Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWaterfront Access Plan-1990l CITY OF SOUTHPORT WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN 1990 BRUNSWICK COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA on 11■ r� i� Prepared By: T. Dale Holland Consulting Planners PROPERTY OF DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CITY OF SOUTHPORT, NORTH CAROLINA WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN CITY OF SOUTHPORT BOARD OF ALDERMEN C. B. Caroon, Mayor Nelson Adams James Brown Mary Childs William Crowe Harry Gore Paul Sweeney CITY OF SOUTHPORT PLANNING BOARD Douglas Ledgett, Chairman Charles Sunder Barbara Clewis William Phillips William Delaney James Evans Robert Tucker Prepared By: T. Dale -Holland Consulting Planners December, 1990 The preparation of this report was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, a as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CITY OF SOUTHPORT, NORTH CAROLINA s WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction and Purpose 1 II. Inventory and Analysis of Existing Sites 6 A. General 6 B. Analysis of Existing Water Access Sites 6 III. Water Access Needs: Existing and Projected Demand 10 A. Population Overview 10 B. User Analysis/Survey Results 10 C. Minimum Access Needs 13 D. Water Conditions 14 E. Shoreline Access Plan Objectives 14 F. Priority Issues 15 IV. Shoreline Access Policies 23 TABLES 1. Shoreline Access Sites 9 2. Projected.Population, 3% Annual Growth 1990-1995 10 3. Projected Minimum Acreage Needs 13 4. Representative Boat Ramp Access Development Costs 17 0 NOW T GEO SOUTHPORT Scale In Mllu 0 25 50 75 . loo P CITY OF SOUTHPORT . CITY OF SOUTHPORT, NORTH CAROLINA WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The City of Southport has a rich history which is closely tied to the water and its shoreline. Within its one mile extraterritorial area, the City has approximately 4.85 miles of shoreline. The shoreline is almost evenly split between the Cape Fear River and the Intracoastal Waterway. Few other North Carolina communities have equivalent access opportunities and direct exposure to shoreline areas. However, the opportunities this access presents to the Southport residential and business communities have, for the most part, remained underdeveloped. The need for and benefits of shore access have long been recognized by the Southport community. The City's 1990 Land Use Plan further addresses shoreline access. A review of the Waterfront and Downtown Revital- ization Plan was recommended to consider further options for enhancing the downtown/waterfront area. The suggested options included: -- Options for visual and tangible integration of the downtown and waterfront areas. -- Extending the scope of proposed waterfront improvements to include a greater section of the City's waterfront. One possibility would be establishing linkages from the existing park along Bay Street through the commercial fisheries area at the end of Bay Street, to and including the yacht basin area. Linkages would be placed in existing rights -of -way and public access areas. -- Addressing deficiencies that still exist regarding the u amount and location of parking and water access. The 1990 Land Use Plan further emphasized waterfront access by including the following policy, goals, objectives and strategies: 1 Waterfront Access Policy The City of Southport wishes to continue to improve access to.waterfront areas for a variety of recreational purposes. The City is committed to providing facilities which enhance access and use of access areas, including walkways, docks, passive recreation areas and parking areas, by means and methods which minimize potential environmental and aesthetic impacts. Water access improvements in Southport should include aconsideration for the following types of access: ° Visual access and the preservation of existing views across public lands. Improvements to enhance visual access could include landscaping walkways in areas where parking is not a feasible; and protecting existing views through local controls such as the height limitations stated in the current Zoning Ordinance. ° Access for fishing or boating. Where feasible, these activities should be kept separate to avoid use conflicts. The scale of such facilities should be in a keeping with surrounding uses and the scale of the existing site. D The City should develop a strategic plan for water access improvements which could then be implemented over a period of years. These improvements should be scheduled to make maximum use of State shoreline access funds. Careful attention should be given to the improvement of a smaller sites along the waterfront in order to make maximum use of access to the shore, using creative, lower cost approaches where practical. The City should acquire water access through negotiated purchase when waterfront access areas come available and should avoid strip purchases a between lots. 2 GOAL 1: Preservation and management of natural resources in the Southport planning area. Objective 1 A: Continue with existing methods of preserving and managing natural resources. Strategies: ° Continue to adhere to current Chapter 15A.07J NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE in any AEC which would have a detrimental effect on public trust waters to the extent that such waters would be closed to shellfish harvesting under standards set by the State of North Carolina, or violate any rules, regulations or laws of the State of North Carolina or the City of Southport. ° Uphold the development standards set forth in the Coastal Area Management Act in lands classified Conservation within Southport's planning jurisdiction. aObjective 4 A: Support land development strategies which are consistent with the existing character of Southport. Strategies: ° Enforce existing height limits along waterfront areas which will protect existing waterway vistas as outlined in Southport's Zoning Ordinance. Objective 4-C: Preserve historic areas and archeological sites. Strategies: ° Review the recommendations for a harbor preservation program contained in the Southport AIA Urban Design Study, 1991. Objective 4-D: Maintain and improve the aesthetic qualities of Southport. Strategies: a ° Review recommendations for appearance improvements made in the.1991 Southport AIA Urban Design Study for further actions which can be taken. a I o_ 3 a a adowntown Objective 4-E: Continue to promote the redevelopment of and waterfront areas in Southport.. Strategies: ° Review recommendations of the 1991 Southport AIA Urban Design Study for further actions which can be taken. ° Continue the strategy of obtaining combinations of public funding and private investment for redevelop- ment projects. ° Enforce established regulations and standards for redevelopment projects. ° Continue to involve community citizens and business- men in the redevelopment process and to create community -wide interest and support for redevelopment projects. Objective 5-C: Continue to improve recreational facili- ties and programs in the community. Strategies: ° Continue improvements to the waterfront park. ° Seek land or monetary donations for park and recreation sites. a ° Inquire about and seek additional State and Federal funds or matching grants for the establishment or improvement of park and recreation facilities. Because Southport does not have any ocean shorelines or barrier islands, this plan will focus on estuarine, creek and river access. Emphasis will be placed on protecting environmentally sensitive areas, while providing access sites which will support tourism and local.recreational activities. This plan will consider both the number of a sites required and their location/ease of access by the public and will recommend priorities of acquisition and availability based on survey results. The need for access to points of interest, such as service or historic areas, a will be considered. It is important that this plan effec- tively link the diverse needs of Southport's residential and business communities to the opportunities which exist along the City's shoreline and estuarine areas. Southport should a concentrate on developing existing public accessways before acquiring new sites_. The City's acquisition approach should be through negotiated purchase. 4 The City's goals for accessing, protecting and developing its shoreline areas.are consistent with State policy. In 1981 and 1983, the North Carolina General Assembly acted to create the Coastal and Estuarine Waters Beach Access Program.- This act was based on the desire to provide North Carolina citizens access to barrier island ocean beaches and estuarine shorelines. The program is administered by the Coastal Resources Commission through the Division of Coastal Management. The major purpose of the program is to assist local governments, such as Southport, in planning, acqui- ring, designing, and constructing public access projects. 5 0 The City's goals for accessing, protecting and developing its shoreline areas are consistent with State policy. In 1981 and 1983, the North Carolina General Assembly acted to create the Coastal and Estuarine Waters Beach Access Program. This act was based on the desire to provide North Carolina citizens access to barrier island ocean beaches and estuarine shorelines. The program is administered by the Coastal Resources Commission through the Division of Coastal Management. The major purpose of the program is to assist local governments, such as Southport, in planning, acqui- ring, designing, and constructing public access projects. u 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 o A. General There are currently thirteen (13) water/shoreline access sites located in the City of Southport or its extra- territorial area. Most of the sites are clearly defined points of access. Five (5) of the sites are publicly owned and readily available for shoreline access. However, a sixth public site is the N.C. Wildlife boat ramp which is located on Dutchman Creek immediately north of the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Visual access areas are an important aspect of the Southport shoreline. They tie both residential and commercial areas to the shoreline. The areas include: Bay Street, the City dock area, East River Drive, and the central business district. All north- soutlX oriented streets in the central business district have a clear view of the shoreline for at least two blocks away D from the shore. These visual areas provide primarily passive access.- However, they serve to showcase the beauty which is uniquely Southport's. Access sites are assessed by use and classified in one of five categories: a 1. N.C. Wildlife Access Ramp -- 1 2. Public -- 5 3. Private (i.e., restricted) -- 6 4. Private with general use allowed -- 1 a 5. Visual access -- 4 Map 1, "Shoreline Access Sites," attached, shows the location of all of the sites analyzed. A brief narrative description of each site is presented in the following section. B. Analysis of Existing Shoreline Access Sites Site #1: North Carolina Wildlife boating access area. This site contains two concrete boat ramps and treated wood pier in good condition. There is parking space for approximately 25 cars with trailers. The parking lot is graded with rock surface. Access to ramp is off of S.R. 1101. 6 I Site #2: Private boat ramp in Smithville Woods. This is a new concrete boat ramp and treated wood pier with future lighting capability. The site accesses Dutchman a Creek. Site #3: New Bald Head office and ferry. Development completed in 1990. The ferry has a capacity for 105 passengers and luggage. Site #4: Indigo Plantation Marina. This marina was completed in 1990. It contains concrete bulkheads and a protected boat slips (34 boat slips existing with more to be constructed). Access is by Indigo Plantation Drive. aSite #5: Southport Marina (NCSPA). This site has a small boat forklift and two large boat lifts, one 75-ton and one 35-ton capacity. The 35-ton lift will access up to 35-foot boats; and the 75-ton lift will accesq boats in excess of 70 feet. There are paved roads with park- ing facilities; a marine equipment sales facility; covered boat slips and uncovered boat slips with con- crete piers, fuel facilities, water and electric facili- ties; an office with bathrooms and showers; and two public telephones. The boat yard is available for dry- dock repairs. There are approximately 100 boat slips available, and also dry storage capability for up to 72 small boats. Site #6: Southport Marina boat ramp. There are three concrete ramps including three wooden piers. The area is well lighted; has access to parking; and contains a wash stand with four water spigots. The boat ramp fee is $3.00. aSite #7: Private docks owned by fishing companies, restaurants and individuals. The American Fish Company a has a concrete parking lot that contains lights, refrig- eration, and a building at the water. Activities include charter boats, wholesale and retail sales operations. aSite #8: Private docks owned by individuals. The docks are owned mostly by local residents. These are in various states of disrepair, with wooden bulkheads and a wooden structures. Site #9: Dock owned by City of Southport. This dock has approximately 40 boat slips. The wooden pier is in fair condition. There is no parking facility, only a loading and unloading area at the end of the dock. It is well lighted and has a water and power supply. 7 Site #10. City pier. The pier is concrete construction except for wooden handrails and cross bracing. Boats are allowed.to dock by permission of the city. Fishing is permitted. Site #11. Bald Head Island pier and cargo ferry. There. is a barge available for the transport of large materials, and also a boat yard.with a crane to lift boats for drydock repairs. Site #12. Bald Head Island barge landing. A river shoreline beach used as access for loading and offload- ing cars, trucks and materials for transport to Bald Head Island. Access is by a dirt road. The land is owned by ADM, Inc. Site #13. Fort Fisher Ferry, owned by NCDOT. The ferry capacity is approximately 25 cars. Ferry landing has paved parking lot with approximate capacity of 1,00 cars. Parking is well lighted; the site has water and restrooms free for public; a picnic area with three tables, trash receptacles, drink machine, snack machine, and public telephone. Site(s) #14: Visual Access Areas: a. Bay Street b. Central business district/within two blocks of the shoreline c. City dock area d. East River Drive e. 9th Street at Cottage Creek TABLE 1: SHORELINE ACCESS SITES Site No. Location Type Condition Ownership 1. Dutchman Creek A G N.C. N.C. Wildlife Boat Ramp 2. Smithville Woods Boat Ramp C G Private 3. Bald Head Office & Ferry/ C G Private Indigo Plantation 4. Indigo Plantation Marina C G Private 5. Southport Marina (NCSPA) B G N.C. 6. Southport Marina Boat Ramp B G Southport 7. Fishing Company Docks C F Private 8. Private Boat Docks/Bay Street C P Private 9. City Dock LG F Southport 10. City Pier LG G Southport 11. Bald Head Island Ferry C G Private 12. Bald Head Island Barge D U Private Landing/Cape Fear River on ADM property 13. Fort Fisher Ferry B G N.C. A - N.C. Wildlife Facility U - Unimproved B - Public G - Good C - Private/restricted F - Fair D - Private unrestricted use P - Poor LG - Local Government W i 0 III. WATER ACCESS NEEDS: EXISTING AND PROJECTED DEMAND A. Population Overview The 1980 Census indicated that Southport had a popula- tion of 2,835 persons. This was a 27% increase over the 1970 population of 2,220. The 1987 Brunswick County Land Use Plan indicated a 1987 population of 3,148. This was a substantial increase of 420. However, the rate of growth was lower than the 52% increase experi- enced by Brunswick County from 1980 to 1987. The 1990 Census indicated a drop in population from 2,835 to 2,370. aTable 2: 1990 Census, 33% Drop in Population 1990 to 1995 1990 1995 2,370 2,200 a This document accepts for planning purposes that growth is static. However, Southport has strong tourist a attractions. Many visitors to the City are interested in shoreline access. Events through the year, such as the 4th of July celebration, emphasize the need for a shoreline access. Therefore; when planning for shore- line access, Southport must plan for demand above that created by its resident population. B. User Analysis/Survey Results In order to insure citizen input and to obtain a compre- hensive data base, Southport undertook a survey of City residents. In December 1988, 1,200 questionnaires were mailed to city utility customers with the monthly bills. It is estimated that 800 of those mailings went to individual residences. The recipients -were requested to return the questionnaires by January 15, 1989. By mid -February, 1989, a total of 178 responses had been received. Out of the total mailing, a 15% response rate was received. However, if only the mailings to residences are counted, a 22% response rate was achieved. Both rates of response are considered sufficient to constitute a valid survey. In addition, the distribution of the surveys was announced through an article in the State Port Pilot. 10 i I The survey results indicate a positive reaction to development of shoreline access facilities. The complete responses to -the survey are provided in Appendix I. However, the following summarizes the aresponses: -- The majority, 73%, favored additional access areas. -- 61% believe that Southport should utilize local tax dollars to finance acquisition of access areas. -- 58% of the respondents believe that developers should be required to reserve areas and/or rights -of -way in new subdivisions for shoreline access for use by sub- division residents. A slightly larger number, 62%, indicated that shoreline access in new subdivisions should be reserved for use by non -subdivision a residents. -- A range of facilities/activities were suggested as desirable for shoreline access areas. However, the following facilities clearly generated the greatest interest: boat ramps (83 responses), restrooms (99 responses), picnic tables (108 responses), docks (63 responses), and natural areas (92 responses). -- 100, or 56%, of those responding indicated a willing- ness to pay user fees for the use of facilities. -- A clear majority, 132 (or 74%) of the responses, indicated that both visitors and city residents would benefit from additional waterfront access areas. However, 33 (19%) believe that businesses would benefit greatly. a-- The preferences for future additional access areas are important. Additional visual access on the river was the clear preference, with 113 (or 63%) a indicating this location as a need. Other areas include the following: boat basin (58 responses), Intracoastal Waterway (57 responses), marsh (26 responses), Dutchman Creek (25 responses), and Price's Creek (16 responses). -- The majority responding, 60%, indicated that both State and local governments should be responsible for providing additional access areas. A total of 56, or 31%, believe the Federal government should share a responsibility. Only 30, or 17%, believe that businesses should be responsible. I a -- The majority of those responding, 69%, believe that the City's image would benefit the most from addi- tional access development. Other primary benefi- ciaries included the following: recreation (108 responses, or 61%), tax revenues (95 responses, or 53%), preservation (87 responses, or 49%), and increased personal income (53 responses, or 30%). -- There were numerous negative concerns identified. However, only three had a significant response or identification rate. First, 36, or 20%, identified a a concern with litter/garbage and general overall cleanliness of sites. Second, 18, or 10% of those responding, indicated a concern with the quality and cost of.long-term maintenance. Finally, 15, or 8%, a indicated a concern with increased taxes. All other concerns are indicated in Appendix I. -- The questionnaire requested the identification of existing shoreline access sites. The responses did not identify any locations not previously known to or identified by the City of Southport. Most responses generally indicated that the principal area consid- ered as shoreline access was the small boat harbor - Bay Street - City dock area. Very few responses indicated that marsh areas were considered existing access sites. The following -summarizes the.important conclusions to be drawn from the survey responses: -- The responses clearly support the Southport shore- line/waterfront access goals identified in the 1990 Land Use Plan and the 1991 Southport AIA Urban Design Plan. -- Development of additional shoreline access will bene- fit both the residential and business communities. -- The City of Southport should develop existing public access. -- Future sites should place priority on: (1) Cape Fear River, (2) boat basin/Intracoastal Waterway, (3) Dutchman Creek, (4) Prices Creek. -- The City should be encourage developers to provide shoreline access as part of their development plans. 12 0 -- Plans for shoreline access development should be integrated with other City assets such as the historic district, central business district, estuarine (marsh) areas, and passive or visual access areas. Greater use of signage would be a simple means of tying these elements together. (� C. Minimum Access Needs The North Carolina State publication, A Beach Access Handbook for Local Governments, March 1985, provides minimum recommended access needs. These needs are based solely on population size and do not take into account location or access. Based on those standards, the following table summarizes Southport's access needs: Table 3: Projected Minimum Acreage Needs Acreage/ 2000 Acreage Access Type 1,000 Pop, Population Recommended Boat Access Areas 1/2 Ac. 5,861 2.93 Ac. Estuarine Waterfront Park 1 Ac. 5,861 5.8 Ac. Visual Enhancement Areas 1/2 Ac. 5,861 2.93 Ac. The City of Southport currently meets, but does not exceed, these standards. The boat ramp at the small boat harbor satisfies the area requirement for boat access areas. The City owns approximately 1.5 acres of shoreline at the City pier area. The N.C. Wildlife Dutchman Creek boat ramp (accessed from N.C. 133) is not considered to directly serve Southport's access needs. This should be considered to serve primarily as a visual enhancement area. The only active pursuit is fishing from the City pier. However, many areas of the City's river shoreline,and central business district provide visual enhancement. There are not any estuarine waterfront parks. In accessing Southport's shoreline access needs, the State minimum acreage guidelines are considered insufficient for the following reasons: -- Southport has tremendous tourist attraction which causes its shoreline access needs to exceed the State standards which are based on resident population. -- Southport's history and current economic structure are directly tied to its shoreline areas. -- As evidenced by the citizen survey, the Southport population has strong interest in further shoreline development. 13 a -- The 1990 Southport Land Use Plan sets goals and objectives which emphasize shoreline development. Water Conditions The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management, utilizes the following water conditions classifications: Class SA: suitable for commercial shell fishing and all other tidal salt water uses. Class SB: suitable for swimming and primary recreation and all Class SC uses. Class SC: suitable for secondary recreation and fish propogation. All water areas in or adjacent to Southport are classi- fied SC. They readily lend themselves to both fishing and general recreation. For both environmental and __economic reasons, Southport's water quality should be vigorously protected. U E. Shoreline Access Plan Objectives A City of Southport shoreline access plan must respond ato many interests. It is obvious from past plans, current analysis, and citizen input that business, resident, tourist, preservation and recreation interests a will all be served through the development of a compre- hensive shoreline access plan. In order to be effec- tive, the plan must accomplish the following: -- Implement the shoreline related goals included in the 1990 Southport Land Use Plan. -- Serve to preserve shoreline and estuarine areas. -- Integrate shoreline, central business district and historic preservation interests. -- Provide for making shoreline access areas available/ accessible to tourists, especially the transient boater. Serve to enhance Southport's visual image. In order to comprehensively address these concerns, the plan must address recommendations for specific sites and define local government actions which must occur. 14 a F. Priority Sites 1. The City's first priority for shoreline access will be improvements to the City pier. The City of Southport should make improvements to the existing City pier to provide boating access and enhance its utility as a regional estuarine access_ facility. A total of 80 parking spaces are avail- able within three hundred feet of the pier. The overall structural integrity of the pier is good. a The City replaced the rails and constructed a 101 x 40' floating dock that will provide temporary short term dock time primarily for loading and unloading passengers. aThe City will install mooring buoys in the Cape Fear River paralleling the shoreline immediately north of the city pier. The buoys should be installed a outside of the navigation channel. A total Df three to five buoys will be installed. The exact distance of the buoys from the shoreline cannot be determined a until a river bottom survey has been completed and the locations have been coordinated with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the U.S..Coast Guard. The buoys could provide temporary (including overnight) anchorage for transient boats. Access to the Southport shoreline and commercial/cultural areas will be significantly increased. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City of Southport -apply for FY1989 North Carolina Coastal and Estuarine Water Access Funds. The proposed project could be funded with 75% State funds and 25% local funds. This has been done -.and was completed in 1990. 2. The second priority site should be development/ redevelopment of access at the boat basin. This a will respond to the need for.more/better access along the Intracoastal Waterway. The City should accomplish this through upgrading and expanding City dock facilities and improving the boat ramp facili- ties at the small boat harbor. The first priority in the boat basin area should be improvements to the City dock and the provision of additional parking. a15 0 n 111 The City of Southport city dock is rapidly deteri- orating and is in need of substantial repair. In addition, there is not a transient docking facility at the city dock. The shoreline on both sides of the dock is eroding rapidly. Finally, there is inadequate off-street parking at the facility. The City of Southport has constructed 220 L.F. of bulkhead paralleling Brunswick Street. The bulkhead does not infringe on any marsh or estuarine areas. All construction will be on public right-of-way. The area behind the bulkhead should be filled to a street elevation with pervious material and a marl surface. The filled area provides space for 15 off-street parking spaces. The City should install a 45' x 6' floating dock at the end of the city dock to provide access and tem- porary dockage for transient boats. The dock should also be repaired, with 23 deteriorated pilings replaced and hand rails installed. A map of the proposed project is provided in Appendix III. The following provides a detailed cost analysis. COST ESTIMATES FOR REPAIR OF CITY DOCK AND BULKHEAD CONSTRUCTION CITY DOCK REPAIR WITH FLOATING DOCK Quantity Description Unit Price Amount 23 2.5 Piling, 10" to 12" but $100.00 25' to 35' 3 2.5 Piling, 12" but x 45' 175.00 3 Stainless steel bracket 45.00 8- 2 x 10 x 8 billet 50.00 6 2 x 8 x 16 8.00 3 2 x 8 x 14 7.50 40 2 x 8 x 12 7.00 23 1/2 x 16 to 12 bolts nut washer 2.50 Handrail with 41x4' and fasteners 23 Pull old piling 23 Piling drive TOTAL including labor $ 2,300.00 525.00 135.00 400.00 48.00 22.50 280.00 57.50 1,250.00 50.00 1,150.00 125.00 2,875.00 $ 9,043.00 16 i BULKHEAD CONSTRUCTION (Completed) Quantity Description Unit Price Amount 45 2.5 Piling - 8" to 10" top 50.00 $ 2,250.00 16' to 20' 350 V groove 2.5 2 x 8s 8.00 2,800.00 30 2.5 full cut 4" x 6" x 16' 26.00 780.00 23 135 Dead men 15.00 Hot dip galv. 1/2 x 16 bolt 2.50 345.00 337.50 nut washer 103 Tie.rods 5/8 to 3/4 10.00 1,030.00 2201x8' Silt screen 250.00 Fill 3,000.00 50 lbs. hot dip nails 30.00 aMaterial Cost $10,822.50 Complete job, labor and material $20,600.00 aTOTAL $29, 643.00 Improved boat ramp facilities should include the following items and general costs: Table 4 Representative Boat Ramp Access Development Costs* -Item Parking Lot (marl/gravel) $19,500 1 concrete boat ramp 7,000 Restrooms (buildings only) 10,000 Lighting (5 lights) 1,500 Signage 1,000 a Dock/piers w/bulkhead 12,000 Landscaping 11000 Trash receptacles 800 Concrete wash stand 2,500 a $56, 800 *Does not include the cost of an access cost of land lease/purchase. road or the It is recognized that the construction of additional boat ramp(s) at the City dock/small boat harbor area may be difficult, if not impossible. Space is limited and*salt marsh/areas of environmental concern may prohibit any major expansion. a SCHEDULE/FY1989. I 17 :0. . 0 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City of Southport apply for FY1990 North Carolina Coastal and Estuarine Water Access Funds to install city dock improvements. A higher level of City partici- pation in the total project cost than 25% may be required to make the project more competitive. Secondly, it is recommended that the City of Southport develop a specific plan for the develop - ment/redevelopment of the basin area. This plan should address: -- Identification of environmental problems. -- Desirability/need for dredging. -- Options for expansion of City dock facilities. n U -- Options for construction of additional boat_ ramp facilities. -- Need for support facilities such as restrooms and parking. -- Options for acquisition of private dock facili- U ties adjacent to the existing City dock. This plan should be closely coordinated with the Q overall development of facilities and visual enhancement activities along Bay Street. The estimated cost of the plan is $15,000. SCHEDULE/FY1989/1990, PLAN PREPARATION ONLY.- 3. The central business district remains in need of a specific/detailed development plan. Such a plan U u should tie the central business district to the shoreline areas and improve the provision of goods and services to adjacent residential areas. Many of those adjacent residential areas are low -to -moderate income. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Pursue masterplan for Central Business District (� Redevelopment completed in 1991. Funding �j locally at a cost of $15,000. SCHEDULE/ FY1991 (2) Pursue funding for business development through applications for Community Development Block Grant funds. Costs will be determined following the preparation of the redevelopment plan. 0 18 I I I I I 4. Access to the valuable marsh and estuarine areas located within the City of Southport and its extra- territorial jurisdiction should be provided. Read- ily available access for visual observation is not now provided. This access should be for passive recreational purposes -only. Actual access into marsh/estuarine areas should not be encouraged. Visual access stands should be constructed at the.. following locations on existing State and/or City property or right-of-way: -- State owned point of land between Yacht Basin and Southport Marina. -- Prices Creek on Moore Street. -- Prices Creek on Leonard Street. -- Cottage Creek at 9th Street. The cost of constructing observation stands can vary greatly depending upon design of the stand and site conditions. However, construction costs are gener- ally estimated at $1,500 per stand, or a total cost of $6,000. RECOb=NDATION: Establish contact with N.C. Department of Transportation to obtain approval for the construction of observation..stands on DOT right- of-way. SCHEDULE/FY1989. Begin construction of observation stands. Total cost will be $6,000. SCHEDULE/FY1990 AND CONTINUING FY1991. 5. As discussed in this plan and emphasized in both -previous plans and the citizen survey, integration of Southport's shoreline with its other amenities is extremely important. Both shoreline site and non -shoreline areas must be linked. The method of linkage should be available to both tourists and residents. The sites/areas which should be linked into an integrated system include: -- Conservation areas -- The small boat harbor and City dock -- Bay Street - Bald Head Island ferry -- Southport -Fort Fisher ferry -- Southport central business district -- Southport historic preservation district Obviously, these sites may be connected by vehicular access. However, this may not be preferable to those desiring leisurely inspection of Southport's sights or those traveling by boat or air. There- fore, it is recommended that a formal bike route 19 R 0 R with caution and directional signage be established. The recommended route is indicated on the water- front/shoreline access plan, Map 2. The proposed route is 7.8 miles total length. However, several alternate routes are proposed which could shorten the distance traveled. Signage will be the primary expense in establishing the bike route. Eighty caution signs at a cost of $50 each should be erected every 500 linear feet for a total cost of $4,000. Directional -information - display signs should be constructed at major points of interest. These should be attractive, consistent with Southport's landscape, and of sturdy construc- tion. Approximately eight signs will be required at a cost of $500 each, or a total cost of $4,000. However, cost will vary greatly with size and sophistication of design. RECOMONDATION: It is recommended that the City a of Southport contact the N.C. Department of,Trans- portation to coordinate theestablishment of a bike route. SCHEDULE/FY1989. The City of Southport should implement the construction of_a formal bike route with adequate signage. The estimated cost will be $8,000. SCHEDULE/FY199.0-1991. 6. Further emphasis should be placed on enhancing Southport's visual access areas. Particular attention should be paid to shoreline areas along Bay Street in the vicinity of the City pier. This may be accomplished through implementation of a coordinated landscape plan. Such a plan should be abased on the following concepts: -- Volunteer planting and maintenance by citizens and civic groups. . -- Supervision of the plan and its implementation by the City or a volunteer established civic group. -- Participation by the City and owners of private shoreline property in dedicating property to adevelopment of the landscaping plan. -- Utilization of low_ cost and low maintenance plants. -- Regular.policing of shoreline areas for trash collection and plant maintenance. 20 R 0 0 0 ui n R RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City of Southport develop an "Adopt The Shoreline Pro- gram." The program should generally be patterned after the N.C. DOT Adopt -A -Highway program. How- ever, the City's shoreline program will be more time consuming and expensive because initial planting and long-term maintenance will be required. The City should solicit sponsorship of the program by one or more principal civic group(s). The sponsoring organization(s) should be involved in the develop- ment of a simple landscaping plan which would be paid for with City funds. The implementation of the plan would be accomplished with volunteer labor and contributions of private funds to finance plantings. Businesses in the central business district and shoreline areas should be instrumental in providing. financing. It is recognized that a planting plan must not "destabilize" shoreline areas and should not disturb the shoreline vista. The adoption plan should not provide for continuous planting gr-pro- hibit pedestrian access to the shoreline. In fact,. annual vegetation in limited areas may provide the plantings needed to enhance shoreline areas. Any planting on private property would have to be accom- plished under terms of an access agreement executed between the City and the property owner. The initial implementation of the "Adopt The Shoreline Program" may be limited to City -owned property. The implementation of a -shoreline landscape plan should be accomplished primarily through private funds. However, the development of a landscape plan should cost approximately $4,000 and be financed by the City of Southport.. a RECOMMENDATION: The City of Southport should identify a civic/private organization sponsor and develop an "Adopt The Shoreline Program." The land- scape plan cost is estimated at $4,000. SCHEDULE/FY1989, DEVELOP PROGRAM DETAILS. FY1990, ADOPT -LANDSCAPE PLAN AND BEGIN PLANTING. u 21 The following provides a cost summary of all access plan proposals: Priority Item Cost 1. City Pier/Mooring Buoy Improvements (FY89) Complete 2. City Dock/Bulkhead Improvements (FY90) Complete Preparation of Redevelopment Plan for City Dock and Small Boat Harbor Area $ 15,000 (FY89/90) 3. Central Business District Masterplan 1991 Complete 4. Conservation Area Observation Stands (FY90/91) 6,000 5. Bike Route Signage (FY90/91) 8,000 6. Shoreline Landscape Plan (FY89/90) 4,000 Total $ 33,000 The total cost of $33,000 may increase substantially if a specific plan is developed and implemented.for the entire small boat harbor and City dock area. In addition, costs are not assigned for City personnel time which will be _ required to accomplish implementation of this plan. 22 0 0 IV. SHORELINE ACCESS POLICIES The establishment and maintenance of beach, boat or visual D access areas by the City will be expensive. Cooperative ventures involving State, local and Federal governments and private funding sources must be pursued. To support this multiple funding approach, the following policy statements will be pursued: A. The City of Southport recognizes that most shoreline access facilities will not be revenue producing. Devel- opment should be undertaken with the clear understanding that the facilities will be a perpetual expense. Except for possible overnight docking fees and boat ramp fees, (� the City will not attempt to collect user fees. u B. The City will seek donations --of land and grant funds in order to obtain additional shoreline sites. The City will pursue all opportunities to obtain additional shoreline areas and will not relinquish ownership or control of any existing shoreline areas. (See Appendix IV.) C. The City of -Southport will consider.establishing a capital reserve fund for the express purpose of "saving" funds for the development of shoreline access areas. D. The City will reemphasize implementation of the 1990 Land Use Plan goals related to shoreline development. E. All -available State and Federal sources of funding for shoreline development will pursued. These are sum- marized in Appendix III. F. The City will discourage development which will adversely affect water quality. Particular emphasis will be placed on reducing/controlling storm water runoff. G. All conservation areas identified in the 1990 Southport Land Use Plan (see Map 2) will be considered valuable shoreline resources. 23 0 0 9 'Ann1 K7'%TV T f11 • 1 /• I• M •: �• 14:1• •".J 4 bNV '.•' ttM III 1. Do you believe the City of Southport needs additional waterfront access areas? Yes 130 No 41 2. For what uses do you think access areas should be established? 29 Skiing 89 Shoreline fishing 47 Swimming 93 Picnicking 90 Boating 93 Natural Areas 93 Passive/Visual 19 Other (identify) none (2), shelling (1), access from water to land (1) , boat rams (2) , bike path (2), steps to beach (1), riverside park area (1), mooring (1), walkways, (2), harbor, marine, temporary docking (2), walking/jogging (1) , city dock -fishing (1) , free ramp (2) 3. Should the City of Southport be involved in financing with local tax dollars the acquisition of land and/or rights -of --way for the establishment of these areas? Yes 108 No 58 4. Should the City of Southport require developers to reserve areas and/or rights -of -way a for the establishment of shoreline access areas? For use by subdivision residents? Yes 103 No 22 For use by non -subdivision residents? Yes 110 No 34 5. Please identify locations which you currently consider provide shoreline access. These locations may be either publicly or privately owned. Please identify these locations as precisely as you can. Small boat harbor (22) Waterfront park (22) City dock/yacht basin (21) Bay Street (19) East of City pier (10) Caroon crab factory (10) Southport Marina (8) Bald Head barge area (6) Between Port Charlie's & Pilot's tower (6) Bald Head dock (5) Pfizer - Prices Creek (5) From Crab Co. to Bald Head dock (4) Dutchman Creek (3) CP&L basin (3) Indigo Plantation (3) ICW (west) (3) I-1 0 State property across from Brunswick Street (2) Front of garrison (2) Front of ship Chandler's restaurant (2) Bonnets Creek ("fiddlers drain") (2) Brunswick Navigation - standard products - fish factory Elizabeth Creek (land side, Sandy's) American fish Old cannery Smithville Woods Cape Fear River Heights a End of River Drive - woods Howe Street to S. Atlantic Between old and new boat harbors Willis boat repair area 114 Davis St. 111 Davis St. 3rd house from Moore Street a Yellow house facing Garrison End of Kingsley River Drive area (� Between Fort Fisher ferry & Pfizer U Spencer property to present park , Foot of Kingsley to Mintz property River Drive to Pfizer Bald Head ferry to Caroon Crab Moore Street between Kingsley & Bald Head Garrison to Port Charlie's Vacant lot next to Harpers Walden Creek a 6. What facilities (non -camping) do you believe should be provided at access areas? 83 Boat Ramp 20 Shower Facilities 108 Picnic Tables 33 Electrical Hookups 76 Lighting 92 Natural Areas 99 Restroom Facilities 59 Shelters 63 Docks a 12 Other (identify) water spigot; garbage cans (2), parking, transient boat tie-ups, nautical provisions, boardwalk/path, mooring buoys, dinghy docks, police surveillance, swimming, sidewalks or trails 7. Would you support a user fee to aid in the financing of the acquisition/construction of waterfront access areas? Yes 100 No 55 a8. Who do you think would benefit most from the provision of additional waterfront access areas? 132 Both Visitors and City Residents 10 Visitors to the City a 2 City Residents 3 No Opinion/Don't Know 19 Developers 33 Businessmen 9. Please identify your preference for the location of additional access areas. 113 on the River 57 On the Intracoastal Waterway 25 On Dutchman Creek 16 On Prices Creek 58 Boat Basin 6 On Cottage Creek 26 Marsh area(s) 11 Other (identify) Between Caroon Crab & Willis boat yard, none (5), Bonnet Creek, Caroon crab property, steps & rail at waterfront park, develop waterfront at old Crab property: Cape Fear River I-2 0 a 10. Who should be responsible for providing access areas? 107 State Government 106 City of Southport 56 Federal Government 30 Businesses 15 Private Citizens 17 Other (identify) None (3), corporate sponsors (2), King Markerel and 4th of July Committee (w/funds from events), developers (8), user fees (2) . grants 11. Please identify the benefits which you believe would be provided by the provision of waterfront access areas. a 108 Increased Recreational Opportunities 122 Enhanced City Image 95 Increased Tax Revenues from Tourism 53 Increased Personal Income from Tourism 87 Preservation of Land Resources 12 Other (identify) None (9), cleaner beach area, use of current non -productive land, visual pleasure 12. What, if any, negative concerns do you have with respect to the establishment of access areas? Litter/garbage (36) Maintenance (18 ) Taxes (15) Security (8) Inadequate parking"(7) Uncontrolled development -ecological drainage (7) a Noise (6) Electric rates (5) Traffic (4) Pollution (4) a Vandalism (3) Safety risk (3) Change of City's charter (3) a Financing (2) Hangout for undesirables (2) Abuse (2) Destruction of wetlands (2) Leave it the same (2) Boat ramp feees at Southport Marina (1) Only funds from developers (1) a High prices (1) Restroom needs (1) Christmas lights a disgrace (1) High rise buildings (1) City not pursuing this type of project (1) No skateboards and bicycles (1) Sewage (1) Need more shops (1) Block view of river (1) Keep small user fees for ramps & docks (1) 1-3 Maintain existing property (1) No camping or picnicking (1) Ensure paths for bikes and walking (1) Unnecessary (1) Drinking and partying (1) Loitering (1) a Screened from residential homes (1) No access for passing boaters (1) Decline of existing beauty (1) Protection of rights of property owners (1) I-4 350 FT. CITY PIER IMPROVEMENTS (Completed 1990) NOT TO SCALE 010 40 FT. 37 FT. NEW t � PROPOSED BUL IMPROVEMENTS MARSH PROPOSED: CITY DOCK AND BULKHEAD .IMPROVEMENTS (ccapletea 1990) SCALE r = 100' LEGEND R RESIDENTIAL C COMMERCIAL V VACANT i aAPPENDIX IV LAND ACQUISITION STRATEGIES I aContinued acquisition of land is necessary if adequate public access to the shoreline is to be maintained. There are generally two approaches a to acquiring access: direct acquisitioa technioues and land use controls which iacorporate public access requirements. The strategies presented here can be used by local governments to assist in acquiring water -front property. DIRECT ?ACQUISITION Purchase ' The purchase of property at its fair market value is the simplest, most direct means of acquiring land. A disadvantage of direct purchase is that governmental agencies have limited financial resources. A further disadvantage of direct purchase is that the seller's net profit from the sale would be affected if the seller of the property is liable for income tax on the capital gain of the appreciated value of the property. Other purchase options, including bargain sale or installment sale, may benefit the buyer. and seller -by stretching -a land -acquiring agency's funds and areducing immediate tax -consequences. In a bargain sale, the landowner sells the property to a governmental a agency at less than fair market value. By doing so, the seller will be able to receive some income from the sale of the land and will be eligible to claim an income tax deduction for a charitable contribution on the difference between the bargain price received and the fair market value of the land. Thus, the amount of the capital gain would be less and so would the accompanying tax on that gain. u In an installment sale, an agreement is made between the landowner and the purchaser whereby the purchaser agrees to pay for the land in annual installments or agrees to acquire a portion of the total property a each year with an option to acquire the. remaining tracts in future years. By spreading the income gained from the sale of the property over a number of years the seller may be able to spread taxable gains and any associated taxes over an equal number of years. An easement, or right to use private property in a specific, designated manner, may also be purchased. The purchase of an easement Q entitles the purchaser to use the property for a specific purpose, such as conservation, passing over the land, or installing a water or sewer line. The ownership of the land remains with the property holder, but the use of 0 a designated portion of the land for a specific purpose is transferred to the acquiring agency. Easements are typically purchased when it is not possible to buy the land. Although there is no requirement compelling a landowner to sell an easement, landowners may be interested in the resulting tax benefits. where easements are sold, a decrease in property tax value would result. • Donation the donation of property or an easement involves a landowner deeding the property to a government agency that has agreed to accept it. In a donation, the donor receives no cash for the property although numerous tax benefits are realized. These benefits include real estate, estate, and income tax reductions as well -as no capital gains tax' that would otherwise result from the sale of the property. If the recipient of the land donation is a governmental agency, the donor can claim an income tax deduction based on the market value of the land as determined by a qualified appraiser. In the instance of an easement, the donor max take the difference is the value of the land after the easement as a charitable deduction. (See Appendix D, Tax Credits for Donated Properties.) • Prescription Aa easement can be established through prescription, the process by which an individual or group obtains the right to use another's property in a specific manner. In this instance, the courts recognize that a -- presc ptive easement has been established if the following tests are met: 1) the use has been open; 2) the use is adverse or under a claim of right; 3) the use has been continuous and uninterrupted for 20 years; 4) there has been actual. use of. the property by the general public; and 5) the same path has been used for 20 years. Currently, North Carolina does not have any .case law directly addressing the. establishment of a prescriptive easement in a beach access context. It is -difficult to establish a prescriptive easement because of the requirement that the use of the property must be adverse. In this case, "adverse" means that the user of the property did not have the owner's permissioa and, instead, used the pathway in the belie! that he had a right to use it. Permissive use, no matter for how long, can never be the basis for a prescriptive easement. A local government may want to consider legal action to establish a.public easement where it believes a p rescr:ptive easement for beach access exists across private property. • Dedication A dedication begins with an offer to dedicate the use of land. The offer is made by the landowner to the public and must be followed by the local govermeat's acceptance of that offer on behalf of the public. A IV-2 0 D dedication made orally or in writing is called an express dedication. A "certificate of dedication" indicates an individual's express intention to dedicate an area to the public. Aa implied dedication is based on the property owner's intention to dedicate as indicated by conduct. For instance, the owner's intention to dedicate may be indicated by recognizing the rights of the public in a deed -or by the owner's actions with respect to permitting the public to use the land. A 1970 Supreme Court case confirmed the public's right to use two privately owned beaches in California. The court said that when the public has used a beach for a long time without paying attention to the fact that the beach is privately owned, the public acquires a legal right to use that beach. The owner's intent to give the land to the public may be implied from his conduct of not preventing public use.of the beach. And the public's acceptance of the dedication may be implied from public use of the beach. Nothing need be written by either side -- the dedication and acceptance is implied by conduct. With respect to beach access, a public access sign at an accesswav is one indication by a local government of an e_=ress or implied dedication. Cities and counties may accept dedication offers for the maintenance of roads and pedestrian easements running to and along the beach. Before accepting a dedication offer, it is recommended that a title search or "chain of ownership" survey be conducted to ensure that the offer to dedicate has at no time in the past been withdrawn. Cities and counties may owa; maintain and manage land for recreational purposes including public access parking. Although it -is Possible for cities to own public streets and roads, counties cannot. It is possible, however, for. counties to accept the dedication of certain roads so long as they were dedicated to the public prior to 1975. Although a county may accept such a dedication, a county is not authorized to maintain or improve such roads. . In many local jurisdic:ioas there may be a number of accessways and roads that have been dedicated by the developer but not yet accepted by the county or municipality. These accessways represent opportaaities to local governments that should not be neglected. The actions necessary to show acceptance should be givea high priority in light of the provision of the state law allowing developers to withdraw unaccepted, uni=roved dedications after a period of 15 years (G.S. 136-96). LAND USE. CONTROLS Local governments are able to use the police powers granted to them by the state to protect the public's ownership of and right to use the shoreline to the mean high water mark. As the beach erodes and the mean high water mark moves landward, the boundary between public and private property moves landward. Land use regulations or local ordinances can be used to protect the public's ownership and right to use the shoreline. U-hea erosion or storms destzoy structures, local ordinances can require IV-3 the property owner to remove, within a given time period, all debris ::hick may endanger public health, safety and welfare. This is particularly important where remnant bulkheads, building foundations, pilings and septic systems would be located below the mean high water mark or on the public beach.. Local governments can also use land use controls to compel developers to provide public beach accessways. Through zoaiag ordinances and subdivision regulations, developers can be required to dedicate, pay a fee or rese--ve access areas, as outlined below. (See :appendix E, Model Land Development Regulation.) a• Dedication State enabling legislation for county subdivision regulations (G.S 153A-331) provides that such ordinances may require "the dedication or reservation of recreation areas serving residents of the immediate neighborhood within the subdivision and of rights -of -wag or easements for a street and utility purposes." The comparable legislation for cities SG.S. 160A-372) is virtually identical. Likewise, the zoning enabling legislatioa for counties (G.S. 153d-340) and cities (G.S. 160d-381) authorizes local regulations to provide for special use or conditional use permits. The conditions for approval of these permits may include the dedication of utility rights -of -way and of recreational space. A local unit of government may require the compulsory dedication of land for public recreational use consistent with local subdivision regulations and/or as a condition of a special or conditional use permit. In requiring a developer to dedicate recreational land, the local government should ensure that the location of the access area will adequately provide for the recreational needs of the residents in the development as well as the residents of the immediate neighborhood within the subdivision who might otherwise be. precluded from general use of the area. Definitive standards for the size of such areas and the types of facilities to be installed should be specified in local subdivision ordinances. The regulations should specify why, when, where and how much land will be required as well as criteria pertaining to the type of land that may be offered for dedication. A formula for determining the amount of land a. developer must offer should be made explicit.. The amount of land to be dedicated should not be based on an arbitrary case -by -case basis. Instead the amount of land to be required for dedication should be related to recognized open space standards and should reflect the density and type of development proposed. As a condition to a special or conditional use permit, access should be provided for when the permit is issued by the local governing board. At that time, a plat should be prepared and incorporated by reference into the terms and conditions of the permit. The plat should bear a certificate of dedication and both the permit and plat should specify when improvements by the developer will be c-cmpleted. IV-4 State enabling legislation (G.S. 136-102.6) requires that subdivision plats filed since 1975 designate all struts as being publi: or private. Struts designated as public are presumed to be offers of dedication. Subdivision ordinances can also require that interior subdivision streets be dedicated to the public. The subdivision enabling statutes for both cities and counties allow local ordinances to provide for "the coordination of streets and highways within a proposed subdivision with the existing or planned streets and highways and with other public facilities." To make use of this authority, the subdivision ordinance should clearly indicate that streets and roads running generally perpendicular to the beach be platted to extend to the mean high tide line. • Zee County subdivision regulations provide the developer with the option of paying a fee to the county in lieu off dedicating recreational land (G.S. 153A-331). The developer may be required to pay an amount of moeey equal to the value of the space required to be dedicated. This money should be placed into a fUnd specifically designated for the acquisition a of access areas. The "fee in lieu" optioa is not available to municipalities. Reservation n• _- U An emerging land use tool allows both county and municipal "- subdivision regulations to require developers to reserve land for recreational purposes and for street and utility rights -of -way or easements (G.S. 153A-331 and G.S. 160A-372). One advantage of such reservations is that they do not impose dedication requirements in instances that may amount to a taking without just compensation, yet they give the local government time to acquire fuads to purchase the property. As this is a relatively new tool, its advantages and disadvantages have been evaluated. nnot U Case law regarding the use of developer exactions to provide beach access is poorly developed, particularly in North Carolina, aad--the - n ability of local governments to use these techniques is not fizmly Uestablished. There are a number of questions regarding the imolementatioa of these measures for access purposes. As there are few court decisions, these standards should be carefully studied before such measures are atte= ted. A thorough reading and understanding of Dedicating and �J U Reser;inx Land to Provide Access to North Carolina Beaches (September. 1982) , by Richard Ducker of the tktC Institute of Government, is highly recommended is addition to contacting and consulting one's local a government attorney. IV-5 1 1 an unn lz S •-r `tire aU: S� F i taa_ 'o♦e a �1 ee LEGEND - - - `•1. t !<aAh CaOM.e WIdIN OOMt1q KGN - - Sh. L Prtwto boot rap b Sudlk,b Woods . - - - - - - Se. Sc Hew ftd afflc. wW terry - - . SIN 4- lr d" m+ V, . Marv. - - Sit. S; Saalhpat Mai" INCSPA) - - - - - - - - - sk Q S-ft"d Mai" boat mm - - - - - - Sh. 7: Prt 1. docks eee�d by ngd-0 « - - - - - - SM tk f W. decks awns by M*AOjds - - - - - - Sit. 9: Dock owed by City of So~ Sit* la my pw " Site it Bald H.ad bldrA pier WA pa""W- - Sao 12 Odd Hood Maud bay.- - .ti - - Sdo 0: Fart Fbher Frry. awed by NCDOf - - - • 12 t , EXISTING SHORELINE ACCESS SITES � CITY OF SOUTHPORT E'a f NORTH CAROLINA JANUARY.1989 r.aw Th. "Pwfim of "a mep wn fbaic.d b pal tNeayb a yrw4 pra.ldod by the 16mA Coroia N - Ceasld MangNn.nl h'aia� fto gh odes preddod I by tln cooed Zan MangewrM Ad of 197Z ae«re.a .tech Is .emwa.oe by the Office a - MAP I o'. aW cawld fbsowa Maaoy.mW4. twtoad - Opaee aW A10ae0m.rk Aes"WmIWI% - - CN =LINE )RT LINA 3'