%PDF-1.6
%âãÏÓ
1 0 obj<>
endobj
2 0 obj<>
endobj
3 0 obj<>
endobj
5 0 obj<>
endobj
7 0 obj<>
endobj
8 0 obj<>>>
endobj
9 0 obj<>
endobj
10 0 obj<><><><><><><><><><>]/P 9 0 R/S/Article/T()/Pg 11 0 R>>
endobj
11 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
12 0 obj<>
endobj
13 0 obj[10 0 R]
endobj
14 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
15 0 obj[10 0 R]
endobj
16 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
17 0 obj[10 0 R]
endobj
18 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
19 0 obj[10 0 R]
endobj
20 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
21 0 obj[10 0 R]
endobj
22 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
23 0 obj[10 0 R]
endobj
24 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
25 0 obj[10 0 R]
endobj
26 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
27 0 obj[10 0 R]
endobj
28 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
29 0 obj[10 0 R]
endobj
30 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
31 0 obj[10 0 R]
endobj
32 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
33 0 obj<>
endobj
34 0 obj<>
endobj
35 0 obj<>
endobj
36 0 obj<>
endobj
38 0 obj[10 0 R]
endobj
48 0 obj<>stream
/Artifact <>BDC
0 0 0 rg
0 i
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 9 0 0 9 18 780.17 Tm
(Untitled Document)Tj
ET
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
0 18 612 756 re
W* n
BT
/T1_1 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 753.9756 Tm
(PROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS IN COASTAL AREAS: OPTIONS FOR LANDOWNERS )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(A fact sheet produced by the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network, Coastal Land\
Use Committee)Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
T*
(by )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Mary Bielen, Ohio Sea Grant )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(Cynthia Hagley, Minnesota Sea Grant )Tj
T*
(Leroy Hushak, Ohio Sea Grant )Tj
T*
(Michael Klepinger, Michigan Sea Grant )Tj
T*
(Glenn Kreag, Minnesota Sea Grant )Tj
T*
(Diane Kuehn, New York Sea Grant )Tj
T*
(Frank Lichtkoppler, Ohio Sea Grant )Tj
T*
(John McKinney, Michigan Sea Grant )Tj
T*
(Jennifer Pultz, New York Sea Grant )Tj
T*
(Nancy Riggs, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant )Tj
0 -1.1 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.457 TD
(INTRODUCTION)Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
( )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(The United States boasts more than 7.2 million acres of national rivers,\
lakeshores, seashores, and )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(recreation areas, not including state- and municipally-owned properties \
\(Cordell, et al., 1990\). While this )Tj
T*
(might seem like a large supply of publicly-owned shoreline, trends indic\
ate that participation in coastal )Tj
T*
(activities such as boating, swimming, and fishing will increase into the\
next century \(Cordell, et al., )Tj
T*
(1990\). Increasing participation in water-related activities is expected\
to increase the demand for coastal )Tj
T*
(access. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Government agencies and private landowners need to examine possibilities\
for expanding coastal access )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(to the public. Landowners considering making their property accessible t\
o the public have many options )Tj
T*
(available to them, including arranging an easement with a land trust or \
donating land to a not-for-profit )Tj
T*
(organization or government agency. Government agencies, by organizing ag\
reements with private )Tj
T*
(developers and/or directly purchasing coastal property, can also increas\
e public coastal access. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide case studies from the Great\
Lakes states of some of these )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(options. Each case study includes information about how and why the opti\
on was used. The glossary at )Tj
T*
(the end of the fact sheet defines each option presented as well as other\
s that exist. Use of these options )Tj
T*
(may differ according to state policies and laws and the specific situati\
on of the landowner. In all cases, it )Tj
T*
(is recommended that landowners seek competent legal guidance when choosi\
ng alternatives. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Liability issues need to be considered when making property accessible t\
o the public. Since landowner )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(liability differs between states and depends on the public access option\
chosen, it is not discussed in this )Tj
T*
(fact sheet. Property owners should discuss their liability concerns with\
an attorney prior to establishing )Tj
T*
(any contracts regarding the use of their land. )Tj
ET
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
Q
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 18 7.17 Tm
(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco\
/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm \(1 of 11\)12/10/2008 2:00:)Tj
(08 PM)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
49 0 obj<>stream
/Artifact <>BDC
0 0 0 rg
0 i
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 9 0 0 9 18 780.17 Tm
(Untitled Document)Tj
ET
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
0 18 612 756 re
W* n
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 733.3755 Tm
(Participation in the Peninsula Township PDR program is strictly voluntar\
y. Landowners who participate )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(are compensated for part of the fair-market value of their land. The amo\
unt of compensation is based on )Tj
T*
(the difference between what the property could be sold for on the open m\
arket with no restrictions and )Tj
T*
(what it can be sold for once development is restricted to open space or \
agricultural use. Independent )Tj
T*
(professional appraisers determine these values, and the agreement is neg\
otiated with the farmer in a )Tj
T*
(willing seller-willing buyer atmosphere. A permanent conservation easeme\
nt held by the township is )Tj
T*
(placed on the land, but the farmer otherwise retains full ownership and \
control. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Township residents voted to levy a millage \(a levy of one dollar per th\
ousand dollars of property value\), )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(which provides a pool of funds for the purchase of development rights. T\
he 1.25 mill levy is expected to )Tj
T*
(raise $2.6 million to purchase the development rights to about 20% \(2,0\
00 of 9,000 acres\) of the )Tj
T*
(peninsula's prime agricultural land with scenic views. The millage will \
cost approximately $62.00 a year )Tj
T*
(over a 15-year period for a property valued at $100,000. State Trust Fun\
d monies are being sought to )Tj
T*
(complement the millage, and volunteer contributions are accepted in a ma\
tching program as well. The )Tj
T*
(township received technical and legal support from Michigan State Univer\
sity, the American Farmland )Tj
T*
(Trust, The Nature Conservancy, and Grand Traverse Rotary Charities.)Tj
0 -2.457 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.1 TD
(Figure 4.)Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
( Old Mission Peninsula in Lake Michigan's Grand Traverse Bay.)Tj
ET
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
Q
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 18 7.17 Tm
(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco\
/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm \(11 of 11\)12/10/2008 2:00)Tj
(:08 PM)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
50 0 obj<>stream
/Artifact <>BDC
0 0 0 rg
0 i
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 9 0 0 9 18 780.17 Tm
(Untitled Document)Tj
ET
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
0 18 612 756 re
W* n
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 743.1756 Tm
( )Tj
0 -1 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.1 TD
(LAND TRUSTS )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Case study: Western New York Land Conservancy)Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 -2.557 TD
(The Western New York Land Conservancy \(WNYLC\) is one of approximately \
1,200 land trusts )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(nationwide that assists landowners with the preservation of their proper\
ty. Covering eight counties in )Tj
T*
(western New York, the WNYLC has worked to protect land on both Lakes Eri\
e and Ontario. )Tj
ET
0 0 0 RG
0.706 w 10 M 0 j 0 J []0 d
344.824 570.659 m
471.958 570.659 l
S
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 572.7756 Tm
(One of the most valuable tools used by this land trust is the conservati\
on easement \(CE\). A CE is a legal )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(agreement between a landowner and a qualified conservation organization \
or government agency that )Tj
T*
(permanently limits use of the property for conservation purposes. CEs al\
low the property to remain )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(under the ownership of the landowner, who may continue to live on it, se\
ll it, or pass it on to heirs. CEs )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(are flexible, designed to meet the particular needs of the landowner, an\
d permanent, remaining in force )Tj
T*
(even after the land changes hands. They can result in certain tax advant\
ages. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(The purpose of the CE often dictates whether public access to the proper\
ty is permitted. If the easement )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(is given for recreation or education purposes, public access is usually \
provided for. For scenic )Tj
T*
(easements, much of the property must be visible to the public, but physi\
cal access is not necessary. For )Tj
T*
(historic preservation easements, either visual or physical access may be\
appropriate, depending on the )Tj
T*
(nature of the property or building to be preserved. When public access i\
s not a specific provision of a )Tj
T*
(CE, the landowner may reserve the right to grant access at his/her discr\
etion. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Each CE is tailored to fit the individual landowner's needs and visions.\
Some factors that landowners )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(need to consider when establishing a CE through a land trust are: )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(1. Who specifically, if anyone, should be allowed access to the property\
? Examples: the public in )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(general, supervised groups only, or local residents only. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(2. What activities will be permitted on the property? Example: hiking ma\
y be permitted, but not hunting )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(or fishing. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(3. To what specific portions of the property will access be permitted? E\
xample: visitors may be )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(permitted to use a shoreline area, but not inland areas. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(4. What responsibilities, if any, will the landowner have for maintainin\
g public access to the property? )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(Example: the landowner may agree to maintain an access trail. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(5. Is there a potential situation in which further public access to the \
property would be disallowed? )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(Example: visitor use is causing the deterioration of wildlife habitat, s\
o access to the property is )Tj
ET
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
Q
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 18 7.17 Tm
(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco\
/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm \(2 of 11\)12/10/2008 2:00:)Tj
(08 PM)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
51 0 obj<>stream
/Artifact <>BDC
0 0 0 rg
0 i
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 9 0 0 9 18 780.17 Tm
(Untitled Document)Tj
ET
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
0 18 612 756 re
W* n
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 753.9756 Tm
(disallowed. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Once these questions are answered, the easement is drawn up and donated,\
typically to a land trust. Both )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(the holder of the CE \(the land trust\) and the landowner are responsibl\
e for enforcing the agreement. )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(Additionally, many states, including New York, give the state attorney g\
eneral enforcement powers. If )Tj
T*
(the landowner sells or leaves the property to his/her heirs, the next ow\
ner is obligated to abide by the )Tj
T*
(terms of the CE and the public access clause. )Tj
0 -2.457 TD
( )Tj
0 -1 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.1 TD
(FEE SIMPLE PURCHASE)Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -2.557 TD
(Case study: Sandy Pond Beach Natural Area, New York)Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
( )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Along the eastern shore of Lake Ontario in New York is a 17-mile stretch\
of sand dunes, wetlands, and )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(woodlands known as the Eastern Lake Ontario Dune and Wetland Area. This \
area comprises private )Tj
T*
(property, four state-owned properties, and two nature preserves owned by\
The Nature Conservancy )Tj
T*
(\(TNC\). Sandy Pond Beach Natural Area is one of the latter \(Figure 1\)\
. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Located on a narrow peninsula of land that separates Lake Ontario from a\
large pond called Sandy Pond, )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(the 77-acre natural area provides important breeding ground for many spe\
cies of birds. Even though )Tj
T*
(access to the site is mainly by boat, visitor use is extremely high and \
has caused sand dune erosion. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Using private donations, TNC acquired this property through a fee simple\
or direct purchase from two )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(separate landowners in 1994. Both previous owners were concerned about p\
reservation of the land. One )Tj
T*
(family contacted the New York State Department of Environmental Conserva\
tion \(NYSDEC\) to see if )Tj
T*
(the state could purchase the property for public use. When the NYSDEC wa\
s not able to locate funds for )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(the purchase, the property owners began negotiations with TNC. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Because of the high visitor use of the site, TNC decided that the area n\
eeded to be properly managed to )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(provide both public access and habitat protection. TNC and the NYSDEC ca\
me to an agreement that )Tj
T*
(while the Conservancy would continue to own the property, the NYSDEC wou\
ld manage it. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Several public meetings were organized by TNC and NYSDEC to obtain publi\
c input concerning the )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(management of the area. A 10-year management plan was developed and pres\
ented for public review )Tj
T*
(and approval. The plan was written to transcend TNC ownership, should th\
e NYSDEC eventually )Tj
T*
(purchase the property from them. The plan provides for maintaining optim\
um public access while )Tj
T*
(managing visitor use and traffic, and protecting bird habitat. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(With assistance from New York Sea Grant and a state grant, interpretive \
signs were produced to educate )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(visitors about the fragile dune environment. With a grant from the U. S.\
Environmental Protection )Tj
T*
(Agency, a wooden walk-over structure was constructed by TNC to enable vi\
sitors to cross the dunes )Tj
ET
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
Q
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 18 7.17 Tm
(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco\
/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm \(3 of 11\)12/10/2008 2:00:)Tj
(08 PM)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
52 0 obj<>stream
/Artifact <>BDC
0 0 0 rg
0 i
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 9 0 0 9 18 780.17 Tm
(Untitled Document)Tj
ET
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
0 18 612 756 re
W* n
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 753.9756 Tm
(from one side of the spit to the other without causing dune erosion. TNC\
also plans on installing two )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(interpretive kiosks regarding the dune environment in the area. )Tj
0 -1.1 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.1 TD
(Figure 1.)Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
( Sandy Pond Beach Natural Area is comprised of three separate properties\
on a spit of land that )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(separates Lake Ontario from North Sandy Pond. While most of the area is \
protected dune and bird )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(habitat, access for visitors has been established along the beach and on\
two designated walkways.)Tj
0 -2.457 TD
( )Tj
0 -1 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.1 TD
(FEE SIMPLE PURCHASE AND EMINENT DOMAIN)Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Case study: Mentor Lagoons, Mentor, Ohio)Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
T*
(Mentor Lagoons is a 500-acre tract of coastal property within the city o\
f Mentor, Ohio. It is one of few )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(remaining large, undeveloped tracts of coastal land in Lake County. Thir\
ty miles east of Cleveland, the )Tj
T*
(area has the potential to be one of the finest recreational parks and ha\
rbors on the Ohio shoreline. It also )Tj
T*
(has potential for upscale housing, marina, or dockominium development on\
a shoreline dominated by )Tj
T*
(30- to 60-foot-high bluffs. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(The majority of Mentor Lagoons property was placed into receivership by \
the courts \(i.e., held in trust )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(by a court-appointed person\) after a family dispute over distribution o\
f profits and a failure to comply )Tj
T*
(with a court-ordered cleanup of the lagoon. The local Sea Grant Extensio\
n Agent, with the support of his )Tj
T*
(advisory committee, explored opportunities to increase public access to \
Lake Erie. A Mentor Lagoons )Tj
T*
(Task Force was organized by the Sea Grant Extension Agent, the city of M\
entor, and interested )Tj
T*
(stakeholders to explore public acquisition of the property and ensure pu\
blic access to the area. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(The Lagoons contains three distinct parts: \(1\) an 150-acre lagoon crea\
ted in the early 1900s by dredging )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(and filling the estuary of a relic channel of the Grand River \(original\
ly intended as a "Venice of the )Tj
T*
(North," a private club, it was partially developed into private docks, a\
restaurant, and service facilities\); )Tj
T*
(\(2\) an 80-acre marshland, directly influenced by the changing water le\
vels of Lake Erie, that is part of )Tj
T*
(the much larger Mentor Marsh; and \(3\) about 220 acres of uplands coast\
al forest between the marshland/)Tj
T*
(lagoons and the lake, high and dry with some vernal pools and a 3,000-fo\
ot shoreline. The 80 acres of )Tj
T*
(marsh area is protected by a conservation easement held by the Ohio Depa\
rtment of Natural Resources. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(With the assistance of the local Sea Grant Extension Agent, the Mentor L\
agoons Task Force explored )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(ways of raising funds to directly purchase the lagoons. Attempts to obta\
in financial assistance from the )Tj
T*
(state of Ohio failed. In the end, the city placed a bid on the property \
at its appraised value of $5.4 )Tj
T*
(million, to be financed through municipal bonds. More than one dozen alt\
ernative bids were received. In )Tj
T*
(early February 1996 the court endorsed the consent decree and closed the\
sale to a developer for $7.7 )Tj
T*
(million. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(With the court accepting a private developer's bid, the city of Mentor p\
assed a resolution of intent to )Tj
ET
0 0 0 RG
0.706 w 10 M 0 j 0 J []0 d
233.566 39.259 m
324.174 39.259 l
S
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 41.3755 Tm
(purchase the Lagoons property through eminent domain. However, the price\
could be steep since the )Tj
ET
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
Q
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 18 7.17 Tm
(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco\
/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm \(4 of 11\)12/10/2008 2:00:)Tj
(08 PM)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
53 0 obj<>stream
/Artifact <>BDC
0 0 0 rg
0 i
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 9 0 0 9 18 780.17 Tm
(Untitled Document)Tj
ET
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
0 18 612 756 re
W* n
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 753.9756 Tm
(courts will determine fair-market value if an agreeable price cannot be \
negotiated with the developer. )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(Once the property is in public ownership, there are several potential so\
urces of public funds, including )Tj
T*
(the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Waterways Safety Fund, the Lak\
e Erie Access Program, and )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act \(ISTEA\) grants. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(With a clear "owner" of Mentor Lagoons, there are now options under whic\
h the city of Mentor may be )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(able to achieve its objectives without actually "owning" the property. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(It is critical that the city agree on and prioritize its objectives for \
the property before beginning )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(discussions with the developer. Some of the developer's goals may be con\
sistent with city objectives. A )Tj
T*
(public marina with boat ramp and adequate parking \(97% of Ohio boaters \
trailer their boats\) and an )Tj
T*
(increase in the number of boat docks, which guarantees access to the lak\
e by boaters, may be a mutual )Tj
T*
(goal. The "feared" condominiums may be compatible with a public beach if\
the developer and city )Tj
T*
(agree, voluntarily or under the threat of eminent domain, that the beach\
area is always to be open to the )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(public. This type of access is common in many coastal areas of the U.S.,\
but not in Ohio. On the other )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(hand, wildlife habitat preservation and park development would be seriou\
sly impeded, if not prevented, )Tj
T*
(by housing. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Three lessons concerning coastal redevelopment emerge from Mentor Lagoon\
s. First, redevelopment )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(actions are likely to take many years. Although the initial court suit b\
y the city of Mentor occurred in )Tj
T*
(1987, the courts only endorsed ownership in early 1996. Second, each ste\
p in the process requires a )Tj
T*
(reassessment of the public goals for the project. When the property was \
in receivership, purchasing it )Tj
T*
(was the priority goal. However, the effort devoted to purchasing it detr\
acted from prioritizing public use )Tj
T*
(goals such as beach and lake access, habitat preservation, and park deve\
lopment. With a private owner, )Tj
T*
(prioritizing these and other goals is critical. Finally, alternative mea\
ns of achieving each priority goal )Tj
T*
(must be assessed. Publicownership may not be the only way to achieve pri\
ority goals, since some may )Tj
T*
(be achieved more effectively and efficiently under private development \(\
e.g., operating the marina\). )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(The city of Mentor has a wide array of tools at its disposal in addition\
to eminent domain. These tools )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(include a voluntary negotiated plan or public-private partnership, zonin\
g, Ohio's tax-deferral programs, )Tj
T*
(purchase of part of the property \(possibly using eminent domain\), and \
easements.)Tj
0 -2.457 TD
( )Tj
0 -1 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.1 TD
(PUBLIC-PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Case study: Whiskey Island Marina, Cleveland, Ohio)Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
T*
(The development of Whiskey Island Marina is a model of how coastal acces\
s for the public can be )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(achieved through public and private sector development agreements. Locat\
ed on Cleveland's downtown )Tj
T*
(lakefront, this marina was designed by a developer with a vision for cre\
ating public access in )Tj
T*
(combination with the operation of a privately-owned and operated marina.\
)Tj
ET
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
Q
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 18 7.17 Tm
(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco\
/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm \(5 of 11\)12/10/2008 2:00:)Tj
(08 PM)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
54 0 obj<>stream
/Artifact <>BDC
0 0 0 rg
0 i
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 9 0 0 9 18 780.17 Tm
(Untitled Document)Tj
ET
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
0 18 612 756 re
W* n
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 749.5756 Tm
(In 1992 Whiskey Island Partners, the owners of the marina, purchased a f\
ormer railroad property on the )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(Cleveland waterfront. The former leaseholder agreed to remove three barg\
e loads of contaminated soil )Tj
T*
(and debris prior to the redevelopment of the site. A full-service marina\
is now being developed in stages )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(by Whiskey Island Partners and, when completed, will include 1,000 float\
ing docks, an indoor dry-stack )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(storage facility, restaurants, a marine-related retail facility, and yea\
r-round security. The marina property )Tj
T*
(is open to the public with the exception of the private club, docks, and\
boat hoist. Visitors pay to park )Tj
T*
(their cars at the public-access area and then are free to use the picnic\
facilities, beaches, waterside walk, )Tj
T*
(laundry room, and showers. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(The marina consists of 35 acres of dry land and 25 acres of submerged la\
nd \(land below the average )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(high-water mark of Lake Erie\). Because the state of Ohio acts as truste\
e for the public in matters related )Tj
T*
(to the use and development of submerged lands of Lake Erie that border t\
he state, developers building )Tj
T*
(on these lands are required to secure a lease from the Ohio Department o\
f Natural Resources Coastal )Tj
T*
(Management Program. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Whiskey Island Partners entered into an agreement with the state of Ohio\
to develop 10 acres for public )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(access within eight years. This agreement became part of the lease agree\
ment between the state of Ohio )Tj
T*
(and Whiskey Island Partners. In addition, the city of Cleveland agreed t\
o contribute to the project by )Tj
T*
(financing improvements to the marina's main access road. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(This project meets a significant public need since Cleveland's lakefront\
lacks varied opportunities for )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(public access. An additional benefit has been the revitalization of an o\
bsolete industrial site into a new )Tj
T*
(enterprise with positive economic impact. Any coastal community interest\
ed in increasing its public )Tj
T*
(access, but with limited financial resources to acquire, develop, operat\
e, and maintain a public access )Tj
T*
(area, could consider a similar arrangement with a private developer. Urb\
an waterfront communities, in )Tj
T*
(particular, may find this project of interest.)Tj
0 -2.457 TD
( )Tj
0 -1 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.1 TD
(REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Case study: Lake Superior's North Shore Harbors Plan, Minnesota)Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
T*
(A number of studies by Minnesota Sea Grant, the Minnesota Department of \
Natural Resources \(DNR\), )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(and others pointed to an unsatisfied recreational boating demand on Lake\
Superior for boat launching )Tj
T*
(facilities, protected harbors, and, to a lesser extent, marina slips. Bo\
aters perceive that Lake Superior has )Tj
T*
(inadequate safe harbor facilities on Minnesota's coastline \(known local\
ly as the North Shore\). A 1988 )Tj
T*
(DNR boater survey indicated that the greatest barrier to more frequent u\
se of Lake Superior was a lack )Tj
T*
(of protected harbors. An evaluation by an engineering firm, taking Lake \
Superior conditions into )Tj
T*
(account, recommended an ideal spacing between harbors of 8 to 10 miles. \
Currently, the distance )Tj
T*
(between existing recreational boating facilities on the North Shore is u\
p to 90 miles. )Tj
ET
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
Q
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 18 7.17 Tm
(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco\
/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm \(6 of 11\)12/10/2008 2:00:)Tj
(08 PM)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
55 0 obj<>stream
/Artifact <>BDC
0 0 0 rg
0 i
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 9 0 0 9 18 780.17 Tm
(Untitled Document)Tj
ET
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
0 18 612 756 re
W* n
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 753.9756 Tm
(A North Shore Management Board \(NSMB\) was established in 1987 to devel\
op a North Shore )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(Management Plan for environmental protection and orderly growth. A state\
-funded, multi-jurisdictional )Tj
T*
(planning agency, the board is responsible for developing comprehensive s\
olutions to Lake Superior )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(coastal resource and development issues. The NSMB includes representativ\
es of local government units )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(and is guided by citizen and technical advisory committees. The board mo\
nitors how effectively local )Tj
T*
(government units apply and enforce the North Shore Management Plan. With\
increasing demand for )Tj
T*
(harbors, the NSMB initiated comprehensive planning to guide the location\
and development of harbor )Tj
T*
(facilities, to protect the resource values of the North Shore, and to as\
sure the public's involvement in and )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(support of the process. After a two-year planning process, the North Sho\
re Harbors Plan was completed )Tj
T*
(in 1991 \(Figure 2\). )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(The Trails and Waterways Section of the Minnesota Department of Natural \
Resources \(DNR\) assists the )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(NSMB in its planning efforts. Under the plan guidelines, it is local gov\
ernment's role to initiate activities )Tj
T*
(to develop a harbor. The DNR cooperates with local government in siting,\
designing, and finding funds )Tj
T*
(for construction. Actual construction and operation of any facility is t\
he responsibility of individual local )Tj
T*
(governments \(village, city, township, or county\) and/or the DNR. The N\
SMB does not construct or )Tj
T*
(operate facilities, but does monitor activities to keep local developmen\
t in line with the Harbors Plan. )Tj
T*
(Implementation is slow because the cost of building a harbor breakwater \
is well beyond the resources of )Tj
T*
(local North Shore governments. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Based upon boating characteristics, surveys, existing use, boating regis\
tration growth, community )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(interest \(expressed in questionnaires and public meetings\), and active\
projects along the North Shore, the )Tj
T*
(NSMB believed there was sufficient justification for a network of harbor\
facilities designed for multiple )Tj
T*
(use, provided that the specific design and implementation were sensitive\
to environmental and aesthetic )Tj
T*
(resource values. The North Shore Management Plan recommends that commerc\
ial developments should )Tj
T*
(occur only in already developed locations such as cities and villages. T\
his philosophy of controlling )Tj
T*
(development was followed in the creation of the Harbors Plan. In undevel\
oped or natural resource areas, )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(the plan recommends that harbor development be limited to the constructi\
on of low-impact harbors of )Tj
T*
(refuge. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(The Comprehensive Harbors Plan recognized that a network of harbors woul\
d have certain effects that )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(communities needed to be aware of as they proceeded with implementation.\
These include: )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(1. A network of safe harbors will increase boating use of Lake Superior,\
based on a comparative analysis )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(with Wisconsin and Michigan. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(2. Increased boating use of Lake Superior may provide a positive economi\
c impact through increased )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(tourism dollars for the North Shore. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(3. Additional harbor facilities may increase the financial burden on loc\
al communities. This will be )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(partially offset by revenues generated by the harbor facilities. )Tj
ET
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
Q
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 18 7.17 Tm
(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco\
/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm \(7 of 11\)12/10/2008 2:00:)Tj
(08 PM)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
56 0 obj<>stream
/Artifact <>BDC
0 0 0 rg
0 i
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 9 0 0 9 18 780.17 Tm
(Untitled Document)Tj
ET
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
0 18 612 756 re
W* n
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 753.9756 Tm
(4. Development of additional harbor facilities and increased boating use\
will create environmental )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(concerns that should be carefully monitored and considered in planning a\
nd design. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(5. Increased boating use of Lake Superior will increase the probability \
of boating-related accidents or )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(safety incidents on the North Shore, requiring boater safety training to\
accompany harbor establishment. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Available funds for harbor development are limited and require cooperati\
ve efforts between many )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(sources including local communities and potential users. The plan has be\
en used to guide DNR project )Tj
T*
(support and the allocation of funding assistance from state resources. A\
ny proposal not contained in the )Tj
T*
(plan will not receive NSMB or DNR support. Based on the 1988 DNR survey,\
boaters see Lake Superior )Tj
T*
(as a statewide resource and support this state funding. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Implementation will require a multi-year time frame. Priorities will be \
set but will not prohibit the )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(concurrent progress of other harbor projects. The NSMB, with its shore-w\
ide perspective and voice, is in )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(an excellent position to continue to provide a coordinating and review r\
ole, as well as participating in the )Tj
T*
(identification and preparation of funding requests for harbor facilities\
during the implementation )Tj
T*
(process. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Planning for several harbor sites is currently underway. Actual construc\
tion of the first harbor is )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(expected to begin in 1996 in Silver Bay, Minnesota. Planning for two oth\
er sites \(Two Harbors and )Tj
T*
(Grand Marais, Minnesota\) is underway, but less advanced. Initial planni\
ng for some of the other harbor )Tj
T*
(locations is underway. One site, Sugar Loaf Cove, has been removed from \
the plan because of citizen )Tj
T*
(concern. It has been reclassified as a protected resource through the Sc\
ientific and Natural Areas )Tj
T*
(Program of the DNR, due to its unique geological features. Alternate sit\
es are being examined to replace )Tj
T*
(this site. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Developing a regional comprehensive plan would be useful for other regio\
ns in dealing with issues that )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(cannot be managed solely by local government, supporting the need for fi\
nancial resources beyond the )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(capacity of local governments, guiding the development of facilities of \
regional or statewide importance, )Tj
T*
(minimizing the impact of development on natural resources, and avoiding \
the duplication of expensive )Tj
T*
(facilities.)Tj
0 -2.457 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.1 TD
(Figure 2. )Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
(The location of recommended harbors according to the North Shore Harbors\
Plan.)Tj
0 -2.457 TD
( )Tj
0 -1 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.1 TD
(FEE SIMPLE PURCHASE AND CONDEMNATION )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Case study: Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan, and Indian\
a Dunes National )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(Lakeshore, Indiana)Tj
ET
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
Q
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 18 7.17 Tm
(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco\
/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm \(8 of 11\)12/10/2008 2:00:)Tj
(08 PM)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
57 0 obj<>stream
/Artifact <>BDC
0 0 0 rg
0 i
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 9 0 0 9 18 780.17 Tm
(Untitled Document)Tj
ET
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
0 18 612 756 re
W* n
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 753.9756 Tm
(Sleeping Bear Dunes in Michigan and Indiana Dunes in Indiana allow publi\
c access to the only Great )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(Lake that lies completely within the United States \213 Lake Michigan \(\
Figure 3\). Creation of the two )Tj
T*
(National Lakeshores shared many historical similarities, including stron\
g supporters in Congress. Land )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(for both Lakeshores was acquired primarily through fee simple purchase. \
)Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Sleeping Bear Dunes encompasses approximately 71,000 acres including 19,\
000 acres of islands and )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(10,000 acres of submerged land. Discussions about acquiring lakeshore la\
nd for public use began in )Tj
T*
(1955, with strong support in Congress from U. S. Senator Phillip Hart of\
Michigan. Legislation was )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(proposed in 1959 and signed into law in 1970. To date some $58 million h\
as been expended to purchase )Tj
T*
(land. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Property owners were given two options. Residential property built befor\
e 1964 was immune to )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(condemnation, and post-1964 property had to be sold via purchase agreeme\
nt or by way of )Tj
T*
(condemnation. Some of the post-1964 owners negotiated 25-year leasebacks\
\(i.e., the owner maintains )Tj
T*
(use of the property after selling it to the government by leasing it bac\
k from the government\), and a few )Tj
T*
(obtained life estates \(i.e., the owner maintains use of the property fo\
r life\) for their properties. More than )Tj
T*
(150 private tracts remain inside the boundaries, and 92 are immune to co\
ndemnation. Controversies )Tj
T*
(were open and bitter, and in late 1994 a group of leaseholders petitione\
d Congress for new leases. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Concerns expressed included: large amounts of northern Michigan land was\
already in public )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(ownership, and tax losses occurred as more land left the tax roll; prope\
rty right infringement; potential )Tj
T*
(tourism effects on local economies; potential degradation of natural res\
ources; and a fight over "state vs. )Tj
T*
(federal" control. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(The creation of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore occurred in a similar w\
ay. Indiana and its )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(neighboring state Illinois share many things including Lake Michigan. Al\
though Indiana Dunes National )Tj
T*
(Lakeshore lies entirely on Indiana shores, the realization of the Lakesh\
ore came about to a significant )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(degree through supportive efforts of U.S. Senator Paul Douglas of Illino\
is. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Even before World War I, efforts were begun to preserve the dunes in Ind\
iana. Delayed by priorities that )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(included three more wars and economic ups and downs, federal action was \
slow to come. As concerned )Tj
T*
(citizens remained steadfast in working to establish a nationally preserv\
ed dunes area, Senator Douglas )Tj
T*
(lent support, and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore was approved by C\
ongress along with the Port )Tj
T*
(of Indiana as a package deal in 1966. Established in 1972, Indiana Dunes\
included 8,330 acres. The last )Tj
T*
(amendment to the 1966 act was passed by Congress in 1992 and sets the La\
keshore\271s boundaries to )Tj
T*
(include approximately 15,000 acres of land and water, the majority front\
ing Lake Michigan in Lake, )Tj
T*
(Porter, and LaPorte Counties. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Landowners\271 reservations of use and occupancy retention rights apply \
only to single family, )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(noncommercial residential use. The original legislation included a fixed\
term of up to 25 years, with )Tj
T*
(exemption from condemnation if property conformed to zoning ordinances a\
pproved by the Secretary of )Tj
T*
(the Interior. Subsequent legislation included fixed terms of 20 years. A\
1976 amendment repealed the )Tj
ET
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
Q
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 18 7.17 Tm
(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco\
/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm \(9 of 11\)12/10/2008 2:00:)Tj
(08 PM)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
58 0 obj<>stream
/Artifact <>BDC
0 0 0 rg
0 i
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
0 Tc 0 Tw 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tr 9 0 0 9 18 780.17 Tm
(Untitled Document)Tj
ET
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
0 18 612 756 re
W* n
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 753.9756 Tm
(exemption from condemnation. Legislation of 1980 and 1986 included exten\
sions of the 20-year )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(reservation and the option for a life estate. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Priority has been given to the acquisition of beaches and lakefront land\
adjoining beaches. Currently, the )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(United States holds fee title or a lesser interest in 10,253 acres withi\
n the boundaries that have been )Tj
T*
(obtained by purchase, exchange, transfer, and condemnation. An additiona\
l 3,200 acres of non-federal )Tj
T*
(public lands, principally the Indiana Dunes State Park and other state a\
nd municipal lands, are also )Tj
T*
(within the national lakeshore's boundary. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Remaining private holdings are in four major groupings: developed land o\
f industry and railroads; )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(undeveloped lands in industrial or utility ownership; undeveloped lands \
in other private ownership; and )Tj
T*
(developed residential properties. Generally, lands developed for railroa\
d, utility, or industrial purposes )Tj
T*
(cannot be acquired as long as they are necessary for continuing operatio\
ns. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Problems associated with land acquisition for public use are occurring i\
n varying degrees throughout the )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(country. Communities must find a balance between private rights and publ\
ic good, and no easy answers )Tj
T*
(exist. As local, state, and federal control of these decisions remains i\
n limbo, a clear understanding of all )Tj
T*
(the issues involved must continually be made available to all.)Tj
0 -2.457 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.1 TD
(Figure 3. )Tj
/T1_0 1 Tf
(Sleeping Bear and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshores.)Tj
0 -2.457 TD
( )Tj
0 -1 TD
( )Tj
/T1_1 1 Tf
0 -1.1 TD
(PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Case study: Peninsula Township, Grand Traverse County, Michigan)Tj
ET
0 0 0 RG
0.706 w 10 M 0 j 0 J []0 d
544.254 274.459 m
597.51 274.459 l
S
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 276.5756 Tm
(In late 1994, the citizens of Peninsula Township, Grand Traverse County,\
Michigan, adopted a purchase )Tj
ET
10 257.659 m
132.878 257.659 l
S
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
14 0 0 14 10 259.7756 Tm
(of development rights \(PDR\) program to protect a selection of the town\
ship's most scenic farmland. )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(Peninsula Township's PDR program is the first of its kind in the Midwest\
and is viewed as a model by )Tj
T*
(adjacent townships and counties. The new program helps ensure visual acc\
ess to the Lake Michigan )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(coast. )Tj
0 -2.557 TD
(Peninsula Township occupies Old Mission Peninsula, a 17-mile-long strip \
of land reaching into a narrow )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(bay in northern Lake Michigan \(Figure 4\). It averages just three miles\
across and has only one arterial )Tj
T*
(roadway. The scenic peninsula has more than 50 miles of shoreline and th\
ousands of acres of hills )Tj
0 -1.2 TD
(overlooking Lake Michigan. Uninterrupted vistas and rural character are \
recognized as important public )Tj
T*
(assets in this coastal community, and so is a healthy farm economy. The \
township, which borders the )Tj
T*
(region's largest city, is regarded by many as the tart-cherry capital of\
the world. The settlement pattern is )Tj
T*
(rural agricultural with a current population of 6,000. Present zoning al\
lows for a population of 30,000 at )Tj
T*
("buildout." Buildout \(a hypothetical condition used by planning and zon\
ing officials\) is derived from the )Tj
T*
(legally allowed density of people per acre per zone and the total number\
of acres found in the township. )Tj
ET
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
Q
BT
/T1_0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 18 7.17 Tm
(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco\
/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm \(10 of 11\)12/10/2008 2:00)Tj
(:08 PM)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
59 0 obj(Untitled Document)
endobj
60 0 obj<>
endobj
61 0 obj<>
endobj
62 0 obj<>
endobj
63 0 obj<>
endobj
64 0 obj[61 0 R]
endobj
65 0 obj(file:///C|/Documents and Settings/PFOCAZIO/Desktop/pubs/GL - Coastal Eco/GL Boating/publicaccessfs.htm)
endobj
66 0 obj(ŠTXÙ:Ëy]Ù À‡¨Ðq)
endobj
67 0 obj<>
endobj
68 0 obj<>
endobj
69 0 obj(šBÓYÒ§E q˜pÿJËö)
endobj
70 0 obj<>
endobj
71 0 obj<>
endobj
72 0 obj<>
endobj
73 0 obj<>
endobj
74 0 obj<>
endobj
75 0 obj<>stream
2008-12-10T14:00:08-05:00
2008-12-10T13:59:53-05:00
2008-12-10T14:00:08-05:00
application/pdf
Untitled Document
uuid:97ea0e1b-fbc9-4c60-87e2-6aa4aa80149b
uuid:fb9e4bfc-3342-442e-8b49-546c573e3492
Acrobat Web Capture 7.0
endstream
endobj
xref
0 76
0000000004 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000143 00000 n
0000000202 00000 n
0000000006 00000 f
0000000351 00000 n
0000000037 00001 f
0000000417 00000 n
0000000518 00000 n
0000000562 00000 n
0000000609 00000 n
0000000976 00000 n
0000001158 00000 n
0000001284 00000 n
0000001308 00000 n
0000001490 00000 n
0000001514 00000 n
0000001696 00000 n
0000001720 00000 n
0000001902 00000 n
0000001926 00000 n
0000002108 00000 n
0000002132 00000 n
0000002314 00000 n
0000002338 00000 n
0000002508 00000 n
0000002532 00000 n
0000002714 00000 n
0000002738 00000 n
0000002908 00000 n
0000002932 00000 n
0000003114 00000 n
0000003138 00000 n
0000003321 00000 n
0000003421 00000 n
0000003514 00000 n
0000003603 00000 n
0000000039 00001 f
0000003693 00000 n
0000000040 00001 f
0000000041 00001 f
0000000042 00001 f
0000000043 00001 f
0000000044 00001 f
0000000045 00001 f
0000000046 00001 f
0000000047 00001 f
0000000000 00001 f
0000003717 00000 n
0000007197 00000 n
0000009572 00000 n
0000013254 00000 n
0000017084 00000 n
0000021369 00000 n
0000025493 00000 n
0000029567 00000 n
0000033763 00000 n
0000037410 00000 n
0000041797 00000 n
0000045949 00000 n
0000045984 00000 n
0000046020 00000 n
0000046157 00000 n
0000046186 00000 n
0000046287 00000 n
0000046311 00000 n
0000046431 00000 n
0000046465 00000 n
0000046646 00000 n
0000046697 00000 n
0000046731 00000 n
0000046774 00000 n
0000046815 00000 n
0000046856 00000 n
0000046940 00000 n
0000047037 00000 n
trailer
<<37E237585180EA42A66D2CF3ECA59EEF>]>>
startxref
50505
%%EOF
1 0 obj<>
endobj
3 0 obj<>
endobj
11 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
14 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
16 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
18 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
20 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
22 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
24 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
26 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
28 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
30 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
32 0 obj<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
76 0 obj<>>>
endobj
77 0 obj[76 0 R 78 0 R]
endobj
78 0 obj<>
endobj
79 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[17.2134 3.43526 542.083 16.4958]/FormType 1>>stream
1 0 0 RG
18.2135 4.4354 522.8689 11.0603 re
S
endstream
endobj
80 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[17.2134 3.43526 542.083 16.4958]/FormType 1>>stream
1 0 0 RG
1 g
18.2135 4.4354 522.8689 11.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
81 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[17.2134 3.43526 542.083 16.4958]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
18.2135 4.4354 522.8689 11.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
82 0 obj<>
endobj
83 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[17.7134 3.93526 541.583 15.9958]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
17.7135 3.9354 523.8689 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
84 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[17.3365 3.93526 541.206 15.9958]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
17.3367 3.9354 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
85 0 obj<>>>
endobj
86 0 obj<>
endobj
87 0 obj[85 0 R 88 0 R]
endobj
88 0 obj<>
endobj
89 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[17.3365 3.93526 541.206 15.9958]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
17.3367 3.9354 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
90 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[44.0654 389.97 567.935 402.03]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
44.0655 389.9698 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
91 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[16.4654 3.57088 540.335 15.6315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
16.4656 3.571 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
92 0 obj<>>>
endobj
93 0 obj<>
endobj
94 0 obj[92 0 R 95 0 R]
endobj
95 0 obj<>
endobj
96 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[17.3365 3.93526 541.206 15.9958]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
17.3367 3.9354 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
97 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[60.0654 373.97 583.935 386.03]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
60.0655 373.9698 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
98 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[16.2655 3.77083 540.135 15.8314]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
16.2656 3.771 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
99 0 obj<>>>
endobj
100 0 obj<>
endobj
101 0 obj[99 0 R 102 0 R]
endobj
102 0 obj<>
endobj
103 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[17.3365 3.93526 541.206 15.9958]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
17.3367 3.9354 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
104 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[76.0654 357.97 599.935 370.03]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
76.0655 357.9698 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
105 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[16.6655 3.97078 540.535 16.0314]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
16.6657 3.9709 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
106 0 obj<>>>
endobj
107 0 obj<>
endobj
108 0 obj[106 0 R 109 0 R]
endobj
109 0 obj<>
endobj
110 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[17.3365 3.93526 541.206 15.9958]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
17.3367 3.9354 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
111 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[44.0654 389.97 567.935 402.03]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
44.0655 389.9698 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
112 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[14.6655 4.77087 538.535 16.8315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
14.6656 4.771 523.8691 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
113 0 obj<>>>
endobj
114 0 obj<>
endobj
115 0 obj[113 0 R 116 0 R]
endobj
116 0 obj<>
endobj
117 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[17.3365 3.93526 541.206 15.9958]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
17.3367 3.9354 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
118 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[44.0654 389.97 567.935 402.03]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
44.0655 389.9698 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
119 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[15.2654 3.57088 539.135 15.6315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
15.2656 3.571 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
120 0 obj<>>>
endobj
121 0 obj<>
endobj
122 0 obj[120 0 R 123 0 R]
endobj
123 0 obj<>
endobj
124 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[15.2654 3.57088 539.135 15.6315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
15.2656 3.571 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
125 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[44.0653 389.97 567.935 402.03]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
44.0655 389.9698 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
126 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[14.0654 3.57088 537.935 15.6315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
14.0656 3.571 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
127 0 obj<>>>
endobj
128 0 obj<>
endobj
129 0 obj[127 0 R 130 0 R]
endobj
130 0 obj<>
endobj
131 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[15.2654 3.57088 539.135 15.6315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
15.2656 3.571 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
132 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[60.0653 373.97 583.935 386.03]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
60.0655 373.9698 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
133 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[18.0655 5.57082 541.935 17.6314]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
18.0656 5.571 523.8691 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
134 0 obj<>>>
endobj
135 0 obj<>
endobj
136 0 obj[134 0 R 137 0 R]
endobj
137 0 obj<>
endobj
138 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[15.2654 3.57088 539.135 15.6315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
15.2656 3.571 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
139 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[76.0653 357.97 599.935 370.03]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
76.0655 357.9698 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
140 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[16.0655 4.57077 539.935 16.6314]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
16.0657 4.5709 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
141 0 obj<>>>
endobj
142 0 obj<>
endobj
143 0 obj[141 0 R 144 0 R]
endobj
144 0 obj<>
endobj
145 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[15.2654 3.57088 539.135 15.6315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
15.2656 3.571 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
146 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[44.0653 389.97 567.935 402.03]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
44.0655 389.9698 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
147 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[17.6654 4.17088 541.535 16.2315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
17.6656 4.171 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
148 0 obj<>>>
endobj
149 0 obj<>
endobj
150 0 obj[148 0 R 151 0 R]
endobj
151 0 obj<>
endobj
152 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[15.2654 3.57088 539.135 15.6315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
15.2656 3.571 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
153 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[44.0653 389.97 567.935 402.03]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
44.0655 389.9698 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
154 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[19.4654 4.17088 543.335 16.2315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
19.4656 4.171 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
155 0 obj<>/Type/XObject/BBox[18.4654 4.17088 542.335 16.2315]/FormType 1>>stream
1 G
1 g
0 w
18.4656 4.171 523.869 12.0603 re
B
endstream
endobj
156 0 obj<>stream
2008-12-10T14:19:10-05:00
2008-12-10T13:59:53-05:00
2008-12-10T14:19:10-05:00
application/pdf
Untitled Document
uuid:97ea0e1b-fbc9-4c60-87e2-6aa4aa80149b
uuid:86e7cc74-77b2-4218-8eaf-f7424027233d
Acrobat Web Capture 7.0
endstream
endobj
xref
1 1
0000052180 00000 n
3 1
0000052308 00000 n
11 1
0000052457 00000 n
14 1
0000052653 00000 n
16 1
0000052849 00000 n
18 1
0000053045 00000 n
20 1
0000053242 00000 n
22 1
0000053439 00000 n
24 1
0000053636 00000 n
26 1
0000053821 00000 n
28 1
0000054018 00000 n
30 1
0000054203 00000 n
32 1
0000054400 00000 n
76 81
0000054598 00000 n
0000054951 00000 n
0000054982 00000 n
0000055092 00000 n
0000055332 00000 n
0000055576 00000 n
0000055815 00000 n
0000055841 00000 n
0000056084 00000 n
0000056326 00000 n
0000056664 00000 n
0000056690 00000 n
0000056721 00000 n
0000056831 00000 n
0000057073 00000 n
0000057314 00000 n
0000057555 00000 n
0000057893 00000 n
0000057919 00000 n
0000057950 00000 n
0000058060 00000 n
0000058302 00000 n
0000058543 00000 n
0000058784 00000 n
0000059125 00000 n
0000059152 00000 n
0000059185 00000 n
0000059296 00000 n
0000059539 00000 n
0000059781 00000 n
0000060024 00000 n
0000060366 00000 n
0000060393 00000 n
0000060427 00000 n
0000060539 00000 n
0000060782 00000 n
0000061024 00000 n
0000061267 00000 n
0000061609 00000 n
0000061636 00000 n
0000061670 00000 n
0000061782 00000 n
0000062025 00000 n
0000062267 00000 n
0000062509 00000 n
0000062851 00000 n
0000062878 00000 n
0000062912 00000 n
0000063024 00000 n
0000063266 00000 n
0000063508 00000 n
0000063750 00000 n
0000064092 00000 n
0000064119 00000 n
0000064153 00000 n
0000064265 00000 n
0000064507 00000 n
0000064749 00000 n
0000064992 00000 n
0000065334 00000 n
0000065361 00000 n
0000065395 00000 n
0000065507 00000 n
0000065749 00000 n
0000065991 00000 n
0000066234 00000 n
0000066576 00000 n
0000066603 00000 n
0000066637 00000 n
0000066749 00000 n
0000066991 00000 n
0000067233 00000 n
0000067475 00000 n
0000067817 00000 n
0000067844 00000 n
0000067878 00000 n
0000067990 00000 n
0000068232 00000 n
0000068474 00000 n
0000068716 00000 n
0000068958 00000 n
trailer
<]/Prev 50505 >>
startxref
72427
%%EOF