Michigan State University Extension
Tourism Educational Materials - 33840311
06/06/02
PROVIDNG PUBLIC ACCESS COASTAL IN AREAS: OPTIONS FOR LANDOWNERS
List of files and visuals associated with this text.
A fact sheet produced by the Great Lakes Sea Grant
Network, Coastal Land Use Committee
Source: Great Lakes Sea Grant Network
Authors: Bielen, Mary; Hagley, Cynthia; Hushak, Leroy;
Klepinger, Michael; Kreag, Glen; Kuehn, Diane;
Lichtkoppler, Frank; McKinney, John; Pultz, Jennifer;
Riggs, Nancy
Year: 1996
INTRODUCTION
The United States boasts more than 7.2 million acres of
national rivers, lake shores, seashores, and recreation
areas, not including state and municipally-owned
properties (Cordell, et al., 1990). While this might seem
like a large supply of publicly-owned shoreline, trends
indicate that participation in coastal activities such as
boating, swimming, and fishing will increase into the next
century (Cordell, et al., 1990). Increasing participation
in water-related activities is expected to increase the
demand for coastal access.
Government agencies and private landowners need to examine
possibilities for expanding coastal access to the public.
Landowners considering making their property accessible to
the public have many options available to them, including
arranging an easement with a land trust or donating land
to a not-for-profit organization or government agency.
Government agencies, by organizing agreements with private
developers and/or directly purchasing coastal property,
can also increase public coastal access. The purpose of
this fact sheet is to provide case studies from the Great
Lakes states of some of these options. Each case study
includes information about how and why the option was
used. The glossary at the end of the fact sheet defines
each option presented as well as others that exist. Use of
these options may differ according to state policies and
laws and the specific situation of the landowner. In all
cases, it is recommended that landowners seek competent
legal guidance when choosing alternatives.
Liability issues need to be considered when making
property accessible to the public. Since landowner
liability differs between states and depends on the public
access option chosen, it is not discussed in this fact
sheet. Property owners should discuss their liability
concerns with an attorney prior to establishing any
contracts regarding the use of their land.
LAND TRUSTS
Case study: Western New York Land Conservancy
The Western New York Land Conservancy (WNYLC) is one of
approximately 1,200 land trusts nationwide that assists
landowners with the preservation of their property.
Covering eight counties in western New York, the WNYLC has
worked to protect land on both Lakes Erie and Ontario.
One of the most valuable tools used by this land trust is
the conservation easement (CE). A CE is a legal agreement
between a landowner and a qualified conservation
organization or government agency that permanently limits
use of the property for conservation purposes. CEs allow
the property to remain under the ownership of the
landowner, who may continue to live on it, sell it, or
pass it on to heirs. CEs are flexible, designed to meet
the particular needs of the landowner, and permanent,
remaining in force even after the land changes hands. They
can result in certain tax advantages.
The purpose of the CE often dictates whether public access
to the property is permitted. If the easement is given for
recreation or education purposes, public access is usually
provided for. For scenic easements, much of the property
must be visible to the public, but physical access is not
necessary. For historic preservation easements, either
visual or physical access may be appropriate, depending on
the nature of the property or building to be preserved.
When public access is not a specific provision of a CE,
the landowner may reserve the right to grant access at
his/her discretion.
Each CE is tailored to fit the individual landowners needs
and visions. Some factors that landowners need to consider
when establishing a CE through a land trust are.
1. Who specifically, if anyone, should be allowed access
to the property? Examples: the public in general,
supervised groups only, or local residents only.
2. What activities will be permitted on the property?
Example: hiking may be permitted, but not hunting or
fishing.
3. To what specific portions of the property will access
be permitted? Example: visitors may be permitted to use a
shoreline area, but not inland areas.
4. What responsibilities, if any, will the landowner have
for maintaining public access to the property? Example:
the landowner may agree to maintain an access trail.
5. Is there a potential situation in which further public
access to the property would be disallowed? Example:
visitor use is causing the deterioration of wildlife
habitat, so access to the property is disallowed.
Once these questions are answered, the easement is drawn
up and donated, typically to a land trust. Both the holder
of the CE (the land trust) and the landowner are
responsible for enforcing the agreement. Additionally,
many states, including New York, give the state attorney
general enforcement powers. If the landowner sells or
leaves the property to his/her heirs, the next owner is
obligated to abide by the terms of the CE and the public
access clause.
(Vis. 1)
Figure 1. Sandy Pond Beach Natural Area is comprised of
three separate properties on a spit of land that separates
Lake Ontario from North Sandy Pond. While most of the area
is protected dune and bird habitat, access for visitors
has been established along the beach and on two designated
walkways.
FEE SIMPLE PURCHASE
Case study: Sandy Pond Beach Natural Area, New York
Along the eastern shore of Lake Ontario in New York is a
17-mile stretch of sand dunes, wetlands, and woodlands
known as the Eastern Lake Ontario Dune and Wetland Area.
This area comprises private property, four state-owned
properties, and two nature preserves owned by The Nature
Conservancy (TNC). Sandy Pond Beach Natural Area is one of
the latter (Vis. 1).
Located on a narrow peninsula of land that separates Lake
Ontario from a large pond called Sandy Pond, the 77-acre
natural area provides important breeding ground for many
species of birds. Even though access to the site is mainly
by boat, visitor use is extremely high and has caused sand
dune erosion.
Using private donations, TNC acquired this property
through a fee simple or direct purchase from two separate
landowners in 1994. Both previous owners were concerned
about preservation of the land. One family contacted the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) to see if the state could purchase the property
for public use. When the NYSDEC was not able to locate
funds for the purchase, the property owners began
negotiations with TNC.
Because of the high visitor use of the site, TNC decided
that the area needed to be properly managed to provide
both public access and habitat protection. TNC and the
NYSDEC came to an agreement that while the Conservancy
would continue to own the property, the NYSDEC would
manage it.
Several public meetings were organized by TNC and NYSDEC
to obtain public input concerning the management of the
area. A 10-year management plan was developed and
presented for public review and approval. The plan was
written to transcend TNC ownership, should the NYSDEC
eventually purchase the property from them. The plan
provides for maintaining optimum public access while
managing visitor use and traffic, and protecting bird
habitat.
With assistance from New York Sea Grant and a state grant,
interpretive signs were produced to educate visitors about
the fragile dune environment. With a grant from the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, a wooden walk-over
structure was constructed by TNC to enable visitors to
cross the dunes from one side of the spit to the other
without causing dune erosion. TNC also plans on installing
two interpretive kiosks regarding the dune environment in
the area.
FEE SIMPLE PURCHASE AND EMINENT DOMAIN
Case study: Mentor Lagoons, Mentor, Ohio
Mentor Lagoons is a 500-acre tract of coastal property
within the city of Mentor, Ohio. It is one of few
remaining large, undeveloped tracts of coastal land in
Lake County. Thirty miles east of Cleveland, the area has
the potential to be one of the finest recreational parks
and harbors on the Ohio shoreline. It also has potential
for upscale housing, marina, or dockominium development on
a shoreline dominated by 30 to 60-foot-high bluffs.
The majority of Mentor Lagoons property was placed into
receivership by the courts (i.e., held in trust by a
court-appointed person) after a family dispute over
distribution of profits and a failure to comply with a
court-ordered cleanup of the lagoon. The local Sea Grant
Extension Agent, with the support of his advisory
committee, explored opportunities to increase public
access to Lake Erie. A Mentor Lagoons Task Force was
organized by the Sea Grant Extension Agent, the city of
Mentor, and interested stakeholders to explore public
acquisition of the property and ensure public access to
the area.
The Lagoons contains three distinct parts: (1) an 150-acre
lagoon created in the early 1900s by dredging and filling
the estuary of a relic channel of the Grand River
(originally intended as a "Venice of the North," a private
club, it was partially developed into private docks, a
restaurant, and service facilities); (2) an 80-acre
marshland, directly influenced by the changing water
levels of Lake Erie, that is part of the much larger
Mentor Marsh; and (3) about 220 acres of uplands coastal
forest between the marshland/lagoons and the lake, high
and dry with some vernal pools and a 3,000-foot shoreline.
The 80 acres of marsh area is protected by a conservation
easement held by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
With the assistance of the local Sea Grant Extension
Agent, the Mentor Lagoons Task Force explored ways of
raising funds to directly purchase the lagoons. Attempts
to obtain financial assistance from the state of Ohio
failed. In the end, the city placed a bid on the property
at its appraised value of $5.4 million, to be financed
through municipal bonds. More than one dozen alternative
bids were received. In early February 1996 the court
endorsed the consent decree and closed the sale to a
developer for $7.7 million.
With the court accepting a private developer's bid, the
city of Mentor passed a resolution of intent to purchase
the Lagoons property through eminent domain. However, the
price could be steep since the courts will determine
fair-market value if an agreeable price cannot be
negotiated with the developer. Once the property is in
public ownership, there are several potential sources of
public funds, including the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, the Waterways Safety Fund, the Lake Erie Access
Program, and Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) grants.
With a clear "owner" of Mentor Lagoons, there are now
options under which the city of Mentor may be able to
achieve its objectives without actually "owning" the
property.
It is critical that the city agree on and prioritize its
objectives for the property before beginning discussions
with the developer. Some of the developer's goals may be
consistent with city objectives. A public marina with boat
ramp and adequate parking (97% of Ohio boaters trailer
their boats) and an increase in the number of boat docks,
which guarantees access to the lake by boaters, may be a
mutual goal. The "feared" condominiums may be compatible
with a public beach if the developer and city agree,
voluntarily or under the threat of eminent domain, that
the beach area is always to be open to the public. This
type of access is common in many coastal areas of the
U.S., but not in Ohio. On the other hand, wildlife habitat
preservation and park development would be seriously
impeded, if not prevented, by housing.
Three lessons concerning coastal redevelopment emerge from
Mentor Lagoons. First, redevelopment actions are likely to
take many years. Although the initial court suit by the
city of Mentor occurred in 1987,the courts only endorsed
ownership in early 1996. Second, each step in the process
requires a reassessment of the public goals for the
project. When the property was in receivership, purchasing
it was the priority goal. However, the effort devoted to
purchasing it detracted from prioritizing public use goals
such as beach and lake access, habitat preservation, and
park development. With a private owner, prioritizing these
and other goals is critical. Finally, alternative means of
achieving each priority goal must be assessed. Public
ownership may not be the only way to achieve priority
goals, since some may be achieved more effectively and
efficiently under private development (e.g., operating the
marina).
The city of Mentor has a wide array of tools at its
disposal in addition to eminent domain. These tools
include a voluntary negotiated plan or public-private
partnership, zoning, Ohio's tax-deferral programs,
purchase of part of the property (possibly using eminent
domain), and easements.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REGIONAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Case study: Whiskey Island Marina, Cleveland, Ohio
The development of Whiskey Island Marina is a model of how
coastal access for the public can be achieved through
public and private sector development agreements. Located
on Cleveland's downtown lakefront, this marina was
designed by a developer with a vision for creating public
access in combination with the operation of a privately-
owned and operated marina.
In 1992 Whiskey Island Partners, the owners of the marina,
purchased a former railroad property on the Cleveland
waterfront. The former leaseholder agreed to remove three
barge loads of contaminated soil and debris prior to the
redevelopment of the site.
A full-service marina is now being developed in stages by
Whiskey Island Partners and, when completed, will include
1,000 floating docks, an indoor dry-stack storage
facility, restaurants, a marine-related retail facility,
and year-round security. The marina property is open to
the public with the exception of the private club, docks,
and boat hoist. Visitors pay to park their cars at the
public-access area and then are free to use the picnic
facilities, beaches, waterside walk, laundry room, and
showers.
The marina consists of 35 acres of dry land and 25 acres
of submerged land (land below the average high-water mark
of Lake Erie). Because the state of Ohio acts as trustee
for the public in matters related to the use and
development of submerged lands of Lake Erie that border
the state, developers building on these lands are required
to secure a lease from the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources Coastal Management Program.
Whiskey Island Partners entered into an agreement with the
state of Ohio to develop 10 acres for public access within
eight years. This agreement became part of the lease
agreement between the state of Ohio and Whiskey Island
Partners. In addition, the city of Cleveland agreed to
contribute to the project by financing improvements to the
marina's main access road.
This project meets a significant public need since
Cleveland's lakefront lacks varied opportunities for
public access. An additional benefit has been the
revitalization of an obsolete industrial site into a new
enterprise with positive economic impact. Any coastal
community interested in increasing its public access, but
with limited financial resources to acquire, develop,
operate, and maintain a public access area, could consider
a similar arrangement with a private developer. Urban
waterfront communities, in particular, may find this
project of interest.
REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Case study: Lake Superior's North Shore Harbors Plan,
Minnesota
A number of studies by Minnesota Sea Grant, the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and others pointed
to an unsatisfied recreational boating demand on Lake
Superior for boat launching facilities, protected harbors,
and, to a lesser extent, marina slips. Boaters perceive
that Lake Superior has inadequate safe harbor facilities
on Minnesota's coastline (known locally as the North
Shore). A 1988 DNR boater survey indicated that the
greatest barrier to more frequent use of Lake Superior was
a lack of protected harbors. An evaluation by an
engineering firm, taking Lake Superior conditions into
account, recommended an ideal spacing between harbors of 8
to 10 miles. Currently, the distance between existing
recreational boating facilities on the North Shore is up
to 90 miles.
A North Shore Management Board (NSMB) was established in
1987 to develop a North Shore Management Plan for
environmental protection and orderly growth. A state-
funded, multi-jurisdictional planning agency, the board is
responsible for developing comprehensive solutions to Lake
Superior coastal resource and development issues. The NSMB
includes representatives of local government units and is
guided by citizen and technical advisory committees. The
board monitors how effectively local government units
apply and enforce the North Shore Management Plan. With
increasing demand for harbors, the NSMB initiated
comprehensive planning to guide the location and
development of harbor facilities, to protect the resource
values of the North Shore, and to assure the public's
involvement in and support of the process. After a
two-year planning process, the North Shore Harbors Plan
was completed in 1991 (Vis. 2).
The Trails and Waterways Section of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) assists the NSMB in
its planning efforts. Under the plan guidelines, it is
local government's role to initiate activities to develop
a harbor. The DNR cooperates with local government in
sighting, designing, and finding funds for construction.
Actual construction and operation of any facility is the
responsibility of individual local governments (village,
city, township, or county) and/or the DNR. The NSMB does
not construct or operate facilities, but does monitor
activities to keep local development in line with the
Harbors Plan. Implementation is slow because the cost of
building a harbor breakwater is well beyond the resources
of local North Shore governments.
Based upon boating characteristics, surveys, existing use,
boating registration growth, community interest (expressed
in questionnaires and public meetings), and active
projects along the North Shore, the NSMB believed there
was sufficient justification for a network of harbor
facilities designed for multiple use, provided that the
specific design and implementation were sensitive to
environmental and aesthetic resource values. The North
Shore Management Plan recommends that commercial
developments should occur only in already developed
locations such as cities and villages. This philosophy of
controlling development was followed in the creation of
the Harbors Plan. In undeveloped or natural resource
areas, the plan recommends that harbor development be
limited to the construction of low-impact harbors of
refuge.
The Comprehensive Harbors Plan recognized that a network
of harbors would have certain effects that communities
needed to be aware of as they proceeded with
implementation. These include:
1. A network of safe harbors will increase boating use of
Lake Superior, based on a comparative analysis with
Wisconsin and Michigan.
2. Increased boating use of Lake Superior may provide a
positive economic impact through increased tourism dollars
for the North Shore.
3. Additional harbor facilities may increase the financial
burden on local communities. This will be partially offset
by revenues generated by the harbor facilities.
4. Development of additional harbor facilities and
increased boating use will create environmental concerns
that should be carefully monitored and considered in
planning and design.
5. Increased boating use of Lake Superior will increase
the probability of boating-related accidents or safety
incidents on the North Shore, requiring boater safety
training to accompany harbor establishment.
(Vis. 2)
Figure 2. The location of recommended harbors according to
the North Shore Harbors Plan.
Available funds for harbor development are limited and
require cooperative efforts between many sources including
local communities and potential users. The plan has been
used to guide DNR project support and the allocation of
funding assistance from state resources. Any proposal not
contained in the plan will not receive NSMB or DNR
support. Based on the 1988 DNR survey, boaters see Lake
Superior as a statewide resource and support this state
funding.
Implementation will require a multi-year time frame.
Priorities will be set but will not prohibit the
concurrent progress of other harbor projects. The NSMB,
with its shore-wide perspective and voice, is in an
excellent position to continue to provide a coordinating
and review role, as well as participating in the
identification and preparation of funding requests for
harbor facilities during the implementation process.
Planning for several harbor sites is currently underway.
Actual construction of the first harbor is expected to
begin in 1996 in Silver Bay, Minnesota. Planning for two
other sites (Two Harbors and Grand Marais, Minnesota) is
underway, but less advanced. Initial planning for some of
the other harbor locations is underway. One site, Sugar
Loaf Cove, has been removed from the plan because of
citizen concern. It has been reclassified as a protected
resource through the Scientific and Natural Areas Program
of the DNR, due to its unique geological features.
Alternate sites are being examined to replace this site.
Developing a regional comprehensive plan would be useful
for other regions in dealing with issues that cannot be
managed solely by local government, supporting the need
for financial resources beyond the capacity of local
governments, guiding the development of facilities of
regional or statewide importance, minimizing the impact of
development on natural resources, and avoiding the
duplication of expensive facilities.
FEE SIMPLE PURCHASE AND CONDEMNATION
Case study: Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore,
Michigan, and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana
Sleeping Bear Dunes in Michigan and Indiana Dunes in
Indiana allow public access to the only Great Lake that
lies completely within the United States---Lake Michigan
(Vis. 3). Creation of the two National Lakeshores shared
many historical similarities, including strong supporters
in Congress. Land for both Lakeshores was acquired
primarily through fee simple purchase.
Sleeping Bear Dunes encompasses approximately 71,000 acres
including 19,000 acres of islands and 10,000 acres of
submerged land. Discussions about acquiring lakeshore land
for public use began in 1955, with strong support in
Congress from U.S. Senator Phillip Hart of Michigan.
Legislation was proposed in 1959 and signed into law in
1970. To date some $58 million has been expended to
purchase land.
Property owners were given two options. Residential
property built before 1964 was immune to condemnation, and
post-1964 property had to be sold via purchase agreement
or by way of condemnation. Some of the post-1964 owners
negotiated 25-year leasebacks (i.e., the owner maintains
use of the property after selling it to the government by
leasing it back from the government), and a few obtained
life estates (i.e., the owner maintains use of the
property for life) for their properties. More than 150
private tracts remain inside the boundaries, and 92 are
immune to condemnation. Controversies were open and
bitter, and in late 1994 a group of leaseholders
petitioned Congress for new leases.
Concerns expressed included: large amounts of northern
Michigan land was already in public ownership, and tax
losses occurred as more land left the tax roll; property
right infringement; potential tourism effects on local
economies; potential degradation of natural resources; and
a fight over "state vs. federal" control.
The creation of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore occurred
in a similar way. Indiana and its neighboring state
Illinois share many things including Lake Michigan.
Although Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore lies entirely on
Indiana shores, the realization of the Lakeshore came
about to a significant degree through supportive efforts
of U.S. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois.
Even before World War I, efforts were begun to preserve
the dunes in Indiana. Delayed by priorities that included
three more wars and economic ups and downs, federal action
was slow to come. As concerned citizens remained steadfast
in working to establish a nationally preserved dunes area,
Senator Douglas lent support, and the Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore was approved by Congress along with the
Port of Indiana as a package deal in 1966. Established in
1972, Indiana Dunes included 8,330 acres. The last
amendment to the 1966 act was passed by Congress in 1992
and sets the Lakeshore's boundaries to include
approximately 15,000 acres of land and water, the majority
fronting Lake Michigan in Lake, Porter, and LaPorte
Counties.
Landowners' reservations of use and occupancy retention
rights apply only to single family, non-commercial
residential use. The original legislation included a fixed
term of up to 25 years, with exemption from condemnation
if property conformed to zoning ordinances approved by the
Secretary of the Interior. Subsequent legislation included
fixed terms of 20 years. A 1976 amendment repealed the
exemption from condemnation. Legislation of 1980 and 1986
included extensions of the 20-year reservation and the
option for a life estate.
Priority has been given to the acquisition of beaches and
lakefront land adjoining beaches. Currently, the United
States holds fee title or a lesser interest in 10,253
acres within the boundaries that have been obtained by
purchase, exchange, transfer, and condemnation. An
additional 3,200 acres of non- federal public lands,
principally the Indiana Dunes State Park and other state
and municipal lands, are also within the national
lakeshore's boundary.
Remaining private holdings are in four major groupings:
developed land of industry and railroads; undeveloped
lands in industrial or utility ownership; undeveloped
lands in other private ownership; and developed
residential properties. Generally, lands developed for
railroad, utility, or industrial purposes cannot be
acquired as long as they are necessary for continuing
operations.
Problems associated with land acquisition for public use
are occurring in varying degrees throughout the country.
Communities must find a balance between private rights and
public good, and no easy answers exist. As local, state,
and federal control of these decisions remains in limbo, a
clear understanding of all the issues involved must
continually be made available to all.
(Vis. 3)
Figure 3. Sleeping Bear and Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshores.
PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Case study: Peninsula Township,
Grand Traverse County, Michigan
In late 1994, the citizens of Peninsula Township, Grand
Traverse County, Michigan, adopted a purchase of
development rights (PDR) program to protect a selection of
the township's most scenic farmland. Peninsula Township's
PDR program is the first of its kind in the Midwest and is
viewed as a model by adjacent townships and counties. The
new program helps ensure visual access to the Lake
Michigan coast.
Peninsula Township occupies Old Mission Peninsula, a
17-mile-long strip of land reaching into a narrow bay in
northern Lake Michigan (Vis. 4). It averages just three
miles across and has only one arterial roadway. The scenic
peninsula has more than 50 miles of shoreline and
thousands of acres of hills overlooking Lake Michigan.
Uninterrupted vistas and rural character are recognized as
important public assets in this coastal community, and so
is a healthy farm economy. The township, which borders the
region's largest city, is regarded by many as the tart-
cherry capital of the world. The settlement pattern is
rural agricultural with a current population of 6,000.
Present zoning allows for a population of 30,000 at
"buildout." Buildout (a hypothetical condition used by
planning and zoning officials) is derived from the legally
allowed density of people per acre per zone and the total
number of acres found in the township.
Participation in the Peninsula Township PDR program is
strictly voluntary. Landowners who participate are
compensated for part of the fair-market value of their
land. The amount of compensation is based on the
difference between what the property could be sold for on
the open market with no restrictions and what it can be
sold for once development is restricted to open space or
agricultural use. Independent professional appraisers
determine these values, and the agreement is negotiated
with the farmer in a willing seller-willing buyer
atmosphere. A permanent conservation easement held by the
township is placed on the land, but the farmer otherwise
retains full ownership and control.
Township residents voted to levy a millage (a levy of one
dollar per thousand dollars of property value), which
provides a pool of funds for the purchase of development
rights. The 1.25 mill levy is expected to raise $2.6
million to purchase the development rights to about 20%
(2,000 of 9,000 acres) of the peninsula's prime
agricultural land with scenic views. The millage will cost
approximately $62.00 a year over a 15-year period for a
property valued at $1 00,000. State Trust Fund monies are
being sought to complement the millage, and volunteer
contributions are accepted in a matching program as well.
The township received technical and legal support from
Michigan State University, the American Farmland Trust,
The Nature Conservancy, and Grand Traverse Rotary
Charities.
(Vis. 4)
Figure 4. Old Mission Peninsula in Lake Michigan's Grand
Traverse Bay.
PUBLIC ACCESS TOOLS AND THEIR DEFINITIONS
Condemnation: Ownership of a piece of property is taken
over from a landowner for the public good at fair-market
value. This usually involves two steps: establishing the
right of. eminent domain, and establishing a purchase
price for the property. The right of eminent domain is
established when a court ruling is obtained stating that
the agency needs the property for the welfare of the
public.
Conservation easement: A legal agreement between a
landowner and a qualified conservation organization or
government agency that permanently limits use of a piece
of property for conservation purposes.
Donation: A landowner gives the property to an individual
or agency. The donor often receives tax benefits.
Eminent domain: See "Condemnation."
Fee simple purchase: A fee title to the property (which
does not restrict future use of the property by the
owner). All rights to the property are purchased.
Land trust: A not-for-profit corporation organized for the
purpose of conserving or preserving natural and/or
historic resources, which has the power to acquire
interests in real property.
Lease: An arrangement that allows use of a piece of
property over a specific period of time, usually for a
fee.
Prescriptive easements: The use of a parcel of land is
claimed by and awarded to an agency on the basis that the
land has been used by the public for a similar use over a
number of years.
Purchase of development rights: A public agency purchases
the rights to all or selected future uses of the property
without purchasing the property itself.
Public-private development agreement: A legal arrangement
between a private landowner and a public entity that
establishes certain development conditions that achieve
both public and private sector goals.
Regional comprehensive plan: A multi-jurisdictional (i.e.,
villages, cities, townships, and counties) development
plan created to meet both resident and visitor needs and
minimize negative impacts on natural resources.
Scenic easement: Similar to the purchase of development
rights, only the landowner is paid to make no changes on a
piece of property that would detract from its scenic
aspects.
Stipulated deed: Land is awarded to an individual or
agency with certain conditions regarding its use. If these
conditions are not met, the ownership of the property may
revert back to the original owner.
Transfer of development rights: The development rights to
a piece of property are transferred from one agency to
another.
Zoning: Partitioning a city or township into sections
having different designated uses (e.g., agricultural,
residential, and commercial zones) by ordinance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the following individuals for their
assistance and review comments: Sandy Bonanno, The Nature
Conservancy; Dan T. Moore, Whiskey Island Partners; Jared
P. LeFavour, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Coastal
Management Program; Dale Engquist, Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore; Phillip Pope, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant;
Brian Miller, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant; Dave White,
New York Sea Grant; Douglas Ververs, Cornell Cooperative
Extension of Oswego County; and copy editor Marilyn
Leiker.
RELATED PUBLICATIONS
Cordell, H., J. Bergstrom, L. Hartmann, and D. English.
1990. An analysis of the outdoor recreation and wilderness
situation in the United States: 1989-2040. Gen. Tech. Rep.
RM-1 89. USDA Forest Service: Fort Collins, CO. 113 pp.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Lake Erie: The
Public Trust in Ohio. Columbus. OH. 7 pp.
North Shore Management Board. 1988. North Shore Management
Plan, Shoreland Management. Duluth, MN.
North Shore Management Board. 1991. North Shore Harbors
Plan, Recreational Boating Harbor Plan for the North
Shore. Duluth, MN.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and USDC Bureau of the
Census. 1993. 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-associated Recreation. US Government Printing
Office: Washington, DC. 176 pp.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Great Lakes Sea Grant Coastal Business and Tourism Offices
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant
University of Illinois
51 Mumford Hall
Urbana, IL 61801
(217) 333-8055
New York Sea Grant
SUNY Oswego
101 Rich Hall
Oswego, NY 13126
(315) 341-3042
Michigan Sea Grant
334 Natural Resources Bldg.
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Ml 48824
(517) 353-9568
Ohio Sea Grant
The Ohio State University
1314 Kinnear Rd., Rm. 1541
Columbus, OH 43212-1194
(614) 292-8949
Minnesota Sea Grant
University of Minnesota-Duluth
208 Washbum Hall
Duluth, MN 55812
(218) 726-8714
Wisconsin Sea Grant
UW - Superior Campus
143 Sundquist Hall
Superior, WI 54880-9985
(715) 394-8472
The Great Lakes Sea Grant Network consists of the
Illinois-Indiana. Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio and
Wisconsin Sea Grant programs. Sea Grant is a university-
based program designed to support greater knowledge and
wise use of the Great Lakes and ocean resources. Through
its network of advisory agents, researchers, educators,
and communicators, the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network
supplies the region with usable solutions to pressing
problems and provides the basic information needed to
better manage the Great Lakes for both present and future
generations. The National Sea Grant College Program is
part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U. S. Department of Commerce. The
production of this fact sheet was coordinated by New York
Sea Grant. August 1996
This information is for educational purposes only. References
to commercial products or trade names does not imply
endorsement by MSU Extension or bias against those not
mentioned. This information becomes public property upon
publication and may be printed verbatim with credit to MSU
Extension. Reprinting cannot be used to endorse or advertise
a commercial product or company.
This file was generated from data base TD on 09/30/03.
Data base TD was last revised on 06/06/02.
For more information about this data base or its contents please contact
alexande@msue.msu.edu . Please read our
disclaimer for important
information about using our site.
