MANCHU-Gl-72-002 ropv,> ~Si" I!'

I Jim [

~ ~ ~h 4e5>. I I I

C3o

~ '

RECREATIQN

hop-. thcit clocuments s rch a This vv,l! helpsii.".,i!lc te puk>fic understandiV>g av>d participa-

. Ii,; r th. PIC!r',r>ir>a-deCiSiOI. PIOCeSS.

ssue o, shc r elands rncriscic emeiit is ofsir--,.:al signifcance to ieside its o rkrichigavI. 'rA'e!'.av;: over .>,00«'I v>1iles of cc>asiliv e on tl-e Great«clfces,, love thar-r any state i;1 fire nlairlland Lf.S.i ' ' l>v!sii'1g use of tl'Irs coc!ster res !Gree

,;'.i ii e , 'n V1 >VC!TIVe arnd imag inati Ve mC nagerI rent'lie ies IQ en su! e its cont!i'Ei>ed Use I v1 i he futur«;

Armstrc ngDlr'eci O'

l.i I'r !Ver'l,l

.>err «ri c!

of Vrichlgal'1i1t Proc:ram

, hajj/ 'i'-«IAI;rfl~jI,":lI',;:,' l,

Inrs series of Iepovts =leal;ng «vith shorelandsv ai! Igement is pari. of the f fniversitv oT' Vichi-

Sr='a G. an": Pvogi al vr s covltlnuing reftclv!p ';. ron< itiiig n1oii= logical ail 9 ef;ective Use of oUV

:, > I! ra, I ec�,, roe s

QIQQUgggi1s30 QQpg

ACKNOWLEDG~Eg TS

The Sea Grant Program wishes to thank nu-merous local citizens of Grand Traverse Bayand public oRicials who have contributed sogenerously of their time and knowledge. Par-ticular gratitude is expressed to the members ofthe Grand Traverse Bay Shorelands Coordinat-ing Committee and the Michigan Water Re-sources Commission. Sea Grant also thanks

various members of the School of Natural Re-

sources for their help,

I

iNTRODUCTION

In large metropolitan areas such as Detroit, andeven in suburban areas, opportunities for water-oriented public recreation are limited or non-existent, Those facilities which are available

require careful planning and constant upkeep.There are usually too many people and too littlespace.

Traverse Bay citizens have benefited from thissituation. Much time, money, and effort are spentin telling the world of the abundance of scenicamenities and recreational opportunities withinthe bay area. Highways designed to increasethe incoming Row of urban visitors are pro-posed. Motels and private camping groundsRourish, along with state and federal parks.

New forms of recreational activity andequipment have made recreation a year-roundlocal industry, and there appears to be a goodpotentia I for continued growth.

But as the area becomes increasingly popular,local citizens may gain a false sense of havinggenerated this growth, and feel that somehowthey are in control of it. We suggest that it mightbe more meaningful in this context to say thatGrand Traverse Bay has been subjected to in-creasing recreational pressure, and that localefforts to stimulate demand can only partiallyaccount for this pressure.

This paper suggests that there is a need to re-examine the benefits of shorelands-based rec-

reation as a major bay-area industry. We feelthat increasingly, some forms of recreation canbecome a local financial burden, diminish thequality of the shorelands and water of the area,and result in increasing regional, state, andfederal control.

PART ONE

SOURCES OF RECREATiONAL PRESSURE

Many reports have documented the increasingpopularity of all forms of recreation, and par-ticularly those forms which are water oriented.Yet few, if any, have spent much time in at-tempting to explain why this growth is occur-ring. A fairly typical explanation is that increased

4 leisure time, greater per capita income andmore personal mobility are the chief reasonsfor this continued growth,

Such factors are certainly involved, but theytait to explain why water-based recreation isso popular, as compared to other forms, andimplies that there is nothing that can be doneabout this increased popularity. Indeed, one ofthe basic assumptions of most recent reports isthat since there is a growing demand for rec-reational facilities, government must continu-ously meet this demand.

We take exception to such assumptions, andfeel that they should be critically reexaminedat both the state and local levels. First, to meetthe growing demand is but one of several man-agement strategies which the state could adopt.Regulating the demand so that it fits the toler-ance levels of our resources is often a preferablealternative. Since the coastal resources of the

state are limited, increased use eventually leadsto deterioration and destruction. Thus to blindlymeet increased demand is in the long run irra-tional. Secondly, increased leisure, income, andmobility may help to explain the increased pop-ularity of recreation, but these elements are notthemselves sufficient, Equally important are theactivities of several private and public groupswhich develop and promote various recreationalopportunities. We contend that state agenciesare malar generators of recreational demandand that this demand should be carefully ex-amined before committing unique and fragilepublic resources and public money to meet it.

Tourist Council

The Tourist Council, located within the state De-partment of Natural Resources, but with its ownpolicy powers, has been a malor element instimulating the growing recreational demand.While this speaks well of council personnel,it would seem that as our facilities become

more crowded and costly to maintain, that per-haps the council's policy of aggressive promo-tion should be reexamined and coordinated

with other public and private recreational andconservation interests.

Private Recreational Facilities

There has been a rapid growth of private camp-ing grounds in recent years. Professor Tocher ofSea Grant is currently studying this trend ingreater detail, The long-range importance ofthis is not clear, but certain problems can beexpected. As with tourist facilities, owners ofthese private campgrounds represented a stronginterest group which might be opposed to anyattempts at limiting recreational demand.

Highway ProgramsHighway systems facilitate increased mobilityof downstate and out-of-state visitors. They notonly accommodate the growing demand forrecreation but also help to stimulate and sus-tain this growth. As trafFic increases to the pointof being a problem, the usual solution is toprovide even more highway systems. Thus, over-crowding is often dealt with by facilitating evenmore people. We suggest that highway con-

6 struction programs should be coordinated withrecreational policy so as to direct traffic whereit will have minimum environmental impact andgreatest benefit. At present highway plannerssubstantially inAuence recreational policy forthe state by creating specific access points.

Tourist Facilities

Motels, hotels, marinas, amusement centers, andgift shops are some of the commercial activitieswhich provide necessary supporting facilitiesfor a recreational industry, But as with high-

ways, these "supporting" activities are also acontributing source to the growing recreationaldemand. They can benefit local growth andhigh-quality recreation, But they "use" local re-sources and often lend support to attempts atincreasing visitor flow. Since they are primarilyoriented towards short-term economic gain, theyoften fail to realize the importance of a high-quality environment, and can be principal op-ponents of regulatory attempts.

Equipment ManufacturersSuppliers of recreational equipment depend up-on rural, semiwilderness areas such as TraverseBay. There is little use for snowrnobiles, cross-country skis, outboard motors, or camping vansin urban or suburban areas. These people whodirectly and indirectly generate considerablepressure upon the social, economic, and naturalenvironment of rural areas are often beyondthe control of local citizens.

State Fisheries

The state program creating and maintaining amalor recreational fishery in the Great Lakes,and particularly in Traverse Bay, can have con-siderable benefits to bay residents. But as thestate continues to promote this fishery and tofurther develop it with the introduction of new

species, local citizens will be f'aced with theproblems of public access and the provision ofpublic shoreland facilities. The fisheries pro-gram should perhaps be more receptive to localand regional needs, and definitely should becoordinated with the other recreational interest

groups.

State and Federal Parks

Public Waterways CommissionThrough its program of developing marinas andharbors, the Commission is another major ele-ment in the increasing growth of recreationaldemand in the state. hhany times the activitiesand planning of the Commission may havelong-term impacts on local communities and onother state programs. The consequences of acontinuing marine development program shouldtherefore be more completely integrated intoother state and local programs,

The Traverse Bay area already contains a num-ber of public Parks, such as the Sleeping BearDunes National Lakeshore, and will probablybe designated for even more in the future. Theseparks can be seen as a major benefit to the localtourist industry. Yet these parks which can gen-erate demands for expensive public services areoften located and operated with little or no localinput, giving only minor consideration for localproblems which such parks tend to generate.

Vacation Home industry

As more land developers and construction in-terests move into the bay area, they too willrepresent a major source of recreational pres-sure and potentially rising local costs. Newconcepts such as duplex recreational units andconduminium camping van units will greatlyincrease the density of many shoreland areas.

Past experience indicates that this interestgroup is strong both economically and political-ly, and that through advertising campaigns canbe a major source of increased recreationalpressure.

SummaryWe at no point wish to imply that recreation isnecessarily bad, or that those who are involvedin the recreational industry are against the pub-lic interest. But we do wish to emphasize thatthe "growing demand for recreation" is in largepart due to the deliberate actions of identifiableinterest groups, which would imply that thisdemand is controllable. These groups are notcoordinated, and often have conflicting values.As a rule, private citizens and local units ofgovernment are partially excluded from deci-sions which vitally affect the future of their corn-munities.

Each of these groups has its own definition of

"the public interest" and each group sees thewater and shorelands of Traverse Bay as beingavailable to meet its interests, The one groupmost likely to lose in this conAict situation is thelocal citizens, With little or no control they willbe forced to watch as increasing numbers ofpeople and new varieties of recreational activityeventually reduce the quality of the bay.

PART TWO

PUBLIC ACCESS

It is clear that the growing demand for outdoorrecreation is real, and of serious dimensions. Itshould also be clear that the very groups thatattempt to accommodate this demand also helpto generate it. We feel that recreation, if care-fully regulated, is perhaps the single best useof Michigan's coastal zone. But it is easily dem-onstrated that some serious conAicts in shore-lands use within the bay area already exist. Thetolerance levels of shorelands are limited, andcannot meet the interests of all groups for alltime,

Whatever the reason, increasing numbers ofpeople are traveling to rural shoreland areassuch as Traverse Bay. When these people arriveat their destination, they may find that there arefew public facilities and that access pointsare unmarked or limited. If they own property,or if they are willing to pay for various com-mercial facilities, they can enjoy access to theshorelands and the bay. As a result, commercialestablishments such as marinas, shoreland mo-tels and private camping grounds flourish, whileshorelands property sells at a premium. Whilethis is usually of economic benefit to local shore-

land communities, there is an increasing lagbetween supply and demand for access toshoreland areas. As more private houses areconstructed on the shore, and as more cornmer-cial establishments are built, there is not onlyless open space and wilderness atmosphere;there is also less public access.

This issue is aggravated by the fact that the typeof person visiting areas such as Traverse Bayappears to be changing. Most of the past visitorswere willing and able to pay for private shore-land property or for commercial accomrnoda-tions. But many new visitors spend most of theirrecreational money on the purchase of specialequipment, such as camping vans, boats orsnowmobiles long before they enter the recrea-tional area. Once they arrive at their destination,they are increasingly interested in free accessand minimal expenditures. This has two majorimplications for the citizens of Traverse Bay.

1. It is no longer automatically true that in-creased numbers of recreational visitors willmean increased income for local citizens.Per capita expenditures may stabilize ordrop, while local public service costs couldincrease rapidly.

2. Local citizens should expect that demandsfor free public access to the shorelands andwater of the bay will increase. These de-mands, increasing throughout the country, 11are likely to draw strong regional, state, andfederal attention. If local citizens do not at-tempt to deal with this issue, and to somedegree meet these demands, they may losecontrol over the shorelands.

Future Government Action

Several states have already initiated legisla-tion which provides for considerable access toall shorelands adjoining public waters. Often

such legislation is connected with the creationof a public commission charged with develop-ing more access sites,

On the federal level, there has been continuousinterest in establishing some national policy onshoreland access. There is a public access pro-posal currently before Congress, and it willprobably retain many of the proposed elementsof the National Open Beaches Bill, which was

72 introduced in 1969. In this earlier proposal ma-jor provisions were:

~ It would be illegal for any party to obstructthe public's passage to beaches or otherwiseinterfere with the public's use of them.

~ Authorization would be given for condern-nation necessary to provide sufficient publicaccess where shorelands were in private own-ership.

~ It is probable that any federal program

would include a new highway constructionproject within the Department of Transporta-tion to "improve access."

If the interest in outdoor recreation continues togrow, there will be a need for an increase inthe public shorelands access. But unless held toa limited increase, as part of a total shorelandsmanagement strategy, such a program could domuch damage to one of our most fragile, uniqueresources and place unnecessary social and eco-nornic burdens upon local communities and pri-vate property owners.

An Example

To demonstrate lust how important this issuecan be for local communities, it is perhaps in-structive to consider a conRict which involves

two townships in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, anda group of camping van owners known as theMassachusetts Beach Buggy Association MBBA!.

The conflict centers on the use of Nausett Beach,which is under the Ioint control of two town-ships. The beach, a fine example of a AtlanticCoast Barrier Beach, is part of the Cape CodNational Seashore, but remains in township con-trol until such time as they wish to turn it overto the Seashore Authority. The beach is narrow,subjected to constant erosion, hurricanes, and

severe winter storms, It is held in place by a thincovering of grass. It provides nesting groundsfor birds, acts as a storm barrier for the main-land, and also supports a popular set of summerbeach activities such as fishing, surfing, swim-ming, and walking,

For several years all forms of camping havebeen prohibited on this beach through townshipzoning ordinances. Some vehicles were allowedon the beach for fishing. When camping vansbecame popular, limited numbers were allowedto travel and park on the beach, but only forpurposes of fishing. Soon van owners came tosee the beach as a very nice, uncrowded camp-ing ground, even though they still representedthemselves as fishermen, and the number ofvans increased.

As the popularity of the beach increased, thetownships tightened up their regulation of thecampers, which meant that they came closer to

enforcing existing ordinances, Under new regu-lations vans could stay only a limited amountof time and then had to leave the beach, Afterconsiderable protest from van owners, the reg-ulations were changed, and at the present timevans can return to the beach after leaving fora short period, so as to allow others onto thebeach.

As this dialogue was going on, it became in-creasingly obvious that the vans, as well asother vehicles, were having considerable ad-verse impact upon the beach. Some of the ef-fects were increased erosion, destruction of vitalbeach grass and nesting areas, interferencewith other types of recreation, and aestheticdisruption. lt seems probable that the only solu-

tion will be to restrict all vehicles, including vansand local fishermen, if the beach is to be re-tained in its natural state.

But the van owners, feeling that they werebeing unfairly discriminated against, in favorof noncamping local groups, organized a po-litical lobby and introduced into the state legis-lature a proposal to place the beach under statecontrol. To show that they were only interestedin equitable allocation of resources, and notseeking any special privileges, the bill proposesthat the beach be converted into a malor camp-ing ground for all forms of camping. This bill isstill pending.

The proposal is to us absurd. One of the finestsand beaches in the world would be destroyed.All traditional forms of beach recreation wouldbe disrupted. To support the activities and densi-ties proposed by MBBA, the state would event-ually have to pave sections of the beach, and

perhaps bring in sanitary facilities, There areseveral camping grounds in the area and manymore could be constructed. There are few

beaches of this quality, and they are impossibleto replace, The townships, concerned over thefuture quality of the beach, are now discussingwith the Seashore Authority the possibility ofplacing the beach in federal, semiprotected sta-tus rather than turning it into a camping sitefor high-impact, mechanized, camping vans.

Concepts

~ When dealing with the problems of publicaccess to shoreland areas, it will become in-creasingly important to distinguish betweentypes of recreational activity and types ofaccess, As a rule of thumb, the more mech-anized forms of recreation require more landper person and exclude more alternativetypes of activity. The greatest number of

people and greatest number of activities canbe accommodated within the shorelands ifaccess to the shorelands is restricted to peo-ple, excluding all vehicles. If it is desirableto include one or more forms of mechanizedactivity, then some degree of trade-oR mustoccur. One solution may be to designate spe-cific shoreland areas for specific types of rec-reation, considering not only the cornpatibi-ity of activities with natural resource systemsbut also the compatibility of various recrea-tional activities with each other.

~ When planning for public access, care mustbe taken to allow for new forms of activitywhich may have special requirements, or lo-cal provisions may soon prove inaclequate.

~ As recreation becomes more popular, freepublic access to all public waters will be in-sisted upon. If local communities do not pro-vide for such access as part of a well-thought-

out plan for the shorelands, state or regionalgroups may impose access requirementswhich are unnecessarily disruptive,

~ State agencies and local communities mustattempt to develop criteria for access loca-tion, design, and capacity. With increasingnational interest in "multiple use" of the shore-lands, there is a real danger of multipleabuse, at loca I expense.

~ While the public has the right of access tothe public waters of the Great Lakes, includ-ing Traverse Bay, it is unreasonable thatpublic benefits should be obtained at privateor local expense. The state should work incooperation with local communities to ensurea more equitable distribution of costs.

~ People have been led to assume that manyforms of recreation should be "free," or near-ly so, as in the case of public parks, marinas,and campgrounds. It is time to question this

18

as a general policy. Perhaps self-sustainingprivate enterprise could do this job moreequi to b I y,

~ Recreation is a major source of income forlocal citizens, and recreation often blocks ac-tivities which might be more disruptive to thelocal economy and environment. But clearlyit can no longer be taken for granted thatrecreation is in all cases a "good thing" forTraverse Bay.

RECOMMENDATIONS

STATE

Recreation is one area in which an overview

type of state-level planning and managementwill be absolutely necessary, if for no otherreason than that state activities are currently amajor cause of local recreational problems, Con-sidering all of the interest groups involved inGreat Lakes recreation, it does not seem likelythat loca! or even bay-wide attempts at plan-ning and study can coordinate the use of theshorelands or waters without state and perhapseven federal assistance. Below are a few pointswhich we feel the state might consider,

~ We feel that there is a need to reexaminestate recreational policies and to consider possi-ble reformulations of comprehensive recreation-al policy ies! particularly for shorelands. WhileAhichigan's recreational programs rank amongthe best in the nation, it is felt that plans for thefuture may not adequately or simultaneouslyrecognize local, regional, and state needs, andmay need more integration and recognition ofsome of the factors just discussed.

~ Since the state is initiating shorelands andland-use planning, we suggest that these studiesemphasize recreational policy, attempting toidentify both problems and opportunities whichare currently not being effectively dealt with.

~ We feel that there should be a strong state-wide recreational policy, formulated with max-imum participation fram local units of govern-ment, who are the most directly affected inmany cases.

20

The state recreational policy might includesome of the following provisions:

1. The establishment and enforcement of per-formance and design standards for all rec-reational equipment which uses public re-sources. This could be tied in with a researchprogram in which any new equipment oractivity affecting public resources might begiven a provisional permit, As the equip-ment or activity continues, research andtesting would identify any modificationswhich might be needed to protect the publicresources from unreasonable damage, orwhich might protect other desirable publicactivities which use the same resource area.

2. There might be a survey of who is usingpublic and private recreational resourceswithin the state. This could be combined witha consideration of establishing reservationsystems, out-of-state user fees, or othermethods of curbing the rapidly spiraling de-mand for limited resources while providingrecreational opportunities for the people ofMichigan.

3. There should be a full review of all stateactivities which affect public and/or privaterecreation. The object of this study would beto identify where there are conAicts betweenagencies, where there is unnecessary dupli-cation or conFusion, and where activities arecausing undesirable resource pressure. Thereshould be a clear chain of jurisdictionalboundaries and more effort should be spenton cooperative systems planning rather thanincremental conRicting actions by manygroups.

4. More thought should be given to strengthen-ing the powers of local units of government,and in developing an institutional situationin which public and private, local and state,federal and regional groups can meet anddeal with conflicting interests concerningcoastal recreation.

5. Perhaps most important of all, and certainlymost diRicult in terms of politics, the stateshould establish at least some general guide-lines as to how much and what types of rec-reational pressure will be accommodated ineach resource area, and to what extent suchaccommodation will be met with public prop-erty a nd public funds.

eaV

Our recommendations for the bay area aresimilar to those for the state. There should be

a total review of recreation in the bay area, andperhaps a series of conferences with the variousstate, federal, regional, and local units to estab-lish some cooperative guidelines for future rec-reational policy in the bay area. The bay shouldbe mapped as to tolerance areas for variousforms of recreation. Bay citizens should workthrough their elected representatives to securea stronger role in decisions dealing with bay-area recreation, In general, local citizens shouldsee recreation as being connected with numer-ous other bay problems, such as the type anddegree of economic growth wanted, the densityof shoreland development, how to retain localcontrol in an age of increasing centralization,and how to f'inance necessary public services.

I

I

23CONCLUSION

Recreation is a major social and economic factorin the Traverse Bay region. As an alternativeto other types of activity such as heavy industry,recreation can have less adverse impact andgenerate more income. Yef recreation in itsmodern mechanized form can also lead to risinglocal costs and a not-so-gradual decline in thequality of the area, If such a decline occurs,tourists and business can perhaps find otherrecreational areas, but local citizens will be leftwith an irreparable loss.

The people who will benefit most from a high-quality bay are local citizens, !t is critically im-portant that bay citizens realize that if they donot become eRective in protecting the qualityof the bay, either they will lose much localcontrol as higher levels of government interveneor else the bay will be destroyed, The demandto use the water and shorelands of the bay willincrease. Since these are public waters, the statewill be forced to ensure more public access andfacilities. In the face of such demand it will take

careful coordination and cooperative study toprotect the quality of the bay,

Sea Grant is willing to help local citizens in de-veloping information and policies to deal withthese problems. Various state and federal agen-cies, if asked, can provide a great deal of help.But such help will be of use only if local citizensexpress an interest in planning for the future ofthe bay.

BROCHURE DESIGN: Margarette Beckwith

PHOTOGRAPHS:

PRINTING:

Blanchard Mills,Water Resources Commission

Michigan Tourist Council

Peter Ryner

The University of Michigan Printing Department

f p',t

f;r;

1%PP':i

,'X

Wr ha- .'

P

~ �'