COLUMBIA LIBRARIES OFFSITE 
 
 AVERY FINE ARTS RESTRICTED 
 
 AR01410270 
 
 decisions paper 
 
 april 1978 
 
 GATEWAY 
 
 NATIONAL RECREATION AREA / NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY 
 
Ex ICtbrtB 
 
 SEYMOUR DURST 
 
 When you leave, please leave this book 
 
 Because it has been said 
 "Ever'thing comes t' him who waits 
 
 Except a loaned book." 
 
 OLD YORK LIBRARY — OLD YORK FOUNDATION 
 
 Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library 
 Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library 
 
DECISIONS PAPER 
 
 GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 
 
AA 
 
 tffc3733 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2014 
 
 https://archive.org/details/gatewaynationalrOOunit 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 INTRODUCTION / 1 
 
 PARKWIDE DECISIONS / 3 
 
 Visitor-Use Levels and Transportation / 4 
 Discussion / 4 
 Decisions / 10 
 Ferry Service / 11 
 Discussion / 11 
 Decision / 12 
 
 Public Involvement in Gateway Planning and Management / 12 
 
 Discussion / 12 
 
 Decisions / 13 
 The Outreach Program / 13 
 
 Discussion / 13 
 
 Decision / 14 
 Economic Development and Employment at Gateway / 14 
 
 Discussion / 14 
 
 Decisions / 15 
 The Gateway Village Concept / 15 
 
 Discussion / 15 
 
 Decisions / 16 
 Recreational Planning for Gateway / 16 
 
 Discussion / 16 
 
 Decisions / 17 
 Overnight Uses at Gateway / 17 
 
 Discussion / 17 
 
 Decisions / 18 
 Beaches: Tern-Nesting Sites, Boat Launching, 
 Surf-Fishing / 18 
 
 Discussion / 18 
 
 Decisions / 19 
 Buffer Zones / 19 
 
 Discussion / 19 
 
 Decisions / 19 
 
 SANDY HOOK DECISIONS / 21 
 
 Land Use at Sandy Hook / 21 
 
 Discussion / 21 
 
 Decisions / 21 
 Other Decisions / 22 
 
 Sandy Hook and the Battleship New Jersey / 22 
 
 Holly Forest Designation / 22 
 
 iii 
 
STATEN ISLAND DECISIONS / 25 
 
 Entrance and Buffer at Miller Field / 25 
 
 Discussion / 25 
 
 Decision / 25 
 Land Use at Great Kills Park / 25 
 
 Discussion / 25 
 
 Decisions / 26 
 Other Decisions / 26 
 
 Extension of Father Capodanno Boulevard Through 
 Miller Field / 26 
 
 Land Uses and Programs at Fort Wadsworth / 26 
 
 BREEZY POINT DECISIONS / 29 
 
 Number of Visitors Arriving at the Breezy Point Unit / 29 
 
 Discussion / 29 
 
 Decisions / 30 
 Land Uses at Breezy Point / 32 
 
 Discussion / 32 
 
 Decisions / 32 
 
 JAMAICA BAY DECISIONS / 39 
 
 Uses at Floyd Bennett Field / 39 
 Discussion / 39 
 Decisions / 39 
 Spring Creek Park / 40 
 Discussion / 40 
 Decisions / 44 
 
 OTHER DECISIONS / 45 
 
 Interpretive Services and Environmental Education 
 
 at Gateway / 45 
 Reuse of Existing Structures/Building of 
 
 New Structures / 45 
 Adding Lands to Gateway / 45 
 Off-Road Vehicles/Dune Buggies / 45 
 Ethnic and Kosher Foods and Services at Gateway / 46 
 
 APPENDIX A: Management Zoning / 47 
 
 APPENDIX B: Paid Parked Cars at Jacob Riis Parking 
 
 Lot on 1976 Summer Sundays / 63 
 APPENDIX C: Daily and Annual Visitor Use at Gateway Units / 
 
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY: GATEWAY 
 PLANNING DOCUMENTS / 73 
 
 iv 
 
ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 The Region / 5 
 
 Parkwide Daily/Annual Visitor Use / 7 
 
 Sandy Hook: North Beach Development Concept / 23 
 
 Sandy Hook: South Beach Development Concept / 24 
 
 Staten Island: Miller Field Development Concept / 27 
 
 Staten Island: Great Kills Park Development Concept / 28 
 
 Peak-Day Traffic on Marine Parkway Bridge — 
 FY 1976 and Projected for Stage I / 31 " 
 
 Breezy Point: The Tip Development Concept / 33 
 
 Breezy Point: Fort Tilden Development Concept / 35 
 
 Breezy Point: West Beach Development Concept / 36 
 
 Floyd Bennett Field Management Zones / 41 
 
 Spring Creek Park Development Concept / 43 
 
 Sandy Hook Management Zones / 53 
 
 Staten Island Management Zones / 55 
 
 Breezy Point Management Zones / 57 
 
 North Shore Management Zones / 59 
 
 Wildlife Refuge Management Zones / 61 
 
 Sandy Hook Daily/Annual Visitor Use / 67 
 
 Staten Island Daily/Annual Visitor Use / 69 
 
 Breezy Point Daily/Annual Visitor Use / 71 
 
 Jamaica Bay Daily/Annual Visitor Use / 72 
 
 v 
 
TABLES 
 
 Annual Visitor Use--FY 1976 and Projected for Stage I / 8 
 Sandy Hook Daily Visitor Use / 66 
 Staten Island Daily Visitor Use / 68 
 Breezy Point Daily Visitor Use / 70 
 
 vi 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Since the Discussion Draft General Management Plan for Gateway 
 National Recreation Area was released in September 1976, there 
 have been a number of important changes in the plan as a result of 
 public involvement in the planning and review process. Numerous 
 written comments about the Discussion Draft were received by the 
 National Park Service, and over 75 formal and informal public 
 meetings in New York and New Jersey were held with civic and 
 professional groups, governmental agencies, community planning 
 institutions, and interested citizens. The responses were summa- 
 rized by the National Park Service in a paper titled Here's What We 
 Heard , published in March 1977. 
 
 Although the basic concepts of the Discussion Draft seem to have 
 met with wide acceptance, some aspects were controversial, and 
 Park Service managers and planners carefully analyzed objections 
 and alternative suggestions that were made by the public. The 
 subsequent changes are outlined in this Decisions Paper . Decisions 
 are organized according to whether they relate to the park in 
 general or to specific management units, and for the more important 
 decisions, both the public's viewpoints and the National Park 
 Service's viewpoints are presented. 
 
 It is, of course, not feasible for this Decisions Paper to cover all of 
 the topics and to recapitulate all of the input and decisions made 
 during earlier planning stages, and it would be too costly to repub- 
 lish and redistribute previously published planning documents. 
 These documents are still available in the region's library systems 
 for people interested in a full overview of the planning process, or 
 they can be made available for study at Gateway headquarters. 
 
 A draft Environmental Statement , an analysis required by the 
 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that details the actions of 
 the present plan for Gateway and assesses the environmental 
 impacts of those actions, has also been prepared. The Decisions 
 Paper outlines the present proposals for Gateway, while the 
 Environmental Statement evaluates those proposals in depth. Single 
 copies of the Environmental Statement will be available upon request 
 for agencies, organizations, and groups needing them, and they will 
 also be available in public libraries. 
 
 While the management plan for Gateway was being revised, more 
 detailed plans were being done for several parts of Gateway—most 
 of Breezy Point, Spring Creek Park, Miller Field, Great Kills Park, 
 and all of Sandy Hook (except for the Gateway Village at Fort 
 Hancock). Called development concept plans, these plans move 
 Gateway's planning one step beyond the general management plan, 
 making it possible to begin final design and construction. 
 
 1 
 
Planning for the Gateway Villages is generally at the same level as 
 presented in the Discussion Draft . However, the concept has been 
 refined and stated in more detail to reflect comments and concerns 
 about the initial proposals in the Discussion Draft . Additional 
 planning for these areas will be done through contracts for develop- 
 ment concept plans, probably beginning in late 1978 or early 1979. 
 
 To facilitate a wider measure of public participation in under- 
 standing and reviewing the present proposals for Gateway, the 
 National Park Service has set up a "Gateway Hotline." To obtain 
 answers to questions about Gateway or to offer an informal comment 
 or suggestion, interested persons are invited to call one of the 
 following numbers: 
 
 From area code 212, call 343-9720 
 
 From outside area code 212, but within New York State, call 
 800-522-8701 (toll free) 
 
 From outside New York State, call 800-221-8100 (toll free) 
 
 This service will be available from April 15 to May 15, 1978, Monday 
 through Friday, 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. A person familiar with the plan 
 will answer questions or arrange to get the information needed to 
 answer the questions. Notes will be made of comments (conversa- 
 tions will not be recorded), which will then be reviewed by National 
 Park Service officials and planners. All comments will be welcome. 
 Of course, those who feel something important has been overlooked, 
 or those who want to make substantive comments, are encouraged to 
 write to the superintendent, Gateway National Recreation Area, 
 Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York, 11234. 
 
 2 
 
PARKWIDE DECISIONS 
 
 Congress created Gateway as a national recreation area "to preserve 
 and protect for the use and enjoyment of present and future 
 generations an area possessing outstanding natural and recreational 
 features" (Public Law 92-592). Section 3(a) of the establishment 
 act specifies that "in the administration of the recreation area, the 
 Secretary (of the Interior) may utilize such statutory authority 
 available to him for the conservation and management of wildlife and 
 natural resources as he deems appropriate to carry out the 
 purposes of the Act." 
 
 In recognizing both the natural and recreational attributes of 
 Gateway, Congress allowed for a combination of conservation prac- 
 tices and recreational opportunities, and Gateway is large enough to 
 provide for both. The present plan attempts to balance recreational 
 opportunities with the long-term protection of significant natural, 
 historic, and scenic features. This has been an underlying concern 
 since planning for Gateway began, and the first action was a 
 detailed environmental inventory of natural and historic resources, 
 around which recreational developments or opportunities could be 
 proposed. All ecologically significant areas will be protected, 
 including all wildlife habitats, and every effort will be made to 
 protect and work out viable, long-term uses for historic structures 
 of merit. 
 
 Although Gateway's development budget as presented in the 
 Discussion Draft appears to be relatively large, only about 20 
 percent will be involved in constructing new buildings, most of 
 them beach centers, which will be designed to be low-impact, low- 
 profile structures that are compatible with the immediate natural 
 environment. About 60 percent of Gateway's long-term budget is 
 earmarked for land restoration and reclamation to return heavily 
 altered lands to a more natural state and to nourish and restore 
 natural processes. The remaining 20 percent of the budget will be 
 for rehabilitation or alternative use of existing buildings and struc- 
 tures so that they may fully contribute to recreational, educational, 
 and cultural opportunities at Gateway. 
 
 There are many acres in Gateway that are already heavily impacted 
 and where future recreational uses will have no adverse effects. 
 By limiting developments to these areas, by using both physical and 
 visual buffers, by limiting certain zones to supervised uses under 
 permit, and by closing other zones to all public uses, it will be 
 possible to accommodate potentially competing uses. 
 
 The following decisions all reflect the basic attempt to conserve 
 natural elements at Gateway and to provide for recreational oppor- 
 
 3 
 
tunities that will help meet the region's needs without amplifying 
 transportation problems. As a matter of principle, however, the 
 National Park Service has made a conscious effort to protect the 
 park's natural and historic assets in recognition of the long time it 
 would take to undo the damage that might otherwise result. 
 
 VISITOR-USE LEVELS AND TRANSPORTATION 
 Discussion 
 
 Currently, there are some 8 million annual visitors to Gateway. 
 When the national recreation area was proposed in 1969, it was 
 expected that annual visitation would approach 50 million. That 
 figure was based on the critical assumption that rapid transit 
 (subway) access would be extended to the Breezy Point Unit. The 
 Discussion Draft General Management Plan projected 16.9 million 
 visitors in stage one and 20 million after stage two. While these 
 figures were substantially below the initial figure quoted in 1969, 
 they were still sizable when compared to other National Park System 
 areas: three times the annual number of visitors to Cape Cod, five 
 times the number of visitors to such parks as Acadia and Yosemite, 
 and fifteen to twenty times the number of visitors to Fire Island, 
 which is relatively inaccessible to the majority of New York/New 
 Jersey residents, even though it is on nearby Long Island. 
 
 Considerable public comment on the Discussion Draft focused on 
 increasing beach use on heavy visitor-use days, which occur only a 
 few times each season. By definition there is only one peak day 
 per year, with two or three other days when use is about 75 
 percent of the peak-day use. The average summer weekend day is 
 about half as crowded as the peak day (see Appendix B), and the 
 average summer weekday is only 25 percent as crowded. During 
 spring and fall, visitor use represents 21 percent of the total, and 
 winter accounts for 2 percent (see the Annual Visitor Use table). 
 There was only moderate support for greater use on heavy-use 
 days at Gateway, even though many people recognized the general 
 shortage of accessible public beaches in the New York/New Jersey 
 metropolitan region. 
 
 As shown in the Parkwide Daily and Annual Visitor Use chart, the 
 three or so heavy-use days contribute little to the annual total 
 number of park visits. For example, the three heaviest-use days 
 at Breezy Point contribute just 3 percent of the total number of 
 Gateway visits. 
 
 Increasing visits on heavy-use days would require a corresponding 
 increase in the capability of the transportation network serving 
 Gateway. The National Park Service would not be able to control 
 
 4 
 
cr ^ to 
 
 LU ID > 
 
 > W < 
 
 < g Q 
 
 (O to *r ct 
 
 saonsiA dosNomiiAi 
 
 SHOIISIA dO SQNVSnOHl 
 
<D OJ 
 
 0) ~ 
 
 O > 
 
 ro oj 
 
 3 cn 
 
 4> ra 
 
 nj — 
 
 O > 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o~ 
 oo •» 
 oo m 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 C3 CO 
 
 id id 
 
 oo oo 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 i- rvj 
 
 m id 
 
 LTI id 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 id en 
 
 oo to 
 
 in o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 m i- 
 
 CM CO 
 
 r- ovj 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 oj in 
 
 ID CD 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 CD <3 
 ID <D 
 00 00 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o" 
 
 m co 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 in cT 
 r- oo 
 
 ID ID 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 ID O 
 
 to r- 
 in id 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o r- 
 
 co oo 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 c o 
 
 I "I 
 
 O r- 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 ■» 00 
 
 CO CO 
 
 (\j t 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 in o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o in 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 oo in 
 
 r- 00 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 cT 00 
 rg oo 
 rg id 
 
 c o 
 o r- 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 coo 
 
 (NJ 1 
 
 O O 
 
 o o 
 in o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o in 
 rg r- 
 rg rvj 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 ocT 
 
 00 ID 
 CO ID 
 
 c o 
 
 O t\l 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 CT> CM 
 CO 00 
 
 r- o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 c o 
 O r- 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 CM 00 
 
 £ 5 
 
 E E 
 
 E E 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 i- en 
 m rvj 
 i- m 
 
 c o 
 
 O (\j 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 CO 00 
 
 4," in 
 w > 41 
 
 OjO.- 
 
 "■Ooo 
 •- S". 
 
 ov° « J 
 
 n « 1- 
 
 <r a; D ' 
 
 ^ S o . 
 
 u j 
 
 cc . O 1 
 
 LU O)^ 
 
 IS 
 
 10 
 
 T3 ^ U3 01 
 
 s y 
 
 at t/> <d aj 
 
 en 
 oo 
 
 oi d 
 
 co <-> 
 i- oi 
 
 tj „, <p ai 
 
 < ? 5 8> K 
 
 z — > 
 
 a 2? < 
 a oo 
 
 10 -~y 
 
 s y 
 
 0> 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 b CO O 
 LL CL 
 
 O O 
 O O 
 O O 
 
 fO~ CO 
 ID OvJ 
 
 oo in 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o~ <o 
 00 o 
 og oo 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 rvj 
 
 co in 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 rgrg 
 T to 
 rvj *r 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 *r cn 
 
 r- oo 
 
 o ID 
 
 < _ 
 D OJ 
 
 Z in "0 
 
 n ID 41 
 
 < 1- CD U 
 U 41 
 
 -! .E . o 
 
 < > !- 
 I— 0\° U- Q. 
 
 £ E 
 
 c 
 
 (D .— 
 
 Vo <L> £ 
 
 C D O 
 
 41 £ U U U 
 
 o o o 
 o o o 
 o o o 
 
 ^ i i — 
 
 41 > 11 O III 
 
 - > > 
 
 c c 
 m m 
 
 to to 
 
 ^ > 
 
 c 
 P E 
 
 y ^ 
 
 N 
 
 > >. 
 
 N N 
 
 <U 4> 
 
 41 OJ 
 
 i °- 
 
 01 
 
 41 C 
 
 > C 
 
 «J 41 
 
 _ HI 
 
 >- 4J 
 
 C m co CO CD — 
 
 01 Q A 
 
 ^ = ^ ^ <J (J) 
 
 4i q ro m +j 
 
 oi "rj 
 
 u - ^ > > 
 
 E ^ 5- <- «- 
 
 c 2 v- i- t. 
 
 t m nj nj 
 
 Ul t- > >• >• 
 
 in 
 
 ig -g jjj .— 1 
 
 C 41 OJ 01 
 
 c 
 
 C "o in in in 
 
 D 41 01 01 01 
 
 ~D "0 ~o ~o 
 
 u o o o 
 
 Q Q _ I- a. 
 
 P c c c c 
 
 in ID N oo 
 
whether visitors arrived by public (bus) or private (automobile) 
 transportation; consequently, significant visitor increases would be 
 greater than the existing or projected transportation systems could 
 deliver in a manner that was environmentally acceptable to neighbor- 
 ing communities and to those along the principal transportation 
 corridors. 
 
 At one point during the planning process, calculations were made to 
 determine the number of buses that would be required to transport 
 additional visitors to the three Gateway units with ocean beaches on 
 the peak day (additional visitors to Jamaica Bay were not antici- 
 pated). The calculations for the Breezy Point Unit are described 
 briefly below. 
 
 At Breezy Point, an increase of 30,000 visitors on the peak day 
 (the current peak day is 90,000 visitors) and operation of a shuttle 
 from Floyd Bennett Field across Marine Parkway Bridge would 
 require 246 buses an hour on the bridge--133 buses from Floyd 
 Bennett Field plus 113 buses per hour along Flatbush Avenue. 
 This would result in a 15-second headway for buses. With 
 projected traffic levels, conditions on Flatbush Avenue between the 
 Belt Parkway and Marine Parkway Bridge would range from 
 moderate to severe. The projected bus headway on the bridge, 
 which would be crowded beyond acceptable standards, would result 
 in additional queuing of buses, breakdowns in schedules, and 
 stackups and congestion at stops and terminals. Parking, double 
 parking, bus stops, a lack of progression between signalized inter- 
 sections, conflicts associated with the commercial nature of the 
 Flatbush corridor (north of the Belt Parkway), and related factors 
 would aggravate delays and congestion along this portion of the 
 corridor. Therefore, increasing visits on heavy-use days was 
 found to be environmentally unacceptable. 
 
 Increasing public transportation opportunities to the Gateway units 
 is the responsibility of the respective state and local agencies, not 
 the National Park Service, because the necessary changes would 
 have to be implemented beyond park boundaries. Unfortunately, 
 city and state authorities cannot justify the large capital invest- 
 ments that would be required to solve access difficulties to Gateway 
 that occur on only a few summer weekend days (for example, 
 building subways and surface rails or widening the Belt Parkway or 
 Flatbush Avenue). 
 
 The National Park Service believes that continued emphasis on 
 increasing visitor use on the peak day and other heavy-use days 
 obscures very real opportunities to make Gateway a year-round 
 diversified park. Analysis of patterns for transportation to the 
 park reveals that the greatest potential for expanding use exists on 
 average visitor-use days, when visitors can participate in environ- 
 
 9 
 
mental education, take advantage of the Outreach program, explore 
 the Gateway Villages, and enjoy the relatively uncrowded beaches, 
 similar to other National Park System seashores. 
 
 In the long run, public transportation improvements will be 
 possible, and they will be especially feasible on those days when 
 capacities are not reached. In the meantime, the National Park 
 Service anticipates only modest increases in utilization levels beyond 
 those the park now experiences on peak days. The projected 
 increases in visitor use are based solely upon ferry arrivals, which 
 will not impact the existing road system. 
 
 Decisions 
 
 The present plan for Gateway does not propose levels of use that 
 would increase traffic above that now being experienced on heavy - 
 use days . The projected 20,000 additional visitors at Breezy Point 
 and Sandy Hook (10,000 at each site) will arrive by ferry (see the 
 subsequent discussion on ferry service). In the short term, 
 attention will be focused on making such changes as may facilitate 
 increases on weekdays and during fall, winter, and spring. During 
 Stage I of Gateway's implementation schedule, it is anticipated that 
 visits will increase from the present 8.3 million to some 14.5 million. 
 By the end of Stage II, this number is expected to reach 17.4 
 million; and by the end of Stage III, 18 million. The National Park 
 Service is committed to further increasing visitor use when public 
 transportation opportunities can be expanded in the transportation 
 corridors approaching the park. The long-range goal for visitor 
 use at Breezy Point will remain 200,000 visitors per day, as stated 
 in the Discussion Draft . 
 
 A transportation study will be conducted to find ways of promoting 
 public transportation to the park and discouraging private transpor - 
 tation . Improved access by means of public transportation will be a 
 long-term goal sought in cooperation with appropriate agencies. 
 
 Facilities within the park will be scaled to accommodate user ievels 
 on the average summer weekend , rather than on the peak day . 
 Facilities will be proposed that comfortably accommodate visitor-use 
 levels on most days. On the three or so days when use is excep- 
 tionally high, added temporary rest rooms and certain other 
 facilities will be required. Some visitor inconveniences and sense of 
 overcrowding may result, but not to any greater extent than at the 
 present, and facilities will not be used by more people than are 
 visiting a particular area now on the peak day. 
 
 Use at specified beach areas within Gateway , such as Mid Beach at 
 Sandy Hook , Oak wood Beach on Staten Island , and Tip Beach at 
 
 10 
 
Breezy Point ; will be significantly lower than at other beaches to 
 allow for a variety of beach experiences at each unit of Gateway . 
 Lower densities will be on the order of those found at Cape Cod 
 and Fire Island National Seashores. 
 
 FERRY SERVICE 
 Discussion 
 
 The concept of ferries as a means of transportation to Gateway as 
 well as from unit to unit began with discussions to establish the 
 park itself. While the concept has broad support from the public 
 and the National Park Service, implementation of such a system 
 must be effected by the appropriate state or municipal agencies or 
 by private interests. The Park Service has no authority to develop 
 ferry service at Gateway. 
 
 Advantages of a Gateway ferry service would be numerous. The 
 trip to Gateway, as a recreational experience in itself, is much more 
 enjoyable by boat than on the crowded roadways and subways. 
 The four units of Gateway, connected only by water, could each be 
 served by boats originating from a variety of embarkation points- 
 all of which would be easily accessible to mass transit systems 
 (subways, bus, and surface rail). Several studies have shown that 
 existing docks, most of which need some rehabilitation, could be 
 used . 
 
 Waterborne transportation offers limited opportunities for a cost- 
 and energy-efficient operation, in part because of the limited 
 number of days per year when there is a large market. However, 
 a small-scale service that would serve as part of an educational 
 program, or a larger service that was coordinated with a commuter 
 service when the recreational demand was low, has possibilities. 
 
 A $15 million to $30 million fleet, consisting of three to five 750- 
 passenger ferries and seven to twelve 150-passenger ferries, could 
 possibly deliver up to 20,000 people per day--10,000 each at Breezy 
 Point and Sandy Hook. This is a very rough estimate, of course, 
 to which one must add operation and maintenance costs. The costs 
 would be considerable, and if various forms of advanced technology 
 were used (such as hydrofoils, hovercrafts, or catamarans), the 
 costs would escalate, which would be partially offset by the 
 increased number of visitors that could be served. In any case, 
 waterborne service, even if a fairly large service was in operation, 
 could only supplement the much greater volumes that land-based 
 systems could deliver on summer weekends. 
 
 11 
 
Decision 
 
 Although the National Park Service has no authority to develop a 
 Gateway ferry service, it will support all efforts by other agencies 
 and the private sector to establish such a service. Assuming that 
 ferry service will eventually be established , the Park Service 
 proposes constructing new ferry piers at Breezy Point , Sandy 
 Hook , and Floyd Bennett Field . A study of waterborne access will 
 be initiated to determine the design criteria for flexible piers 
 capable of receiving a variety of types of vessels. 
 
 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN GATEWAY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 
 Discussion 
 
 The principal vehicle for community representation in Gateway 
 planning—an 11-member advisory commission—was established in the 
 act creating the park. The commission was to be composed of two 
 representatives selected by each of the governors of New York and 
 New Jersey, two each by the mayors of Newark and New York City, 
 and three members-at-large named by the Secretary of the Interior. 
 Meetings of the commission are open to the public, and all signifi- 
 cant planning and managerial issues are eligible for commission 
 review and input. For the commission to succeed, the National 
 Park Service must continue to work through it in an effort to 
 obtain input from the broadest reaches of the community. 
 
 No single commission or group can truly reflect the array of 
 regional interests, and it is likely that new interest groups will 
 continue to emerge. For example, people who live near the perim- 
 eters of Gateway units, or along the main approach corridors, 
 form a special Gateway constituency because they may be more 
 affected by impacts resulting from implementation of planning 
 decisions. However, the Park Service has a broader responsibility 
 to the entire region, whose residents also would like to visit the 
 park. Gateway literally belongs to everyone, and very often the 
 Park Service must try to balance two or more valid, but incompat- 
 ible, sets of perceived needs. 
 
 It is National Park Service policy to involve the broadest possible 
 cross section of the community in park planning. This process is 
 most effective when all sides can make their views known in con- 
 structive ways that can guide later decisions. At the same time, it 
 is evident that in a region with 16 to 22 million people (depending 
 on how the population is measured), and with hundreds of govern- 
 mental jurisdictions, no public involvement process can reach 
 everyone. 
 
 12 
 
To encourage greater public involvement, more than 75 formal and 
 informal meetings with groups (both public and private) have been 
 held, as well as hearings, planning discussions, and over 100 
 individual interviews. Also numerous newsletters and other com- 
 munications have been sent to a planning constituency that started 
 small but now numbers in the tens of thousands. At each stage of 
 the planning process, new constituencies have emerged—some of 
 them having just "discovered" the park. 
 
 Decisions 
 
 The National Park Service will continue to emphasize and strengthen 
 the public involvement process at Gateway . A full-time External 
 Affairs Office will work to keep the broadest spectrum of the 
 community informed of Gateway matters on a timely basis, and it 
 will serve as a day-to-day communications outreach to the region. 
 
 The Gateway newsletter will be reinstated and used to inform the 
 public of planning and management issues that are of interest . 
 
 The Gateway program schedule will be made available on a broader 
 basis to groups , individuals , and libraries ; and it will continue to 
 be printed on a regular basis iri both English and Spanish . 
 
 THE OUTREACH PROGRAM 
 Discussion 
 
 The National Park Service is committed to making Gateway accessible 
 to the broadest possible segment of visitors from the New York/New 
 Jersey region and to visitors from elsewhere in the nation and the 
 world. Because there are large groups of people who are depen- 
 dent on public transit in the region and others who will require 
 some kind of assistance to visit Gateway, the National Park Service 
 believes it has a responsibility to assist those people through all 
 available means. 
 
 The Discussion Draft General Management Plan suggested an 
 Outreach program to conduct educational and interpretive programs 
 in various communities. Utilizing Park Service ranger stations 
 located around the metropolitan area, the program would have 
 assisted people in getting to the park and would have helped enrich 
 their visits once they had arrived. The total number of people who 
 might have been served by such a program was on the order of 5 
 percent of total annual visitor use. There has been little or no 
 support for National Park Service offices in the community, 
 although there was support for the program in principle. 
 
 13 
 
Decision 
 
 The National Park Service remains committed to the basic goals of 
 the Outreach program , but will not propose ranger stations in 
 communities . The program will operate from the park and will work 
 through existing community organizations, churches, civic clubs and 
 organizations, block associations, and others who have the organi- 
 zational capacity to serve those who might attend. Because the 
 National Park Service has no authority to financially assist public 
 transportation programs in providing access to the park, the 
 Outreach program must rely on other private resources or on those 
 available through state and local governments. A full-time profes- 
 sional staff at the park will be responsible for the program and will 
 expand it within available resources and needs. 
 
 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT 
 Discussion 
 
 Economic development and employment opportunities at Gateway were 
 the object of considerable interest to many people and of particular 
 concern to the minority communities of the region. 
 
 Under the proposed plan, Gateway will have an annual operating 
 budget in the $10 million to $20 million range and will employ over 
 200 permanent staff members and over 750 temporary summer 
 employees. Concession operations, rehabilitation and construction 
 contracts, and supply and service contracts will provide many 
 additional job and business opportunities. It is believed that 
 Gateway's overall economic and employment impact on the region will 
 be equivalent to that of a medium-sized corporation. 
 
 In recognition of Gateway's special responsibility as a public agency 
 to provide equal economic and employment opportunities, the 
 National Park Service convened a task force in May 1977 to develop 
 guidelines to provide for the equitable employment of minorities and 
 for related economic development at Gateway. Although the 
 findings and recommendations of the task force are too lengthy to 
 summarize here, goals and objectives were established in each of 
 the major areas examined, and procedures were recommended for 
 their implementation. Beginning in June 1977, park managers began 
 to implement the recommendations, and they subsequently incorpor- 
 ated the goals and objectives in Gateway's annual Affirmative Action 
 plan . 
 
 14 
 
Decisions 
 
 The National Park Service [s committed to provide full and equal 
 opportunity in aM aspects of economic development and employment . 
 It is equally committed to finding and institutionalizing the means to 
 accomplish these objectives. 
 
 In its Affirmative Action efforts , park management will continue to 
 seek the full support and cooperation of the general public and 
 concerned organizations . Public information activities will be 
 expanded to keep the public fully informed of economic development 
 and employment opportunities and of progress toward accomplishing 
 annual and long-term goals and objectives. 
 
 THE GATEWAY VILLAGE CONCEPT 
 Discussion 
 
 Three Gateway Villages were proposed for the park in the 
 Discussion Draft --at Fort Hancock, Fort Wadsworth, and Floyd 
 Bennett Field. The village concept is intended to describe activity 
 centers, which in these cases have been clustered around two 
 former military posts and a former naval air station, and the 
 concept serves as an organizing rationale for reusing facilities in 
 new ways to serve the park and its visitors. 
 
 All three sites will be major year-round activity centers for the 
 park, and all will focus their programs and facilities around the 
 theme of man and the environment. However, each village will have 
 a distinct character based on the nature of its site and resources. 
 The villages will retain a noncommercial atmosphere, although there 
 will be a variety of services, such as food, available in each. 
 They will neither serve as nor look like amusement parks or modern 
 theme parks available elsewhere. They will have strong educational 
 and interpretive programs tied to the park's location in a large 
 metropolitan region. They will also seek to draw from the rich 
 array of talent, services, and programs available in the region 
 through high levels of both structured and spontaneous participa- 
 tion by individuals and groups. 
 
 Detailed planning of the Gateway Villages will begin after approval 
 of a general management plan for the park. At that time more 
 detailed decisions will be made about individual buildings, uses, any 
 new construction, and so forth. 
 
 15 
 
Decisions 
 
 The Gateway Village at Fort Hancock will retain the basic structure 
 of the present fort community . The campuslike environment created 
 by the original military designers will be retained. A small number 
 of new structures may be added, while the majority of the existing 
 buildings will be adaptively reused for new functions. 
 
 Little planning has been accomplished for a Gateway Village at Fort 
 Wadsworth because it |s still being used by the U.S. Army . While 
 new structures may eventually be added, adaptive reuse of the 
 existing buildings will probably satisfy most program requirements. 
 
 The Gateway Village at Floyd Bennett Field will be structured 
 around the existing Hangar Row , based on a zoning scheme that 
 will preserve the historic runways and the general ambience of the 
 early municipal airport . The hangars will be adaptively reused, 
 and supporting facilities will be added to make the village an 
 important year-round activity complex. There also will be a major 
 center on man and the environment in the William Fitts Ryan Visitor 
 Center. 
 
 Planning for Floyd Bennett Field will be furthered in a development 
 concept plan to be undertaken by competitive contract or contracts 
 after final approval of the general management plan. Planning for 
 the area will recognize the interdependency of this area with the 
 Breezy Point peninsula and the fact that both lie in the same trans- 
 portation corridor. Activities at the village will therefore be 
 phased so that they do not amplify traffic problems on heavy-use 
 days. Everyday-use levels at the village, while significant, will be 
 only a small fraction of heavy-use days at the Breezy Point 
 beaches. 
 
 All three Gateway Villages will to the extent possible be models in 
 energy conservation and utilization , water uses , and waste disposal . 
 
 RECREATIONAL PLANNING FOR GATEWAY 
 Discussion 
 
 The present plan for Gateway focuses limited attention on specific 
 recreational programming and opportunities that will be available at 
 Gateway in the years ahead. However, general guidelines are set, 
 within which subsequent recreational planning will be accomplished. 
 These guidelines promote as wide a range of recreational opportun- 
 ities as possible on a year-round basis, without duplicating recrea- 
 tional programs and services available through facilities provided by 
 local governments or the private sector. 
 
 16 
 
Planning for the specific activities that will go on inside existing 
 facilities must be concurrent with deciding on the type of rehabili- 
 tation and adaptive reuse of structures. The National Park Service 
 will address these issues during the next stage of planning, and 
 nothing in the plans to date forecloses later planning options. 
 
 It will also be necessary for the National Park Service to coordinate 
 its recreational programming and activities with other public and 
 private agencies and organizations in the New York/New Jersey 
 region, and a recreation management plan has been suggested for 
 this purpose. Because there is no regionwide recreation plan or 
 coordinating body, such an objective will clearly be a difficult 
 undertaking, and it is a task far beyond Park Service staff 
 resources. 
 
 Decisions 
 
 One of the next steps jn_ Gateway planning will be the formulation 
 of a recreation management plan that is_ parkwide ijn scope and that 
 puts Gateway's role m providing recreational opportunities 'm 
 perspective with existing regional programs and perceived needs . 
 
 The National Park Service will also develop recreation management 
 strategies for Floyd Bennett Field and the Gateway Villages during 
 the development concept level of planning . Planning will stress 
 coordination with other agencies and organizations in the region 
 that are part of the overall delivery system and will involve them 
 and their constituencies in developing the concepts. 
 
 OVERNIGHT USES AT GATEWAY 
 Discussion 
 
 During the public involvement process, some concern was expressed 
 about overnight uses at Gateway, including the suggestion that the 
 park be closed at night, which would prevent recreational camping 
 at Gateway units. 
 
 Because of the demand generated by Gateway's proximity to large 
 population centers, and because of the fragile quality of the 
 barrier-beach environment, it is not ecologically sound to provide 
 extensive camping facilities that would be more appropriate and 
 desirable in state and federal parks located in rural, upland areas. 
 But the National Park Service agrees with the many people who 
 suggested that more supervised camping opportunities were needed 
 for New York/New Jersey metropolitan area residents who cannot 
 visit more rural park areas. Suggestions were also offered to 
 
 17 
 
instruct people on how to camp and to show them how to make 
 better use of campsites in other parks. 
 
 Decisions 
 
 Because a curfew or nighttime closure would deprive visitors of 
 many benefits (including fishing , bird-watching , and the oppor - 
 tunity to enjoy cooler evening breezes during the heat of summer ) , 
 the National Park Service does not propose to close Gateway at 
 night . Regular patrolling by the Park Police will help protect areas 
 used at night. 
 
 A limited number of supervised / small-group camping areas will be 
 planned for Gateway , where such sites can be accommodated without 
 significant environmental impacts . Areas will be available by reser- 
 vation and permit only, and they will be supervised by the National 
 Park Service ranger staff. These sites will include the Nike radar 
 site and Fort Hancock at Sandy Hook, Fort Tilden and the Tip area 
 at Breezy Point, and Oakwood Beach at Staten Island. 
 
 Two to four hostel locations will be planned in existing buildings 
 that will be adaptively reused and will be under the full-time 
 supervision of American Youth Hostels , Inc . AYH operates under 
 internationally recognized rules and standards of conduct, each unit 
 being continuously supervised by resident "house parents." 
 
 BEACHES: TERN-NESTING SITES, BOAT LAUNCHING, SURF- 
 FISHING 
 
 Discussion 
 
 Ocean beaches are dynamic resources that are constantly eroding 
 and accreting. Activities that take place on beaches must conse- 
 quently be flexible as far as location is concerned—a characteristic 
 that is true of tern nesting, boat launching, and surf-fishing. 
 Tern-nesting areas change continually, and wherever they are 
 found, they must be protected so that terns change their nesting 
 areas in response to natural causes, not human disturbances. 
 Permanent structures on beaches, for example boat ramps, usually 
 conflict with natural processes rather than enhance them. Surf- 
 fishing is a legitimate recreational use of the beach, but it is not 
 compatible with swimming or with nesting terns. 
 
 18 
 
Decisions 
 
 Tern-nesting sites will be carefully protected from random access 
 by erecting snow fences and signs , and by other managerial 
 techniques . 
 
 Boat launching on ocean beaches will be permitted at areas desig - 
 nated by park managers ; however , no permanent structures will be 
 built on the beaches to accommodate this activity . Visitors will only 
 be able to launch "car top" size boats; permanent boat launching 
 ramps for larger boats will be established at Great Kills Park and at 
 Floyd Bennett Field on the calmer bay waters. 
 
 Surf-fishing will be permitted on all Gateway beaches when it does 
 not conflict with established swimming areas or tern-nesting sites . 
 
 BUFFER ZONES 
 Discussion 
 
 In areas of Gateway where parklands adjoin lands that are being 
 used for nonpark purposes, there is a need to visually separate the 
 two areas. This would minimize visitor-related disturbances to 
 neighboring community residents, and it would provide a more 
 unified experience for park visitors. Furthermore, a buffer zone 
 around the Breezy Point Cooperative is required by the Gateway 
 enabling legislation. 
 
 Decisions 
 
 A buffer zone will be established around the Breezy Point 
 Cooperative . The dimension and design of this zone will be deter- 
 mined in future detailed studies. 
 
 Buffers will be established between active park areas and 
 residential communities or nonpark enclaves . The design of these 
 smaller buffer strips will depend on the issues and problems at each 
 site. They will generally consist of shrubbery, berms, or other 
 natural and nonintrusive materials. 
 
 19 
 
SANDY HOOK DECISIONS 
 
 LAND USE AT SANDY HOOK 
 Discussion 
 
 The major visitor-use area on Sandy Hook now is at the two beach 
 areas at the southern end of the peninsula that have been devel- 
 oped by the state of New Jersey and donated to the National Park 
 Service. There are more spacious beaches farther north, but these 
 areas were not available to the public until 1975 because of use by 
 the U.S. Army. 
 
 The existing southern beach areas are heavily used, and erosion 
 constantly diminishes the beach area. Approximately 125 feet of 
 shore depth have been lost since April 1977, and erosion accelerated 
 in fall 1977. It is possible that plans for Sandy Hook may have to 
 be revised if the erosion continues. Scientific data are being 
 collected to find alternative solutions to the problem. 
 
 Decisions 
 
 No beach center will be built at the Nike radar site , allowing the 
 site to return to a more natural condition . Reexamination of Sandy 
 Hook environmental issues, as well as lowering the estimates of 
 peak-day use levels, has prompted reconsideration of use of the 
 Nike radar site. Removal of the site will create a continuous 
 natural area, putting 75 percent of the land area of Sandy Hook 
 within either a Protection or Use-by-Reservation zone. Mid Beach 
 will remain a low-use area compared to North and South Beaches. 
 The National Park Service thinks this variety of beach experience is 
 an important planning consideration and attribute of the park. 
 
 Some of the parking spaces at South Beach will be relocated to 
 support beach use at North Beach . New parking areas will be 
 designed with extreme care to avoid disturbing areas that have not 
 been previously impacted. Park managers will have the option of 
 opening or closing several small parking areas, rather than two 
 large parking lots, to respond to environmental or operational 
 contingencies, such as movement of tern-nesting sites or traffic 
 bottlenecks. There will be no net addition to the number of auto- 
 mobile parking spaces at the Hook; hopefully, as at the other 
 Gateway units, this will encourage public transit improvements. 
 
 A ferry dock and day-use marina at the northern end of the Hook 
 will be developed to provide supplemental visitor access to North 
 Beach and Fort Hancock Gateway Village . Sailboat anchorage will 
 be allowed to continue on a day-use basis at Horseshoe Cove. 
 
 21 
 
Within the context of the total barrier-beach situation for the 
 Jersey Shore, National Park Service plans offer a sensitive balance, 
 preserving the natural areas that are so important to the overall 
 health of the ecosystem, while planning for increased public use. 
 Gateway will serve as a distinct element in the recreation spectrum 
 available to visitors, and the National Park Service will continue to 
 work to coordinate its plans and programs with those of other 
 jurisdictions. 
 
 OTHER DECISIONS 
 
 Sandy Hook and the Battleship New Jersey 
 
 During the planning process, the National Park Service was asked 
 to consider locating the mothballed historic battleship New Jersey at 
 Sandy Hook. Because a major tourist attraction at Sandy Hook 
 would be incompatible with the statutory objectives of the park and 
 would overload the already saturated transportation corridor to 
 Sandy Hook , the National Park Service will not agree to locating the 
 ship at Sandy Hook . The Park Service supports the motivations of 
 those who want to find a place for the vessel, but it believes 
 another location would be more suitable. 
 
 Holly Forest Designation 
 
 All forests on Sandy Hook containing more than 50 percent holly 
 trees will be designated as holly forests , and forested areas with 
 less than 50 percent holly trees will be designated as deciduous 
 forests. All deciduous and holly forests on Sandy Hook will be 
 treated equally, that is, they will be zoned as use-by-reservation 
 for educational purposes in order to control access. 
 
 22 
 
STATEN ISLAND DECISIONS 
 
 ENTRANCE AND BUFFER AT MILLER FIELD 
 Discussion 
 
 The National Park Service received numerous comments that the 
 present entrance to Miller Field off New Dorp Lane, as well as the 
 proposed new entrance and parking area also from New Dorp Lane, 
 would increase congestion at the Hylan Boulevard intersection, as 
 well as disturb New Dorp Lane residents whose homes face the 
 field. Many visitors to the Miller Field areas close to Hylan 
 Boulevard park along the fence on New Dorp Lane to avoid walking 
 from the parking area near the hangar, and this causes congestion 
 and annoys area residents. On the opposite side of the field, 
 Father Capodanno Boulevard offers a broad entry to Miller Field, 
 with minimal impact on the surrounding community, although it is a 
 slightly longer trip for visitors arriving from the south. 
 
 Decisions 
 
 The proposal for Miller Field will be revised so that the main 
 entrance will be from Father Capodanno Boulevard with parking on 
 the field . A buffer zone of trees, shrubs, and berms will be 
 established to help isolate the noise of recreational activities from 
 the residential community. This buffer will extend on two sides of 
 Miller Field. 
 
 A small parking area accessible from New Dorp Lane will be 
 established at the Hylan Boulevard end of Miller Field . This will 
 allow visitors using that end of the field to avoid parking on New 
 Dorp Lane. 
 
 LAND USE AT GREAT KILLS PARK 
 Discussion 
 
 Crookes Point is an important natural area on Staten Island, as well 
 as an important stopping point on the monarch butterfly migration 
 route. In the past, random access along numerous roadways on the 
 point was very damaging to the environment. The beach along 
 Crookes Point and farther north at the Great Kills bathhouse is the 
 only nonpolluted beach on Staten Island within Gateway; conse- 
 quently, it serves an important function, and parking spaces to 
 support beach use are required because existing parking spaces on 
 Crookes Neck are used by marina visitors. Great Kills also has 
 several athletic fields that are very heavily used. 
 
 25 
 
Decisions 
 
 The sensitive areas of Great Kills will be preserved and protected , 
 and all random access to Crookes Point will be controlled . 
 
 The marina will be relocated , allowing parking spaces on Crookes 
 Neck to be used by bathers . The proposed new location of the 
 marina may not be as protected as the present location, but it will 
 be essentially the same situation as several neighboring marinas 
 experience just outside the park. However, the new location 
 provides a superior land-use arrangement, placing the marina and 
 boat launch traffic closer to the park entrance while allowing the 
 parking spaces on Crookes Point to be used for beach visitors and 
 permitting greater preservation of Crookes Point. 
 
 Recreational facilities and programs will be expanded at Great Kills, 
 while uses within natural zones will be controlled . Because the 
 athletic fields are so heavily used, development of a recreational 
 complex will better accommodate such uses, while preserving over 
 half of Great Kills as a natural area. This balance will allow park 
 managers to determine the specific activities that are the most 
 appropriate for each area. 
 
 OTHER DECISIONS 
 
 Extension of Father Capodanno Boulevard Through Miller Field 
 
 Federal law requires that before any road or highway can be built 
 through a park or wildlife refuge the agency proposing the highway 
 must make an environmental impact analysis and demonstrate that 
 there is no prudent or feasible alternative. The informal proposal 
 by New York City officials to extend the street through Miller Field 
 has not been studied as required. As a matter of policy , the 
 National Park Service will vigorously oppose any such intrusion on 
 the park now or iri the future . 
 
 Land Uses and Programs at Fort Wadsworth 
 
 Although Fort Wadsworth is included in the external boundaries of 
 Gateway National Recreation Area, the site is still under the 
 custody and management of the U.S. Department of Defense and has 
 not yet been scheduled for transfer to the National Park Service. 
 No plans have been made for Fort Wadsworth at this time, other 
 than designating it as the location of one of the three Gateway 
 Villages and as the headquarters for the Staten Island Unit of the 
 park. AH decisions regarding land uses and programs at Fort 
 Wadsworth must await transfer of the land and subsequent 
 planning . 
 
 26 
 
BREEZY POINT DECISIONS 
 
 NUMBER OF VISITORS ARRIVING AT THE BREEZY POINT UNIT 
 Discussion 
 
 The proposal in the Discussion Draft General Management Plan to 
 significantly increase peak-day visitation to Breezy Point was the 
 most controversial one in that document. Supporters of that type 
 of proposal are generally seeking to increase transportation oppor- 
 tunities for people who are now unable to get to Breezy Point, and 
 people who live at relatively remote locations are seeking easier and 
 cheaper access to Breezy Point. Conversely, those who live in 
 communities surrounding the park are concerned about the possible 
 impacts of increased traffic along corridors that are already con- 
 gested and relatively saturated on heavy-use days. 
 
 The National Park Service recognizes the legitimacy of both points 
 of view, but the discussion of peak-day use has obscured the 
 opportunities for achieving increased use without causing greater 
 congestion of existing transportation corridors. Analysis of the 
 Breezy Point beach areas shows that the capacity of the beach is 
 not the limiting factor, rather it is congestion on access roads. 
 The beaches can ultimately accommodate as many as 200,000 people 
 daily, if properly dispersed, and still exceed the Bureau of Outdoor 
 Recreation's standard of 60 square feet per person (this standard is 
 relatively spacious when compared with current use of many 
 beaches; clearly, a high-quality experience could be continued, 
 while accommodating a greater number of people on the beachfront). 
 This level of use represents the greatest visitor-use capacity of 
 Breezy Point, but it will not be reached in the foreseeable future 
 because of transportation constraints. Care will have to be exer- 
 cised to ensure that neighboring communities are not adversely 
 impacted as public transit improvements are initiated. Trends 
 suggest that the number of vehicles on Marine Parkway Bridge has 
 been modestly decreasing (based on Triborough Bridge and Tunnel 
 Authority data for vehicles crossing the bridge), and it may be 
 possible for more visitors to begin arriving at Breezy Point by 
 public transit. However, the Park Service is unable to project the 
 exact level of increase that might be possible or to anticipate the 
 impacts of such an increase. As mentioned under "Visitor-Use 
 Levels and Transportation," the Park Service does not have the 
 authority to plan or to implement public transit changes outside 
 park boundaries. 
 
 Heavy-use days occur only about three times per season, when 
 weather conditions are optimal--a July or August Sunday that is 
 sunny, moderately warm (75 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit), and not 
 
 29 
 
windy. On the peak day of fiscal year summer 1976 (July 1975-July 
 1976), 90,000 visitors to Breezy Point were reported by the National 
 Park Service. It is difficult to accurately count the visitors to the 
 Breezy Point Unit because they go to diverse locations and because 
 the numbers in large crowds are estimated by experienced but 
 fallible observers. This was 4 percent of total visitation to Breezy 
 Point during that summer, and 3 percent of the annual visitation 
 (see Appendix C). About 85 percent of the visitors on that peak 
 day arrived by automobile and over 10 percent arrived by bus 
 (public transit or charter). Additional people walked and bicycled 
 to the site. Getting large numbers of additional people to Breezy 
 Point without greater congestion on highways could only be 
 accomplished by adding ferry service and by altering the use of 
 existing transportation systems. 
 
 Decisions 
 
 Opportunities for citizens of greater New York to visit Breezy Point 
 should be expanded by encouraging city and state authorities to 
 consider systems that increase arrivals by public transit , including 
 ferries , and decrease total vehicle counts on major access routes . 
 As previously stated, the National Park Service remains committed 
 to the goal of accommodating 200,000 visitors per day on Breezy 
 Point beaches, but this level of use can only be attained with major 
 public transit improvements. Implementing such improvements would 
 require a Park Service transportation specialist in the New York/ 
 New Jersey metropolitan area to serve as a liaison with city and 
 state authorities and/or legislative authority that would allow the 
 Park Service to financially assist local transportation authorities. 
 Although using Floyd Bennett Field as a bus staging area in con- 
 junction with introducing internal transportation systems on Breezy 
 Point will alleviate congestion on the peninsula, it will not mitigate 
 the relatively saturated conditions of transportation corridors 
 leading to Gateway on heavy-use days (see illustration of peak-day 
 traffic on Marine Parkway Bridge). Decreasing the total number of 
 vehicles on these routes while increasing the number of public 
 transit vehicles will require close and continuous cooperation 
 between National Park Service, state, and municipal officials. 
 
 The total number of vehicles on the Breezy Point peninsula will be 
 reduced by designing new areas to be accessible only by public 
 transit on high visitor-use days . A portion of Floyd Bennett Field 
 will be used for parking, and a shuttle system will be established 
 to carry visitors to the beaches at Breezy Point. All automobile 
 parking will be eliminated west of Riis Park on summer weekends 
 (except for vehicles of residents and guests traveling to the Breezy 
 Point Cooperative and Roxbury, for National Park Service vehicles, 
 and for those under special permit—for example, vehicles for the 
 
 30 
 
MARINE 
 
 PARKWAY 
 
 BRIDGE 
 
 PROJECTED 10,010 VEHICLES 
 CROSS THE 
 
 MARINE PARKWAY BRIDGE, OR 
 7,440 VEHICLES LESS THAN 
 IN FISCAL YEAR 1976 
 
 ASSUMPTIONS: 
 
 ±3.5 PEOPLE/CAR 
 50 PEOPLE/BUS OR SHUTTLE 
 2.5 DAILY TURNOVER RATE 
 
 BREEZY POINT FY 1976 
 PEAK-DAY VISITATION-90,000 
 
 PROJECTED PEAK-DAY VISITATION-100,000 
 DUE TO FERRY SERVICE 
 
 PEAK-DAY TRAFFIC ON MARINE 
 PARKWAY BRIDGE-FY 1976 
 AND PROJECTED FOR STAGE I 
 
 646 I 40,205 
 DSC I JAN 78 
 
 GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 
 
handicapped and fishermen--f rom park managers), with access by 
 shuttle and public transit. On weekdays, there will be ample 
 parking for all visitors at the Ri is Park lot and smaller parking 
 areas at West Beach and Fort Tilden, from which a lateral shuttle 
 will operate. 
 
 Programs , facilities , and recreational opportunities that encourage 
 use of the unit during summer weekdays and the spring and fall 
 will be developed . The plan to develop a range of activities will 
 make the beach more accessible to all and will increase the oppor- 
 tunities for many who do not now visit the Breezy Point Unit. 
 Emphasizing use on nonpeak days and during the off-season will 
 greatly alleviate impacts associated with transportation on adjacent 
 communities while still increasing visitor use. During these periods 
 there is ample corridor capacity as well as opportunities for 
 improved public transit services. 
 
 A transportation study will be conducted and will include an 
 analysis of present visitor use of Breezy Point and a method of 
 accurately counting visitors to the unit . The study objective will 
 be to propose ways to decrease the total number of vehicles 
 arriving at the unit while increasing visitor use within environ- 
 mentally acceptable limits. 
 
 LAND USES AT BREEZY POINT 
 Discussion 
 
 Comments relating to land use of Breezy Point included suggestions 
 to reduce or eliminate public use and access to the Tip, to reduce 
 or eliminate traffic through the Breezy Point Cooperative, to more 
 adequately protect the bird-nesting areas at the Tip, to save or 
 demolish the high-rise skeletons, and to retain or more quickly 
 convert the existing beach clubs on the peninsula. There were 
 opposing views on all these issues. 
 
 The plan for Breezy Point has been extensively revised, and it has 
 been developed in much more detail than was proposed at the time 
 of the Discussion Draft General Management Plan . The principal 
 elements of the new plan are discussed in the decisions below. 
 
 Decisions 
 
 Present land uses at Riis Park will remain virtually the same , with 
 developments scaled to lesser densities farther west ; at the Tip , a 
 highly natural environment will be retained , and full protection for 
 the bird-nesting areas will be afforded. Beach densities (square 
 feet per person on the average weekend day) will range from about 
 
 32 
 
250 square feet at Riis Park (slightly more than present levels on 
 an average weekend day; see Appendix C), to 140 square feet at 
 Fort Tilden, 220 square feet at West Beach, and 520 square feet at 
 Tip Beach. 
 
 No significant changes are proposed for the existing facilities at 
 Riis Park , except that the bathhouse will be refurbished \n a 
 manner compatible with its historic significance . Pedestrian 
 entrances and exits at the parking lot will be redesigned to reduce 
 the conflicts between cars and people walking to the beach. 
 However, this change must be coordinated with the Triborough 
 Bridge and Tunnel Authority (owner of the parking lot), or it will 
 be postponed until the parking facility is transferred to the 
 National Park Service in the mid- or late-1980s. 
 
 Just west of Riis Park , within Fort Tilden , there will be a beach 
 facility especially designed for handicapped persons , including 
 access to the ocean , picnic facilities , and play areas . This area, 
 like all areas at Gateway, will be free of barriers. 
 
 The interior (western portion) of Fort Tilden will be largely 
 restored to a natural condition , with selected historic bunkers and 
 remnants of the old fort to be used as interpretive areas or to be 
 adaptively reused . 
 
 A ferry terminal will be at a bayshore site at Fort Tilden (not near 
 the east boundary of the Breezy Point Cooperative ) , where it will 
 be centrally located jjn relation to the proposed National Park 
 Service shuttle system . Bayshore areas more suitable for environ- 
 mental education just east of the Breezy Point Cooperative will not 
 be disturbed by this action. 
 
 There will be a major beach center at West Beach , located generally 
 on the site of the existing private beach club . A few of the 
 existing structures may remain, and an effort will be made to 
 provide some of the same types of beach facilities and services for 
 the public that are now provided through the club, including res- 
 taurant food service and rental cabanas for storing beach equip- 
 ment. Continuation of private clubs is not legally possible, and 
 services at the new center will not be provided on a membership 
 basis . 
 
 The high-rise skeletons and surrounding structures will be 
 demolished and the rubble used to develop a new landform on the 
 site , which will be landscaped and developed as a small park within 
 a park . 
 
 A physical and visual buffer will surround the Breezy Point 
 Cooperative , and there will be two pedestrian access points to the 
 
 34 
 
beach for residents at locations to be agreed upon . Two transit 
 stops with toilets may be located at small seasonal beach facilities 
 adjoining the two access points. Such facilities will be developed if 
 required in order to make the expansive beach that the National 
 Park Service will acquire from the Cooperative accessible to the 
 public, but in any case a very high-quality experience will be 
 retained through relatively low-user densities. Visitor access 
 traffic through the Cooperative will be totally eliminated on summer 
 weekends . 
 
 A beach center , a site for supervised group camping , and an 
 environmental education facility will be located west of the 
 Cooperative on the site of the present private beach club , part of 
 whose facilities may remain . A viewing platform will afford an 
 opportunity to enjoy the natural area toward the Tip, to which 
 access will be more limited. 
 
 All visitor parking at the west end of Rockaway Point Boulevard 
 will be eliminated on summer weekends , except for National Park 
 Service vehicles and those under special permit from park 
 managers . 
 
 The National Park Service will develop a stabilized path (not a 
 road) at the back of the beach between West Beach and Tip Beach 
 on which a special Park Service shuttle vehicle with large tires will 
 operate , connecting Jacob Riis Park with the Tip . 
 
 37 
 
JAMAICA BAY DECISIONS 
 
 USES AT FLOYD BENNETT FIELD 
 Discussion 
 
 Planning for Floyd Bennett Field has progressed only to the general 
 management plan stage. A number of suggestions for specific uses 
 at Floyd Bennett have been made by the public, most of which 
 would be compatible with the zoning and land-use arrangements now 
 proposed (including model airplanes, ice and field hockey, bike 
 rental, and biking). One suggested use—that of accommodating 
 general aviation at the site--would be inconsistent with the park's 
 objectives as well as in violation of the congressional mandate. 
 
 Subsequent to the publication of the Discussion Draft General 
 Management Plan , the central part of Floyd Bennett Field, consist- 
 ing of the original site of the municipal airport, was nominated to 
 the National Register of Historic Places. This has led to some major 
 changes in the general zoning configuration proposed for the area 
 as discussed below. 
 
 Decisions 
 
 The general objectives for the central part of Floyd Bennett Field 
 will be kept , while respecting and retaining the historic character 
 of the old municipal airport . The zones devoted to structured and 
 unstructured recreation will be within the area of the civil aviation 
 field. In that way, the outline of the field will always be visible, 
 which is not now the case. The lands outside the confines of the 
 old field will be restored or reconverted to a more natural appear- 
 ance, and they will be given Use-by-Reservation or Protection zone 
 status (except for a Development Support subzone around two 
 nonhistoric hangars on the east side of the field). Within the 
 confines of the old field, the land will remain flat and relatively 
 open. A runway configuration approximating that of the historic 
 field will be left; all other runways and taxiways will be removed. 
 This configuration will not be the same as that of the original 
 runways, as these runways have been widened, but the original 
 concept of the runways will be conveyed to visitors. The runways 
 will all be within the Structured Recreation zone, leading to the 
 natural areas. Dense areas of vegetation, as shown on the Floyd 
 Bennett Field Management Zones map, will be planted to enclose the 
 vistas formed by the runways, becoming something like the allees in 
 a French garden and still preserving the scope and vistas of the 
 airfield. 
 
 39 
 
The National Park Service will continue more detailed planning for 
 Floyd Bennett Field following additional resource surveys of soils , 
 air and water quality , and other factors . Planning will assure that 
 future actions will not increase summer weekend use and that the 
 following factors will be included in the development concept plan: 
 
 Floyd Bennett Field will be the site of an important facility on 
 man and the environment. 
 
 Floyd Bennett Field will be the site of a parking/staging area 
 for weekend access to the Breezy Point peninsula (but not a 
 parking garage). 
 
 Floyd Bennett Field will be the site of a Gateway Village, 
 affording an opportunity to utilize Hangar Row for recrea- 
 tional, historical, educational, cultural, and related purposes. 
 
 Floyd Bennett Field will offer an opportunity to demonstrate a 
 form of impacted land reclamation that has possible applications 
 elsewhere in the nation, and it will present a life-sized model 
 of the interface between the natural and man-made worlds. 
 
 The permit now extended to the New York City Police Department 
 for helicopter uses , and the use of helicopters by the U.S. Coast 
 Guard for air-sea rescue operations , will be continued until those 
 uses are no longer compatible with recreational uses and develop - 
 ment , or for at least the next 5 years . Specific concern was voiced 
 about the continued location at Floyd Bennett Field of the city's 
 police helicopter unit and the air-sea rescue unit of the U.S. Coast 
 Guard. The long-term plan assumes that both operations can be 
 relocated to other sites satisfactory to these functions. The city 
 has informed the National Park Service that it is confident an 
 alternative location can be arranged within that time. Because the 
 U.S. Coast Guard has title to the land on which it operates, its 
 operations will remain at that location for the foreseeable future 
 until another satisfactory location is found. 
 
 SPRING CREEK PARK 
 Discussion 
 
 The management zones proposed in the Discussion Draft General 
 Management Plan for Spring Creek Park were well received by the 
 public, and the decisions presented below elaborate on that 
 concept. 
 
 40 
 
The National Park Service will continue more detailed planning for 
 Floyd Bennett Field following additional resource surveys of soils , 
 air and water quality , and other factors . Planning will assure that 
 future actions will not increase summer weekend use and that the 
 following factors will be included in the development concept plan: 
 
 Floyd Bennett Field will be the site of an important facility on 
 man and the environment. 
 
 Floyd Bennett Field will be the site of a parking/staging area 
 for weekend access to the Breezy Point peninsula (but not a 
 parking garage). 
 
 Floyd Bennett Field will be the site of a Gateway Village, 
 affording an opportunity to utilize Hangar Row for recrea- 
 tional, historical, educational, cultural, and related purposes. 
 
 Floyd Bennett Field will offer an opportunity to demonstrate a 
 form of impacted land reclamation that has possible applications 
 elsewhere in the nation, and it will present a life-sized model 
 of the interface between the natural and man-made worlds. 
 
 The permit now extended to the New York City Police Department 
 for helicopter uses , and the use of helicopters by the U.S. Coast 
 Guard for air-sea rescue operations , will be continued until those 
 uses are no longer compatible with recreational uses and develop - 
 ment , or for at least the next 5 years . Specific concern was voiced 
 about the continued location at Floyd Bennett Field of the city's 
 police helicopter unit and the air-sea rescue unit of the U.S. Coast 
 Guard. The long-term plan assumes that both operations can be 
 relocated to other sites satisfactory to these functions. The city 
 has informed the National Park Service that it is confident an 
 alternative location can be arranged within that time. Because the 
 U.S. Coast Guard has title to the land on which it operates, its 
 operations will remain at that location for the foreseeable future 
 until another satisfactory location is found. 
 
 SPRING CREEK PARK 
 Discussion 
 
 The management zones proposed in the Discussion Draft General 
 Management Plan for Spring Creek Park were well received by the 
 public, and the decisions presented below elaborate on that 
 concept. 
 
 40 
 
Decisions 
 
 In general , natural systems will be established and/or managed 
 areas closer to the bay edges . Design concepts for Spring Creek 
 Park call for major modification of the existing landscape to allow or 
 encourage restoration of a more diverse natural system, while 
 providing for a variety of community activities. 
 
 A small support facility will be located just east of the proposed 
 beach area on the south shore . The area behind the beach will 
 contain ballfields, tennis and game courts, other active-recreation 
 facilities, and an overlook of Jamaica Bay. Two small parking areas 
 (100 spaces each) will be constructed just north of this field area, 
 with appropriate access to the fields and the beach. 
 
 Community gardens/meadows/open space will be established along 
 the entire eastern border of Spring Creek Park . These areas will 
 be separated from the more organized sports sites and the more 
 natural lands by a bikeway connecting the Belt Parkway bikepath 
 with Cross Bay Boulevard. The buffer strip of active-recreation 
 areas will help minimize random auto access into the more protected 
 areas of the park. 
 
 A small nature center will be provided [n the northwestern portion 
 of the park , with a small parking area (50 spaces) serving visitors 
 to this facility . 
 
 44 
 
OTHER DECISIONS 
 
 INTERPRETIVE SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AT 
 GATEWAY 
 
 A central program for all of Gateway will be public interpretation of 
 the natural and man-made resources at Gateway , within the context 
 of the region and its history . A separate interpretive plan will be 
 prepared to provide the framework for these functions, and it will 
 be followed by unit-specific plans. A separate plan will be pre- 
 pared for the proposed center on man and the environment at Floyd 
 Bennett Field's Gateway Village. This center will broaden 
 Gateway's environmental education objectives and programs to 
 national and worldwide dimensions, and the most effective modern 
 communication and participatory educational processes will be 
 utilized. 
 
 REUSE OF EXISTING STRUCTURES/BUILDING OF NEW 
 STRUCTURES 
 
 All structures that are sound , have architectural or historical 
 merit , are adaptable for a prescribed function , and are located at a 
 feasible site will be reused . Structures that are unsound or cannot 
 be adaptively reused will be demolished. New structures will be 
 built only when no existing structure in that area is usable, or 
 when additional space is required. 
 
 ADDING LANDS TO GATEWAY 
 
 All additions or boundary adjustments to units of the National Park 
 System must be legislated by Congress . General management plans 
 for a park can only recommend boundary changes when the change 
 will allow smoother operations or when an essential element of the 
 resource is outside the park boundary. No such additions to 
 Gateway are recommended, since these conditions are not met. 
 
 OFF-ROAD VEHICLES/DUNE BUGGIES 
 
 No vehicles will be permitted off the roads at Gateway , except by 
 National Park Service staff for official purposes or by visitors with 
 special permits from park management . 
 
 45 
 
ETHNIC AND KOSHER FOODS AND SERVICES AT GATEWAY 
 
 The National Park Service welcomed several suggestions that ethnic 
 and kosher foods and services be available at the park, both as a 
 service to those who visit, and also as a business opportunity for 
 small concession operators in the park. Steps will be taken as part 
 of the development process to provide these elements at Gateway. 
 
 46 
 
APPENDIX A: MANAGEMENT ZONING 
 
 The following explanation of management zoning is from the 
 Environmental Statement for the Gateway general management plan. 
 The management zone maps for each unit follow this discussion (the 
 management zone map for Floyd Bennett Field is printed in the body 
 of the report). 
 
 Gateway's total land and landlocked water acreage of 8,673 acres 
 (excluding enclave properties and including two inland ponds, new 
 beach to be added through sand nourishment programs, and the 
 Coast Guard property at Floyd Bennett Field) will be allocated to 
 six management zones, each of which has specific management 
 strategies and types of allowable use and development. Offshore 
 waters, including those of Jamaica Bay, have not been zoned as 
 part of this proposal. The six zones are Protection, Use-by- 
 Reservation, Beach, Unstructured Recreation, Structured 
 Recreation, and Development; the Development zone includes two 
 subzones—Support and Gateway Village. 
 
 The management zones are not to be confused with the management 
 units, which are administrative designations. The zoning scheme is 
 intended to direct management of parklands and to prescribe areas 
 where development or adaptive reuse of facilities, recreational 
 activities and programs, and conservation and protection measures 
 can be implemented. The scheme applies equally throughout 
 Gateway, and lands and waters placed in a specific zone will be 
 managed under similar strategies in the four management units of 
 the park. 
 
 PROTECTION ZONE (approximately 2,480 acres; 29 percent of the 
 park) 
 
 The Protection zone includes natural areas (existing and proposed 
 for restoration) so sensitive to human activity that they will be 
 available for use only under special conditions (described below). 
 Areas in this category include high and low salt marshes, primary 
 dunes, freshwater marshes, and any identified critical areas or 
 habitats, such as shorebird-nesting sites. Buffer areas, because of 
 their special protective function, also fall within this management 
 zone. Known but unevaluated archaeological sites will be placed in 
 Protection or Use-by-Reservation (see below) zones wherever know- 
 ledge permits accurate location of such sites. 
 
 In managing Protection zone resources, natural processes will be 
 encouraged: Dunes will be allowed to shift with the seasons, 
 marshes to grow or shrink according to normal environmental 
 cycles, and so forth. Wildlife species, particularly any identified 
 
 47 
 
as rare or endangered, will be protected through appropriate 
 management strategies. Historic and archaeological resources will 
 be managed according to approved policies and will receive similar 
 protection. Policies will be established to discourage random access 
 onto protected lands. Where Protection zones are traversed by 
 stabilized paths, these paths will be designed to minimize possible 
 deviations from prescribed routes. The only vehicles allowed on 
 these paths will be park-approved vehicles. Primary dune systems 
 and dune vegetation will be protected from trampling by means of 
 raised walkways, boardwalks, or other appropriate means. 
 Protection zones in areas where natural resources have been 
 destroyed or substantially modified will be managed to encourage 
 restoration of a more natural regime; for example, the dunes behind 
 the beach at Sandy Hook and Breezy Point will be restored, and 
 some marsh areas on the periphery of Floyd Bennett Field will be 
 replanted. Major landscaping will not take place, except in areas 
 that are being restored or where buffers are established. 
 
 Uses of lands in the Protection zone will be strictly regulated and 
 confined to research and maintenance. Development will be limited 
 to stabilized paths, low-impact trails, raised boardwalks or other 
 pedestrian crossings, and fencing in buffer areas to provide effec- 
 tive separation. No roads or large permanent structures will be 
 permitted. Research-related structures such as photo blinds will be 
 allowed . 
 
 USE-BY-RESERVATION ZONE (about 3,345 acres; 38 percent of 
 park) 
 
 Areas of Gateway that are sensitive to overuse will be zoned for 
 use-by-reservation so that management can control access by 
 scheduling groups and issuing permits to individuals. Included in 
 this zone are most forests, some upland marsh areas and secondary 
 dunes, and spacious grasslands with significant natural values. 
 Areas planned for special uses, such as nurseries and horticultural 
 experiment sites, will be placed in this zone, as will certain historic 
 and archaeological sites, structures, and features. 
 
 Relatively undisturbed landscapes in this zone will be managed to 
 protect and preserve existing resources, including resident and 
 seasonal wildlife species, and to allow natural processes to continue 
 with minimum interruption; manipulations such as establishing fire- 
 breaks and controlling mosquito populations will be carried out 
 where necessary for visitor health, comfort, or safety. Use-by- 
 Reservation lands that have been previously altered through land- 
 filling, bulkheading, or other action will be reclaimed and restored 
 or brought to a new, more suitable ecological balance through 
 landscaping, planting, and wildlife management techniques. If 
 
 48 
 
required, landscape screening will be incorporated to ensure that 
 such areas are adequately protected from surrounding uses. 
 Historic and archaeological resources will be managed in accordance 
 with approved policies and will be protected through appropriate 
 maintenance and security measures (e.g., fencing, patrols, onsite 
 personnel ) . 
 
 Low-impact uses allowed in Use-by-Reservation zones will include 
 nature study, environmental education, historical interpretation, 
 hiking, and--where appropriate—gardening and planting. Bicycling 
 will be permitted only on designated trails and paths, and camping 
 only at specified sites in supervised groups. Only small unob- 
 trusive new structures (e.g., shelters and field classrooms), 
 wayside exhibits, educational signs, and similar facilities will be 
 permitted in natural areas; roads and trails will be allowed, but 
 they will be designed and managed to discourage people from 
 leaving their vehicles and striking out on their own. Gardens may 
 include greenhouse structures, maintenance sheds, or similar 
 facilities. Historic structures will incorporate modern appurtenances 
 required for interpretation, security, or visitor safety. 
 
 BEACH ZONE (about 604 acres; 7 percent of park) 
 
 The Beach zone includes both ocean and bay shores having the 
 capacity to accommodate moderate to substantial recreational use. 
 
 Management strategies in Beach zones will, to the extent possible, 
 reflect natural processes affecting specific beach areas. Natural 
 shoreline dynamics will be interrupted only as necessary to reduce 
 erosion and maintain beach use in major public-use areas. Tech- 
 niques may include maintenance or establishment of dune systems, 
 plantings, and windbreaks, and sand nourishment where necessary 
 on eroding shorelines. Beaches will be maintained or expanded to 
 provide for planned levels of recreational use. Shoreline main- 
 tenance and cleanup will continue. 
 
 The primary uses of the Beach zone will be swimming and surfing 
 (where offshore currents and water quality permit), sunbathing, 
 beachcombing, and similar activities. Surf-fishing will be an 
 important activity in a few locations identified by park management 
 when such use will not conflict with other activities—primarily 
 during the off-season and in the summer at times when few people 
 are swimming. With the exception of existing seawalls and groins, 
 only mobile structures to support recreational use, such as sun 
 shades, lifeguard stands, ramps for the handicapped, and other 
 minor, temporary structures required for seasonal use, will be 
 allowed on the beach itself. No roads or established trails will be 
 permitted in the Beach zone. 
 
 49 
 
UNSTRUCTURED RECREATION ZONE (about 1,053 acres; 12 percent 
 of park) 
 
 This zone contains predominantly natural areas, other than beaches, 
 that can accommodate substantial recreational use. Included are 
 open grassland/thicket areas with no particularly sensitive natural 
 or historic resources. 
 
 Areas zoned for unstructured recreation will be landscaped to 
 preserve natural vegetation and scenery while establishing sites 
 that can support casual outdoor uses. Wildlife species that can 
 coexist in such areas will be protected through appropriate manage- 
 ment techniques. Land uses may be periodically rotated to permit 
 regrowth of natural vegetation. Historic resources will be managed 
 according to approved policies. 
 
 All outdoor activities that require little supervision and few support 
 facilities will be allowed in this zone, e.g., picnicking, walking, 
 bird-watching, kite flying, bike riding, and informal athletics. 
 Developments will be provided as necessary to support these and 
 similar uses; facilities may include paths, bicycle trails, walks, 
 campsites for supervised group camping, comfort stations, picnic 
 sites/shelters, grassy amphitheaters, arboretums, gardens, and 
 historical, horticultural, and other exhibits. Roads are an accept- 
 able development in this zone, and some field space may be desig- 
 nated for overflow parking on peak days. 
 
 STRUCTURED RECREATION ZONE (about 498 acres; 6 percent of 
 park) 
 
 This zone encompasses outdoor areas that can be developed and 
 landscaped to support active organized sports and recreation. 
 They include lands already developed for these purposes and 
 selected open or disturbed uplands where there are no sensitive or 
 significant natural resources and where active use will not conflict 
 with preservation of historic resources. 
 
 The Structured Recreation zone will be managed by using tech- 
 niques that ensure the preservation of heavily used public spaces. 
 Landscaping will be designed to support the recreational uses 
 intended for this zone. Natural vegetation and cover will be incor- 
 porated wherever possible. Approved policies will be followed in 
 managing historic resources. 
 
 Structured Recreation lands will accommodate all athletic activities 
 requiring hard surfaces, structured grounds, playing fields, and so 
 forth. More casual uses will also be permitted. Roads will be 
 provided as necessary, and all facilities and support systems that 
 aid in fulfilling the intent of this zone will be allowed, including 
 
 50 
 
baseball diamonds, cricket pitches, soccer and football fields, 
 basketball courts, tennis courts, benches, shade structures, 
 comfort facilities, information booths, portable bleachers, band- 
 shells, and grassy amphitheaters. Other related facilities may be 
 included, such as bicycle trails, lighting for nighttime events and 
 activities, underground sprinklers or other artificial irrigation 
 systems, and the like. 
 
 DEVELOPMENT ZONE (acreages listed for subzones) 
 
 The Development zone includes those parts of Gateway where 
 buildings or hard-surfaced parking lots predominate, or where the 
 land is suitable for construction of large beach or recreation 
 centers and support facilities. Areas assigned to this zone include 
 existing developed areas and accessible disturbed uplands with no 
 sensitive or significant natural and historic resources. 
 
 Two subzones have been designated to aid in distinguishing the 
 character of developed areas within the park: the Support subzone 
 includes those facilities that support or make possible recreational 
 use of the park; the Village subzone contains the three Gateway 
 Villages. Historic resources lying in either of these subzones will 
 be properly managed and protected according to approved policies. 
 
 Development Support Subzone (about 438 acres; 5 percent of park) 
 
 In managing this subzone, existing structures will be adaptively 
 restored and reused wherever appropriate. Any buildings or 
 structures classified as unsafe or unsuitable for public or adminis- 
 trative use--and not required by long-range plans--will be demol- 
 ished. Landscaping, such as windbreaks and shaded areas for 
 picnicking, will be designed to aid public use and enjoyment of 
 facilities. Waste-disposal systems will be in compliance with the 
 latest state and federal standards for environmental protection. 
 
 This subzone will be designed to support active use by large 
 numbers of visitors, aiding people in conducting recreational or 
 educational activities in nearby Beach, Structured, or Unstructured 
 Recreation zones. Such uses may include parking, getting basic 
 information about the park, changing clothes, showering, eating, 
 beginning/ending field studies, and so forth. Some direct partici- 
 pation in activities will take place in this zone, such as pool swim- 
 ming, hosteling, classroom/laboratory work in environmental 
 education, community and special-interest group events, and similar 
 activities. Permanent facilities will be provided as appropriate, 
 including roads, parking surfaces, pedestrian and vehicle over- 
 passes, boardwalks, bathhouses, comfort stations, guest marinas 
 (no long-term boat storage), marinas with seasonal rental spaces, 
 
 51 
 
restaurants and other food-service establishments, shops providing 
 rental equipment, administration and maintenance facilities 
 (including limited housing for park staff required to remain on 
 site), and all related structures for participatory activities, such as 
 swimming pools, campsites, hostels, shelters, cabanas, playing 
 courts, educational centers, community meeting halls, and the like. 
 In areas where primary dune systems in Protection zones parallel 
 the beach, facilities to support beach use will be located in Support 
 subzones directly behind the dune system. Access to the beach 
 will be along boardwalks or other controlled-access routes to avoid 
 damage to the foredune. 
 
 Village Subzone (about 255 acres; 3 percent of park) 
 
 Areas at Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook, Fort Wadsworth on Staten 
 Island, and Floyd Bennett Field will be developed and managed as 
 Gateway Villages--the major activity centers of the park. These 
 villages will fulfill all the functions of traditional Park Service 
 visitor-center complexes, providing necessary orientation and other 
 services for first-time visitors as well as day-to-day information 
 about programs and events throughout the park. However, they 
 are also planned to take on a much larger role, as major education 
 centers and "object lessons" in the relationship of man and his 
 environment. The term "village" has been used deliberately to 
 signal a concentration of intensive uses, but without the adverse 
 connotations associated with urbanization. Year-round environ- 
 mental education programs, cultural events, exhibits, and research 
 will take place in the Gateway Villages, as well as outdoor and 
 indoor recreational activities and programs. 
 
 Lands and facilities within the Gateway Villages will be managed 
 using techniques similar to those described in the Support subzone 
 section above. Emphasis will be placed on the preservation and 
 adaptive reuse of historic resources and the introduction of natural 
 plant materials into an urban environment. New facilities will be 
 constructed and maintained to complement this setting. 
 
 Recreational uses appropriate to a "village" setting will be accom- 
 modated in this zone, including staying in a hostel; attending or 
 participating in cultural and educational events, lectures, shows, 
 exhibits, and festivals; dancing; singing; swimming; playing indoor 
 sports; eating; gardening; studying; doing research; and so on. 
 All development required for the support of these kinds of activities 
 will be acceptable in the villages; examples are restaurants and 
 cafes, stores, classrooms, laboratories, theaters, studios, gymna- 
 siums, day camps, hostel units, playgrounds, day-care centers, 
 visitor centers, interpretive centers, plazas, open-air markets, 
 promenades, administration and maintenance facilities, apartments 
 and other residences for essential park staff (those required to 
 stay on site) and for sites for recreational vehicles, and parking 
 areas. 
 
 52 
 
MANAGEMENT ZONES 
 
 STATEN ISLAND 
 
 1000 2 000 3000 
 
 UNITE O STATES 0i<>. 
 
 THE IWl£«'Of» / NATIONAL *APK SEOVICt 0£C 77 I OSC 
 
APPENDIX B: PAID PARKED CARS AT JACOB RMS 
 PARKING LOT ON 1976 SUMMER SUNDAYS 
 
 The Jacob Riis parking lot is currently operated by the Triborough 
 Bridge and Tunnel Authority, which is the source of the data. 
 The average number of cars parked at the Riis Park lot for the 
 1976 Sundays in the summer season was 4,492. Assuming that on 
 any Sunday the cars parking at the Riis Park lot have approxi- 
 mately the same number of occupants, and assuming that the pro- 
 portion of parked cars to beach users remains fairly constant 
 throughout the summer, then average use on the nonpeak summer 
 Sundays in 1976 was less than half of the peak-day use. This 
 pattern of use (average summer Sunday use that is less than half 
 the peak-day use) is generally the same at all Gateway beaches. It 
 should also be noted that Saturdays are generally less crowded than 
 Sundays. 
 
 Summer Sundays 
 
 
 Paid Parked 
 
 Percent of 
 
 (rank) 
 
 Date 
 
 Cars 
 
 Use 
 
 1 
 
 8/22 
 
 11,664 
 
 
 2 
 
 7/18 
 
 9,903 
 
 84.9 
 
 3 
 
 7/25 
 
 9,866 
 
 84.6 
 
 4 
 
 6/27 
 
 8,553 
 
 73.3 
 
 5 
 
 8/1 
 
 6,527 
 
 55.9 
 
 6 
 
 8/29 
 
 4,809 
 
 41.2 
 
 7 
 
 7/11 
 
 3,946 
 
 33.8 
 
 8 
 
 6/13 
 
 3,475 
 
 29.8 
 
 9 
 
 8/15 
 
 2,798 
 
 24.0 
 
 10 
 
 7/4 
 
 2,037 
 
 17.5 
 
 11 
 
 6/20 
 
 1,409 
 
 12.1 
 
 12 
 
 9/5 
 
 1,317 
 
 11.3 
 
 13 
 
 6/6 
 
 473 
 
 4.1 
 
 14 
 
 5/30 
 
 356 
 
 3.1 
 
 15 
 
 8/8 
 
 253 
 
 2.2 
 
 Peak-Day 
 
 TOTAL 67,386 AVERAGE 34.1 
 
 63 
 
APPENDIX C: DAILY AND ANNUAL VISITOR USE 
 AT GATEWAY UNITS 
 
 Sandy Hook 
 
 Daily Visitor Use Table 
 Daily/Annual Visitor Use 
 
 Staten Island 
 
 Daily Visitor Use Table 
 Daily/Annual Visitor Use 
 
 Breezy Point 
 
 Daily Visitor Use Table 
 Daily/Annual Visitor Use 
 
 Jamaica Bay 
 
 Daily/Annual Visitor Use 
 
 65 
 
O L 
 
 H < 
 
 LU 
 
 CO _ 
 
 O -M 
 
 t ^ 
 
 > *- 
 
 > (U 
 
 _1 ■<-• 
 
 — o 
 
 < 2i. 
 
 Q p 
 
 >- 
 
 O J-> u 
 
 O +- 1 <" 
 
 !_ CD 0) 
 
 Q. CQ CQ 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 I/) 
 
 C as 
 
 D <D 
 O CQ 
 
 C 
 
 CD u 
 
 .- CD 
 Z CQ 
 
 CQ 03 
 O - 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 a> 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 a 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 -r 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 in 
 ir> 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CJ) 
 CD 
 
 O O OO o 
 OO LO LO O 
 O O CM <\J O 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 CD O 
 
 o o o 
 lo lo o 
 
 CM OJ O 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 r- O 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 Q 
 
 if) cj 
 CD 
 
 CS/ ° 
 
 D 
 in 
 
 LU 
 
 
 <C 
 cr 
 
 LU 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 CO CD 
 _Q CD 
 
 D 
 
 iri u°? 
 
 CD 
 
 -Q LL "O 
 
 qj CD 
 
 *2 
 
 CD „ O <U . OCDO 
 
 >>S_>>L>L 
 •-ILQ.~LLQ.~Q. 
 
 O O 
 LO LO 
 CM CM 
 
 O O O O 
 O O O O 
 O LO LO 00 
 
 O O 
 LO LO 
 — CM 
 
 O O OO 
 CD O O 00 
 
 CD r- r- 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o 
 
 h 
 
 OOO 
 o — — 
 
 id to 
 
 000 
 
 O 1- 
 CO 
 
 O O 
 O O 
 1- o 
 
 00 00 
 
 ~ O O 
 CM O CM 
 
 O O 
 O O 
 O O 
 
 o o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o o 
 o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 CM CD 
 
 a> 
 a. 
 
 o OOO 
 CD OOO 
 
 Q_ O LO LO 
 
 O O 
 O O 
 O o 
 
 OO — LO 
 
 00 <d- — 
 
 CM O CM ro 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 CD 
 
 en — 
 
 ~ CD CD 
 
 'id . o 
 
 Q > L 
 
 u. a 
 
 ><— 
 
 
 LO 
 
 '5 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 <4- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 +-> 
 
 
 
 ID 
 
 
 s_ 
 
 cu 
 
 
 
 L. 
 
 13 
 
 CU 
 
 
 > 
 
 JC 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 c 
 
 ra 
 
 L. 
 
 
 3 
 
 co 
 
 \ 
 
 
 cu 
 
 c 
 
 
 00 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 i/i 
 
 L. 
 
 cu 
 Q. 
 
 IS 
 
 > L 
 
 CO 
 
 u 
 < 
 
 LL 
 
 a 
 
 LU 
 
 10 
 
 o 
 
 a. 
 
 O 
 
 £» 
 a 
 
 LL O 
 
 o g. 
 t ° 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 h 
 
 > 
 < 
 Q 
 
 z < 
 
 LU Q_ 
 
 LU (J 
 LU Z 
 
 LU 
 
 < H 
 
 LU 2 
 
 Q LU 
 
 □ 
 
 n 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 CD 
 Q. 
 
 o 
 
 LO 
 
 CD 
 L 
 
 /-^ <o 
 s_ " 
 <d (J 
 u 
 
 Q. CD 
 
 8* 
 
 Q. i/l 
 C 
 
 LO ro 
 • t. 
 
 +1 ^ 
 w u _ 
 
 _ +- 1 -Q +-> 
 CD 3 3 o 
 
 LL 
 
 O 
 CD 
 CO 
 
 OOO 
 OOO 
 O LO o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 L0 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 <u 
 
 a 
 
 _ CD 
 
 l 
 
 CD (J 
 O 
 
 Q. CD 
 
 8 a 
 
 Q. i/> 
 C 
 
 LO ro 
 
 "o -S 5 L 
 
 U < Q- LL 
 CD 
 
-use 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 c 
 
 ■£ 
 
 « 
 
 > 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 dail 
 
 nteq 
 
 o 
 Z 
 
 a 
 
 "D 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 | 
 
 nua 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 "o 
 
 o 
 
 phs 
 
 "O 
 B 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 l 
 
 
 CO 
 
 =1 
 
 
 
 
 JD 
 
 Q. 
 
 1 
 
 
 "6 
 
 
 The 
 
 c 
 
 ■D 
 C 
 
 C 
 
 UJ 
 
 C/5 
 Z> 
 _l 
 < 
 D 
 
 = CO 
 
 >• 
 
 > C/3 
 
 < > 
 
 UJ < 
 X Q 
 
 saonsiA dosNomiw 
 
 < Q 
 
 o = 
 
 o = 
 
 cr t/> = 
 
 UJ > = 
 
 >< = 
 
 < Q = 
 
 DC 
 
 UJ 
 
 h- 
 
 o 
 o 
 I 
 
 >■ c/5 
 
 I I 
 
 SUOIISIA dOSQNVSnOHl 
 
LO 
 
 To "3 
 
 +J CD 
 
 O L. 
 
 h- < 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o o o o 
 o o o o 
 
 00 00 o o 
 
 u 
 nj 
 
 "> ^ 
 0) CQ 
 
 o 
 
 o u 
 
 1- CD 
 
 u z 
 
 o 
 © 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 <3- 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 'X) 
 
 o o o o 
 o o o 
 
 00 00 o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 oo oo 
 
 o o 
 
 CM CM 
 O) o> 
 
 o o 
 
 CM 00 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 00 00 
 
 o o 
 
 CM CM 
 
 un 05 
 
 o o 
 
 00 o 
 
 oo m 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 LT> LT) 
 
 CU 
 
 > 
 
 o o 
 
 O CM 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 'OJ 
 
 l/l 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 n x: 
 x: u 
 
 4_l 00 
 
 ra cd 
 CO CQ 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 t 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o o o 
 
 o o o 
 
 o o o 
 
 if) LT) I- 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 <tf o 
 
 o o 
 ■3- r~- 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 V 
 CL 
 
 o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 00 o 
 
 0) 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 I 
 
 u 
 < 
 
 LU 
 
 CO 
 
 CQ 
 
 < 
 
 3 
 
 L0 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 Q 
 
 1X1 
 
 u 
 
 CD 
 CL 
 
 ra 
 
 T3 
 
 t— a 
 
 u & 
 
 < a> 
 cl a 
 
 < N_ 
 
 U o 
 
 u 
 < 
 
 IT) 
 CM 
 
 u 
 
 2 Z 
 
 3 3 
 
 < xi a -o 
 
 CO CD CO Cb 
 
 >r~ +-> >r- +-> 
 
 cu 
 
 in -q 
 D CD CD 
 
 cu . o cd . o 
 > > s- > > s- 
 
 •— LL Q_ LL 0_ 
 
 > c 
 
 x: 
 u 
 
 CO 
 
 aj 
 
 CQ 
 
 c 
 o 
 o 
 
 T3 
 
 CD CD 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 LL CL 
 
 CD "8 
 
 +-» 
 
 x:> e 
 
 UlLQ. 
 
 QJ 
 
 CQ 
 
 LU 
 
 u 
 < 
 
 LL 
 
 Q 
 
 LU 
 
 to 
 
 o 
 
 Cl 
 
 o 
 
 LC 
 CL 
 
 CL 
 LL O 
 
 o & 
 
 > 4— 
 
 j- o 
 
 u* 
 < 
 
 CL 
 
 < 
 
 u 
 
 CD 
 
 u 
 
 LL 
 LL 
 
 < 
 
 ce 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 Q 
 
 Q CC 
 
 z < 
 
 LU Q. 
 
 LU CJ 
 LU Z 
 
 ^ LU 
 
 < H 
 
 LU Z 
 CL LU 
 
 
 
 
 V) 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 XI 
 
 
 \ 
 CD 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 !_ 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 s_ 
 
 
 
 
 — x: 
 
 
 CO (J 
 
 
 u 
 
 x> 
 
 
 cu 
 
 a. a: 
 
 +-» 
 
 
 u 
 
 s - 
 
 CD 
 
 CL 10 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 l_ 
 
 uo ^ 
 
 a 
 
 • s_ 
 
 
 00 i 
 
 "D 
 
 +l 
 
 C 
 
 ^ u 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 2Z 
 
 CD 
 
 3 3 
 
 t». 
 01 
 
 < CL 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 on 
 
< 
 
 CC CO 
 
 LU > 
 
 > < 
 
 < a 
 
 co 
 
 LU > 
 
 a < 
 
 < Q 
 CC ^ 
 LU LU 
 > LU 
 
 < g 
 
 UJ Q 
 
 O 2 
 
 < UJ 
 
 CC ^ CO 
 
 LU LU > 
 
 > LU < 
 
 < g Q 
 
 o 
 
 SF < 
 
 co 
 
 C/D 
 
 DC 
 LU 
 
 =5 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 CO 
 
 > 
 
 > CO 
 LU < 
 
 I Q 
 
 saonsiA dosNomiiAi 
 
 LU 
 
 CO 
 
 < Q 
 LU LU 
 
 < 
 
 CC CO 
 
 LU > 
 
 > < 
 
 < a 
 
 LU Q 
 
 < UJ 
 
 CC ^ CO 
 
 LU LU > 
 
 > LU < 
 
 < g Q 
 
 J 
 
 CO 
 LU > 
 
 a < 
 
 < Q 
 
 CC ^ 
 LU LU 
 > LU 
 
 < g 
 
 CD 
 
 SF < 
 
 O- UL 
 
 CO 
 
 LU 
 
 cy) 
 => 
 
 < 
 Q 
 
 > CO 
 
 < > 
 
 LU < 
 X Q 
 
 LU Q 
 O Z 
 
 < LU 
 CC ^ CO 
 LU LU >- 
 > LU < 
 
 < g Q 
 J 
 
 CO - 
 
 LU > = 
 
 o < = 
 
 < Q = 
 CC ^ = 
 LU LU = 
 > LU = 
 
 < g = 
 
 CO 
 
 SH01ISIA dO SQNVSnOHl 
 
E 
 
 i 
 
 1/) 
 
 OJ <D 
 O I- 
 
 I- < 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 to cp 
 
 0) CD 
 5 DQ 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 LO 
 
 cr> 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 CM 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o o o o 
 o o o o 
 
 O O LO LO 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o o o 
 
 o o o 
 
 o o o 
 
 O O 00 
 (M (M 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 in o 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 in o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 00 
 oo cm 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o o o 
 
 O O 00 LO 
 CM O I- CM 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 LO O 
 
 o o o o 
 
 O O 00 *T 
 CM 00 O) i- 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o 4-. a 
 
 3 C <U 
 
 " c c 
 
 _ <u z 
 
 co CO rrj 
 
 +■> > 01 
 
 =5 -9 5 
 
 -a u- 
 
 "> ^ 0) 
 
 o " .E 
 
 - i- o 
 
 00 "I > 
 
 ^ a ro 
 
 ■C o o o 
 <u lo cm 
 
 o o o o o 
 
 LO CM 00 
 *— 00 LO O 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 to 
 
 CM 
 
 ro 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 < — 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 O LO 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 oo 
 
 o o 
 
 CM 
 00 CM 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o o 
 o o o 
 o o o 
 
 o o o o o 
 o o o o o 
 o o o o o 
 
 to to 00 o o 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 LO 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 LO 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 <r 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 cc 
 
 < 
 
 I 
 U 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 in 
 
 < 
 Q 
 
 LU 
 
 LU 
 LU 
 
 3 
 
 0) 
 
 a 
 o 
 <D 
 
 C Q- 
 
 £ ° 
 8.3 
 
 !_ 
 
 a 
 
 D 
 
 LO 
 LU 
 O 
 < 
 
 or 
 
 LU 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 o 
 +-» 
 
 D 
 
 < X> 
 LO OJ 
 
 >r-- 
 
 L, 
 
 in 
 r 
 u 
 
 C 
 
 C 
 03 
 L 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 a 
 
 to 
 
 >•£ 
 n 01 
 
 a) 
 
 3 
 JZ 
 
 if) 
 
 ~o 
 c 
 
 OJ . O OJ . 
 >>!_>> 
 •- LL. Q. •- LL 
 
 *3 TJ 
 L0 U- 
 
 a cu 
 
 Z C x) 
 
 c <u 
 5" 
 
 o> x) 
 
 OJ ~ 
 
 !- > > S- > -Q 
 
 0. ■- qQ. ■- m 
 
 < < 
 
 3 to a> 
 
 = ? .« 
 
 'co . "o 
 
 Q > «- 
 
 LL Q_ 
 
 
 
 h 
 
 "O CM 
 
 Z5 « 
 
 CD 
 
 > 
 
 OJ £ to OJ 
 
 tj OJ 
 0) Q 
 
 0) 
 CO 
 
 c 
 o 
 o 
 
 £ > 
 
 r- ■ 
 
 CT) u 
 OJ 
 
 ° _ v o 
 
 S- -C > s_ 
 
 a y u. a. 
 
 co 
 
 OJ 
 CO 
 
 cu 
 
 9, a 
 
 O a 
 a 
 
 o"S 
 
 a. * 
 
 t-J LU 
 
 > h 
 
 a < 
 
 < ^ 
 
 U 
 
 h 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 N 
 LU 
 
 
 R E 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 < z 
 
 
 ^ CC 
 
 
 Q LU 
 
 
 Z h 
 
 
 S z 
 
 
 iC LU 
 
 
 LU 
 
 
 LU (J 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 < < 
 
 a> 
 
 LiJ CC 
 
 >- 
 
 0- I- 
 
 LL 
 
 in 
 
 Q. 
 O 
 OJ 
 Q. 
 
 O 
 
 LO 
 
 !_ -C 
 
 m (J 
 u 
 
 TJ 
 C 
 Q. TI 
 
 8- 
 
 Q. 10 
 C 
 re 
 
 OJ 
 
 LO 
 
 □ 
 
 0) 
 
 o 10 
 
 0) w 
 o aj 
 
 LO — 
 
 s- C 
 ^ <o C 
 L -C 41 
 co U CO 
 u 
 
 ■o X) 
 c > 
 nj o 
 
 0) 
 
 Q. 
 
 o 
 
 OJ . 
 
 a 
 
 LO fD 
 
 < a 
 
 OJ 
 
 3 D £ 
 
 > — 
 
 !_ CD 
 
 T3 
 
 b a> 
 
 I- tj < 0- to u- h- 
 
 OJ 
 
 oj o 
 
LU 
 
 CO 
 D 
 
 2 S |l 
 ; • • E 
 
 < 
 
 cc co 
 
 LU >- 
 > < 
 
 < Q 
 
 CO 
 LU >- 
 (J < 
 
 < Q 
 CC 
 
 LU LU 
 
 > LU 
 
 < g 
 
 LU Q 
 
 < LU 
 
 CC CZ CO 
 
 LU LU > 
 
 > LU < 
 
 < g O 
 
 CO 
 
 LU >" 
 
 CO < 
 
 < Q 
 CC ^ 
 LU LU 
 > LU 
 
 < g 
 
 LU Q 
 
 O 2 
 
 < LU 
 
 0C ^ CO 
 
 LU LD > 
 
 > UJ < 
 
 < g O 
 
 £ < 
 
 Q- u_ 
 
 CO 
 
 UJ 
 
 CO 
 
 < 
 
 D 
 Z 
 Z 
 < 
 
 CO 
 D 
 
 > 
 
 > CO 
 
 LU < 
 X Q 
 
 saonsiA josNomiw 
 
 I 
 
 O : 
 
 < : 
 cc co : 
 
 LU > i 
 
 > < i 
 
 < Q r 
 
 o 
 
 o. 
 
 >- 
 
 N 
 LU 
 LU 
 
 CC 
 00 
 
 LU 
 CO 
 D 
 
 < 
 
 CO 
 Z) 
 
 > 
 
 > CO 
 
 < > 
 
 UJ < 
 I Q 
 
 > 
 < 
 
 SF < 
 
 CL LL. 
 
 co 
 
 CO 
 
 SHOIISIA dO SQNVSnOHl 
 
SHOIISIA dO SQNVSnOHl 
 
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY: 
 GATEWAY PLANNING DOCUMENTS 
 
 Basic Information . Denver: U.S. Government Printing Office, 
 1975. 
 
 A brief description of the park and region, and an outline of 
 the concerns, influences, and goals that had been identified in 
 the early stages of planning. 
 
 Draft Statement for Management . Denver: U.S. Government 
 Printing Office, 1976. 
 
 A detailed explanation of the park purpose, significance, 
 objectives, and influences. 
 
 Environmental Assessment . Denver: U.S. Government Printing 
 Office, 1976. 
 
 A detailed description of the park in its regional setting, and 
 the presentation of three alternative planning approaches. 
 
 Discussion Draft General Management Plan . Denver: U.S. 
 
 Government Printing Office, 1976. 
 
 A first-draft conceptual plan for Gateway. 
 
 Here's What We Heard . Brooklyn, NY: National Park Service, 
 Gateway National Recreation Area, 1977. 
 
 A brief summary of the comments made by the public in 
 response to the Discussion Draft General Management Plan . 
 
 Task Force Report on Gateway Economic Development . Brooklyn, 
 NY: National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area, 
 1977. 
 
 A report that includes recommendations for economic 
 development at Gateway and for ensuring equitable minority 
 representation in the Gateway economy. 
 
 73 
 
As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of 
 the Interior has basic responsibilities to protect and conserve our 
 land and water, energy and minerals, fish and wildlife, and parks 
 and recreaction areas, and to ensure the wise use of all these 
 resources. The Department also has major responsibility for 
 American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in 
 island territories under U.S. administration. 
 
 Publication services provided by the graphics and editorial staffs of 
 the Denver Service Center. NPS 1272