Georgia Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan: governmental studies in outdoor recreation (governmental administration for outdoor recreation) [Dec. 1967]

Governmental Studies In
,I') .
Outdoor Recreation

Outdoor Recreation Research Study i 10-B
GOVERNMENTAL STUDIES IN
OUTDOOR RECREATION (Governmental Administration for Outdoor Recreation)
Augustus B. Turnbull, III Assistant Professor of Political Science
A Publication of
Institute of Community and Area Development Institute of Government UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA December, 1967
Prepared for the STATE PIANNING BURFAU* Outdoor Recreation Planning Unit D. John Beck, Chief *Formerly Planning Division, Department of Industry and Trade (Preparation of this document was financed, in part, by the U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.)

FOREWORD
The State of Georgia is surging ahead in many areas; agriculture, business, industry, and resource development. In addition to these aspects of growth it is significant to note that the state government is now working on the development of a State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
The Institute of Community and Area Development is proud to have the privilege of working with the State Planning Bureau in conducting preliminary studies for development of the state plan.
This study is one in the series of outdoor recreation studies being conducted by the University for the Bureau. The Institute is indebted to many individuals and organizations for their assistance and work involved in this project.
Particularly, appreciation is expressed to D .. John Beck, Director of the Outdoor Recreation Planning Unit, State Planning Bureau and James C. McDonnell, Senior Planner, Outdoor Recreation Planning Unit, for their valuable assistance, guidance and direction in carrying out the study program.
J. W. Fanning Vice-President for Services University of Georgia

PREFACE
This report on Governmental Administration for Outdoor Recreation in Georgia is one of three prepared by staff members of the Institute of Government of the University of Georgia for the State Planning and Programming Bureau. Each of these studies has been conducted to assist the Bureau in the preparation of a comprehensive outdoor recreation plan for the state of Georgia. The Bureau retains all distribution rights to the studies and to the data collected in support of the studies.
It should be made clear that the purposes and time available for completion of this report were limited. It does not purport I therefore I to outline in detail a long-range and comprehensive solution to all of the administrative problems in this functional area of state government. In particular, a detailed examination of the potentials of a unified Department of Conservation was beyond the scope of this study. This report does, however, specify the current organizational structure of the state in the field of outdoor recreation, and it identifies administrative problems involved in comprehensive planning for outdoor recreation. It also recommends specific, improved procedures for outdoor recreation planning in Georgia. It should be noted that these procedures are those appropriate at this point in time and commensurate with the experiences of other states and that of Georgia itself.
Morris W. H. Collins I Ir. I Director
Institute of Government

PREFACE
lliTOF~~~
SUMMARY INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page iii v 1
4

ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION IN OTHER STATES

7

Parks or Conservation Departments

9

State Planning Agencies

10

Outdoor Recreation Planning Council

13

Interagency Advisory Council

15

ORGANIZATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR

RECREATION PlAN FOR GEORGIA

19

Interagency Council for Outdoor Recreation

23

Interagency Technical Advisory Committee

24

Special Role of State Agencies

25

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

27

The Planning Process

30

APPENDIX

33

Notes to Administrative Inventory

34

iv

UST OF TABLES

TABLE

I.

ORGANIZATION FOR PIANNING AND

ADMINISTERING OUTDOOR RECREATION

II.

OUTDOOR RECREATION ADMINISTRATIVE

REIATIONSHIPS IN ILLINOIS

III.

THE FLORIDA OUTDOOR RECREATION AND

CONSERVATION PROGRAM WORKING

REIATIONSHIPS

IV.

KANSAS JOINT COUNCIL ON RECREATION

V.

RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE FOR OUTDOOR

RECREATION PIANNING FOR GEORGIA

VI.

EXISTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF

AGENCIES CONCERNED WITH OUTDOOR

RECREATION

PAGE 8
12
14 16 20
22

v

SUMMARY
One of the most important aspects of a stateI s action program for outdoor recreation is the manner in which it organizes itself for administration of the program. These are two major reasons why organization. is of such great importance:
(1) Recreation programs at each level of government and within the same geographical area are conducted by a large number of different agencies.
(2) The definition of "recreation" is so broad that Federal funds for "recreation projects" may be obtained from a number of different grant-in-aid programs, such as the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, the Water Resources Research Act, the Small Reclamation Projects Act and many others.
The existence of a large number of governmental units active in the area of recreation makes it difficult for a state to establish and coordinate any comprehensive recreational program. Agencies tend to have a vested interest in the particular type of recreational program which they administer. As a result they compete for funds with each other rather than seeking a rational basis for allocating available funds by supporting a planned course of action based on Justifications.
The passage of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act in 1965 together with a new understanding of the importance of comprehensive planning has led many states to the development of a comprehensive planning process for outdoor recreation. In states where planning was already in progress the emphasis has been shifted to meet the newlyexpressed need for planning for outdoor recreation. Four major patterns have developed:
(1) Major responsibility for planning and implementation has been put in a conservation department which includes functional divisions such as Game and Fish, Parks and Forests.
(2) Major responsibility for planning has been put in a state planning agency with implementation by line agencies.

(3) Major responsibility for coordination, planning and in some cases I implementation has been placed in a new Outdoor Recreation Council.
(4) An Interagency Advisory Committee for Outdoor Recreation that assists in coordination of policy among the line agencies.
In evaluation of these organizational alternatives it should be determined whether or not they provide for the development of an overall statewide outdoor recreation policy and the best means for implementing that policy through coordination among the programs of the different agencies. Also important is providing a means of choosing the best available source of Federal and State funds for each particular project.
The important consideration is to initiate a comprehensive planning process which is of value to the participating agencies in their program development. It should not be based merely on the requirements of one or even several Federal grant programs but rather on the actual needs of the State as a whole and the individual agencies.
Two conditions are vital if the goals of comprehensive planning and implementation of the plan are to be achieved:
(1) that there be full interchange of information about outdoor recreation needs and programs among the governmental units involved;
(2) that executive authority for defining and enforcing a state comprehensive outdoor recreational policy be vested in one agency.
This report notes three alternative means of achieving these conditions in Georgia:
(1) the establishment of a unified department of natural resources or conservation;
(2) giving complete authority for coordination of outdoor recreation programs to the Georgia Recreation Commission;
(3) preserving the same general division of program responsibility as now exists but creating an Inter-Agency Council for Outdoor Recreation as a policy-prescribing body.
- 2-

The third alternative is the one recommended in this report for a number of reasons: need for coordination, existing operating and planning capabilities, direct interest in recreational development, and the existing tradition and established legislative policy in Georgia for the distribution of the various recreational functions among the agencies.
The recommended Inter-Agency Council should consist of representatives of the following state agencies:
(1) Department of State Parks I Historic Sites and Monuments (2) State Game and Fish Commission (3) Tourist Division, Department of Industry and Trade (4) Georgia Historical Commission (5) Georgia Recreation Commission (6) Soil and Water Conservation Committee (7) Georgia Water Quality Control Board (8) State Planning and Programming Bureau (9) State Highway Department.
The Council would have authority to establish recreational policy within the limits of legislative authorization and based upon and implemented through the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
The State Planning and Programming Bureau would serve as the staff agency for the Council in developing the plan through the coordinated efforts of all state agencies concerned with outdoor recreation.
Implementation of the plan including the administration of specific grant programs would be through the various line agencies.
An Inter-Agency Technical Advisory Committee composed of representatives of all other state agencies concerned with outdoor recreation would be called upon as needed for information and advice and technical staff assistance in developing the Comprehensive Plan.
-3-

INTRODUCTION
This section of the report covers several topics related to the administration of outdoor recreation in Georgia:
(1) An inventory of governmental units concerned with outdoor recreation.
(2) An analysis of gaps and overlaps in governmental responsibility for various facets of outdoor recreation.
(3) An analysis of administrative arrangements for outdoor recreation in other states.
(4) An analysis of alternative methods of developing and implementing a comprehensive outdoor recreation plan for the State of Georgia.
(5) Conclusions and recommendations based on the above analysis.
It is important to realize at the outset that although much attention across the nation has been directed to comprehensive planning in the area of outdoor recreation because of the requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, this one act should not be made the sole base of the planning effort which, indeed, is of importance in the proper utilization of other federal grants and in programs of state agencies which are completely unrelated to Federal grants-in-aid.
The State of Georgia has recognized the importance of comprehensive planning in all areas of state activity by establishing a State Planning and Programming Bureau and charging it with an overall planning function. Although this study is organized around the problems involved in planning for outdoor recreation, it should be considered in the context of the need for a comprehensive planning effort in all of the other functional areas of state government. This section of the study should also be considered in conjunction with its companion papers on finance and on legislative authority for outdoor recreation.
- 4-

INVENTORY
A complete inventory of governmental units concerned with outdoor recreation in Georgia would include virtually every governmental unit. The listing that follows includes major Federal and State agencies which have the authority to participate in outdoor recreation whether or not they are so doing at the present. It lists county I municipal and special purpose authorities within the boundaries of each Area Planning and Development Commission. Under general legislation each municipal corporation and county has the authority to participate in outdoor recreation. The information provided by the APDC's indicates to the best of their knowledge what these units are doing. It should not be regarded as definitive but merely the best information available at the present time.
The inventory referred to above begins on page 33 of this report.
GAPS AND OVERIAPS
Together with the above mentioned inventory, the legislative analysis found in Part III of this study should be examined for a more complete picture of the inter-relationships among the many Federal, State and local agencies involved in outdoor recreation.
The authority granted to these various agencies is often broad and in practice could lead to jurisdictional conflicts I especially where more than one agency may attempt to develop the same physical site toward differing goals.
Examples of other potential overlaps of authority are cited below.
The Georgia Historical Commission is authorized (Georgia Code Section 40 ...811a) to promote and increase knowledge and understanding of the history of Georgia by permanently marking and preserving sites of historic significance. The State Department of Parks I Historic Sites, and Monuments is authorized (Georgia Code Section 43-124) to make contracts for preserving and marking historic sites and to operate any historic archaelogic ground I etc. I for public use.
The Georgia Recreation Commission is authorized (Georgia Code
- 5-

Section 99-2304) to formulate a comprehensive recreation policy for the State of Georgia and to study and appraise recreational needs of the State. The State Planning and Programming Bureau is authorized (Georgia Laws 1967, pp. 252-259) to prepare comprehensive long-range recommendations and Functional Development Plans for the orderly and coordinative growth of the state in such areas as outdoor recreation.
There is little evidence that these potential overlaps have in fact created difficulties. The consensus seems to be that because there is more than enough work for everyone, conflicts have not arisen.
It is more difficult to list gaps in coverage since the sphere of outdoor recreation is broad and expanding. The most obvious gap is that which occurs where a recreational potential exists but does not fall within the normal scope of anyone existing agency. Historically I the common solution for this problem in Georgia has often been the creation of a special authority: Jekyll Island and Stone Mountain are prominent cases in point. Another problem arises when citizens fromone governmental jurisdiction habitually use facilities proVided by another. This problem is intensified in areas of high population density with a multiplicity of governmental units. Here the remedy has been in some cases the creation of a special recreational authority supported by several governmental units. Ideally I a preferable solution might be the consolidation of these units into one governmental entity with broad powers.
On the state level the gap is not so much in authority but rather in the coordination of the various programs and activities of the more than twenty-five state agencies which could have an interest in outdoor recreation. The closing of this major gap is crucial to an effective development and implementation of a comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. It will be discussed in detail below.
- 6-

ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION IN OTHER STATES
The passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (L&WF) in 1965 has sparked a varied response in the fifty states, but in each case it has led to a new emphasis on coordination of outdoor recreational activities. The Institute of Government has received thirty-eight replies to its requests to the states for information on their organization of the outdoor recreation planning process.
This section of the report summarizes the experience of these states. Table 1 gives some indication of where the responsibility for planning and implementing the outdoor recreation function lies in the various states. It should be emphasized that the division of labor indicated by this table is not necessarily exclusive since multiple inter-relationships among the various agencies cannot be depicted with complete accuracy on such a table.
Four major organizational patterns seemed to have evolved in the development of the outdoor recreational planning process in the various states:
(1) Major responsibility for planning and implementation has been put in a conservation department which includes functional divisions such as fish and game I parks t forests t etc.
(2) Major responsibility for planning has been put in a state planning agency or division with implementation by line agencies.
(3) Major responsibility for planning, coordination, and in some cases, implementation has been placed in a new Outdoor Recreation Council.
(4) An Interagency Advisory Committee for Outdoor Recreation has been established to assist in coordination of planning and policy among the operating agencies.
- 7-

TABLE I ORGANIZATION FOR PlANNING AND ADMINISTERING OUTDOOR RECREATION

Outdoor Recreation Council

Natural Resource or Conservation Department

Interagency Advisory
Committee

State Planning Agencies

Area or Regional Planning Groups Assist State Agency with Overall Authority

Arizona Colorado Florida Kansas Minnesota Missouri North Dakota Puerto Rico Virginia

Alabama Colorado Connecticut Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Nebraska Nevada New-York Puerto Rico South Dakota Texas Wisconsin

Connecticut Idaho Louisiana Michigan New Hampshire North Carolina Oregon Washington

Delaware Illinois Maryland Michigan South Dakota New York Ohio Pennsylvania Rhode Island

Connecticut Kentucky Maryland New York

Parks or Conservation Department
Two of the states in which the parks or conservation departments have assumed primary responsibility in developing and implementing the statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan, Texas and Nebraska, have been selected for a more detailed examination.
Texas - In Texas the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan is prepared by the Research Planning Division of the Parks and Wildlife Department after receiving data from Federal, state and local governmental units and private recreational associations.
No formal coordinating body has been established. Instead, the Parks and Wildlife Department states that copies of the Plan will be distributed to all governmental agencies concerned with outdoor recreation in the State and "efforts are being made . to maintain close contact with all agencies of Federal, state and local governments, directly or indirectly involved with the present and future outdoor recreation development of Texas. "
The Department has stated that in setting individual project priorities for assistance, consideration will be given the overall priority needs of the State of Texas as defined in the Plan and the purposes of the L&WC Fund as defined in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) Grants-in-Aid Manual. In order to ensure an equitable distribution of funds the Department has reserved to the political subdivisions for a one year period 40 per cent of each fiscal years L&WC Fund apportionment to Texas.
Nebraska - In Nebraska the outdoor recreation planning and implementation function has been vested in the Game, Forestation and Parks Commission which in turn has delegated to the Director of the Commission "the responsibility for establishing such rules and regulations as may be required for the LWCF program." The allocation of priority for allotment of funds to political subdivjsions is handled by an internal "Control Group" including the Director; Assistant Director; Chief, Division of State Parks and Chief, Division of Land Management.
The Control Group is additionally charged with formulating policy for the L&WC Fund Program, determining allocation of funds and performing policy level liaison with other agencies of government.
- 9-

Nebraska has also created within the Game, Forestation and Parks Commission a "Land and Water Conservation Fund Section" under the direct supervision of the Director's office and the general administrative guidance of the Control Group. Its functions include the following: (1) development and administration of the Comprehensive Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan, (2) fiscal control of the L&WC Fund Program, including review and processing of all documents, (3) liaison with political subdivisions, (4) liaison with other agencies as directed by proper authority, (5) budget and fiscal liaison with the Section Chief, Fiscal and Accounting Division, and (6) coordination of the total program, including project documents and reports.
The various other divjsions of the Commission (State Parks, Land Management, Fisheries, Game and Fiscal and Accounting divisions) are assigned operational responsibilities within their proper spheres of authority.
State Planning Agencies
A number of states are putting major responsibility for the Outdoor Recreation Plan into a State Planning Bureau or Department or into a Planning Division within a development department.
Delaware - In Delaware the State Planning Office serves as the Governor's Staff Planning Agency and functions as an advisory, consultative and coordinating organization for all state agencies on planning matters. It has a major role in the recreation planning process; its director is liaison officer to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation; it reviews potential recreation site acquisitions and it annually prepares the Capital Improvements Program. In performing this function it cooperates with all of the state agencies involved in outdoor recreation.
New York - In New York the Office of Planning Coordination is charged with the responsibility of considering all state problems on an integrated basis. It provides an overall review of planning and datagathering procedures as well as advice and technical assistance to regional and local agencies. It does the continuous, comprehensive recreation planning and will serve the Council of Parks in arriving at policy, planning and budgetary decisions. In addition it coordinates the planning of the Conservation Department Divisions with the Office for Regional Development and the Department of Commerce, interrelating various aspects of the recreation planning function.
- 10 -

As indicated, various departments and divisions retain much responsibility in planning. The Department of Conservation has responsibility for the detailed planning I acquisition and development of state recreational and conservation projects. Various deputy commissioners for the Department supervise parks and outdoor recreation planning I coordination of grants-in-aid for outdoor recreation I fiscal administration of projects, and coordination with other agencies, public and private. interstate and intrastate. A Planning Unit in the Department was installed to better meet planning requirements.
Pennsylvania - In Pennsylvania the State Planning Board, an agency in the Office of the Governor, has statewide responsibility for planning, including the coordination of open space planning by all state departments. The Planning Board prepared the Outdoor Recreation Plan with the cooperation of all involved state and local agencies.
South Dakota - In South Dakota the Stute Planning Agency coordinates the planning of each state department. The Department of Game and Fish in conjunction with the Planning Agency is responsible for the development of the State Recreation Plan.
Illinois - In Illinois the Department of Business and Economic Development represents the state as the official state planning agency and prepares the long range Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Development Plan with the cooperation of the Department of Conservation and in coordination with other statewide planning activities. The bulk of activities connected with state outdoor recreation are administered by the Department of Conservation which accepts and administers funds paid to the State under the L&WC Fund Act. Other federal, state and local agencies also participate as shown in the organization chart in Table II.
- 11 -

TABLE n
OUTDOOR RECREATION ADMINISTRATIVE REIATIONSHIPS IN ILLINOIS
(Organizational Chart)
...
ca:
UaI
UI II.
...
uc
9
- 12 -

Outdoor Recreation Planning Council
The response of several states to the passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act has been to create a new state agency charged with the responsibility of planning, coordinating and to some extent administering outdoor recreation functions within the state.
Arizona - Arizona has created the Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission whose chairman is the statel s liaison officer for the L&WC Fund Act and whose vice chairman is the Director of the State Parks Board. The Commission prepares and maintains the comprehensive outdoor recreation plan, initiates and carries out studies to determine recreational needs, can receive and allocate moneys and establish criteria for administration of the Recreation Plan and the disbursement of funds. It is assisted by the Arizona Parks Board and the Game and Fish Department.
Florida - The state of Florida has a somewhat complex organization for outdoor recreation planning. An informal "Inter-agency coordinating committee II began to function in the middle 1950 1 s and in 1961 the Governor's Committee on Recreational Development was created. From the work of this Committee came the Florida Outdoor Recreation and Conservation Act of 1963. Under the act basic policy guidance comes from the "Outdoor Recreational Development Council" composed of elected state-level officials. Actual program planning is the responsibility of the "Outdoor Recreational Planning Committee" composed of the Governor and the heads of the policy-making boards of each of the state agencies having a primary functionin outdoor recreation or natural resources management. The Planning Committee prepares and keeps current the recreation plan which is subject to approval and implementation by the Council. A Special Land Management Division of Florida I s Internal Improvement Trust Fund is guided by the Council in acquiring, maintaining and managing the lands, water areas and related resources needed for outdoor recreation as well as for installing capital improvements and facilities. Table III illustrates the working relationships among these agencies.
- 13 -

TABLE m

THE FLORIDA OUTDOOR RECREATION AND CONSERVATION PROGRAiw1

WORKING RELATIONSHIPS

TRUSTEES
of the INT.BB.NAL IMPROVEMENT FUND

1-------- .OUTDOOR. RECREATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
I . . . - - _....1

1-------...-

GOVERNOR

OUTDOOR
RECREATIONAL
PLANNING COMMITTEE

- l'-----~----

AGENCY
POLICY BOARDS

I

TlUSTEES
STAn'

StAJ'lP

I
LAND MANAGEMENT
DMSION

;
I
I I -~------~~-~-~---

-- t-------- .. ----

INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES

Lines of authority

----------- Lines of coordination

- 14 -

Kansas - Kansas has a Joint Council on Recreation created by the legislature to provide coordination for planning, acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and recreation facilities, to develop an outdoor recreation policy to guide the state in planning for development of outdoor recreation resources; and to develop a longrange outdoor recreation plan for the state. The composition and structure of the Joint Council is shown in Table 'N.
Missouri - Missouri has created a State Inter-Agency Council for Outdoor Recreation composed of the heads of eleven state agencies or their representatives. It is empowered to employ an executive secretary and a full time staff. It serves as the official state agency for liaison with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and as the agency to receive and disburse federal funds for planning and implementation of outdoor recreation programs. It is also the advisory and planning agency for overall outdoor recreational programs.
Virginia - The State of Virginia has established a Commission of Outdoor Recreation to create and put into effect a long-range plan for the acquisition, maintenance, improvement, protection, and conservation of the areas of the state best adapted to outdoor recreational facilities. It has nine ~ officio members and five appointed by the Governor from the state at large for staggered terms. It has the authority to employ consultants, technicians and other employees, receive and disburse grants and funds and acquire land for transfer to other agencies. It 1s charged with maintaining the comprehensive outdoor recreation plan and assisting other agencies in outdoor recreation planning.
Interagency Advisory Committee
A number of states have not gone so far as to create a new agency to handle the various facets of outdoor recreation planning and administration but instead have organized coordinating and adVisory committees to pull together the operations of the concerned agencies into a unified and coherent whole. This section of the report summarizes the organization and methods of operation used by several of these committees.
Connecticut - In Connecticut there is a Council on Agriculture and Natural Resources composed of the heads of the Department of Agriculture, Park and Forest Commission, Water Resouces Commission, Board of Fisheries and Game and the Connecticut Development Council. This Council is particularly responsible for joint agency projects that permit
- 15 -

TABLE IV
KANSAS JOINT COUNCIL ON RECREATION
- 16 -

multiple land use. It also cooperates with the Connecticut "Interregional Planning Program" working with the seven regional planning agencies. The Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture serves as liaison officer with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
Idaho - The Idaho Parks Department is charged with providing a variety of recreational opportunities for the state including the responsibility for preparing, maintaining and keeping up-to-date a comprehensive plan for the development of the outdoor recreational resources of the state. The Department has the authority and structure to correlate the outdoor recreation activities of various agencies within Idaho. A State Inter-Agency Committee has been created "to facilitate the work of the departmentll and is composed of respresentatives of all departments and agencies whose duties "relate to state parks of recreation" .
Louisiana - The Louisiana Recreational Advisory Council consists of ten state officials and two members appointed by the Governor. It is "to consult with and provide guidance to the heads of all state agencies on matters affecting recreation" and is also to develop methods for improving inter-agency coordination in the "development and implementation" of state recreation policy. The Chairman of the Council is the Director of the State Parks and Recreation Commission.
The Council is responsible for the comprehensive outdoor recreation plan, but it is prepared by the staff of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission represents the "interest of all agencies and departments of the state and of the parish, municipal and other governmental units and subdivisions of the state of Louisiana" .
Michigan - The Recreation Resource Planning Division of the Michigan Department of Conservation has responsibilities for intradepartment planning, sE:rvices to local agencies in coordinating and advising on recreation programs and the preparation of the statewide recreation plan. This Division administers the L&WC Fund in Michigan, sets priorities and allocates money for projects and long-range recreation needs. It serves as the staff for developing the recreational element of the statewide comprehensive plan. A Technical Coordinating Committee represents all of the major departments involved in the development of the statewide comprehensive plan.
North Carolina - The North Carolina Recreation Commission is chairman of a group of state agencies concerned with completing the
- 17 -

outdoor recreation plan. It is also charged with working with local political subdivisions.
Oregon - In Oregon a twelve member advisory committee composed of the heads of state I federal and county agencies involved in natural resources is appointed by the Governor. There is also a State Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee composed of laymen who advise the Highway Commission on park policy.
Washington - In Washington the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation consists of representatives of six departments and five citizen members. One of these departments (Commerce and Economic Development) is the planning agency but the Interagency Committee can also plan and has the responsibility for ensuring that all projects approved by it are consistent with the outdoor recreation plan.
- 18 -

ORGANIZATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF A COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION PIAN FOR GEORGIA
As can be seen from the previous section, many different structures for organizing the comprehensive planning process in outdoor recreation are possible. No one solution can be said to be ideal, but regardless of the structure chosen it is imperative that the following two conditions be met if the goals of comprehensive planning and implementation of the plan are to be achieved.
(1) that there be full interchange of information about outdoor recreation needs and programs among the governmental units involved;
(2) that executive authority for defining and enforcing a state comprehensive outdoor recreational policy be vested in one agency.
Any organizational structure for outdoor recreation should be designed to accomplish these goals. Several alternative structures will be discussed.
In considering these alternatives one should be aware of the complex and uncoordinated structure of the existing agencies which are concerned, to a greater or lesser degree, with outdoor recreation. Part III of this study outlines the statutory authority of these agencies. The organizational chart which follows outlines in graphic form the existing organizational structure of this part of state government.
- 19 -

TABLE V

RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION PlANNING IN GEORGIA

I GOVERNOR

I

1

GEORGJA RECREATION

INTER-AGENCY' COUNCn.

COMMISSIONI

I-- ~ - - FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION

~-----I

I
I
I
STATE PIANNING BURFAU

APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES2
I
I
1-_ -- -- -- -- -- -.Jl

I

I
oN
I

t
I r1
II

t

I

INTER-AGENCY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEt

I

I I

lI

I

ALL STATE AGENCIES & AUTHORITIES ~

AREA PIANNING & DEVELOPMENT

CONCERNED WTrH OUTDOOR RECREATIO

COMMISSIONS

I
I
I

CITIES, COUNTIES, AND

LOCAL AUTHORITIES

_________ Implementation of Plan

I As lay advisers to the lAC and as technical consultants.to local governments.
2 See Federal section of Inventory
3 See State section of Inventory

Alternative I
The consolidation of all agencies and departments concerned with natural resources into one agency--a Department of Natural Resources or a Department of Conservation. With such a unified department responsibility for outdoor recreation could be vested in one official with the authority to coordinate intradepartmental activities in this area and the responsibility for involving agencies with some peripheral interest in outdoor recreation.
Alternative II
Turning active responsibility for comprehensive outdoor recreation planning and implementation over to the Georgia Recreation Commission which already possesses statutory authority to formulate comprehensive recreation policy for the State. Similar action has been taken in such states as North Carolina. Adoption of this alternative would force responsibilities upon the Recreation Commission which it is not now prepared to undertake. It would require a reorientation of the agency's present activities, and it might well require further legislation if this one existing agency were to be given the task of coordinating the activities of the many agencies now concerned with outdoor recreation.
Alternative III
The existing division of responsibilities could be retained but with a more formal definition of each agency's role in outdoor recreational planning and the creation of two new interagency organizations to facilitate the coordination and implementation of outdoor recreational planning. This alternative is preferable since it may be accomplished more easily and effectively than the others.
The follOWing organizational chart illustrates the recommended general relationship among the agencies for outdoor recreational planning.
- 21 -

'J,:A.BL Vr
EXISTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF AGENCIES CONCERNED WITH OUTDOOR RECREATION VOTERS ELECT
General Assembly

Department of
Agriculture

. Department of Education

Highway Department

\

I

"'-State Parks D1rector

I

to.)

to.)

Parks Department

I

Board of .
E d u c. a t i o n

- - - r . - - ...--_---1._ _--.

.---...----1_ _--. ~~--'-~~.,. r-...,....,..--'-........

Game & Fish I State Forestry

Bd. of

Commission I Commission

Health

Water Qual. Control Board

University .System
Commission on Aging

I

.

I

Game & Fish

Industry

Department I

Trade Dept.:

Water Qual

Tourist Divisio

Control Div.

I

__ .J_
Georgia Recreation Commission

-I- - - - , Georgia Art c-o-m-m-i-s-si-o-n-'

TABLE VI CONTINUED EX OFFICIO AND APPOINTIVE COMMISSIONS AND AUTHORITIES

Georgia Historical Commission

I

Jekyll Island Authority

I State Council for the Preservation of Natural Areas

University System Building Authority

I Stone Mountain MemOrialAsSOClatlon1 Georgia Coastal Scenic HighwayAuthority

State School Building Authority

I I ~I

--
Acyrorth Lake Authorlty

Late Lanier Islands Development Authority

SoU and Water Conservation Committee

Georqia Commission for the Development of the Chattahoochee River Basin

F. D. R. Warm Springs Memorial Association

I I North Georgia Mountains Commission

Appointive and Control Power - - - - - - - - - - - - - Appointive Power Only

Inter-Agency Council for Outdoor Recreation
The Inter-Agency Council for Outdoor Recreation (lAC) would be composed of the directors of the major state agencies concerned with outdoor recreation as ex officio members and three non-voting members to be representative of the private sector. It is recommended that the following state agencies be included in the lAC:
(1) Department of State Parks (2) State Game and Fish Commission (3) Tourist Division, Department of Industry and Trade (4) Georgia Historical Commission (5) Georgia Recreation Commission (6) SoU and. Water Conservation Committee (7) Georgia Water Quality Control Board (8) State Planning and Programming Bureau (9) State Highway Department.
The above nine agencies are suggested for inclusion in the Council because their statewide programs and needs in the area of outdoor recreation should receive prime consideration in the comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. The ex officio members of the lAC would establish policy as to the selection of the non-voting members.
The Chairman of the lAC may be chosen in one of several ways: designation of the director of a particular department to serve as Chairman; election by the membership of the Inter-Agency Council; letting the Chairmanship rotate among the members; appointment of the Chairman by the Governor. No recommendation is made among these alternatives.
The Inter-Agency Council for Outdoor Recreation would have several responsibilities:
(1) To establish the statel s overall outdoor recreation policy within the limits of legislative authorization.
(2) To examine and approve the statewide comprehensive plan for outdoor recreation.
- 23 -

(3) To establish statewide policy on the disbursement of Land and Water Conservation Funds and other appropriated Federal grant-in-aid programs.
(4) To ensure that all recreational projects using Federal funds are in accordance with the statewide comprehensive plan.
(5) To encourage full coordination and exchange of information on plans and programs among the concerned agencies.
(6) To take such other action as seem appropriate to promote outdoor recreation in Georgia.
(7) To select the Inter-Agency Technical Advisory Committee and to supervise its work.
(8) To make, as it considers necessary, reports and recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly concerning outdoor recreation in Georgia.
The lAC as a committee would, of course, be subject to the shortcomings of all committees. With inadequate attention it could become a mere formality or pass into desuetude. Yet, even if Alternative I or II were chosen, some type of coordinating committee would have to be created in order to bring together the many divergent threads that must be woven into a comprehensive recreational plan. By setting up the IAC as a formal body and requiring it to take definite action the groundwork may be laid for future administrative reforms.
Inter-Agency Technical Advisory Committee
The Advisory Committee would be composed of representatives of the nine agencies included in the lAC plus representatives of all other state agencies with programs in the area of outdoor recreation. A tentative listing of these additional agencies follows:
(1) Georgia Department of Agriculture (2) Board of Regents (3) University System Building Authority (4) Board of Education (5) State School Building Authority (6) F. D. R. Warm Springs Memorial Association
- 24 -

(7) Georgia Art Commission (8) Jekyll Island State Park Authority (9) State Council for the Preservation of Natural Areas (10) State Forestry Commission (11) Department of Public Health (12) State Commission on Aging (13) North Georgia Mountains Commission (14) Stone Mountain Memorial Association (15) Acworth Lake Authority (16) Lake Lanier Islands Development Authority (17) Georgia Coastal Scenic Highway Authority (18) Georgia Commission for the Development of the
Chattahoochee River Basin.
These additional agencies fall into two general types: those with limited recreational programs and those with major recreational programs covering a limited geographic area. Some of them are not active at present although they have statutory authority in the area of recreation.
It is contemplated that the IAC would initiate active liaison channels with these agencies to the degree necessary to make the statewide plan truly comprehensive and to ensure its implementation. The Technical Advisory Committee would supply data, technical assistance and information regarding the activities of the constituent agencies rather than serve a policy-making function. It would not necessarily ever meet as a group. Instead, those members concerned with a particular problem would be asked to contribute their suggestions.
Special Role of the State Planning and Programming Bureau
The Outdoor Recreation section of the State Planning and Programming Bureau is engaged in comprehensive outdoor recreation planning .. The Bureau is charged by law with preparing comprehensive, long-range recommendations for the orderly and coordinative growth of the state in a number of areas including outdoor recreation. It has the staff and trained personnel necessary to draw up and maintain such a plan and it should continue that function.
This report contemplates that the State Planning and Programming Bureau would constitute the staff agency for the Inter-Agency Council for Outdoor Recreation. The IAC would provide policy guidance (with-
- 25 -

in statutory limitations) for the development and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Bureau has the central role of collecting relevant data, presenting debatable issues to the IAC and incorporating its decisions into the final plan. The Bureau would, of course, provide the IAC with professional planning advice to aid it in making decisions. The State Planning Bureau would also set up appropriate exchanges of information with Federal agencies to ensure successful comprehensive planning and implementation of the plan.
Special Roles of the Georgia Recreation Commission
(1) The staff of the Georgia Recreation Commission has centered its primary energy upon helping local units of government improve their recreational facilities and programs. It should continue to perform this function within the general framework of the state plan.
(2) The members of the Commission itself constitute an ideal lay advisory committee which should be consulted in the preparation of the plan and in the determination of outdoor recreation policy by the IAC.
Special Role of the Area Planning and Development Commissions
One of the perplexing problems in the area of outdoor recreation planning is how best to coordinate the state program with that of Georgia's many cities, counties and special recreational authorities. It is recommended that the area planning and development commissions be made the formal channel through which the needs and plans of these local units of governments as well as project proposals under the federal grant programs are transmitted to the IAC. The State Planning Bureau and the State Parks Department would work through the APDC's in performing their staff assistance to the IAC.
The APDC I s should be encouraged to work with local units of government within their areas in developing protect proposals and in doing recreational planning for the area. Special arrangements may be necessary for those few counties not members of an APDC. It is not anticipated that APDC boundaries be considered geographic limits for regional recreational planning, but the APDC's do provide a practical and existing structure for administrative coordination.
- 26 -

Through close cooperation between the State Planning Bureau and the area commissions, the capabilities of each can be enhanced. The State Planning Bureau will also have the opportunity to work closely with one or more area commissions in developing recreational plans as needed for particular geographic areas smaller than the entire state. Local planning should relate to statewide goals.
Role of Other Operating Agencies
The other agencies concerned with outdoor recreation would continue to perform their operating functions. Each would be expected to provide the State Planning Bureau with the information necessary to develop a truly comprehensive plan. The programs of each agency should be in accordance with the comprehensive plan after its approval. Federal grant-in-aid programs would continue to be administered by appropriate agencies in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Each agency should develop its own long-range planning capability and an effective inter-relationship among statewide and agency planning should be established.
The Budget Bureau will, of course, play an important role in the appropriation of funds to implement the comprehensive plan. In addition to its customary work with individual agencies, it should be kept informed of the policies established by the IAC and should enter into a close working relationship with the State Planning Bureau. It is anticipated that the comprehensive plan will be of considerable value to the Budget Bureau in fulfilling its own responsibilities.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Need for Greater Acceptance of Planning Concept
In attempting to develop a comprehensive statewide recreation plan the State of Georgia is embarking upon uncharted waters. It, together with other states, must proceed by trial and error to determine what should be included and how data can best be secured and maintained. The task is made more difficultt: in that undue attention may be centered on the requirements of the Federal Government in regard to Land and Water Conservation Fund grants.
- 27 -

Even though the State has emphasized the importance of its comprehensive planning efforts through the creation of the State Planning and Programming Bureau I nevertheless there has existed in some quarters the unfortunate feeling that comprehensive planning is primarily extra paperwork.
In an era when the State's biennial appropriations are approaching two billion dollars and the programs of State agencies are growing ever more complex I a comprehensive planning process directly applicable to the needs of the individual agencies and the State as a whole is a necessity I not just a convenience and emphatically not just "extra paperwork" .
At the founding of our nation the Federalist Papers warned that if government was to be secure "ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place." This fundamental principle can be applied in less dramatic terms to the planning process. The plan must be useful to every participant if every participant is to cooperate fully in making the plan truly comprehensive.
A vital step in making the plan a valuable aid to all agencies is to inform fully the concerned agencies as to the merits and advantages of comprehensive planning and deeply involve them in its preparation. Too many agencies regard the plan as merely something that the State Planning Bureau is drawing up so that Georgia will be eligible for federal funds. There is almost no feeling of involvement or responsibility. The various agencies seem to be little concerned about the effect of the state plan on their future programs. This lack of concern indicates that these agencies doubt that it will have much practical effect.
Yet it should be pointed out that no agency contacted during this study was hostile to the concept of comprehensive planning I and indeed they seemed genuinely interested in securing better coordination among the various agencies connected with outdoor recreation.
Authority for Coordination
The problem may be put in clearer focus if it is realized that the power to coordinate is ultimately the power to coerce--to make the authoritative decisions as to who will get what. Currently in Georgia
- 28 -

the more than twenty-five state agencies concerned with outdoor recreation are effectively independent of each other and substantially independent of all but the most tenuous control by the Governor through the Budget Bureau. The Legislature, of course, has the ultimate policy control through statutes and the enactment of appropriations.
But it is accurate to say that there is today no comprehensive, authoritative policy in the area of outdoor recreation and no effective means of establishing such a policy.
Alternative III, discussed above, would give the Inter-Agency Council for Outdoor Recreation the responsibility for setting policy within, of course, the limits of legislative authorization. It would make the state comprehensive plan the authoritative guideline for action by all state agencies. The Act creating the State Planning and Programming Bureau contemplates that the Comprehensive Statewide Development Policies Plan will be transmitted to the General Assembly at the beginning of each biennial legislative session. It does not state whether or not the Functional Development Plans such as the one for Outdoor Recreation will be so transmitted or if so, whether or not they will be formally enacted into law by the General Assembly.
The Inter-Agency Council could be established by executive order of the Governor and endowed with the power of setting such policy as is not inconsistent with existing legislation. The State Planning Bureau would playa key role in this process by seIVing as the staff agency for the Council in drafting the plan. Ultimately, the lAC may wish to secure legislative action to ensure the continuation of its operations beyond one governor's term of office.
Such recreation policy could be enforced by the budgetary power of the Governor, by the approval of Federal grants only for projects consistent with the comprehensive plan, and most importantly by convincing all agencies that it is in their own best interests to cooperate in coordinating their programs through the comprehensive plan.
- 29 -

It is therefore recommended that an Inter-Agency
Council for Outdoor Recreation and an Inter-
Agency Technical Advisory Committee, as out-
lined above, be established by Executive Order
of the Governor.
It is further recommended that the State Planning
and Programming Bureau be named as the staff
agency for the IAC and take every practicable
step to involve the concerned agencies more
actively in the planning process.
The Planning Process
This working paper will be concluded with a brief discussion of the planning process itself in relation to the role of the State Planning and Programming Bureau.
Too often planning is treated as a unitary concept with no distinctions madeers to the different goals of various kinds of ~lanning. Accordingly, attention is called to the following definitions:
Strategic planning is the process of deciding on objectives of the organization, on changes in these objectives, on the resources used to obtain these objectives, and on the policies that are to govern the acquisition, use and disposition of these resources.
lAnthony I Robert N. I Planning M.d Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1965.
- 30 -

Management control is the process by which managers assure that resources are obtained and used effectively and efficiently in the accomplishment of the organizations objectives.
Operation control is the process of assuring that specific tasks are carried out effectively and efficiently.
All three of the above operations involve what is commonly called "planning". Yet the task of the State Planning Bureau is logically that of coordinating the strategic planning activities of the various state agencies (in this case those agencies concerned with outdoor recreation) This role is not a small one; it will require the development of a highly trained staff in major areas of state activity. In addition, each agency should itself develop a strategic planning capability at the top level of the organization and delegate planning involved in the two types of control to lower levels.
By emphasizing the limited,although vital, role of the Planning Bureau it should be possible to minimize fears that the Bureau intends to "take over" the functions of the line departments as well as to stimulate the departments' own efforts in creating a strategic planning capability
The challenge facing the State Planning Bureau is similar in many respects to that faced by the Budget Bureau five years ago. It must introduce to the heterogenous state agencies new management concepts involVing some degree of required coordination and the development of a professional staff. It is not an easy task The importance of the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan is precisely that it will point the way for other functional plans and must convince all the agencies involved that their expenditure of time and effort is valuable to themselves as well as to the state as a whole.
By serving as the staff agency to the Inter-Agency Council for Outdoor Recreation the Planning Bureau will serve as the de facto coordinating unit speaking to each agency with the authority of the agency's director. Policy would be made by the Inter-Agency Council but upon the recommendations of the Planning Bureau.
- 31 -

As the total state comprehensive plan is developed, the Outdoor Recreation Plan would dovetail into it. It is to be expected that the broad. scope of policy guidelines would be established by the General Assembly. Within these limits the Inter-Agency Council would be free to make policy based upon and implemented through the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
This section of the report has outlined the environment in which the Plan must be developed and has summarized procedures used in other states. It has made specific suggestions on how the Plan may best be developed and implemented, and it has noted its relationship to the total statewide comprehensive planning process.
- 32 -

APPENDIX

NOTES TO ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY
1These agencies have been listed because of obvious connection with outdoor recreation, conversations with officials of the State Planning Bureau, or because other states have found them to have the connection noted. It is possible that other federal agencies should be included, particularly insofar as funding is concerned.
2This list of state agencies is taken primarily from the working paper on legislation.
3AIl of the Area Planning and Development Commissions were asked to provide the data on local units of government Within their area. The APDC' s noted here did not do so. Consequently, the Inventory simply lists counties, communities (incorporated and unincorporated) and special recreational authorities with no effort being made to specify which functions are now being carried on. Counties and cities I of course I have the general right under Georgia law of participating in recreational activities.
4APDC's noted here have provided the information for the Inventory. Most have simply listed those local units of government actually performing recreational functions and then have specified which functions are currently being performed.
SThe Planning Commission notes that Glascock and Taliaferro Counties were not included in the inventory because ltthey neither have nor expect the development of local city or county parks during the immediate future. It
6No local units of government are listed for the Coastal Area because the Commission itself is the sponsoring agency for the overall outdoor recreation program for the six county area and is acting as the staff for each city and county in preparing a comprehensive recreation program for the next twenty years.

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Federal 1

Agriculture

Soil Conservation

Service

x

Farmers Home

Administration

x

Forest Service

x

Economic Research

Service

x

Office of Rural Area Development x

Commerce Economic Develop ment Admlnistratloo x

Bureau of Public

Roads

x

Defense Corps of Engineers x

General Services

Administration General Servi ces

Office

x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PlAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE x x
x x

RESEARCH
x x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Health, Education

and Welfare

Public Health

Service

x

Office of

Education

x

Vocational

Rehabilitation

x

Welfare

Administration

x

Housing and Urban

Development

Urban Renewa I

Administration

x

Community Facilities

Administration

x

Interior

Bureau of Outdoor

Recreation

x

National Park

Servi ce

x

Bureau of Sport

Fisheries and

Wildlife

x

Office of Economic

Opportunity

x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

MANAGE

x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE
x x
x
x
x

RESEARCH
x
x x
x x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Federal Power Commission

Tennessee Valley

Authori ty

x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAf.N

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE x

RESEARCH
x x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

ll!!,e2

Parks Department x

Tourist Division, Industry and Trade x

Game and Fish

Conmisslon

x

Histori cal

Conmtss Ion

x

Recreation

Convnt ss Ion

x

Soil and Water

Conservation

Committee

x

Water Qua I Ity Control Board

State Planning and Programming Bureau

State Highway

Department

x

Agriculture Department
Board of Regents x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE x x x x x x x
x

RESEARCH x x x x x x x
x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

University System Building Authority

Board of Education x

State School Building Authority

F.D.R. Warm Springs Memorial AssociatIon x

Art Commission

Jekyll Island State

Park Authority

x

State Council for the Preservation of
Natural Areas

Forestry Commission

Public Health Department

Commi ss Ion on Aging x

North Georgia Mountains Commission x

Stone Mountain Memorial Commission x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x
x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE
x
x x x x
x x x

RESEARCH
x
x x x x
x x x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Acworth Lake

Authorlty

x

Lake Lanier Islands Development Authority x

Georgia Coastal

Scenic Highway

Authority

x

Georgia Commission for

the Development of

the Chattahoochee

River Basin

x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE x x x
x

RESEARCH x x x
x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

AGENCY

PROVIDE

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

REVENUE

MANAGE

Regional and Local 3

Altamaha Area Planning and Development Conunission

Toombs County Vidalia Vidalia Development Authority Lyons Lyons Development Authority
Santa Claus New Branch Stanleys Store Cedar Crossing
Parkers

Tattnall County
cobbtown Co I Ii ns
Manassas Reidsville Midway Mendes Glennvi lIe

Jeff Davis County Hazelhurst Snipesville Denton

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

AGENCY

PROVIDE

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

REVENUE

MANAGE

Appling County
Baxley Surrency Pine Grove
Graham

Wayne County Madray Springs Odurn Doctortown Jesup Gardi Screven Broadhurst
McKinnon

Atlanta Region

Metropol i tan

Planning Commission

x

Clayton County Forest Park Jonesboro Lake City Morrow Mountain View Riverdale
Cobb County Acworth Auste II Chattahoochee Plantation
Kennesaw

PROMOTE
x

RESEARCH
x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Marietta Powder Springs Smyrna

DeKalb C0unty
Avondale Estates Chamblee Clarkston Decatur Doravi lIe Li thonia Pi ne Lake Stone Mountain

Fulton County Community Council of the Atlanta Area Alpharetta
Atlanta College Park East Point Fai rburn Hapevi I Ie Mouna n Park Palmetto Roswel I Union City Atlanta-Fulton Recreation Authority x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE x x

RESEARCH x x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Gwinnett County Berkeley lake Buford Dacula Duluth Grayson lawrencevi I Ie Li Iburn loganvi I Ie
Norcross Rest Haven Sne I Ivi lie Sugar Hill Suwanee

Central Savannah River Area Planning
and Developf/ent Convniss ion

Burke County x

Waynesboro x

Midvi I Ie x

Sardis

x

Columbia

Harlem

x

Emanuel

Swainsboro x

Add an

x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBiliTIES BY lEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

I?lAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAI tl

REGUlATEI

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE x

RESEARCH x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Jefferson

Loui svi1le x

\.Jad ley

x

Wrens

x

Jenki ns

Mi llen

x

Lincoln

Lincolnton

x

McDuffie Thomson Junior Chamber of Commerce
Thomson-City x

Richmond County x Recreation
Dept. - Co. Augusta-City x Hephzibah-City x

Screven County x

Sylvania-City x

Sylvania Rotary

Club

x

Warren County . darrenton-~.i ty x

Wilkes County Washington-City x
Glascock Coun~y~
Ta J iafcrro'

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE
x x
x
x
x x

RESEARCH
x x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

ChattahoocheeFlint Area Planning
and Developtllent Commission 3

Carroll County Carro 11 ton Temple
ViII aRi ca Hickory Level Center Point Sandy Hi II
Hulett Bowdon Junction Bowdon Kansas Jake Mount Zion
Jurwe 11 Tyus Veal Roopvi lIe Lowe II Clem Whitesburg

Heard County Frankl in Ephesus Roostervi lIe Glenloch
Centralhatchee

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES sr LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

PROMOTE
x

RESEARCH
x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

AGENCY

PROVIDE

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

REVENUE

MANAGE

Texas
Glenn Cori nth

Coweta County Newnan Roscoe
Madras Sargent Sharpsburg Raymond Moreland Grantville Senoia Haralson Turin

Troup County Lagrange Lagrange Development Authority West Point West Point Development Authority Hogansville Harrisonville Wares Crossroads Evansvi lIe Abbottsford Mountvi lIe Big Spring Smith's Crossroads Andersons
Long Cane

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

AGENCY

PROVIDE

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

REVENUE

MANAGE

Gabbettvi I Ie Troup County Development Authority

Meriwether County luthersvi lIe Lone Oak Rocky Mount Alvation Wooster Primrose Saint Marks Oakland Manchester Stovall Gay Greenvi I Ie t-loodbury
Raleigh Harris Durand White Sulfur Springs
i~arm Springs Odessadale

Pike County Zebulon HoI lonvi I Ie Wi I I iamson Concord Molena li fsey
Meansville

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Harri s County Whi tesvi I Ie Pine Mountain Shi loh Hamilton Waver) y Ha I I Ellerslie
Cataula

Talbot County Woodland Talbotton Plesant Hill Geneva Juncti on City Prattsburg Porbiddy Crossroad

Upson County Thomaston R::>land
Yatesville The Rock East Thomaston

Coastal Area ADreevaeloPplmanennitngCoamndmission6

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESeONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

PROMOTE x

RESEARCH x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Coastal Plain
Area Planning and Development Commission3

Turner County Ashburn Worth Dakota Amboy Rebecca Coverdale Sycamore Inaha

Irwin County
Oc ilIa Irwi nvi lIe Mystic Waterloo Holt \.Jray Oslerfield

Tift County Tifton Sunsweet
Chula Ty Ty Omega Eldorado Brookfield

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF QOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAI N

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

PROMOTE
x

RESEARCH
x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

AGENCY

PROVIDE

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

REVENUE

MANAGE

Berri en County Nashville Alapaha Enigma Ray City

Cook County Adel
Sparks Lenox Ceei 1

Brooks County Qui tman New Roe k Hill Barney Morven Dixie

Lowndes County
Valdosta
Valdosta-Lowndes County Industrial Authority
Bemiss
Barretts Hahi ra Clyattville Dasher Twin Lakes
Lake Park Naylor

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Echols County Statenvi lIe Mayday Haylow
Howe 11
Tarver Needmore

Coosa Valley Area Planning and Development Commission3

Dade County Trenton New England Wi ldwood
Rising Fawn

Walker County Lafayette Rock Spring Noble Catlett Naomi Vi l1anow Eagle Cliff Blowing Springs Centerpost Davis Crossroads Cedar Grove Cooper Heights
Hi gl:l Poi nt

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN.

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Chickamauga Hinkles

Whitfield County Dalton Cohutta Dawnvi lIe
Ti Iton Mount Vernon Rocky Face Tunnel Hi 11

Catoosa County Ringgold
Keith Graysvi lIe Boynton

Chattooga County Sunmervi lie
Tidings Subligna Trion Cloud land
Menlo Berryton Lyerly Ho 11 and Chattogaville

Floyd County Rome

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Shannon Mount Berry Armuchee Floyd Springs
Lindale Rosedale Everett Springs Crys ta I Spri ngs
Coosa Cave Spring

Gordon County Calhoun Sugar Va Iley
Resaca Ni c kIes v i I Ie Redbud
Oakman Ranger Fairmount Sonoravi lIe
Plainville

Bartow County Cartersvi lie Kingston Adairsville Whi te Rydal Pine Log Fo Isom
Funkhouser Emerson

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Polk County Cedartown
Etna Esam Hill
Rockmart Aragon Van Wert

Paulding County Da 11 as Yorkvi lle
Braswell Oval Hiram New Hope

Haralson County Ta llapoosa
fuchanan Fel ton
Draketown
Bremen Waco

Murray County Chatsworth Eton Crandall Cisco Tennga Gregory
Spring Place Ramhurst

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Holley

Georgia Mountains Area Planning and Development Commission3

Fanning County Margret Morganton Blue Ridge Mineral Bluff
McCaysvi lie Epworth Hemp

Union County Suches BIairs vi I Ie
Ivy Log

Towns County Hiwassee Young Harris Alexanders Mi 11

Rabun County Clayton Pine Mountain Mounta inC i ty Di I lard Tiger
Wi ley lakemont

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Tallulah Falls

Lumpkin County Dahlonega
Aurari a Garland

Pi ckens County
Jasper Talking Rock Blaine Hinton Ludvi lie
Tate Marb 1e Hi 11

Dawson County Dawsonville Juno Si lver City

White County Cleveland Helen
Sautee Nacoochee
leaf

Habersham County Clarksvi lIe Ho 11ywood
Turnervi lIe

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Batesvi lle Baldwin View Demorest Cornel i a Mt. Ai rey

Stephens County Toccoa Bcydvi1le Estanollee Avion Martin

Hall County Gainsville Murrayvi Ile Clermont
Lula Gillsville Candler
Oakwood Blackshear Place Flowery Branch Chesnut Mountain
Belmont

Forsyth County Cumming Ducktown Heardvi lIe
Matt

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES 8Y LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Coal Mountain Chestatee Big Creek

Banks County Homer Ho 11 Ingswor th
Alto

Franklin County Carnesvi lIe Sandy Cross Frankl in Springs Royston Canon Lavonia

Georgia Southern Area Planning and Developmenj Commission

Candler County Metter Put askl Al ine
Bul Jock County Statesboro Hopeu Ii ki t Porta I Brooklet
Leefield

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

PROMOTE
x

RESEARCH
x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Register Denmark Sti lson

Evans County Claxton Hagan Be Ilvi 11 e
Daisy

Effingham County Springfield Stillwell
ClYa Shawnee Egypt Guyton Pineora Rincon

Chatham County
Savannah Monteith Port Wentworth
Garden City Bloomingdale
Pooler Vernonburg Thunderbo It

Heart of Georgia Area Planning and Development Commission3

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

MANAGE

x

PROMOTE x

RESEARCH x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Bleckley County Cocran
Cary

Laurens County Ouu lin Dudley
Montrose
Dexter
Rentz Cadwell
Brewton
Lovett Minter

Treutlen County Soperton
Lothai r

Montgomery County Mount Vernon
Uvalda Alston Higgston Tarrytown

Wheeler County AI arno Glenwood Jordan

Telfair County Helena

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE!

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

McRae Hi Ian China Hill Jacksonv ill e Lumben City
Towns Scottland

Dodge County
Eastman Plainfield Chester Yonkers Roddy Empire Gresston Chauncy Rhine

Wi 1cox County Rochelle
Pineview Sevi lie Pitts Owensboro Abbevi 1Ie

Pu 1aski County Hawk i ns viII e
Finleyson

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE B,EVENUE

Lower Chattahoochee ADreevaeloPplmanennitngCoamnmd ission4

Muscogee

x

Colum~us

x

Columbus-

Muscogee

Planning

Commission

Muscogee Rec-

reation Department

Columbus Rec-

reation Department

Chattahoochee x

Cosseta

Stewart

x

Richland

x

Lumpkin

x

Qui tman

x

Georgetown

x

Randolph

x

Cuthbert

x

Shellman

x

Clay

x

Fort Gaines x

Early

x

Blakely

x

Blakely-

Earl y County

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x
x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE
x x

RESEARCH
x x
x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Middle Georgia
ADreevaeloPplmanennitngCoamndmission4

Bibb County

Macon

x

Crawford County Roberta

Houston County x

Centervi lIe

Perry

x

~/arnerRobi ns x

Jones County Gray

Monroe County x Forsyth Cu Iloden x

Peach County Byron Fort Valley

Twiggs County Jeffersonville

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE
x x
x x
x x

RESEARCH x x
x x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Northeast Georgia Area P1 ann i'ng and
Developmen\ Commission

Barrow Winder Auburn Statham

Clarke

Athens

x

Wi ntervi lIe

Greene Greensboro tsnion Point 'lJh i te PIa ins Siloam Woodsvi lIe

Jackson Hoschton Braselton
Commerce Pendergrass Maysevil1e Jefferson

Madison Colbert Comer
Danielsville

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x
x x

PROMOTE
x x

RESEARCH
x

AGENCY
Carlton Hull 11 a

PROVIDE REVENUE

Morgan Madison bostwick Rutledge Newborn Buckhead

Oconee Watki nsvi lIe Bishop
Bogart Farmington

Oglethorpe Lexington Crawford Maxeys Arnoldsville
Rayle

Wal ton

Social Circle

Loganville

Monroe

x

Oconee Area Planning
and Develoement Convnission

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE
x x

RESEARCH
x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Ba ldwi n County x Mi lledgevi llex Mi Iledgevi11e
Baldwin County Rec-
reation Authority

Hancock County x

Sparta

x

Jasper County x Monti cello x

Johnson County x Wr i ghtsvi lIe x

Putnam County x Eatonton x

Washington

County

x

Sandersvi lie x

Tenni lie x

Wi Iki nson Cou.. x

I rwi nton x

Gordon

x

Slah Pine Area Planning and Development Commission4

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

It

It

It

It

It

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE
x x
x x x x
x
x x x x
x x
x
x x x
x

RESEARCH x
x

AGENCY

PROV IDE REVENUE

Coffee County x

Douglas

x

Douglas

Chamber of

Commerce

Lions Club

Rotary Club

Elks Lodge

Kiwanis

Womens Club

Jaycee

Clinch County x Homerville x Li ~ns Club Exchange Club Womens Club Clinch County
Industrial
Authority

Pierce County x Blackshear x BIackshearPierce County
Chamber of
Commerce Lions Club f{otary Club
Womens Club

Chari ton County

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE
x x
x x x x x x x
x x x
x
x x x x x

RESEARCH
x x x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Folkston x
Charlton County Development
Authority Folkston-Charlton
County Chamber
of Commerce Lions Club

Brantley County Nahunta Nahunta Lions Okefenoke EMC Brantley Recreation Committee

Atkinson County x

Pearson

x

Womens Club

Jaycee Club

Lions Club

Ware County x Waycross x Jaycees
Y.M.C.A. Lions Club Exchange Club Sat; lla Sportmen1s
Club

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

PROMOTE
x
x
x x x x x
x
x x x
x x x x x

RESEARCH x x x
x

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Ben Hi 11 County Bacon County

Southwest Georgia Area Planning and
Developmen~
Commission

Baker County Newton

Calhoun County Arlington Edison Leary Morgan

Co I qu itt County Moultrie BerJ in Doerun Funston Ellenton .Norman Park

Decatur County Attapulgus Ba i ..,br idge
BrinSon C1i ma;l<

Dougherty County

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

Data not available Data not available

x

PROMOTE
x

RESEARCH
x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

AGENCY

PROVIDE

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

REVENUE

. MANAGE

Albany (Commission)

Grady County

Cairo

\.Jhi gham

Grady County

Recreation Commission

x

x

x

x

x

x

Lee County Leesburg Smi thvi 11e

Mi 11er County Colquitt

Mi tche 11 County Baconton Camilla Pelham Sale City

Seminole County Dona Isonv i 11 e
Iron City

Terrell County Bronwood Dawson Parrott Sasser

~Jorth County Poulan

PROMOTE
x

RESEARCH
x

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

AGENCY

PROVIDE

PLAN

DEVELOP

0\"tN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

REVENUE

MANAGE

Sumner Sylvester Warwick

Thomas County Boston Cool idge Meigs Metcalf Ochlocknee Thomasville (Commission) Barwick Pavo

West Central Georgia Area and Planning and
Deve 1opmen! Commission

Taylor County Butler Howard Reynolds
Pottervi Ile Rupert Chari ng Mauk

Harion County Buena Vista Tazewell
Five Points

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

AGENCY

PROVIDE

PLAN

DEVELOP

0l.JN

MAINTAIN

REGULATEI

REVENUE

MANAGE

Juni per Brantley Dranesvi lle Doyle
Putman

Schley County
Ellavi 11 e LaCrosse Hurrays Crossroads
Concord Sellers Store

Macon County Montezuma Marshallvi lie Garden Valley
Ideal Fountainville Oglethorpe

Webster County Preston \4eston

Sumter County Americus Americus - Sumpter Payroll Development Authority Concord Friendship Plains
Sumter

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Huntington Les 1ie DeSoto Cobb Flintside Methvins Andersonv i lIe
Aries New Era

Dooley County
Vienna Unad ilIa Pi nehurst Snow Spring Dool ing Byronvi lIe
Li lly
Drayton Ti ppettvi lIe

Cri sp County Cordele Coney
Raines
Arabi Hatley

Counti~s not included
in Area Planning and Development Commissions

Gilmer County

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY
Ell ijay Cartecay

PROVIDE REVENUE

Cherokee County Canton North Canton Waleska Sharptop La them town Hickory Fie t ',Joods tock Holly Spring Keithsburg BaJ I Ground Nelson Free Home Buffington Cherokee
Lebanon

Rockdale County Conyers
Mi Istead Magnet

Newton County Covington Oxford Almon Pacer Newborn Porterdale
Oak Hi 11

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

OWN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Snapping Shoals Mansfield

Henry County McDonough
Ke I leytown Stockbridge FJ ippen
Hampton Lue Jla Locust Grove

Butts County Jackson Worthvi lIe Fi nchervi I Ie
Stark Jenkinsburg Pepper ton
Flovilla Indian Springs

Spalding County Gri ff i n Pomona Sunny Side Vaughn Zete Jla
Digby
Rover Orchard Hi JI

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

m.JN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

AGENCY

PROVIDE REVENUE

Lamar County Barnesville Goggins liberty Hi II Patillo Mi Iner Aldora Piedmont

Fayette County Fayetteville Tyrone Peachtree City Woolsey Starrs Mi 11 Brooks

Hart County Hartwell Reed Creek Airline Bowersvi lIe' Vanna Nubert
Elbert County Elberton Ruckersvi lIe Dewey Rose Bowman Fortsonia Middleton

ADMINISTRATIVE INVENTORY FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION IN GEORGIA

RESPONSIBILITIES BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

PLAN

DEVELOP

aloIN

MAINTAIN

REGULATE/

MANAGE

PROMOTE

RESEARCH

OUTDOOR RECREATION RESEARCH STUDY STAFF

Coordinator
James R. Champlin, Coordinator Department of Park and Recreation
Administration

Associate Coordinator
John L. Thompson, Associate Professor of Marketing
College of Business Administration

Members

Charles D. Clement Albert L. Danielsen Donald R. Escarraz Charles F. Floyd
Louis F. Grout
R. James Heyl Robert E. Tritt Augustus B. Turnbull, III

Professor of Finance Assistant Professor of Economics Associate Professor of Finance Assistant Professor of Bank and
Finance Instructor and Legal Research
Associate Assistant Professor of Geography Associate Professor of Marketing Assistant Professor

Graduate Assistants
Thomas W. Bigelow Roger R. Martinsen Colby H. Mosier Elizabeth D. Murphey