other recrea- tion significance of state—wide importance, or at least of sufficient importance to attract visitors from a large section of the State. Each system, as a whole, should (1) conserve outstanding examples of the State's natural and cultural re- sources for the inspiration and benefit Of the public, and (2) provide non- urban recreation Opportunities for the State's citizens and visitors that are normally beyond the responsi- bility of the State's political subdivisions. There is no uniformly accepted classification of state park areas. Some States use the term 'state park' generally, and apply it to all areas Of their systems. Most of the States, however, use a number of classifications based upon consider- ations such as character, use, custom, and statutory provi- sions, and these vary from State to State, with some 60 odd classifications currently in use. For the purpose of evaluation, as set forth in this statement, these areas are grouped into six classifications (parks, monuments, recreation areas, beaches, parkways, and waysides) defined as follows: 1. State Parks - Relatively spacious areas of outstand- ing scenic or wilderness character, oftentimes containing also significant historical, archeological, ecological, geological, and other scientific values, preserved as nearly as possible in their original or natural condition and providing Opportunity for appropriate types of recreation where such will not destroy or impair the features and values to be preserved. Commercial exploitation of resources is prohibited. 2. State Monuments - Area, usually limited in size, established primarily to preserve objects of historic and scientific interest, and places commemorating important persons or historic events. The only facilities usually provided are those required for the safety and comfort of the visitors such as access, parking, water, sanitation, interpretive devices, and sometimes facilities for picnicking and other recreation facilities. 142 3. State Recreation Areas - Areas selected and developed primarily to provide non-urban outdoor recreation Opportunities to meet other than purely local needs but having the best available scenic quality. Hunting and some other recreation activities not usually associated with State parks may be permitted. Commercial exploitation. Of resources is usually prohibited. 4. State Beaches - Areas with frontage on the oceans, lakes, and streams designed primarily to provide swimming, boating, fishing, and other waterfront activities. Other coastal areas acquired primarily for the scenic and scientific values . . . are included in the classification 'state parks. ' 5. State Parkways - elongated or 'ribbon' parks featur- ing a motor road for non- commercial traffic, connecting parks, monuments, beaches, and recreation areas or other- wise affording an Opportunity for pleasant and safe driving. ' Access is controlled by the administering agency and is pro- vided only at designated intervals and roadside developments are controlled to prevent undesirable uses. As an adjunct to the motor road, appropriate facilities such as turnouts, pic- nic areas, and other recreation deve10pments are frequently provided where Space permits. ' 6. State Waysides - Relatively small areas along high- ways selected for their scenic or historical significance and providing Opportunity for the traveler to relax, enjoy a scenic view, read a historic marker, or have a picnic lunch. These areas should be administered by a highway department; how- ever, the larger and more scenic waysides may sometimes be administered as units of state park systems. 1 The extent to which the above classification has been adOpted by state agencies will be exhibited in the following section. This classifica- tion will, hereafter, be referred to as the National Conference on State Parks classification. The remainder of this section will continue to review classification schemes devised by individuals, organizations, or public agencies other than those at the state level. 1"Suggested Criteria for Evaluating Areas Proposed for Inclusion in State Park Systems, . . . " Guideline, 1957, Policy and Planning, pp. 5-6. 143 In 1961, the National Recreation Association published its last Recreation and Park Yearbook. This Yearbook contained data compiled from the federal and state, as well as the local, levels. The National Recreation Association summarized area, acreage, and attendance data according to the following types of "properties. " Fish and Game Preserves, Refuges, Sanctuaries, etc. Forests Historic Sites, Monuments, Memorials Museum, Library and other Building Sites Parks and Parkways Reservations (other than Parks) Reservoirs, Lakes, Conservancy Areas Roadsides and Waysides Special Recreation Areas, Camps, Beaches, etc. (other than Parks) Others1 Only very general descriptions of Several of these classes were given in the 1961 Yearbook. Referring to "fish and game refuges, preserves and sanctuaries, " it was stated that "many of these areas provide only limited recreation for a segment of the public but they serve a valuable con- servation function as well as meeting the growing demands for public Oppor- tunities for hunting and fishing. "2 Parks vary in size from the extensive reservation to the small wayside, and in type from the historic monument to the large area with facilities for a wide range of recreation activities.3 "Historic Spots, monuments, and museum sites" were described merely by stating that they included "areas of geological, historic or archeo- logical interest and sites for museums and other related structures. "4 1Recreation and Park Yearbook, 1961, p. 13. 21bid., p. 12. 31bid. 4 Ibid . 144 Reservations, it was stated, are characteristically "extensive and relatively underdeveloped. " No indication was given as to the nature of "other" pro- perties. It is only fair to emphasize that this was not a formal classification proposed by the National Recreation Association as a planning or adminis- trative guide, but merely a convenient group of categories which it chose for presenting its data summary. Similarly, the Bureau of Outdoor Recrea- tion, in its publication State Outdoor Recreation Statistics--1962, summarized its data on state areas under the following headings: State Forest Areas State Park Areas State Highway Areas Reservoir Areas Fish and Game Areas Other Areas In 1964, the National Park Service published Parks for America, a survey of park and related resources in the fifty states. The Park Service examined the "classification of areas, " in one section of this report entitled "planning elements. " The Park Service divided the classes of areas referred to in its report into two major groups by political levels: 1) Federal areas, and 2) States and local areas. 2 Twelve separate classes of recreation areas were listed under the "state and local" heading. The descriptions of Six of these classes were based on the definitions adopted by the National Conference on State Parks. 1State Oufioor Recreation Statistics-4962 (Washington: U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1963), p. 7. 2Parks for America--A Survey of Park and Related Resources in the Fifty States, and a Preliminary Plan (Washington: U. S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, 1964), p. 479. 145 The types of areas described in Parks for America are presented below with The National Conference on State Parks' classes listed across from the area types similarly described by the National Park Service. National Park Services National Conference on State Parks Parks State Parks Monument and Historic Sites State Monuments Recreation Areas State Recreation Areas Waysides State Waysides Wilderness Nature Preserves Beaches State Beaches Parkways State Parkways Scenic Roads Trails Free- Flowing Streams Forests The six types Of areas not adOpted from the National Conference on State Parks definitions--wilderness, nature preserves, scenic roads, trails, free-flowing streams, and forests--are described below. Wilderness - Areas to preserve primeval environment and devoted primarily to such wilderness types of educational and recreation uses as are consistent with the maintenance of the natural character of the area. Natural Preserves - Areas, often limited in size, estab- lished for the purpose of preserving distinctive natural com- munities of plants and animals for their scientific and esthetic interest. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Scenic Roads - Generally, rural highways . . . located in areas having such highly scenic or cultural values that their further deve10pment for emphasis on safe and pleasant recrea- tion motoring is justified, including facilities for interpretation of cultural features, for picnicking and camping and develop- ment of other recreation potentialities for the roadside. Trails - Extended and usually continuous strips of land or water established independently of other routes of travel and dedicated,“ through ownership or easement, to recreational travel, including hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, or canoeing. 146 Free- Flowing Streams - Streams or portions of streams that are still unmodified by the works of manorthat, in Spite Of such modification, retain natural scenic qualities and recreation Opportunities. - . Forests - Areas established and managed primarily for timber production and waterIShed protection. Recreation is an increasingly important use. The above classification schemes were deve10ped by agencies or organizations at other than the state level). Rather than devote any further effort to an analysis of the above classes, this study will proceed to a re- view of classification systems utilized, Or proposed, by agencies at the state level. Before doing so, however, one other general classification will be presented here. I Marion Clawson has grouped all recreation areas into three basic classes, distinguished by their relative accessibility and the quality of the natural characteristics at each type of area. According to Clawson: The kinds and locations Of outdoor recreation areas are numerous and the kinds of outdoor recreation activities are manifold. An attempt to consider each runs into great detail; some grouping of areas and activities seem essential. . . . We have found it helpful, in considering Outdoor recreation matters, to employ a three-fold classification Of areas, as follows: 1° User-oriented outdoor recreation areas. The prime consideration for these areas is their location close to where people live. The playground, city park, local swimming pool, tennis courts, and golf courses are good examples of this kind of area. . . . The individual areas or tracts for this kind of outdoor recreation need not be particularly large--from a few to perhaps 100 to 200 acres in most cases. Land characteris- tics are not particularly demanding, although moderately level sites, fairly well drained, and not subject to too serious flood- ing, are preferable. Wherever peOple live, they will want 1Ibid., pp. 479-80. 147 recreation areas of this general type; unless the areas can be ~ conveniently located, they are useless to the peOple concerned. . . ‘2. Resource-based outdoor recreation areas lie at the other end of the scale. Here it is the superb natural features of the area which‘are dominant. Mountains, sea and lake shores, deserts, swamps, and other unusual natural landscapes fall in this category. Such areas are where you find them; man may protect them and make them available for users, but he cannot make them--though he can largely destroy them or at least their attrac- tiveness. . . . Some such areas are in federal ownership, as national parks, national monuments, or national forest; a few state parks qualify for this category; and some such areas are in private ownership. Individual tracts are often large, sometimes with a million acres or more. 3. Intermediate outdoor recreation areas are intermediate both as to location and as to natural character. Such areas must ordinarily lie within one or two hours' travel time of most users; within this distance zone, the most attractive natural sites are, or should be, chosen. Most such areas are visited on a day-use basis. Many state parks fall in this category; so do most of the federal reservoir areas. Areas of this kind which include bodies of water are most popular. There would be much overlap if one were to assign all local recrea- tion lands to the user-oriented class; state lands to the intermediate class; and federal lands to the resource- based category. For example, a number of state areas--such as Jones beach, in New York--would be described as user—oriented areas; while other state recreation lands--such as the Adiron- dack preserves--qualify as resource- based areas. Clawson's classification was included at this point because it will be referred to several times in the remaining pages Of this chapter. The following section will be devoted to a survey of classification schemes which were deve10ped for the purpose Of classifying the recreation lands within a state, or major region of a state. lMarion Clawson, Land for Americans (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1963), pp. 37-38. 148 Examples of Recent1 State Level Recreation Land Classification Systems In 1960, the California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan Committee transmitted the California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan to the Governor of that state and the Members of the California State Legislature. The com- mittee's report was in two parts. Both parts deal extensively with activi- ties--such as swimming, hiking, fishing, and hunting--and the agencies responsible for the provision of recreational Opportunities in the state. The recreation lands in the state were primarily discussed in reference to the agencies responsible for their administration. However, in Table 19, entitled: "Recreation Land Holdings," these areas were classified under the following headings: Parks and recreation areas Historical monuments Wild and wilderness areas Botanic and natural areas Fish hatcheries Wildlife refuges and ranges U. S. Forest Service lands deve10ped for recreation1 NO definition or descriptions were given to identify the nature of these areas. However, the areas within the State park system of California have been classified and described elsewhere. All [California] State parks shall be classified into one of the following categories: 1. State parks 2. Scenic or scientific reserves 3. Historic units lCalifornia. . . Plan, I, p. 76. 149 4. State recreation areas 5. ' State beaches This classification should be dictated by the character- istics of the park Site and the major use of the park, with full knowledge that there will be overlapping qualifications in some cases. State parks, state recreation areas, and state beaches were assigned definitions practically identical to the National. Conference on State Parks classes of the same title. Further, "historic units" were described much the same as "state monuments" in the Conference's classification. Scenic or scientific reserves--the only category not included in the classification scheme adOpted by the National Conference on State Parks--was described as follows: Scenic or Scientific Reserves should consist of areas of natural significance, where the major values are in their natural geological, faunal, or floral characteristics. The purpose of a scenic or scientific reserve is directed primarily toward the preservation of its outstanding natural features. Another classification devised in California serves as a management guide. These classes are used to delineate various portions of a park. Areas in each class differ somewhat in natural characteristics from areas in another class, and are "managed" with different objectives in mind. "All areas in the park are placed into one of these classifications. " The three management classes were identified as: prime resource areas, natural areas, and sce- nic environment. The nature of each area type, and the management objec- tives in each class are identified below: 1Material sent by Mr. Fred L. Jones, Director, California Dept. of Parks and Recreation, paper entitled: "Criteria for State Parks, " Sept. 16 1966. 2Ibid. 150 Prime Resource Areas - These are individual areas of remarkable natural wonder, high scenic splendor, scientifi- cally important or an outstanding feature of statewide significance. The purpose of the management program within a prime resource area is to preserve and perpetuate the inherent charac- teristics. Natural Areas - Areas in this class are highly scenic with natural features that influence and support the outdoor environment to the extent they must receive Special management attention to insure their preservation. The purpose of the management program within a natural area is to insure that activities and improvements do not im- - pair the resource or cause loss of public enjoyment in its use. Scenic Environment Area - These are the areas that em- brace varied tOpography, interesting flora and fauna in an attrac- tive natural or enhanced setting and are adaptable to providing a wide range of outdoor recreation Opportunities. The purpose of the management program within a scenic environment area is to provide apprOpriate access, facilities, and environmental treatment for public enjoyment and use--in such a manner as is consistent with perpetuating the desired environment. 1 The National Conference on State Parks Classification Several state agencies, in addition to California, have adOpted the classification of the National Conference on State Parks for the purpose of classifying recreation lands in their states. A number of these state agencies have modified the basic definitions, or have added and/ or deleted one or more categories from the original scheme. In the 1962 study report on non-urban parks and recreation in Oregon, Oiyegon Outdoor Recreation, the need for standardized classifica- tion of state park and recreation areas was stressed. The Parks and 1.1219- 151 Recreation Division of the Oregon State Highway Department recommended a "reclassification of the state's recreational units into four major types each of which is based on the areas primary use and function]. . 6. . "1 The four types of areas prOposed by the Parks and Recreation Division were: 1) State parks, 2) State monuments, 3) State recreation areas, and 4) State waysides. Although there were Slight descriptive differences between the classes proposed for Oregon's state recreational land and the correspond- ing classes supported by the National Conference on State Parks, the "primary use and function" of each type were practically identical. Therefore, the descriptions outlined in the Oregon study report need not be reproduced here. Mr. Robert True, recreation planner for the Oregon State Highway Depart- ment, writes: "We have also classified state parks and waysides according to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Classification System as part of our preliminary Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. "2 The lands in New Hampshire's State park system are presently classed as state parks, historical Sites, wayside areas and scientific areas. However, materials prepared for a forthcoming New Hampshire State Plan- ning Project publication on state parks include a recommendation that areas within the system be reclassified. The prOposed classification is the same as the classification supported by the National Conference on State Parks, except that the category "state waysides" has been omitted. 3 1Oregon . . . Recreation, p. 109. 2Letter from Mr. Robert True, Recreation Planner, Oregon State Highway Department, Sept. 14, 1966. 3Materials sent by Mary Louise Hancock, Planning Director, Divi- sion of Economic Development, New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, "The Structure of the New Hampshire State Park System, " Oct. 4, 1966. 152 The division Of State Parks of the Hawaii. Department of Land and Natural Resources has adopted the National Conference on State Parks classification in its entirety, and added a seventh category: State park reserves. The Division of State Parks prefaced its classification system with the following comment: A logical classification of the different elements of which a state park system is composed will contribute more to the essential understanding of the system and its signifi- cance. . . . Classification is an efficient means for deter- mining appropriate deve10pment, use and administration of all units in a comprehensive system. The following criteria have been adOpted by several states, providing for a very successful understanding of relative park values. There is no need to present the entire classification for Hawaii's state park lands. Six of these categories were quoted verbatim from the definitions presented in Guideline. The seventh class--state park reserves—- is defined below: State Park Reserves - Areas possessing natural, scenic, historic and wildlife qualities which in total or individually out- weigh other values the area may possess, when evaluated in the long run public interest. The purpose of this classification is the protection of these primary values for future public use and enjoyment. Such areas should possess qualities and re- sources for which there is an anticipated future need, though there may presently be no urgent need for public use. . . Commercial, private or other uses may be made of State Park Reserve, but only insofar as such other uses do not adyersely affect or modify the established primary values. . . . Hawaii's state park reserves, then, are primarily a means of holding desirable lands in reserve to meet future recreation needs. 1Materials sent by Mr. J. M. Souza, Jr. , Director , Division of State Parks, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Oct. 26, 1966. ZIbid. 153 Other state agencies concerned with recreation have developed, adopted, or "inherited" classification schemes which include some portion of the classification supported by the National Conference on State Parks. An even greater number of classification systems contain category head- ings which--either intentionally or by coincidenc.e--are the same as, or similar to, the class titles in the Conference classification. Several such classifications will be examined near the end of this chapter. At this point, however, the extent to which the sixfold classification developed by the Out- door Recreation Resources Review Commission has been adOpted by state recreation agencies will be investigated. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Classification System The classification system proposed by the Outdoor Recreation Re- sources Review Commission and presently supported by the Bureau of Out- door Recreation is the sole classification system being used by several state recreation agencies. Other such agencies are familiar with this scheme in addition to other classification systems. For example, the C010- rado Department of Game, Fish and Parks,1 the Montana Department of Fish and Game (Recreation and Parks Division), 2 and the Georgia Depart- ment of Industry and Trade3 apparently are using only the Bureau of Outdoor 1Letter from Mr. William R. Cheney, Project Director, Colorado Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Sept. 1, 1966. 2Letter from Mr. Robert F. Cooney, Assistant Chief, Recreation and Parks Division, Montana Department of Fish and Game, Sept. 15, 1966. 3Letter from Mr. John Beck, Chief of Outdoor Planning, Georgia Department of Industry and Trade, Nov. 1, 1966. 154 Recreation classification system. These categories also represent the only formal scheme presented in the statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plans for Maine, 1 Missouri, 2 Utah, 3 and Wisconsin. 4 The Louisiana State Parks and Recreation Commission published the State of Louisiana Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan in 1965. With reference to the recreation lands of the state, the Commission stated that "areas are identified by name, classified according to BOR types of recrea— tion resources and activities provided, and present and proposed acreage given where known."5 In addition the Commission categorized the following "resources and programs" considered in their study; 1. Forests 7. Wildlife refuges and 2. Shorelines sanctuaries 3. Reservoirs 8. Parks 4. Lakes 9. Natural areas 5. Rivers 10. Scenic road 6. Multi-purpose areas 11. Historic sites6 In this classification, several criteria are interwoven. Forest and shorelines, for example, are the natural features of an area: wildlife refuges and sanctuaries presumably refers to the functional purpose of 1Outdoor Recreation in Maine (Orono, Maine: Outdoor Recreation Study Team of the University of Maine, 1965). 2Outdoor Recreation in Missouri--Preliminary Pl.an-- 1965 (Jefferson City, Missouri: Missouri Conservation Commission, 1965). 3Outdoor Recreation for Utah--An Initial P1an--1965-1975 (Dept. of Fish and Game, Park and Recreation Commission, 1966). 4A Comprehensive Plan for Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation (Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Conservation Department, 1966). 5&1“, of Louisiana Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (State Parks and Recreation Commission, 1965). 6Ibid., p. xiv. 155 such land; and it would be difficult to eStabll‘sh what criter ion the category "park" is based on--e. g. , natural features, intended function, or recrea- tional Opportunities provided. Definitions for the above "resources and pro- grams" were not included in the Louisiana outdoor recreation plan. An Initial Outdoor Recreation Plan for North Carolina, issued in 1966, was prepared by the State Flaming Task Force. In addition to dis- cussing the recreation areas Of. the state by ownership, the Task Force classified these lands "according to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation system and by the National Association of Conservation Districts method (sic). 7'1 The inventory of outdoor recreation areas and facilities accomplished by the National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (NADC) will be discussed in the next chapter. It is mentioned here only to note that the North Carolina initial state outdoor recreation plan included a breakdown of recreational land acreage according to the categories of this classification system. Outdoor Recreation in Illinois, Illinois' initial comprehensive re- creation plan, was prepared jointly by the Department of Business and Economic Development, and the Department of Conservation. These departments allocated the total acreage of public land in the state, and the recreation land acreage of the Department of Conservation, among the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation classes. Although all six of these classes were recognized in the report, the observation was made that no class V 1An Initial Outdoor Recreation Plan for North Carolina (Raleigh, North Carolina: State Flaming Task Force, 1966), p. 26. 156 (primitive areas) lands existed in Illinois. Elsewhere in the study report, the types of areas managed by the Department of Conservation were listed as: Parks Memorials Conservation areas State forests Other areas The "definitions" for parks, memorials, conservation areas, and state forests were provided in Appendix C of the report. These areas were described as follows: State Forests: They shall be managed on the basis of multiple use. Such use may include the production and sale of timber, soil erosion control, watershed protection, wild- life habitat, and recreation. . . . State Parks: 1) A State park area shall be relatively spacious, containing preferably at least 1, 000 acres of out- standing scenic Or wilderness character. 2) A state park area shall contain scenic, historical, eco- logical, geological, Or other scientific values of state-wide significance. 3) A State park area shall contain only such recreational values as are appropriate and consistent with the main reasons for its preservation, such as camping, hiking, fishing and boating. State Memorials: 1) A State memorial must be Of his- torical Or archeological significance possessing historical associations important enough to entitle it to a position of high rank in the history of the state or the nation, or in the case Of a structure, it must be in itself of sufficient antiquity and artistic or architectural significance to deserve a position Of high rank. . . State Conservation Areas: These areas generally meet the same criteria as State Parks, but are acquhed and de- veloped with Pittman-Robertson and/Or Dingell-Johnson Funds. Hunting and/ or fishing are allowable while they are not allowed in State Parks. 1Outdoor Recreation in Illinois (Springfield, Illinois: Department of Conservation, and Department Of Business and Economic Development, 1965) p. 53. 2Outdoor Recreation in Illinois, pp. 168-171. 157 No indication as to the nature of "other" areas was given in the report. It is interesting to note the criteria on which the above classes are based. In the case of state forests, the products from the land and how the areas are managed appears to be the primary criterion. State park cri- teria seems to include size, natural character, and types of recreational Opportunities offered in the area. State conservation areas, however, appear to be primarily distinguished by the source of funds for their purchase and deve10pment. The New York Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreational Plan, prepared by the Conservation Department of that state, was issued in 1966. After recognizing the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation classification system, and providing one or more examples of areas in the state for each class, the Conservation Department listed the following types of public recreation properties: State parks Forest recreational lands Marine facilities Roadside facilities Local and reglional parks Federal sites However, these categories are probably not thought of as a formal classifi- cation system since no attempt was made to define these various categories. In most cases, discussion was limited to an account of the types and quantity Of "improvements" in each category. The number of federal holdings in the state was discussed under the heading "federal sites. " 1New York Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1 State Resppnsibility (New York Conservation Department, 1966), pp. 41-42. 158 In the section of the plan entitled "Action Programs, " state parks, forest recreation, marine facilities, historic sites, and roadside rest areas were discussed. Again, however, no indication that these were categories of an established or proposed classification system was given in the report. The Oklahoma Outdoor Recreation Plan, prepared by Breisch Engi- neering Company, Inc. , and published in 1966, included a proposal for a rather unique classification system. The prOposed classification system was derived from published works of Dr. Marion Clawson and Outdoor Recrea- tion Resources Review Commission recommendations. These systems were expanded to take cognizance of urban and rural facilities necessary to provide adequate outdoor recreation for a comprehensive outdoor recreation system. First, Clawson's three-fold classification was described. Then the relationship between Clawson's scheme and the Outdoor Recreation Re- sources Review Commission classification system was established. After Clawson's classification scheme was related to the ORRRC system, it was refined ". . . to a classification system that defines the type of facility, “the function of the facility and a range of compatible activities to be housed by each facility. This will allow this classification system to be used as a guide for orderly development Of outdoor recreation facilities over the state"2 The classification system presented in the Oklahoma plan has been reproduced below: IOMahomaQutdoor Recreation Plan (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Breisch Engineering Co., Inc., 1966), p. 7 2Ibid., p. 58. 159 ORRRC . Classification Type Fund'lon I Playground An active recreation area designed to serve elementary school age children. within their neighborhood. (user oriented) I Playfield Areas for the more active types of recrea- tion activities, such as field and court games. This facility is designed to serve junior and senior high school age groups and young adults within a community. I Special Special use areas designed to serve urban Facilities area residents of all age groups. I ' Area Park Large areas of scenic landscape and ex- tensive recreation activities. Designed primarily for use by the city dweller within or adjacent to the urban area. (intermediate) 11 General Natural land and water areas devoted ex- Recreation tensively to recreation activities requiring Areas very large areas. III Natural Enjoyment of natural environment with Environment limited Organized recreation activities. Area (resource oriented) IV Unique Preservation of unique resources in their Natural natural state. Areas V Primitive To give the user the sense of being far Areas removed from the sights and sounds Of civilization. VI Historic Preservation Of sites associated with Areas history, tradition or cultural heritage. 160 This classification system, when examined closely, is simply a combination of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation classes, or ORRRC classes, and several categories of areas found in the classification sup- ported by the National Recreation Association. ORRRC class I--high- density recreation areas--has been replaced by playgrounds, playfields, special facilities, and area parks. This does ameliorate one short-coming of the ORRRC classification which was not designed to apply to "urban type" recreation areas. There is some merit in this system which is missing from many other schemes deve10ped by state level recreation agencies, for the purpose of classifying a_ll types Of recreation areas. The list of "com- patible activities" for each type of area, presented in the Oklahoma Plan, was deleted above. Independent State Level Recreation Land Classification Systems In addition to the state agencies that utilize the recreational land classification systems supported by either the National Conference on State Parks or the Bureau Of Outdoor Recreation, a number of state agencies have proposed and/or utilized classification schemes which are unrelated to either of these systems. The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to a brief summary Of several such classifications. FLORIDA The only classification of recreation lands included in An Interim Plan for Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Development in Florida, was buried in the text. State and federal recreation areas were tabulated to 161 indicate the "outdoor recreation supply," i. e. , public properties available in that state. State owned outdoor recreation areas consist of 61 state parks and historic memorials, four state forests, four bird sanctuaries, two game management areas, the extensive water conservation areas Of the Central and Southwestern Florida" Flood Control District, and numerous scattered boat access sites, wayside parks, and bridge catwalks for fishing use. 1 Federally- owned lands in Florida are held generally for purposes similar to the state-owned land, but involve consider- ably larger racreages. There are six national parks and monu- ments, . . . three national forests and sixteen national wild- life refuges, which, unlike the state game management areas, are held primarily for protection and preservation of the native wildlife rather than to improve hunting conditions through game prOpagation. 2 Florida state parks were divided into deve10ped and undeveloped groups. However, no explanation as to how an undeveIOped park differs from a deve10ped park, was given. And, definitions or descriptions Of the various state recreation areas were nOt included in the plan. Mrs. Virginia Newman indicated that "each park has been categorized under the "purpose" heading as either scenic, historical or recreational (many times a combin- ation of the three purposes). "3 WASHINGTON In the Governor's Report on Outdoor Recreation in Washington, pub- lished in 1963, the Inter-Agency Committee on Outdoor Recreation stated 1An Interim Plan for Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Develop- ment in Florida (Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Outdoor Recreational Deve10pment Committee, 1965), p. 42. 2Ibid., p. 47. 3Letter from Mrs. Virginia Newman, Information Director, Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials, September 6, 1966. 162 that "one hundred State Parks, ten Marine Parks, and twenty Historical- Geological sites make up the present active State Park System. . . . "1 Two years later, the State Parks Outdoor Recreation Plan, prepared by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, was published. The outdoor recreation plan included definitions for state parks, recreation areas, ‘marine parks, marine areas, and heritage areas. The definitions for "state parks, " and "recreation areas" were quite similar to the defini- tions of these categories that are recommended by the National Conference on State Parks. The three remaining classes were defined as follows: Marine Parks are those parks with the primary emphasis on boating. Marine parks are generally only accessible by boat with little or no opportunity for vehicular traffic. Marine Areas are where major emphasis is on marine activ- ities that are accessible by both vehicular and boat traffic. There will be areas where emphasis on many activities is present and in these instances, even though marine is impor- tant, classification would be Recreation Area. Heritage Areas are where scientific, historical archaeo- logical, biological, Or cultural features are the main empha- sis. These areas should transcend local interest d should be statewide, regional, or national in significance. The apparent criterion for distinguishing between a "marine park" and a "marine area" is the mode of transportation by which each is acces— sible. The term "heritage area" is used to describe a category of proper- ties which has, elsewhere, been designated as "historic"'areas, "monuments, " "preserves" and other such terms. 1Governor's Report on Outdoor Recreation in Washington (Inter- Agency Committee on Outdoor Recreation, 1963), p. 12. ZStater Parks Ogutdoor Recreation Plan (Olympia, Washington: Wash- ington State Parks and Recreation Commission, 1965), pp. 2-3. 163 INDIANA The ten year master plan for recreation land acquisition and devel- opment in Indiana was issued in 1964. (1) For the purpose of this planning report, the Indiana Department of Conservation grouped the "public land for recreation at all levels" into three broad categories: Local and Regional Parks General Recreation Areas Natural Areas1 Local and regional parks, the Conservation Department indicated, included parks, playgrounds, and playfields, as well as other areas inventoried in a 1962 Indiana Recreation Survey. "General recreation areas" referred to "those areas, mainly in State Parks, which provided a variety of man- made facilities in a natural setting, as defined in ORRRC class II. "2 "Natural Areas" includes "all State Fish and Game areas, State Forests (with minor exception) and National Forests . . . (and) those portions of State Parks in which large tracts were relatively undeveloped. "3 Definitions for areas mentioned within these broad categories--such as parks, playgrounds, State Parks, and State Fish and Game Areas--were not provided in the plan- ning report. TENNESSEE Clawson's three- fold classification was acknowledged in the state 11965-1975--A Pivotal Decade in Indiana (Indiana Department of Conservation, 1964), p. 24. 2Iloicl. 3mm. 164 recreation plan of Tennessee. 1 However, this classification was not used to categorize the recreation lands of the state. The lack Of any classifica- tion of areas in the state park system of Tennessee was emphasized by the State Planning Commission. Tennessee's state parks presently suffer from the lack of a classification system to designate the different basic types of park areas. All of the existing park areas are desig- nated as "state parks" which actually tells the prospective visitor very little about the facilities he should expect to find in a particular park area. The Tennessee State Planning Commission felt that "individual park areas should be assigned to a particular category on the basis Of their physical characteristics and the types of facilities provided. " The Commis- sion recommended "that all existing and future state park areas be desig- nated according to the four major classifications of State Park, State Recrea- tion Area, State Monument and State Reservoir Recreation Area. Classifica- tion of park areas is necessary in order to eliminate the possibility of confusion among park area visitors as well as to insure that each type of area is given the appropriate developmental treatment."3 The categories state park, state recreation area, and state monument were described much the same as those classes in the National Conference on State Parks Classification. The proposed state reservoir recreation area category was explained as follows: 1Public Outdoor Regreation Resources in Tennessee--Inventory and Plan for Development, 1962- ? Pt.JZ (Vol. II) of a public recreation plan and program for Tennessee (Nashville: Tennessee State Planning Commis- sion, 1962), p. 22. 21bid., p. 145. 3Ibid., p. 151. 165 Under our prOposal, the reservoir tracts of 100 acres ‘ and larger‘possessing recreation significance and that fit into a state plan would be administered by State Parks (sic). The Game and Fish Commission would continue to administer fishing access areas. 1 The criteria for state reservoir recreation areas appear to be size and whether or not the tract fits into a state plan. TEXAS In 1961, the Texas State Parks Board adopted a classification system for Texas State Parks which included: State historical parks, state scenic parks, and state recreational parks. 2 The definitions and criteria for these classes generally agreed with those in the National Conference on State Parks classification. Since the adOption of this criteria, the Texas State Parks Board has been dissolved and the function Of the Board has been assigned to . . . the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. It is unclear at this time whether this particular classification system is binding on the new Department. In 1963, the Department Of Park Administration, Horticulture and Entomology, at Texas Technological College, prepared a report on Texas State Parks. This report contained a proposed classification of state parks which included: scenic parks, recreation parks, historic parks and his- . . 4 . . torlc s1tes. "State scenic parks" and "state recreatlon parks" correspond 1Ibid., p. 154. 2"Texas State Park Criteria, " Park Practice Guideline, 1961, Policy & Planning, p. 107. 3Letter from Mr. W. M. Gosdin, Director, Park Services, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Sept. 12,1966. 4Texas State Parks-—A General Report of Functions, Space Require- ments, Financial Considerations and Policies for the Future (Lubbock, Texas: Dept. of Park Administration, Horticulture and Entomology, Texas Technological College, 1963), p.10. ~ 166 to "state parks" and state recreation areas" as defined in the National Con- ference on State Parks Classification. An explanation of the differences between historic "parks" and historic "sites" was included in this report: This report follows a classification for places of historic significance by designating them as Historic Parks and Historic Sites; the former being large enough areas (villages, battlefields, etc.) to warrant the park name, while the latter are really "items" Of significance marked by statues, plaques, monuments, etc. 1 Thus, size is the criterion on which historic "sites" are separated from historic "parks" in the proposed classification. VIRGINIA Virginia's Common Wealth, a study report of Virginia's Outdoor recreation resources, was published in 1965. The Virginia Outdoor Recrea- tion Study Commission, which prepared the report, included the following classification of recreational areas in the report as a guide for developing acreage standards. LOCAL REGIONAL (Metropolitan Areas) Playgrounds Intensive Use Areas Playfields Parks and Natural Areas Minor Parks Regional Recreation Lands Major Parks STATE State Parks and Other State Recreation Areas2 1Ibid., p. 11. 2Virginia's: Common Wealth (Virginia Outdoor Recreation Study Commission, 1965), p. 20. 167 Elsewhere in the report the Commission stated that "Virginia's small but choice State Park system consists of 9 State Parks, 3 Recreation Areas, 5 Natural. Areas, and 1 Interstate Park. 1 The description of Recreation Areas adopted by the Commission is very similar to that found in several of the above classification systems. Natural areas were described in the following manner: Natural Areas are small outdoor museums for the protec- tion of those rare spots where the ecology is yet undisturbed by man and where there exists a natural condition of great distinc- tion. These are available for observation and scientific study under regulations designed to conserve the natural values. Summary Comments Some idea of the situation regarding recreation land classification at the state level can be conjectured from the above discussion. As has been previously pointed out, numerous titles have been utilized to designate var- ious state recreation lands. Approximately sixty different titles are used today in connection with the classification of these areas. However, there are certain designations which appear quite frequently. The terms "state park, " and ."recreation area, " for example, are quite popular among agen- cies which manage state recreation lands. Definitions or descriptions of state areas dedicated to the provision of recreational Opportunities are also far from homogeneous. A number Of terms are being used to refer to the same types of areas. On the other hand, the same title is used to refer to areas of varying character. The 2 1Ibid., p. 50 Ibid. 168 classification supported by the National Conference on State Parks has had come effect in standardizing classifications or categories within various classifications. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Classification has also been adOpted by a number of state agencies. In addition to these two classifications, there is some semblance of general agreement on certain types of areas to be included in state park systems, and the classification of these areas. Doell has noted this general tendency toward agreement: . . the traditional state parks of 'uniqueness' (re- source oriented parks) are called State Parks, and parks located with reference to centers of population (user oriented parks) are called State Recreation Aieas. Historic Sites or 'monuments make up another class. A number Of state recreation agencies have adOpted all or a portion of the "standard" classification supported by the National Conference on State Parks and occasionally have added categories to suit their own specific needs. Classifications have been based on a number Of criteria. On a national basis, a standard classification of state recreation lands, univers- ally recognized and accepted by state recreation- oriented agencies, does not exist. 1Doell, p. 50. CHAPTER VII PRESENT STATUS--THE FEDERAL LEVEL This chapter will review recreation classification systems familiar to agencies at the federal level. A number Of these agencies utilize such schemes to classify lands they administer. Other classification systems have been recommended for classifying all federal recreation lands or the public recreation areas at all levels of government. To supplement avail- able references, a request for pertinent information was sent to the federal agencies involved with the management of recreation areas or otherwise concerned with the provision of recreational opportunities. A copy of the letter and a list of. the federal agencies to which it) was sent are included in Appendix B- The 1962 report Of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review. Com- mission included recommendations of considerable importance to federal agencies concerned with outdoOr recreation. A principle recommendation. of the Commission which directly related to the federal level was the estab- lishinent of a Bureau Of Outdoor Recreation in the Department of the Interior. 1 The Commission felt a new agency of government was needed at the federal level to provide guidance and assistance to all organizations and 1Outdoor Recreation for America, p. 121. 169 170 individuals that supply recreational Opportunities for the American people. The Commission outlined the major functions of the prOposed Bureau as follows: . . . (1) coordinate related Federal programs; (2) stimulate and provide assistance in state planning; (3) administer grants- in- aid; (4) sponsor and conduct research; (‘5) encourage interstate and regional c00peration; and (6) formulate a nationwide recreation plan on the basis of State, regional, and Federal plans. In addition to recommendations concerning the establishment and organization of a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission included a number of statements of significance to other federal agencies involved with recreation. The Commission cited past programs undertaken by federal agencies to provide recreational oppOrtunities in response to public demands. It emphasized the need to coordinate such programs, if future demands were to be satis- fied. This, as noted above, was one of the major functions of the proposed Bureau of Outdoor Recreation--to coordinate related federal programs. The role of the Bureau would be to review and coordinate the diverse Federal efforts. It would not engage in the manage- ment of any lands, waters, or facilities, which would continue to be the responsibility of the Federal resource agencies that now have those duties. The Bureau would have no control over the administrative activities of any existing department or agency. It would, however, be responsible for reviewing rec- reation deve10pments connected with Federal lands and pro- grams, and its written comments would accompany plans of other agengies submitted to the Executive Office and to the Congress. 11bid., p. 124. 2mm. 171 One of the major measures proposed by the Commission to achieve a coordinated federal effort in providing recreational opportunities was the application of the classification system presented in their report. Several specific policies to be followed by individual federal agencies in the applica- tion of this classification were recommended by the Commission. These Specific recommendations are not of importance to this study. The general comments of the Commission regarding application of their prOposed classi- fication system to federal lands are presented below: The Federal agencies have responded to increasing pressures for outdoor recreation . . . . In order for each agency to participate fully in a national recreation effort, there should be a consistent approach to similar problems of recreation deve10pment, regardless of admin- istrative jurisdiction . . . . Application of the classifica- tion presented in Chapter 6 would . . . help achieve this goal. ' And again: The absence of commonly accepted guidelines for the management of recreation areas under the jurisdiction of different Federal agencies has accounted for considerable confusion to recreation development. While each Federal agency must continue to take responsibility for shaping its own programs and practices, there are a number of general management policies that can be clarified by application of a recreation classification system. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission's recom- mendations, with respect to the establishment of a Bureau of Outdoor 1mm. , p. 128. 172 Recreation and the suggested functions of that Bureau, have been largely accepted. "A presidential message . . . transmitted to Congress on March 1, 1962, announced that a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation would be estab- lished in the Department of the Interior. "1 On April 2, 1962, the Secretary of the Interior complied with the presidential directive and established the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 2 And, on May 28, 1963 an Act of Congress, that is regarded as the organic act of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, was signed by the President. This Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior--who, in turn, delegated this authority to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation--to: (a) Inventory. - Prepare and maintain a continuing inventory and evaluation of outdoor recreation needs and resources of the United States. (b) Classification. - Prepare a system for classifi- cation of outdoor recreation resources.- . . (c) Nationwide Plan. - Formulate and maintain a comprehensive nationwide outdoor recreation plan. . . . ((1) Technical Assistance. - Provide technical assis- tance and advice to and cOOperate with States, political subdivisions, - and private interests. . . . (e) Regional C00peration. - Encourage interstate and regional cOOperation in the planning, acquisition, and deve10pment of outdoor recreation resources. (f) Research and Education. - Sponsor, engage in, and assist in research [and education] relating to outdoor recreation. 1Federal Focal Point in Outdoor Recreation (Washington: "U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1964), p. 3. 2mm. 173 (g) Interdepartmental C00peration. - (1) Cooperate with and provide technical assistance to Federal depart- ments and agencies . . and (2) promote coordination ‘of Federal plans and activities generally relating to outdoor recreation. The Act of May 28, 1963 also "directs heads of Federal departments and agencies with outdoor recreation responsibilities to consult with and be consulted by the Secretary of the Interior, and to carry out their outdoor recreation responsibilities in conformance with the authorized nationwide outdoor recreation plan. "2 In Chapter V, the classification scheme deve10ped by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, and included in their report, was presented in outline form. This classification, with minor alterations, was adOpted by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. A copy of the official classification form deve10ped by the Bureau is presented in Appendix C. The class designations prOposed by the Commission have been retained—- except class N, "unique natural areas, " was changed to "outstanding natural areas"-- in the Bureau's Classification system. The classification form of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation identifies each class by the following characteristics: (1) examples of areas in each class, (2) physical require- ments, (3) location (usually with respect to pOpulation centers), (4) types of activities, (5) types of deve10pments, and (6) responsibility (federal, state, or local, or private ownership). The classification form in Appendix 1Public Law 88-89, 88th Congress, 3. 20, May 28, 1963. 2Federal Focal Point in Outdoor Recreation, p. 7. 174 C accompanied a letter from Mr. John Sullivan, Chief of the Division of Nationwide Planning and Surveys of the Bureau. of Outdoor Recreation. Mr. Sullivan stated: In 1963 this Bureau began a new nationwide inven- tory of public recreation areas. We developed a land classification system similar to the one [recommended by the ORRRC] and asked the several Federal, State, and local agencies to classify their lands. We are now in the process of evaluating the inven- tory so collected to measure the effectiveness and useful- ness of our proposed system. We plan to refine and improve our techniques so that they can become useful planning tools for recreation planners. 1 The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation does not manage any lands of its own. However, it has utilized this classification system in its inventory of public recreation lands across the country, and has suggested that other federal agencies classify the recreation lands under their jurisdiction in a like manner . Other Federal Recreation Land Classification Schemes A number of federal agencies concerned with recreation were dis- cussed briefly in Chapter IV. Several of these agencies provide recrea- tional Opportunities as a "secondary" product of their lands and/ or manage- ment programs. Consequently, information pertaining to the recreational policies and, more specifically, to the classification of recreation areas administered by these agencies, is absent, or practically so, from the 1Letter from Mr. John Sullivan, Chief, Division of Nationwide Planning and Surveys, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U. S. Department of the Interior, September 14, 1966 175 literature. This section presents classification systems recently deve10ped and/Or utilized by federal agencies for the purpose of classifying recrea- tional lands. The National Park Service Parks for America, prepared by the National Park Service, was published in 1964. The Park Service included the following classification for "national" areas in its discussion of "planning elementsyz" Established areas administered by agencies of the Federal Government, and potential areas Of national significance, have been classified in accordance with the following definitions: National Parks. -- Spacious land areas essentially of primitive or wilderness character which contain scenery and natural wonders so outstanding in quality that their preservation intact has been provided for by their having been designated and set aside by the Federal Government to be preserved unimpaired for the benefit, enjoyment, and inspiration of the peOple. National Monuments. -- Nationally significant land- marks, structures, objects, or areas of scientific or pre- historic interest so designated by the Federal Government for preservation and public use. National Recreation Areas. -- Spacious areas selected, deve10ped, managed, and conserved to provide broad public recreation Opportunities which can best be provided by the Federal Government or where there is a Federal responsi- bility to conserve and deve10p recreation opportunities. National Seashores. -- Natural coastal areas set aside for the preservation and public recreation use of their nationally significant scenic, scientific, historic, or recrea- tional values, or a combination of such values. (The term "national lakeshores" has been used recently to designate similar types or prOposed areas on the Great Lakes, and "national rivers" has been suggested in proposals to pre- serve free-flowing streams.) National Parkways. -- Federally owned elongated parks featuring roads designated for pleasure travel, and embrac- ing scenic, recreational, Or historic features of national 176 significance. Access from adjoining prOperties is limited and commercial traffic is not permitted . . . . National parkways can. be established only by acts of Congress. National. Historic Sites. -- Historic sites, buildings, or Objects so designated in recognition of their national significance. National Memorials. -- Structures or areas designated to commemorate ideas, events, or personages of national significance. National Battlefields.'-- Battlefields of national sig- nificance preserved in part, or in entimty, for the inspira- tion and benefit of the peOple. National Wildlife Refuges. -- Areas administered by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, designated for the protection and prOpagation of game animals, birds, and fish, within which certain outdoor recreation facilities and activities are permitted as long as they do not interfere with the primary purposes Of the refuges. National Forests. --Federal lands administered by the Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, under a multiple-use policy for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. The last two categories in the classification--National Wildlife Refuges and National Forests--were distinguished from the other categories on the basis of agency jurisdiction. The other class titles were taken fr0m designations of areas administered by the National Park Service--these were presented in Chapter IV. The Park Service apparently attempted to clarify these area designations and eliminate several of the unnecessary classes found in the official classification of areas in the national park The classes defined in Parks For America were based on the criteria of the nature Of the area and purpose for Which each area was dedicated-- 1Parks For America, p. 479. 177 except National Wildlife Refuges and National Forests, which were also based on ownership. National Parks were separated from National Monu- ments on the basis of such criteria. Although the distinction is not com- pletely clear, "parks" are areas of scenic or natural beauty while "monu- ments" are areas primarily of scientific Or historical interest--and fre- quently man- made in nature. National Battlefields, in the 1964 report, designate the type of areas included in the Official Park Service categories Of: National Military Park, National Battlefield Parks, National Battlefields, and National Battlefield Sites. National Historical Parks and National Historic Sites were combined into National Historic Sites; and National Memorials and National Memorial Parks were combined into National Mem- orials. In the classification presented in the 1964 Park Service report, "Historic Sites" apparently are "significant" in themselves, while "Memor- ials" are "significant" as commemoratives of persons, ideas, or events related to the actual area of object. The significance of this distinction is not readily apparent. There are, then, several factors of the above classi- fication system which could be further improved. It would, perhaps, be misleading if it were not mentioned here that the above classification is not a new system deve10ped to apply to areas Officially administered by the National Park Service. As the Service's pre- facing comment indicated, the above system was deve10ped for the 1964 report to refer to "areas administered by agencies Of the Federal Govern- ment, and potential areas of national significance. " The 1965 registry of Areas Administered by the National Park Service summarized data for the 178 national park system under the following titles: National Parks National Historical Parks National Monuments National Military Parks National Memorial Parks National Battlefields National Battlefield Parks National Battlefield Sites National Historic Sites National Memorials National Cemeteries National Seashores National Parkways National Capital Parks White House National Recreation Areas1 In addition to the above classification, the 1965 publication, Areas Adminis- tered by the National Park Service included a three- class grouping of national park areas--to be used in the formulation Of management guidelines. This classification, Of a sort, was included in a statement by the Secretary of the Interior which prefaced the above classification and listing of individ- ual areas administered by the Park Service. The Secretary stated that, Consistent with specific congressional enactments, the following principles are approved for guidance in the manage- ment of the three categories of areas now included within the System . . . . The Service should proceed promptly to deve10p such detailed guidelines as may be needed for the Opera- tion of each of these categories of areas. 1Areas Administered by the National Park Service (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, National Park Service, 1965), p. 6. 2Ibid., p. 3. 179 The three categories of areas were: natural areas, historical areas, and recreational. areas. A brief discussion of the principles for resource management, resource use, and physical deve10pments was in- cluded under each category Of areas. Only the guidelines for resource use are presented here. NATURAL AREAS Provide for all appropriate use and enjoyment by the people that can be accommodated without impairment Of the natural values. Park management shall recognize and re- quest wilderness as a whole environment of living things whose use and enjoyment depend on a continuing interrela- tionship free of man's spoliation. HISTORICAL AREAS Visitor uses shall be those which seek fulfillment in authentic presentation of historic structures, objects, and sites, and the memorialization of historic individuals or events. Visitor use of significant natural resources should be encouraged when such use can be accommodated without detriment to historical values. RECREATIONAL AREAS Primary emphasis shall be placed on active participa- tion in outdoor recreation in a pleasing environment. The division of National Park areas into three groupings of this nature was not a new or sudden development. Ise, in 1961, suggested three broad categories--scenic, historic, and recreation--to summarize the nature Of the more numerous and more specific Official classes of areas administered by the Park Service. The fact that the national park system includes several types Of areas distinctly different in nature has been the subject of debate for a number of years. In fact, Opinions both 1Ibid., pp. 3-4. 180 for and against the establishment of a separate agency tc- manage each type of area, have been expressed. 1 The recognition of three separate categories of areas that require different management considerations and provide dis- tinct recreational Opportunities is, perhaps, an outgrowth of such discussions. The above classifications are used to indicate the general nature Of, or purpose for establishing. an entire national park area. In addition, "classification Of lands in the areas administered by the National Park Ser- vice follows the six classes . . used by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in compiling the National Plan. "2 The Forest Service Several classes Of Forest Service recreation areas, as compiled by Brockman, were briefly described in Chapter IV. A National Forest Recrea- tion Survey-~a "study and evaluation Of recreation resources on all lands administered by the Forest Service and usable waters related theretOI"--was initiated in 1959, shortly after the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission was established. Instructions for conducting the survey in- cluded the following statement regarding classification: Standard Forest Service classification for recreation, lands will be used in making the inventory Of recreation resources and Opportunities, with such changes as are 1For a more complete discussion of this issue, see: "DO our His- toric Areas Deserve the Dignity of a Separate Bureau?" by Devereux Butcher, National Parks Magazine, Vol. 30, No. 127 (October-December, 1956). 2Letter from Mr. Raymond L. Freeman, Chief, Division Of New Area Studies and Master Planning, National Park Serv1ce, Sept. 13, 1966.. 181 necessary to coincide with classifications which may be established by the Commission as standard for the national review. Following the above statement, the classification used in the survey was presented. First, national-forest recreation lands were divided into two broad categories: development sites and dispersed-recreation areas. Then, specific categories were identified under each of these broad headings. The breakdown Of "development sites, " which are characterized by "improve- ment or modification to serve Specific kinds of recreation use, "was as follows: 1. Occupancy Sites a. Campground b. Picnic Site c. Organization- Campsite (1. Commercial Public-Service Site e. Recreation Residence (Summer Houses) Swimming Site Boating Site Winter-Sports Site Observation Site2 9‘1“?” These "sites" are, then, lands or waters deve10ped to provide a Specific type Of recreational Opportunity. The classes do not refer to en- tire areas, but rather, to a limited locale which is required to facilitate specific recreational activities. "Dispersed-recreation areas" and their classification criteria were described as follows: lMaterials sent by Mr. Richard J. Costley, Director, Division of Recreation, Forest Service, U. S. Department Of Agriculture (Title: "Definitions, Land Classification, and Policy"), October 3, 1966. 2mm. 182 The national forests contain many areas predominantly valuable for their natural Or wilderness characteristics. Specific area classifications will depend on (1) the degree to which they have been or will be modified from the natural condition and (2) the recreation use they are intended to serve. The following classification of dispersed-recreation areas was used in the National Forest Recreation Survey of 1959 : 1. Club 6. 7. 8 Wilderness-Type Areas: a. Wilderness Areas (includes primitive areas) b. Wild Areas (includes primitive areas) c. Roadless Areas Unusual Interest Areas: a. Virgin Areas b. Scenic Areas c. Geological Areas d. Archeological Areas e. Historical Areas Zones: a. Roadside Zones b. Trailside Zones c. Waterfront Zones d. Buffer Zones Areas of Hunting Habitat Areas of Fishing Waters: a. Stream Fishing Areas b. Lake and Pond Fishing Areas Boating Waters Mountain- Climbing Areas Hiking and Riding Areasz Definitions for several of the above classes were provided in the survey instruction manual. The titles of the various "development sites" require little or no explanation, and several were described in Chapter IV. "Observation sites" are merely "places from which the public may view outstanding scenery." An explanation of the management practices for Observation sites was limited to the statement that "the view foreground 1 2 Ibid. Ibid. 183 and frame will be preserved in its natural condition. "1 Developments at observation sites were to be Simple and limited to those necessary for public access, safety, and sanitation. Wilderness, wild, and roadless, as well as virgin, scenic, geo- logical, archeological, and historical areas were briefly described in Chapter IV. Definitions Of these and other classes Of dispersed-recreation areas, as supplied by the Forest Service for the purpose of achieving con- sistency in its 1959 recreation survey, are included in Appendix D. The results Of the National Forest Recreation Survey, the report of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com- mission, and the continuing high rate Of increase in the public use of recreation resources Of the National Forests were per- suasive that this system would soon be inadequate. It was evident that the intensity of management required to meet current and projected recreation needs necessitated the ' establishment of a computer-oriented data management pro- gram which would make it possible to cope with a diversified spectrum of use and a definitive system of resource classifi- cation. This led tO the development of the RIM [Recreation Information Management] System, which is just now becoming Operative and was first applied to recreation statistics for calendar year 1965. 2 The classes listed in the Recreation Information Management Sys- tem were also divided into deve10ped sites and dispersed recreation areas. The classes presented below were listed under "RIM Kind Codes for Popu- lation Elements. " DeveIOped sites are listed on the left and dispersed areas on the right. 1Ibid. 2Letter from Mr. Richard J. Costley. 184 Observation Sites Playground, Park, Sports Sites Boating Sites Swimming Sites Campground- Family Campground-Organized Group Type Picnic Ground- Family Type Picnic Ground-Organized Group Type Hotel, Lodge, Resort--F. S. Owned Hotel, Lodge, Resort--Privately Owned Organization Site--F. S. Owned Organization Site--Privately Owned Other Commercial Public Service Sites Recreation Residence Sites Winter Sports Sites Visitor Centers, Recreation Oriented National. Rec reation, Areas Wilderness Primitive Areas Roads- Recreation Recreation Ways Trails- Recreation Ocean, Other Salt Water Great Lakes Lakes or Ponds Reservoirs and Impoundments Rivers and Streams Wild Rivers General Undeveloped Areas Archeological Areas Botanical Areas Histological Areas Geological Areas Virgin Areas Scenic Areas Memorials1 A number of these classes have been defined previously; others are self-explanatory. Playground, park, sports sites were described as "sites on National Forest land usually in close proximity to cities, towns, and pOpulation concentrations. '2 These sites, it was stated, were normally not developed or Operated by the Forest Service and included city parks, golf courses, and playgrounds. Other commercial public sites referred to, "sites where improvements are provided commercially for the comfort and convenience of recreation visitors and not logically covered in other more specific codes." Visitor Centers, Recreation Oriented: 1Materials sent by Mr. Richard J. Costley, ZIbid. 185 Formal development at recreation site or area where a broad range of visitor information service facilities--including interpretative programs, audiovisual media, and miscellaneous facilities are provided. Roads-Recreation referred to "all recreationally prominent roads On National Forests." General Undeveloped Areas included "all lands suit- able and available for recreation, but not otherwise codified Or described and inventoried as deve10pment Sites or other dispersed recreation areas. "2 Botanical Areas were described as follows: Areas embracing specimens or group exhibits Of plants, plant groups, or plant communities which are significant at one or more seasons for form size, color, occurrence, habitat, location, life history, arrangement, ecogogy, environment, rarity, contrast, and/ or other features. Finally, it was stated that Memorials are "designated in honor Of an outstanding person or important event." This classification, which was developed as a management tool, involves several criteria. For example, wilderness and primitive areas are alike in natural characteristics and differ primarily in the manner in Eh_igl_1 they are established. Wilderness areas are designated by Congress while primitive areas were established by the Chief Of the Forest Service. "Primitive" areas were established under Forest Service regulation L-20, issued in 1929. In 1939, regulations U-1 and U-2 provided for the establisMent Of "wildernesS‘ and "wild"areas respectively. Regulations U-1 and U-2 superseded regulation L- 20, however, primitive areas 1noici. 2min. amid. 186 established under regulation L- 20 retained their status until revoked or modified. 1 The essential differences between Regulations U-1 and U-2 and the Old Regulation L- 20 are that the new regulations prohibit roads in the area, commercial timber cutting, and require 90 days' notice of establishment, modification, or elimination Of areas. Due to apparent confusion over the policy regarding primitive area manage- ment, the Forest Service issued a clarifying directive in 1947. This direc- tive stated that primitive areas were to be managed in the same manner as . . 3 Wilderness or W1ld areas. With the passage Of the Wilderness Act on September 3, 1964, all existing National Forest Wilderness and Wild areas and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area were cover ed into the National Wilderness Pmservation System, while Primitive Areas were Ordered to be restudied and recommended to the Congress as to their suitability or nonsuitability aor inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. "Wilderness, " in the RIM classification system, refers to areas of the National Wilderness Preservation System. "Primitive areas" are the areas established prior to 1939, and which have not, as yet, been reclassified. The RIM classification bases other class distinctions on the criterion Of ownership. Yet, the major criteria on which these categories are based are recreational Opportunities available at each site, and natural features 1Wilderness and Recreation--A Report on Resources, Values and Problems? ORRRC Study Report NO. 3, prepared by Wildland Research Center, University of California (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 202. 2Ibid., p. 22. 4 3Outdoor Recreation for America, p. 22. Letter from Mr. Richard J. Costley. 187 of the various areas. In some cases, Size of an area is a basis of distinc— tion. There was no stated motive for distinguishing between "Great Lakes" and "Lakes and ponds. " "Wild rivers" refer to those rivers designated as such by legislative act. This, again, is a distinction based on possible differences in management considerations and the mode by which "wild rivers" are established. The Forest Service has also devised general categories to indicate the degree to which deve10pment has taken place at a given Site. Five classes ranging from "primitive" (minimum site modification; primitive forest en- vironment is dominant) to 'tnodern" (high degree Of site modification, pleasing environment for novice or highly gregarious camper) have been established. 1 This classification of site deve10pment has, as yet, been applied only to camp- grounds and picnic sites, but extension to other types Of deve10ped sites is planned. In addition to using the Recreation Information Management classifi- cation system described above, the Forest Service applies the Bureau of Out- door Recreation classification tO its lands. Mr. Costley has explained the manner in which the Bureau's classification is employed: To help achieve interagency data compatibility, the Forest Service also classifies all recreation lands in accordance with the uniform six-class system Originally prOposed by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission and later adopted by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Basically a zoning concept, the six classes are incorporated as a data overlay on the more detailed classifications applied in our RIM System. 2 1 2 Materials sent by Mr. Richard J. Costley. Letter from Mr. Richard J. Costley. 188 Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife "The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 reorganized the Fish and Wild- life Service into two separate agencies--the Bureau of Commercial Fish- eries and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife."1 The Bureau Of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife administers the National Wildlife Refuges System. "While almost all Of the activities of the BSFW contribute to out- door recreation, the fish hatcheries and wildlife refuges constitute, in them- selves, a substantial recreation resource."2 Outdoor recreation of various types can be enjoyed on many National Wildlife Refuges, wherever it does not inter- fere with the primary wildlife management program. Sight- seeing, birdwatching, picnicking, fishing, and in some cases, hunting, are among the recreational pursuits suited to wildlife refuges. That such use looms large in the national outdoor recreation picture is indicated by the fact that in 1964 there were more than 14 million recreational visits tO National Wild- life Refuges. 3 The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has not, as yet, deve10ped a system to classify the recreational values Of their prOperties. The Bureau is just beginning, under its Master Planning procedure, to deve10p guide- lines fOr zoning, recreational carrying capacity and compatibility. 4 The classification of national wildlife refuges described by the Bureau in National Wildlife Refuges 1965 is presented below: IORRRC. . . Report NO. 13, p. 35. 2Ibid., p. 36. 3National Wildlife Refuges 1965 (Washington: U. s. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1965), p. 5. 4Letter from Mr. A. V. Tunison, Deputy Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department Of the Interior, October 26, 1966. 189 Migratory Bird Refuges (Waterfowl) established primarily for Wild ducks and geese. Migratory Bird Refuges (General) for migratory birds other than waterfowl, including colonial species. Big Game Refuges primarily for big game Species, established by acts of Congress or purchased. Game Ranges primarily for big game species, withdrawn from the public domain. Alaska Wildlife Ranges set aside to conserve a variety of wildlife. In addition, the National Wildlife Refuge System includes . . . Waterfowl Pr0duction Areas, small but excellent duck pro- ducing wetlands in the Prairie States of North and South Dakota, Minnesota, and Nebraska. 1 The above classification of wildlife areas distinguishes the various areas by either 1) the manner in which they were acquired or 2) the species they were established to conserve. This classification is not particularly useful as a recreation land classification. The classes of "wildlife reserva- tions" presented in Chapter IV, in which the categories are distinguished on the basis of their use, would be more beneficial for recreational purposes. Wing has presented a "classification" of wildlife areas based on their "pur- pose" and "other allowable uses. " According to Wing: Areas devoted wholly or partly to wildlife purposes may vary in ownership, organization, and purpose. Whether in public or private ownership, they vary in name and allowable uses. Logical designations and functions which fall to each can be listed as follows: 1National Wildlife Refuges 1965, p. 5. 190 Classification of Areas Used for Wildlife Purposes f I Name Purpose Other Allowable Uses Sanctuary Absolute protection None Reserve Scientific study None Refuge Protection of certain Any use not in conflict with refuge species (or all species purposes during a part of the year Preserve Wildlife management on ' Preserve uses may be secondary a harvest basis ' to other uses in which case any use is allowable. If preserve idea is primary, other uses not in conflict are allowable. A classification of wildlife areas like the one above or the scheme presented in Chapter IV could serve to identify what types of recreational activities, or recreational developments are permissible in an area. This would be helpful as a management guide, or to inform the recreation visitor of the general types of facilities or opportunities likely to exist at a desig- nated area. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife is presently using the recreation land classification scheme of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Under this system, most of its lands fall into either class III (natural en- vironment areas) or class V (primitive areas). 2 1Leonard 1W. Wing, The Practice of Wildlife Conservation (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1951), p. 17. 2Letter from Mr. A.V. Tunison. 191 Tennessee Valley Authority The Tennessee Valley Authority has, with one exception, continued its policy of making potential recreation lands available to other public agencies and to private organizations and individuals rather than managing such areas itself. Recently it has undertaken the management of one area-- Land Between the Lakes--as a national demonstration area in outdoor recrea- tion and conservation. Mr. John Needy has outlined the status of recreation land inventory and classification programs currently underway or planned by TVA. Lands along our reservoirs which have a potential for development as recreation areas are identified by a land review and forecast procedure, a process which also identifies lands for such uses as reservoir Operations, commercial landings, industry, and steam plant sites. Since TVA does not currently manage any recreation areas other than Land Between the Lakes, we have not estab- lished any formal classification schemes for lands identified in our forecasts as potential recreation areas, although such lands have been grouped into two major categories: public recreation and public commercial recreation. It must be em- phasized, however, that these categories do not hold any official status within TVA as a recreation area classification scheme but simply serve to identify potential land uses, uses which may change if higher and better uses for these lands become evident in the future. Since each reservoir and each tract of land is unique, it is difficult to set forth all factors which might influence the _ forecast for a given tract, but in general the following factors are kept in mind in reviewing a tract having a potential for recreational development: (1) suitability of the topography for development and use; (2) road access to the areas; (3) prox- imity of other recreation development in the region, both com- peting and complementary; ‘ (4) proximity to population centers; (5) offshore water conditions, e. g. , depth, quality; (6) effect 192 of reservoir Operation on utilization of the area; (7) size of the area;- and (8) ‘scenic- resources of the area. - In identifying lands for future recreation use, TVA and the other agencies involved in project land use planning take into consideration the various factors previously mentioned which affect an area's potential for recreational deve10pment.- In regard to recreation area classification schemes being planned by TVA, deve10pment of such schemes is not anticipated at this time, except in the event that we are called upon by another agency managing recreational lands on our reservoirs for assistance in developing such a classification. 1 Bureau of Land Mangement ”The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was created in 1946 by the amalgamation of the general Land Office and the Grazing Service."2 This Bureau administers the Recreation and Public Purpose Act of 1954, as amended, which authorizes the conveyance of public domain lands to State or local governments and nonprofit organizations for recreation and other public purposes. Until recently, recreation has not been recognized as a valid use of resources or as an objective of BLM programs. 4 In 1963, however, the Director of the Bureau stated that "recreation is becoming a full partner 1Letter from Mr. John L. Needy, Recreation Planner, Recreation Section, Division of Reservoir Properties, Tennessee Valley Authority, February 24, 1967. 2ORRRC . . . Report No. 13, p. 40. 3Community Recreation and The Public Domain (Washington: U. S. Departmentfi the Interior, 1963), p. 3. 4 ORRRC. . . ReportNo. 13, p. 43. 193 with livestock grazing, mining, timber production, and other resource management activities."1 Although the Bureau of Land Management has frequently been in- volved with recreation land classification programs, these have been undertaken primarily to identify lands having potential value for recreation or sites suitable for disposal under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. 2 Public Law 88- 607 directed the Secretary of the Interior to classify Bureau of Land Management lands as either suitable for disposal or lands to be retained and managed for several purposes, one of which was "out- door recreation."3 In fiscal 1962 the Bureau began a continuing inventory and evaluation of outdoor recreation resources on all BLM lands. A planning device, the inventory also provides sta- tistics on use of BLM'S established recreation sites. . . . The inventory identifies public land recreation values accord- ing to the six categories recommended by the Outdoor Recrea- tion Resources Review Commission. Information about more recent activities of the Bureau of Land Manage- ment with respect to land classification for recreational purposes was not available . 1Stewart L. Udall, Annual Report 1963 . . . p. 54. 21960 Annual Report-Dnector, Bureau of Land Management (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961), p. 239. 3Public Law 88-607, 88th Congress, H.R. 5159, September 19, 1964, 73 Stat. 986. 4Public Land Statistics--1964, p. 71. 194 Bureau of Indian Affairs The Bureau Of Indian Affairs does not own any lands. Indian lands are private lands. However, "the kinds of programs sponsored by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the amounts and purposes of congressional appropriations very largely determine . . . the manner in which these lands will be used. "1 Until recently, the Indians have generally declined to share the recreation potentials of their reservations with non- Indians especially as regards hunting and fishing. In recent years, however, some Indians have come to recognizethe income potential of recreational use of the reservation. In addition to granting hunting and fishing rights, a number. Of com- mercial developments have been established on Indian lands to capitalize on demands for recreational facilities. The Bureau has published literature informing the tourist of the recreational opportunities available on Indian lands. An example is a recent publication entitled Vacationing with _I_nd_ia_n§. 3 This publication--a guide to' campgrounds and tourist attractions on Indian reservationS--includes brief facts about location, basic accommo- dations, recreational Opportunities, and other information of this nature. Although the types of facilities and recreational Opportunities available at each area were indicated, no general classification of recreational lands was presented in this booklet. 1ORRRC . . . Report NO. 13, p. 46. 2 Ibid., p. 43. 3Vacationing with Indians (Washington: U. S. Department of the De- partment of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1965). 195 At one time, a number of areas Within Indian reservations were listed as "wild" and "roadless" areas. Fifteen "roadless" and 'Wild" areas were designated by the Bureau Of Indian Affairs in 1937.1 Since that time, these designations have been removed from all but one area. The defini- tions for roadless and wild areas, as supplied by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, were as follows: A roadless area . . . is one which contains no provision for the passage of motorized transportation and which is at least 100, 000 acres in forested country Or at least 500, 000 in non- forested country. There are certain areas, not large enough to be desig- nated by the term roadless, from which it is nevertheless desirable to exclude provision for the passage of motorized transpartation. Such tracts have been designated as wild areas. Mr. Will Pitner has summarized the present situation with respect to classification of Indian lands as follows: Indian lands are private lands, and therefore, any classification of their lands is accomplished in accordance with their consent. In advising Indian tribes of classification schemes, the Bureau uses the patterns proposed by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation . . . . Several tribes are following different patterns of classification-~for example, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona, has set aside some 7, 400 acres as a "primitive Area" which bor- ders the prOposed Mount Baldy Wilderness Area . . . of the Apache National Forest, Arizona. 1ORRRC. . . Report No. 3, p. 23. 2mm. 196 The only presently existing designated roadless area is on the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming. . The possibility of designating a classification system applicable to all Indian lands would be most difficult because Of the prerogatives of the Indian owners. Soil Conservation Service "Approximately two years ago the National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (NACD) initiated, with the assistance of the Soil Conservation Service, a nationwide inventory of existing public and private outdoor recreation areas and facilities."2 Two separate inventory forms were used in this study: one for public recreation areas and another for private recreation enterprises. A copy of each form is included in Appendix E. Instructions for their use are provided on the reverse side of each form. Each form included a list of recreation activities. In both cases, the individual filling out the form was to indicate the activities which one could enjoy either at or near the area or enterprise. In addition, the "public" form included a classification of area types, and the "private" form listed types of enterprises. Public recreation areas were classed according to both "major land uses" and "natural Or scenic features. " Recreation enterprises were grouped on the basis of several criteria, e. g. , 1Letter from Mr. Will J. Pitner, Chief, Branch of Land Opera- tions, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U. S. Department Of the Interior, Novem- ber 1, 1966. 2Letter from Mr. Ralph C. Wilson, Recreation Specialist, Soil Con- servation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 2, 1966. 1.97 developments on the land, recreational Opportunities available, and natural features of an area. Both public and private recreation resources were not inventoried in every state, since the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation had inventoried public recreation lands in some states. Summary Comments It can be seen from the above review that most federal agencies managing recreation lands have adOpted the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation classification system in Order to achieve data compatibility. A. number of these same agencies and other federal agencies concerned with recreation have developed other classification schemes to suit their own specific needs. These classification systems are designed for a variety of purposes and are based on a number of criteria. The National Park Service has recently divided the areas it administers into three categorieS--the areas in each category are to be managed according to a distinct set of manage- ment principles. The Forest Service has gradually SOphisticated its classi- fication efforts to the point that it presently employs a Recreation Informa- tion Management code to aid in the inventory and classification of its prOperties that possess recreation potential. Other relevant federal agen- cies have only recently taken a close look at the recreation potential of the lands they administer. Thus their classification efforts, for such purposes, are in the formative stage. Although the BOR classes are recognized and utilized, their functional inadequacies for planning purposes have been noted at both the federal and state levels. CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This study involved a review and analysis of recreation land classi- fication systems found at the federal, state, and local levels in the United States. The guiding hypotheses of this thesis were: 1. Many different types Of recreation land classification schemes have been, and are being, used in the United StateS--due to variations in the motives underlying individual classification efforts, and the variety of cri- teria on which such classification systems are based. 2. There are examples of classification systemsuperhaps a Single system--that are being adopted or recognized by a number of agencies con- cerned with the provisions of recreation Opportunities--as a manifestation of an expanding desire to- achieve homogeneity among such classification programs and schemes throughout the country. Available literature was reviewed to obtain information of past and present classification programs and systems. Publications prepared for and/or published by the National Recreation AssOciation, the National Con- ference on State Parks, and the National Parks Service provided much available information on the deve10pment Of such activities at the local, 198 199 state, and federal levels. In addition, a number of classifications devised by recreation oriented agencies at each of these levels were found in literature published by the individual agencies. TO supplement these sources, a request for relevant information was sent to state and federal agencies con- cerned with the provision of recreational Opportunities. State recreation plans received from several state agencies, or made available by the Recrea- tion Resources Planning Division of the Michigan Department of Conservation, were reviewed to obtain further information about this level. Thirty state agencies responded to this request for information. Twenty-two state plans were reviewed, and additional materials from these respondents were very helpful. Materials and personal information received from the federal agen- cies provided a very complete summary Of present recreation land classifi- cation programs at this level. In general, the evidence revealed by this investigation supports the guiding hypotheses stated above. Classification systems pertaining to the recreational use of public land are used extensively in the United States. Classifications at all agency levels serve a number of functions, are based on a variety Of criteria, and, consequently, are seldom comparable. How- ever, the classification systems supported by the National Recreation Association and the National Conference on State Parks provide a basis for unity at the local and state levels respectively, and the classification system of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is Widely recognized by state and federal agencies concerned with recreation. A more detailed summary is presented below: 200 1. Recreation land classification schemes have been developed for many purposes--e. g. , as management guides, planning tools, a means of acquainting the public with the nature of given areas, and in connection with the development of acreage standards. Likewise, the criteria on which such classification systems are based vary considerably. Several of the more common criteria for classifying recreation areas are: (1) The "inher- en " Or natural features of an area, (2) the level of government or the agency administering various prOperties, (3) location, both tOpographical and with respect to pOpulation centers or neighborhoods, (4) intended function or pur- pose Of an area, (5) the recreational Opportunities available on an area, (6) relative intensity of use, (7) methods of acquisition, and (8) characteristics of persons using the various areas (e. g. , age of park or playground users). 2. The detail or the degree of sophistication present in classifica- tion systems varies considerably. The amount of detail involved Often de- pends on the purpose of the classification scheme. For example, a classifi- cation devised to inform the public about the nature of areas within a park system seldom contains more than six or seven--usually three or four-- classes. However, a classification developed as a management guide, for example, might contain a larger number of categories--the actual number usually varying with the time and resources available for a classification program and the nature of the areas within a system. 3. Although there are several terms that are frequently used in classification efforts, the nomenclature applied to recreation lands varies 201 considerably. The titles used to describe such areas vary from agency to agency. 4. Closely related to the nomenclatural problem is the myriad of definitions applied to recreation areas. Properties with similar character- istics are Often assigned different titles. Likewise, classes with the same title are frequently defined quite differently or described as including areas varying greatly in nature. These discrepancies can frequently, but not always, be attributed to different motives for classifying and/or utilization of mixed and varying criteria. 5. NO one classification system in existence-~based on any criteria-— approaches universal acceptance, 1. e. , recognized and used by all recreation agencies at all levelS--federal, state, and local. The classification prOposed by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission and adOpted by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, apparently is the most widely recognized at the present time. However, this classification does not appear to be used, with a few exceptions, by agencies Operating at the local level. 6. Local Level--The classification for local recreation areas supported by the National Recreation Association has been adopted, fre- quently with modifications, by a Significant number of agencies at this level. The categories "playground" and "playfield" are extensively recognized. However, there have been significant deviations. Many local recreation agencies have simplified or otherwise modified the Original categories pro- posed by .the National Recreation Association. Others have developed 202 classifications which are based on different criteria, include different categories, and are utilized for other purposes. 7. State Level--State recreation land classification evolved from an early status in which the basic categories identified were "state parks" and "state forests" to the present situation in which there are more than sixty titles applied to recreation areas in state park systems. The classifi- cation system supported by the National Conference on State Parks has recently provided somewhat of a unifying force. However, a multiplicity of titles and definitions still characterize state park classifications. The term "state park" might refer to all the areas controlled by a state agency or to one of several classes of areas managed by such an agency. Many state recreation planning agencies are recognizing the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation classes. However, a number of these agencies utilize a second classification in addition to the BOR system. Still other such agen- cies have not, as yet, adOpted the BOR classification system. 8. Federal Level--The Bureau Of Outdoor Recreation classification system is widely recognized at the federal level. However, a number of federal recreation agencies are also develOping their own systems to meet their Specialized needs. The National Park Service areas are variously classified according to the titles given them by legislative action. However, the Park Service has recently grouped its areas into three broad manage- ment-type categories and also recognizes the BOR classes. The Forest Service has deve10ped its own "Recreation Information Management" code with which it classifies the recreation resources it 203 administers. In addition, the Forest Service applies the BOR classification system to its lands. Other federal agencies controlling lands suitable for recreation purposes are using only the BOR classification system. Conclusions A few similarities can be noted among the classification systems reviewed. The homogenizing influences Of the classifications supported by the National Recreation Association (local level), the National Conference on State Parks (state level), and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (state and federal levels) are noteworthy. In general, however, there are few area designations or definitions which are common to recreation lands at all levels. There is no recreational land classification system in the United States that is utilized by all, Or a large majority, of the governmental agen- cies concerned with the provision of recreational Opportunities. The classi- fications that exist today have frequently been devised for a particular pur- pose, or apply to a limited location. Because of this situation, it is often difficult to compare data related to one classification with that of another. Regional or nationwide inventories are hindered. Desirable data compar- isons, in many cases, are not possible. The multitude of titles under which recreation areas are classified and the variations in definitions or descrip- tions of classes With the same or similar titles inhibits, for example, inter- agency or inter-regional comparisons. The development of a nationwide classification system through the addition, combination, and elimination of existing classes is impractical, if not impossible. 204 There will probably always be a variety of classifications developed for individual locations and purposes. However, each agency could develop a means of inventorying by which the data collected could be compared with regional or national statistics and, at the same time, lend itself to local classification efforts. A myriad of different, and frequently confusing, recreational land classifications exist throughout the nation; preventing valuable comparisons or exchanges of information among agencies concerned with recreation. This situation is due to a number of factors, among which the following three appear to be prominent: (1) the diverse reasons for developing a classification system; (2) the mixture of criteria among various classifi- cation systems and frequently within the same system; and (3) lack of a coordinating agency to influence and guide the many recreation land classi- fication programs across the country. Classification systems have been devised for a variety of reasons. For, example, the Forest Service has developed a classification scheme as a guideline in the management of the various areas and sites it administers. The Tennessee state recreation plan included a proposed system to aid the recreating public in the selection of areas to visit, and to facilitate the prOper management of each type of area. Numerous state agencies have utilized a classification system to guide their acquisition programs--to match demands with supply. The National Recreation Association classi- fication--adopted by many local agencies--is a means Of develOping standards and insuring an "adequate" system of parks and recreation areas. 205 A "good" classification system is valuable for these and a number of other purposes. This wide range of purposes has led to the existence of numerous classification systems, valuable only for a single purpose or in a single location. Coupled with the large variety of reasons for developing a classifica- tion scheme, the differences in criteria on which classification systems are based create problems for inter-agency data comparison. For example, classification schemes which categorize areas by their natural features could not be compared with schemes that classify areas according to owner- ship, Or location with respect to population. Yet, each may be valuable as a guide in formulating management decisions. This study revealed that the criteria on which classification systems are based vary widely--both among different classifications and within a Single system. Correlation of recrea- tion land statistics on a regional or nation-wide basis would be extremely difficult, due to this situation. The lack of an agency to coordinate classification and related data gathering programs has hindered the deve10pment of uniform or comparable classification systems. The National Park Service was authorized to coor- dinate such efforts by the Park, Parkway and Recreation Area Study Act of 1936. With the resources at its disposal, this agency made a commendable attempt to coordinate federal, state, and local planning efforts. The task was a formidable one, however, and the resources at the Park Service's disposal were not sufficient to effect a truly coordinated recreation plan- ning effort. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is in a more favorable, 206 though not ideal, position. Today, the need for coordinated efforts to meet mounting demands is more widely recognized. In addition, the Bureau administers a grants- in- aid program which aids it in securing the COOpera- tion of other agencies. The National Recreation Association, the National Conference on State Parks, and the National Park Service has provided some semblance of unity in recreation land classification efforts in the past. However, these efforts were primarily limited to one level of governmen -- local, state, or federal. The scope of the Bureau Of Outdoor Recreation's influence is not limited in this respect, but rather, extends throughout all of these levels. It is felt that the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation could make Significant strides toward the adoption of a classification system that facili- tates extensive recreational data comparisons. The sixfold classification presently supported by the Bureau of Out- door Recreation is not suitable as a "universal" classification system. This classification is insufficiently detailed, especially in regard to the type of recreation areas found in urban environments. The combining Of several criteria--location, physical characteristics, developments, activities, and responsibilitieS--into one classification system, as the BOR classification does, leaves the nature of individual areas in each class ambiguous and sus- ceptible to misinterpretation. This classification is too general for most purposes and could serve only as a general outline of area types. Greater detail is needed in any classification system which is to be used on a nation- wide basis tO coordinate planning efforts or to provide meaningful data summaries or comparisons. 207 Recommendations Based on a review of past and present recreation land classification systems and other facts considered in the preparation of this thesis, several recommendations are presented below. It was stated at the outset that a classification applicable to all areas of the country would not be developed as a part of this thesis. Originally, it was felt that such an undertaking was beyond the sc0pe of this survey. It is now realized that in Order to develop such a system, the reason for its development must be decided upon before- hand. No one classification system will serve every purpose. The first question that must be answered is: Why are we classifying? What is this classification effort expected to accomplish? Then, the types of information needed to facilitate the attainment of the deshed goals must be identified. Next, the criterion, or criteria, on which the classification will be based is established. Finally, a classification based on one criterion, or closely related criteria, is deve10ped. Thus, there may be a number of classifica- tions which could be applied to all recreation lands in the United States-- depending on the purpose a classification is intended to serve. For exam- ple, a classification based on the natural characteristics of park lands, although valuable, would not provide all the information desired by a plan- ner. He would also need ownership, location, capacity, and other such information. Yet, a classification including all these criteria would become extremely cumbersome. Thus, no one classification system can satisfy all needs. 208 Classification schemes deve10ped to facilitate efforts to meet future recreational demands Should, perhaps, classify lands according to the types and the quantity of recreational Opportunities available at various areas. A number of state recreation planning agenices use the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation classes or have deve10ped classes based on ownership, natural features, location, or a combination of several of these criteria. All Of these criteria are important, yet, they provide no direct means of relating demand (usually measured in terms of activities ) to supply. A degree of unity seems to exist in the titles and definitions assigned to three types of areas at the federal, state, and occasionally the local levels: parks, recreation areas, and historic sites. Numerous state agen— cies have recognized these three classes, and they have also been recognized by the National Park Service. The class w is often modified by such terms as scenic or natural; and historic sites are otherwise referred to as memorials or monuments. Monuments are occasionally separated from memorials or historic Sites on the basis that monuments refer to pre- historic phenomena while the others refer to areas or items of more recent interest. The exact titles given to the three classes are not of great concern. The definitions or descriptions of the areas are much more important- For management and planning purposes, for relating the general nature of rec- reational Opportunities available at these areas, and for tourist information purposes these distinctions may be Significant. Generally speaking, p_ar_k§ are areas with unique natural characteristics where scenic qualities are dominant and more passive activities are compatible. Passive or semi— 209 active activities are also compatible at the historical, memorial or monu- ment areas. However, at these areas "man- made" or 'tnan- modified" items of historical significance are usually the attraction. Recreation ESE provide for "active" forms of recreation. The setting is Often of secondary importance to the types Of Opportunities available at these areas. These three basic classes could be expanded or refined. Further breakdown is possible. They are suggested as a starting point in the classi- fication of recreation lands for several purposes, due to their already wide- spread recognition and distinctive differences. Attempts should be made to better relate data from local areas, states, or regions to data from other such areas, or to national figures. There is a need for comparable recreation data in our country today; yet standardization should not be promoted to the point of "forcing" the use of a rigidly defined classification system in areas to which it is not suited. Thus, a degree of flexibility is desirable. The collection of detailed information, with as little pre- classification as possible, would permit the use of this data for a number of purposes. The same information could be re-grouped and used in many classification systems for a number of purposes. It could be classified to meet local needs, and arranged in another manner, perhaps according to another criterion, for comparisons with other localities, or to contribute to nationwide summaries. Finally, it is recommended that a permanent organization, most probably the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, assume the responsibility of 210 coordinating and guiding recreation land classification programs at all levels. An organization is needed to guide the classification as well as data collec- tion efforts of agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. Such an agency could act as a central clearing house-~collecting, coordinating, and summarizing data from individual agencies and disseminating such informa- tion upon request, or in periodic publications. The Bureau of Outdoor Recre- ation is currently engaged in limited efforts of this nature, but not on the scale, or with the degree of sophistication, suggested here. State and local agencies cannot be expected to effect such a program by themselves. Com- munication among these agencies is fiequently less than desirable. A strong guiding force, in the form of an agency such as suggested here, is needed. APPENDICES 211 APPENDIX A LETTER TO STATE AGENCIES REQUESTING INFORMATION ON RECREATION LAND CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES AND LIST OF STATE AGENCIES RECEIVING REQUEST 212 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 48325 ..__ .- DBPARTKENT OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 0 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING August 30, 1066 This l-epartment is presently engaged in a study on the recreat onal use of land. Part of this study will involve a review or classification schemes related to outdoor recreation areas, utilized by agencies or organizations at the federal, state, and local levels. There is a notable insu“?iciency of information at the state and local levels. In view of tnis deficiency, a re— quest is being sent to the agencies in each state +hat are responsible for the administration of recreation areas or are otherwise coacerrei with recreation. We would greatly appreciate any material you co: id seni co eri past and, especially, present classification schemes or programs faxili ar t) a; agencies involved with recreational land use in your state. TLC agency need nOt be an actual land managing agency. The study will emphasize classifications that deal with the land on wn’ch rec- reation takes place. This would include classifications which categorize such features as: present uses or activities taking place on an area, ”carrving capacity" of recreation areas, in*enied functional purpose of vario:s areas, agencies responsible for the administration a? recreation areas, intensity of use of such areas, natural qualities of an area, dominant characteristics of recreation areas (e.g., "natural," wilderness, historicail“ significant, active recreation, etc.), and the nomenclature and definitions applied to various recreation areas. Any information on the history or background of such classifications or programs would also be appreciated. If you feel that one of your colleagues could contribute any further informa- tion to our study, would you kindly inform him of this request? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Louis F. Twardzik Associate Professor LFT es 213 STATE AGENCIES RECEIVING REQUEST Alabama Alabama Department of Conservation, Division of State Parks Alaska Department of Natural Resources Arizona Arizona Game and Fish Department Arkansas Arkansas Publicity and Parks Commission California Department of Parks and Recreation Colorado Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department Connecticut Connecticut State Park and Forest Commission Delaware State Park Commission Florida Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials Florida Florida Outdoor Recreational Planning Committee Georgia Department of State Parks Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks Illinois Department of Conservation, Division of Parks and Memorials 214 215 Idaho State Board of Land Commissmners, Department; of Public Lands Indiana Department of Conservation, Division of State Parks Iowa Iowa State Conservation Commission Kansas Kansas State Park and Resources Authority Kentucky Department of Parks Louisiana Louisiana State Parks and Recreation. CommiSSion Maine State Park and Recreation Commission Maryland Department of Forests and Parks Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, Division of Conservation Services Minnesota Department of Conservation, Division of State Parks Mississippi Mississippi Game and Fish Commission Missouri Missouri State Park Board Montana State Fish, Game and Parks Commission, Recreation and Lands Deve10pment Nebraska Game, Forestation and Park Commission Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural. Resources, Division of State Parks 216 New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Division of. Parks New Jersey Department of Conservation. and Economic. Development, Division of Resource Development New Mexico State Park and Recreation Commission New York Conservation Department, Division of Parks North Carolina North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, State Parks North Dakota State Historical Society of North Dakota, Division of. State Parks Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation. Oklahoma Recreation and State Parks Oregon Oregon State Highway Department, State Par ks Oregon Oregon State Highway Department, State Parks and Recreation Division Pennsylvania , Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Water, Division of State Parks Rhode Island Department of Public Works, DIV islon. of Pa: ks and Recreation South Carolina South Carolina State Commission of Forestry South Dakota South Dakota Department of. Game, Fish, and Parks Tennessee Department of Conservar ion, Diiiislon of. State Parks 217 Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission Utah Utah State Park and Recreation. Commission Vermont Department of Forests and Parks Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Deve10pment, Division of Parks Washington - State Parks and Recreation Commission West Virginia Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Conservation, Parks and Recreation Division Wyoming Wyoming Natural Resources Board APPENDIX B LETTER TO FEDERAL AGENCIES REQUESTING INFORMATION ON RECREATION LAND CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES" AND LIST OF FEDERAL AGENCIES RECEIVING REQUEST 218 September 7, 1966 Dear Mr. This Department is presently engaged in a study on the recreational use of land. Part of this study will involve a review of classification schemes related to outdoor recreation areas, utilized by agencies or organizations at the federal, state, and local levels. The increasingly important and rapidly developing role of federal agencies involved with recreation requires that our survey be especially thorough and current at this level. In order to insure that we have up to date information, a request is being sent to each of the federal agencies that are responsible for the administration of recrea- tion areas or are otherwise concerned with the provision of recreational opportunities. Any information you could send, covering past and, especially, present classification schemes or programs familiar to your agency, would be greatly appreciated. The study will emphasize classifications that deal with the land on which recreation takes place. This would include classifications which categorize such features as: present uses or activities taking place on an area, in- tended functional purpose of various areas, "carrying capacity" of recreation areas, dominant characteristics of recreation areas (e. g. , "natural, " wilderness, historically significant, active recreation, etc. ), and the nomen- clature and definitions or descriptions applied to various recreation areas. Any information on the history or background of such classifications or programs would also be appreciated. If you feel that one of your colleagues could contribute any further informa- tion to our study, would you kindly inform 'him of this request. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Anthony F. Abar AFA/ gs 219 FEDERAL AGENCIES RECEIVING REQUEST United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service United States Department of Defense U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Tennessee Valley Authority United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Outdoor Recreation United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife United States Department of the Interior National Park Service United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service 220 APPENDIX C BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 221 ZZZ BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ATTACHMENT TO FORMS BOR 8-73 AND BOR 8-75 CLASS I veloped portions of Pali— CLASS PHYSICAL LOCATION ACTIVITIES DEVELOPMENTS RESPONSIBILITY EXAMPLES REQUIREMENTS High Density Recreation Areas Examples: Intens ively de- sades Interstate Park, N.]. and N.Y.; Jones Beach, N.Y.' intensively developed parts‘ of Cook Co. Forest Preserve, Ill,.; Huntington Beach State Park, Calif.; Patapsco State Park, Md.; beach and boardwalk area in Atlantic City, N.J.; Colter Bay recreation center in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Physiographic features such as topography, soil type, drainage, etc., should be adaptable to special types of intensive recrea- tion use and development. An attractive natural set- ting is desirable; however, manmade settings are ac- ceptable. There are no specific size criteria and there is great variation in size from one area to another. Usually within or near ma- jor centérs of urban popu- lation, but may occur with- in such units as national parks and forests remote from population concentra- tions. Intensive day or weekend type, such as picnicking, water sports, winter sports, group field games, and other activities for many people. Although high density areas are sub- ject to heavy peakload pressure at: certain times, they Often sustain mod- erate use throughout the year. High degree of facility de- velopment which often re- quires heavy investment. They are usually managed exclusively for recreation purposes. Development may include a road net- work, parking areas, bath- ing beaches and marinas, bath houses, artificial lakes, playfields, and sanitary and eating facil- ities. Commonly held under mu- nicipal, county, regional, or State ownership. Many commercial resorts have similarcharacteristics and collectively provide. a significant portion of rec- reation opportunities for urban population centers. CLASS II General Outdoor Recreatigg Areas Examples: Rock Creek Park, Washington, D.C.; Kens ington Park, Huron- Clinton Authority, Mich.; and Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, Calif. May have varied to og- raphy, interesting glora and fauna within a gen- erally attractive natural or manmade setting adaptable to providing -a wide range of opportunities. These areas range in size from several acres to- large tracts of land. Usually more remote than Class I areas, however, ~re latively accessible to centers of urban popula- tion and accommodate a major share of all outdoor recreation. Included are portions of public parks and forests, public and commercial camping sites, picnic grounds, trail parks, ski areas, resorts, streams, lakes, coastal areas, and hunting preserves. Extensive day, weekend, and vacation use types such as camping, picnick- ing, fishing, hunting, water sports, winter sports, nature walks, and outdoor games. Generally less intensive than Class I areas. In- cludes, but not limited to, access roads, parking areas, picnic areas, camp— grounds, bathing beaches, marinas, streams, natural and/or artificial lakes. Areas are equipped with some manmade facilities, which may vary from simple to elaborate. Thus, camp- grounds may have only the barest necessities for san- itation and fire control or they may have ample and carefully planned facilities such as cabins, hot and cold running water, laun— dry equipment, stores, mu- seums,small libraries,en- tertainment, juvenile and adult playfields. Other fea- ' tures may include perma- nent tows for ski areas, fully equipped marinas, lodges, dude ranches and luxury hotels. Federal, State or local governments, including regional park and recrea- tion authorities, and pri- vate clubs and other forms of private ownership as- sisted by public agencies on problems of access and development of basic facilities. CLASS III Natural Environment Areas Examples: Portions of the Allagash County of north- ern Lake States. Public lands of this category often adjoin outstanding natural Class IV, and primitive Class V, areas in national and state parks and forests as in the case in the Grand Teton National Park and the Superior National Forest. Varied and interesting land forms, lakes, streams, flora and fauna within at- tractive natural settings. Usually more remote from population centers than Class I and II areas and occur throughout the country and on an acreage basis are the largest class in both public and private ownership. Extensive weekend and vacation types dependent on quality of the natural environment, such as sight- seeing, hiking, nature study, picnicking, camping, swimming, boating, canoe- ing, fishing, hunting, and mountaineering. The pri- mary objective is to pro- vide for traditional recrea- tion experience in the out- ofndoore,ccmmcnly in con-' junction with other resource uses. Users are encouraged to enjoy the resource ”as is”, in naturalenvironment. Access roads, trails, pic- nic and campsite facilities and minimum sanitary fa- cilities. There may be other compatible uses of the area such as watershed protection, water supply, grazing, lumbering, and mining provided such activities are managed so as to retain the attractive- ness of the natural setting. Federal, State, or local governments, including regional park and recrea- tion authorities and pri- vate ownerships. CLASS IV Outstanding Natural Areas Examples: The scenic sites and features in this class are limited in number and are irreplaceable. They range from large areas with- in Yosemite Valley and the Grand Canyon to smaller sites such as Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park; Old Man of the Moun- tain, N.H.; and the Bristle Cone Pine Area in the 'Inyo National Forest, Calif. Outstanding natural fea- ture associated with an outdoor environment that merit special attention and care in management to in- sure their preservation in their natural condition. In- Cludes individual areas of remarkable natural wonder, high scenic splendor, or features of scientific im- portance. One or more such areas may be part of a larger administrative unit, such as a national park or forest. Any place where such feao tures are found. Sightseeing, enjoyment, and study of the natural features. Kinds and in- tensity of use limited to the enjoyment and study of the natural attractions so as to preserve the quality of the natural features and maintain an appropriate setting. May be visited on a day, weekend, or vacation trip. Limited to minimum devel— opment required for public enjoyment,health,safety and protection of the fea- tures. Wherever possible, access roads and facilities other than trails and sani- tary facilities should be kept outside the immediate vicinity of the natural fea- tures. Visitors encouraged to walk to the feature or into the area when feasible. Improvements should har- monize with and not de- tract from the natural set- ting. ' Public agencies, (Federal, State , and local), and private landowners, with assist- ance from public agencies, who may identify, set aside, and manage natural fea- tures. Generally the Fed- eral Government assumes responsibility for the pro- tection and management of natural areas of national significance; the States for areas of regional or State significance; and localgov- ernment and private owners for areas of primarily local significance. CLASSV Primitive Areas Examples: The "back country” of Yellowstone National Park - South Asoroka Wilderness Area in Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming; Gila Wilderness Area, Gila National Forest, New Mexico; Sawtooth Wilderness Area, Boise Na- tional Forest, Idaho; and the undeveloped portion of Anza Berrego Desert State Park, California. Extensive natural, wild and undeveloped area and set- tin removed from the sig ts,sounds,and smells of civilization. Essential characteristics are that the natural environment has not been disturbed by commer- cial utilization and that the areas are without mech- anized transportation. The area must be large enough and so located as to give the user the feeling that he is enjoying a "wilderness experience.” The site may vary with different physical and biological conditions and may be determined in part by the characteristics of adjacent land. Size may vary in different parts of the country. These areas are inspirational, esthetic, scientific,and cultural as- sets of the highest value. Usually remote from popu- lation centers. Camping outon one ’s own without mechanized trans- portation or permanent shelter or other conven- iences. No development of public roads, permanent habita- tions or recreation facil- ities except trails. No mechanized equipment al- lowed except that needed to control fire, insects and disease. Commercial use of the area that may exist at the time of establishment Should be discontinued as soon as practical. Usually Federal but may also be by State agencies or private landowners (such as the high mountain coun- try held by large timber and mining companies.) CLASS VI Historic and Cultural Sites Examples: The Hermitage; Mount Vernon; the Civil War battlefields; and his- toric Indian dwellings, Mesa Verde National Park. These are sites associated with the history, tradition or cultural heritage of National, State or local interest and are of enough significance to merit pres- ervation or restoration. The location of the feature establishes the site. Sightseeing, enjoyment, and study of the historic or cultural features. Kinds and intensity of use limited to this type of study and enjoyment. Management should be lim- ited to activities that would effect such preservation and restoration as may be necessary to protect the features from deterioration and to interpret their sig- nificance to the public. Access to the area should be adequate but on-site development limited to pre- vent overuse. Development should not detract from the historic or cultural values of the site. Public agencies (Federal, State, andlocal), and pri- vate landowners who iden- tify,set aside,and manage historic and cultural areas. USCOMM-DC 18770 APPENDIX D DEFINITIONS ADOPTED IN THE 1959 NATIONAL Archeological Area Areas of Fishing Waters Areas of Hunting Habitat Boating Waters Buffer Zone FOREST RECREATION SURVEY An archeological area is one containing significant evidence of use by aboriginal peOple. All practicable precautions will be taken to prevent damage or removal of the remnants. Roads, trails, and other improvements necessary for the use and enjoyment of the area will be carefully planned. Fishing waters are rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs which now, or will in the future, support sufficient populations of one or more fish species to create an incentive for people to fish. The term "fish" may include warm-water and cold-water species, or any combination. Wherever feasible, large lakes should be considered as a single unit and large rivers should be considered by sections within the land units to be inven- toried. A hunting habitat is an area which now, Or will in the future, support sufficient populations of one or more game species to create an incentive for hunters to hunt. The term "game" includes big game, small game, water- fowl, Or any combination. Though the size of the area may vary from a few acres to thousands, the habitat for inventory purposes should be a readily recognized unit such as a watershed, mountain range, timber, or vege- tative formation. Waters suitable for enjoyment of boating sports and recreation. This includes motor boating, water skiing, sailing, canoeing, fold-boating, rafting, and rowing. TO be suitable, waters must be of sufficient depth and size for the activity being considered. When camp and picnic grounds, organization camps, resorts, and other recreation sites receive heavy recrea- tion use, buffer zones will be established adjacent to or surrounding such sites as necessary to protect the back- ground and environment. The width of buffer zones will 223 224 vary according to the requirements of each case. In general, buffer zones will be established and managed by the policies for all recreation zones. Dispersed-Recreation Areas The term "dispersed-recreation areas" will be applied to areas or zones where recreation use is usually dispersed, as contrasted with "recre- ation sites" where recreation use is more concentrated. These areas as defined are the lands or waters providing particular recreation opportunities. Resource acres are a means of expressing the amount of each of these Opportunities. Since the land usually Offers more than one recreation oppor- tunity these dispersed-recreation areas will Often overlap“. For example; areas of hunting opportunity may overlap wilderness, wild, hiking, and . riding areas, mountain climbing areas, fishing waters (waterfront), etc. Geological Area. Hiking and Riding Areas Historical Area Mountain Climbing Areas A geological area is a unit of land with outstanding structural or historical features of the earth's deve10p- ment (includes caves). Geological areas will be pre- served as nearly as possible in an undisturbed condition. The geologic formations will be protected from the encroachment Of roads Or other improvements. All practicable precautions will be taken to prevent the defacement Or destruction of the geologic formation by vandals. Areas with interesting terrain and scenery through which trails exist or can be provided for the enjoyment of hiking and riding as a recreation activity. A historical area contains interesting details of the life and activities of early white settlers in America. Battle- grounds, remnants Of famous mining camps, Old ceme- teries, pioneer roads, and early trading sites are examples of historical-area qualities. Mountain-climbing areas are those parts Of mountain ranges that due to characteristics of altitude, general topography and terrain, and type and character Of rock provide suitable conditions for mountaineering. For the purposes of delimiting the boundaries Of moun— tain-climbing areas, we might say that the climbing area extends no more than a day's hike from the point where it is desirable to use rOpes Or other specialized Observation Site Organization- Camp Site Primitive Area Recreation- Residence (Summer or Winter Home) Site Recreation Zone 225 climbing equipment or technics. In an extensive moun- tain range this would apply to the nearest peak. In many cases the actual rock—climbing terrain will de- limit the boundary. Places from which the public may view outstanding scenery will be established, deve10ped, and protected as observation sites. Developments will be simple and limited to those needed for public access, safety, and sanitation. The view foreground and frame will be pre- served in its natural condition. Necessary parking space is a part of the site. An Organization-camp site is an area deve10ped for organized group use. Lodging, meals, and social, educational, and recreational Opportunities incidental to the enjoyment of forest recreation are usually pro- vided. All existing primitive areas established under former Regulation L-ZO will be managed in accordance with Regulation U-1 just as though they actually were estab- lished under Regulation U-l or U-2. Each primitive area, and any adjacent lands that have wilderness value, will be restudied as soon as possible to determine whether all Or part of it is predominantly valuable for wilderness. Those lands found to be predominantly valuable for wilderness and needed for that purpose will be considered for classification under Regulation U-1 or U-2. A recreation-residence site is a tract of land On which individuals are permitted to establish homes for vaca- tion use. Recreation zones are technically recreation areas and are strips of land of varying width bordering routes of travel, bodies of water, or recreation deve10pments established for the protection of recreation values. In these zones, recreation values will be safeguarded by the exclusion Or restriction of commercial development, uses, and occupancy. Formal designation Of these Roadless Area Roadside Zone Scenic Area Trail Zone Virgin Area 226 zones will be made in, ranger district and forest plans, and the restrictions and limitations will be clearly set forth. Lands which qualify in general as wilderness, except. that certain economic. values are codominant with recreation values, may be classified as roadless areas. Under Regulation U-3(a), roadless areas over 100, 000 acres are approved by the Secretary, and all other road- less areas are approved by the Chief. The management Objective will be to preserve as much of the wilderness value as possible and still permit use of. the timber and other industrial uses. Only temporary roads will be permitted in roadless areas. Resource uses will be managed to preserve all possible wilderness values. Strips Of land of appropriate width along roads, in which recreation values are protected (Off- highway turnouts for public convenience and safety may be constructed within designated roadside zones). Parking and other public conveniences will be kept simple and appropriate. Scenic areas may be established wherever lands posses— sing outstanding Or unique natural beauty warrant this classification. Virgin timber tracts, which are too small to be established as Virgin areas, may be given scenic area classification. Waterfalls, gorges, natural lakes, and ponds, or the habitat of interesting, rare, Or unusual plants or animals may be similarly protected. Scenic areas will be maintained as nearly as possible in an un- disturbed condition. This precludes any form Of commer- cial deve10pment and permits only such trail and road developments as are necessary to reach and enjoy the areas. Approach roads, trails, picnic grounds, and parking spaces will be so located as not to disturb the scenic feature or environment. Trail- zone policy is similar to roadside zone policy. Trail zones of appropriate width will be established along heavily used foot and horse trails on which public use justifies the protection of recreation values. Virgin areas have virtually no disturbance of the native vegetation and contain at least 5, 000 acres. They are established by the Chief. The principal purpose of virgin areas is for study and enjoyment Of the pristine environ- ment. They may be established either made or outside Waterfront Zone Wilderness and Wild Areas Winter -Sports Site 227 of wilderness and wild areas, access roads and sanita- tion improvements are permiSSible All other uses and improvements are to be excluded from virgin areas. A scenic area is a place of outstanding or unique beauty which requires special management to preserve these qualities. Because recreation. use tends to ('0n( entrate around bodies of water, and because the public's enjoyment of forest scenery seems to reach its highest degree when water is a part of the view, the Forest SerVice will establish waterfront zones to protect important scenic and recreation values from impairment. Waterfront zones will be established along lakes, ponds, reservoirs, streams, rivers, and other bodies of water when the existing or potential scenic or recreation values justify such action. Small ponds or small str eams will be pre- served if they possess scenic or recreation values. A wilderness area is a tr act Of. land established under Regulation U-l in which the primitive environment has been preserved. Uses and deve10pments are limited to those permitted under Regulation U-1. Wilderness and wild areas differ in size only. A national-forest wilder- ness area contains at least 100, 000 acres of land and a wild area contains 5, 000 to 100, 000 acres. The qualities of wilderness and wild areas are expansive solitude and unspoiled natural environment. A winter-Sports site is an area deve10ped for public enjoy- ment of skiing; but activities such as snowshoeing, tobog- ganing, and skating may—be included if justified by public demand. In its entirety, the site may be extensive. APPENDIX E NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS RECREATION INVENTORY FORMS: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE 228 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Barlowe, Raleigh. Land Resource Economics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1958. Butler, George D. Introduction to CommunityRecreation. New York: McGraw-Hill Book CO. , 1959. Butler, George D. Municipal and County Parks in the United States-- 1940. New York: National Recreation Association, 1942. Butler, George D. Theiew Play Areas: Their Design and Equipment. New York: K. S. Barnes and CO. , I938. Butler, George D. Play Areas: Their Design and Equipment. New York: A.S. Barnes and CO. , 1928. Butler, George D. (ed. ). Recreation and Park Yearbook--1961. New York: National Recreation Association, 1961. Butler, George D. Recreation Areas: Their Design and Equipment. New York: A.S. Barnes and Co., 1947. Butler, George D. Recreation Areas: Their Design and Equipment. New York: The Ronald Co., 1958. Brockman, C. Frank. RecreationalUse Of Wild Lands. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 19759. Clawson, Marion. Land for Americans. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. , 1963.; Clawson, Marion. Land for the Future. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins Pmss, 1962. * Clawson, Marion and Stewart, Charles L. Land Use Information--A Critical Survey of U. S. Statistics Including Poshibflities for Greater Uniformity. Baltimore, Marylandf Johns HOpkins Press, n.d. 231 232 Clawson, Marion. Man and Land in the United States. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1964. Clawson, Marion. Statistics on OutdoorrRecreatiOn... Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc. , 1958. Clawson, Marion. Uncle Sam's Acres. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co. , 1951. Dana, Samuel T. Forest and Range Policy: Its ‘Development in the United States. New York: IMcGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1956. Doell, Charles E. Elements of Park and Recreation Administration. Miimeapolis, Minnesota: Burgess Publishing Co., 1963. Evison, Herbert (ed. ). A State Park Anthology. Washington, D. C.: National Conference on State Parks,7930. Halsey, Elizabeth. Development Offublic Recreation in MetrOpOlitan Chicgo. Chicago: Chicago Recreation Commission, 1940. Ise, John. Our National Park Policy, A Critical History. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961. Meyer, Harold D. and Brightbill, Charles K. State Recreation. New York: A.S. Barnes and Co., 1950. Miller, Norman P. and Robinson, Duane M. The Leisure Age, Its Challenge to Recreation. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. , 1963. Municipal Recreation Administration. Chicago: The International City Managers' Association, f948. Nelson, Beatrice Ward. State Recreation Parks, Forests and Game Preserves.- Washington, D. C.: National Conference on State Parks, Inc., 1928. Park Practice Guideline. Washington, D. C. 2 National Conference on State Parks, 1957. Park Prmtice Guideline. Washington, D. C. : National Conference on State Parks, 1961. A Place to Live, The Yearbook of Agriculture-4963. Washington: U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1963. 233 Planning RecreatEm Facilities. New York: National Recreation. Associa- tion, 1959. Thomas, William L. , Jr. (ed. ). Man's Role in Changing the Face Of the Earth. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956. Warren, Philip, Jr. (ed.). County Parks and Recreation. Washington, D. C. : National Association of Counties, and National Recreation Association, 1964. Weir, L. H. Parks-—A Manual of Municipal and County Parks, Vol. I. New York: A. S. Barnes and Co. , 1928. Wing, Leonard W. The Practice of Wildlife Conservation. New York: John Wiley and Son, Inc. , 1951. m Anderson, Kenneth and Williams, Wayne. A User-Resource Recreation Planning Method. Hidden Valley, Loomis, California: National Advisory Council on Regional Recreation Planning, 1959. 1960 Annual Report--Director, Bureau of Land Management. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. Areas Administered bythe National Parks Service. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1965. California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan. Sacramento: California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan Committee, 2 vols. , 1960. The Canada Land Inventory, Area Resource Deve10pment Administration, Report NO. 1. Ottawa: Department of Forestry, Publication No. 1088. Community Recreation and The Public Domain. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, 1963. Comprehensive Park Ham-Evansville, Indiana. Bennington, Vermont: Allen Organization, 1964. A Comprehensive Plan for Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation. Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Conservation Department, 1966. 234 County Parks--A Report of a Study of County Parks in the United States. New York: Playground and Recreation Association of America, 1930. Criteria for Selection. of National Parklands and National Landmarks. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1966. Federal Agencies and Outdoor Recreation, Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report No. 13. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962. Federal Focal Point in Outdoor Recreation. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1964. Forest Recreation Handbook. Washington: U. S. Department of Agricul- ture, Forest Service--Region nine, 1934. Governor's Report on Outdoor Recreation in Washington. Inter-Agency Committee on Outdoor Recreation, 1963. Hills, G.A. , The Ecological Basis for Land-Use Planning, Research Report No. 46. Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, 1961. * An Initial Outdoor Recreation Pla_n for North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina: State Planning Task Force, 1966. An Interim Plan for Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Deve10pment in Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Outdoor Recreational Development Committee, 1965. Land Classification in the United States. Washington, D. C. : National Resources Planning Board, 1941. Land Use--A Procedural Manual for-JCollection, Storage, and Retrieval of Data. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, 1965. Long-Range Planning Report, 1963--Wisconsin Conservation Department. The Wisconsin Conservation Department, 1963. 1975 Metropolitan Tulsa Public Recreation Land Need. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Tulsa MetrOpOlitan Area Planning Commission, 1960. 235 Municipal and County Parks in the United States, 1935. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1937 . The National Park Wilderness. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1957. A National Plan for American Forestry, The Report of the Forest Service of the Agriculture Department on the Forest Problem of the United States. Washington: U S. Department of Agriculture, 1933. National Wildlife Refuges 1965. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1965. The New Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 11. d. New York Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 1, State Responsibility. New York: New York Conservation Department, 1966. Oklahoma Outdoor Recreation Plan. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Breisch Engineer- ing Co. ,1966. Oregon Outdoor Recreation. Salem, Oregon: Oregon State Highway Depart- ment, Parks and Recreation Division, 1962. Outdoor‘Recreation for Utah--an Initial Plan--1965-1975. Department of Fish and Game, Park and Recreation Commission, 1966. Outdoor Recreation in Illinois. Springfield, Illinois: Department of Con- servation, and Department of Business and Economic Development, 1965. Outdoor Recreation in Maine. Orono, Maine: Outdoor Recreation Study Team of the University of Maine, 1965. Outdoor Recreation in Missouri--Preliminary Plan--1965. Jefferson City, Missouri: Missouri Conservation Commission, 1965. Park, Parkway and Recreation Area Study. Boston: Massachusetts State Planning Board, 1941. Parks for America--A Survey of Park and Related Resources in the Fifty States, and a Pmliminary Plan. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1964. 236 1965-1975--A Pivotal Decade in Indiana. Indiana Department of Conserva- tion, 1964. A Plan for Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. San Jose, California: County of Santa Clara Planning Commission, 1962. Plan for Public Recreational Area-~St. Louis, Missouri. St. Louis: City Plan Commission, 1944. Proposed System of Recreational Facilities. Detroit, Michigan: Detroit City Plan Commission, 1946. Public Land Statistics--1964. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1964. Public Outdoor Recreation Areas: Acreage, Use, Potential, Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report No. 1. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. Public Outdoor Recreation Resources in“'Tennessee--Inventory and Plan for Development, 1962-'2, Pt. 2, Vol. II of a public recreation plan and program for Tennessee. Nashville: Tennessee State Planning Commission, 1962. The Race for Inner Space. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, 1964. Recreational Resources of the People of Minnesota, Report of the Governor's L Advisory CTmmittee on Recreation. St. Paul: 1950. Recreation in Nevada, Pt. 10 Carson City: Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1965. Recreation in South Dakota, A Prdiminary Report. Brookings, South Dakota: South Dakota State Planning Board, 1935. Recreation Plan for Toledo, Ohio. Toledo: The Toledo Council of Social Agencies, 1945. Recreation Flam-Knoxville and Knox County, Tennessee. Knoxville: Metropolitan Planning Commission, 1961. Recreatgm Survey of Saint Paul, Minnesota. St. Paul: St. Paul City Planning Board, 1934. 237 Recreational Use of Land in the United States, Part XI of the Report on * Land Planning. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1938. Regional Recreation Lands Plan. Detroit, Michigan: Detroit MetrOpOlitan Area Regional Planning Commission, 1960. Report on Iowa's Outdoor Resources. Des Moines: Governor's Committee on Conservation of Outdoor Resources, 1964. The Scenic Resources of the Tennessee Valley. Washington: Tennessee Valley Authority, 1938. State of Louisiana Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. State Parks and Recreation Commission, 1965. State Outdoor Recreation Statistics--1962. Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1963. State Parks-~Areas, Acreages, and Accommodations. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1955. State Parks of Michigan, A Report of the Past-~A Look to the Future. Lansing: Michigan Department of Conservation, 1957. State Parks Outdoor Recreation Plan. Olympia, Washington: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, 1965. Strong, Ann Louise. Open Space for Urban America. Washington, D. C. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Urban Renewal Administration, 1965. A Study of Parks, Parkways and Recreational Areas--State of Washington. Olympia: Washington State Planning Council, 1941. A Study of the Park and Recreation Pr0blems of the United States. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1941. Study Report of the Park, Parkways and Recreational Areas of Utah. Utah ‘ State Planning Board and National Park Service, 1939. Texas State Parks--A General Report of Functions, S__pace Reguirements, Financial Considerations and Policies for the Future. Lubbock, Texas: Department of Park Administration, Horticulture and Entomology, Texas Technological College, 1963. 238 Todd, Arthur J. Chicago Recreation Survey--Pub1ic Recreation, 1. Chicago: Chicago Recreation Commission and Northwestern University, 1937. Twardzik, Louis F. A Recommended Recreation Program for the State of Michigan: A Report to the Conservation Commission to Imple- ment the Governor's Recreation Policy, June 6, 1962. Udall, Stewart L. Annual Report 1963--The Secretary of the Interior. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 19640 Virginia's Common Wealth. Virginia Outdoor Recreation Study Commission, 1965. Ward, E. L. Land Use Programme. Toronto: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, 1961. Wilderness and Recreation-~A Report on Resources, Values, and Pr0blems: Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report No. 3. Prepared by Wildland Research Center, University of California. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. Wisconsin Ten- Year Pr0gram--Resource Development and Outdoor Recrea- tion. Wisconsin Department of Resource Development. 1937 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress. Washington: U. S. Depart- ment of the Interior, National Park Service, 1938. 1942 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Pr0gress. Washington: U. S. Depart- ment of the Interior, National Park Service, 1942. 1946 Yearbook--Park and Recreation Progress. Washington: U. S. Depart- ment of the Interior, National Park Service, 1946. Public Documents Public Law 88-89, 88th Congress, S. 20, May 28, 1963 Public Law 88-578, 88th Congress, H.R. 3846, September 3, 1964. 78 Stat. 897. "Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. " Public Law 88-607, 88th Congress, H.R. 5159, September 19, 1964, Stat. 986. 239 Unpublished Material Bowdy, William W. "The Review of an Approach Determining Land Suitability for Regional Recreation and Open Space. " Unpub- lished Master's thesis, Department of Urban Planning, Michigan State University, 1964. Brutt, Frank W. "The Land Inventory Data Bank and Electronic Data Pro- cessing in Planning. " Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Urban Planning, Michigan State University, 1964. Frye, Mary Virginia. "The Historical Development of Municipal Parks in the United States: Concepts and their Application. " Unpublished - Ph. D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1964. In Dissertation Abstracts, 1965. Letters Beck, John. Chief of Outdoor Planning, Georgia Department of Industry and Trade. November 1, 1966. Belden, C. Robert. Chief Planner, Missouri State Park Board. Septem- ber 6, 1966. Blasky, Donald. Assistant Superintendent of State Parks, Iowa State Conservation Commission. September 29, 1966. Brownell, Arthur W. Assistant to the Director , Division of Conservation Services, Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources. September 1, 1966. Burris, Lynn, Jr. Director, The Kansas State Park and Resources Authority. September 26, 1966. Cheney, William R. Project Director, Colorado Department of Game, Fish and Parks. September 1, 1966. Cooney, Robert F. Assistant Chief, Recreation and Parks Division, Montana Department of Fish and Game. September 15, 1966. Costley, Richard J. Director, Division of Recreation, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. October 3, 1966. 240 Dunwoody, Calvin B. Chief, Division of Planning and Development, Rhode Island Department of Natural Resources. September 16, 1966. Ellis, Thomas C. Superintendent of State Parks, North Carolina Depart— ment of Conservation and Development. October 28, 1966. Freeman, Raymond L. Chief, Division of New Area Studies and Master Planning, National Park Service. September 13, 1966. Gibson, Lamar. Director-‘- Liaison Officer; and Clyde Funderburk. 4 Executive Assistant, Louisiana Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. September 8, 1966. Gosdin, W. M. Director, Park Services, Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart- ment. September 12, 1966. Gurnee, Mark S. Chief, Operations Division, Civil Works, Office of the ~ Chief of Engineers, U. S. Department of the Army. September 2'7, 1966. Haley, Byron K. Supervisor, Consultation- Education Division, Washington Parks and Recreation Commission. September 20, 1966. Hancock, Mary Louise. Planning Director, Division of Economic Deve10p- ment, New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Deve10pment. October 4, 1966. Jones, Fred L. Director, California Department of Parks and Recreation. September 16, 1966. Killin, Val G. Acting Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior. September 28, 1966. Needy, John L. Recreation Planner, Recreation Section, Division of Reservoir Pr0perties, Tennessee Valley Authority. February 24, 1967. Nelson, Thomas J. Deputy Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Parks. September 29, 1966. Newman, Mrs. Virginia. Information Director, Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials. September 6, 1966. O'Doherty, John E. Assistant Chief of Recreation, Division of Forests and Parks, ‘Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources. Septem- ber 8, 1966. 241 Pitner, Will J. Chief, Branch of Land Operations, Bureau of'Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, November 1, 1966. Rebholz, Melvin J. Chief, Division of Parks and Recreation, Ohio Depart- ment of Natural Resources. September 1, 1966. Scherschligt, Oris J. Deputy State Forester, Charge of Parks and Recrea- tion, Division of Forestry and Parks, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. September 21, 1966. Souza, J. M. Jr. Director, Division of State Parks, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. October 26, 1966. Sullivan, John. Chief, Division of Nationwide Planning and Surveys, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U. S. Department of the Interior, September 14, 1966. Swank, Wendell G. Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department. September 19, 1966. True, Robert. Recreation Planner, Oregon State Highway Department. September 14, 1966. Tunison, A. V. Deputy Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, October 26, 1966. Vreeland, E.R. State Park Director, South Carolina State Commission of Forestry. September 13, 1966. Wilson, Ralph C. Recreation Specialist, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. November 2, 1966. Williams, Robert B. Commissioner, Vermont Department of Forests and Parks. October 5, 1966. Other Sources Butcher, Devereux. "Do Our Historic Areas Deserve the Dignity of a Separate Bureau," National Parks Magazine, Vol. 30, No. 127 (Oct. -Dec. , 1956). County Action for Outdoor Recreation. Washington, D. C. : National Association of Counties, and Citizens Committee for the ORRRC Report, 1964. 242 Guidelines for Determining Recreation Potentials in South Dakota. Brookings, South Dakota: South Dakota State College, C00perative Extension Service, n. d. Ogden, Daniel M. , Jr . "The Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan. " Remarks before the 19th Convention of the National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Portland, Oregon. "Report on State Park Classification. " Des Moines, Iowa: Iowa State Conservation Commission, 1963. (Mimeographed) Total Resource Development in Montana--No. 3 Fact Finding. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State College, Cooperative Extension Service. n. d. Twardzik, Louis F. "Guidelines for Inter-Governmental Recreation Relationships. " Mimeographed paper, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, n.d. Vacationing with Indians. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1965. Visit . . . See--Sc‘enic and Historical Illinois State Parks and Memorials. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Department of Conservation, n.d. Your National Parks--A Brief History, With Questions and Answers. Washington: U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1961. "'itittjfitt[itiujtttttttt