<%BANNER%>

Planning, Zoning, and Preservation

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021582/00001

Material Information

Title: Planning, Zoning, and Preservation Protecting Florida's Agrarian Cultural Landscape
Physical Description: 1 online resource (143 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Dessy, Adrienne E
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Architecture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Architecture thesis, M.S.A.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Planning, Zoning, and Preservation seeks to evaluate how to best protect cultural landscapes within the context of the United States. The study begins with an attempt to find a normative definition of a cultural landscape and moves on to address the potential challenges with designating a particular location a 'cultural landscape.' Strategies for protecting cultural landscapes are explored through a case study review of protection practices in other countries, as well as those closer to home. As protective mechanisms at the national, state, and local levels in the United States, planning and zoning tools are some of the most effective tools in cultural landscape protection. Selecting Marion County's unique equine cultural landscape as an example of Florida's agrarian landscape, Planning, Zoning, and Preservation investigates local planning and zoning policies, and provides draft documents of a comprehensive plan element and overlay district designed to be more fully attuned to protection of Marion County's cultural landscape. Draft policies integrating Marion County's local cultural landscape illustrate how planning and zoning mechanisms can be utilized in the field of cultural landscape protection, and provide a framework for considering analogous mechanisms in other communities.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Adrienne E Dessy.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.A.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Prugh, Peter E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021582:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021582/00001

Material Information

Title: Planning, Zoning, and Preservation Protecting Florida's Agrarian Cultural Landscape
Physical Description: 1 online resource (143 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Dessy, Adrienne E
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Architecture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Architecture thesis, M.S.A.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Planning, Zoning, and Preservation seeks to evaluate how to best protect cultural landscapes within the context of the United States. The study begins with an attempt to find a normative definition of a cultural landscape and moves on to address the potential challenges with designating a particular location a 'cultural landscape.' Strategies for protecting cultural landscapes are explored through a case study review of protection practices in other countries, as well as those closer to home. As protective mechanisms at the national, state, and local levels in the United States, planning and zoning tools are some of the most effective tools in cultural landscape protection. Selecting Marion County's unique equine cultural landscape as an example of Florida's agrarian landscape, Planning, Zoning, and Preservation investigates local planning and zoning policies, and provides draft documents of a comprehensive plan element and overlay district designed to be more fully attuned to protection of Marion County's cultural landscape. Draft policies integrating Marion County's local cultural landscape illustrate how planning and zoning mechanisms can be utilized in the field of cultural landscape protection, and provide a framework for considering analogous mechanisms in other communities.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Adrienne E Dessy.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.A.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Prugh, Peter E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021582:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





PLANNING, ZONINTG, AND PRESERVATION:
PROTECTING FLORIDA' S AGRARIAN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE




















By

ADRIENNE E. DESSY


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE INT ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007


































O 2007 Adrienne E. Dessy






























To my Mom, Dad, and Lola.










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my supervisory committee members Peter Prugh, Kristin Larsen,

and Tom Ankersen for all of their assistance and advice, and for contributing to the quality of

my educational experience, as I learned a great deal from each of them. Extra special thanks to

Kerry Vautrot, who provided hope and humor, and to my friends, for their constant

encouragement. Most of all, I thank my parents, for emphasizing the value of education, the

strength to persevere, and the knowledge that I can do anything with hard work and the right

attitude.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. ...............4.....


T ABLE OF CONTENT S............... ...............5


LIST OF TABLES ............_...... ._ ...............8....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............9.....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 1 1..


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............12.......... ......


Framing the Dilemma ................. ...............12........... ....
M ethodology ................. ...............13.......... ......
Research Outcomes .............. ...............15....


2 DEFINING CULTURAL LAND SCAPE ................. ...............16........... ...


Cultural Landscape Overview .............. ...............16....
Limiting Cultural Land scape .............. ...............27....
Cultural Landscape Examples .............. ...............31....
Cultural Landscape Issues .............. ...............33....
Static versus Evolving .............. ...............33....
Size and Scope............... ...............34.
Long-term Protection............... ...............3
Property Ri ghts Conflicts .............. ...............36....
Sum m ary ................. ...............37.......... ......

3 STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING CULTURAL LANDSCAPES ................. .................4 1


Cultural Landscape Protection Outside the United States ................. .......... ...............41
Cultural Landscape Protection Within the United States .............. ...............45....
National Protection Strategies .............. ...............46....
National Park Service............... ...............46
Bureau of Land Management ................. ...............50................
Department of Transportation .............. ...............52....
State Protection Strategies ................. ...............53........... ....
State legislation .............. ...............53....
State cultural designations............... ..............5
Local Protection Strategies............... ...............5
Individual strategies .................. ...............57..
Certified local government status ................. ...............60................












Comprehensive planning ............ ...... .... ...............60...
Zoning .............. ...............62....
Overlay districts .............. ...... .. ........ ........6
Purchase or transfer of development rights ....._._._ ..... ... .__ ......._.........66
Summary ........._._ ...... .... ...............67...

4 PRO TEC TIVE MECHANI SM S: FLORID A ....._ ....___ .........__ .........6


Florida Legislation and Cultural Designations ....._ .....___ ........__ ...........6
Florida' s Comprehensive Planning Authority ............ ......__..... ...........7
Florida' s Zoning Authority .............. ... ......... .. ......._ ........7
Planning + Zoning = Best Protection for Cultural Landscapes ......____ ...... ....._.........78

5 CULTURAL LANDSCAPE SITE STUDY: MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA ...................80


Agrarian Culture .............. ...............8 0....
Florida .............. ...............80....
M arion County .............. ...............8 1....
Marion County's Landscape in Danger ................. ...............84........... ..
Marion County's Agrarian Cultural Landscape .............. ...............87....
Overview of Rural Cultural Landscape Characteristics ................. ................. ..........88
Marion County's Rural Cultural Landscape Characteristics ................. ................ ...._.90
Existing Planning & Zoning Regulations ................ ...............93........... ...
Marion County's Comprehensive Plan .............. ...............93....
Marion County's Land Development Code .............. ...............97....
Summary: Existing Planning and Zoning Regulations .............. ....................9
Integrating Cultural Landscape Protection in Marion County .............. .....................0
Initial Considerations................. .. .. .. .........0
Including the Equine Cultural Landscape in Comprehensive Planning ................... .....102
Including the Equine Cultural Landscape in Zoning Regulations. ............... ... ............107
Draft Planning and Zoning Documents for Marion County's Equine Cultural Landscape .109
Sum mary ............ ..... .._ ...............111...

6 CONCLUDING THOUGHT S .............. ...............123....

Conclusions............... ..............12
Future Research .............. ...............124....

APPENDIX

A IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION TOOLS FOR CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
IN THE UNITED STATES ................. ...............127...............

B DRAFT MARION COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT ...........................128


C DRAFT MARION COUNTY OVERLAY DISTRICT .............. ...............130....












LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............132................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............143......... ......










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1-1 Defining Landscape .............. ...............39....

1-2 "Seeing" Cultural Landscapes. ............. ...............39.....

1-3 Table of Cultural Landscape Definitions by Organization ......___ ....... ...__...........40

4-1 National Park Service Rural Landscape Characteristics. .........__._.... ..._._............112

4-2 Marion County Horse Country Cultural Landscape Features Utilizing National Park
Service Rural Landscape Characteristics ...._ ................. ............... 113 ....










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

4-1. Farming is a maj or land use in Marion County ................. ...............114..........

4-2. Land is spatially organized into individual farms ................. ...............114.............

4-3. Farms are often located close to the roadways for easy access, demonstrating patterns
of spatial organization ................. ...............115................

4-4. The hilly terrain and warm climate of the region contribute to agricultural success. .........1 15

4-5. Brightly painted horse statues located throughout the region demonstrate the cultural
importance of the equine industry to Marion County ......... ................. ...............1 16

4-6. Marion County proudly displays its "Horse Capital of the World" title. ................... .........1 16

4-7. The Florida Horse Park, home to national equine events, demonstrates cultural
significance of the sport and also shows modification of the landscape. ......................1 17

4-8. Scenic roads serve as part of the county's circulation network. ..............._ .............. .... 117

4-9. Trees and fencing provide boundary demarcations, and the road displays the area's
hilly terrain. ................. ...............118____.......

4-10. Vegetation in the form of large trees provides shade for horses. ...........__.. ..............118

4-11. Equine facilities dot the rural landscape in Marion County. ................ ........._.._.......119

4-12. Buildings, structures, and obj ects of the Marion County rural landscape ........._.._...........1 19

4-13. Farm fencing and buildings represent the cluster element ofNPS rural landscape
character sti c s ................ ...............120.......... ....

4-14. A marker designates the archaeological site of Fort King, a National Historic
Land m ark. .............. ...............120....

4-16. Signage identifying farms is representative of small-scale elements in the area. .............121

4-17. Signs in conjunction with entry gates are common small-scale elements ........................121

4-18. Street signs, another small-scale element, inform drivers thatroadways are not just
used by cars ................. ...............122................










LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Areas of outstanding natural beauty
(United Kingdom)

Cultural Landscape Foundation

Certified local government

Historic and Cultural Conservation Districts
(Loudoun County, Virginia)

Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies
(Harvard University)

Land development code

Land development regulations

National Historic Preservation Act

National Register of Historic Places

National Park Service

State Historic Preservation Office

Thematic resources district

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

United States Department of Agriculture


AONB


CLF

CLG

HCC


ICLS


LDC

LDR

NHPA

National Register

NPS

SHPO

TRD

UNESCO

USDA









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Architectural Studies


PLANNING, ZONINTG, AND PRESERVATION:
PROTECTING FLORIDA' S AGRARIAN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

By

Adrienne E. Dessy

December 2007

Chair: Peter Prugh
Major: Architecture

Planning, Zoning, and Preservation seeks to evaluate how to best protect cultural

landscapes within the context of the United States. The study begins with an attempt to Eind a

normative definition of a cultural landscape and moves on to address the potential challenges

with designating a particular location a "cultural landscape." Strategies for protecting cultural

landscapes are explored through a case study review of protection practices in other countries, as

well as those closer to home.

As protective mechanisms at the national, state, and local levels in the United States,

planning and zoning tools are some of the most effective tools in cultural landscape protection.

Selecting Marion County's unique equine cultural landscape as an example of Florida' s agrarian

landscape, Plan2ning, Zoning, and Preservation investigates local planning and zoning policies,

and provides draft documents of a comprehensive plan element and overlay district designed to

be more fully attuned to protection of Marion County's cultural landscape. Draft policies

integrating Marion County's local cultural landscape illustrate how planning and zoning

mechanisms can be utilized in the Hield of cultural landscape protection, and provide a

framework for considering analogous mechanisms in other communities.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Framing the Dilemma

Historic preservation has commonly focused on buildings, but there is an increasing

awareness of preserving the context of these buildings, which typically encompasses the

surrounding landscape. When one thinks of a landscape, formal gardens or vast stretches of

open land may come to mind. However, a more expansive view of landscapes incorporates the

surrounds of a particular historic site, which may be urban or more densely developed than is

commonly associated with the concept of landscape. Historic preservation has come to embrace

the term "cultural landscape" to identify this mixture of context, represented by the landscape,

and culture, represented by human modifications to the landscape.

However, the conceptual use of cultural landscape is not limited to the historic

preservation profession; rather, a variety of disciplines utilize cultural landscape as a descriptor

of a particular interaction between humans and their surroundings. As a result, conflicting

definitions of the term appear, and contribute to confusion over what precisely constitutes a

cultural landscape. Preservationists, generally interested in providing protection for a cultural

landscape, have a different purpose in using and defining the term than would a geographer. Yet

even within the preservation field, finding a common definition of a cultural landscape is

difficult.

In light of increased population and growth pressures, typically resulting in what is

known as urban sprawl, preservation organizations have become increasingly involved with

identification and protection of cultural landscapes. In order to unify the cause, and make

understanding the concept simpler, finding a shared definition of cultural landscape is necessary

in order to provide clarity and consistency in what cultural landscapes should be protected, and










to generally provide a better understanding of the conceptual basis behind cultural landscapes.

Protection of cultural landscapes will suffer from meriting any serious consideration where the

concept cannot be conveyed clearly. Once this consistency is obtained, an organization or

interested party can move forward to assess and implement strategies that will provide protection

for a cultural landscape.

However, because cultural landscapes are an expansive and multi-layered concept, and

still relatively new, identifying strategies that can be utilized in protection of these landscapes is

more complex than identifying protective strategies for historic buildings, as one example,

because specific mechanisms are already in place providing for such protection of those

buildings. Current cultural landscape protection must instead rely on strategies created for other

purposes. Existing policies often provide for consideration of natural elements, including

contextual landscapes, or consideration of cultural elements, including buildings and structures,

but not for consideration of both elements together. However, protective strategies embodied in

these existing options provide a framework for how cultural landscape protection can be

accomplished, and review of these strategies can assist organizations or agencies interested in

providing for such protection. Clearly defining "cultural landscape" and identifying existing

strategies that are responsive to defining characteristics provides an effective means of protecting

these landscapes, especially in regions facing increased population and development pressures.

Methodology

First, a unified definition of cultural landscapes for heritage protection purposes will be

identified. Reviewing existing definitions of cultural landscapes as utilized by heritage

protection groups or those groups with a related interest in landscapes will illustrate the varied

terminology currently utilized by those with a shared interest in cultural landscape protection and

preservation. Creating a shared definition of cultural landscape will help to lessen confusion









over the use of the term, provide a basis from which to begin to evaluate and identify those

cultural landscapes particularly deserving of protection, and assist in future efforts to implement

legislative mechanisms that address cultural landscapes. Further, potential issues in cultural

landscape protection will be considered in order to evaluate any obstacles that may arise during

the protection process.

Second, a case study review of existing cultural landscape protection strategies on

international, national, state, and local levels will be conducted to provide insight into how

current legislative and heritage designation strategies can be applied to include cultural

landscapes. Having a consistent definition of the term cultural landscape provides a better

understanding of the concept in general, and a useful background in understanding how these

landscapes can be considered within the realm of existing strategies. Although international

strategies will be briefly addressed to illustrate the global implementation of cultural landscape

considerations, particular focus will be given to strategies within the United States.

Third, narrowing the review of existing protective strategies to one state will enable a

more in-depth consideration of policies that may aid in cultural landscape protection. Selecting

Florida as a site for more detailed analysis is relevant in that Florida is commonly recognized as

having strong state legislation that drives local policies such as comprehensive planning, and that

could play a role in preserving cultural landscapes. Reviewing existing state legislation and

cultural designations in Florida, and in particular, state planning and zoning policy will

determine the availability of current policies that could be utilized in protecting cultural

landscapes within the state.

Fourth, selecting a particular cultural landscape within Florida, the equine landscape in

Marion County, narrows the scope even further, will allow for a detailed case-study analysis of









one localities' existing planning policies and zoning regulations, and will illustrate that local-

level strategies play an important role in cultural landscape protection. The analysis will explore

options for cultural landscape protection within the existing policies, and expose places where

protection of the equine cultural landscape should be integrated. Draft policies for protection of

the equine cultural landscape will be created to include any elements that are missing from

existing policy.

Research Outcomes

Research will result in a clearer understanding of the term cultural landscape, and how

the term can be defined by heritage protection groups to form a unified basis from which to work

towards protection strategies for cultural landscapes. Case study review of existing protective

strategies on multiple levels provides a source for considering possible methods for cultural

landscape protection, especially within the United States. Where cultural landscapes are not

specifically provided for in contemporary policy, knowledge of policies that could incorporate

cultural landscape protection is useful, especially on the local-level where many preservation

initiatives originate. Concluding thoughts will present opportunities for future research.









CHAPTER 2
DEFINING CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

In considering historic preservation, one likely thinks of historic structures, particularly

those relating to a historic figure or a particular event. While there has been an increasing

awareness of historic preservation, especially as a mechanism for smart growth and economic

development, there is not yet a fully developed awareness of the need for protecting the context

of any given structure, that is, the landscape surrounding and encompassing the structure itself.

This connectivity between the built environment and the natural environment, between the work

of humans and the work of nature, is typically referred to as the cultural landscape. The study of

cultural landscapes falls within the realm of historic preservation studies, as it is generally

evocative of a historic interaction between people and their natural environment. However, it is

something more than that as well, representing current interaction with the landscape, and

emphasizing history being made today.

Cultural Landscape Overview

One of the greatest difficulties in cultural landscape studies is ascertaining what precisely

constitutes a cultural landscape. Geographer Carl Sauer introduced the concept in his 1925

article "The Morphology of Landscape" (Alanen & Melnick, 2000). Sauer provided the basic

definition of the term, stating, "Culture is the agent...the natural area is the medium, the cultural

landscape the result" (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.15).

Sauer' s concept did not catch on immediately, and as recently as the 1950's, the term

cultural landscape "rarely appeared in print" (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.1). One exception is the

work of J.B. Jackson, who created the j journal Landscape in 1951. Landscape explored the

connections between geography, history, architecture, planning, design, sociology, anthropology,

ecology, preservation, and tourism in relation to the American cultural landscape. Jackson's










work became widely known in academic circles, and he inspired "students who would emerge as

important scholars and commentators in their own right" (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.7-9). A

second exception is the work of Peirce Lewis, a geography professor who has focused his studies

on landscapes as important expressions of history and culture (Groth & Wilson, 2003).

Definitions by Sauer, Jackson, and Lewis all emphasize the interconnectivity of nature and

culture.

Given that the concept is still fairly new, a well-settled definition has yet to be

established. One complicating factor is the split between preservation of the built environment

and conservation of the natural environment. Landscape studies have been aligned with both

movements (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.14), but cultural landscape studies require a consideration

of both the built and natural environments, which are commonly considered as separate

elements. This traditional split is made even more complex when considering that "natural" does

not always necessarily equate concepts of nature and landscape as wilderness. A cultural

landscape's "natural" environment or landscape element may in reality be an urban space or

densely populated area that although not open space, is of equal consideration in considering the

natural, or landscape, element. Further complicating matters, a range of professions -

geographers, landscape architects, architects, planners, and preservationists, to name only a few

- have expressed interest in studying the cultural landscape (Groth & Wilson, 2003). As a result,

the term "cultural landscape" may be expressed differently depending on with whom one is

speaking.

As a leader in the preservation of international cultural sites, the United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines cultural landscapes as

combinednd works of nature and humankind [that] express a long and intimate relationship









between peoples and their natural environment" ("World Heritage Cultural Landscapes," 2007).

Cultural landscapes are eligible for inclusion on UNESCO's World Heritage List in order to

"reveal and sustain the great diversity of the interactions between humans and their environment,

to protect living traditional cultures and [to] preserve the traces of those which have disappeared"

("World Heritage Cultural Landscapes," 2007). UNESCO defines cultural landscapes in three

categories; the first being a "clearly defined landscape designed and created intentionally by

man" ("World Heritage Cultural Landscapes," 2007). This includes "garden and parkland

landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons which are often (but not always) associated with

religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles" ("World Heritage Cultural

Landscapes," 2007). The Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew, near London, exemplify UNESCO's

clearly designed landscape. A UNESCO World Heritage Site, the Gardens showcase designed

landscapes by celebrated landscape architects and gardeners, and are utilized as a place to study

ecology and botany ("Royal Botanic Gardens," 2007).

The second UNESCO category is the "organically evolved landscape," which "results

from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed

its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes

reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features" ("World Heritage

Cultural Landscapes," 2007). This category is broken into two subcategories, a "relict or fossil

landscape" and a "continuing landscape." A relict landscape is "one in which an evolutionary

process came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period. Its significant

distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form" ("World Heritage Cultural

Landscapes," 2007). A recently listed World Heritage Site, the Ecosystem and Relict Cultural

Landscape of Lope-Okanda in the country of Gabon, contains relict environments that contain









ancient caves, shelters, and petroglyphs representing a no-longer existent culture, but one that

remains worthy of special protection ("Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lope-

Okanda," 2007).

By contrast, a continuing landscape is "one which retains an active social role in

contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which the

evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time it exhibits significant material evidence

of its evolution over time" ("World Heritage Cultural Landscapes," 2007). The Rice Terraces of

the Phillippines demonstrate a continuing landscape, as they display a traditional method of

human interaction with the land, but this traditional interaction is equally relevant in modern

culture as an important industry in the region ("Rice Terraces of the Philippines Cordilleras,"

2007).

Lastly, UNESCO references the "associative cultural landscape" which has "powerful

religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural

evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent" ("World Heritage Cultural Landscapes,"

2007). The Uluru-Kata Tjuta landscape of Australia represents UNESCO's associative cultural

landscape. Commonly referred to as Ayers Rock, the area is especially powerful for the

Aboriginal culture as a spiritual and cultural site ("Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park," 2007).

Despite the use of varied categories, all of UNESCO's definitions emphasize an integrated

understanding of nature and culture.

The World Conservation Union (IUCN), a multinational organization based in

Switzerland, whose mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world

to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is

equitable and ecologically sustainable," ("What is the World Conservation Union?", 2007)










adopts a model to define landscape (Table 1-1). Though IUCN's model does not strictly define

cultural landscape, the layered definition of landscape comprises many of the elements embraced

by UNESCO's version of cultural landscapes, namely the interaction between nature and humans

representing historic, social, and cultural heritage. Comprehension of this link by an

international organization traditionally focused on nature conservation represents an influential

step in creating understanding among a wider audience.

In the United States, the National Park Service (NPS) protects national cultural sites as

delegated by the Department of the Interior. The NPS utilizes the definition of cultural

landscapes as "a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife

or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting

other cultural or aesthetic values" (Birnbaum, 1994, Introduction). NPS guidelines further refine

this definition by creating four categories of cultural landscapes: historic sites, historic designed

landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. Historic sites are "a

landscape significant for its association with a historic event, activity, or person. Examples

include "battlefields and president's house properties" (Birnbaum, 1994, Definitions) such as

Mount Vernon, George Washington's home in Virginia. Historic designed landscapes, such as

Central Park in New York City ("Central Park History," 2007), are

a landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a landscape architect, master
gardener, architect, or horticulturist according to design principles, or an amateur
gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. The landscape may be associated
with a significant personss, trend, or event in landscape architecture; or illustrate an
important development in the theory and practice of landscape architecture. Aesthetic
values play a significant role in designed landscapes. Examples include parks, campuses,
and estates (Birnbaum, 1994, Definitions).

[Historic vernacular landscapes] include a landscape that evolved through use by the
people whose activities or occupancy shaped that landscape. Through social or cultural
attitudes of an individual, family or a community, the landscape reflects the physical,
biological, and cultural character of those everyday lives. Function plays a significant









role in vernacular landscapes. They can be a single property such as a farm or a collection
of properties such as a district of historic farms along a river valley. Examples include
rural villages, industrial complexes, and agricultural landscapes (Bimbaum, 1994,
Definitions).

The Jimmy Carter National Historic Site in Georgia is a historic vernacular landscape, preserving

a single farmstead significant for its connection to former President Carter ("Jimmy Carter

National Historic Site," n.d.). The Connecticut River Valley contains a collection of historic

farms that also merits consideration as a historic vernacular landscape (Arendt & Yaro, 1989).

Lastly, ethnographic landscapes consist of "a landscape containing a variety of natural and

cultural resources that associated people define as heritage resources. Examples are

contemporary settlements, religious sacred sites and massive geological structures. Small plant

communities, animals, subsistence and ceremonial grounds are often components" (Birnbaum,

1994, Definitions). Canyon de Chelly in Arizona, an ethnographic landscape containing

architecture and cultural elements of ancient civilization, is also home to a modem community of

Navajo people who are connected to the landscape through history and spirituality ("Canyon de

Chelly National Monument," 2007).

NPS categories are similar to those employed by UNESCO, although with more

emphasis on the historic. Compare, for example, UNESCO's split of vernacular landscapes into

relict and continuing, versus that of NPS's notion of vernacular landscapes, which is limited to

historic landscapes only. Although NPS has embraced culture and nature through recognition of

cultural landscapes, the agency retains the emphasis on the historic cultural attributes.

The NPS maintains the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) which is

a national database of "districts, sites, buildings, structures, and obj ects that are significant in

American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture" ("Welcome to the National

Register," n.d.). Eligibility for inclusion on the National Register is based on certain criteria









relating to historical significance, historic figures or events, and distinctive construction or style

("What are the Criteria for Listing?," n.d.). Despite this limiting language, landscapes are

eligible for inclusion on the National Register, but are officially defined as districts or sites in

order to match the Register criteria (Goetcheus, 2002).

Confusion arises, however, where the NPS uses several terms for landscapes within their

system. In addition to designating cultural landscapes, the NPS also recognizes "historic rural

landscapes" defined as a "geographical area that historically has been used by people, or shaped

or modified by human activity, occupancy, or intervention, and that possesses a significant

concentration, linkage, or continuity of areas of land use, vegetation, buildings and structures,

roads and waterways, and natural features" (McClelland, Keller, Keller & Melnick, 1999). This

definition is very similar to that of historic vernacular landscapes, yet is treated as its own

category separate and apart from that of cultural landscapes.

NPS also uses the term "historic landscape" generally, in its Historic Landscape Initiative

(HLI). In describing the HLI program, the agency states, "[h]istoric landscapes can range from

thousands of acres of rural tracts to a small homestead with a front yard of less than one acre.

Like historic buildings and structures, these special places reveal aspects of our country's origins

and development through their form and features and the way they were used" ("Historic

Landscape Initiative," n.d.). The HLI inventory includes designed and vernacular landscapes,

both terms the NPS uses to define cultural landscapes; however, the term cultural landscape does

not appear anywhere in the description of the HLI program. Where the conceptual distinctions

between the programs are not so different, it seems unnecessary to use differing terminology;

however, the agency continues to do so.









Varied use of landscape terminology by the NPS illustrates the lack of a uniform

definition even within the same organization. In discussing the relationship between cultural

landscapes and the National Register, Cari Goetcheus (2002), a landscape architect with the NPS

Cultural Landscapes Program says, thereee are distinctions between the National Register

program, the park programs, and the non-park programs in the use and application of

terminology" (p.25). In recognizing this, Goetcheus (2002) states, "[t]he need for clear and

consistent terminology cannot be overstated," but acknowledges that it is an "ongoing challenge"

(p.25). Clearly the NPS is aware of this challenge, so why definitional issues persist is not clear.

From a non-governmental perspective, the Cultural Landscape Foundation (CLF) is "the

only not-for-profit foundation in America dedicated to increasing the public's awareness of the

importance and irreplaceable legacy of cultural landscapes" ("Our Organization," n.d.). CLF

wishes to protect cultural landscapes for the quality of life and sense of place that these

landscapes provide through education and advocacy. Cultural landscapes are defined by CLF as

a geographic area that includes cultural and natural resources associated with an historic
event, activity, person, or group of people. Cultural landscapes can range from thousands
of acres of rural land to homesteads with small front yards. They can be man-made
expressions of visual and spatial relationships that include grand estates, farmlands,
public gardens and parks, college campuses, cemeteries, scenic highways, and industrial
sites. Cultural landscapes are works of art, texts and narratives of cultures, and
expressions of regional identity. They also exist in relationship to their ecological
contexts ("Cultural Landscapes Defined," n.d.).

CLF also utilizes the four-category approach employed by the NPS, and refers to them as

"general" types of cultural landscapes, perhaps leaving room for other landscapes not fitting the

categories to be included.

Similarly, the Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation (AHLP) operates in order to

educate the public on and advocate on behalf of historic landscapes, and is dedicated to the

preservation and conservation of all historic landscapes. The AHLP acknowledges the variety of









definitions within the field, stating, "To define what is meant by historic landscapes is to risk

burdening the reader with an overwhelming array of thoughts and perspectives. Needless to say,

there are many definitions which have been developed over the years" ("What are historic

landscapes?," n.d.). As a basis for providing a definition, however, AHLP uses the "recently

accepted" term of cultural landscape ("What are historic landscapes?," n.d.). However, AHLP

does not utilize the four categories adopted by the NPS and CLF, but instead uses the three

categories adopted by UNESCO: clearly defined landscape designed and created intentionally by

man, organically evolved landscape (including the relict or fossil landscape and the continuing

landscape), and the associative cultural landscape ("What are historic landscapes?," n.d.). AHLP

acknowledges that the NPS and Parks Canada, for example, have their own definitions, and

refers the reader to the respective websites for more information. Although AHLP does not

provide specific examples of cultural landscapes, they do generally reference rormal gardens,

public parks, and rural and urban spaces ("AHLP Poster," 2006).

The World Monument Fund and the National Trust for Historic Preservation,

organizations focused on preservation of the built environment, have begun to incorporate

cultural landscape protection as part of their missions. The World Monument Fund uses the term

in drawing attention to landscapes in danger, such as the Bluegrass Cultural Landscape of

Kentucky, but has yet to adopt an internal definition or policy on cultural landscapes (M.

Berenfeld, personal communication, October 1, 2007). Similarly, the National Trust does not

have an official stance on cultural landscapes, but is beginning to become more actively involved

in their preservation (L. Suhrstedt, personal communication, October 12, 2007). The Northeast

Office of the National Trust has been the most active in cultural landscape preservation,

particularly through advocacy for the preservation of Block Island, Rhode Island' s scenic









landscapes and historic character ("Northeast Preservation News," 2007). Although neither

organization currently has a specific policy regarding cultural landscapes, reflecting both groups

traditional advocacy for buildings and structures, beginning to include these landscapes

demonstrates the shift occurring in the preservation field to encompass the context of the built

environment.

From an academic perspective, the Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies (ICLS), now

part of the Landscape Institute conducted through the Arnold Arboretum at Harvard University,

recognizes the differing ways in which to define cultural landscapes. The ICLS, formed in

1997, and merged with the Landscape Institute in 2003, was created "to support the emerging

community of professionals and volunteers who manage and interpret landscapes with a

significant history of human use, particularly in the northeastern United States" ("About the

Institute," 2003). ICLS does not utilize the term to refer to a certain type of landscape, as is done

through categorization, but instead as a way of "seeing" a landscape (Ingerson, 2002). ICLS

refers to working farms as an example of a cultural landscape (Ingerson, 2000). ICLS partners

with organizations who have contrasting or conflicting definitions of cultural landscape, and

offers a chart as a basis to understanding these varying perspectives on cultural landscapes

(Table 1-2). This chart is useful in illustrating multiple viewpoints utilized in defining cultural

landscapes.

Professional associations too have their own method of defining cultural landscapes. The

American Planning Association (APA) refers to cultural landscapes and cultural towns as

"genuine and authentic places that are deeply rooted in the arts and arts education which identify,

create and develop a town' s unique qualities of community... [r]especting the past, living the

present, and visioning the future, cultural communities look forward and back simultaneously"










("Cultural Landscapes/Cultural Towns," 2007). As an example of a cultural landscape and

cultural town, the APA highlights Savannah, Georgia as a case study based on the town's

integration with the Savannah College of Art and Design. This interesting definition diverges

from other definitions of cultural landscape, emphasizing culture as art and arts education, as

opposed to a general interaction between the land and any form of culture, art or not. However,

it is not entirely revolutionary, as ICLS recognizes this arts-focused perspective as one of the

components of "seeing" a landscape.

Other professional organizations like the American Society for Landscape Architects do

not have a readily accessible definition of cultural landscape; however, they do utilize the term in

their literature. See, for example, Freeman (2003) who discusses the modern Phoenix, Tempe

and Scottsdale, Arizona communities as cultural landscapes. No definition is provided, rather

the term is used with an assumption the reader understands the concept.

Nonprofit groups without a specific focus on cultural or historic landscapes also employ

the term. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a "national, nonprofit, land conservation

organization that conserves land for people to enj oy as parks, community gardens, historic sites,

rural lands, and other natural places, ensuring livable communities for generations to come"

("About TPL," 2007). TPL utilizes the term cultural landscape in addressing sites they are

involved in protecting. For example, TPL recently helped to protect the Alexander/Wilson

House outside Cleveland, and describes the site as a "cultural landscape that identifies a distinct

way of the antebellum era in northeast Ohio" ("TPL to Help Protect the Alexander/Wilson

House," 2007). As with the use of the term in the American Society of Landscape Architects

literature, TPL assumes understanding of the terminology, indicating awareness of cultural

landscapes has come a long way since Sauer initially introduced the concept.









Limiting Cultural Landscape

Despite many different organizations using different interpretations and concepts

surrounding the term cultural landscapes (Table 1-3), it has become part of the lexicon used

when referencing landscapes reflecting an integration of nature and culture. A significant

advance from only fifty years or so ago, when the term was used very little, Carl Sauer and J.B.

Jackson would no doubt be curious to see the activity and debate generated by their early work.

But is it too much debate and not enough consensus? The "assumption that one 'cultural

landscape' exists including accepted meanings, values, and preservation priorities is

simplistic and faulty" (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.20). Put another way, "we can expect no

single, unified, rigidly bounded approach to the study of something so essential and yet so

complex as the reciprocal relationships between individuals, groups of people, and their

everyday surroundings" (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.21). While this may be the case for general

cultural landscape studies, as aforementioned by Goetcheus (2002), the need for concise and

clear terminology is very important when addressing cultural landscapes and their protection

strategies. Without a generally accepted definition, protection of a cultural landscape will be

particularly onerous where involved parties will not even be able to come to consensus on what

constitutes the landscape to be protected. Further, a limited definition will contribute to a better

overall understanding of cultural landscapes, which are conceptually difficult to comprehend

given the varied terminology and definitions employed by a multitude of groups and professions.

In considering the various definitions of a cultural landscape, potentially every landscape

is a cultural landscape. Understanding cultural landscapes simplistically as lands evidencing

interaction between humans and nature leads to a conclusion that "cultural landscapes exist

virtually everywhere that human activities have affected the land" (Alanen & Melnick, 2000,

p.3). While this broad definition may lend itself well to studies in geography, sociology, or









anthropology, it is less effective when applied to the realm of policy, planning, and the law.

Definitions of cultural landscape lack the specificity that these disciplines require, and these

disciplines must be involved in matters of cultural landscape protection.

Historic preservation advocates realized the utility of using the law and planning

mechanisms in order to protect historic structures, and as early as 1931, the city of Charleston

initiated this partnership between preservation and planning law by enacting the country's first

historic district zoning ordinance (Lea, 2003). In 1966, the federal government enacted the

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), providing a "unified national system" (Stipe, 2003,

p.vii). This system includes both the National Register and National Landmark programs, which

identify significant examples of American heritage, and solidified the partnership between

preservation and the law.

The law demands uniformity and specificity, so that affected parties know their positions

and have a guideline for behavior. Each word in any given law has meaning, and drafting a law

is therefore a deliberate process. The NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish

criteria for including districts, sites, buildings, structures, and obj ects on the National Register or

as a National Landmark (National Historic Preservation Act, 2007). Landscapes, as a word on

its own, is not included in the NHPA. Nor is it found in the Secretary's criteria, codified at 36

C.F.R. @60.4, although this section states that the criteria "are worded in a manner to provide for

a wide diversity of resources." The criteria for evaluation are:

The quality of siglificance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering,
and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and obj ects that possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and
(a) that are associated with events that have made a siglificant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons siglificant in our past; or
(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or









that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history (National Register Criteria, 2007, emphasis added).

Notably, the word significance appears a total of ten times within the relatively short statutory

section, and serves as the delineator for what can be included in the National Register or

National Landmark listings. While a site may have made a contribution to the "broad patterns of

our history," it will not merit inclusion if the site did not make a significant contribution to the

broad patterns of our history. What significance actually means for purposes of evaluation is

where debates begin, and illustrates why each word in a definition carries such weight.

Significance is fraught with as many implications as are cultural landscapes, and inclusion of the

term in the definition of cultural landscape must be carefully considered. Where historic

preservation laws contain specific criteria for determining significance of a building or site, so

could a protective provision for cultural landscapes. Any drafting of cultural landscape

protective legislation must not borrow too closely from historic preservation laws, however;

certain concepts relevant to historic preservation, such as defining historic, may not apply to an

evolving space such as cultural landscapes.

Current definitions of cultural landscape are far too ambiguous to mesh with any sort of

legal protection mechanism. Critics indicate "[t]he reliance on codification... holds the potential

to negate the very idiosyncratic landscape qualities that set one place apart from another."

(Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.17) Yet, the same critics state that while virtually every landscape

is a cultural landscape, "it is neither feasible nor desirable to preserve all or even most cultural

landscapes" (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.21). Certainly few people would argue that no cultural

landscapes should be protected, but current definitions do little to assist in highlighting what

cultural landscapes do merit protection. Codification, or a narrowing of scope, helps to identify









those landscapes that are worthy of protection. The question then becomes: How does one

refine the notion of cultural landscape to a narrower scope for purposes of selecting and

protecting certain landscapes? Narrowing the scope may be as simple as borrowing from historic

preservation laws and inserting significance, a term missing from definitions of cultural

landscape reviewed within this study.

For purposes of advancing the argument that a narrower definition is necessary in order

to properly identify and protect these sites, a cultural landscape should be defined as a

"geographic area containing natural and manmade works that express a significant relationship

between people and their natural environment, representing both cultural and natural resources

associated with an event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values." This

definition combines elements of both the UNESCO and NPS definitions, but adds the qualifying

"significant" as a means in which to limit the scope of cultural landscapes. The adj ective

"historic" referencing an event, activity, or person has been removed in order to better embrace

the concept of cultural landscapes as evolving, or in UNESCO terminology, "continuing

landscapes," which inherently implies heritage, through the expression of a long relationship

between people and the natural environment.

Broad in the sense that it is not limited to historic cultural landscapes, this definition is

also narrow in limiting landscapes to those that are significant, whatever the era. Modern use of

the landscape still encompasses the concept of heritage, although maybe not strictly historic,

through the changes made to that land over time. Defining significance, no easy feat, would be

unique to each landscape, and requires an assessment of the cultural landscape in question.

Perhaps a cultural landscape in one area is significant because of its historic character. Perhaps

another region has a cultural landscape that is considered worthy of saving because of its modern










representation and use of the land; both could be included under the proposed definition.

Determining significance incorporates consideration of for whom the landscape is significant; it

may be important to the world or a nation, or only of local importance to a region or town.

Because of these considerations, cultural landscape protection on the local level is particularly

important. This emphasis on protection at the local level should be modeled on the emphasis

placed on local level protection in historic preservation, which is "where the real protective

power of historic preservation is found... [and] cannot be overemphasized" (Tyler, 2000, p.54).

Regardless, the limiting factor of significance will assist in narrowing cultural landscapes for

protection purposes and eliminates the occurrence that every cultural landscape be protected, an

impossibility.

Cultural Landscape Examples

Internationally recognized cultural landscapes include ones such as the Agave Landscape

of Mexico, the Rice Terraces of the Phillippines, and the Coffee Plantations of Cuba. All three

have been placed on UNESCO's World Heritage List, and all three represent human cultivation

of the landscape that continues today. Other sites include Humberstone and Santa Laura in Chile

and Blaenavon in Wales, representative of man' s extraction and formation of the landscape

through saltpeter mining and coal mining, respectively. Geographic areas such as the Loire

Valley in France, Cinque Terre in Italy, and the Ferto-Neusiedler Lake Region in Austria and

Hungary cover a wide expanse and highlight a way of life in European villages. All of these

locations are considered highly significant representations of human interaction with the

landscape, as determined by the World Heritage Committee, and have been deemed to have

outstanding universal value. ("World Heritage Cultural Landscapes," n.d.).

Use of significancee" and "outstanding universal value" demonstrates the already

existing use of these terms in designating cultural landscapes for inclusion on the World Heritage










List, and by NPS through inclusion of cultural landscapes utilizing NHPA criteria. For groups

involved in protection or designation, it would be beneficial to include significance as part of

their definition. This inclusion would set them apart from use of the term by geographers,

anthropologists, and sociologists, and would allow organizations charged with protection, such

as UNESCO and NPS, to have a unified definition. Adding significance as part of the definition,

and not just as part of the criteria, would also help those seeking benefit of protection by

providing a uniform guideline for evaluating landscapes.

Currently, no cultural landscapes of the United States are on the World Heritage List.

However, numerous American cultural landscapes of universal value or significance exist.

Chinatowns, Little Toykos, Little Manilas, and Koreatowns represent past and current cultural

values of a community, but also embody past political and social realities such as segregation

into certain geographic areas (Dubrow, 2000, p.144). Native American villages in Chaco

Canyon and Canyon de Chelly evoke historic cultural landscapes, and as tourist sites today,

represent modern society's interaction with the landscape (Hardesty, 2000, p.171).

Significance as a limiting factor in cultural landscape protection is aptly demonstrated

when considering a common cultural landscape, such as the American strip mall, identified by

J.B. Jackson as the "auto-vernacular landscape" (Wilson & Groth, 2003, p.293). Strip malls are

a cultural landscape, representing human interaction with the land; however, for protection

purposes, how would one decide which strip mall merits protection? Significance as a limiting

factor helps to make the distinction. For example, a significant strip mall could showcase a

historic example of an early automobile park, or perhaps an example of innovative design.

Again, determining significance would be based on the specific landscape in question.









Cultural Landscape Issues

When discussing cultural landscape protection, it is assumed that some entity wishes to

identify and preserve the landscape for certain purposes as set apart from the general everyday

landscape. This preservation may be for a historic or educational area, a park, tourism, or to

generally contribute to the character and quality of life in a particular region. After determining

significance and identifying a cultural landscape to protect, certain issues are bound to arise.

Static versus Evolving

An overarching debate in cultural landscape protection is how best to "preserve" a place

that is continually evolving. The landscape is "both artifact and system...it is a product and a

process" (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.17). This sentiment is echoed in the idea that considering

cultural landscapes requires a "shift from viewing landscape as the somewhat passive result of

human activity to landscape as essentially an active influence on social, economic, and political

processes" (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.15). This dynamic quality sets cultural landscapes apart

from more traditional resources protected through historic preservation, such as historic homes

representing a particular time and place in history (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p. 16), and

illustrates why protective mechanisms for historic preservation cannot always serve as

substitutes for cultural landscapes.

Fluidity of cultural landscapes also contributes to a debate over authenticity. An example

of authenticity issues is provided in the presentation of Colonial Williamsburg, a cultural

landscape reflecting life in a colonial-era Virginia town. Until the 1970's and 1980's, Colonial

Williamsburg did not present the entire version of the town' s history, which included slavery,

and thus, an authentic presentation of Williamsburg was missing. In spite of attempts to

incorporate this history, Williamsburg is still not an authentic cultural landscape in that its

"identity has been established by presentations of the 'historic scene' rather than by portrayals of










dynamic landscapes reflective of many histories" (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.7).

Williamsburg's presentation reflects a traditional historic preservation view of a landscape,

remaining static in time and demonstrating only one era of human interaction with the land.

The treatment of historic buildings in most downtown across the United States provides

another example of authenticity issues. Historic preservation advocates would likely be attracted

to the historic facades, but cultural landscape advocates may be more interested in the modern

appliques applied to these buildings as invocative of the evolving nature of the urban cultural

landscape. These tensions come to a head when attempting to decide how best to "preserve"

such a structure, and as such demonstrate its authenticity (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.15).

This debate commonly arises in the context of defining a cultural landscape. Although

the notion of landscape inherently includes the idea of evolution, seeking to define a cultural

landscape of a certain era dictates the landscape remain static. Says Sue Thompson, a practicing

landscape architect, "a cultural landscape is a space that has helped to define us as a people in a

particular time and place" ("Stewardship Stories," 2005). This definition does not leave much

room for evolution of a space, instead limiting a landscape to a particular time and a particular

place, as evidenced by Colonial Williamsburg. Perhaps the intent of a cultural landscape

preservation proj ect is to retain the features that ground the landscape to a certain time and date.

Determining whether to keep a space static or to let it continually evolve may depend on the

particular preservation goals defined for an individual proj ect.

Size and Scope

The scope of a cultural landscape can often be overwhelming in terms of providing

adequate protection. While some cultural landscapes may be small in size, and therefore, much

simpler to identify, many cultural landscapes cover such an expansive area that protective

mechanisms may need to be quite complex. Such a cultural landscape is the Pyrenees-Mont









Perdu region, a World Heritage Site designated by UNESCO. The region is considered

significant for humans' unique adaptation to mountain life and the climate, and is home to a wide

variety of natural resources ("World Heritage Nomination Pyrenees-Mont Perdu," 1999). This

geographic area encompasses 30,639 hectares, and spreads across an area covering portions of

two countries, France and Spain. Both countries include their areas of the site within national

parks, but the area is also home to numerous agricultural communities, as well as small-scale

tourism activities such as hiking and mountain climbing.

Understandably, cooperative protection of this cultural landscape is difficult. There are

not only geographic barriers, but also lingual, political, and cultural barriers. The geographic

scope of this landscape is extensive, as is the scope of actors who must play a part in protecting

the Pyrenees-Mont Perdu region. Federal, regional, and local entities in two countries must

coordinate to ensure the continued protection and management of this site. Oversight of this

region involves a hefty time commitment. Where significance helps to limit the range of cultural

landscapes that merit protection, it does not necessarily limit the size of landscapes to be

protected. In this instance, UNESCO agreed that the entire Pyrenees-Mont Perdu region is of

outstanding universal value, and is significant representation of human interaction with the

landscape over time. When addressing cultural landscape protection patterns, understanding that

significance of a particular landscape may include a large area, and protection strategies will

need to include a variety of participants on all levels, is vital.

Long-term Protection

Long-term protection concerns in relation to cultural landscapes often correlate to the size

of a cultural landscape. The larger the landscape, the more complex the protection strategies can

be, particularly long-term. However, providing for long-term protection of any cultural

landscape is a matter of concern. Any cultural landscape deemed worthy of protection should









have a strong long-term protection strategy in place. Protecting a cultural landscape may be

possible today, but future protection must also be evaluated.

From a opposing view, a cultural landscape that may be of significance to a community

today may not hold the same significance in the future, and therefore leads to a series of possible

inquiries. How can long-term protection be reconciled with the notion that cultural landscapes

are continually evolving? Do cultural landscape protection mechanisms put in place today

impose today's standards of how the landscape should evolve or do the mechanisms allow for a

more organic evolution over time? In light of these questions, is protection even possible? None

of these questions have easy answers, but they must considered when deciding how best to

provide future protection for a cultural landscape. A possibility for assessing these questions

would be to include a review provision in any cultural landscape protective mechanism that

allows for periodic re-evaluation of significance, as well as boundaries, land use, and the like.

Property Rights Conflicts

In the United States, property rights are a hotly contested subject. The right to own and

alter property is "essential to maintain a viable economy upon which general welfare depends,"

and moreover, the protection of these rights "secures and augments personal freedom." (Siegan

9) This freedom has its roots in the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson

declared that all men are created equal, and granted unalienable rights, namely life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness. [T]he acquisition, use, and disposal of private property is necessarily

comprehended in the pursuit of happiness" (Siegan, 1997, p. 10). The Constitution of the United

States secured these rights by granting property protection in various sections, namely to address

the property interests considered most important during the drafting era: home, land, onfce,

Girearms, and Einancial resources (Siegan, 1997, p.20). The takings clause of the Constitution is a









well-known restriction on the government' s ability to seize private land for public use without

just compensation (Tyler, 2000, p.87).

Takings claims are a predominant challenge facing historic preservation and landscape

preservation protective mechanisms. These protective mechanisms, often found in zoning

regulations, are seen by many as restricting their Constitutional right to own, use, and dispose of

their private property by imposing restrictions dictating the bounds of that use (Tyler, 2000).

Regulations have been upheld, as in one of the most famous Supreme Court cases on this subj ect,

Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978); other regulations have not withstood a

judicial challenge (Tyler, 2000). Winning over property rights advocates will prove to be a

difficult task for cultural landscape protection advocates who wish to limit or restrict certain

property activities within a cultural landscape.

However, where cultural landscape protection goals encourage the evolution of the

landscape as human interaction shifts over time, and thereby allows for change and less

restriction, property rights may not be in dispute. In other countries of the world, property rights

and protecting cultural landscapes may not be so much of an issue. Socialist or communist

forms of government certainly would have more opportunity to designate a space a cultural

landscape and restrict certain acts without opposition; however, this option is not analogous to

protection strategies elsewhere in the world such as the United States.

Summary

Adding one word, significance, to the variety of cultural landscape definitions helps to

narrow the term, identify what cultural landscapes are worthy of protection, and assist in

attempts at codifying landscape protection. Further, qualifying cultural landscapes as significant

can contribute to resolving some of the tensions in seeking to protect cultural landscapes.

Significance plays a role in determining how to present a cultural landscape, and may assist in









identifying presentation of the landscape as static or evolving. While the decision depends upon

the goals of the proj ect, utilizing significance as a limiting factor helps in making that decision.

Likewise, significance is useful in defining the size and scope of a particular cultural

landscape. Elements that are found to contribute in a significant manner to the cultural landscape

would be considered within the landscape, while those that are not significant could perhaps

remain outside the boundaries of the landscape, keeping in mind that utilizing significance as a

limiting factor will not necessarily limit the scope of the cultural landscape. Significance can be

used to identify long-term strategies for protection, but perhaps only if the significance is

something that can be expected to be appreciated over time. Lastly, identifying cultural

landscapes of significance to a entire community or region could aid in convincing property

rights advocates that the protection is a worthy cause. Despite varied terminology and a host of

complex issues, protection of significant landscapes is possible, as the next chapter will

demonstrate.










Table 1-1. Defining Landscape (Coleman, 2003, p.5, citing Phillips, 2002).

Landscape = Nature Plus People

Landscape = The Past Plus The Present

Landscape = Physical Attributes Plus Associative Values
(scenery, nature, (social and cultural)
historic heritage)


Table 1-2. "Seeing" Cultural Landscapes (Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies of the
Landscape Institute C The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2000).
nI individual S ecial Aesthetic


LII ~ p ,~ICI VrVCI ~UIV


Collective, Representative, Useful


Related to the everyday beliefs and
practices of a group of people



The land that can be seen from a
single vantage point (usually larger
than a "site," smaller than a
"region")

"Nearly everything we see when we
go outdoors" Peirce Lewis 1979


Cultural






Landscape


Related to the arts (consciously
designed obj ects) or ideas of
enduring value


The work of landscape architects
or garden designers


Scenery portrayed in a painting or
photograph, or that is seen as
worth painting or photographing










Table 1-3. Table of Cultural Landscape Definitions by Organization (Author, 2007).


Organization
UNESCO


Definition of Cultural Landscape
"Combined works of nature and
humankind [that] express a long and
intimate relationship between peoples
and their environment"
Three categories:
1) Clearly defined landscape

2) Organically evolved landscape:
- relict or fossil landscape
- continuing landscape
3) Associative cultural landscape

"Geographic area, including both
cultural and natural
resources... associated with a historic
event, activity, or person or exhibiting
other cultural or aesthetic values"
Four categories:
1) Historic sites
2) Historic designed landscapes
3) Historic vernacular landscapes
4) Ethnographic landscapes
"Geographic area that includes cultural
and natural resources associated with an
historic event, activity, person, or group
of people" Utilizes four NPS categories
Utilizes three UNESCO categories;
Acknowledges differences among
organizations
No organizational definition available

No organizational definition available

No precise definition; Acknowledges
differences among organizations
"Genuine and authentic places that are
deeply rooted in arts and arts education
which identify, create, and develop a
town's unique qualities of community"
No organizational definition available

No organizational definition available


Example






Royal Botanic Gardens,
UK

Lope-Okanda, Gabon
Rice Terraces, Phillippines
Uluru-Kata Tjuta,
Australia







Mount Vernon, Virginia
Central Park, New York
Jimmy Carter Site, Georgia
Canyon de Chelly, Arizona




Formal gardens, public
parks, rural and urban
spaces
Block Island, Rhode Island

Bluegrass Cultural
Landscape, Kentucky
Working farms

Savannah, Georgia



Phoenix, Tempe, and
Scottsdale, Arizona
Alexander/Wilson House,
Cleveland


National Park Service










Cultural Landscape
Foundation


Alliance for Historic
Landscape Preservation

National Trust for
Historic Preservation
World Monuments
Fund
Harvard Landscape
Institute
American Planning
Association


American Society for
Landscape Architects
Trust for Public Land









CHAPTER 3
STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Strategies for preserving cultural landscapes generally fall into one of two categories:

protection or management, although strategies are not limited by these bounds. Protection is

typically espoused in legislative and regulatory policies designed to administratively care for a

space (Mayes, 2003). Management, on the other hand, is typically synonymous with

maintenance, and typically involves physical care of the landscape (Schuyler & O'Donnell,

2000). Both strategies are essential to providing for long-term success of a cultural landscape.

However, only protective mechanisms are addressed here; management and maintenance

strategies deserve an altogether separate treatment.

Cultural Landscape Protection Outside the United States

Cultural landscapes are recognized across the world, with many organizations and

governments adopting policies to legitimize and protect these landscapes. This section provides

a brief review of international activities in cultural landscape protection, and does not seek to

address specifics of international legal protections that can vary amongst individual countries'

national, regional, and local levels. Major, national initiatives in English-speaking countries are

introduced below simply to highlight cultural landscape protection practices across the world.

Internationally, UNESCO leads the way in designating cultural landscapes exemplifying

world heritage. The World Heritage Convention was adopted by the Member States of

UNESCO in 1972, and seeks to identify, protect, conserve, present, and transmit to future

generations cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value ("Operational

Guidelines," 2005, I.B.5 & 7). The World Heritage Convention created the World Heritage List

to identify those cultural and heritage sites of outstanding universal value. Criteria and

conditions for inclusion on the World Heritage List are intended to guide Member States and










Parties in the protection of these sites ("Operational Guidelines," 2005, I.B.8). Cultural

landscapes are considered for inclusion on the List as the "combined works of nature and man"

as described in Article 1 of the Convention ("Operational Guidelines," 2005, II.A.47).

Inclusion on the List is the result of a complex process originating with the nomination of

a site by a Member State or Party. Amongst the detailed, mandatory nomination requirements

for a site is proof of the mechanisms protecting the site ("Operational Guidelines," 2005,

III.B.132.5). Protective measures must show "adequate long-term legislative, regulatory,

institutional and/or traditional protection and management to ensure their safeguarding"

("Operational Guidelines," 2005, II.F.97). Further, State Parties must "demonstrate adequate

protection at the national, regional, municipal, and/or traditional level for the nominated

property" ("Operational Guidelines," 2005, II.F.97).

On a regional level, the Council of Europe confirmed interest, and set a precedent for

individual European countries, in protecting the cultural landscapes of Europe in presenting the

European Landscape Convention of 2000. Recognizing that the landscape is a "basic component

of the European natural and cultural heritage," the convention seeks to provide for protection,

management, and planning for European landscapes, whether "outstanding" or "everyday,"

through cooperation amongst the member countries ("Why a Landscape Convention?," n.d.).

Although this represents a desire to include varying types of landscapes, significance as a

qualifying factor is still absent. The Convention includes among its goals the ability of the

European people to have a democratic voice concerning protection of their landscapes,

encourages transboundary cooperation to protect these landscapes, and advocates for landscape

protection to become a mainstream policital concern ("Aims of the European Landscape

Convention," n.d.).









The European Landscape Convention differs from the World Heritage Convention in that

it specifically seeks to conserve past and present landscapes, and does not reference historic

monuments. Additionally, it is limited in scope to European member parties, not landscapes

around the world. Twenty-seven of the forty-seven countries who are parties to the Council of

Europe have ratified the Landscape Convention; seven other countries have signed onto the

convention, but are awaiting ratification ("State of Signatures and Ratifications," 2007).

Landscape protection, as symbolic of Europe' s cultural heritage, is visibly a priority amongst

European member countries.

On a national level, one of the member countries of the European Council, the United

Kingdom (UK), ratified the Landscape Convention in January 2007. Although this demonstrates

the UK's interest in landscape protection generally, cultural landscape protection in the UK is

still for the most part not an integrated concept. "Where legislation attempts to cover all facets

of the [landscape], it normally does so in terms of separate provision for landscape, for nature

conservation, and for archaeology and history" (Fairclough, 1999, p.29). While an integration of

the three concepts, or cultural landscape, is recognized and implemented amongst practitioners in

the field, legislative designations have yet to catch up (Fairclough, 1999, p.29-30).

One example of legislative policy in the UK designed to protect natural landscapes, but

that is being utilized to protect "living landscapes," another term that essentially describes a

cultural landscape, is the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) program. Despite an

emphasis on natural landscapes, as of the UK's 1993 Environment Act, cultural heritage is

included as part of the definition of natural beauty for AONB purposes. It is pointed out,

however, that "the historic environment has to argue its case strongly to be sure of any

consideration in AONB practice" (Fairclough, 1999, p.29). While this illustrates the continued









distinction between historic and natural environments, AONB's do encompass both elements.

The National Parks and Access to Countryside Act of 1949 and the Countryside and Right of

Way Act of 2000 authorize AONB's, which are designated by ministerial order, although local

entities request consideration initially. Once designated, land remains in current ownership, but

local authorities have planning and development control in the area. Currently, there are forty-

nine AONB's in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales; in England, 13.9% of the nation' s land is

included in an AONB, protecting a substantial portion of England' s cultural landscapes through

regulation (Barrett & Taylor, 2007, p.53).

Australia provides for protection of its cultural landscapes through the Australian national

government' s Heritage Council. In 2003, the Heritage Office of the Council hosted a cultural

landscapes charrette intended to introduce participants to the concept and more specifically,

address protection and management of cultural landscapes. Purposes behind the charrette

included a hope that policies would be adopted to implement management techniques discussed

during the meeting. The charrette laid the groundwork for cultural landscape protection by

highlighting the available protective tools on a variety of governmental levels. (Coleman, 2003)

However, the Australian Heritage Council's Periodic Report, released in February 2007,

still does not specifically address cultural landscapes, but merely references them in relation to

particular sites. National policies as of yet do not address cultural landscapes individually; as is

still typical, Australia's Heritage List criteria echoes the dichotomy between historic sites and

natural sites that England' s legislation represents ("Periodic Report," 2007). Although the

charrette introduced the concept of cultural landscapes and demonstrates a practitioners'

recognition of the utility in accepting this concept, the legislation has yet to correlate, as is the

case in England.









Canada addresses cultural landscapes, particularly those related to Aboriginal

Canandians, through the Parks Canada office. Parks Canada broadly defines the term cultural

landscape as "any geographical area that has been modified, influenced, or given special cultural

meaning by people," ("Cultural Landscapes-Canadian Approach," 2004) but adopts UNESCO's

three types of cultural landscapes: designed parks and gardens, urban and rural districts as

evolved landscapes, and associative cultural landscapes related to Aboriginal Canadians. For

planning purposes, cultural landscapes are included in Canada's National Historic Sites System

Plan ("Cultural Landscapes-Canadian Approach").

Overall, while international designation programs are utilizing cultural landscapes as a

manner of protecting integrated natural and cultural sites, international legislation has yet to

follow. While legislation such as that enacting England's AONB program does contemplate the

possibility of integration, it still predominantly emphasizes natural sites alone. However,

cultural designation programs can increase awareness of this interconnectedness and influence

future international legislation.

Cultural Landscape Protection Within the United States

While international identification tools like the World Heritage List are available to the

United States, a member party to UNESCO, the United States currently does not have a cultural

landscape included on the List. Nor does the United States participate in any sort of landscape

treaty or convention, aside from the World Heritage Convention. Although cultural landscapes in

the United States are in this sense isolated from international cultural landscape practices,

legislative protective mechanisms in the United States generally follow the pattern, expressed

internationally in the UK and Australia, of providing separate protective mechanisms for the

built historic environment and for the natural environment. Exploring cultural landscape










protections in the United States on national, state, and local levels provides a view of how the

United States can use existing mechanisms to protect cultural landscapes.

National Protection Strategies

Currently, there is no national legislative policy in the United States specifically

addressing historic landscapes or cultural landscapes. The National Historic Preservation Act of

1966, as previously noted, does not mention landscapes. Portions of the federal tax code provide

for tax credits in renovation of income-producing historic properties. But protection of

landscapes and the natural environment are more typically covered in conservation strategies

such as the National Environmental Policy Act or other national legislative acts such as the Farm

Bill of 2002, which provides for farm and ranch land protection, or the Coastal Zone

Management Act, which seeks to protect coastal resources. National level policy, therefore,

reflects the division between consideration for the built heritage versus consideration for natural

heritage. A 1992 National Trust for Historic Preservation publication suggests that "there is

growing recognition that conservation and preservation are natural allies" (McMahon & Watson,

1992, p.1). However, fifteen years later, while practitioners may have a better understanding of

this partnership, it is still lost on policy makers. Melnick (2000) notes that "landscapes are

inadequately served when we consider them only within one classification" (p.28), indicating a

need to utilize a more integrated approach to cultural landscape protection. Until policy reflects

a shift from this split thinking, other protective measures must fill the gap to protect cultural

landscapes on a national level.

National Park Service

Protection of cultural landscapes on a federal level falls within the purview of the

National Park Service, a division of the Department of the Interior. The NPS identified cultural

landscapes as a specific resource type in 1981 (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.7). NPS has a variety










of mechanisms for protecting cultural landscapes and oversees National Parks, National

Monuments, National Preserves, National Historic Sites, National Historical Parks, National

Memorials, National Battlefields, National Cemeteries, National Recreation Areas, National

Seashores, National Lakeshores, National Rivers, National Parkways, National Trails, Aff61iated

Areas either designated by Congress or the Secretary of the Interior, and Other Designations as

determined by NPS, as units of the NPS system ("Designation of National Park System Units,"

2000). Many, if not all, of these sites could potentially include an area worthy of cultural

landscape consideration. One such site, the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, is

credited as playing a maj or role in shaping NPS cultural landscape programs after a dam proj ect

in the 1970's threatened to flood hundreds of acres of land exemplifying historic rural life

(Miller, 2000). The significance of the area' s heritage spurred NPS action on cultural

landscapes, and today a cultural landscape can be included within one of these protective Park

programs.

National Heritage Areas (NHA), one of the many NPS units, are essentially cultural

landscapes called by another name. NHA' s are defined by the NPS as "a place designated by the

United States Congress where natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources combine to

form a cohesive, nationally-di stinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity shaped

by geography" ("What is a National Heritage Area?, n.d). Later, in defining the heritage areas

strategy, NPS specifically uses the term cultural landscape to describe the ideology behind

protecting heritage areas. Again, this illustrates the differing use of the term within the

organization. NHA' s are not managed by the NPS, but instead fall to local management,

generally comprised of a variety of stakeholders. Therefore, protection of these sites is largely










out of the federal realm. To date, there are thirty-seven designated NHA' s, with the highest

number concentrated in the Northeast.

One such NHA is the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, covering over

20,000 square miles and thirty-seven counties in northeast lowa. The intent of the Silos and

Smokestacks NHA is to "preserve[] and tell[] the story of American agriculture and its global

significance through partnerships and activities that celebrate the land, people, and communities

of the area" ("About Us," 2006). Significance, though not part of the NPS definition of cultural

landscapes, is utilized to designate areas worthy of protection. Themes addressed in the Silos

and Smokestacks NHA include fertile lands, farms and families, the changing farm, higher

yields, farm to factory, and organizing for agriculture. Sites included in the NHA are scenic

routes, historic sites, farms, museums, parks and nature centers, fairs, tractors, and lodging

("Sites," 2006). Leadership advisors, a board of trustees, a partnership panel, and full-time staff

comprise the management team of Silos and Smokestacks. Members of each of these entities

represent a wide variety of professions, including government, academia, tourism, natural

resource conservation, historic preservation, agriculture, architecture, business, law, and

communications ("Who We Are," 2006). Together, these entities coordinate and plan for the

management of the Silos and Smokestacks NHA.

National Heritage Corridors (NHC), another NPS designation similar to NHA' s, are

managed outside the NPS by a partnership between federal, state, and local agencies, and are

considered an outstanding source of natural, cultural, and historic features. An example of an

The Blackstone River Valley is an NHS in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. As described by the

NPS, "[t]he story of the Blackstone River Valley is told in a living landscape. Here history is not

held back behind a velvet rope...roam farm Hields, trek along the canal towpath, and tour mill









villages where people still live in the company built houses their ancestors inhabited a century

ago" ("What's a Corridor?", 2006). This focus on a living landscape represents a shift from

NPS's traditional focus on historic landscapes.

Another unit of the NPS system, the National Historic Reserve, is currently represented

by only one site, Ebey's Landing, in Washington state. Ebey's Landing portrays Pacific

Northwest history through protection of this rural seaside community. NPS specifically refers to

Ebey's Landing as a "nationally significant cultural landscape" demonstrating a region that still

encompasses historic methods of land use, including farming, logging, and business. In 2008,

Ebey's Landing celebrates its 30th year of NPS designation, "protecting what is timeless while

accommodating change" ("Ebey's Turns 30," 2007). Yet Ebey's Landing remains the only

designation of its type, and is referred to as a "non-traditional" unit of the NPS. Like NHA' s,

Ebey's Landing for the most part remains in private ownership with a Trust Board comprised of

federal, state, and local representatives overseeing general management of the site. Even though

the term cultural landscape is used to identify Ebey's Landing, it is buried within the NHR

description.

Cultural landscapes are additionally found within the domain of three other NPS

programs: the National Register, the Historic Landscape Initiative, and the Park Cultural

Landscapes Program, which oversees the Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI). Although these

programs themselves are not protective in the sense that they designate a boundary around a

landscape, they advocate and educate for and about cultural landscapes, which broaden the scope

of protection beyond regulatory mechanisms. The Historic Landscape Initiative (HLI) of the

NPS "provides guidance, disseminates guidelines, and raises awareness about cultural landscapes

through partnerships with federal and state agencies, professional organizations, colleges, and









universities" (Goetcheus, 2002, p.24). The Park Cultural Landscapes Program (PCLP) is

involved in providing "leadership and guidance concerning the cultural landscape issues within

the 3 86 units of the national park system" (Goetcheus, 2002, p.24). The PCLP oversees the

Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI), which is a mechanism to provide the NPS with

information about cultural landscapes.

Using National Register criteria as the basis for evaluation, the CLI tracks National

Register documentation and eligibility for landscapes within the NPS system. The Secretary of

the Interior, as per Section 101 of the NHPA, is authorized to maintain the National Register,

which is comprised of "districts, sites, buildings, structures, and obj ects significant in American

history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture" (National Historic Preservation Act,

2007). Section 101 also gives the Secretary authorization to establish criteria for inclusion on the

Register, which is codified at 36 C.F.R. @60.4. Over 3,000 potential cultural landscapes have

been identified through the CLI process as potentially eligible for National Register inclusion

(Goetcheus, 2002, p.25), but must be officially described as districts or sites in order to meet the

Register's eligibility criteria. Where this does not seem to give credence to landscapes, the

language is drafted flexibly enough for cultural landscape inclusion. However, cultural

landscapes are not yet mainstream Register properties; cultural landscapes are notably not one of

the subj ect searches available in the National Register database ("National Register Information

System," 2007).

Bureau of Land Management

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), another division of the Department of the

Interior, also oversees cultural landscapes in the United States, although BLM does not utilize

the specific term in doing so. BLM is traditionally known for its oversight of 264 million acres

of public lands held and managed by the federal government, but in certain situations, BLM is










delegated the power to manage sites traditionally held within the NPS. Included in this oversight

are areas designated as National Monuments, National Scenic Trails, and National Wilderness

Areas. ("National Landscape Conservation System," 2004).

BLM' s oversight of cultural landscapes is evidenced through the National Landscape

Conservation System (NLCS), a large-scale management unit created in response to concern

over the loss of open space in the West. The NLCS consists of lands in Alaska, Arizona,

California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah, and comprises over 800

units of designated lands, including National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, Wild

and Scenic Rivers, National Scenic and Historic Trails, and Wilderness and Wilderness Study

Areas. These units include such significant cultural landscapes as the Agua Fria in Arizona and

the Canyons of the Ancients in Colorado, both containing massive concentrations of

archaeological sites and representative of early human interaction with the western landscape.

Pompeys Pillar, overlooking the Yellowstone River, and carved by numerous visitors over the

years, including William Clark of the Lewis and Clark expedition, is found within the NLCS.

("National Landscape Conservation System," 2004).

Representing the American cultural landscape, NLCS sites are not protected specifically

as cultural landscapes, though they protect significant ancient historic sites as well as modern

uses of the landscape. Although NLCS sites are within federal protection, the BLM has come

under fire for not properly safeguarding many of the sites within their management (Conaway,

2006), in part due to BLM's management policies, which are governed by the Federal Land

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). FLPMA dictates that BLM accommodate activities such

as mining and logging under their multiple use and sustained yield policies (Federal Land Policy









and Management Act, 2007). Such practices often conflict with preservation and conservation

goals, and may present a problem in the context of cultural landscape protection.

Department of Transportation

The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) conducts the National Scenic

Byways Program, established to "help recognize, preserve, and enhance selected roads

throughout the United States" ("Learn About Byways," 2007). The Secretary of Transportation

selects these roads based on one or more qualities, including archaeological, cultural, historical,

natural, recreational, or scenic resources. Every byway is intended to be scenic, and represents a

variety of American landscapes: "natural and man-made panoramas, electrifying neon

landscapes, ancient and modern history coming alive, native arts and culture, and scenes of

friends, families, and strangers sharing their stories" ("Learn About Byways," 2007). These

byways are cultural landscapes in their embrace of nature and culture, and construction of roads

is a distinctive manner in which humans interact with the landscape. Currently there are 126

byways designated by the DOT Secretary as National Scenic Byways.

Historic Route 66 represents a well-known National Scenic Byway. Although Route 66

was decommissioned in 1985, and exists today only in fragments of its original route, the road is

invokes early days of automobile travel in the United States. Freedom is the theme, and

preservation of the route seeks to share the histories of those who traveled this road, including

1930's depression-era families, soldiers traveling west to deploy in World War II, and post-war

adventurers. Route 66 highlights the culture of several decades, but traverses a landscape that

begins in urban Chicago and winds its way to New Mexico and Arizona. Unique destinations

that catered to Route 66 travelers are preserved as a way of illustrating a time before fast food

and chain stores. This interplay between natural America and human migration is especially

significant in American history, and contributes to the story behind western development in the









twentieth-century. Though this Byway emphasizes history, it is still an evolving landscape

demonstrated by its current function as a heritage tourism destination. ("Historic Route 66

Overview," 2007)

State Protection Strategies

State legislation

A variety of state legislative actions contributes to protection of cultural landscapes. One

very common type of legislation is a state historic preservation statute, which typically mimics

provisions found in NHPA except on a statewide level. These statutes further mimic NHPA in

focusing on the built environment and not specifically addressing landscapes. The split between

natural and cultural elements exists at the state level as well.

New Mexico has gone a step beyond the traditional historic preservation statute and

enacted the Historic Landscape Act (HLA). Introduced by state legislator Danice Picraux in

2003, the HLA seeks to establish and preserve landscapes of historic and cultural significance in

New Mexico (Historic Landscape Act, 2003). A historic landscape is defined in the HLA as a

manmade or cultural landscape that is limited in scope, generally comprises a plaza, square, park,

garden, terrace, streetscape, estate, grounds of a building or other open space designated formally

or informally, and has contributed to the cultural history of its time (Historic Landscape Act,

2003, (18-13-2). The HLA creates a historic landscape trust, a non-profit organization whose

board members are comprised of two landscape architects, an attorney, an accountant, three

residents with knowledge of historic landscapes in New Mexico, two residents who are members

of garden clubs, the state cultural affairs officer or designee, and the director of tourism or

designee (Historic Landscape Act, 2003, (18-13-4).

The HLA trust' s purposes include preservation of significant historic landscapes in the

state, the identification of sites in the state deserving of inclusion in the historic landscape










system, and the development of a historic landscape system that provides opportunities for

persons to appreciate and better understand the history and development of the state (Historic

Landscape Act, 2003, (18-13-5). The HLA is beneficial in protecting a variety of landscapes,

whether urban or rural, designed or vernacular. Unfortunately, the success of this legislation

cannot be determined, and inquiries to the legislator's office went unanswered.

State growth management laws also serve as an important strategy for overall protection

of large landscapes. Usually enacted at the state level as a means of providing for a

comprehensive state strategy to control growth and limit urban sprawl, growth management

statutes can encourage the redevelopment of existing resources and discourage new development

proj ects that involve the destruction of landscapes (Miller, 2004, p.43). Oregon and Washington

are two states that employ "urban growth boundaries" to prevent sprawling development.

(Miller, 2004, p.43), and these boundaries can be useful especially in protecting rural cultural

landscapes that lie just outside a city's boundaries.

Growth management legislation may further require state and regional planning

considerations as part of a local planning process. Oregon's laws integrate state, regional, and

local planning to ensure consistency of land conservation and development across the state

(Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003, p. 45). Coordination would be particularly effective in protecting

landscapes that cover a large area. While growth management laws are an important way for

states to take a strong stance against uncontrolled sprawl and conserve land, due to political

pressure from various pro-development advocates, these laws can be difficult to enact or enforce.

Rural protection laws are an alternative to, or could work in conjunction with, growth

management laws as a way to save rural cultural landscapes; however, these laws do not leave

any room for consideration of urban landscapes. Maryland's Rural Legacy Program hopes to










"sav[e] the best of what' s left by creating greenbelts around Maryland' s communities and saving

our remaining countryside" ("Rural Legacy Program," 2007). The Maryland State Legislature

enacted the program in 1997 as a means to encourage voluntary land conservation efforts

through identification of Rural Legacy Areas. Legacy Areas are intended to showcase the state's

"most valuable agricultural, forestry, natural, and cultural resources," a legislative recognition of

integrated sites ("Maryland's Rural Legacy: Introduction," 2007). Local governments and land

trusts identify Legacy Areas, and then compete for funds to supplement or create land protection

in the Legacy Areas. Funding is jointly supplied by the state and contributions from localities in

Maryland. Thirty-four Rural Legacy Areas have been identified to date, and the program is

viewable as a success in protecting Maryland's rural cultural landscapes ("Statewide Map of

Rural Legacy Areas," 2005).

Legislatively created state easement programs are another strategy for protecting

landscapes. An easement is "a legal agreement between a property owner (the grantor) and the

holder of the easement (the grantee), which governs the current and future owners' treatment of

the property" (Watson & Nagel, 1995, p.3). Easements can help protect a landscape by

regulating development, implementing use restrictions, and providing oversight for lands in the

future. PACE, or Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement programs, are an example of

a state-level easement program that could encompass cultural landscape considerations. As of

April 2007, twenty-seven states have granted legislative authorization for these easement

programs, which seek to protect farm and ranch land ("Status of State PACE Programs," 2007).

Most state programs of this type regulate easement transactions and encourage state agencies to

hold the easements. Although state-endorsed, these programs are voluntary and depend on the

willingness of property owners to be successful.









One of the most important legislative functions of the state government is to provide

delegation to local governments to enact certain legislative policies. All states, except Hawaii,

have delegated the power of imposing land use regulations to cities and counties (Salsich &

Tryniecki, 2003, p.5). Generally, this local delegated power is not unlimited, and must comply

with the state legislation delegating the authority (Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003, p.7). This power is

then demonstrated by the local government in planning and zoning policies, which includes the

ability to enact protective ordinances, such as historic districts.

State cultural designations

The federal government inserted itself into state preservation activities through NHPA,

which authorized the creation of a grant program that established state offices of historic

preservation. State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) are eligible to receive federal funding

for preservation proj ects within the state. SHPO's are responsible for conducting surveys of

historic sites in their respective state, for processing nominations of state sites to the National

Register, for administering federal grants to state preservation proj ects, assisting local

governments with preservation initiatives, consulting on NHPA Section 106 review, and

reviewing applications for federal historic preservation tax credits (Tyler, 2000, p.52-3). Given

such a strong federal influence in state preservation activities, it comes as no surprise that state

cultural designations often mimic federal designations.

Similar to the NPS's Park Cultural Landscapes Program, Massachusetts has a Historic

Landscape Preservation Program (HLPP) housed within their state Department of Conservation

and Recreation. HLPP provides help to municipalities and non-profits in the state, increases

awareness of historic landscapes, creates publications that assist the public in caring for

landscapes, and offers leadership in cultural landscape preservation ("Historic Landscape

Preservation Program," n.d.). As part of the HLPP, the Heritage Landscape Inventory Program










(HLIP) seeks to identify, document, and plan for the heritage landscapes in Massachusetts.

Heritage landscapes are a subset of the historic landscape program, and described as those

landscapes which are "the result of human interaction with the natural resources of an area,

which influence the use and development of land... [and] contain both natural and cultural

resources" ("Heritage Landscape Inventory Program," n.d.). One of HLPP's publications,

Reading the Land, demonstrates ways for communities across the state to identify, protect, and

manage their own unique heritage landscapes on a local level. Highlighting important planning

and survey tools, Reading the Land also reviews state policies and programs that may assist in

providing for local cultural landscapes in Massachusetts.

State heritage areas function similarly to national heritage areas, but on a regional scale.

The New York State Heritage Area program utilizes a "state-local partnership to preserve and

develop areas that have special significance to New York State" ("Heritage Areas," 2007).

Heritage areas in the state are selected as representing the "most significant" natural, historic,

and cultural resources, and have four heritage goals: preservation, education, recreation, and

economic revitalization. Selected heritage areas include Buffalo, Saratoga Springs, Seneca Falls,

the Heights area of Manhattan, and the Western Erie Canal. The scope and breadth of these

designations, for example, the entire city of Buffalo, represents a protection of a cultural

landscape, and the limiting factor of significance assists state designation of what places to

designate as heritage areas. ("Heritage Areas," 2007).

Local Protection Strategies

Individual strategies

Easements are a typically local-level option in protecting cultural landscapes, although

states are increasingly getting involved. Conservation easements protect landscapes and natural

areas, while preservation easements protect historic properties and sites. A conservation









easement is a partial restriction on land, for conservation purposes, that is usually placed in the

hands of a third party who will monitor and enforce the restrictions imposed (Miller, 2004, p.35-

6). Conservation easements may be placed on endangered environmental areas, farmland, and

significant plant or wildlife habitat, for example (Watson & Nagel, 1995, p.1). A preservation

easement operates in a similar fashion as a conservation easement; however, restrictions are

imposed on the built environment. Examples of sites that could be protected by preservation

easements include historic rural villages or historic urban buildings (Watson & Nagel, 1995,

p. 1). An advantage of employing easements as a protective mechanism is that easement

requirements may be tailored to the specific site. This affords unique features of the site extra

protection (Watson & Nagel, 1995, p.2).

Who may act as a third party holder of an easement is usually determined by state statute.

Forty-seven states have passed legislation dictating who may hold easements. The complexity of

easement legislation amongst the states led to the creation of the Uniform Conservation

Easement Act (UCEA), of which a version has been adopted by twenty states (Watson & Nagel,

1995, p.4). In the case of conservation easements, the third party is often a land trust, which is a

nonprofit organization that provides long-term stewardship of the resources under easement

(Miller, 2004, p.35). Land trusts also engage in proactive conservation strategies, including

working directly with private landowners to solicit easement donations, seeking land for

easement designation, and assisting with development rights programs. Land trusts may

additionally seek to directly purchase sensitive lands for management by the trust (Miller, 2004,

p.35). The Land Trust Alliance reports that in 2003, more than 5 million acres in the United

States were protected under voluntary land conservation agreements, and that by the end of 2003,

local and regional land trusts have protected a total of over 9,361,600 acres of natural areas.









California, Maine, and Colorado have the most acreage protected under local and regional land

trusts ("National Land Trust Census," 2005).

In the case of preservation easements, historic preservation groups are commonly the

third party holders. According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, many of the

National Trust's statewide and local partners are easement-holding organizations, and many

State Historic Preservation Offices hold easements as well ("Preservation Easements," 2007).

Although land trusts are generally the holder of conservation easements, historic preservation

groups should not take this to mean that they cannot hold conservation easements protecting

landscapes. The more groups that seek to become holders of these easements, the more

landscapes may be afforded protection.

Cultural landscapes could be protected under either conservation or preservation

easements, depending on which elements of the landscape are being considered those portions

of the landscape representing the natural elements, or those portions representing the human

interaction with the landscape, which are most likely structural. This, however, reinforces the

nature-culture split on even an individual level. Legally permitting, perhaps a new "cultural

landscape" easement could be implemented. This may be possible where easements can be

narrowly drawn to a particular site, and their flexible nature is a valuable tool in protecting the

varied nature of cultural landscapes. However, depending on the size and scope of the cultural

landscape under consideration, obtaining easements to cover the entire cultural landscape may

prove to be an impossible task. Entering into easement agreements with land trusts or other

organizations is an entirely voluntary program on the landowner' s part and is only successful

when landowners willingly seek to enter such agreements. Donation of parcels here and there

could result in a piecemeal assemblage of protected lands.










Individuals have more options in protecting landscapes than easements alone. Deed

restrictions placed on a property's title are another mechanism that can be utilized by individuals

wishing to retain their property in a particular way. Other individual strategies include donating

interests in land, bequeathing land in a will, bargain sales to a protective party, and various estate

planning tools that seek to protect land ("Guide to Conservation Easements and Other Land

Conservation Options," n.d.).

Certified local government status

NHPA was amended in 1980 to create a stronger tie between the federal legislation's

state activities and local government activities. The amendment created Certified Local

Governments (CLG), a designation awarded to communities that have demonstrated a

commitment to preservation through local practice. In order to become a CLG, a community

must have established a historic preservation review board, must have a local surveying system

that mirrors the state system, and must enforce local preservation ordinances. CLG communities

have priority status in receiving federal and state grants for preservation-related initiatives,

including surveying, developing guidelines, writing National Register nominations, preparing

educational materials, and even physical restoration work (Tyler, 2000, p.56-7). Any community

attempting to document and protect a cultural landscape would be well-served in obtaining CLG

status.

Comprehensive planning

A critical aspect of cultural landscape protection is land use, a general reference term for

policies related to land planning. Those interested in cultural landscape protection must become

familiar with the trends, patterns, and concepts involved in land use. This understanding of land

use is especially relevant when addressing a locality's comprehensive plan.










Where individual strategies play an important role in providing options for protection of

cultural landscapes at a local level, they are voluntary programs until chosen for implementation

by an owner. Comprehensive plans, by contrast, are typically made mandatory for localities by

state enabling legislation. Because these plans are often required, plans for cultural landscape

protection should be included in comprehensive plans. This provides a level of security that does

not exist with the other voluntary strategies; further, more localities may explore the voluntary

strategies once the comprehensive plan indicates cultural landscape protection as a valid

community goal.

These plans "set forth a guideline or road map for community development over time"

(Miller, 2004, p.14). Some planning elements may be transportation, economic development,

environmental issues, and future land use decisions (Cullingworth, 1993, p.111l). State

legislation may require or allow a historic preservation element to be included in the plan.

Whether the inclusion is mandatory or not, localities should include a preservation plan. Here

the community can direct how it will seek to protect historic resources, and cultural landscape

protection could be placed in this section, as well as placement in environmental and future land

use sections. A comprehensive plan is an ideal place in which to bridge the gap between natural

and cultural elements.

Comprehensive plans are documents intended to proj ect into the future, and as such, can

express a community's plans for how they wish their region to evolve. Do they want more

business or industry, or do they seek to limit such activities? Do they want to attract more

residential growth or limit it? Comprehensive plans embody these future wishes or goals. The

key to comprehensive planning processes is that they rely heavily on citizen input, and citizens

therefore have a chance to influence the direction of their community's future (Stokes & Watson,










1989, p. 131). Planning commissions that work on the plan also usually consist of community

members. Therefore, community members who are interested in providing for local cultural

landscapes should become involved in the planning process, as their opinions and wishes for the

locality could very well become implemented in the plan.

Supplements to the comprehensive planning process can aid communities in planning for

future growth and development. For example, a Rural Design Manual was produced to

contribute to planning efforts in the Connecticut River Valley of Massachusetts. The Manual

contains aerial views of eight different types of landscapes in the region, and include

representations of the pre-existing landscape and future development. These graphics provide a

tangible example of what certain planning decisions may do to alter the landscape. Text and

model by-laws provide detailed information on how to plan for sensitive development. (Arendt

& Yaro, 1989) Supplemental documentation provides community members and planners with

evidence of how their decisions will shape the future of their area.

The importance of comprehensive planning to cultural landscapes cannot be

underestimated. Cultural landscapes to date are traditionally considered as districts or sites in

historic preservation laws and ordinances, but "preservation ordinances alone can be insufficient

to protect...resources when other governmental programs and policies such as zoning,

transportation, and housing favor new development over... alternatives" (Miller, 2004, p. 11). If

preservation of cultural landscapes are included in these other governmental policies, which are

enumerated in the comprehensive plan, their protection is assured greater success.

Zoning

Zoning is another tool that a locality could use in protecting cultural landscapes. In brief,

zoning is the "municipal power to regulate land use" (Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003, p.1).

Comprehensive zoning, approved in 1926 by the Supreme Court in Village ofEuclid v. Ambler









Realty Co., divides land in cities and counties into zones or districts. Within those zones, the

locality imposes regulations for land use, building height and area, as well as building setbacks

(Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003). Comprehensive zoning is directly linked to comprehensive

planning, zoning is intended to enact the policies espoused within a local comprehensive plan

(Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003). Zoning has evolved from early tendencies towards grid systems to

a complex regulatory, and in certain circumstances, a Einancially-based incentive scheme

involving concepts such as special district zoning, floating zones, overlay zones, floor area ratio,

density transfer, and as mentioned above, transfer of development rights zones (Salsich &

Tryniecki, 2003). An example of Einancially-based incentive zoning is tax-increment Einancing,

or TIF, that put simply, specifies zones in which property taxes are frozen, and any revenue

generated from increased property values is put into a trust that can be drawn from to be used in

the TIF zone ("What is Tax Increment Financing?", 2006). Florida' s legislature recently passed

a bill allowing for a TIF system to be utilized to purchase conservation lands, which could

perhaps be extrapolated for use in protecting cultural landscapes (H.B. 7203, 2007).

Zoning, and the power of a municipality to regulate land use, often collides with

protected property rights of private citizens. Euclid affirmed the ability of municipalities to use

this power, which is derived from what is known as a state's police power. The police power

enables a state to regulate in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the populace

(Salscich & Tryniecki, 2003, p.3). States may then delegate this police power to local

municipalities under state control. Private citizens may challenge land use designations as the

taking of their property without just compensation through a takings claim under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution (Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003, p.3). Drafters of zoning

regulations must take care when drafting so as to not invite takings challenges.









Overlay districts

Creation of overlay districts are incorporated within a locality's zoning power, and

supplement existing zoning regulations. These districts are not independent zoning regulations

in themselves, but are "'laid over' an existing zone or zones in order to further regulate or restrict

certain permitted uses" (Salscich & Tryniecki, 2003, p. 182). Though not independent, overlay

districts are subj ect to the same challenges as a traditional zoning regulation.

Historic districts are a prevalent example of an overlay district. Historic districting

enables a community to preserve properties based on the historic character of an area, regardless

of landmark status (Tappendorf & Cunningham, 2004, p. 115). The historic overlay district

imposes regulations on property owners in the area that typically require an owner to obtain

permission before building, modifying, or destroying a building in the district (Salscich &

Tryniecki, 2003, p. 183). Property owners in the historic district remain subj ect to the underlying

zoning regulations as well.

Loudoun County, Virginia has expanded the traditional historic overlay district by

creating historic and cultural conservation (HCC) districts. The districts were formed in the

1970's in response to property owner demands for better protection of their communities. The

county has six HCC districts; five of these districts are entire towns or villages, and one is rural,

covering more than 10,000 acres of land. In addition to HCC, Loudoun County also has one

historic roadways district, an overlay which protects a network of thirty-two rural roads

connecting two towns. Together, these HCC districts and the roadway district contribute to

preservation of Loudoun County cultural landscapes. Any construction, remodeling, renovation,

reconstruction, or addition of buildings in these districts must be approved by the Historic

District Review Committee. Stringent guidelines must be met before receiving a Certificate of

Appropriateness, after which the applicant must also meet any standard zoning guidelines.









Multi-level review provides extra protection for the special historic, natural, and cultural

resources located within the HCC and roadways district. ("Background," n.d.)

Agricultural districts are another type of overlay, which can provide a way in which to

preserve the rural nature of a landscape or community. Agricultural district provisions vary, but

typically, local governments are limited in restricting farm practices, taking farmland by eminent

domain or annexation, or allowing utility construction. (Stokes & Watson, 1989, p.167).

Agricultural districts are increasingly common; for example, the small state of Delaware has 519

designated Agricultural Preservation districts ("Farmland Preservation in Delaware," 2007).

Potential problems in agricultural districting include the fact that sanctions for withdrawing lands

are minimal and do not deter conversion of land for development, incentives for inclusion are not

beneficial enough to farmers to convince them to be in the district, and the districting process can

be long and difficult (Paster, 2004, p.9).

A newly proposed concept, the thematic resources district (TRD), follows in the tradition

of overlay districts by suggesting a broadened overlay district be implemented where an area to

be protected does not fit into the confines of a more traditional overlay district. Suggested by

Fleming (2007), the TRD is specifically designed to accommodate those spaces or places that

may deserve protection, but do not fall within the strict guidelines for historic preservation. The

A TRD ordinance anticipates needs for protection that may occur within or outside of urban

areas, but regardless begins with "recognition of landscape" and then moves into more specific

criteria (Fleming, 2007, p.680). In a sample TRD drafted by Fleming (2007), a TRD must meet

at least three of the following criteria:

(a) Historic architecture, or an architectural theme or style or character particular
to the area which is deemed an asset to the aesthetic quality, or cultural identity
of the neighborhood;
(b) Natural or historic landscape features represented in natural forest areas,










parks, other public or private landscape themes or designs which are deemed
an asset to the physical character of the district;
(c) Specialized commerce, for example antique districts, agriculture, resort
districts, gallery or market districts, or culturally distinct retail, which is deemed
an economic asset to the district...
(d) A street, or subdivision plan, or development pattern which is specifically
noteworthy for its design or public amenities which is deemed an asset to the
physical or aesthetic character of the district;
(e) Other cultural features which may include but are not limited to archaeological
sites, notable infrastructure improvements, characteristic signage throughout the
area, which are deemed an asset to the aesthetic or cultural character of the
district (p. 684-5).

Cultural landscapes easily meet the minimum suggested in the draft TRD, as the criteria

anticipate historic landscape features as well as those currently utilized through specialized

commerce and through cultural value. Significance is determined by the community as it

"deems an asset" those cultural and aesthetic features that especially contribute to the area.

Fleming (2007) suggests that TRD's will be embraced by those seeking protective

measures, and those typically representing the other side of the spectrum, developers. Those

desiring protection of their unique area will welcome the protective overlay, while developers

and builders will welcome the certainty of specific guidelines that will appease property owners

in the area (Fleming, 2007). Whether the TRD will meet with any measure of success or utility

remains to be seen, but it is a novel concept that may better serve a cultural landscape than would

a traditional historic district overlay. However, dilemmas are present in most overlay districting

concepts and would hold true of any attempts to include cultural landscapes within a defined

overlay district, particularly with regards to size of a cultural landscape, property rights debates

in relation to any restrictions or limitations on use, and long-term overlay district plans.

Purchase or transfer of development rights

Programs for transfer or purchase of development rights, growing in importance and

popularity, represent yet another potential local strategy for cultural landscape protection that









works through local government zoning power. These programs seem complex, but put simply,

"a local government allows development rights that are assigned through zoning to one parcel to

be transferred to another parcel at a different location" (Stokes & Watson, 1989, p.151). This

method of transferring development away from one area enables land to be protected in a similar

fashion to conservation easements, while providing opportunities for development elsewhere.

Using these types of development rights programs would be useful in protecting cultural

landscapes where the entire landscape can be contained within a region. Development could

then be shifted away from that region. Developers purchase the rights to build elsewhere, while

the holder of the rights financially benefits. An attractive option where maintenance of the

landscape is financially burdensome, a purchase or transfer of development rights program

would benefit large cultural landscapes, and could be a win-win situation for both cultural

landscape preservation advocates and developers.

However, the system for transfer or purchase of development rights is complicated, and

requires much time and effort by a locality and interested parties. Garnering public support for

such a proj ect could be difficult and take years to implement. If time is of the essence in

protecting a cultural landscape, development rights programs may not be the ideal solution.

However, if the local government and community are supportive and work to make the program

a success, it could be a valuable tool for protecting cultural landscapes.

Summary

Continued use of differing terminology and a well-established split between

consideration of natural elements versus consideration of cultural elements on national and state

levels indicates that perhaps the best protective options for cultural landscapes exist on the local

level, where more immediate change may occur. Local-level policies may have more flexibility

in adapting to inclusion of cultural landscape protection than would state and national legislation,









and advocating for cultural landscape protection may be simpler to address on a local level.

Planning and zoning in particular, as local tools, are suited to cultural landscape considerations

as they encompass land use planning on a community-wide scale, and provide opportunities for

community members to get involved. Focusing on state delegation of planning and zoning

powers in the next chapter will illustrate the options a local community has in providing for

significant cultural landscapes in their area.









CHAPTER 4
PROTECTIVE MECHANISMS: FLORIDA

Because Florida has a nationally-recognized state planning process, as well as distinctive

landscapes, the state is a natural choice to evaluate planning and zoning as a protection strategy

for cultural landscapes. Initial review of Florida' s current state legislation and cultural

designations and ascertaining their effectiveness in protection illustrates how planning and

zoning strategies may best serve cultural landscapes in the state. Delegation of planning and

zoning authority to local governments in Florida will indicate how and if cultural landscape

protection can be included by localities as part of their planning and zoning powers.

Florida Legislation and Cultural Designations

On the state level, Florida has current legislation that could be useful in protecting

cultural landscapes, although nothing exists that is analogous to New Mexico's Historic

Landscape Act. Florida's historic and cultural resources act, commonly known as the "Florida

Historical Resources Act," (2007) provides for heritage resources in the state. This statutory

provision creates a Division of Historical Resources, provides for the office of the SHPO,

establishes a central inventory of historic resources in the state called the Florida Master Site

File, creates a historic preservation grant program, and contains other information relevant to

specific historic areas in the state. As with NHPA, the Florida Historic Resources Act (2007)

defines historic resources as districts, sites, buildings, obj ects, other real or personal property of

historic, architectural, or archaeological value, and folklife resources. Landscapes are not

mentioned; presumably, however, Floridian cultural landscapes could potentially be included as

districts as they are on the national level.

Unfortunately, the Division of Historical Resources in their publication Plan2ning for the

Past: Preserving Florida 's Heritage 2006-2010 (2006) mentions cultural landscapes only one










time, and only in reference to the state park system's oversight of historic resources. The Florida

Department of Environmental Protection houses a Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources that

seeks to "coordinate and standardize the effective preservation of the natural and cultural

resources in Florida State Parks ("Mission Statement," 2007). At least two Bureau staff

members are charged with training Parks staff in management and treatments for cultural

landscapes ("Staff Functions," 2007). Yet this State Park recognition of cultural landscapes has

somehow failed to expand its reach to the Division of Historical Resources, aside from the brief

mention in the Division planning document.

Additionally, the Division provides no information on cultural landscapes, and there is no

state-sponsored landscape inventory ("Office of Cultural and Historical Programs," 2007).

These factors, in conjunction with no mention in Plan2ning for the Pa~st, indicate that cultural

landscapes are not on the radar of the Division, and will not be at least until the next plan

revision in 2010. The Division does oversee heritage trails that reflect the experience of

particular groups in Florida, such as women and African-Americans. While these trails explore

sites in Florida that are culturally significant, they do not necessarily explore the interaction

between the groups and the land, which is more indicative of cultural landscape study.

Landscapes are more commonly addressed in Florida through legislation that provides for

natural lands protection, representative of the split between consideration of cultural elements

and natural elements. Such is the case in the Florida Forever program, which provides for public

acquisition and conservation of lands in the state. Through this program, the state or another

public entity negotiates with land owners to purchase their property, and the property then

remains in conservation. Florida Forever is a valuable program in protecting natural areas for

conservation purposes, but does not by design incorporate cultural resources. Conservation lands









are also not necessarily retained as working or living landscapes, which implies something

different than a cultural landscape. The Florida Forever program is, however, a very successful

land acquisition program that has protected millions of acres and demonstrates a state

commitment to land conservation. ("Florida Forever," 2007).

Florida Forever provides funding for the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), which

"provides funding to local governments and eligible non-profit environmental organizations for

acquisition of community-based parks, open space and greenways that further outdoor recreation

and natural resource protection needs identified in local government comprehensive plans"

("What is Florida Communities Trust?," n.d.). FCT may enable local communities to receive

funding for open space that they may not be able to Einancially support otherwise. Considering

local cultural landscapes within this program is a possibility, although the program emphasizes

natural resource protection.

Despite a lack of integrated state legislation, a few programs in Florida acknowledge the

interconnectedness of natural and cultural resources as reflected through cultural landscapes.

Florida has a scenic highway program, similar to the national program, and operated through the

Florida Department of Transportation, that can be viewed as a potential alternative strategy to

highlight cultural landscape recognition. The scenic highway program recognizes the

combination of natural and cultural elements in Florida that provide benefits to the community

through "resource preservation, enhancement and protection" ("Program Review," n.d.). A

representative state scenic highway is the Old Florida Heritage Highway located in Alachua

County. Showcasing US 441 and its connector roads, the Old Florida Heritage Highway helps

"preserve the natural and cultural integrity of this unique North Florida road by linking the road









and the people who use it through advocacy, education, scenic resource protection and roadway

and corridor enhancements" ("Vision Statement," 2007).

Another agency, the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council, in conjunction with

the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, has integrated cultural and natural resources through

implementation of an Eco-Heritage Corridor along the St. Johns River in northeast Florida. The

mission of this project is to "celebrate the cultural, historical, natural and outdoor recreational

significance of the St. Johns River" ("Objectives, Mission, and Goals for the St. Johns Eco-

Heritage Corridor," n.d.). An Eco-Heritage Corridor is defined as an area of natural, cultural,

and historical significance that has a special characteristic which defines its history, community,

culture and ecology, and where community events, cultural sites, and natural resources are

inspired by a unique attribute ("What is an Eco-Heritage Corridor?," n.d.). The St. Johns Eco-

Heritage Corridor proj ect hopes to encourage community involvement and attract tourists to

appreciate the special cultural and natural features of the area. This Corridor exemplifies a

significant cultural landscape in Florida, and presents an opportunity to inspire new resource

protection initiatives in the state and across the country.

Given that Florida has not adopted state-wide initiatives beyond the traditional method of

providing separately for either cultural or natural protection, comprehensive planning and zoning

may be the ideal way for local communities to seek protection of cultural landscapes. Planning

and zoning allows for local consideration of significant spaces that could be overlooked by state

initiatives, and is an ideal mechanism to consider cultural and natural elements that are unique to

a particular region.

Florida's Comprehensive Planning Authority

Florida is known for its state-level role in comprehensive planning, enacted pursuant to

the Growth Management Act, legislation that can play a role in protection of cultural landscapes.









Through the Growth Management Act, the state legislature delegated the creation of mandatory

comprehensive plans to local entities. Florida is a home rule state, meaning that localities may

adopt legislation so long as it is not specifically prohibited by the state legislature (Ziegler,

Rathkopf, & Rathkopf, 2007, @20.21). Home rule is in contrast to a Dillon's rule state, where

localities cannot adopt any legislation unless it has been specifically authorized and enabled by

the state legislature (Ziegler, Ziegler, & Rathkopf, 2007, @20.19). Home rule may provide

Florida communities more flexibility in the planning process that other states who follow

Dillon' s rule may not enj oy.

Florida Statute (163.3177 enumerates the required and optional elements of

comprehensive plans. Per gl63.3177(6)(a), comprehensive plans must include a future land use

plan element. This element must contain "proposed future general distribution, location, and

extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation,

conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other

categories of the public and private uses of land" (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes,

2007). Land use maps produced according to this element must identify and depict historic

district boundaries and must designate historically significant properties meriting protection,

activities that would be considered in conjunction with a localities' zoning authority. Florida

Statute gl63.3177(6)(d) requires that a comprehensive plan include a conservation element for

the "conservation, use, and protection of natural resources in the area" (Florida Comprehensive

Planning Statutes, 2007), and this element addresses such natural resources as air, water,

wetlands, marshes, beaches, shores, rivers, lakes, forests, Eisheries, and wildlife habitat.

Florida Statute gl63.3177(6)(g) addresses communities located on either the Gulf Coast

or Atlantic Ocean and requires these communities to enact a coastal management element










(Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007). This element must include policies that relate

to the following, in addition to several others: maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of the

overall quality of the coastal zone environment, including but not limited to amenities and

aesthetic values; orderly and balanced utilization and preservation, consistent with sound

conservation principles of all living and nonliving coastal zone resources; and preservation,

including sensitive adaptive use of historic and archaeological resources. Each of these

considerations includes elements indicative of a cultural landscape, yet a similar management

plan is not included for other geographic regions of the state, such as an inland or rural zone.

Separately from the planning process, the Coastal Management Program, a state program

that coordinates efforts to protect the state's coastal resources, operates the Waterfronts Florida

Partnership Program. Waterfronts Florida assists local communities revitalize their waterfront

areas, and "targets environmental resource protection, public access, retention of viable

traditional waterfront economies, and hazard mitigation" ("Waterfronts Florida Partnership

Program," n.d.). The concept behind Waterfronts Florida could perhaps be expanded to consider

other state cultural landscapes, such as rural or inland landscapes, that also merit protection.

For the time being, rural areas are afforded protection in comprehensive planning through

~163.3177(11)(d), which authorizes what is known as the Florida Rural Lands Stewardship

program (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007) and enables local governments to

classify agricultural, rural, open, open-rural, or an equivalent land use as rural land stewardship

areas. Within these areas, planning and economic incentives are used to encourage "innovative

and flexible" planning and "creative" land use planning techniques (Florida Comprehensive

Planning Statutes, 2007, gl63.3177(11)(d)(1 )). The purpose behind this provision is to restore

and maintain the value of rural land, control urban sprawl, identify and protect ecosystems,









promote rural economic activity, maintain the viability of the agricultural economy, and protect

the character of rural areas of Florida (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007,

~163.3177(1 1)(d)(2)). Rural land stewardship areas must not be less than 10,000 acres, and must

be outside urban growth areas (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007,

~163.3177(11 )(d)(4)). This program relies on newer planning techniques that include "urban

villages, new towns, satellite communities, clustering and open-space provisions, and mixed-use

developments" (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007, gl63.3177(11)(b)), as well as a

credit-based market incentive program that operates similarly to a transfer or purchase of

development rights program (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007,

~163.3177(11 )(d)(4)).

Notably, the Rural Lands Stewardship program is included within a section of the statute

that begins by stating, "[t]he Legislature recognizes the need for innovative planning and

development strategies which will address anticipated demands of continued urbanization...the

Legislature further recognizes the substantial advantages of innovative approaches which may

better protect [environmentally sensitive lands and rural land uses]" (Florida Comprehensive

Planning Statutes, 2007, gl63.3177(11)(a)). Fortunately, this statement indicates an open-

mindedness on the Legislature's part, and the integration of cultural landscape protection and

planning could perhaps be considered one of these innovative approaches in the future.

Protection of historic resources is not required in local comprehensive plans, in contrast

to the mandatory inclusion of natural resources in the conservation element, and instead are an

optional element of comprehensive plans, per gl63.3177(7) (Florida Comprehensive Planning

Statutes, 2007). Communities may choose to include "a historical and scenic preservation

element setting out plans and programs for those structures or lands in the area having historical,









archaeological, architectural, scenic, or similar significance" (Florida Comprehensive Planning

Statutes, 2007, gl63.3177(7)(i)). Interestingly, this provision incorporates "lands" specifically,

and is broad in including scenic significance, as well as traditional historical, archaeological, and

architectural significance. The addition of the language "similar significance" is arguably

expansive enough to include cultural significance; coupled with the inclusion of lands, cultural

landscapes could potentially be included in comprehensive plans in this element. Where it is not

specifically prohibited by the state legislature, a community could attempt to include protection

of cultural landscapes, especially in light of the Legislature' s acknowledged interest in

innovative planning.

Compliance with (163.3177 also requires compliance with rules promulgated pursuant to

the statute. Under 9J-5.006 (2007), which addresses specifics of the future land use element as

required by gl63.3 177(6), protection of natural resources and historic resources must be included

in the future land use "goals, objectives and policies" section. This mandatory inclusion seems

contradictory in light of the historic element' s optional status; however, the rule must exist to

provide some consideration of these resources overall, whether or not an individual element is

written. Cultural landscapes could also be referenced in the portions of the plan natural and

historic resources protection.

Overall, while the comprehensive planning enabling statute provides elements in which

cultural landscapes could be included, the statute reflects the dichotomy of preservation of the

natural environment versus preservation of the historic or built environment. No provision exists

envisioning the natural and human-made environment together, though the coastal zone

management program comes close in its contemplation of the overall quality of the coastal

environment including amenities, conservation of living and nonliving elements, and use of









historic resources. This broadened focus, coupled with the preservation of significant lands, and

an encouragement of innovative techniques gives hope of a more integrated approach in the

future that addresses the interconnectedness of natural and built environments.

In addition to mandating and overseeing content of comprehensive plans, the Legislature

has enacted other provisions intended to guide planning in the state. For example, gl63.3202(1),

Fla. Stat. requires that within one year after a locality's submission of its comprehensive plan for

state review, part of the comprehensive planning process, the locality must adopt or amend land

development regulations. These regulations are intended to implement provisions of the

comprehensive plan, and further, the land development regulations provision is to be interpreted

as encouraging the use of innovative land development regulations (Zelin, 2007, (134).

Effects of local planning on a regional scale is considered in the required

intergovernmental coordination element of a localities' comprehensive plan (Florida

Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007, gl63.3177(6)(h)). This element considers coordination

among local government bodies, and requires that a local plan consider its effect on adj acent

municipalities, the county, adj acent counties, and the region. The Florida Regional Planning

Council Act supplements the intergovernmental coordination element, and was enacted in order

to establish a system of coordination and cooperation amongst local governments in a region.

Regional planning councils assist local governments in their region with technical planning

assistance and also undertake creation of regional policy plans. This Act seeks to provide a

mechanism by which to address issues of regional concern, such as growth-related problems

(Zelin, 2007, (103). Where cultural landscapes are of large scope covering more than one

county, regional planning would be of particular value.









Florida's Zoning Authority

Where planning is a nebulous process intended to guide a community's evolution over

time, zoning is the concrete counterpart, restricting use of lands for a particular purpose. Initial

zoning efforts began in Florida as early as 1920, when certain individuals across the state created

an organization to lobby for state-wide implementation of planning and zoning legislation. After

many years and much effort, Florida finally adopted its first planning and zoning legislation in

1969. Zoning has since then become a firmly entrenched practice in Florida.

Zoning is a legislative power that resides with the state, and is delegated to a local

authority (Zelin, 2007, @99). Zoning was upheld as constitutionally valid in 1926, and cases in

Florida dating from 1930 uphold the practice. In Florida, zoning must be delegated to a local

authority by statute or ordinance, and zoning powers may only be delegated to an elected body as

it is a legislative power (Zelin, 2007, (100). Further, zoning regulations must be reasonable and

must be related to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community in order

to withstand challenge (Zelin, 2007, (185). This legal requirement is of particular importance

when considering the use of any innovative zoning strategies, especially in protecting cultural

landscapes, as any provision must be related to public health, safety, and welfare.

Planning + Zoning = Best Protection for Cultural Landscapes

Given that Florida is lacking in state-level legislation and programs designed to address

cultural landscapes, planning and zoning are the best option for protecting landscapes, as they do

provide the state basis for land use decisions. Encouragement of innovative planning and

delegation to the localities to make the best choices for their communities in planning and zoning

leaves plenty of room for local governments to potentially include cultural landscapes in their

planning and zoning policies. Because planning and zoning do occur at the local level,









communities are afforded an opportunity to address protection for important landscapes that may

not merit inclusion in state or national programs.









CHAPTER 5
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE SITE STUDY: MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA


In further narrowing the study of protection of cultural landscapes through planning and

zoning, considering a local site to evaluate how state planning legislation and programs are

incorporated on a local level is useful. Highlighting an agrarian cultural landscape demonstrates

a traditional method of human interaction with Florida lands. From there, selecting a local

region, Marion County, exploring its history and current threats to the landscape, and identifying

the local cultural landscape characteristics provides a suitable background from which to

evaluate planning and zoning protections.

Agrarian Culture

Florida

Despite being well-known for its sunny beaches and Disney World, Florida is also one of

the top agricultural producers in the country. According to United States Department of

Agriculture (2007), Florida is second among all the states in the export of "other" agricultural

products, which includes sugar and tropical products, minor oilseeds, essential oils, beverages

other than juice, nursery and greenhouse, wine, and misc. vegetable products. Florida ranks third

among states in the export of fruits, fifth among states in the export of vegetables, and sixth

among states in seed exports ("USDA Florida Fact Sheet," 2007). Palm Beach and Miami-Dade

counties, famously known as vacation destinations, are the top two agricultural exporting

counties in the state of Florida ("USDA FL-Fact-Sheet," 2007).

Florida' s agrarian nature can be traced back to as early as A.D. 750 (Milanich, 1996, p.6),

when evidence shows cultivation of corn in what is now northern Florida. Florida was largely

rural and agricultural until the 1930's and 1940's, but the mid-twentieth century represents a

major shift in Florida's evolution. During the 1960's and 1970's, almost 500 new residents per










day moved to Florida (Colbum, 1996, p.364). Florida became less like other southeastern states,

and instead resembled booming states such as Texas and California (Colbum, 1996, p.364).

Although still important to the state's economy, agriculture began to take a backseat to

construction, technology, and tourism.

Today, agriculture and the agrarian lifestyle continues to be an important part of Florida.

In 2006, Florida's agriculture industry created over 756,993 jobs and had an overall economic

impact of $87.6 billion annually ("Florida Agriculture Statistical Highlights," 2006). Also in

2006, Florida ranked first in the United States for sales of snap beans, tomatoes, cucumbers for

market and pickling, bell peppers, squash and watermelon, as well as first in the nation for value

of production of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines and sugar cane ("Florida Agriculture Statistical

Highlights," 2006). Florida was second in the nation in sales of greenhouse products, sweet

corn, and strawberries ("Florida Agriculture Statistical Highlights," 2006). Florida is a major

contributor to the national and international food supply, yet agriculture and the agrarian lifestyle

continues to be a part of Florida' s culture that is not as readily identifiable as that of beaches,

space centers, Mickey Mouse, and golf.

Marion County

Marion County, in north central Florida, exemplifies the state's agrarian cultural

landscape, with much of the county's history linked to agricultural success (Ott & Chazal, 1966).

Until the 1930's, agricultural products from the county included corn, cotton, oranges, and

livestock. However, traditional forms of agriculture in the county began to lose its stronghold

when a successful limerock construction businessman residing in Marion County, Carl Rose,

became interested in raising thoroughbreds after a stint on the State Racing Commission. Rose

purchased a mare for breeding purposes in the late 1930's and established Rosemere Farm,

Marion County's first thoroughbred farm (Johnson 1993). By 1945, Rosemere Farm was the










largest breeding farm in Florida (Johnson, 1993). The Florida Thoroughbred Breeders'

Association recognized the importance of the emerging Marion County farms by holding their

first meeting in the area in 1947 (Johnson, 1993). Rosemere horses began winning in races

across the Eastern seaboard, and by 1949, the M~iami Herald stated, "Don't be surprised if Ocala

becomes the Lexington of Florida" (Johnson, 1993, p.128). In approximately ten years, Rose

managed to transform Marion County's agricultural focus from traditional livestock to

thoroughbred breeding.

Horse breeding in Marion County became a success largely due to the geography of the

region. Marion County is located on the Ocala Ridge, a topographic area that rises 300 feet

above sea level, and contains many springs that prevent stagnant water (Johnson, 1993). The

limestone base of the earth holds moisture, and contributes to calcium-rich grass and water.

Other places in the world that share this unique soil structure are Kentucky and Ireland, both

thoroughbred centers (Johnson, 1993). Enormous live oak trees provide shade against the

Florida heat (Johnson, 1993).

Rose encouraged others to establish horse farms in the area, and nationally-recognized

trainers and breeders, attracted by the winning Florida horses, moved to Marion County

(Johnson, 1993). The traditional agricultural landscape of Marion County shifted, and began to

resemble horse country in Kentucky. Rolling hills became dotted with woven wire fencing

topped with wooden boards, white board fencing appeared around barns, and the barns

themselves replaced open sheds (Johnson, 1993). Grasses, developed in part by the University

of Florida, were planted that better withstood the occasional winter frost, and experimental hays

and oats were grown in order to find the best feed for the horses. White fences, in time, were

painted black, which proved easier to maintain (Johnson, 1993).









Florida and Marion County gained national recognition as a thoroughbred breeding

center when Rose was elected president of the National Association of Thoroughbred Breeders

in the 1950's (Johnson, 1993). Needles, Florida' s first national champion in 1955, provided

further recognition for the area. Needles, from Dickey Stables in Marion County, went on to win

the Kentucky Derby in 1956 and thus firmly cemented Marion County's place in the

thoroughbred industry (Johnson, 1993).

Nationally known horse farms began sending their young horses to Marion County to

train (Johnson, 1993). During the 1960's, the thoroughbred industry in the area became

increasingly commercialized, and horse farm owners shifted from breeding and raising horses for

racing to selling the horses after initial training, as sales proved more lucrative than racing purses

(Johnson, 1993). An increased emphasis on sales continued, and by 1974, the Ocala Breeders'

Sales Company was one of the largest horse sales companies in the world (Johnson, 1993).

Large-scale commercial horse farms began to dominate the Marion County landscape.

This equine tradition continues today, and in 1997, Marion County had more horses and

ponies than any other county in the United States ("Horses and Ponies Inventory"), lending

credence to the county's status as "Horse Capital of the World." Almost every breed of horse is

represented in the farms of Marion County, and over the years, Ocala' s farms have produced 41

national champions, six Kentucky Derby winners, nineteen Breeders' Cup champions, and six

horses of the year (Ocala/Marion County Visitor' s Guide, 2007). The region is home to more

than 75% of the 600 thoroughbred farms in the state, and hosts numerous national equine events.

The investment in breeding farms, training centers, and breeding and racing stock has an

estimated economic impact of $1 billion dollars. ("Florida Horse Industry, n.d.) The Ocala

Breeders' Sales Company alone sells over $100 million dollars worth of thoroughbreds a year










(Ocala/Marion County Visitor' s Guide, 2007). In addition to farms and equine event facilities,

the equine-related industry in the area includes equine medical facilities, equine publications,

equine facility construction, horse transport, professional fence installation, equine retail, and

equine-oriented real estate (Horse Capital Digest, 2007). Marion County's horse industry is a

way of life, and a unique cultural landscape.

Marion County's Landscape in Danger

Agricultural land is lost in increasing quantities at a rapid pace; estimates indicate two

acres of farmland are lost every minute ("What' s Happening to Our Farmland?," 2007). For

every rural acre that is saved, sixteen acres are lost to development (Grossi, 1999, p. 15). To put

this rate of development in perspective, consider that within a span of 45 years, Los Angeles

went from being a nationwide top-producing farm county to being better known as a sprawling

mega-city (Grossi, 1999, p.15). Numerous sources document the loss of greenfields, or

undeveloped land, as cities continue to sprawl outward.

Florida does not differ from national trends, and dire predictions have been made about

the fate of Florida agriculture as development and population increase. Population is expected to

boom in the state, expanding from approximately 17 million in 2005 to over 35 million in 2060.

Notably, the "physical manifestation of population growth is land use change" (Zwick & Carr,

2006, p. 1). The Florida 2060 project, conducted by the 1000 Friends of Florida in conjunction

with the University of Florida, estimates that by 2060 almost seven million acres of land will

need to be developed in order to accommodate the burgeoning population. This acreage is

expected to be taken from what is currently land in agricultural use or in pristine use for wildlife.

The study operates from a presumption that no more land than is currently in protected

conservation as of 2005 will be added to conservation holdings, in order to stress the importance

of what could occur without additional conservation acquisitions (Zwick & Carr, 2006).









Florida 2060 estimates that Marion County south through Osceola County will be entirely

urbanized within the next 50 years, and population growth and conversion of undeveloped land

to developed land in the area will be "explosive" (Zwick & Carr, 2006, p. 11). This pattern is

evident in land use changes in Marion County that have occurred in the past 50 years. For

example, the land that was Carl Rose's Rosemere Farm and Ocala Stud is now home to the

Paddock Shopping Mall and Central Florida Community College (Johnson, 1993). Although

adapting to the needs of a growing community and accommodating some development is

necessary, the conversion of the farm that introduced the equine industry to Marion County into

a shopping center is indicative of what the future may hold for the region. Statistics indicate that

from 1987 to 2002, Marion County lost 40,512 acres of farmland ("Guide to Conservation

Easements and Other Land Conservation Options," n.d.). Smaller farms face increased pressure

because new development increases property values and tax burdens on neighboring land; these

burdens often become too high for a small farm and their best option is to sell ("Guide to

Conservation Easements and Other Land Conservation Options," n.d.). If Florida 2060 estimates

are accurate, Marion County's population could double from a current 300,000 people to almost

700,000 people in 2060 (Zwick & Carr, 2006).

Therefore, protection of Marion County's equine industry and agrarian landscape, a

significant cultural asset and booster to the local economy, is necessary. In addition to some of

the programs available in Florida that may provide protection for cultural landscapes, there are

other initiatives underway targeting agricultural land preservation in particular. The

Conservation Trust for Florida (CTF) operates a "Protecting Horse Country" program, which

encourages the donation of conservation easements as a means of saving horse farms in the area

("Protecting Horse Country," 2007). CTF's guidebook to protecting horse country also informs










landowners of options for land conservation that are available through federal tax credits, state

programs such as Florida Forever, and individual strategies such as easements and deed

restrictions.

The Florida Earth Foundation (FEF), a public-private partnership created to address

sustainable natural systems, has been hosting forums on the future of agricultural lands as

development pressures increase. In June 2007, FEF hosted a forum specifically addressing

Central Florida's agricultural lands, and provided participants with information about growth

management and conservation of natural resources ("FLUI Central Florida Forum," 2007).

Similarly, the Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association hosted panels at their 2007

conference discussing preservation of agricultural lands in the state and how to best plan for rural

areas ("FAPA 2007 Conference," 2007). These programs and events demonstrate an awareness

of the importance of preserving these rural lands, and outcomes from these events may have the

possibility of increasing agricultural lands protection in the state.

As this awareness continues to grow, Florida 2060 as presented by 1000 Friends of

Florida may not come to fruition. Instead, a future more akin to the Florida 2060 Alternative

Scenario, created by the University of Central Florida in conjunction with the University of

Pennsylvania, may occur. The 2060 Alternative operates from the same population increase

assumption as Florida 2060, and recognizes that urban land use will increase while the acreage of

agricultural and pristine lands will decrease. However, through tools such as agriculture and

conservation easements, the study proposes that more land go into conservation than

development, and highlights reduced power and fuel consumption, mass transit, and compact

development as a way to accommodate more people without eradicating the rural landscape.

("Florida 2060: We Can Do Better," 2007) Though this study puts a positive spin on Florida' s










future, it also makes many assumptions that may not occur in the near future, such as maj or high-

speed railways connecting the state's urban areas.

Both Florida 2060 and the Florida 2060 Alternative represent extreme ends of the

spectrum. The reality is likely somewhere in the middle, meaning that development of

agricultural lands is unavoidable. Taking measures now to identify particularly significant

agricultural areas, or trying to ensure that predominantly agricultural landscapes stay that way for

future production, is critical. Staunch preservationists may argue that the current cultural

landscape does not display historic features yet worthy of protection. However, utilizing the

definition of cultural landscapes adopted for this study, contemporary cultural landscapes

demonstrating heritage through evolution of the land over time should not be discounted,

especially where there is a recognizable threat. While organizations such as CTF and FEF are

taking measures now to protect this landscape, they cannot do it alone, and additional strategies

must be considered.

Marion County's Agrarian Cultural Landscape

Given that Marion County remains largely an agricultural area, and its reputation rests on

an agrarian industry, horse farming, the rural cultural landscape of the region is evident.

Focusing on the county's cultural landscape is an innovative way of securing increased

protection for the area. "The vast maj ority of cultural landscapes...have developed without the

direct involvement of a professional designer, planner, or engineer...these ordinary, or

vernacular landscapes...are fundamental to our very existence. The most obvious land-use type

within this category of the cultural landscape is agriculture" (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.5). As

Marion County faces population increases and the threat of development, identifying the

significant agricultural areas of the county as a cultural landscape and seeking protective

mechanisms is especially relevant. Though the region does have developed sites, such as Ocala,









Dunnellon, and Silver Springs, the rural, agrarian portions of the county bring special character

to Marion County and exemplify traditional use of these lands as they have been so used since

Florida's early days.

Overview of Rural Cultural Landscape Characteristics

Melnick (1987) proposes a three-tiered system for rural landscapes: physiographic,

ecological, and historical and cultural. Each element of the system must be considered

independently prior to beginning a formalized survey of the area. Physiographic considerations

include topography, predominant vegetation, and water resources; in other words, the natural

"backdrop against which the rural landscape is set" (Melnick, 1987, p.23). Evaluating the

ecological context requires a study of natural elements that comprise the landscape, such as

hydrology, soils, vegetation patterns and biotic communities, and a study of how these elements

have responded to human intervention. Historical and cultural considerations involve settlement

patterns, demography, social forces, political events, economic trends, and anthropological

studies, as well as archaeological surveys (Melnick, 1987, p.24).

McClelland, Keller, Keller, & Melnick (1999), on behalf of the National Park Service,

promulgated a list of eleven characteristics of the rural landscape that expands upon Melnick' s

prior system of evaluating rural cultural landscapes (Table 4-1). Four of the NPS characteristics

embody the processes involved in shaping the land, while the remaining seven incorporate

physical components of the landscape into the identification procedure. The first characteristic,

land use and activities, seeks to identify the primary use of the rural land in question, whether it

be farming, mining, ranching, recreation, industry, and so on. The second characteristic, patterns

of spatial organization, reflects the physical organization of land based on a variety of factors

including politics and the economy, as well as natural systems. Third, the response to the natural

environment, considers major natural features that shaped land settlement. The last of the










processes and the fourth characteristic, cultural traditions, looks at the way religion, social

customs, ethnicity, and skills are reflected in the landscape. (McClelland, Keller, Keller, &

Melnick, 1999)

The physical components of rural landscapes, comprising the remaining seven NPS

characteristics, include circulation networks, boundary demarcations, vegetation related to land

use, buildings, structures, and objects, clusters, archaeological sites, and small-scale elements.

Circulation networks are systems for transporting people and materials. Boundary demarcations

separate land uses and define property ownership; vegetation related to land use may serve the

same purpose, but overall refers to crops, shrubs, and the like, whether planted intentionally or

not. Buildings, structures, and objects refers to the physical components used to adapt the

landscape to human needs. Clusters are repeating occurrences of a particular component in a

landscape, such as fencing or groups of outbuildings. Archaeological sites are representative of

the landscape's history, and small-scale elements include such things as road signs or fence posts

that add to the setting. (McClelland, Keller, Keller, & Melnick, 1999) These characteristics

mirror those utilized by O'Donnell (2005), who refers to "character-defining features" of a

landscape, which include: land uses and patterns, spatial organization and visual relationships,

topography, vegetation, circulation systems and elements, water features and drainage systems,

non-habitable structures and buildings, and site furnishing and obj ects.

All of the above characteristics as listed by Melnick (1987), McClelland, Keller, Keller,

& Melnick (1999), and O'Donnell (2005) consider natural elements and manmade additions to

the landscape that contribute to a cultural landscape. Nomenclature of a "rural" landscape is

synonymous in this instance with "cultural" landscape. Therefore, utilizing the framework of the

rural historic landscape helps identify characteristics that embody a rural cultural landscape.









Marion County's Rural Cultural Landscape Characteristics

The equine industry in Marion County has contributed heavily to the area's larger

cultural landscape, and this landscape exemplifies the elements of a rural landscape identified by

Melnick (1987), McClelland, Keller, Keller, & Melnick (1999), and O'Donnell (2005). The

most detailed of the three is McClelland, Keller, Keller, & Melnick' s (1999) system, and

utilizing their framework provides an instructive methodology for evaluating Marion County's

landscape characteristics (Table 4-2). The first element, land use and activities, is demonstrated

in Marion County through its continued use of the land for agricultural activities, as has occurred

in Florida and the county for thousands of years. Though the nature of agriculture has shifted

throughout the county's history, it has always been a contributor to the region' s way of life and

represents a continual interaction between humans and the landscape (Figure 4-1).

Similarly, patterns of spatial organization in the county are reflected through human's

division of land into agricultural parcels that shape the landscape. These open spaces maintained

for agriculture are in contrast to and separate from the more urban portions of the county. The

horse farm in particular utilizes a particular pattern of spatial organization, whereby the overall

land is divided into separate spaces for separate activities, such as grazing, training, or racing.

Each of these separate spaces are maintained in a different way for their different purposes

(Figures 4-2 and 4-3).

The size of agricultural parcels differs, most likely due to the wealth of the landowner,

but political and social factors also drive spatial organization, as would natural features present

in the landscape. These natural features influencing location and organization, the third element

recognized by the NPS, are represented by the hilly terrain and fertile soils of the county, as well

as the temperate climate. Most significantly, the limestone ridge running through Marion









County profoundly influenced, and continues to influence, the siting of the equine industry

(Figure 4-4).

Cultural traditions have undoubtedly shaped the landscape. Although Native Americans

no longer comprise the population in the area, their agrarian lifestyle has been continued by

present day inhabitants, and the rural culture predominates. Farmers have shifted and shaped the

landscape to best suit their trade, and their skills are specifically tied to the land on which they

live and work. Agrarian practices shaped by the equine industry create a way of life that is

shared within this community, and lends to the rural culture of the region. The equine industry

brings its own social traditions to the area, evidenced by equine associations, equine

publications, and events centered around the horse (Figures 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7).

Physical elements of rural Marion County are unique to horse farms, and easily

identifiable, contributing to the overall cultural landscape. Circulation networks in the area have

evolved from dirt paths, to railroad, to paved interstates, but all have served the functions

necessary to agricultural transport. Historically, springs and rivers provided access to outlying

areas. Today, two airports service the county. However, roadways remain the primary means of

circulation, particularly in relation to transporting horses (Figure 4-8). Often these tree-lined

roads meander through countryside, leading the county to designate many of its roadways

"Scenic Roads" ("Scenic Roads," 2004).

Boundary demarcations of the rural landscape are present mostly in the form of fencing,

which varies between white, black, unpainted wood, and metal. Fencing not only delineates land

held by different property owners, it also serves to create spaces within a single property for use

as corrals, paddocks, and racetracks. Fences are one of the predominant features of the Marion

County landscape (Figure 4-9).










Vegetation in the county is still represented on some farms through traditional

agricultural crops, but large trees also comprise the vegetation element, as they provide much

needed shade for horses from the Florida sun (Figure 4-10). Buildings present on the maj ority of

farms reflect outbuildings necessary for equine activities, such as housing, training, and racing.

These buildings are typically grouped within proximity to each other, and reflect a particular

architectural style. Some buildings are more ornate or differ in size, depending on the farm

(Figure 4-1 1). Structures in the region include fencing, wells, and troughs, while obj ects include

equipment needed in farming, such as trucks, tractors, horse trailers, and the like (Figure 4-12).

Clusters occur throughout the county; grouped outbuildings such as barns and training

facilities often appear (Figure 4-13). In some instances, these groupings may include a

residential building for the farm owner. Fences also appear in groups, as they not only surround

the farm overall, but also serve to create smaller pieces of land within the larger parcel of land

for use as paddocks and training sites. Archaeological sites in the county include the Fort King

site, which although no longer standing, is the source of ongoing archaeological investigations

("Archaeologists digging up Fort King' s Past," 2003). The Fort King site has been designated a

National Historic Landmark by the NPS (Figure 4-14). Seasonal bales of hay, ornate signs and

gates identifying the entrance to individual horse farms, and equestrian-crossing signs are

examples of small-scale elements in the county (Figures 4-15, 4-16, and 4-17).

Overall, Marion County's landscape characteristics are in many ways directly analogous

to the Bluegrass region of Kentucky, a cultural landscape whose farms, horse barns, paddocks,

fences, and tree-lined roads have been identified as in danger by the World Monument Fund

("Bluegrass Cultural Landscape of Kentucky," 2006). Though perhaps not as well known,

Marion County's cultural landscape is no less significant or worthy of protection, and no less in










danger than that of Kentucky's horse farms. The equine industry in Marion County is a maj or

economic and cultural contributor to the region, and without this industry, the character and

economy of the area would be sufficiently depleted. Evaluating protective mechanisms for this

equine-oriented agrarian landscape is a matter better considered now than later.

Existing Planning & Zoning Regulations

As previously discussed, planning and zoning can be an important strategy in the

protection of cultural landscapes. Planning allows for inclusion of cultural landscapes in

considering an area' s future, and zoning acts as a way to restrict land uses in a way that favors

cultural landscape protection. Evaluating Marion County's existing planning and zoning

demonstrates how the equine cultural landscape of the area is currently addressed, and highlights

room for improvement.

Marion County's Comprehensive Plan

Reviewing Marion County's comprehensive plan provides insight into how the region's

unique cultural landscape is addressed in governmental policy. Marion County's plan currently

provides for landscape preservation primarily in the Future Land Use Element, last revised in

March 2005. The primary goal for this element is to ensureue that the character and location of

land uses maximizes the potential for economic benefit while protecting the current unique

character of our urban, rural, and environmentally sensitive areas" (Marion County

Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-1). The second and third goals, respectively, are to discourage

urban sprawl and conservation of natural and man-made resources (Marion County

Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p. 1-1). This combination of natural and man-made resources is

indicative of a cultural landscape; however, the implementation of this goal is largely

accomplished in the plan, not surprisingly, by considering natural elements separately from man-

made resources.










Implementation of the above goals is referenced in Objective 3 of the plan which seeks to

"preserve permanent open space and the character of the county's rural areas while allowing the

provision of basic services by directing growth to urban areas or clustering rural development in

hamlets, villages, towns, and commercial nodes" (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005,

p.1-19). Policy 3.1 enumerates how this objective will be attained through the designation of

hamlets, villages, and towns. For each of these designations, requiring a certain percentage of

space remain permanent open space attains landscape preservation goals. The remaining

percentage not in open space preservation is the land that is available for development. General

rural areas must have a density of one dwelling per ten acres, and any clustered development in

these areas must be clustered on no more than 40% of the gross land area in the development.

The remaining 60% is to be open space. Hamlets allow a density of one dwelling per Hyve acres,

but 60% of the development must remain open space. Hamlets are intended to be from 40 acres

to 159 acres. Open space is defined as lands for passive recreation such as hiking or biking,

conservation, or agricultural use. (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-19)

Rural Village District development may occur on a minimum of 160 acres and a

maximum of 640 acres. Two options exist for rural village district development. Option 1

requires that 80% of the land area in the district remain permanent open space, leaving 20%

buildable land with a one dwelling to five-acre density ratio. Option 2 provides 60% of the land

remain open space, leaving 40% buildable land that may have up to a one dwelling per one-acre

density ratio. Selecting Option 2 requires that the district be within one mile of an urban area,

and that urban area must be at least 40-60% developed within one to two miles of the district.

Both options require a comprehensive plan amendment under Chapter 163, a time consuming

process that involves state-level review and approval of the amendment. Buildable land in these









districts must be compact and clustered, while open space is left for passive recreation,

conservation, and agriculture. (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-20 and 1-23)

Rural Towns are only allowed when they go through the Development of Regional

Impact process, required by the state to review especially large developments that affect more

than just the immediate area. Rural Towns, in addition to the Development of Regional Impact

and comprehensive plan amendment process, must also provide for not more than two dwellings

per acre, and leave a minimum of 65% of land in open space. (Marion County Comprehensive

Plan, 2005, p.1-21 and 1-24)

Existing agricultural land uses are given priority to continue, and agriculture in general is

encouraged to continue through the designation of lands solely for agricultural use. Obj ective 4

of the Future Land Use Element calls for the implementation of a transfer of development rights

program in the county in order to "prevent further degradation of natural and historic resources"

(Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p. 1-31).

Overall, these policies attempt to accommodate growth in the region, while balancing a

need to retain the rural character of the landscape that distinguishes Marion County. However,

none of the above elements mention the equine industry as what contributes to the unique rural

character of the area. Though these measures are a step in the right direction and an

acknowledgement of the need to preserve open space, it remains the effect on the overall rural

landscape is unknown. Patchwork development with some open space may alter the ability for

large farms to continue operating in one contiguous place. Further, where open space is left open

to interpretation among recreation, conservation, or agriculture, agriculture may often be the last

choice in an increasingly populated area. Developers and residents of developments may be

more interested in living next to a park than a functional horse farm. Not requiring at least some










open space to remain agriculture may be detrimental to the equine-influenced nature of the

county.

However, of particular interest in preserving the unique cultural landscape is Policy 3.17,

which attempts to account for the needs of the equine industry. This policy states, "Marion

County shall create a Special Equine District Committee whose obj ective shall be to establish

incentives for the preservation of the equine industry. The Committee shall consider incentives

which will maintain permanent open spaces such as additional use of clustering, and the transfer

of development rights" (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p. 1-29). However, after

initial organizing, the Committee has been inactive for many years, largely due to planning

policies felt by the Committee as already incorporating Committee concerns for the equine

industry (Marion County Planning Department, personal communication, October 4, 2007).

Policy 4. 12 of the plan states that "identified" historic, cultural, or archaeological

resources shall be evaluated for significance and value of preservation utilizing state historic

preservation guidelines and policies recommended by the 1987 Historic Survey of Marion

County (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-41). This policy, however, only

provides for evaluating those sources already identified, and makes no provision for identifying

new historic or cultural sites. Following state historic preservation guidelines also presents a

problem since the state is not currently making provisions for cultural landscapes as part of the

state historic preservation program. Further, the county's evaluation relies on guidelines

published in 1987. Twenty years have passed since that survey, and preservation has shifted in

the meantime, namely in the form of more widespread recognition and inclusion of cultural

landscapes and landscape protection. In addition, the Marion County comprehensive plan does

not include the optional historic preservation element.









Natural resources in Marion County have protection in the form of the plan' s

Conservation Element. Where this section could provide for landscape protection, it only

considers the natural elements of the landscape and does not consider the interaction between

natural and man-made resources. This element does not make the same reference to natural and

man-made resource protection as does the Future Land Use Element. Policy 3.9 of the

Conservation Element addresses the need for development of criteria for a transfer of

development rights program in order to "preserve locally important and prime farmlands,"

though no details are provided on what these locally important or prime farmlands are, or how to

identify them (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.9-18). Marion County's plan does

not include a provision for a Rural Lands Stewardship program.

Marion County's Land Development Code

Marion County's zoning ordinances are included in the County Land Development Code

(LDC). The LDC contains numerous rural zoning designations for Marion County. The first is

Rural Residential, which accommodates rural residential development with home sites and

certain agricultural uses. Horses for personal use are a permitted use in areas zoned Rural

Residential, but commercial horse operations and other livestock must be approved by the zoning

board as a special use (Marion County Land Development Code, 2004). The second rural

designation is General Agriculture, of which the intent is to preserve agriculture as the primary

use. Any general agriculture use is permitted in General Agriculture areas. (Marion County

Land Development Code, 2004)

Third, county zoning includes Improved Agriculture areas, which provide for general

farming and animal husbandry and which may require restrictive zoning in order to minimize

conflicts and protect the character of the area, although what contributes to the character is not

defined. The first permitted use in this category is "agricultural production of livestock,









including horses." Other permitted uses include public riding academies. This provision also

includes a density requirement of 9,000 square feet of open space for one animal, and 6,000

square feet for each additional animal for those parcels between one and 9.9 acres in size.

(Marion County Land Development Code, 2004) Because this designation recognizes the need

for certain animal husbandry operations to substantially improve and develop their land with

"accessory" uses in conjunction with the albeit undefined character of the area, Improved

Agriculture seems an ideally suited designation for the maj ority of the equine farms that define

the Marion County cultural landscape. However, the zoning classification does not explicitly

state this purpose, and only close examination of the language appears to support this theory.

The fourth agricultural zoning designation, Residential Agricultural Estate, also

encompasses animal husbandry with accessory uses, but this designation goes on to include

small parcel development, as a way of protecting reasonable use of the property while deterring

rapid expansion. The Residential Agricultural Estate zoning designation does not seem ideally

suited for protecting the cultural landscape, where larger parcels are eligible for small-scale

development. The last three rural designations, Rural Commercial, Rural Activity Center, and

Rural Industrial are designed to encompass the needs of agriculturally-zoned districts by

providing services necessary to keep farms productive and residents comfortable. (Marion

County Land Development Code, 2004)

The Marion County LDC also contains the county's overlay districts, of which there are

only three. None of the three districts, the Airport Overlay Zone, the Environmentally Sensitive

Overlay Zone, or the Floodplain Overlay Zone, addresses the equine landscape of the region or

the importance of retaining land necessary to support this landscape, as an overlay district with

special restrictions could do. Though the Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Zone seeks to










protect natural features, it is designed to address issues of water quality and water supply in

relation to springsheds, rivers, lakes, and wetlands, but it does not address land conservation, as

would be necessary for the cultural landscape. (Marion County Land Development Code, 2004)

As part of their zoning regulations, the County has implemented a TDR program, as

expressed in County Comprehensive Plan (see Objective 4, Marion County Board of County

Commissioners, 2005). This program is designed to "promote the preservation of rural farmland

areas and protect those areas from incompatible land uses, while providing additional incentives

and benefit to those participating in the program" ("Transfer of Development Rights Program,"

2004). Two areas have been created, the Sending and Receiving Areas, where, respectively,

development should be avoided and development should concentrate. The Sending Area is in

the northwest portion of the county and has been named the "Farmland Preservation" area. The

Receiving Areas are in parts of the county zoned Urban Reserve.

A simple explanation of the TDR program is that property owners in the Sending Area

petition to participate in the program, and if selected, donate their land to the county through a

conservation easement. The county then grants the owner development credits to be used, or

sold for use, in the Receiving Area. The exact number of credits depends on calculations related

mostly to how much land is donated. Marion County's TDR program is at this point too recent

to determine how successful it will be in preserving farmland in the area.

Summary: Existing Planning and Zoning Regulations

Marion County, through community members and elected officials, could provide better

protection of their unique equine cultural landscape, which represents a long tradition of agrarian

life in Florida, and significantly contributes to the character of the region. In addition to not

being part of Florida initiatives such as the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Marion County

does not include any overall consideration of the importance of the equine industry included in









their planning and zoning, except peripherally. Although the Agricultural Improvement zoning

designation appears to contemplate space for the equine industry, it does so vaguely and without

any reference to the industry specifically. Given that planning and zoning are within the

governmental realm, and are not without political pressures, the current planning and zoning is

commendable where open space and preservation policies are encouraged.

However, where feasible in light of politics, the County should include the equine

industry in their planning and zoning policies. Because Marion County follows the traditional

method of considering natural heritage and cultural heritage separately, focusing specifically on

the equine industry in planning and zoning regulations may be the best way to incorporate both

concepts and protect the significant cultural landscape of Marion County.

Integrating Cultural Landscape Protection in Marion County

Initial Considerations

The equine industry is the most significant contributor to Marion County's cultural

landscape, providing easily recognizable physical features, and contributing heavily to the

economy and culture of the area. Protecting this unique equine cultural landscape will preserve

the community's character and economic health in the face of increased development pressures.

While focusing on this significant industry alone narrows those areas of the county deserving

protection, further limiting of significant areas within the equine industry may be necessary to

ensure protection while still acknowledging the reality of growth. To accomplish this,

preservation planning can assist in identifying and preparing for protection. General logistical

planning is the first necessary step in evaluating cultural landscapes, and is important in light of

Florida's lack of a state program specifically surveying landscapes.









Preservation planning, designed to address cultural landscapes exhibiting primarily

historic qualities, can be extrapolated for use with cultural landscapes generally. Preservation

planning (Birnbaum, 1994) incorporates the following procedures:

Historical research
Inventory and documentation of existing conditions
Site analysis and evaluation of integrity and significance
Development of a cultural landscape preservation approach and treatment plan
Development of a cultural landscape management plan and management philosophy
The development of a strategy for ongoing maintenance
Preparation of a record of treatment and future research recommendations.

Protective mechanisms are not included, although the NPS may consider these part of the larger

management plan. Arguably, this failure to specifically include protective mechanisms indicates

that planning should be the first step in evaluating cultural landscapes, and implementing

protective mechanisms should follow.

The Massachusetts Heritage Landscapes program guide, Reading the Land, which

suggests that every community have a landscape program, is an example of how one state has

chosen to assist their communities in planning for cultural landscapes. Following the NPS

model, but providing information specifically for the local level, Reading the Land encourages

developing partnerships, conducting an inventory of local landscapes, evaluating significance,

and distribution of the inventory to the community for education purposes. After completing

these initial planning steps, planning for protection is suggested. Planning involves setting short-

and long-term goals for the landscapes, identifying protective mechanisms such as master or

comprehensive planning, zoning, state protective laws, and non-regulatory tools such as outright

land acquisition and easements. Reading the Land is geared towards those laws and legal

mechanisms in place in Massachusetts, but provides an overall strategy for how to implement

landscape planning on a local level. (Massachusetts Department of Conservation and









Recreation, 2004) Marion County planners and those involved in seeking protection of the local

cultural landscape could utilize Reading the Land in considering how to initiate protection

planning within the region. Although the Massachusetts state laws will not translate to Marion

County, the guide is beneficial in providing an overview of how to begin to integrate cultural

landscape planning into the local community.

Given that Marion County has not updated their Historic Survey since 1987, general

preservation planning for the landscape is an important first step. Local surveyors familiar with

the area will be best suited to identify those regions of the county most significant to the cultural

landscape. Looking to the areas that the county has designated as Farmland Preservation Area

for purposes of their TDR program provides a starting point. In addition to the procedural

guidelines given by the NPS for preservation planning, surveyors will need to be aware of the

issues relating to cultural landscapes: the evolution of the cultural landscapes identified,

definition of the size and scope by instituting boundaries of the landscape, long-term protective

planning, and potential property rights conflicts.

Including the Equine Cultural Landscape in Comprehensive Planning

After the County conducts general planning and inventory, considerations of protective

mechanisms can then be addressed. Because traditional planning "treat[s] historic resources

versus natural and open space resources as separate entities" (Massachusetts Department of

Conservation and Recreation, 2004, p.3 5), integration of the two is necessary in order to

accommodate protection of the equine cultural landscape. This integration is best accomplished

through the inclusion of the equine landscape in the county comprehensive plan, but especially

through the creation of a individual element specifically providing for protection.

This integration is demonstrated by Loudoun County, Virginia, who in the course of

revising their comprehensive plan included cultural landscape considerations. Housed within the









context of the preservation plan element, cultural landscapes merited discussion as explored

through an issues paper presented to the Countywide Heritage Resources Preservation Plan

Citizen Advisory Committee. This paper presents questions as to how best include cultural

landscapes in the general plan, presents pros and cons as to each option, and makes

recommendations as to which options to select. Issue questions include: what landscape types

should be included in Loudoun County's approach towards developing a protection strategy for

cultural landscapes, how boundaries of the landscapes should be defined, and how the county

should protect the landscapes. (Loudoun County, n.d.)

The latter, how the county should protect the landscapes through their comprehensive

plan, is broken into two options: protection through current regulatory practice and protection

through an advisory function. The first option discusses pros and cons of current regulations,

which include the use of Historic and Cultural Conservation Districts (HCC). The cons include

the reality that cultural landscapes may exist outside those districts and that protection of cultural

resources is largely voluntary. The second option, a county advisory role, includes the creation

of guidelines for identifying and delineating cultural landscapes in the county, county selection

of particularly significant cultural landscapes, development of county landscape inventories and

reports, and assistance to the public and county staff as to how best protect these landscapes

through incentives. Ultimately, a combination of the two options is recommended, as the HCC

districts are effective for protecting already included areas, and advisory functions regarding

potential incentives for cultural landscape protection can work well with regard to newly

identified cultural landscapes or those that are of a larger size. Although the paper does not

recommend an entirely separate element of the comprehensive plan dedicated solely to cultural









landscapes, it does advocate for the integration of natural and cultural resources in Loudoun

County's plan (Loudoun County, n.d.).

Where the Loudoun County issues paper addresses cultural landscapes generally, it is

very clear that while a general inclusion of natural and cultural integration would benefit Marion

County, inclusion of the specific equine cultural landscape is the most important step. Four

preservation organizations in the Kentucky Bluegrass region are working to create a specially

designed comprehensive plan. The Kentucky Heritage Council, the Bluegrass Conservancy, the

Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation, and the University of Kentucky's Center for Historic

Architecture and Preservation are working as a team to "develop a comprehensive plan to

combat the rapid loss of historic farms and related structures in the Bluegrass Region"

("Bluegrass Cultural Landscape of Kentucky," 2006). Undoubtedly, the plan will highlight the

equine industry as a significant contributor to the appearance and influence of the Bluegrass

cultural landscape.

The Equestrian Land Conservation Resource (ELCR), a national organization dedicated

to the preservation of open land for equine sport, recreation, and industry purposes, recognizes

the importance of planning for equine landscapes ("Focus on ELCR," 2007). In 2004, the ELCR

in conjunction with the State Horse Council Advisory Committee, a subsection of the American

Horse Council, commissioned a report on equestrian community designations by local

governments (Equestrian Community Zoning, 2004). Communities across the country were

identified as providing for or desiring to provide for equine land protection in their local plans.

Included in the report are such communities as Jurupa, California, whose plan includes a

provision for a Protected Equestrian Sphere. Within this sphere, the local Jurupa government is

to enact policies that protect the equestrian area and way of life. Also in California, Rolling Hills









Estates includes equestrian land planning in their land use element and directs the creation of a

horse overlay district to be included in the community zoning regulations. Putnam Township,

Michigan community members recommended that their local plan include recognition of the

connection between rural character and equestrian character, identify the equestrian character of

their town, and provide for this character through an equestrian overlay district. (Equestrian2

Community Zoning, 2004)

Closer to home, the Village of Wellington, Florida has recognized the importance of

planning for the equine landscape, and has enacted an equestrian element of their village

comprehensive plan. The Equestrian Preservation Element' s goal is to "ensure the preservation

and protection of the neighborhoods which comprise this area, the equestrian industry and the

rural lifestyles which exist in the Equestrian Preserve" (Village of Wellington, 2006, EQ-1). The

element directs the village to create an equestrian overlay district protecting equestrian

preservation areas. The village is to then enact specific policies for the overlay district that

provide for and encourage conservation easements, encourage cluster development while

maintaining proj ected density limitations, limit commercial uses that support the equine industry,

provide for preservation of rural lifestyles, and establish site development regulations that

implement the characteristics of equestrian uses and structures. (Village of Wellington, 2006,

EQ-1)

In addition to the Equestrian Preservation Element, the Wellington plan also provides for

the creation of a subcommittee within the local planning agency to advise the planning and

zoning agency on land use decisions affecting the equestrian areas (Village of Wellington, 2006,

EQ-4). The Wellington Equestrian Committee's mission is to

provide advice upon the request of Council or the Planning, Zoning &
Adjustment Board on a) protecting and preserving land in the preserve as










equestrian, b) safety of riders, c) flooding and drainage in the preserve,
d) having representation within the Village on policy and planning, e)
permitting, zoning and code enforcement within the preserve, f) designating
the equestrian preserve as permanent and inviolate, g) land development
regulations as they apply to the preserve area, h) recommended equestrian
proj ects for inclusion in the Capital Improvements Program, i) the design
and/or configuration of equestrian capital proj ects ("Equestrian Committee,"
2006).

The Equestrian Committee has the ability to advise the Village Council and the planning

department on almost everything that could affect the vitality of the equestrian preservation

areas. This power to be involved in local government decisions helps cement the protection of

these landscapes in Wellington, and ensures that local officials are aware of impacts on the

equestrian cultural landscapes in the village.

Wellington is just outside the Palm Beach region of Florida, and has already experienced,

and continues to experience, the tremendous impact of growth and expansive development.

Perhaps this reality forced Wellington to proactively provide for protection of their equestrian

landscape. Marion County, no stranger to loss of farmland and threat of development, should

follow in the footsteps of Wellington and the other communities and enact a provision in their

comprehensive plan that identifies the significance of the equine cultural landscape to the

community and make provisions for its protection.

Although the current Marion County plan attempts to provide for the equine industry

through the creation of a Special Equine District Committee, this does not demonstrate the level

of commitment the county needs to make to protect its equine cultural landscape. Planners in

Marion County should review the equine planning elements of the communities identified in the

ELCR study, particularly the Village of Wellington' s element. Wellington must abide by the

same state planning laws as Marion County does, and thus provides an example of how to make

such an element work in Florida.









Including the Equine Cultural Landscape in Zoning Regulations

Zoning, or restrictions placed on land use, are created to enact policies as directed by the

comprehensive plan, illustrated above through comprehensive plan elements requiring zoning

regulations be established to create equine overlay districts. Given that these equine overlay

districts are already in place in other communities, and in Florida in particular, equine zoning is a

viable option for Marion County to pursue. Where Marion County may not want to adopt a

specific equine overlay district, they could employ the strategy used by Loudoun County and

others. Loudoun County, in addition to planning for cultural landscapes generally through their

plan, provides for specific landscapes through their zoning designations. For example, AR-2:

Agricultural Rural 2 has a purpose to "sustain and nurture economically significant equine

industry" (Equestrian Conanunity Zoning, 2004, p.8 ). The purpose and intent of a Norco,

California zoning designation is to "preserve and enhance equestrian-oriented environment and

potential for equestrian recreation" (Equestrian Conanunity Zoning, 2004, p.4).

Other communities provide for consideration of the equine landscape through allowing

equines and equine-related activities in specific zones, although the intent is not to preserve the

equine industry or rural character, but rather to permit horse ownership. Seatac, Washington has

a Horse Suburban District that permits horse ownership within city limits (City of Seatac, 2006).

The "E" district in Orange County was established to "allow the keeping of equi in certain

developed residential areas so that residents may retain and preserve a semi-rural environment,

including the retention of equestrian uses" (Orange County, 2005). Considering that Orange

County is highly developed, while this represents equine zoning, it also represents an option for

already developed areas. Providing for such a district in Marion County may suit those parts of

the county that are already developed, but for the county in general, wider protection of the rural

landscape seems a better option.










An equine overlay district would provide better protection for the Marion County cultural

landscape through greater reach and emphasis on the importance of the equine landscape to the

entire county. This countywide overlay district would require intergovernmental cooperation

with the localities in the county and perhaps motivate those localities to incorporate equine

landscape protection in their plans as well. The Village of Wellington's Equestrian Overlay

District is contained in their LDR. The purposes behind enacting the overlay district are

to protect and enhance the Equestrian Preservation Areas of the Village, as created by the
Comprehensive Plan; to preserve, maintain and enhance the equestrian community
associated with the Village of Wellington; to preserve, maintain and enhance the rural
lifestyle associated with the equestrian community; to identify and encourage land uses
that are supportive of the equestrian and rural character of the Equestrian Preservation
Areas; and to preserve, maintain and enhance development patterns which are consistent
with the overall character of the equestrian community (Village of Wellington, 2005, @
6.2.17).

Considering that Marion County's contribution to the horse industry in Florida, and the country,

is arguably more significant than that of Wellington' s contribution, adopting a similar zoning

overlay district is not unreasonable since these types of policies already exist in other areas with

equine landscapes.

An alternate option for Marion County to explore would be adapting the Thematic

Resources District (TRD) to the needs of their unique cultural landscape. However, while the

TRD does provide for incorporation of cultural landscapes that do not fit the confines of a

traditional historic preservation overlay district, it may not be the best option for a cultural

landscape such as Marion County's that is easily identifiable and able to be narrowed to a

specific attribute, in this case, the equestrian-oriented landscape of the area. Marion County's

cultural landscape may be better served by implementing equine-focused overlay districts in part

due to their use elsewhere in the state, and in part due to their ability to be clearly understood by

community members. The TRD is an innovative districting method that would be of relevance









to a cultural landscape containing a variety of areas that may have varied cultural and natural

references, such as the Eco-Heritage Corridor along the St. Johns River that represents multiple

layers of heritage and ecological resources. In Marion County's case, however, where the

significant cultural and physical aspects of the landscape are so closely tied solely to one

characteristic, the equine industry, specially tailored policies would be effective in protecting the

area' s cultural landscape.

Draft Planning and Zoning Documents for Marion County's Equine Cultural Landscape

Incorporating the equine cultural landscape into Marion County's comprehensive plan

and land development code could potentially be a lengthy process given time for political

discussion and community input. Additionally, drafting and redrafting of specific provisions and

the political process for approval of new provisions, further slows matters. When the process is

complete, however, Marion County could have strong policies in place that specifically provide

protection for the equine cultural landscape.

Draft policies provide simple examples that could be expanded depending on specific

needs, and illustrate how Marion County could begin to integrate cultural landscape protection

(Appendices B and C). The draft comprehensive plan element draws upon the idea of the

Special Equine District Committee already referenced in Marion County's existing plan, and

expands the functions and duties of the Committee by borrowing some of the functions of the

Village of Wellington' s Equestrian Committee. Provisions are included for the Special Equine

District Committee to meet on a regular basis throughout the year, and to provide input to the

Board of County Commissioners and the Growth Management Department on issues of concern

to the equine industry. The draft plan element also borrows the concept behind Wellington's

Equestrian Overlay District, and provides for a Special Equine District overlay within Marion

County. Within the district, land conservation strategies are encouraged, as are commercial uses









that support the equine industry. The draft element further requires that guidelines for

development within the District be created that ensure any future development is consistent with

the character of the equine landscape, also modeled on the Village of Wellington' s

comprehensive plan element. Provision of an intergovernmental cooperation component allows

for Marion County to coordinate with local governments within the county on equine landscape

protection strategies.

A draft overlay district provision for Marion County's land development code expands on

the Special Equine District referenced in the draft plan element. Highlighting the intent and

purpose behind the Special Equine District is especially critical, as it must relate to the public

health, safety, and welfare. The purpose created for this draft district is "to preserve the equine

industry and rural lands used to support the equine industry in promoting the welfare of Marion

County's citizenry through protection of the economy and character of the region." Specific

criteria included in the draft overlay district borrow from the format and language of Marion

County's existing overlay districts. Permitted uses, special uses, densities, and lot and building

standards are provided as guidelines only, and would require more substantial evaluation in order

to be sufficient protection for the equine landscape.

These draft policies are intended to provide a framework for considering integration of

the equine cultural landscape in Marion County's comprehensive plan and land development

code, and do not purport to be legally sufficient. However, given that the Village of Wellington

already has similar policies in place, Marion County may find that any changes made to existing

policy to include the equine cultural landscape would be a more fluid process than it would

absent already existing equine legislation elsewhere in the state. Utilizing Village of Wellington

equine policies as a model may well serve the equine cultural landscape of Marion County.









Summary

Since the earliest days of Florida' s history, agriculture has played an significant role as an

ever-present contributor to the state' s way of life and economy. Florida has some existing

options in place for protecting agrarian cultural landscapes, and a growing awareness exists that

agricultural land protection is essential to the vitality of the state, but are existing options

enough? As encouraged by state planning statutes, innovative planning is much needed in the

face of an increasingly threatened landscape (Figure 4-18). Implementing new strategies and

approaching preservation from a different perspective cannot come too early. Including cultural

landscape protection allows these agricultural lands to stay as they are, as working agrarian

landscapes, whereas conservation alone implies something different, a static quality that does not

suit the need for these lands to be agriculturally productive.

Limiting cultural landscapes to significant landscapes enables a community to narrow

protection of landscapes to those that contribute to their region in a meaningful way. Once the

particular cultural landscapes have been surveyed and their particular characteristics identified,

as is the case with the equine cultural landscape in Marion County, protection of a specific,

significant landscape may be simpler than planning for cultural landscapes generally. While

integration of cultural and natural elements is important in advancing the protection of cultural

landscapes, plan elements and zoning districts targeted at an already identified cultural landscape

are more likely to find success politically and socially than a broad element attempting to protect

cultural landscapes in general. Putting a name or identifying title on a landscape, such as the

Marion County Equine Landscape, helps to narrow the scope to those significant cultural

landscapes worth protecting in a particular community.











Table 4-1. National Park Service Rural Landscape Characteristics (McClelland, Keller, Keller,
& Melnick, 1999).
National Park Service Characteristics of the Rural Landscape


Processes
1. Land Use and Activities


2. Patterns of Spatial
Organization


3. Response to Natural
Environment

4. Cultural Traditions

Physical Elements
5. Circulation Networks


6. Boundary Demarcations



7. Vegetation Related to Land
Use

8. Buildings, Structures, and
Obj ects




9. Clusters


10. Archaeological Sites


11. Small-scale Elements


Human activities, such as mining, farming, ranching,
recreation, commerce, social events, and industry that have
left an imprint on the landscape
Large scale land organization based on natural features,
politics, economy, and technology. Reflected in road
systems, field patterns, proximity to water resources, and
orientation of structures to sun and wind.
Maj or natural features influencing location and organization
of rural communities. Climate is included as forcing land
settlement.
Religious beliefs, social customs, ethnic identity, and trades
and skills evident in physical features and uses of the land.

Systems for transporting people and goods. Range in scale,
and may include roads, canals, maj or highways, railways,
and airstrips.
Delineate areas of ownership and land use. Also separate
smaller areas of land within larger parcel for use as corral or
field. Includes fences, walls, tree lines, hedge rows, drainage
or irrigation ditches, roads, creeks, and rivers.
Crops, trees, and shrubs for agricultural or ornamental
purposes, as well as naturally growing vegetation. May
include indigenous, naturalized, and introduced species.
Structures and obj ects serving human needs related to their
occupation and use of the land. Buildings include human
shelters; structures include dams, fencing, agricultural
outbuildings such as silos and grain elevators, and mining
systems. Objects include markers, monuments, machinery,
and equipment.
Grouping of buildings, fences, and other features. Repetition
of similar clusters may indicate vernacular patterns of siting,
spatial organization, and land use.
Sites of prehistoric or historic activities or occupation that
provide information about prior land use, social history, and
methods and extent of activities.
Features that are characteristic of a region and occur
repeatedly, such as road signs, fence posts, or bales of hay.
Features may be permanent or temporal.











Table 4-2. Marion County Horse Country Cultural Landscape Features Utilizing National Park
Service Rural Landscape Characteristics (Author, 2007).
National Park Service Characteristics of the Rural Landscape:
Marion County Horse Country


Processes
1. Land Use and Activities
2. Patterns of Spatial
Organization

3. Response to Natural
Environment

4. Cultural Traditions

Physical Elements
5. Circulation Networks

6. Boundary Demarcations

7. Vegetation Related to Land
Use
8. Buildings, Structures, and
Obj ects


9. Clusters

10. Archaeological Sites
11. Small-scale Elements


Large- and small-scale farming and horse ranching
Land is divided into individual farms, and further subdivided
into sections based on differing activities on the individual
farm. Farms are located close to roadways for access.
Limestone ridge enriches the grass, providing impetus for
equine industry to locate in the area. Hilly terrain and warm
climate contribute to success of industry.
Equine industry is a way of life, and influences economy and
social aspects of the area.

Evolved over time from dirt paths to railroads to highways.
Roadways remain the primary method of transport.
Fences, and sometimes trees, provide the main form of
boundary demarcation.
Large oak trees provide shade for animals, and enriched
grasses encourage healthy development of thoroughbreds.
Equine facilities and residences are the main buildings in the
region. Structures consist of fences and equine sporting
elements, while obj ects include trucks, trailers, and
agricultural equipment.
Fences used to delineate sections of a farm and buildings
grouped together are the primary clusters.
Fort King is a significant archaeological site in the area.
Signs identifying horse farms are a common repeating
element, as are entry gates. Bales of hay may be present in
fields, depending on the time of year.





























Figure 4-1. Farming is a major land use in Marion County (Author, 2007)


Figure 4-2. Land is spatially organized into individual farms (Author, 2007)




























gure 4-3. Farms are often located close to the roadways for easy access, demonstrating
patterns of spatial organization (Author, 2007).


figure 4-4. Ine nilly terrain and warm climate or thle region contno~ute to agricultural success
(Author, 2007).
































Figure 4-5. Brightly painted horse statues located throughout the region demonstrate the cultural
importance of the equine industry to Marion County (Author, 2007).


Figure 4-6. Marion County proudly displays its "Horse Capital of the World" title (Author,
2007).

































Figure 4-7. The Florida Horse Park, home to national equine events, demonstrates cultural
significance of the sport and also shows modification of the landscape (Author,
2007).


Figure 4-8. Scenic roads serve as part of the county's circulation network (Author, 2007).


































Figure 4-9. Trees and fencing provide boundary demarcations, and the road displays the area' s
hilly terrain (Author, 2007).


Figure 4-10. Vegetation in the form of large trees provides shade for horses (Author, 2007).



























Figure 4-11. Equine facilities dot the rural landscape in Marion County (Author,


Figure 4-12. Buildings, structures, and objects of the Marion County rural landscape
(Author, 2007).

































Figure 4-13. Farm fencing and buildings represent the cluster element of NPS rural landscape
characteristics (Author, 2007).


Figure 4-14. A marker designates the archaeological site of Fort King, a National Historic
Landmark (Author, 2007).


































Figure 4-16. Signage identifying farms is representative of small-scale elements in the area
(Author, 2007).


Figure 4-17. Signs in conjunction with entry gates are common small-scale elements
(Author, 2007).



































Figure 4-18. Street signs, another small-scale element, inform drivers that roadways are not just
used by cars (Author, 2007).


Figure 4-20. Increasingly frequent farm sales indicate a landscape in danger (Author, 2007).









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Conclusions

Cultural landscapes are conceptually based on the integration of human cultural elements

and natural elements reflected in the physical landscape. Treating these elements separately, as

current international, national, state, and local legislation often does, will never completely

address the complexities inherent in such an integrated concept. Rather, legislation specifically

contemplating the blend of natural and cultural elements is needed in order to fully provide for

cultural landscape protection.

In the absence of such legislation, cultural designation programs such as those operated

by UNESCO, the NPS, and various agencies on a state and local level can help create awareness

of cultural landscapes and fill the void of current legislation. These programs, with the

assistance of non-profit and professional organizations interested in cultural landscape

protection, can increase awareness and protection of cultural landscapes. Increased awareness

may lead to a point in time when natural and cultural elements are considered in tandem in

legislation particularly, but also within the field of historic preservation. State historic

preservation programs should incorporate cultural landscapes within their domain, and not

assume that landscapes are better left to the realm of parks or natural conservation efforts.

Agencies and organizations concerned with cultural landscape protection should adopt a

unified definition of cultural landscape for a variety of reasons. First, in the event legislation is

one day enacted to protect cultural landscapes, a unified definition will be necessary. For legal

reasons, codification and legislation mandates not only a uniform definition, but a precise one.

Second, a unified definition eliminates confusion and informs the public, as well as the agency or

organization, as to what exactly constitutes a cultural landscape. Considering that organizations










charged with protecting these landscapes already seek to protect sites that are significant, this

limiting factor should be included in a uniform definition. Where significance is a criteria

buried in historic preservation legislation, it should not be so for cultural landscapes.

Significance as a defining characteristic of cultural landscapes would set these protective

agencies apart from other disciplines that define the term more broadly.

Significance as a limiting factor in defining cultural landscapes will enable simpler

identification of which cultural landscapes merit protection. Once a significant cultural

landscape is selected for protection, a protection plan can be implemented. Depending on the

specific cultural landscape, it may be that protection plans can be narrowly tailored to that

particular landscape, as is the case in Marion County. Other cultural landscapes not fitting so

easily into one definable category may be better served by other protective tools such as a

cultural district designation, which could be created through use of innovative ideas such as the

Thematic Resources District. Thorough planning for a cultural landscape should include

consideration of these available tools, and must also address cultural landscape issues such as

scope, presentation, long-term protection, and individual property interests. Cultural landscapes

are indicative of an enduring relationship between humans and the land over time, and planning

and protective strategies for these spaces must be given respect and thoughtful consideration.

Future Research

Cultural landscape protection offers an endless array of research opportunities. To begin,

a more expansive consideration of significance and the cultural landscape could explore how

communities could go about defining significance for purposes of identifying cultural landscapes

worthy of protection. From there, a review of national and state legislation would be useful in

ascertaining whether other laws exist that may provide for cultural landscapes, and how they

incorporate significance, if at all. A survey of existing legislation across the country would be









beneficial in understanding where cultural landscape protection has already been incorporated,

where it would likely be included, or where it has little chance of consideration under current

policies.

Looking to those legislative policies in a region such as the Bluegrass of Kentucky could

in particular provide analogies for Marion County. Additionally, considering applications of

incentive zoning such as tax-increment financing districts and how these districts could be

applied to cultural landscapes is worth additional research. Lastly, a more in depth evaluation of

the role of regional planning and regional planning policies in cultural landscape protection

should be conducted.

Considering the legal validity of any new ordinances or district designations would also

be instructive. Where these ordinances have a reasonable relation to the public health, safety,

and welfare, and where they are not found to constitute a taking, their success is likely.

Comparing other innovative mechanisms used in other localities, and any legal challenges to

those mechanisms, could provide insight into how well a cultural landscape ordinance or district

would stand up against legal questioning.

Another potential addition to the cultural landscape protection field is the realm of eco-

heritage tourism. As a new sector of the tourism industry, eco-heritage may provide a way to

garner support and advocate for awareness of these integrated landscapes. Studying existing

eco-heritage sites, how they were created, and how they are protected or managed would be a

different approach to cultural landscape study. Eco-heritage is yet another way of defining a

cultural landscape, adding to the already varied terminology and definitions, but should be

embraced as part of the movement to identify and protect these landscapes.









Lastly, directly engaging with a local group or state agency on cultural landscapes would

function as a utilitarian step for future research. Where Florida has yet to incorporate cultural

landscapes into their preservation program, attempting to work with staff within the Division of

Historical Resources would move the discussion of cultural landscape protection from the

theoretical to the practical. Similar outreach to a local community such as Marion County would

have the same effect and bring the concept of cultural landscape to an agency or organization

that is currently unfamiliar with the idea. Cultural landscape protection and preservation will

only be successful where awareness is increased, and as evidenced by the varied resources

available on the topic since Sauer initially introduced the term, this awareness is growing and is

an encouraging progression that may lead to more protection of these spaces in the future.










APPENDIX A
IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION TOOLS FOR CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN THE
UNITED STATES

(as adapted from Coleman, 2003, Heritage Office, NSW Department of Planning, Australia).



International Tools

UNESCO World Heritage Listing
International Landscape or Heritage Protection Treaties

National Tools

National Laws: NHPA, NEPA, Farm Bill, Coastal Zone Management
National Register Listing
National Park Service and BLM Designations

Department of Transportation Byways

State Tools

Historic Preservation Laws and State Register Listing
Growth Management Laws and Regional Planning
State Protective Legislation: Farmland, Landscape, Easements
Delegation to Local Entities
Cultural Designations

Local Tools
Easements
Certified Local Government Status

Comprehensive Planning
Zoning and Overlay Districts
Transfer/Purchase of Development Rights Programs

Non-Government Tools
Land Trusts

Non-Profit Organization Assistance: Cultural Landscape Foundation, National Trust









APPENDIX B
DRAFT MARION COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT



Marion County's current Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Policy 3.17 reads:

"Marion County shall create a Special Equine District Committee whose obj ective shall
be to establish incentives for the preservation of the equine industry. The Committee
shall consider incentives which will maintain permanent open spaces such as additional
use of clustering, and the transfer of development rights. The Committee shall consist of
not more than 10 persons appointed by the Board of County Commission."

As a replacement better attuned to protecting the equine cultural landscape of the region,
consider:

OBJECTIVE X: Preserve the cultural landscape of Marion County through provisions
intended to protect the equine industry as a maj or contributor to the economy and
character of the region.

Policy x. 1: Within one year of the date of this plan, the Board of County Commissioners
shall appoint no less than 10 members to a Special Equine District Committee. Members
of the Committee shall comprise representatives of the equine industry, equine farm
owners, and representatives knowledgeable in planning, law, and conservation in a
number to be determined by the County Commissioners. The Committee shall advise the
County Commissioners and members of the County Growth Management Department on
matters of land conservation and matters of concern to the equine industry.

Policy x. 1.a: The Special Equine District Committee shall hold public meetings
no less than 4 times a year to address topics to be discussed at the next scheduled
County Commission meeting.

Policy x.1l.b: The Special Equine District Committee shall create an advisory
document to assist landowners in exploring options for protecting their lands,
including but not limited to easements and deed restrictions.

Policy x.2: Within one year of the date of this plan, the County shall create and adopt one
or more Special Equine District overlay zones, intended to preserve the equine industry
and protect the unique character of the County. Members of the County Commission,
the County Growth Management Department, and the Special Equine District Committee
shall work with members of the community, as well as land conservation and cultural
landscape professionals, to properly identify and delineate significant areas of equine
industry that would benefit from Special Equine District designation. The County
Commission shall then designate the specific boundaries for inclusion in the County Land
Development Regulations, and provide for their incorporation on the Future Land Use
Map .









Policy x.2.a: Within one year of the date of this plan, the County shall identify
incentives and plans for land conservation strategies within the Special Equine
Districts, including but not limited to conservation easements, cluster
development, or limited density requirements.

Policy x.2.b: The County shall encourage commercial uses within the Special
Equine District that support the equine industry.

Policy x.2.c: The County shall implement guidelines for the Special Equine
District that ensure development is consistent with the character of the equine
landscape.

Policy x.5: The County shall work with local governments within the county to
coordinate efforts for protection of the equine industry, including assistance with local
planning and zoning initiatives designed to protect the equine industry.

Policy x.4: The County, in coordination with the Special Equine District Committee,
shall coordinate with regional, state, and federal entities regarding protection strategies
for the equine industry.










APPENDIX C
DRAFT MARION COUNTY OVERLAY DISTRICT


As adapted from and in addition to the current Marion County Land Development Regulations:

Sec.6.4. SED Special Equine Districts.
1. Intent and purpose.
a. The Special Equine District overlay is intended to supplement or supersede the
development regulations provided in underlying zoning classifications, where
necessary, to protect the rural lands within the SED.
b. The purpose of the Special Equine District is to preserve the equine industry and
rural lands used to support the equine industry in promoting the welfare of Marion
County's citizenry through protection of the economy and character of the region.
2. Boundaries.
a. Special Equine Districts shall encompass the boundaries as determined by the
Board of County Commissioners, and included on the Future Land Use Map
prepared by the Marion County planning department.
3. Permitted uses.
a. General agricultural use, including agricultural production of horses, and any
accessory buildings necessary to production of horses.
b. Single family residential dwellings.
c. Veterinarian office, clinic, or hospital.
d. Public or private riding academy.
e. Equine event facilities, under 5 acres.
f. Public parks, with equestrian trails.
g. Buildings necessary to facilitate hay sales.
h. Bed and breakfast or inn.
4. Special uses. These uses may be approved upon application to the Zoning Commission
and approval of the Board of County Commissioners.
a. Horse racing facilities or equine event facilities, more than 5 acres.
b. Public parks without equestrian trails.
c. Equine sales facilities.
d. Equine-related commercial entities, limited to farm supply stores, farm equipment
sales, agricultural credit entities, and stabling facility.
e. Parking for commercial vehicles over 10,000 lbs.
f. Poultry raising, less than 30.
g. School.
h. Church.
5. Densities.
a. Maximum of one residential dwelling unit per ten acres.
b. Density per acre animal limitations based on size of parcel shall be based on the
following ratio: For each parcel that is 1 to 9 acres in size, there must be 9,000
square feet for first animal and 6,000 square feet for each additional animal.
6. Lot andBuilding Standards.
a. Height Limitation: Maximum of 50 feet, except for those agricultural buildings
such as silos, which must not be more than 100 feet.










b. Setbacks: Front, side, and rear setbacks must be 30 feet.
c. Lot Width: Must be a minimum of 200 feet.
d. Lot Size: Must be a minimum of ten acres.









LIST OF REFERENCES


Alanen, A., & Melnick, R. (2000) Why cultural landscape preservation? In A. Alanen & R.
Melnick (Eds.), Preserving cultural landscapes in America (pp. 1-21). Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation. (2006). AHLP poster. Retrieved October 15,
2007, from http://www.ahlp. org/docs/AHLPPoster2006 .pdf.

Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation. (n.d). What are historic landscapes? Retrieved
October 3, 2007, from http://www.ahlp. org/docs/about. html.

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center. (2007). Status ofstate PACE programs.
Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http:.//www.farmlandinfo. org/farmland_preservation_1iterature/index cfm?function=article~view
&articlelD=34142.

American Farmland Trust. (2007). What 's happening to our farmland? Retrieved October 3,
2007, from http://www.farmland. org/resources/fote/default. asp.

American Planning Association. (2007). Culturalla~ndscapes CulturalItowns. Retrieved October
3, 2007, from http://www.planning. org/conferences/newharmony2007.htm.

Arendt, R., & Yaro, R. (1989). Rural landscape planning in the Connecticut River valley of
Massachusetts. APTBulletin, 21(2), 13-20.

Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources. (2007). Uluru-
Kata Tjuta national park. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from
http://www. envi ronm ent. gov. au/p arks/uluru/.

Australian Heritage Council. (2007). Periodic report. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from
http://www.ahc.gov.au/publications/ahc-peidcrpthm.

Barrett, B., & Taylor, M. (2007). Three models for managing living landscapes. CRM: The
Journal ofHeritage Stewardship, 4(2), 50-65.

Birnbaum, C. ( 1994). Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning,
Treatment, and Management of Historic Landscapes. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
http ://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief3.htm.

Bureau of Land Management. (2004). National landscape conservation system. Retrieved
September 19, 2006, from http://www.blm. gov/nles/brochure/index.htm.

Centralpark.com. (2007). Central ~PP arkPPP~~~~~PPPP history. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from
http ://www.centralpark.com/pages/history .html.










Colburn, D. (1996). Florida politics in the twentieth century. In M. Gannon (Ed.), The new
history ofFlorida (pp.344-372). Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Coleman, V. (2003).Cultural Landscapes Charrette Background Paper. Retrieved August 29,
2007, from http://www.heritage. nsw.gov. au/docs/CLBackground9-03 .pdf.

Compton, M. (Ed.). (2007) Horse capital digest. Ocala, FL: Florida Equine Publications, Inc.

Conaway, J. (2006). Magnificent possession. Preservation, 58(3), 28-33.

Conservation Trust for Florida. (n.d.). Guide to conservation easements and other land
conservation options. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http://www.conserveflorida.org/Protecting os~uty00907_FINALVERSION.pdf.

Conservation Trust for Florida. (2007). Protecting horse country. Retrieved October 3, 2007,
from http://www. conserveflorida. org/farmlandproj ect. html.

Council of Europe. (n.d.). Aims of the European landscape convention. Retrieved July 1, 2007,
from http://www.coe. int/t/e/cultural_co%2Doperati on/environment/l andscape/presentati on/
3_Aims/index. asp#TopOfPage.

Council of Europe. (n.d.). Why a landscape convention? Retrieved July 1, 2007, from
http://www. coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-operation/Environmn/adcp/

Council of Europe. (2007). State of signatures and ratifications. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/CeceigapN=76&CM= 8&DF=&CL=ENG.

Cullingworth, J. B. (1993). The political culture of planning: American land use planning in
comparative perspective. New York: Routledge.

Cultural Landscape Foundation. (n.d.). Cultural landscapes defined. Retrieved October 3, 2007,
from http://www.ttclf org/whati s.htm.

Cultural Landscape Foundation. (n.d.). Our organization. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http ://www.ttclf org/organizati on. htm.

Cultural Landscape Foundation. (2005). Stewardship stories. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http ://www.ttclf org/steward shi p/thomp son. htm.

Delaware Farmland Preservation Program. (2007). Farmland preservation in Delmeare.
Retri eved Octob er 6, 2007, from http://dda.del aware.gov/agl ands/Indpres. shtml.

Department of Agriculture. (1997). Horses and ponies inventory. Retrieved October 16, 2007,
from http://www.nass.usda .gov/census/census97/rankings/tbl49 .pdf.










Department of Agriculture. (2007). USDA Florida Fact M t.\lrrr Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http://www. ers .usda.gov/StateFacts/FL .htm.

Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2007a). Historic route 66
overview. Retrieved September 9, 2007, from
http://www.byways. org/explore/byways/2489/stories/63 753 .

Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2007b). Learn about byways.
Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://www.byways. org/learn/.

Dubrow, G. (2000) Asian American imprints on the western landscape. In A. Alanen & R.
Melnick (Eds.), Preserving cultural landscapes in America (pp. 143-168). Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Equestrian Land Conservation Resource. (2004). Equestrian community zoning. Retrieved
September 18, 2007, from http://www.elcr. org/resources/R 12.html.

Equestrian Land Conservation Resource. (2007). Focus on ELCR. Retrieved September 18,
2007, from http ://www.elcr.org/index~focus.php.

Fairclough, G. (1999). Protecting the cultural landscape: National designation and local
character. In J. Grenville (Ed.), Managing the historic rural landscape (pp.27-42). London:
Routl edge.

Fleming, J., & Ammidown, M. (2007). Thematic resources district ordinance: A potential for
resolving matters that do not neatly fit into historic preservation ordinances: An update.
Proceedings from the American Law Institute-American Bar Association Continuing Legal
Education Course of Study. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.

Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 9J-5 (2007).

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 35 U.S.C. @ 1701 (2007).

Florida Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources. (2007a). Mission statement. Retrieved
September 18, 2007, from http://www.dep. state.fl.us/Parks/bncr/default.htm.

Florida Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources. (2007b). Staff functions. Retrieved September
18, 2007, from http://www.dep. state.fl.us/Parks/bncr/default.htm.

Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association. (2007). Annual conference 2007:
Planning a delicate balance. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from
http ://www.floridaplanning.org/conference/indexap

Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, Fla. Stat. @ 163 (2007).










Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2006). Florida agriculture
statistical highlights. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://www.florida-
agri culture .com/pub s/pub form/p df/Flori daAgri culture_Stati stick sBrochure. pdf.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (n.d.). Florida horse industry.
Retrieved September 6, 2007, from http://www.florida-
agriculture.com/pub s/pubform/pdf/FloridaHorseIndustry Brochure. pdf.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2007). Florida forever. Retrieved October 18,
2007, from http://www.dep. state.fl .us/lands/acqui siti on/Fl ori daF orever/.

Florida Department of State. (2007). Office of cultural and historical programs. Retrieved
October 18, 2007, from http:.//www.flheritage. com/.

Florida Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Program review. Retrieved September 18, 2007,
from http://www.dot.state .fl.us/emo/sceni chwy/programovervi ew.htm.

Florida Division of Community Planning. (n.d.). Waterfcronts Florida partnership program.
Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.dca. state.fl .us/fdcp/dcp/waterfronts/index. cfm.

Florida Division of Historical Resources. (2006). Planning for the past: Preserving Florida 's
heritage 2006-1010. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from
http:.//www.dhr. dos. state.fl .us/preservation/planning~for the_past.pdf.

Florida Division of Housing and Community Development. (n.d.). What is Florida 's
communities trust? Retrieved October 15, 2007, from
http ://www.floridacommunitydevelopment. org/fct/.

Florida Earth Foundation. (2007). FLUI central Florida forum. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http://floridaearth.org/index.cfm?fuseactio vnsoeeeteeti=5&x=6567537.

Florida Historical Resources Act, Fla. Stat. ( 267 (2007).

Florida Redevelopment Association. (2006). What is tar increment financing? Retrieved October
15, 2007, from http ://www.redevelopment.net/crafaq. aspx.

Freeman, A. (2003). Finding the there there. Landscape Architecture, 98-103.

Goetcheus, C. (2002) Cultural landscapes and the National Register. CRM~2agazine, 25(1),
24-5.

Grossi, R. (1999) National perspectives: American farmland trust. In C. Beaumont (Ed.),
Challenging sprawl: Organizational responses to a national problem (pp. 14-15). Washington,
D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation.










Groth, P., & Wilson, C. (2003). The polyphony of cultural landscape study: An introduction. In
P. Groth & C. Wilson (Eds.), Everyday America: Cultural landscape studies after J.B. Jackson
(pp. 1-22). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hardesty, D. (2000) Ethnographic landscapes: Transforming nature into culture. In A. Alanen &
R. Melnick (Eds.), Preserving cultural landscapes in America (pp. 169-185). Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.

H.B. 956, 2003 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2003).

H.B. 7203, 2007 Leg. (Fla. 2007).

Ingerson, A. (2000a). What are cultural landscapes? Retrieved July 8, 2007, from
http://www.icls.harvard.edu/language/whatrhm.

Ingerson, A. (2000b). What does it takettttt~~~~~~~tttttt to keep farm landscapes working? Retrieved October 14,
2007, from http://www.icls.harvard.edu/workland/essa l.html.

Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies. (2003). About the institute. Retrieved July 8, 2007, from
http ://www.icls.harvard.edu/about.html.

Johnson, C. (1993). Florida thoroughbred. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Land Trust Alliance. (2005). National land trust census. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from
http://www. 1ta. org/ab outlta/cen su s.shtml,

Lea, D. (2003). America' s preservation ethos: A tribute to enduring ideals. In R. Stipe (Ed.), A
richer heritage: Historic preservation in the twenty-first century (pp. 1-22). Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.

Loudoun County, Virginia Historic and Cultural Conservation Districts. (n.d.). Background.
Retrieved June 24, 2007, from http://www. co.loudoun.va.us/planning/historic.htm#bakrud

Loudoun County, Virginia. (n.d.) Issues paper: Cultural landscapes. Retrieved June 24, 2007,
from
http://inetdocs. loudoun.gov/revi sedcomp/docs/preservationpla /i ssues_/culturallandsca/culturalla
ndsca.doc.

Marion County Board of County Commissioners. (2005) Marion County comprehensive plan.
Retrieved October 7, 2007, from http://www. marioncountyfl. org/PL271/lPL_Comp Plan.htm.

Marion County Board of County Commissioners. (2004a). Marion County land development
code. Retrieved October 7, 2007, from
http ://www.municode.com/Resources/ClientCodeLstasp?cn=Marion%20County&sid=9&cid=
11253.










Marion County Board of County Commissioners. (2004b). Scenic roads. Retrieved June 12,
2007, from http://www. marioncountyfl. org/PL27 1/PL_S cenicRoads.htm.

Marion County Board of County Commissioners. (2004c). Transfer of development rights
program. Retrieved June 14, 2007, fromhttp://www.mmarioncountyfl.org/PL271/PL_TDR/
PL TDR.htm.

Marion County Visitors and Convention Bureau. (2007). Ocala Marion county visitor 's guide.
Ocala, FL: Author.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (2007a). Mazylan2d's rural legacy:1Introduction.
Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://www.dnr. state.md.us/rurallegacy/rlprogram/
introduction.html.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (2007b). Rural legacy program. Retrieved June 28,
2007, from http://www.dnr.state .md. us/rurallegacy/rlprogram/index .html.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (2005). Statewide nzap of rural legacy areas.
Retrieved October 11, 2007, from
http://www. dnr. state.md.us/rurallegacy/rlprogram/stateR RL.pdf.

Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. (n.d.). Heritage landscape
preservation program. Retrieved September 9, 2007, from
http ://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/histland/Ivnoyrghm

Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. (n.d.). Historic landscape
preservation program. Retrieved September 9, 2007, from
http ://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/histland/vriwhm

Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. (2004). Reading the land: A guide
to identification and protection. Boston: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.

Mayes, T. (2003). Preservation law and public policy: Balancing priorities and building an ethic.
In R. Stipe (Ed.), A richer heritage: Historic preservation in the twenty-first century (pp.157-
186). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina.

McClelland, L., Keller, L., Keller, G., & Melnick, R. (1999). Guidelines for evaheating and
documenting rural historic landscapes. Retrieved March 4, 2006, from
http://www.nps .gov/hi story/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb3 0/.

McMahon, E., & Watson, E. (1992). In search of collaboration: Historic preservation and the
environmental movement. National Trust for Historic Preservation htfornzation Series, 1-16.

Melnick, R. (1987). Rural surveys: Tools and techniques. The Public Historian, 9(1), 20-30.










Melnick, R. (2000) Considering nature and culture in historic landscape preservation. In A.
Alanen & R. Melnick (Eds.), Preserving cultural landscapes in America (pp.22-43). Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Milanich, J. (1996). Original inhabitants. In M. Gannon (Ed.), The new history ofFlorida (pp.1-
15). Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Miller, H. (2002) Countrysides lost and found: Discovering cultural landscapes. CRM~2agazine,
25(3), 14-6.

Miller, J. (2004). A layperson 's guide to historic preservation law. Washington, D.C.: National
Trust for Historic Preservation.

National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. ( 470 (2007).

National Park Service. (2007a). Canyon de Chelly national monuntent. Retrieved October 14,
2007, from http ://www.nps.gov/cach/.

National Park Service. (2000). Designation ofNational ParkPPPPP~~~~~~~PPPPPP System units. Retrieved October 3,
2007, from http://www.np s.gov/l egacy/nomenclature. html.

National Park Service. (2007b). Ebey 's turns 30. Retrieved September 11, 2007, from
http:.//www.nps.gov/ebla.

National Park Service. (n.d.). Historic landscape initiative. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http ://www.nps.gov/hps/hli/index.htm.

National Park Service. (n.d.). Jinany Carter national historic site. Retrieved October 14, 2007,
from http://www.np s. gov/dsc/b~what/b 5zdj immy Carter.htm.

National Park Service. (2007c). National register information system. Retrieved October 3, 2007
from, http:.//www.nr. np s.gov/.

National Park Service. (n.d.). What is a national heritage area? Retrieved September 9, 2007,
from http://www.np s.gov/hi story/heritageareas/F AQ/INDEX.HTM.

National Park Service. (n.d.) Welcome to the national register. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http ://www.nps.gov/nr/about.htm.

National Park Service. (n.d.) What are the criteria for listing? Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http://www.nps .gov/nr/li sting.htm.

National Park Service. (2006). What 's a corridor? Retrieved September 9, 2007, from
http://www.nps .gov/blac/parkmgmt/whats-a-corridor. htm.

National Register Criteria, 36 C.F.R. ( 60.4 (2007).











National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2007a). Northeast preservation news. Retrieved
October 15, 2007, from http ://www.nationaltru st.org/northeast/newsletesnr-97pf

National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2007b). Preservation easements. Retrieved June 28,
2007, from http://nthp.org/l egal/easements/index .html.

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. (2007). Heritage areas.
Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://nysparks. state.ny.us/heritage/herit~area.asp.

Ocala Star Banner. (2003). Archaeologists digging up Fort King 's past. Retrieved October 3,
2007, fromhttp://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artceAD/0311
OCALACOMHIS TORY/101010021/-1 community0 102

O'Donnell, P. (2005). Evolving heritage landscapes nI ithrinl thelir settings: Examples of planning
for the stewardship & sustainability of protected landscapes in the thrited States. Proceedings
from the ICOMOS General Assembly, Xi'an, China. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from
http://www. heritagelandscapes. com/cl/index. htm.

Old Florida Heritage Highway. (2007). Vision statement. Retrieved September 9, 2007, from
http://www. scenicus441. com/.

Orange Co., Cal., Code (7-9-120 (June 7, 2005).

Ott, E., & Chazal, L. (1966). Ocali county: Kingdom of the sun. Ocala, FL: Marion Publishers,
Inc.

Parks Canada. (2004). Cultural landscapes: Canadian approach. Retrieved June 24, 2007, from
http://www.pc.gc. ca/docs/r/pca-acl/sec2/sec2c_e.asp.

Paster, E. (2004). Preservation of agricultural lands through land use planning tools and
techniques. Natural Resources Journal, 44, 283-3 18.

Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).

St. Johns River Eco-Heritage Corridor. (n.d). Objectives, mission, and goals for the St. John 's
eco-heritage corridor. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
http://nefhsc. org/river~corridor.htm#Eco-Heritage%20Corrio?

St. Johns River Eco-Heritage Corridor. (n.d.). What is an eco-heritage corridor? Retrieved
September 18, 2007, from http://nefhsc. org/river~corridor. htm#Eco-Heritage%20Corridor?.

Salsich, P., & Tryniecki, T. (2003). Land use regulation: A legal analysis & practical
application of lnd use law (2nd ed.). Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing.










Schuyler, D., & O'Donnell, P. (2000). The history and preservation of urban parks and
cemeteries. In A. Alanen & R. Melnick (Eds.), Preserving cultural landscapes in America
(pp.70-93). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Seatac, Wash., Code (15.28.060 (2007).

Siegan, B. (1997). Property and f~eedons: The Constitution, the courts, and land-use regulation.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area. (2006a). About us. Retrieved September 10,
2007, from http://www. silosandsmoke stacks. org/home/CMS/Ab out Us.php.

Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area. (2006b). Sites. Retrieved September 10, 2007,
from http://www. silosandsmokestacks. org/sites/.

Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area. (2006c). Who we are. Retrieved September 10,
2007, from http://www.sil osandsmokestacks. org/home/CMS/Ab outUs/WhoWeAre.php.

Stipe, R. (2003). Preface. In R. Stipe (Ed.), A richer heritage: Historic preservation in the
twenty-first century (pp. vii-xi). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Tappendorf, J. and Cunningham, K. (2004). From the traditional to the more creative: Incentives
for historic preservation. In P. Salkin (Ed.), Current trends and practical strategies in land use
law and zoning (pp. 111-132). Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing.

Trust for Public Land. (2007a). About TPL. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http:.//www.tpl .org/ti er2_sa. cfm? fol der~id= 170.

Trust for Public Land. (2007b). TPL to help protect the Alexander lTT dron house. Retrieved
October 3, 2007, from http://www.tpl. org/tier3_cd.cfm? content~item_id=21 229&folder~id=251.

Tyler, N. (2000) Historic preservation: An introduction to its history, principles, and practice.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2007a) Ecosystem and relict
cultural landscape ofLope-Ok anda.~~~kkk~~~~kkk Retrieved October 14, 2007, from
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1 147.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2005). Operational
Guidelines for the Insplententation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: World Heritage
Centre.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2007b). Rice terraces of the
Philippines Cordilleras. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://whc.unesco. org/en/li st/722.










United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2007c). Royal botanic
gardens. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1084.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2007d). World heritage
cultural landscapes. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http://whc.une sco. org/en/culturall and scap e/.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1999). World heritage
nomination Pyrenees-M~ont Perdu. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http://whc.unesco. org/archive/advi sory body_evaluation/773bis .pdf.

University of Pennsylvania Design Studio and University of Central Florida Metropolitan Center
for Regional Studies. (2007). Florida 2060: We can do better. Retrieved September 10, 2007,
from http://metrocenter. ucf edu/file s/Fl orida2060.pdf.

Village ofEuclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co, 272 U. S. 365 (1926).

Village of Wellington, Florida. (2006a). Equestrian conanittee. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from
http:.//www.wellvillage. com/agendas bc_equestrian. htm.

Village of Wellington, Florida. (2005). Land development regulations. Retrieved October 7,
2007, from http://www.ci .wellington.fl.us/vdept pzb_planningzoningLDR.htm.

Village of Wellington, Florida. (2006b). Village comprehensive plan. Retrieved October 7, 2007,
from
http ://www.ci.wellington.fl .us/PDF/Publications/2006%20Publications/20%0op2Pa
%20pdf~pdf.

Watson, E., & Nagel, S. (1995). Establishing an easement program to protect historic, scenic,
and natural resources. National Trust for Historic Preservation htfornzation Series, 1-19.

World Conservation Union. (2007). What is the World Conservation Union? Retrieved October
3, 2007, from http://www.iucn. org/en/about/.

World Monuments Fund World Monuments Watch. (2006). Bhtegrass cultural landscape of
Kentuckry. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://wmf.org/resources/sitepages/
united_states bluegras s_cultural_1and scap ekentucky .html .

Zelin, J. (2007). Florida jurisprudence: Building, zoning and land controls (211d ed.). Eagan, MN:
Thomson West.

Ziegler, E., Rathkopf, A., & Rathkopf, D. (2007). Rathkopf's the law of planning and zoning (4th
ed.). Eagan, MN: Thomson West.









Zwick, P., & Carr, M. (2006). Florida 2060: A population distribution scenario for the state of
Florida. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from 1000 Friends of Florida site:
www. 1000friendsofflori da. org/PUB S/2060/Flori da-2060-Report-Final .pdf.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Adrienne Dessy received her Bachelor of Arts in history from the University of Virginia

in 2002, and entered the University of Florida' s Levin College of Law in Fall 2004. Adrienne

combined her interest in law with her interest in historic preservation, and began concurrent

graduate studies in the Master of Science in Architectural Studies program in Spring 2006. As a

law student, she concentrated on environmental and land use law, serving as Co-Chair of the 13th

Public Interest Environmental Conference and Co-President of the Environmental and Land Use

Law Society, in addition to serving as a General Board Member of the Journal ofLaw and'

Public Policy. As a graduate student, due to her interest in land use planning and conservation

strategies, her preservation focus shifted to historic and cultural landscape protection. After

graduation, she hopes to work on land conservation initiatives.





PAGE 1

1 PLANNING, ZONING, AND PRESERVATION: PROTECTING FLORIDAS AGRARIAN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE By ADRIENNE E. DESSY A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Adrienne E. Dessy

PAGE 3

3 To my Mom, Dad, and Lola.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank m y supervisory comm ittee members Peter Prugh, Kristin Larsen, and Tom Ankersen for all of their assistance an d advice, and for contribu ting to the quality of my educational experience, as I learned a great de al from each of them. Extra special thanks to Kerry Vautrot, who provided hope and humor, and to my friends, for their constant encouragement. Most of all, I thank my pare nts, for emphasizing the value of education, the strength to persevere, and the knowledge that I can do anything with ha rd work and the right attitude.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................. ...5 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................11 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 Framing the Dilemma............................................................................................................ .12 Methodology...........................................................................................................................13 Research Outcomes.............................................................................................................. ..15 2 DEFINING CULTURAL LANDSCAPE............................................................................... 16 Cultural Landscape Overview................................................................................................ 16 Limiting Cultural Landscape.................................................................................................. 27 Cultural Landscape Examples................................................................................................31 Cultural Landscape Issues......................................................................................................33 Static versus Evolving.....................................................................................................33 Size and Scope.................................................................................................................34 Long-term Protection....................................................................................................... 35 Property Rights Conflicts................................................................................................36 Summary.................................................................................................................................37 3 STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTI NG CULTURAL LANDSCAPES .....................................41 Cultural Landscape Protection Outside the United States ......................................................41 Cultural Landscape Protection Within the United States....................................................... 45 National Protection Strategies......................................................................................... 46 National Park Service............................................................................................... 46 Bureau of Land Management...................................................................................50 Department of Transportation.................................................................................. 52 State Protection Strategies............................................................................................... 53 State legislation........................................................................................................ 53 State cultural designations ........................................................................................56 Local Protection Strategies..............................................................................................57 Individual strategies.................................................................................................57 Certified local government status............................................................................. 60

PAGE 6

6 Comprehensive planning.......................................................................................... 60 Zoning......................................................................................................................62 Overlay districts.......................................................................................................64 Purchase or transfer of developm ent rights.............................................................. 66 Summary.................................................................................................................................67 4 PROTECTIVE MECHANISMS: FLORIDA......................................................................... 69 Florida Legislation a nd Cultural Designations ....................................................................... 69 Floridas Comprehensiv e Planning Authority ........................................................................72 Floridas Zoning Authority.....................................................................................................78 Planning + Zoning = Best Protec tion for Cultural Landscapes ..............................................78 5 CULTURAL LANDSCAPE SITE STUDY: MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA................... 80 Agrarian Culture.....................................................................................................................80 Florida......................................................................................................................80 Marion County.........................................................................................................81 Marion Countys Landscape in Danger..................................................................................84 Marion Countys Agrarian Cultural Landscape..................................................................... 87 Overview of Rural Cultural Landscape Characteristics .........................................................88 Marion Countys Rural Cultura l Landscape Characteristics .................................................. 90 Existing Planning & Zoning Regulations............................................................................... 93 Marion Countys Comprehensive Plan...........................................................................93 Marion Countys Land Development Code.................................................................... 97 Summary: Existing Planni ng and Zoning Regulations ...................................................99 Integrating Cultural Landscape Protection in Marion County ............................................. 100 Initial Considerations.....................................................................................................100 Including the Equine Cultural Lands cape in Comprehensive Planning ........................ 102 Including the Equine Cultural Landscape in Zoning Regulations .................................107 Draft Planning and Zoning Documents for Ma rion Countys Equine Cultural Landscape .109 Summary...............................................................................................................................111 6 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS............................................................................................. 123 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................123 Future Research....................................................................................................................124 APPENDIX A IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION T OOLS FOR CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN THE UNITED STATES ..................................................................................................127 B DRAFT MARION COUNTY COMP REHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT .............................128 C DRAFT MARION COUNTY OVERLAY DISTRICT ....................................................... 130

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................132 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................143

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Defining Landscape......................................................................................................... ..39 1-2 Seeing Cultural Landscapes........................................................................................... 39 1-3 Table of Cultural Landscape Definitions by Organization................................................ 40 4-1 National Park Service Rura l Landscape Characteristics. .................................................112 4-2 Marion County Horse Country Cultural La nds cape Features Utilizing National Park Service Rural Landscape Characteristics......................................................................... 113

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1. Farming is a major land use in Marion County................................................................... 114 4-2. Land is spatially organi zed into individual farm s............................................................... 114 4-3. Farms are often located close to the road ways for easy access, dem onstrating patterns of spatial organization......................................................................................................115 4-4. The hilly terrain and warm cli mate of the region contribute to agricultural success.......... 115 4-5. Brightly painted horse statues located throughout the region dem o nstrate the cultural importance of the equine industry to Marion County...................................................... 116 4-6. Marion County proudly displays its Horse Capital of the W orld title............................. 116 4-7. The Florida Horse Park, home to nationa l equine events, dem onstrates cultural significance of the sport and also sh ows modification of the landscape......................... 117 4-8. Scenic roads serve as part of the countys circ ulation network. .......................................... 117 4-9. Trees and fencing provide boundary dem arcations, and the road displays the areas hilly terrain. ................................................................................................................. .....118 4-10. Vegetation in the form of la rge trees provides shade for horses. ...................................... 118 4-11. Equine facilities dot the rural landscape in Marion County. ............................................. 119 4-12. Buildings, structures, and objects of the Marion County rural landscape ........................119 4-13. Farm fencing and buildings represent the cluster elem ent of NPS rural landscape characteristics. ..................................................................................................................120 4-14. A marker designates the ar chaeological site of Fort King, a National Historic Landm ark.........................................................................................................................120 4-16. Signage identifying farms is representative of s mall-scale elements in the area.............. 121 4-17. Signs in conjunction with entry gates are comm on small-scale elements ........................121 4-18. Street signs, another small-scale element, inform drivers that roadways are not just used by cars. .....................................................................................................................122

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AONB Areas of outstanding natural beauty (United Kingdom) CLF Cultural Landscape Foundation CLG Certified local government HCC Historic and Cultura l Conservation Districts (Loudoun County, Virginia) ICLS Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies (Harvard University) LDC Land development code LDR Land development regulations NHPA National Historic Preservation Act National Register National Regi ster of Historic Places NPS National Park Service SHPO State Historic Preservation Office TRD Thematic resources district UNESCO United Nations Educational, Sc ientific, and Cultural Organization USDA United States Department of Agriculture

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Architectural Studies PLANNING, ZONING, AND PRESERVATION: PROTECTING FLORIDAS AGRARIAN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE By Adrienne E. Dessy December 2007 Chair: Peter Prugh Major: Architecture Planning, Zoning, and Preservation seeks to evaluate how to best protect cultural landscapes within the context of the United States The study begins with an attempt to find a normative definition of a cultural landscape and moves on to addr ess the potential challenges with designating a partic ular location a cultural landscape. Strategies for protecting cultural landscapes are explored through a case study review of protection practices in other countries, as well as those closer to home. As protective mechanisms at the national, st ate, and local levels in the United States, planning and zoning tools are some of the most effective tools in cultu ral landscape protection. Selecting Marion Countys unique equine cultural la ndscape as an example of Floridas agrarian landscape, Planning, Zoning, and Preservation investigates local pla nning and zoning policies, and provides draft documents of a comprehensive plan element and overlay district designed to be more fully attuned to protection of Mari on Countys cultural landsc ape. Draft policies integrating Marion Countys local cultural landscape illustrate how planning and zoning mechanisms can be utilized in the field of cultural landscape pr otection, and provide a framework for considering analogous mechanisms in other communities.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Framing the Dilemma Historic preservation has commonly focused on buildings, but there is an increasing awareness of preserving the context of thes e buildings, which typically encompasses the surrounding landscape. When one thinks of a land scape, formal gardens or vast stretches of open land may come to mind. However, a more e xpansive view of landscap es incorporates the surrounds of a particular historic site, which ma y be urban or more dens ely developed than is commonly associated with the concept of landscape Historic preservation has come to embrace the term cultural landscape to identify this mi xture of context, represented by the landscape, and culture, represented by human modifications to the landscape. However, the conceptual use of cultura l landscape is not limited to the historic preservation profession; rather, a variety of disciplines utili ze cultural landscape as a descriptor of a particular interaction be tween humans and their surroundings. As a result, conflicting definitions of the term appear, and contribute to confusion over what precisely constitutes a cultural landscape. Preservationi sts, generally interested in providing protection for a cultural landscape, have a different purpose in using and defining the term than would a geographer. Yet even within the preservation field, finding a common definition of a cultural landscape is difficult. In light of increased population and growth pressures, typically resulting in what is known as urban sprawl, preserva tion organizations have beco me increasingly involved with identification and protection of cultural landscapes. In order to unify the cause, and make understanding the concept simpler, finding a shared definition of cultural landscape is necessary in order to provide clarity and consistency in wh at cultural landscapes should be protected, and

PAGE 13

13 to generally provide a better understanding of the conceptual basi s behind cultural landscapes. Protection of cultural landscapes will suffer from meriting any serious consideration where the concept cannot be conveyed clearly. Once this consistency is obtaine d, an organization or interested party can move forward to assess and implement strategies that will provide protection for a cultural landscape. However, because cultural landscapes are an expansive and multi-layered concept, and still relatively new, identifying strategies that can be utilized in protection of these landscapes is more complex than identifying protective strategies for historic buildings, as one example, because specific mechanisms are already in place providing for such protection of those buildings. Current cultural lands cape protection must instead rely on strategies created for other purposes. Existing policies often provide for consideration of natural elements, including contextual landscapes, or consideration of cultural elements, including buildings and structures, but not for consideration of both elements together. However, protective strategies embodied in these existing options provide a framework for how cultural landscape protection can be accomplished, and review of these strategies can a ssist organizations or agencies interested in providing for such protection. Clearly defining cultural land scape and identifying existing strategies that are res ponsive to defining characteristics provi des an effective means of protecting these landscapes, especially in regions facing increased population and development pressures. Methodology First, a unified definition of cultural landscapes f or heritage protection purposes will be identified. Reviewing existing definitions of cultural landsca pes as utilized by heritage protection groups or those groups with a related in terest in landscapes will illustrate the varied terminology currently utilized by those with a shared interest in cultural landscape protection and preservation. Creating a shared definition of cultural landscape will help to lessen confusion

PAGE 14

14 over the use of the term, provide a basis from wh ich to begin to evaluate and identify those cultural landscapes partic ularly deserving of prot ection, and assist in futu re efforts to implement legislative mechanisms that address cultural land scapes. Further, potential issues in cultural landscape protection will be considered in order to evaluate any obstacles that may arise during the protection process. Second, a case study review of existing cultural landscape prot ection strategies on international, national, state, and local levels will be conducte d to provide insight into how current legislative and heritage designation strategies can be applied to include cultural landscapes. Having a consistent definition of the term cultural landscape provides a better understanding of the concept in general, and a useful background in understanding how these landscapes can be considered within the realm of existing strategies. Although international strategies will be briefly addressed to illustra te the global implementation of cultural landscape considerations, particular focus will be give n to strategies within the United States. Third, narrowing the review of existing protective strategies to one state will enable a more in-depth consideration of policies that may aid in cultural landscape protection. Selecting Florida as a site for more detailed analysis is re levant in that Florida is commonly recognized as having strong state legislation that drives local policies such as comprehensive planning, and that could play a role in preservi ng cultural landscapes. Reviewing existing st ate legislation and cultural designations in Florida, and in pa rticular, state planning and zoning policy will determine the availability of current policies that could be utilized in protecting cultural landscapes within the state. Fourth, selecting a particular cultural landscape within Florida, the equine landscape in Marion County, narrows the scope even further, will allow for a detailed case-study analysis of

PAGE 15

15 one localities existing planning policies and zo ning regulations, and will illustrate that locallevel strategies play an important role in cult ural landscape protection. The analysis will explore options for cultural landscape protection within the existing policies, a nd expose places where protection of the equine cultural landscape should be integrated. Draft policies for protection of the equine cultural landscape will be created to include any elements that are missing from existing policy. Research Outcomes Research will result in a clearer understand ing of the term cultu ral landscape, and how the term can be defined by herita ge protection groups to form a uni fied basis from which to work towards protection strategies for cultural landsca pes. Case study review of existing protective strategies on multiple levels provides a sour ce for considering possible methods for cultural landscape protection, especi ally within the United States. Where cultural landscapes are not specifically provided for in cont emporary policy, knowledge of po licies that could incorporate cultural landscape protection is useful, especially on the loca l-level where many preservation initiatives originate. Concl uding thoughts will pres ent opportunities for future research.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 DEFINING CULTURAL LANDSCAPE In considering historic preservation, one likely thinks of historic structures, particularly those relating to a historic figur e or a particular event. W hile there has been an increasing awareness of historic preservation, especially as a mechanism for smart growth and economic development, there is not yet a fully developed awareness of the need for protecting the context of any given structure, that is the landscape surrounding and enco mpassing the structure itself. This connectivity between the built environment a nd the natural environment, between the work of humans and the work of nature, is typically referred to as the cultura l landscape. The study of cultural landscapes falls within the realm of hi storic preservation studi es, as it is generally evocative of a historic interac tion between people and their natura l environment. However, it is something more than that as well, representi ng current interaction with the landscape, and emphasizing history being made today. Cultural Landscape Overview One of the greatest d ifficulties in cultural landscape studies is ascertaining what precisely constitutes a cultural landscap e. Geographer Carl Sauer introduced the concept in his 1925 article The Morphology of Landscape (Alane n & Melnick, 2000). Sauer provided the basic definition of the term, stating, Culture is the ag entthe natural area is the medium, the cultural landscape the result (A lanen & Melnick, 2000, p.15). Sauers concept did not catch on immediately, and as recently as the 1950s, the term cultural landscape rarely appeared in print (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.1). One exception is the work of J.B. Jackson, who created the journal Landscape in 1951. Landscape explored the connections between geography, history, architecture, planning, design, sociology, anthropology, ecology, preservation, and tourism in relation to the American cultural la ndscape. Jacksons

PAGE 17

17 work became widely known in academic circles, and he inspired students who would emerge as important scholars and commentators in th eir own right (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.7-9). A second exception is the work of Peirce Lewis, a geography professor who has focused his studies on landscapes as important expressions of hi story and culture (Groth & Wilson, 2003). Definitions by Sauer, Jackson, and Lewis all emphasize the interconnec tivity of nature and culture. Given that the concept is still fairly ne w, a well-settled definition has yet to be established. One complicating factor is the spli t between preservation of the built environment and conservation of the natural environment. Landscape studies have been aligned with both movements (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.14) but cultural landscape stud ies require a consideration of both the built and natural environments, which are commonly considered as separate elements. This traditional split is made even mo re complex when considering that natural does not always necessarily equate concepts of nature and landscape as wilderness. A cultural landscapes natural environment or landscape el ement may in reality be an urban space or densely populated area that although not open space, is of equal considera tion in considering the natural, or landscape, element. Further complicating matters, a range of professions geographers, landscape arch itects, architects, planners, and pr eservationists, to name only a few have expressed interest in studying the cultur al landscape (Groth & Wilson, 2003). As a result, the term cultural landscape may be expresse d differently depending on with whom one is speaking. As a leader in the preservation of international cultural sites, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cu ltural Organization (UNESCO) de fines cultural landscapes as [c]ombined works of nature and humankind [tha t] express a long and intimate relationship

PAGE 18

18 between peoples and their natural environment (World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 2007). Cultural landscapes are eligible for inclusion on UNESCOs World Heritage List in order to reveal and sustain the great dive rsity of the interactions between humans and their environment, to protect living traditional cultur es and [to] preserve the traces of those which have disappeared (World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 2007). UNESCO defines cultural landscapes in three categories; the first being a cl early defined landscape designed and created intentionally by man (World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 2007). This includes garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthet ic reasons which are often (but not always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings a nd ensembles (World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 2007). The Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew, near London, exemplify UNESCOs clearly designed landscape. A UNESCO World Heritage Site, the Gardens showcase designed landscapes by celebrated landscape architects and gardeners, and ar e utilized as a place to study ecology and botany (Royal Botanic Gardens, 2007). The second UNESCO category is the organically evolved landscape, which results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious impera tive and has developed its present form by association with and in respon se to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of evolu tion in their form and component features (World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 2007). This category is brok en into two subcategories, a relict or fossil landscape and a continuing landscape. A relict landscape is one in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visibl e in material form (World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 2007). A recently listed World Her itage Site, the Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lop-Okanda in the country of Gabon, contains relict enviro nments that contain

PAGE 19

19 ancient caves, shelters, and petroglyphs represen ting a no-longer existent culture, but one that remains worthy of special protection (Ecosys tem and Relict Cultural Landscape of LopOkanda, 2007). By contrast, a continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with th e traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the sa me time it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time (World Heritage Cu ltural Landscapes, 2007). The Rice Terraces of the Phillippines demonstrate a continuing landsca pe, as they display a traditional method of human interaction with the land, but this traditiona l interaction is equally relevant in modern culture as an important industry in the region (Rice Terraces of the Philippines Cordilleras, 2007). Lastly, UNESCO references the associative cultural landscape which has powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natu ral element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even ab sent (World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 2007). The Uluru-Kata Tjuta lands cape of Australia represents UNESCOs associative cultural landscape. Commonly referred to as Ayers Rock, the area is especially powerful for the Aboriginal culture as a spiritual and cultural site (Uluru-Kata Tjut a National Park, 2007). Despite the use of varied categ ories, all of UNESCOs definiti ons emphasize an integrated understanding of nature and culture. The World Conservation Union (IUCN), a multinational organization based in Switzerland, whose mission is to influence, encourage and assi st societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and divers ity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable, (What is the World Conservation Union?, 2007)

PAGE 20

20 adopts a model to define landscape (Table 1-1). Though IUCNs model does not strictly define cultural landscape, the layered definition of landscape comprises many of the elements embraced by UNESCOs version of cultural landscapes, namely the interac tion between nature and humans representing historic, social, and cultural heritage. Comp rehension of this link by an international organization traditionally focused on nature conservation represents an influential step in creating understandi ng among a wider audience. In the United States, the National Park Serv ice (NPS) protects national cultural sites as delegated by the Department of the Interior. The NPS utilizes the definition of cultural landscapes as a geographic area, including both cultural and natura l resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a hi storic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthe tic values (Birnbaum, 199 4, Introduction). NPS guidelines further refine this definition by creating four categories of cultura l landscapes: historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vern acular landscapes, and ethnographic lands capes. Historic sites are a landscape significant for its associ ation with a historic event, activity, or person. Examples include battlefields and president's house prope rties (Birnbaum, 1994, Definitions) such as Mount Vernon, George Washingtons home in Virgin ia. Historic designed landscapes, such as Central Park in New York City (Central Park History, 2007), are a landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a landscape architect, master gardener, architect, or horticulturist accord ing to design principles, or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. The landscape may be associated with a significant person(s), trend, or event in landscape ar chitecture; or illustrate an important development in the theory and pr actice of landscape architecture. Aesthetic values play a significant role in designed landscapes. Examples include parks, campuses, and estates (Birnbaum, 1994, Definitions). [Historic vernacular landscapes] include a landscape that evolved through use by the people whose activities or occupancy shaped that landscape. Through social or cultural attitudes of an individual, family or a co mmunity, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, and cultural characte r of those everyday lives. Function plays a significant

PAGE 21

21 role in vernacular landscapes. They can be a single property such as a farm or a collection of properties such as a district of histor ic farms along a river valley. Examples include rural villages, industrial complexes, a nd agricultural lands capes (Birnbaum, 1994, Definitions). The Jimmy Carter National Historic Site in Geor gia is a historic vernacu lar landscape, preserving a single farmstead significant for its connection to former President Carter (Jimmy Carter National Historic Site, n.d.). The Connecticut River Valley contains a collection of historic farms that also merits consideration as a historic vernacular landscap e (Arendt & Yaro, 1989). Lastly, ethnographic landscapes consist of a landscape containing a variety of natural and cultural resources that associated people de fine as heritage resources. Examples are contemporary settlements, religious sacred site s and massive geological structures. Small plant communities, animals, subsistence and ceremoni al grounds are often components (Birnbaum, 1994, Definitions). Canyon de Chelly in Arizona, an ethnographic landscape containing architecture and cultural elements of ancient civilization, is also home to a modern community of Navajo people who are connected to the landscape through history and spirituality (Canyon de Chelly National Monument, 2007). NPS categories are similar to those employed by UNESCO, although with more emphasis on the historic. Compare, for example, UNESCOs split of vernacular landscapes into relict and continuing, versus that of NPSs notion of vernacular landscapes, which is limited to historic landscapes only. Although NPS has em braced culture and nature through recognition of cultural landscapes, the agency retains the em phasis on the historic cultural attributes. The NPS maintains the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) which is a national database of districts, sites, buildings structures, and objects th at are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engi neering, and culture (Welcome to the National Register, n.d.). Eligibility for inclusion on th e National Register is ba sed on certain criteria

PAGE 22

22 relating to historical sign ificance, historic figures or events, and distinctive cons truction or style (What are the Criteria for Listing?, n.d.). Despite this limiting language, landscapes are eligible for inclusion on the National Register, but are officially defined as districts or sites in order to match the Register criteria (Goetcheus, 2002). Confusion arises, however, wher e the NPS uses several terms for landscapes within their system. In addition to designating cultural landsca pes, the NPS also recognizes historic rural landscapes defined as a geographical area that hi storically has been used by people, or shaped or modified by human activity, occupancy, or in tervention, and that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of areas of land use, vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and waterways, and natura l features (McClelland, Keller, Keller & Melnick, 1999). This definition is very similar to th at of historic vernacular landsca pes, yet is treated as its own category separate and apart from that of cultural landscapes. NPS also uses the term historic landscape ge nerally, in its Historic Landscape Initiative (HLI). In describing the HLI program, the agency states, [h]istoric la ndscapes can range from thousands of acres of rural tracts to a small home stead with a front yard of less than one acre. Like historic buildings and structures, these spec ial places reveal aspects of our country's origins and development through their form and features and the way they were used (Historic Landscape Initiative, n.d.). The HLI inventory includes designed and vernacular landscapes, both terms the NPS uses to define cultural lands capes; however, the term cultural landscape does not appear anywhere in the description of the HLI program. Where the c onceptual distinctions between the programs are not so different, it seems unnecessary to use differing terminology; however, the agency continues to do so.

PAGE 23

23 Varied use of landscape terminology by the NPS illustrates the lack of a uniform definition even within the same organization. In discussing th e relationship between cultural landscapes and the National Register, Cari Goetch eus (2002), a landscape architect with the NPS Cultural Landscapes Program says, [t]here are distinctions between the National Register program, the park programs, and the non-park programs in the use and application of terminology (p.25). In recognizing this, Goetch eus (2002) states, [t]he need for clear and consistent terminology cannot be overstated, bu t acknowledges that it is an ongoing challenge (p.25). Clearly the NPS is aware of this challenge, so why definitional issues persist is not clear. From a non-governmental perspective, the Cultural Landscape Founda tion (CLF) is the only not-for-profit foundation in Am erica dedicated to increasing the publics awareness of the importance and irreplaceable legacy of cultura l landscapes (Our Organization, n.d.). CLF wishes to protect cultural landscapes for the quality of life and sense of place that these landscapes provide through educat ion and advocacy. Cultural landscapes are defined by CLF as a geographic area that includes cultural and natu ral resources associated with an historic event, activity, person, or group of people. Cu ltural landscapes can range from thousands of acres of rural land to ho mesteads with small front yards. They can be man-made expressions of visual and sp atial relationships that include grand estates, farmlands, public gardens and parks, college campuses, cem eteries, scenic highways, and industrial sites. Cultural landscapes are works of ar t, texts and narratives of cultures, and expressions of regional identity. They also exist in relationship to their ecological contexts (Cultural Landscapes Defined, n.d.). CLF also utilizes the four-category approach employed by the NPS, and refers to them as general types of cultural landscapes, perhaps le aving room for other landscapes not fitting the categories to be included. Similarly, the Alliance for Historic Landscap e Preservation (AHLP) operates in order to educate the public on and advocate on behalf of historic landscap es, and is dedicated to the preservation and conservation of all historic landscapes. The AHL P acknowledges the variety of

PAGE 24

24 definitions within the field, stating, To define what is meant by historic landscapes is to risk burdening the reader with an overwhelming arra y of thoughts and perspectives. Needless to say, there are many definitions which have been developed over the years (What are historic landscapes?, n.d.). As a basis for providing a definition, however, AHLP uses the recently accepted term of cultural landscape (What are historic landscapes?, n.d.). However, AHLP does not utilize the four categories adopted by the NPS and CLF, but instead uses the three categories adopted by UNESCO: cl early defined landscape designed and created in tentionally by man, organically evolved landscap e (including the relict or fo ssil landscape and the continuing landscape), and the associative cu ltural landscape (What are histor ic landscapes?, n.d.). AHLP acknowledges that the NPS and Parks Canada, for example, have their own definitions, and refers the reader to the resp ective websites for more information. Although AHLP does not provide specific examples of cultural landscapes, they do generally reference rormal gardens, public parks, and rural and urba n spaces (AHLP Poster, 2006). The World Monument Fund and the Nati onal Trust for Historic Preservation, organizations focused on preservation of the bui lt environment, have begun to incorporate cultural landscape protection as pa rt of their missions. The Worl d Monument Fund uses the term in drawing attention to landscap es in danger, such as the Bluegrass Cultural Landscape of Kentucky, but has yet to adopt an internal definition or policy on cultural landscapes (M. Berenfeld, personal communication, October 1, 2007). Similarly, the National Trust does not have an official stance on cu ltural landscapes, but is beginning to become more actively involved in their preservation (L. Suhrstedt, personal communication, October 12, 2007). The Northeast Office of the National Trust has been the most active in cultural landscape preservation, particularly through advocacy for the preserva tion of Block Island, Rhode Islands scenic

PAGE 25

25 landscapes and historic character (Northeast Preservation News, 2007). Although neither organization currently has a specific policy regard ing cultural landscapes, reflecting both groups traditional advocacy for buildings and structures, beginning to include these landscapes demonstrates the shift occurring in the preserva tion field to encompass the context of the built environment. From an academic perspective, the Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies (ICLS), now part of the Landscape Institute conducted throug h the Arnold Arboretum at Harvard University, recognizes the differing ways in which to define cultural landscapes. The ICLS, formed in 1997, and merged with the Lands cape Institute in 2003, was creat ed to support the emerging community of professionals and volunteers w ho manage and interpret landscapes with a significant history of human use, particularly in the northeastern United States (About the Institute, 2003). ICLS does not utilize the te rm to refer to a certain type of landscape, as is done through categorization, but instead as a way of seeing a landscape (Ingerson, 2002). ICLS refers to working farms as an example of a cultural landscape (Ingerson, 2000). ICLS partners with organizations who have contrasting or c onflicting definitions of cultural landscape, and offers a chart as a basis to understanding th ese varying perspectives on cultural landscapes (Table 1-2). This chart is useful in illustrati ng multiple viewpoints utilized in defining cultural landscapes. Professional associations too have their own method of defining cultural landscapes. The American Planning Association (APA) refers to cultural landscapes and cultural towns as genuine and authentic places that are deeply root ed in the arts and arts education which identify, create and develop a towns unique qualities of community[r]especti ng the past, living the present, and visioning the future, cultural comm unities look forward and back simultaneously

PAGE 26

26 (Cultural Landscapes/Cultural Towns, 2007). As an example of a cultural landscape and cultural town, the APA highlights Savannah, Ge orgia as a case study based on the towns integration with the Savannah College of Art a nd Design. This interesting definition diverges from other definitions of cultural landscape, em phasizing culture as art and arts education, as opposed to a general interaction be tween the land and any form of cu lture, art or not. However, it is not entirely revolutionary, as ICLS recognizes this arts-focus ed perspective as one of the components of seeing a landscape. Other professional organizati ons like the American Societ y for Landscape Architects do not have a readily accessible defini tion of cultural landscape; however they do utilize the term in their literature. See, for ex ample, Freeman (2003) who discusses the modern Phoenix, Tempe and Scottsdale, Arizona communities as cultural landscapes. No definition is provided, rather the term is used with an assumption the reader understands the concept. Nonprofit groups without a spec ific focus on cultural or hist oric landscapes also employ the term. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national, nonprof it, land conservation organization that conserves land fo r people to enjoy as parks, comm unity gardens, historic sites, rural lands, and other natural pl aces, ensuring livable communiti es for generations to come (About TPL, 2007). TPL utilizes the term cu ltural landscape in addr essing sites they are involved in protecting. For example, TPL recen tly helped to protect the Alexander/Wilson House outside Cleveland, and descri bes the site as a cultural landscape that identifies a distinct way of the antebellum era in northeast Ohio (TPL to Help Protect the Alexander/Wilson House, 2007). As with the use of the term in the American Society of Landscape Architects literature, TPL assumes understanding of the terminology, indicating awareness of cultural landscapes has come a long way since Sa uer initially introduced the concept.

PAGE 27

27 Limiting Cultural Landscape Despite m any different organizations using different interpretations and concepts surrounding the term cultural landscapes (Table 1-3) it has become part of the lexicon used when referencing landscapes reflecting an inte gration of nature and culture. A significant advance from only fifty years or so ago, when the term was used very little, Carl Sauer and J.B. Jackson would no doubt be curious to see the activ ity and debate generated by their early work. But is it too much debate and not enough c onsensus? The assumption that one cultural landscape exists including accepted meanings, values, and preservation priorities is simplistic and faulty (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.20). Put another way, we can expect no single, unified, rigidly bounded approach to th e study of something so essential and yet so complex as the reciprocal relationships betw een individuals, groups of people, and their everyday surroundings (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.21). While this may be the case for general cultural landscape studies, as aforementioned by Goetch eus (2002), the need for concise and clear terminology is very important when addr essing cultural landscapes and their protection strategies. Without a generally accepted defi nition, protection of a cultural landscape will be particularly onerous where involved parties will not even be able to come to consensus on what constitutes the landscape to be protected. Further, a limited definition will contribute to a better overall understanding of cultura l landscapes, which are concep tually difficult to comprehend given the varied terminology and definitions em ployed by a multitude of groups and professions. In considering the various definitions of a cultural landscape, potentially every landscape is a cultural landscape. Understanding cultural landscapes simplistically as lands evidencing interaction between humans and nature leads to a conclusion that cultural landscapes exist virtually everywhere that huma n activities have affected th e land (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.3). While this broad definition may lend itse lf well to studies in geography, sociology, or

PAGE 28

28 anthropology, it is less effective when applied to the real m of policy, planning, and the law. Definitions of cultural landscape lack the specif icity that these disciplines require, and these disciplines must be involved in matte rs of cultural landscape protection. Historic preservation advocates realized the utility of using the law and planning mechanisms in order to protect historic structures, and as earl y as 1931, the city of Charleston initiated this partners hip between preservation and planning law by enacting the countrys first historic district zoning ordi nance (Lea, 2003). In 1966, the federal government enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), providing a unified national system (Stipe, 2003, p.vii). This system includes both the National Register and National Landmark programs, which identify significant examples of American he ritage, and solidified the partnership between preservation and the law. The law demands uniformity and specificity, so that affected partie s know their positions and have a guideline for behavior. Each word in any given law has meaning, and drafting a law is therefore a deliberate process. The NHPA author izes the Secretary of the Interior to establish criteria for including districts, sites, buildings, struct ures, and objects on the National Register or as a National Landmark (National Historic Pres ervation Act, 2007). Landscapes, as a word on its own, is not included in the NHPA. Nor is it found in the Secretarys criteria, codified at 36 C.F.R. .4, although this section st ates that the criteria are wo rded in a manner to provide for a wide diversity of resources. The criteria for evaluation are: The quality of significance in American history, architec ture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in dist ricts, sites, buildings, struct ures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated wi th the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteri stics of a type, pe riod, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or

PAGE 29

29 that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yi eld, information important in prehistory or history (National Register Criteria, 2007, emphasis added). Notably, the word significance appears a total of te n times within the relatively short statutory section, and serves as the delineator for what can be included in the National Register or National Landmark listings. While a site may have made a contribution to the broad patterns of our history, it will not merit incl usion if the site did not make a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. What significance actually means for purposes of evaluation is where debates begin, and illustrates why each wo rd in a definition carries such weight. Significance is fraught with as many implications as are cultural landscapes and inclusion of the term in the definition of cultural landscape mu st be carefully consid ered. Where historic preservation laws contain specific criteria for de termining significance of a building or site, so could a protective provision for cultural landsca pes. Any drafting of cultural landscape protective legislation must not borrow too closely from historic preservation laws, however; certain concepts relevant to historic preservation, such as defini ng historic, may not apply to an evolving space such as cultural landscapes. Current definitions of cultural landscape are far too ambiguous to mesh with any sort of legal protection mechanism. Critics indicate [t] he reliance on codificationholds the potential to negate the very idiosyncratic landscape quali ties that set one place apart from another. (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.17) Yet, the same cri tics state that while vi rtually every landscape is a cultural landscape, it is neither feasible nor desirable to preserve all or even most cultural landscapes (Alanen & Melnick, 20 00, p.21). Certainly few people would argue that no cultural landscapes should be protected, but current definitions do little to assist in highlighting what cultural landscapes do merit prot ection. Codification, or a narrowing of scope, helps to identify

PAGE 30

30 those landscapes that are worthy of protection. The question then becomes: How does one refine the notion of cultural landscape to a narrower scope for purposes of selecting and protecting certain landscapes? Narrowing the scope may be as simple as borrowing from historic preservation laws and insert ing significance, a term missi ng from definitions of cultural landscape reviewed w ithin this study. For purposes of advancing the argument that a narrower definition is necessary in order to properly identify and protect these sites, a cultural landscape should be defined as a geographic area containing natural and manmade works that express a significant relationship between people and their natural environment, re presenting both cultural and natural resources associated with an event, activit y, or person or exhibiting other cult ural or aesthetic values. This definition combines elements of both the UNESC O and NPS definitions, but adds the qualifying significant as a means in which to limit the scope of cultural landscapes. The adjective historic referencing an event, activity, or person has been removed in order to better embrace the concept of cultu ral landscapes as evolving, or in UNESCO terminology, continuing landscapes, which inherently implies heritage, through the expression of a long relationship between people and the natural environment. Broad in the sense that it is not limited to hi storic cultural landscapes, this definition is also narrow in limiting landscapes to those that are significant, whatever the era. Modern use of the landscape still encompasses the concept of heritage, altho ugh maybe not strictly historic, through the changes made to that land over time. Defining significance, no easy feat, would be unique to each landscape, and requires an assess ment of the cultural la ndscape in question. Perhaps a cultural landscape in one area is signifi cant because of its historic character. Perhaps another region has a cultural landscape that is cons idered worthy of saving because of its modern

PAGE 31

31 representation and use of the land; both coul d be included under the proposed definition. Determining significance incorporates considera tion of for whom the la ndscape is significant; it may be important to the world or a nation, or only of local importance to a region or town. Because of these considerations, cultural landscape protection on the local level is particularly important. This emphasis on protection at the local level should be modeled on the emphasis placed on local level protection in historic pres ervation, which is where the real protective power of historic preservation is found[and] cannot be overe mphasized (Tyler, 2000, p.54). Regardless, the limiting factor of significance will assist in narrowing cultural landscapes for protection purposes and eliminates the occurrence that every cultural landscape be protected, an impossibility. Cultural Landscape Examples Internationally recognized cultural landscapes include ones such as the Agave Landscape of Mexico, the Rice Terraces of the Phillippines, and the Coffee Plantations of Cuba. All three have been placed on UNESCOs World Heritage List, and all three represent human cultivation of the landscape that continues today. Other si tes include Humberstone an d Santa Laura in Chile and Blaenavon in Wales, representative of mans extraction and formation of the landscape through saltpeter mining and coal mining, respec tively. Geographic area s such as the Loire Valley in France, Cinque Terre in Italy, and the Ferto-Neusiedler Lake Region in Austria and Hungary cover a wide expanse and highlight a way of life in European v illages. All of these locations are considered highly significant re presentations of human interaction with the landscape, as determined by the World Heritage Committee, and have been deemed to have outstanding universal value. (World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, n.d.). Use of significance and outstanding unive rsal value demonstrates the already existing use of these terms in designating cultural lands capes for inclusion on the World Heritage

PAGE 32

32 List, and by NPS through inclusi on of cultural landscapes utiliz ing NHPA criteria. For groups involved in protection or designation, it would be beneficial to include significance as part of their definition. This inclusion would set them apart from use of the term by geographers, anthropologists, and sociologists, and would a llow organizations charge d with protection, such as UNESCO and NPS, to have a unified definition Adding significance as part of the definition, and not just as part of the criteria, would al so help those seeking benefit of protection by providing a uniform guideline for evaluating landscapes. Currently, no cultural landscap es of the United States are on the World Heritage List. However, numerous American cu ltural landscapes of universal value or significance exist. Chinatowns, Little Toykos, Little Manilas, and Koreatowns repres ent past and current cultural values of a community, but also embody past political and social realities such as segregation into certain geographic areas (Dubrow, 2000, p.144). Native Amer ican villages in Chaco Canyon and Canyon de Chelly evoke historic cultural landscapes, and as tourist sites today, represent modern societys interaction with the landscape (Hardesty, 2000, p.171). Significance as a limiting factor in cultural landscape protection is aptly demonstrated when considering a common cultural landscape, such as the American strip mall, identified by J.B. Jackson as the auto-vernacular lands cape (Wilson & Groth, 2003, p.293). Strip malls are a cultural landscape, representing human interaction with the land; however, for protection purposes, how would one decide which strip mall merits protection? Significance as a limiting factor helps to make the dis tinction. For example, a signifi cant strip mall could showcase a historic example of an early automobile park, or perhaps an example of innovative design. Again, determining significance would be base d on the specific land scape in question.

PAGE 33

33 Cultural Landscape Issues W hen discussing cultural landscape prot ection, it is assumed that some entity wishes to identify and preserve the landscape for certain pu rposes as set apart from the general everyday landscape. This preservation may be for a historic or educational area, a park, tourism, or to generally contribute to the charac ter and quality of life in a particular region. After determining significance and identifying a cultu ral landscape to protect, certain issues are bound to arise. Static versus Evolving An overarch ing debate in cultural landscape protection is how best to preserve a place that is continually evolving. The landscape is both artifact and system it is a product and a process (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.17) This sentiment is echoed in the idea that considering cultural landscapes requires a shift from view ing landscape as the somewhat passive result of human activity to landscape as essentially an active influence on social, economic, and political processes (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.15). This d ynamic quality sets cultural landscapes apart from more traditional resources protected through historic preservation, su ch as historic homes representing a particular time and place in history (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.16), and illustrates why protective mechanisms for hist oric preservation cannot always serve as substitutes for cultural landscapes. Fluidity of cultural landscapes also contributes to a debate ov er authenticity. An example of authenticity issues is provided in the presentation of Colonial Williamsburg, a cultural landscape reflecting life in a colo nial-era Virginia town. Until the 1970s and 1980s, Colonial Williamsburg did not present the entire version of the towns history, which included slavery, and thus, an authentic presentation of Williamsbu rg was missing. In spite of attempts to incorporate this history, Williamsburg is still not an authentic cultural landscape in that its identity has been established by presentations of th e historic scene rather than by portrayals of

PAGE 34

34 dynamic landscapes reflective of many hist ories (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.7). Williamsburgs presentation reflects a traditiona l historic preservation view of a landscape, remaining static in time and demonstrating onl y one era of human inte raction with the land. The treatment of historic bu ildings in most downtowns acr oss the United States provides another example of authenticity i ssues. Historic preservation a dvocates would likel y be attracted to the historic faades, but cultural landscape advocates may be more interested in the modern appliqus applied to thes e buildings as invocative of the e volving nature of the urban cultural landscape. These tensions come to a head when attempting to decide how best to preserve such a structure, and as such demonstrate its authenticity (Groth & Wilson, 2003, p.15). This debate commonly arises in the contex t of defining a cultura l landscape. Although the notion of landscape inherently includes the idea of evolution, seeking to define a cultural landscape of a certain era dictates the landscape remain static. Says Sue Thompson, a practicing landscape architect, a cultural landscap e is a space that has helped to define us as a people in a particular time and place (Stewardship Stories, 2005). This definition does not leave much room for evolution of a space, instead limiting a landscape to a particular time and a particular place, as evidenced by Colonial Williamsburg. Perhaps the intent of a cultural landscape preservation project is to retain the features that ground the la ndscape to a certain time and date. Determining whether to keep a space static or to let it continually evolve may depend on the particular preservation goals de fined for an individual project. Size and Scope The scope of a cultural landscape can ofte n be overwhelming in terms of providing adequate protection. While some cultural landscape s may be small in size, and therefore, much simpler to identify, many cultural landscapes co ver such an expansive area that protective mechanisms may need to be quite complex. Su ch a cultural landscape is the Pyrnes-Mont

PAGE 35

35 Perdu region, a World Heritage Site designated by UNESCO. The region is considered significant for humans unique adaptation to mountain life and the climate, and is home to a wide variety of natural resources (World Heritage Nomination Pyrnes-Mont Perdu, 1999). This geographic area encompasses 30,639 hectares, and spreads across an area covering portions of two countries, France and Spain. Both countries in clude their areas of th e site within national parks, but the area is also home to numerous agricultural communities, as well as small-scale tourism activities such as hi king and mountain climbing. Understandably, cooperative prot ection of this cultural landscape is difficult. There are not only geographic barriers, but also lingual, political, and cultu ral barriers. The geographic scope of this landscape is extensive, as is the scope of actors who must play a part in protecting the Pyrnes-Mont Perdu region. Federal, region al, and local entities in two countries must coordinate to ensure the conti nued protection and management of this site. Oversight of this region involves a hefty time commit ment. Where significance helps to limit the range of cultural landscapes that merit protection, it does not necessarily limit the size of landscapes to be protected. In this instance, UNESCO agreed that the entire Pyrnes-Mont Perdu region is of outstanding universal value, and is significant representation of human interaction with the landscape over time. When addressing cultural landscape protection patterns, understanding that significance of a particular landscape may include a large area, and protection strategies will need to include a variety of par ticipants on all levels, is vital. Long-term Protection Long-term protection concerns in relation to cultural landscapes often correlate to the size of a cultural landscape. The larger the landscape the more complex the protection strategies can be, particularly long-term. However, provi ding for long-term prot ection of any cultural landscape is a matter of concer n. Any cultural landscape deemed worthy of protection should

PAGE 36

36 have a strong long-term protection strategy in place. Protecting a cu ltural landscape may be possible today, but future protec tion must also be evaluated. From a opposing view, a cultura l landscape that may be of significance to a community today may not hold the same significance in the futu re, and therefore leads to a series of possible inquiries. How can long-term prot ection be reconciled with the no tion that cultural landscapes are continually evolving? Do cultural landscape protection me chanisms put in place today impose todays standards of how the landscape s hould evolve or do the mechanisms allow for a more organic evolution over time? In light of th ese questions, is protection even possible? None of these questions have easy answers, but they must considered when deciding how best to provide future protection for a cultural landscape. A possibilit y for assessing these questions would be to include a review provision in a ny cultural landscape protective mechanism that allows for periodic re-evaluation of significance, as well as boundaries, land use, and the like. Property Rights Conflicts In the United States, property rights are a hotly contested subject. The right to own and alter property is essential to maintain a viab le economy upon which general welfare depends, and moreover, the protection of these rights s ecures and augments personal freedom. (Siegan 9) This freedom has its root s in the Declaration of Indepe ndence, where Thomas Jefferson declared that all men are created equal, and gran ted unalienable rights, namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [T]he acquisition, use, and disposal of private property is necessarily comprehended in the pursuit of happiness (Siegan, 1997, p.10). The Constitution of the United States secured these rights by gr anting property protection in various sections, namely to address the property interests considered most important during the drafting era: home, land, office, firearms, and financial resources (Siegan, 1997, p.20). The takings cl ause of the Constitution is a

PAGE 37

37 well-known restriction on the governments ability to seize private land for public use without just compensation (Tyler, 2000, p.87). Takings claims are a predominant challeng e facing historic preservation and landscape preservation protective mechanisms. These protective mechanisms, often found in zoning regulations, are seen by many as restricting their Constitutional right to own, use, and dispose of their private property by imposing restrictions dictating the bounds of that use (Tyler, 2000). Regulations have been upheld, as in one of the most famous Supreme Court cases on this subject, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978); other regulations have not withstood a judicial challenge (Tyler, 2000). Winning over pr operty rights advocates will prove to be a difficult task for cultural landscape protection advo cates who wish to limit or restrict certain property activities within a cultural landscape. However, where cultural landscape protection goals encourage the evolution of the landscape as human interaction shifts over time, and thereby allows for change and less restriction, property rights may not be in dispute. In other coun tries of the world, property rights and protecting cultural landscapes may not be so much of an issue. Socialist or communist forms of government certainly would have more opportunity to design ate a space a cultural landscape and restrict certain acts without oppos ition; however, this option is not analogous to protection strategies elsewhere in th e world such as the United States. Summary Adding one word, significance, to the variety of cultural landscape definitions helps to narrow the term identify what cultural landscapes are worthy of protection, and assist in attempts at codifying landscape protection. Furt her, qualifying cultural landscapes as significant can contribute to resolving some of the tensions in seeking to protect cultural landscapes. Significance plays a role in determining how to present a cultura l landscape, and may assist in

PAGE 38

38 identifying presentation of the landscape as sta tic or evolving. While the decision depends upon the goals of the project, utilizi ng significance as a limiting factor helps in making that decision. Likewise, significance is useful in defining the size and scope of a particular cultural landscape. Elements that are f ound to contribute in a significant manner to the cultural landscape would be considered within the landscape, while those that are not si gnificant could perhaps remain outside the boundaries of the landscape, keeping in mind th at utilizing significance as a limiting factor will not necessarily limit the scope of the cultural landscape. Significance can be used to identify long-term strategies for pr otection, but perhaps only if the significance is something that can be expected to be apprec iated over time. Lastl y, identifying cultural landscapes of significance to a entire community or region could aid in convincing property rights advocates that the protecti on is a worthy cause. Despite varied terminology and a host of complex issues, protection of significant landscapes is possible, as the next chapter will demonstrate.

PAGE 39

39 Table 1-1. Defining Landscape (Col eman, 2003, p.5, citing Phillips, 2002). Landscape = Nature Plus People Landscape = The Past Plus The Present Landscape = Physical Attributes (scenery, nature, historic heritage) Plus Associative Values (social and cultural) Table 1-2. Seeing Cultural Landscapes (Inst itute for Cultural Landscape Studies of the Landscape Institute The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2000). Individual, Special, Aesthetic Collective, Representative, Useful Cultural Related to the arts (consciously designed objects) or ideas of enduring value Related to the everyday beliefs and practices of a group of people Landscape The work of landscape architects or garden designers Scenery portrayed in a painting or photograph, or that is seen as worth painting or photographing The land that can be seen from a single vantage point (usually larger than a site, smaller than a region) Nearly everything we see when we go outdoors Peirce Lewis 1979

PAGE 40

40 Table 1-3. Table of Cultural Landscape Definitions by Organization (Author, 2007). Organization Definition of Cultural Landscape Example UNESCO Combined works of nature and humankind [that] express a long and intimate relationship between peoples and their environment Three categories: 1) Clearly defined landscape Royal Botanic Gardens, UK 2) Organically e volved landscape: relict or fossil landscape continuing landscape Lop-Okanda, Gabon Rice Terraces, Phillippines 3) Associative cultural la ndscape Uluru-Kata Tjuta, Australia National Park Service Geogr aphic area, including both cultural and natural resourcesassociated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values Four categories: 1) Historic sites Mount Vernon, Virginia 2) Historic designed landscap es Central Park, New York 3) Historic vernacular landscapes Jimmy Carter Site, Georgia 4) Ethnographic landscapes Canyon de Chelly, Arizona Cultural Landscape Foundation Geographic area that includes cultural and natural resources associated with an historic event, activity, person, or group of people Utilizes four NPS categories Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation Utilizes three UNESCO categories; Acknowledges differences among organizations Formal gardens, public parks, rural and urban spaces National Trust for Historic Preservation No organizational definition ava ilable Block Island, Rhode Island World Monuments Fund No organizational definition available Bluegrass Cultural Landscape, Kentucky Harvard Landscape Institute No precise definition; Acknowledges differences among organizations Working farms American Planning Association Genuine and authentic places that are deeply rooted in arts and arts education which identify, create, and develop a towns unique qualities of community Savannah, Georgia American Society for Landscape Architects No organizational definition av ailable Phoenix, Tempe, and Scottsdale, Arizona Trust for Public Land No organizational de finition available Alexander/Wilson House, Cleveland

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 3 STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTI NG CULTURAL LANDSCAPES Strategies for preserving cultura l land scapes generally fall into one of two categories: protection or management, although strategies ar e not limited by these bounds. Protection is typically espoused in legislativ e and regulatory policies designed to administratively care for a space (Mayes, 2003). Management, on the ot her hand, is typically synonymous with maintenance, and typically involves physical care of the landscape (Schuyler & ODonnell, 2000). Both strategies are essential to providi ng for long-term success of a cultural landscape. However, only protective mechanisms are a ddressed here; management and maintenance strategies deserve an altoge ther separate treatment. Cultural Landscape Protection Outside the United States Cultural landscapes are recognized acro ss the world, with many organizations and governments adopting policies to legitimize and pr otect these landscapes. This section provides a brief review of international activities in cultural landscape protection, and does not seek to address specifics of internati onal legal protections that can vary amongst individual countries national, regional, and local leve ls. Major, national initiatives in English-speaking countries are introduced below simply to highlight cultural landscape protection practices across the world. Internationally, UNESCO leads the way in de signating cultural landscapes exemplifying world heritage. The World Heritage Conven tion was adopted by the Member States of UNESCO in 1972, and seeks to identify, protect, conserve, present, and transmit to future generations cultural and natura l heritage of outstanding universal value (Operational Guidelines, 2005, I.B.5 & 7). The World Heritage Convention created the World Heritage List to identify those cultural and heritage sites of outstanding universal value. Criteria and conditions for inclusion on the World Heritage Li st are intended to guide Member States and

PAGE 42

42 Parties in the protection of these sites (Operational Guid elines, 2005, I.B.8). Cultural landscapes are considered for incl usion on the List as the combin ed works of nature and man as described in Article 1 of the Convention (Operational Guidelines, 2005, II.A.47). Inclusion on the List is the result of a comp lex process originating with the nomination of a site by a Member State or Party. Amongst the detailed, mandatory nomination requirements for a site is proof of the mechanisms protec ting the site (Operati onal Guidelines, 2005, III.B.132.5). Protective measures must show a dequate long-term legislative, regulatory, institutional and/or traditiona l protection and management to ensure their safeguarding (Operational Guidelines, 2005, II.F.97). Furthe r, State Parties must demonstrate adequate protection at the national, regional, municipal, and/or traditional level for the nominated property (Operational Guidelines, 2005, II.F.97). On a regional level, the Council of Europe confirmed interest, and set a precedent for individual European countries, in protecting th e cultural landscapes of Eu rope in presenting the European Landscape Convention of 2000. Recognizing that the landscape is a basic component of the European natural and cu ltural heritage, the convention seeks to provide for protection, management, and planning for European landsca pes, whether outstanding or everyday, through cooperation amongst the member countri es (Why a Landscape Convention?, n.d.). Although this represents a desire to include varying types of landscapes, significance as a qualifying factor is still absent The Convention includes among its goals the ability of the European people to have a democratic voice concerning protection of their landscapes, encourages transboundary cooperation to protect these landscapes, and advocates for landscape protection to become a mainstream policital concern (Aims of the European Landscape Convention, n.d.).

PAGE 43

43 The European Landscape Convention differs from the World Heritage Convention in that it specifically seeks to conserve past and pr esent landscapes, and does not reference historic monuments. Additionally, it is limited in scope to European me mber parties, not landscapes around the world. Twenty-seven of the forty-seve n countries who are parties to the Council of Europe have ratified the Landscape Convention; seven other countries have signed onto the convention, but are awaiting ratif ication (State of Signatures and Ratifications, 2007). Landscape protection, as symbolic of Europes cu ltural heritage, is visibly a priority amongst European member countries. On a national level, one of the member countries of the European Council, the United Kingdom (UK), ratified the Landscape Convention in January 2007. Although this demonstrates the UKs interest in landscape protection gene rally, cultural landscape protection in the UK is still for the most part not an integrated concept. Where legislation attemp ts to cover all facets of the [landscape], it normally does so in terms of separate provision for landscape, for nature conservation, and for archaeology and history (Fairclough, 1999, p.29). While an integration of the three concepts, or cultural la ndscape, is recognized and imple mented amongst practitioners in the field, legislative designations have yet to catch up (Fairclough, 1999, p.29-30). One example of legislative policy in the UK designed to protect natural landscapes, but that is being utilized to protect living landscapes, another term that essentially describes a cultural landscape, is the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) program. Despite an emphasis on natural landscapes, as of the UKs 1993 Environment Act, cultural heritage is included as part of the defin ition of natural beauty for AONB purposes. It is pointed out, however, that the historic environment has to argue its case strongly to be sure of any consideration in AONB practice (Fairclough, 1999, p.29). While this illustrates the continued

PAGE 44

44 distinction between historic and natural environments, AONBs do encompass both elements. The National Parks and Access to Countryside Act of 1949 and the Countryside and Right of Way Act of 2000 authorize AONBs, which are desi gnated by ministerial order, although local entities request consideration in itially. Once designated, land re mains in current ownership, but local authorities have planning and development c ontrol in the area. Currently, there are fortynine AONBs in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales; in Engla nd, 13.9% of the nations land is included in an AONB, protecting a substantial portion of Engla nds cultural landscapes through regulation (Barrett & Taylor, 2007, p.53). Australia provides for protection of its cu ltural landscapes through the Australian national governments Heritage Council. In 2003, the He ritage Office of the Council hosted a cultural landscapes charrette intended to introduce partic ipants to the concept and more specifically, address protection and management of cultura l landscapes. Purposes behind the charrette included a hope that policies would be adopted to implement management techniques discussed during the meeting. The charre tte laid the groundwork for cu ltural landscape protection by highlighting the available protec tive tools on a variety of govern mental levels. (Coleman, 2003) However, the Australian Heritage Councils Periodic Report, released in February 2007, still does not specifically address cultural landscapes, but merely references them in relation to particular sites. National policies as of yet do not address cultural landsca pes individually; as is still typical, Australias Heritage List criteria echoes the dichotomy betw een historic sites and natural sites that Englands le gislation represents (Period ic Report, 2007). Although the charrette introduced the concept of cultural landscapes and demonstrates a practitioners recognition of the utility in acceptin g this concept, the legislation has yet to correlate, as is the case in England.

PAGE 45

45 Canada addresses cultural landscapes, part icularly those related to Aboriginal Canandians, through the Parks Canada office. Pa rks Canada broadly defines the term cultural landscape as any geographical area that has been m odified, influenced, or given special cultural meaning by people, (Cultural Landscapes-Can adian Approach, 2004) but adopts UNESCOs three types of cultural landscapes: designed park s and gardens, urban and rural districts as evolved landscapes, and associative cultural lands capes related to Aboriginal Canadians. For planning purposes, cultural lands capes are included in Canadas National Historic Sites System Plan (Cultural Landscapes-Canadian Approach). Overall, while international designation progr ams are utilizing cultural landscapes as a manner of protecting integrated na tural and cultural sites, international legislation has yet to follow. While legislation such as that enac ting Englands AONB program does contemplate the possibility of integration, it still predominantly emphasizes na tural sites alone. However, cultural designation programs can increase awaren ess of this interconnectedness and influence future international legislation. Cultural Landscape Protection Within the United States While international identification tools like the World Heritage List are available to the United States, a member party to UNESCO, the Un ited States currently does not have a cultural landscape included on the List. No r does the United States partic ipate in any sort of landscape treaty or convention, aside from the World Heri tage Convention. Although cultural landscapes in the United States are in this sense isolated from international cultural landscape practices, legislative protective mechanisms in the United States generally follow the pattern, expressed internationally in the UK and Australia, of pr oviding separate protective mechanisms for the built historic environment and for the natural e nvironment. Exploring cultural landscape

PAGE 46

46 protections in the United States on national, state, and local leve ls provides a view of how the United States can use existing mechanisms to protect cultural landscapes. National Protection Strategies Currently, there is no national legislative po licy in the United States specifically addressing historic landscapes or cultural landscapes. The Nationa l Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as previously noted, does not mention landscapes Portions of the federal tax code provide for tax credits in renovation of income-produci ng historic properties But protection of landscapes and the natural envir onment are more typically covere d in conservation strategies such as the National Environmental Policy Act or ot her national legislative acts such as the Farm Bill of 2002, which provides for farm and ra nch land protection, or the Coastal Zone Management Act, which seeks to protect coas tal resources. National le vel policy, therefore, reflects the division between consideration for the built heritage versus c onsideration for natural heritage. A 1992 National Trust fo r Historic Preservation publica tion suggests that there is growing recognition that conser vation and preservation are natu ral allies (McMahon & Watson, 1992, p.1). However, fifteen years later, while practitioners may have a better understanding of this partnership, it is still lost on policy makers. Melnick (20 00) notes that landscapes are inadequately served when we consider them onl y within one classificat ion (p.28), indicating a need to utilize a more integrated approach to cu ltural landscape protection. Until policy reflects a shift from this split thinking, other protective measures must fill the gap to protect cultural landscapes on a national level. National Park Service Protection of cultural landscapes on a federal level falls within the purview of the National Park Service, a division of the Department of the Interior. The NPS identified cultural landscapes as a specific resource type in 1981 (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.7). NPS has a variety

PAGE 47

47 of mechanisms for protecti ng cultural landscapes and oversees National Parks, National Monuments, National Preserves, National Historic Sites, National Historical Parks, National Memorials, National Battlefields, National Ce meteries, National Recreation Areas, National Seashores, National Lakeshores, National Rivers, National Parkways, National Trails, Affiliated Areas either designated by Congre ss or the Secretary of the Interi or, and Other Designations as determined by NPS, as units of the NPS system (Designation of Nationa l Park System Units, 2000). Many, if not all, of th ese sites could potentially includ e an area worthy of cultural landscape consideration. One such site, the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, is credited as playing a major role in shaping NPS cultural landscape programs after a dam project in the 1970s threatened to flood hundreds of acr es of land exemplifying historic rural life (Miller, 2000). The signifi cance of the areas heritage spurred NPS action on cultural landscapes, and today a cultural landscape can be included within one of these protective Park programs. National Heritage Areas (NHA) one of the many NPS units, are essentially cultural landscapes called by another name. NHAs are de fined by the NPS as a place designated by the United States Congress where natu ral, cultural, historic, and r ecreational resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally-distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity shaped by geography (What is a National Heritage Area?, n.d). Later, in defining the heritage areas strategy, NPS specifically uses the term cultural landscape to describe the ideology behind protecting heritage areas. Again, this illustrates the differing use of the term within the organization. NHAs are not managed by the NPS, but instead fall to local management, generally comprised of a variety of stakeholders. Therefore, prot ection of these sites is largely

PAGE 48

48 out of the federal realm. To date, there are thirty-seven designated NHAs, with the highest number concentrated in the Northeast. One such NHA is the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area, covering over 20,000 square miles and thirty-seven counties in northeast Iowa. The intent of the Silos and Smokestacks NHA is to preserve[] and tell[] the story of American agriculture and its global significance through partnerships and activities th at celebrate the land, people, and communities of the area (About Us, 2006). Significance, th ough not part of the NPS definition of cultural landscapes, is utilized to designa te areas worthy of protection. Themes addressed in the Silos and Smokestacks NHA include fertile lands, farm s and families, the changing farm, higher yields, farm to factory, and organizing for agri culture. Sites included in the NHA are scenic routes, historic sites, farms, museums, parks and nature centers, fairs, tractors, and lodging (Sites, 2006). Leadership advisors, a board of trustees, a partnership panel, and full-time staff comprise the management team of Silos and Sm okestacks. Members of each of these entities represent a wide variety of professions, in cluding government, academia, tourism, natural resource conservation, historic preservation, ag riculture, architecture, business, law, and communications (Who We Are, 2006). Together, these entities coordinate and plan for the management of the Silos and Smokestacks NHA. National Heritage Corridors (NHC), anothe r NPS designation similar to NHAs, are managed outside the NPS by a partnership between federal, state, and local agencies, and are considered an outstanding source of natural, cultu ral, and historic features. An example of an The Blackstone River Valley is an NHS in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. As described by the NPS, [t]he story of the Blackstone River Valley is told in a livi ng landscape. Here history is not held back behind a velvet roperoam farm fields, trek along the canal towpath, and tour mill

PAGE 49

49 villages where people still live in the compa ny built houses their ancestors inhabited a century ago (Whats a Corridor?, 2006). This focu s on a living landscape re presents a shift from NPSs traditional focus on historic landscapes. Another unit of the NPS system, the National Hi storic Reserve, is currently represented by only one site, Ebeys Landing, in Washington state. Ebey s Landing portrays Pacific Northwest history through protectio n of this rural seaside community. NPS specifically refers to Ebeys Landing as a nationally si gnificant cultural landscape de monstrating a region that still encompasses historic methods of land use, in cluding farming, logging, and business. In 2008, Ebeys Landing celebrates its 30th year of NPS designation, prote cting what is timeless while accommodating change (Ebeys Turns 30, 200 7). Yet Ebeys Landing remains the only designation of its type, and is referred to as a non-traditional unit of the NPS. Like NHAs, Ebeys Landing for the most part remains in private ownership with a Trust Board comprised of federal, state, and local representatives oversee ing general management of the site. Even though the term cultural landscape is used to identify Ebeys Landing, it is buried within the NHR description. Cultural landscapes are additionally f ound within the domain of three other NPS programs: the National Register the Historic Landscape Initiative, and the Park Cultural Landscapes Program, which oversee s the Cultural Landscapes Invent ory (CLI). Although these programs themselves are not protective in th e sense that they de signate a boundary around a landscape, they advocate and educate for and about cultural landscapes, which broaden the scope of protection beyond regulatory mechanisms. Th e Historic Landscape In itiative (HLI) of the NPS provides guidance, disseminates guidelines, a nd raises awareness about cultural landscapes through partnerships with federal and state agencies, professional organizations, colleges, and

PAGE 50

50 universities (Goetcheus, 2002, p.24). The Park Cultural Landscapes Program (PCLP) is involved in providing leadership and guidance concerning the cu ltural landscape is sues within the 386 units of the national park system (Goetcheus, 2002, p.24). The PCLP oversees the Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI), which is a mechanism to provide the NPS with information about cultural landscapes. Using National Register crit eria as the basis for eval uation, the CLI tracks National Register documentation and eligibility for landsca pes within the NPS system. The Secretary of the Interior, as per Section 101 of the NHPA, is authorized to maintain the National Register, which is comprised of districts, sites, buildin gs, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture (Nationa l Historic Preservation Act, 2007). Section 101 also gives the Se cretary authorization to establish criteria for inclusion on the Register, which is codified at 36 C.F.R. .4. Over 3,000 potential cultural landscapes have been identified through the CLI process as potentially eligible for National Register inclusion (Goetcheus, 2002, p.25), but must be officially describe d as districts or sites in order to meet the Registers eligibility criteria. Where this does not seem to give cr edence to landscapes, the language is drafted flexibly enough for cultur al landscape inclusion. However, cultural landscapes are not yet mainstream Register properties; cultural land scapes are notably not one of the subject searches available in the National Re gister database (Nationa l Register Information System, 2007). Bureau of Land Management The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), another division of the Department of the Interior, also oversees cultural landscapes in the United States, although BLM does not utilize the specific term in doing so. BLM is traditio nally known for its oversig ht of 264 million acres of public lands held and managed by the federal government, but in cert ain situations, BLM is

PAGE 51

51 delegated the power to manage site s traditionally held within the N PS. Included in this oversight are areas designated as National Monuments, National Scenic Tr ails, and National Wilderness Areas. (National Landscape Conservation System, 2004). BLMs oversight of cultural landscapes is evidenced through the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), a large-scale ma nagement unit created in response to concern over the loss of open space in the West. The NLCS consists of lands in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexi co, Oregon, and Utah, and comprises over 800 units of designated lands, incl uding National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National S cenic and Historic Trails, a nd Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas. These units include such significant cultu ral landscapes as the Agua Fria in Arizona and the Canyons of the Ancients in Colorado, bot h containing massive concentrations of archaeological sites and representative of early human interaction with th e western landscape. Pompeys Pillar, overlooking the Yellowstone Rive r, and carved by numerous visitors over the years, including William Clark of the Lewis a nd Clark expedition, is found within the NLCS. (National Landscape Conservation System, 2004). Representing the American cultural landscape, NLCS sites are not protected specifically as cultural landscapes, though they protect significant ancient hist oric sites as well as modern uses of the landscape. Although NLCS sites ar e within federal protection, the BLM has come under fire for not properly safe guarding many of the sites with in their management (Conaway, 2006), in part due to BLMs management polic ies, which are governed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). FLPMA di ctates that BLM accommodate activities such as mining and logging under their multiple use an d sustained yield policies (Federal Land Policy

PAGE 52

52 and Management Act, 2007). Such practices of ten conflict with preser vation and conservation goals, and may present a problem in the context of cultural landscape protection. Department of Transportation The United States Departm ent of Transpor tation (DOT) conducts the National Scenic Byways Program, established to help recogni ze, preserve, and enhance selected roads throughout the United States (Learn About Bywa ys, 2007). The Secretary of Transportation selects these roads based on one or more qualities, including archaeological, cultural, historical, natural, recreational, or scenic resources. Every byway is intended to be scenic, and represents a variety of American landscapes: natural and man-made panoramas, electrifying neon landscapes, ancient and modern hi story coming alive, native arts and culture, and scenes of friends, families, and strangers sharing their stories (Learn About Byways, 2007). These byways are cultural landscapes in their embrace of nature and culture, and construction of roads is a distinctive manner in which humans interact with the landscape. Currently there are 126 byways designated by the DOT Secret ary as National Scenic Byways. Historic Route 66 represents a well-know n National Scenic Byway. Although Route 66 was decommissioned in 1985, and exists today only in fragments of its original route, the road is invokes early days of automobile travel in th e United States. Freedom is the theme, and preservation of the route seeks to share the hist ories of those who travel ed this road, including 1930s depression-era families, soldiers traveling west to deploy in World War II, and post-war adventurers. Route 66 highlights the culture of several decades, but traverses a landscape that begins in urban Chicago and winds its way to New Mexico and Arizona. Unique destinations that catered to Route 66 traveler s are preserved as a way of illustrating a time before fast food and chain stores. This interplay between natu ral America and human mi gration is especially significant in American history, and contributes to th e story behind western development in the

PAGE 53

53 twentieth-century. Though this Byway emphasizes history, it is still an evolving landscape demonstrated by its current function as a her itage tourism destination. (Historic Route 66 Overview, 2007) State Protection Strategies State legislation A variety of state leg islative actions contributes to protection of cultural landscapes. One very common type of legislation is a state historic preservation statute, which typically mimics provisions found in NHPA except on a statewide level. These statutes further mimic NHPA in focusing on the built environment and not specifica lly addressing landscapes. The split between natural and cultural elements exists at the state level as well. New Mexico has gone a step beyond the traditional historic pres ervation statute and enacted the Historic Landscape Act (HLA). Intr oduced by state legislat or Danice Picraux in 2003, the HLA seeks to establish and preserve lands capes of historic and cultural significance in New Mexico (Historic Landscape Ac t, 2003). A historic landscape is defined in the HLA as a manmade or cultural landscape that is limited in scope, generally comprises a plaza, square, park, garden, terrace, streetscape, es tate, grounds of a building or othe r open space designated formally or informally, and has contributed to the cultur al history of its time (Historic Landscape Act, 2003, -13-2). The HLA creates a historic landscape trust, a non-profit organization whose board members are comprised of two landscape architects, an attorney, an accountant, three residents with knowledge of hist oric landscapes in New Mexico, two residents who are members of garden clubs, the state cultura l affairs officer or designee, a nd the director of tourism or designee (Historic Landscap e Act, 2003, -13-4). The HLA trusts purposes include preservation of significant historic landscapes in the state, the identification of site s in the state deservi ng of inclusion in the historic landscape

PAGE 54

54 system, and the development of a historic land scape system that prov ides opportunities for persons to appreciate an d better understand the history and development of the state (Historic Landscape Act, 2003, -13-5). The HLA is benefi cial in protecting a variety of landscapes, whether urban or rural, designed or vernacular. Unfortunately, th e success of this legislation cannot be determined, and inquiries to the legislators office went unanswered. State growth management laws also serve as an important strategy for overall protection of large landscapes. Usually enacted at th e state level as a means of providing for a comprehensive state strategy to control growth and limit urban sprawl, growth management statutes can encourage the redevelopment of ex isting resources and discourage new development projects that involve the dest ruction of landscapes (Miller, 2004, p.43). Oregon and Washington are two states that employ urban growth boundaries to prevent sprawling development. (Miller, 2004, p.43), and these boundar ies can be useful especially in protecting rural cultural landscapes that lie just outside a citys boundaries. Growth management legislation may furt her require state a nd regional planning considerations as part of a local planning proces s. Oregons laws integrat e state, regional, and local planning to ensure consistency of land conservation and development across the state (Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003, p. 45). Coordination would be particularly effective in protecting landscapes that cover a large area. While grow th management laws are an important way for states to take a strong stance against uncontrolled sprawl and c onserve land, due to political pressure from various pro-development advocates, thes e laws can be difficult to enact or enforce. Rural protection laws are an alternative to, or could work in conjunction with, growth management laws as a way to save rural cultu ral landscapes; however, these laws do not leave any room for consideration of urban landscapes. Marylands Ru ral Legacy Program hopes to

PAGE 55

55 sav[e] the best of whats left by creating greenbelts around Marylands communities and saving our remaining countryside (Rural Legacy Pr ogram, 2007). The Maryland State Legislature enacted the program in 1997 as a means to en courage voluntary land conservation efforts through identification of Rural Legacy Areas. Legacy Areas are intended to showcase the states most valuable agricultural, forestry, natural, an d cultural resources, a le gislative recognition of integrated sites (Marylands Ru ral Legacy: Introduction, 2007) Local governments and land trusts identify Legacy Areas, and then compete fo r funds to supplement or create land protection in the Legacy Areas. Funding is jointly supplied by the state and contributi ons from localities in Maryland. Thirty-four Rural Legacy Areas have been identified to date, and the program is viewable as a success in protecting Marylands rural cultural landscapes (Statewide Map of Rural Legacy Areas, 2005). Legislatively created state easement programs are another strategy for protecting landscapes. An easement is a legal agreement be tween a property owner (the grantor) and the holder of the easement (the grantee), which govern s the current and future owners treatment of the property (Watson & Nagel, 1995, p.3). Easements can help pr otect a landscape by regulating development, implementing use restric tions, and providing oversight for lands in the future. PACE, or Purchase of Agricultural Cons ervation Easement programs, are an example of a state-level easement program that could encomp ass cultural landscape considerations. As of April 2007, twenty-seven states have granted legisl ative authorization for these easement programs, which seek to protect farm and ranc h land (Status of Stat e PACE Programs, 2007). Most state programs of this type regulate easemen t transactions and encourage state agencies to hold the easements. Although state-endorsed, th ese programs are voluntary and depend on the willingness of property ow ners to be successful.

PAGE 56

56 One of the most important legislative functi ons of the state govern ment is to provide delegation to local governments to enact certain legislative policies. All states, except Hawaii, have delegated the power of imposing land use re gulations to cities a nd counties (Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003, p.5). Generally, th is local delegated power is not unlimited, and must comply with the state legislation delega ting the authority (Salsich & Tryni ecki, 2003, p.7). This power is then demonstrated by the local government in planning and zoning policies, which includes the ability to enact protective ordinances such as historic districts. State cultural designations The federal governm ent inserted itself into state preservation ac tivities through NHPA, which authorized the creation of a grant program that established stat e offices of historic preservation. State Historic Pr eservation Offices (SHPO) are elig ible to receive federal funding for preservation projects within the state. SHPOs are respon sible for conducting surveys of historic sites in their respective state, for pro cessing nominations of stat e sites to the National Register, for administering federal grants to state preservation projects, assisting local governments with preservation initiatives, consulting on NHP A Section 106 review, and reviewing applications for federal historic pr eservation tax credits (T yler, 2000, p.52-3). Given such a strong federal influence in state preserva tion activities, it comes as no surprise that state cultural designations often mimic federal designations. Similar to the NPSs Park Cultural Landscapes Program, Massachusetts has a Historic Landscape Preservation Program (HLPP) housed with in their state Department of Conservation and Recreation. HLPP provides help to municipalities and non-prof its in the state, increases awareness of historic landscapes, creates publications that assist the public in caring for landscapes, and offers leadership in cultura l landscape preservation (Historic Landscape Preservation Program, n.d.). As part of the HL PP, the Heritage Landscape Inventory Program

PAGE 57

57 (HLIP) seeks to identif y, document, and plan for the her itage landscapes in Massachusetts. Heritage landscapes are a subset of the hist oric landscape program, and described as those landscapes which are the result of human inter action with the natural resources of an area, which influence the use and development of la nd[and] contain both natural and cultural resources (Heritage Landscape Inventory Program, n.d.). One of HLPPs publications, Reading the Land demonstrates ways for communities ac ross the state to identify, protect, and manage their own unique heritage landscapes on a local level. Highlight ing important planning and survey tools, Reading the Land also reviews state policies a nd programs that may assist in providing for local cultural la ndscapes in Massachusetts. State heritage areas function similarly to nati onal heritage areas, but on a regional scale. The New York State Heritage Area program utilizes a state-local partne rship to preserve and develop areas that have special significance to New York Stat e (Heritage Areas, 2007). Heritage areas in the state are selected as representing the most significant natural, historic, and cultural resources, and have four heritage goals: preservation, education, recreation, and economic revitalization. Selected heritage areas include Buffalo, Sa ratoga Springs, Seneca Falls, the Heights area of Manhattan, a nd the Western Erie Canal. Th e scope and breadth of these designations, for example, the en tire city of Buffalo, represents a protection of a cultural landscape, and the limiting factor of significance assists state de signation of what places to designate as heritage areas. (Heritage Areas, 2007). Local Protection Strategies Individual strategies Easem ents are a typically local -level option in protecting cultural landscapes, although states are increasingly getting involved. Conservation easements protect landscapes and natural areas, while preservation easements protect hi storic properties and sites. A conservation

PAGE 58

58 easement is a partial restriction on land, for conservation purposes, that is usually placed in the hands of a third party who will monitor and enfo rce the restrictions imposed (Miller, 2004, p.356). Conservation easements may be placed on endangered environmental areas, farmland, and significant plant or wildlife habitat, for ex ample (Watson & Nagel, 1995, p.1). A preservation easement operates in a similar fashion as a c onservation easement; however, restrictions are imposed on the built environment. Examples of sites that could be pr otected by preservation easements include historic rural villages or historic urban buildings (Watson & Nagel, 1995, p.1). An advantage of employing easements as a protective mechanism is that easement requirements may be tailored to the specific site. This affords unique features of the site extra protection (Watson & Nagel, 1995, p.2). Who may act as a third party holder of an easem ent is usually determined by state statute. Forty-seven states have passed le gislation dictating w ho may hold easements. The complexity of easement legislation amongst the states led to the creation of the Uniform Conservation Easement Act (UCEA), of which a version has b een adopted by twenty states (Watson & Nagel, 1995, p.4). In the case of conservation easements, th e third party is often a land trust, which is a nonprofit organization that provid es long-term stewardship of the resources under easement (Miller, 2004, p.35). Land trusts also engage in proactive conservation strategies, including working directly with privat e landowners to solicit easement donations, seeking land for easement designation, and assisting with deve lopment rights programs. Land trusts may additionally seek to directly purchase sensitive lands for management by the trust (Miller, 2004, p.35). The Land Trust Alliance reports that in 2003, more than 5 million acres in the United States were protected under vol untary land conservation agreemen ts, and that by the end of 2003, local and regional land trusts have protected a total of over 9,361,600 acres of natural areas.

PAGE 59

59 California, Maine, and Colorado have the most acreage protected under local and regional land trusts (National Land Trust Census, 2005). In the case of preservation easements, hi storic preservation groups are commonly the third party holders. According to the Nationa l Trust for Historic Preservation, many of the National T rusts statewide and local partners are easement-holding organizations, and many State Historic Preserva tion Offices hold easem ents as well (Preservation Easements, 2007). Although land trusts are generally the holder of conservation easements, historic preservation groups should not take this to mean that th ey cannot hold conservation easements protecting landscapes. The more groups that seek to b ecome holders of these easements, the more landscapes may be afforded protection. Cultural landscapes could be protected under either conservation or preservation easements, depending on which elements of the landscape are being considered those portions of the landscape representing the natural elements, or those portions representing the human interaction with the landscape, which are most lik ely structural. This, however, reinforces the nature-culture split on even an individual le vel. Legally permitting, perhaps a new cultural landscape easement could be implemented. This may be possible where easements can be narrowly drawn to a particular site and their flexible nature is a valuable tool in protecting the varied nature of cultural lands capes. However, depending on the size and scope of the cultural landscape under consideration, obt aining easements to cover the entire cultural landscape may prove to be an impossible task. Entering into easement agreements with land trusts or other organizations is an entirely voluntary program on the landowners part and is only successful when landowners willingly seek to enter such agreements. Dona tion of parcels here and there could result in a piecemeal asse mblage of protected lands.

PAGE 60

60 Individuals have more options in protecting landscapes th an easements alone. Deed restrictions placed on a propertys title are another mechanism that can be utilized by individuals wishing to retain their property in a particular way. Other individual st rategies include donating interests in land, bequeathing land in a will, bargain sales to a prot ective party, and various estate planning tools that seek to pr otect land (Guide to Conservation Easements and Other Land Conservation Options, n.d.). Certified local government status NHPA was am ended in 1980 to create a stronge r tie between the federal legislations state activities and local govern ment activities. The amendment created Certified Local Governments (CLG), a designation awarded to communities that have demonstrated a commitment to preservation through local practice. In order to become a CLG, a community must have established a historic preservation review board, must have a local surveying system that mirrors the state system, and must enfor ce local preservation ordinances. CLG communities have priority status in receivi ng federal and state grants for pr eservation-related initiatives, including surveying, developing guidelines, writing National Re gister nominations, preparing educational materials, and even physical restor ation work (Tyler, 2000, p.56-7). Any community attempting to document and protect a cultural la ndscape would be well-served in obtaining CLG status. Comprehensive planning A critical as pect of cultural landscape protecti on is land use, a general reference term for policies related to land planning. Those interested in cultural landscape protection must become familiar with the trends, patterns, and concepts involved in land use. This understanding of land use is especially relevant when addr essing a localitys comprehensive plan.

PAGE 61

61 Where individual strategies play an important role in providing opti ons for protection of cultural landscapes at a local level, they are voluntary programs until chosen for implementation by an owner. Comprehensive plans, by contrast are typically made mandatory for localities by state enabling legislation. Because these plan s are often required, plans for cultural landscape protection should be included in comprehensive plans. This provides a level of security that does not exist with the other voluntary strategies; fu rther, more localities may explore the voluntary strategies once the comprehens ive plan indicates cultural la ndscape protection as a valid community goal. These plans set forth a guide line or road map for comm unity development over time (Miller, 2004, p.14). Some planning elements may be transportation, economic development, environmental issues, and future land us e decisions (Cullingworth, 1993, p.111). State legislation may require or allow a historic preservation element to be included in the plan. Whether the inclusion is mandatory or not, local ities should include a pr eservation plan. Here the community can direct how it will seek to pr otect historic resources, and cultural landscape protection could be placed in this section, as well as placement in environmental and future land use sections. A comprehensive plan is an ideal place in which to bridge the gap between natural and cultural elements. Comprehensive plans are documents intended to project into the future, and as such, can express a communitys plans for how they wish their region to evolve. Do they want more business or industry, or do they seek to limit such activities? Do they want to attract more residential growth or limit it? Comprehensive plans embody these future wishes or goals. The key to comprehensive planning processes is that they rely heavily on ci tizen input, and citizens therefore have a chance to influe nce the direction of their comm unitys future (Stokes & Watson,

PAGE 62

62 1989, p.131). Planning commissions that work on the plan also usually consist of community members. Therefore, community members who ar e interested in providing for local cultural landscapes should become involved in the planning process, as their opinions and wishes for the locality could very well become implemented in the plan. Supplements to the comprehensive planning process can aid communities in planning for future growth and development. For example, a Rural Design Manual was produced to contribute to planning efforts in the Connecticut River Valley of Massachusetts. The Manual contains aerial views of eight different t ypes of landscapes in the region, and include representations of the pr e-existing landscape and future develo pment. These graphics provide a tangible example of what certain planning decisi ons may do to alter the landscape. Text and model by-laws provide detailed information on how to plan for sensitive development. (Arendt & Yaro, 1989) Supplemental documentation prov ides community members and planners with evidence of how their decisions will shape the future of their area. The importance of comprehensive pla nning to cultural landscapes cannot be underestimated. Cultural landscapes to date are traditionally consid ered as districts or sites in historic preservation laws and ordinances, but p reservation ordinances alone can be insufficient to protectresources when other governmental programs and policies such as zoning, transportation, and housing favor new development overalternatives (Miller, 2004, p.11). If preservation of cultural landscapes are included in these other governmental policies, which are enumerated in the comprehensive plan, th eir protection is assured greater success. Zoning Zoning is another tool that a locality could use in protecting cultural landscapes. In brief, zoning is the m unicipal power to regulate land use (Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003, p.1). Comprehensive zoning, approved in 1926 by the Supreme Court in Village of Euclid v. Ambler

PAGE 63

63 Realty Co. divides land in cities and counties into zone s or districts. Within those zones, the locality imposes regulations for land use, building height and area, as well as building setbacks (Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003). Comprehensive zoning is directly linked to comprehensive planning, zoning is intended to enact the policies espous ed within a local comprehensive plan (Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003). Zoning has evolved from early tendencies towards grid systems to a complex regulatory, and in certain circumstances, a financially-based incentive scheme involving concepts such as special district zoning, floating zones, overlay zones, floor area ratio, density transfer, and as mentioned above, tran sfer of development ri ghts zones (Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003). An example of financially-based in centive zoning is tax-increment financing, or TIF, that put simply, speci fies zones in which property ta xes are frozen, and any revenue generated from increased property valu es is put into a trust that can be drawn from to be used in the TIF zone (What is Tax Increment Financing ?, 2006). Floridas legislature recently passed a bill allowing for a TIF system to be utili zed to purchase conser vation lands, which could perhaps be extrapolated for use in pr otecting cultural landscapes (H.B. 7203, 2007). Zoning, and the power of a municipality to regulate land use, often collides with protected property rights of private citizens. Euclid affirmed the ability of municipalities to use this power, which is derived from what is know n as a states police power. The police power enables a state to regulate in order to protect the health, sa fety, and welfare of the populace (Salscich & Tryniecki, 2003, p.3). States may then delegate this police power to local municipalities under state control. Private citizens may challenge land use designations as the taking of their property without just compensation through a ta kings claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution (Salsich & Tryniecki, 2003, p.3). Drafters of zoning regulations must take care when drafting so as to not invite takings challenges.

PAGE 64

64 Overlay districts Creation of overlay d istricts are incorporat ed within a localitys zoning power, and supplement existing zoning regulations. These di stricts are not independ ent zoning regulations in themselves, but are laid over an existing zone or zones in order to furt her regulate or restrict certain permitted uses (Salscich & Trynieck i, 2003, p.182). Though not independent, overlay districts are subject to the same chal lenges as a traditi onal zoning regulation. Historic districts are a prevalent example of an overlay district. Historic districting enables a community to preserve properties based on the historic character of an area, regardless of landmark status (Tappendorf & Cunningham, 2004, p.115). The historic overlay district imposes regulations on property owners in the ar ea that typically require an owner to obtain permission before building, modifying, or destro ying a building in the district (Salscich & Tryniecki, 2003, p.183). Property owners in the hist oric district remain subject to the underlying zoning regulations as well. Loudoun County, Virginia has expanded the tr aditional historic overlay district by creating historic and cultural conservation (HCC) districts. The districts were formed in the 1970s in response to property owner demands for better protection of their communities. The county has six HCC districts; five of these districts are entire towns or villages, and one is rural, covering more than 10,000 acres of land. In addition to HCC, Loudoun County also has one historic roadways district, an overlay which protects a netw ork of thirty-two rural roads connecting two towns. Together, these HCC dist ricts and the roadway district contribute to preservation of Loudoun County cultural landscapes. Any c onstruction, remodeling, renovation, reconstruction, or addition of buildings in thes e districts must be a pproved by the Historic District Review Committee. Stri ngent guidelines must be met befo re receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness, after which the applicant must also meet any standard zoning guidelines.

PAGE 65

65 Multi-level review provides extr a protection for the special historic, natural, and cultural resources located within the HCC and roadways district. (Background, n.d.) Agricultural districts are anot her type of overlay, which can provide a way in which to preserve the rural nature of a la ndscape or community. Agricultura l district provisions vary, but typically, local governments are li mited in restricting farm practices, taking farmland by eminent domain or annexation, or allowing utility construction. (Stokes & Watson, 1989, p.167). Agricultural districts ar e increasingly common; for example, the small state of Delaware has 519 designated Agricultural Preservation districts (Farmland Pres ervation in Delaware, 2007). Potential problems in agricultural districting include the fact that sanctions for withdrawing lands are minimal and do not deter conversion of land for development, incentives for inclusion are not beneficial enough to farmers to convince them to be in the district, and the districting process can be long and difficult (Paster, 2004, p.9). A newly proposed concept, the thematic resource s district (TRD), follo ws in the tradition of overlay districts by suggesting a broadened overlay district be implemented where an area to be protected does not fit into the confines of a more traditional overlay district. Suggested by Fleming (2007), the TRD is specifically designed to accommodate those spaces or places that may deserve protection, but do not fa ll within the strict guidelines for historic preservation. The A TRD ordinance anticipates need s for protection that may occur within or outside of urban areas, but regardless begins with recognition of landscape and then moves into more specific criteria (Fleming, 2007, p.680). In a sample TRD drafted by Fleming (2007), a TRD must meet at least three of the following criteria: (a) Historic architecture, or an architectur al theme or style or character particular to the area which is deemed an asset to th e aesthetic quality, or cultural identity of the neighborhood; (b) Natural or historic landscape features represented in natural forest areas,

PAGE 66

66 parks, other public or private landscape themes or designs which are deemed an asset to the physical ch aracter of the district; (c) Specialized commerce, for example an tique districts, agriculture, resort districts, gallery or market districts, or culturally distinct retail, which is deemed an economic asset to the district (d) A street, or subdivision plan, or deve lopment pattern whic h is specifically noteworthy for its design or public amenities which is deemed an asset to the physical or aesthetic char acter of the district; (e) Other cultural features which may in clude but are not limite d to archaeological sites, notable infrastructure improvements, characteristic signage throughout the area, which are deemed an asset to the aes thetic or cultural character of the district (p. 684-5). Cultural landscapes easily meet the minimum suggested in the draft TRD, as the criteria anticipate historic landscape f eatures as well as those curren tly utilized through specialized commerce and through cultural value. Significance is determined by the community as it deems an asset those cultural and aesthetic featur es that especially contribute to the area. Fleming (2007) suggests that TRDs will be embraced by those seeking protective measures, and those typically representing the ot her side of the spectrum, developers. Those desiring protection of their unique area will welcome the protective overlay, while developers and builders will welcome the certainty of specific guidelines that will appease property owners in the area (Fleming, 2007). Whether the TRD will meet with any measure of success or utility remains to be seen, but it is a novel concept that may better serv e a cultural landscape than would a traditional historic district ove rlay. However, dilemmas are pres ent in most overlay districting concepts and would hold true of any attempts to include cultural landscapes within a defined overlay district, particularly w ith regards to size of a cultural landscape, property rights debates in relation to any restrictions or limitations on use, and longterm overlay district plans. Purchase or transfer of development rights Program s for transfer or purch ase of development rights, growing in importance and popularity, represent yet another po tential local strate gy for cultural landscape protection that

PAGE 67

67 works through local government zoning power. These programs seem complex, but put simply, a local government allows development rights that are assigned through zoning to one parcel to be transferred to another parcel at a diffe rent location (Stokes & Watson, 1989, p.151). This method of transferring development away from one area enables land to be protected in a similar fashion to conservation easements, while provid ing opportunities for development elsewhere. Using these types of development rights progr ams would be useful in protecting cultural landscapes where the entire lands cape can be contained within a region. Development could then be shifted away from that region. Develope rs purchase the rights to build elsewhere, while the holder of the rights financia lly benefits. An attractive option where maintenance of the landscape is financially burdensome, a purchase or transfer of devel opment rights program would benefit large cultural la ndscapes, and could be a win-wi n situation for both cultural landscape preservation advo cates and developers. However, the system for transfer or purchas e of development rights is complicated, and requires much time and effort by a locality and in terested parties. Garnering public support for such a project could be difficult and take years to implement. If time is of the essence in protecting a cultural land scape, development rights program s may not be the ideal solution. However, if the local government and community are supportive and work to make the program a success, it could be a valuable t ool for protecting cultural landscapes. Summary Continued use of differing terminology and a well-established split between consideration of natural elements versus consideration of cultural elements on national and state levels indicates that perhaps the best protective options for cultural landscapes exist on the local level, where more immediate change may occur. Local-level policies may have more flexibility in adapting to inclusion of cultu ral landscape protection than woul d state and national legislation,

PAGE 68

68 and advocating for cultural landscape protection ma y be simpler to address on a local level. Planning and zoning in particular, as local tools, are suited to cultural landscape considerations as they encompass land use planning on a comm unity-wide scale, and pr ovide opportunities for community members to get involved. Focusi ng on state delegation of planning and zoning powers in the next chapter will illustrate the options a local community has in providing for significant cultural landscapes in their area.

PAGE 69

69 CHAPTER 4 PROTECTIVE MECHANISMS: FLORIDA Because Flo rida has a nationally-recognized stat e planning process, as well as distinctive landscapes, the state is a natural choice to eval uate planning and zoning as a protection strategy for cultural landscapes. Initial review of Floridas current state legislation and cultural designations and ascertaining their effectiveness in protection illustrates how planning and zoning strategies may best serve cultural landsca pes in the state. Delegation of planning and zoning authority to local governments in Florid a will indicate how and if cultural landscape protection can be included by localities as part of their planning and zoning powers. Florida Legislation and Cultural Designations On the state level, F lorida has current legi slation that could be useful in protecting cultural landscapes, a lthough nothing exists that is anal ogous to New Mexicos Historic Landscape Act. Floridas historic and cultura l resources act, commonly known as the Florida Historical Resources Act, (2007) provides for heri tage resources in the state. This statutory provision creates a Division of Historical Resources, provide s for the office of the SHPO, establishes a central inventory of historic resources in the state called the Florida Master Site File, creates a historic preserva tion grant program, and contains other information relevant to specific historic areas in the state. As with NHPA, the Florida Histor ic Resources Act (2007) defines historic resources as dist ricts, sites, buildings objects, other real or personal property of historic, architectural, or archaeological value, and folklife resources. Landscapes are not mentioned; presumably, however, Floridian cultur al landscapes could pote ntially be included as districts as they are on the national level. Unfortunately, the Division of Histor ical Resources in their publication Planning for the Past: Preserving Floridas Heritage 2006-2010 (2006) mentions cultural landscapes only one

PAGE 70

70 time, and only in reference to the state park system s oversight of historic resources. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection houses a Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources that seeks to coordinate and standardize the effec tive preservation of the natural and cultural resources in Florida State Parks (Mission St atement, 2007). At least two Bureau staff members are charged with training Parks staff in management and treatments for cultural landscapes (Staff Functions, 2007). Yet this St ate Park recognition of cultural landscapes has somehow failed to expand its reach to the Division of Historical Resources, aside from the brief mention in the Division planning document. Additionally, the Division provides no inform ation on cultural landscap es, and there is no state-sponsored landscape inventory (Office of Cultural and Historical Programs, 2007). These factors, in conjun ction with no mention in Planning for the Past indicate that cultural landscapes are not on the radar of the Division, an d will not be at least until the next plan revision in 2010. The Division does oversee herita ge trails that refl ect the experience of particular groups in Florida, such as women a nd African-Americans. While these trails explore sites in Florida that are culturally significant, they do not necessarily explore the interaction between the groups and the land, which is mo re indicative of cultu ral landscape study. Landscapes are more commonly a ddressed in Florida through le gislation that provides for natural lands protection, representative of the split between consideration of cultural elements and natural elements. Such is the case in the Florida Forever program, which provides for public acquisition and conservation of la nds in the state. Through this program, the state or another public entity negotiates with land owners to purchase their property, and the property then remains in conservation. Florida Forever is a valuable program in prot ecting natural areas for conservation purposes, but does not by design incor porate cultural resources. Conservation lands

PAGE 71

71 are also not necessarily retained as worki ng or living landscapes, wh ich implies something different than a cultural landscape. The Florida Forever program is, however, a very successful land acquisition program that has protected millions of acres and demonstrates a state commitment to land conservation. (Florida Forever, 2007). Florida Forever provides funding for the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), which provides funding to local governments and eligib le non-profit environmental organizations for acquisition of community-based parks, open space and greenways that further outdoor recreation and natural resource protection needs identified in local government comprehensive plans (What is Florida Communities Trust?, n.d.). FCT may enable local communities to receive funding for open space that they may not be able to financially support otherwise. Considering local cultural landscapes within this program is a possibi lity, although the program emphasizes natural resource protection. Despite a lack of integrated state legislation, a few progr ams in Florida acknowledge the interconnectedness of natural and cultural reso urces as reflected through cultural landscapes. Florida has a scenic highway program, similar to the national program, and operated through the Florida Department of Transporta tion, that can be viewed as a potential alternative strategy to highlight cultural landscape recognition. The scenic highway program recognizes the combination of natural and cultural elements in Florida that provide benefits to the community through resource preservation, enhancement and protection (Program Review, n.d.). A representative state scenic highway is the Old Florida Heritage Highway located in Alachua County. Showcasing US 441 and its connector roads, the Old Florida Heritage Highway helps preserve the natural and cultural integrity of th is unique North Florida road by linking the road

PAGE 72

72 and the people who use it through advocacy, education, scenic resource protection and roadway and corridor enhancements (Vision Statement, 2007). Another agency, the Northeast Florida Regi onal Planning Council, in conjunction with the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, has integrated cultural and natural resources through implementation of an Eco-Heritage Corridor along the St. Johns Ri ver in northeast Florida. The mission of this project is to ce lebrate the cultural, historical natural and outdoor recreational significance of the St. Johns River (Object ives, Mission, and Goals for the St. Johns EcoHeritage Corridor, n.d.). An Eco-Heritage Corridor is defined as an area of natural, cultural, and historical significance that has a special ch aracteristic which define s its history, community, culture and ecology, and where community events, cultural sites, and natural resources are inspired by a unique attribute (What is an EcoHeritage Corridor?, n.d.). The St. Johns EcoHeritage Corridor project hopes to encourage community involveme nt and attract tourists to appreciate the special cultural a nd natural features of the area. This Corridor exemplifies a significant cultural landscape in Florida, and pres ents an opportunity to inspire new resource protection initiatives in the state and across the country. Given that Florida has not adopt ed state-wide initiatives be yond the traditional method of providing separately for either cultural or natural protection, comprehensive planning and zoning may be the ideal way for local communities to se ek protection of cultural landscapes. Planning and zoning allows for local consideration of si gnificant spaces that could be overlooked by state initiatives, and is an ideal mechanism to consider cultural and natural elem ents that are unique to a particular region. Floridas Comprehensive Planning Authority Florida is known for its state-level role in com prehensive planning, enacted pursuant to the Growth Management Act, legisl ation that can play a role in pr otection of cultura l landscapes.

PAGE 73

73 Through the Growth Management Act, the state le gislature delegated the creation of mandatory comprehensive plans to local entities. Florida is a home rule state, meaning that localities may adopt legislation so long as it is not specifically prohibited by the state legislature (Ziegler, Rathkopf, & Rathkopf, 2007, .21). Home rule is in contrast to a Dillons rule state, where localities cannot adopt any legislat ion unless it has been specifi cally authorized and enabled by the state legislature (Ziegler, Ziegler, & Rathkopf, 2007, .19). Home rule may provide Florida communities more flexibility in the pl anning process that other states who follow Dillons rule may not enjoy. Florida Statute .3177 enumerates the required and optional elements of comprehensive plans. Per .3177(6)(a), comprehe nsive plans must include a future land use plan element. This element must contain p roposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential us es, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007). Land use maps produced according to this element must identify and depict historic district boundaries and must designate historically significan t properties meriting protection, activities that would be consider ed in conjunction with a localities zoning authority. Florida Statute .3177(6)(d) requires that a comprehensive plan in clude a conservation element for the conservation, use, and protec tion of natural resources in the area (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007), and this element addresses such natural resources as air, water, wetlands, marshes, beaches, shores, rivers, lake s, forests, fisheries, and wildlife habitat. Florida Statute .3177(6)(g) addresses comm unities located on either the Gulf Coast or Atlantic Ocean and requires these communiti es to enact a coastal management element

PAGE 74

74 (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007). This element must include policies that relate to the following, in addition to several others: ma intenance, restoration, and enhancement of the overall quality of the coastal zone environm ent, including but not limited to amenities and aesthetic values; orderly and balanced utiliz ation and preservation, c onsistent with sound conservation principles of all living and nonliv ing coastal zone resources; and preservation, including sensitive adaptive use of historic and archaeological resources. Each of these considerations includes elements indicative of a cultural lands cape, yet a similar management plan is not included for other geog raphic regions of the state, such as an inland or rural zone. Separately from the planning process, the Coastal Management Program, a state program that coordinates efforts to protect the states co astal resources, operates the Waterfronts Florida Partnership Program. Waterfronts Florida assist s local communities revitalize their waterfront areas, and targets environmental resource protection, public access, retention of viable traditional waterfront economies, and hazard m itigation (Waterfronts Florida Partnership Program, n.d.). The concept behi nd Waterfronts Florida could pe rhaps be expanded to consider other state cultural landscapes, such as rural or inland landscapes, that also merit protection. For the time being, rural areas are afforded protection in comprehe nsive planning through .3177(11)(d), which authorizes what is known as the Florida Rural Lands Stewardship program (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007) and enables local governments to classify agricultural, rural, ope n, open-rural, or an equivalent land use as rural land stewardship areas. Within these areas, planning and economic incentives are used to encourage innovative and flexible planning and creative land use planning techniques (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007, .3177(11)(d)(1)). The purpos e behind this provision is to restore and maintain the value of rura l land, control urban sprawl, id entify and protect ecosystems,

PAGE 75

75 promote rural economic activity, maintain the vi ability of the agricultu ral economy, and protect the character of rural areas of Florida (F lorida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007, .3177(11)(d)(2)). Rural land stewardship areas must not be less than 10,000 acres, and must be outside urban growth areas (Florida Comprehens ive Planning Statutes, 2007, .3177(11)(d)(4)). This program relies on newer planning techniques that include urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, clus tering and open-space provisions, and mixed-use developments (Florida Compre hensive Planning Statutes, 2007, .3177(11)(b)), as well as a credit-based market incentive program that opera tes similarly to a transfer or purchase of development rights program (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007, .3177(11)(d)(4)). Notably, the Rural Lands Stewardship program is included within a section of the statute that begins by stating, [t]he Legislature recognizes the need for innovative planning and development strategies which will address anticipated demands of continued urbanizationthe Legislature further recognizes the substantial advantages of innovative approaches which may better protect [environmentally se nsitive lands and rural land us es] (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007, .3177(11)(a)) Fortunately, this stat ement indicates an openmindedness on the Legislatures part, and the inte gration of cultural landscape protection and planning could perhaps be considered one of these innovative approaches in the future. Protection of historic resources is not required in local comp rehensive plans, in contrast to the mandatory inclusion of natural resources in the conservation element, and instead are an optional element of comprehensive plans, pe r .3177(7) (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007). Communities may choose to in clude a historical and scenic preservation element setting out plans and program s for those structures or lands in the area having historical,

PAGE 76

76 archaeological, architectural, sc enic, or similar significance (F lorida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007, .3177(7)(i)). Inte restingly, this provision incorporates lands specifically, and is broad in including scenic significance, as well as traditional histor ical, archaeological, and architectural significance. The addition of th e language similar significance is arguably expansive enough to include cultur al significance; coupled with th e inclusion of lands, cultural landscapes could potentially be included in comprehensive plans in this element. Where it is not specifically prohibited by the stat e legislature, a community coul d attempt to include protection of cultural landscapes, es pecially in light of the Legisl atures acknowledged interest in innovative planning. Compliance with .3177 also requires compli ance with rules prom ulgated pursuant to the statute. Under 9J-5.006 (2007) which addresses spec ifics of the future land use element as required by .3177(6), protection of natural resources and historic resources must be included in the future land use goals, objectives and polic ies section. This ma ndatory inclusion seems contradictory in light of the historic elements optional status; however, the rule must exist to provide some consideration of these resources ov erall, whether or not an individual element is written. Cultural landscapes could also be referenced in the portions of the plan natural and historic resources protection. Overall, while the comprehensive planning en abling statute provides elements in which cultural landscapes could be included, the statut e reflects the dichotomy of preservation of the natural environment versus preservation of the historic or built environment. No provision exists envisioning the natural and human-made environment toge ther, though the coastal zone management program comes close in its contem plation of the overall quality of the coastal environment including amenities, conservation of living and nonliving elements, and use of

PAGE 77

77 historic resources. This broade ned focus, coupled with the pres ervation of significant lands, and an encouragement of innovative techniques gives hope of a more integrated approach in the future that addresses the interconnectedne ss of natural and built environments. In addition to mandating and overseeing content of comprehensive plans, the Legislature has enacted other provisi ons intended to guide planning in the state. For example, .3202(1), Fla. Stat. requires that within one year after a localitys submission of its comprehensive plan for state review, part of the comprehensive planning process, the locality must adopt or amend land development regulations. These regulations are intended to implement provisions of the comprehensive plan, and further, the land development regulations provision is to be interpreted as encouraging the use of innovative land de velopment regulations (Zelin, 2007, ). Effects of local planning on a regional scale is considered in the required intergovernmental coordination element of a localities comprehensive plan (Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, 2007, .3177(6)(h )). This element considers coordination among local government bodies, and requires that a local plan consider its effect on adjacent municipalities, the county, adjacent counties, and the region. The Florida Regional Planning Council Act supplements the intergovernmental c oordination element, and was enacted in order to establish a system of coordination and c ooperation amongst local governments in a region. Regional planning councils assist local governments in their region w ith technical planning assistance and also undertake crea tion of regional policy plans. This Act seeks to provide a mechanism by which to address issues of regi onal concern, such as growth-related problems (Zelin, 2007, ). Where cultural landscapes ar e of large scope covering more than one county, regional planning would be of particular value.

PAGE 78

78 Floridas Zoning Authority Where planning is a nebulous process intend ed to guide a commun itys evolution over tim e, zoning is the concrete counte rpart, restricting use of lands for a particular purpose. Initial zoning efforts began in Florida as early as 1920, when certain indi viduals across the state created an organization to lobby for state-wide implemen tation of planning and zoning legislation. After many years and much effort, Florida finally adop ted its first planning and zoning legislation in 1969. Zoning has since then become a firmly entrenched practice in Florida. Zoning is a legislative power th at resides with the state, and is delegated to a local authority (Zelin, 2007, ). Zoning was upheld as constitutionally valid in 1926, and cases in Florida dating from 1930 uphold the practice. In Florida, zoning must be delegated to a local authority by statute or ordinan ce, and zoning powers may only be delegated to an elected body as it is a legislative power (Zeli n, 2007, ). Further, zoning regulat ions must be reasonable and must be related to the public he alth, safety, morals, or general we lfare of the community in order to withstand challenge (Zelin, 2007, ). This le gal requirement is of particular importance when considering the use of a ny innovative zoning strategies, es pecially in protecting cultural landscapes, as any provision must be related to public health, safety, and welfare. Planning + Zoning = Best Protection for Cultural Landscapes Given that F lorida is lacking in state-leve l legislation and programs designed to address cultural landscapes, plan ning and zoning are the best option fo r protecting landscapes, as they do provide the state basis for la nd use decisions. Encouragemen t of innovative planning and delegation to the localities to make the best ch oices for their communities in planning and zoning leaves plenty of room for local governments to potentially include cultural landscapes in their planning and zoning policies. Because planni ng and zoning do occur at the local level,

PAGE 79

79 communities are afforded an opportunity to addre ss protection for important landscapes that may not merit inclusion in st ate or national programs.

PAGE 80

80 CHAPTER 5 CULTURAL LANDSCAPE SITE STUDY: MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA In further narrowing the study of protection of cultural landscapes through planning and zoning, considering a local site to evaluate how state planning legislation and program s are incorporated on a local level is useful. Highlighting an agrarian cultural landscap e demonstrates a traditional method of human in teraction with Florida lands. From there, selecting a local region, Marion County, exploring its history and current threats to the landscape, and identifying the local cultural landscape characteristics pr ovides a suitable bac kground from which to evaluate planning and zoning protections. Agrarian Culture Florida Despite being well-known for its sunny beaches and Disney World, Florida is also one of the top agricultural producers in the country. According to United States Department of Agriculture (2007), Florida is second among all th e states in the export of other agricultural products, which includes sugar and tropical produc ts, minor oilseeds, essential oils, beverages other than juice, nursery and gr eenhouse, wine, and misc. vegetabl e products. Florida ranks third among states in the export of fruits, fifth among states in the export of vegetables, and sixth among states in seed exports (USDA Florida Fact Sheet, 2007). Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties, famously known as vacation destinat ions, are the top two agricultural exporting counties in the state of Florid a (USDA FL-Fact-Sheet, 2007). Floridas agrarian nature can be traced back to as early as A.D. 750 (Milanich, 1996, p.6), when evidence shows cultivation of corn in what is now northern Florida. Florida was largely rural and agricultural until the 1930s and 1940s, but the mid-twentieth century represents a major shift in Floridas evolution. During the 1960s and 1970s, almost 500 new residents per

PAGE 81

81 day moved to Florida (Colburn, 1996, p.364). Florid a became less like other southeastern states, and instead resembled booming states such as Texas and California (Colburn, 1996, p.364). Although still important to the states economy, agriculture began to take a backseat to construction, technology, and tourism. Today, agriculture and the agrarian lifestyle cont inues to be an important part of Florida. In 2006, Floridas agriculture industry create d over 756,993 jobs and had an overall economic impact of $87.6 billion annually (Florida Agriculture Statistical Highlights, 2006). Also in 2006, Florida ranked first in the United States for sales of snap beans, tomatoes, cucumbers for market and pickling, bell peppers, squash and wate rmelon, as well as first in the nation for value of production of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines and sugar cane (Florida Agriculture Statistical Highlights, 2006). Florida was second in the nation in sales of greenhouse products, sweet corn, and strawberries (Florida Agriculture St atistical Highlights, 2006). Florida is a major contributor to the national and international food supply, yet agriculture and th e agrarian lifestyle continues to be a part of Florida s culture that is not as readily identifiable as that of beaches, space centers, Mickey Mouse, and golf. Marion County Marion Cou nty, in north central Florida, exemplifies the states agrarian cultural landscape, with much of the countys history link ed to agricultural success (Ott & Chazal, 1966). Until the 1930s, agricultural products from th e county included corn, cotton, oranges, and livestock. However, traditional forms of agricu lture in the county began to lose its stronghold when a successful limerock construction busines sman residing in Marion County, Carl Rose, became interested in raising thoroughbreds afte r a stint on the State Racing Commission. Rose purchased a mare for breeding purposes in th e late 1930s and established Rosemere Farm, Marion Countys first thoroughbred farm (J ohnson 1993). By 1945, Rosemere Farm was the

PAGE 82

82 largest breeding farm in Fl orida (Johnson, 1993). The Fl orida Thoroughbred Breeders Association recognized the importance of th e emerging Marion County farms by holding their first meeting in the area in 1947 (Johnson, 1993). Rosemere horses began winning in races across the Eastern seaboard, and by 1949, the Miami Herald stated, Dont be surprised if Ocala becomes the Lexington of Florida (Johnson, 1993, p.128). In approximately ten years, Rose managed to transform Marion Countys agricult ural focus from traditional livestock to thoroughbred breeding. Horse breeding in Marion County became a success largely due to the geography of the region. Marion County is located on the Ocala Ridge, a topographic area that rises 300 feet above sea level, and contains many springs th at prevent stagnant water (Johnson, 1993). The limestone base of the earth holds moisture, and contributes to calcium-rich grass and water. Other places in the world that share this uni que soil structure are Kentucky and Ireland, both thoroughbred centers (Johnson, 1993). Enormous live oak trees provide shade against the Florida heat (Johnson, 1993). Rose encouraged others to establish horse farms in the area, and nationally-recognized trainers and breeders, attracted by the winning Florida horse s, moved to Marion County (Johnson, 1993). The traditional agricultural land scape of Marion County shifted, and began to resemble horse country in Kentucky. Rolling hills became dotted with woven wire fencing topped with wooden boards, white board fenc ing appeared around barns, and the barns themselves replaced open sheds (Johnson, 1993). Grasses, developed in part by the University of Florida, were planted that better withstood the occasional winter frost, and experimental hays and oats were grown in order to find the best f eed for the horses. White fences, in time, were painted black, which proved easier to maintain (Johnson, 1993).

PAGE 83

83 Florida and Marion County gained nati onal recognition as a thoroughbred breeding center when Rose was elected president of th e National Association of Thoroughbred Breeders in the 1950s (Johnson, 1993). Needles, Florid as first national champion in 1955, provided further recognition for the area. Needles, from Dickey Stables in Marion County, went on to win the Kentucky Derby in 1956 and thus firm ly cemented Marion Countys place in the thoroughbred industry (Johnson, 1993). Nationally known horse farms began sendi ng their young horses to Marion County to train (Johnson, 1993). During the 1960s, the thoroughbred industry in the area became increasingly commercialized, and horse farm owne rs shifted from breedi ng and raising horses for racing to selling the horse s after initial training, as sales prove d more lucrative than racing purses (Johnson, 1993). An increased emphasis on sale s continued, and by 1974, the Ocala Breeders Sales Company was one of the largest horse sa les companies in the world (Johnson, 1993). Large-scale commercial horse farms began to dominate the Marion County landscape. This equine tradition conti nues today, and in 1997, Mari on County had more horses and ponies than any other county in the United States (Horses a nd Ponies Inventory), lending credence to the countys status as Horse Capita l of the World. Almost every breed of horse is represented in the farms of Marion County, and ov er the years, Ocalas farms have produced 41 national champions, six Kentucky Derby winners, nineteen Breeder s Cup champions, and six horses of the year (Ocala/Marion County Visitor s Guide, 2007). The region is home to more than 75% of the 600 thoroughbred farms in the stat e, and hosts numerous national equine events. The investment in breeding farms, training cen ters, and breeding and racing stock has an estimated economic impact of $1 billion dollars (Florida Horse Indus try, n.d.) The Ocala Breeders Sales Company alone sells over $100 million dollars worth of thoroughbreds a year

PAGE 84

84 (Ocala/Marion County Visitors Guide, 2007). In a ddition to farms and equine event facilities, the equine-related industry in the area includes equine medical facilities, equine publications, equine facility construction, horse transport, pr ofessional fence installation, equine retail, and equine-oriented real estate (Horse Capital Digest, 2007). Marion Countys horse industry is a way of life, and a unique cultural landscape. Marion Countys Landscape in Danger Agricultural land is lost in increasing quantities at a rapi d p ace; estimates indicate two acres of farmland are lost every minute (What s Happening to Our Farmland?, 2007). For every rural acre that is saved, sixteen acres are lost to deve lopment (Grossi, 1999, p.15). To put this rate of development in perspective, consid er that within a span of 45 years, Los Angeles went from being a nationwide top-producing farm county to being better known as a sprawling mega-city (Grossi, 1999, p.15). Numerous sour ces document the loss of greenfields, or undeveloped land, as cities continue to sprawl outward. Florida does not differ from national trends, and dire predictions ha ve been made about the fate of Florida agriculture as development a nd population increase. Popul ation is expected to boom in the state, expanding from approximate ly 17 million in 2005 to over 35 million in 2060. Notably, the physical manifesta tion of population growth is la nd use change (Zwick & Carr, 2006, p.1). The Florida 2060 project, conducted by the 1000 Friends of Florida in conjunction with the University of Florida, estimates th at by 2060 almost seven million acres of land will need to be developed in order to accommoda te the burgeoning population. This acreage is expected to be taken from what is currently land in agricultural use or in pristine use for wildlife. The study operates from a presumption that no more land than is currently in protected conservation as of 2005 will be added to conservati on holdings, in order to stress the importance of what could occur without additional cons ervation acquisitions (Zwick & Carr, 2006).

PAGE 85

85 Florida 2060 estimates that Marion County s outh through Osceola County will be entirely urbanized within the next 50 years, and population growth an d conversion of undeveloped land to developed land in the area will be explosive (Zwick & Carr, 2006, p.11). This pattern is evident in land use changes in Marion County that have occurre d in the past 50 years. For example, the land that was Carl Roses Roseme re Farm and Ocala Stud is now home to the Paddock Shopping Mall and Central Florida Community College (Johnson, 1993). Although adapting to the needs of a growing community and accommodating some development is necessary, the conversion of the farm that intro duced the equine industr y to Marion County into a shopping center is indicative of what the future may hold for the region. Statistics indicate that from 1987 to 2002, Marion County lost 40,512 acres of farmland (Guide to Conservation Easements and Other Land Conservation Options, n.d.). Smaller farms face increased pressure because new development increases property valu es and tax burdens on neighboring land; these burdens often become too high for a small farm and their best option is to sell (Guide to Conservation Easements and Other Land Conserva tion Options, n.d.). If Florida 2060 estimates are accurate, Marion Countys population could double from a current 300,000 people to almost 700,000 people in 2060 (Zwick & Carr, 2006). Therefore, protection of Marion Countys equine industry and agrarian landscape, a significant cultural asset and booster to the local economy, is necessary. In addition to some of the programs available in Florida that may provi de protection for cultural landscapes, there are other initiatives underway targ eting agricultural land preservation in particular. The Conservation Trust for Florida (CTF) operate s a Protecting Horse Country program, which encourages the donation of conservation easements as a means of saving horse farms in the area (Protecting Horse Country, 2007). CTFs guidebook to protecting horse country also informs

PAGE 86

86 landowners of options for land c onservation that are available th rough federal tax credits, state programs such as Florida Forever, and individu al strategies such as easements and deed restrictions. The Florida Earth Foundation (FEF), a public -private partnership created to address sustainable natural systems, has been hosting fo rums on the future of agricultural lands as development pressures increase. In June 2007, FEF hosted a forum specifically addressing Central Floridas agricultural lands, and provide d participants with information about growth management and conservation of natural resour ces (FLUI Central Florida Forum, 2007). Similarly, the Florida Chapter of the American Planning Associat ion hosted panels at their 2007 conference discussing preservation of agricultural lands in the state and how to best plan for rural areas (FAPA 2007 Conference, 20 07). These programs and events demonstrate an awareness of the importance of preserving these rural lands, and outcomes from these events may have the possibility of increasing agricultural la nds protection in the state. As this awareness continues to grow, Fl orida 2060 as presented by 1000 Friends of Florida may not come to fruition. Instead, a fu ture more akin to the Florida 2060 Alternative Scenario, created by the University of Central Florida in conjun ction with the University of Pennsylvania, may occur. The 2060 Alternativ e operates from the same population increase assumption as Florida 2060, and recognizes that ur ban land use will increase while the acreage of agricultural and pristine lands will decrease. Ho wever, through tools such as agriculture and conservation easements, the study proposes that more land go into conservation than development, and highlights re duced power and fuel consump tion, mass transit, and compact development as a way to accommodate more peopl e without eradicating the rural landscape. (Florida 2060: We Can Do Better, 2007) Though this study puts a positive spin on Floridas

PAGE 87

87 future, it also makes many assumptions that may not occur in the near future, such as major highspeed railways connecting th e states urban areas. Both Florida 2060 and the Florida 2060 Alte rnative represent extreme ends of the spectrum. The reality is likely somewhere in the middle, meaning that development of agricultural lands is un avoidable. Taking measures now to identify particularly significant agricultural areas, or trying to ensure that predom inantly agricultural landscapes stay that way for future production, is critical. Staunch preservationists may ar gue that the current cultural landscape does not display historic features ye t worthy of protection. However, utilizing the definition of cultural landscapes adopted fo r this study, contemporar y cultural landscapes demonstrating heritage through evolution of the land over time should not be discounted, especially where there is a recognizable threat While organizations such as CTF and FEF are taking measures now to protect this landscape, th ey cannot do it alone, an d additional strategies must be considered. Marion Countys Agrarian Cultural Landscape Given that Marion County rem ains largely an agricultural area, and its reputation rests on an agrarian industry, horse farm ing, the rural cultural landscape of the region is evident. Focusing on the countys cultu ral landscape is an innovative way of securing increased protection for the area. The vast majority of cultural landscapeshave developed without the direct involvement of a profe ssional designer, planner, or engineerthese ordinary, or vernacular landscapesare fundamental to our very existence. The most obvious land-use type within this category of the cu ltural landscape is agri culture (Alanen & Melnick, 2000, p.5). As Marion County faces population increases and th e threat of development, identifying the significant agricultural areas of the county as a cultural landscape and seeking protective mechanisms is especially relevant. Though the re gion does have developed sites, such as Ocala,

PAGE 88

88 Dunnellon, and Silver Springs, the rural, agrarian portions of the county bring special character to Marion County and exemplify traditional use of th ese lands as they have been so used since Floridas early days. Overview of Rural Cultural Landscape Characteristics Melnick (1987) proposes a three-tiered sy stem for rural landscapes: physiographic, ecological, and historical and cultural. Each element of the system must be considered independently prior to beginning a formalized surv ey of the area. Physiographic considerations include topography, predominant vegetation, and water resources; in other words, the natural backdrop against which the rural landscape is set (Melnick, 1987, p.23). Evaluating the ecological context requires a study of natural elem ents that comprise the landscape, such as hydrology, soils, vegetation patterns and biotic co mmunities, and a study of how these elements have responded to human intervention. Historical and cultural considerat ions involve settlement patterns, demography, social forces, political events, economic trends, and anthropological studies, as well as archaeological surveys (Melnick, 1987, p.24). McClelland, Keller, Keller, & Melnick (1999), on behalf of the National Park Service, promulgated a list of eleven characteristics of the rural landscape that expands upon Melnicks prior system of evaluating rural cultural landscapes (Table 4-1). Four of the NPS characteristics embody the processes involved in shaping the land, while the remaining seven incorporate physical components of the landscap e into the identification procedur e. The first characteristic, land use and activities, seeks to identify the prim ary use of the rural land in question, whether it be farming, mining, ranching, recrea tion, industry, and so on. The s econd characteristic, patterns of spatial organization, reflects th e physical organization of land based on a variety of factors including politics and the economy, as well as natural systems. Third, the response to the natural environment, considers major natural features th at shaped land settlement. The last of the

PAGE 89

89 processes and the fourth charac teristic, cultural traditions, lo oks at the way religion, social customs, ethnicity, and skills are reflected in the landscape. (McClelland, Keller, Keller, & Melnick, 1999) The physical components of rural landscap es, comprising the remaining seven NPS characteristics, include circul ation networks, boundary demarca tions, vegetation related to land use, buildings, structures, and objects, clusters, archaeological sites, and small-scale elements. Circulation networks are systems for transporting people and mate rials. Boundary demarcations separate land uses and define property ownershi p; vegetation related to land use may serve the same purpose, but overall refers to crops, shrubs and the like, whether planted intentionally or not. Buildings, structures, and objects refers to the physical components used to adapt the landscape to human needs. Clusters are repeati ng occurrences of a particular component in a landscape, such as fencing or groups of outbuildi ngs. Archaeological sites are representative of the landscapes history, and small-scale elements in clude such things as ro ad signs or fence posts that add to the setting. (McClelland, Keller, Keller, & Melnick, 1999) These characteristics mirror those utilized by ODonnell (2005), who refers to character-de fining features of a landscape, which include: land uses and patterns, spatial organi zation and visual relationships, topography, vegetation, circulation sy stems and elements, water features and drainage systems, non-habitable structures and buildings and site furnishing and objects. All of the above characterist ics as listed by Melnick (1987), McClelland, Keller, Keller, & Melnick (1999), and ODonnell (2005) consider natural elements and manmade additions to the landscape that contribute to a cultural lands cape. Nomenclature of a rural landscape is synonymous in this instance with cultural landscape. Therefore, utilizing the framework of the rural historic landscape helps identify characte ristics that embody a ru ral cultural landscape.

PAGE 90

90 Marion Countys Rural Cultural Landscape Characteristics The equine industry in Marion County has co ntributed heavily to the areas larger cultu ral landscape, and this landscape exemplifie s the elements of a rural landscape identified by Melnick (1987), McClelland, Keller, Keller, & Melnick (1999), and ODonnell (2005). The most detailed of the three is McClelland, Ke ller, Keller, & Melnicks (1999) system, and utilizing their framework provi des an instructive methodology for evaluating Marion Countys landscape characteristics (Table 4-2). The first el ement, land use and activ ities, is demonstrated in Marion County through its continued use of the land for agricultu ral activities, as has occurred in Florida and the county for thousands of years. Though the nature of agriculture has shifted throughout the countys history, it ha s always been a contributor to the regions way of life and represents a continual inte raction between humans and the landscape (Figure 4-1). Similarly, patterns of spatial organization in the county are reflected through humans division of land into agricultural parcels that sh ape the landscape. These open spaces maintained for agriculture are in contrast to and separate from the more urban portions of the county. The horse farm in particular utilizes a particular pattern of spatia l organization, whereby the overall land is divided into separate spaces for separate activities, such as gr azing, training, or racing. Each of these separate spaces are maintained in a different way for their different purposes (Figures 4-2 and 4-3). The size of agricultural parcel s differs, most likely due to the wealth of the landowner, but political and social factors also drive spatial organization, as would natural features present in the landscape. These natural features influe ncing location and organi zation, the third element recognized by the NPS, are represen ted by the hilly terrain and fertile soils of the county, as well as the temperate climate. Most significantly, the limest one ridge running through Marion

PAGE 91

91 County profoundly influenced, and continues to infl uence, the siting of the equine industry (Figure 4-4). Cultural traditions have undoubt edly shaped the landscape. Although Native Americans no longer comprise the population in the area, their agrarian lifestyle has been continued by present day inhabitants, and the rural culture pred ominates. Farmers have shifted and shaped the landscape to best suit their trade, and their skills are specifically tied to the land on which they live and work. Agrarian practices shaped by the equine industry create a way of life that is shared within this community, a nd lends to the rural culture of the region. The equine industry brings its own social traditions to the area, evidenced by equine associations, equine publications, and events cen tered around the horse (Figures 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7). Physical elements of rural Marion County are unique to horse farms, and easily identifiable, contributing to the overall cultural la ndscape. Circulation networks in the area have evolved from dirt paths, to ra ilroad, to paved interstates, but all have served the functions necessary to agricultural transport. Historically, springs and rivers provided access to outlying areas. Today, two airports servic e the county. However, roadways remain the primary means of circulation, particularly in rela tion to transporting horses (Fig ure 4-8). Often these tree-lined roads meander through countryside, leading the county to designate many of its roadways Scenic Roads (Scenic Roads, 2004). Boundary demarcations of the rural landscape are present mostly in the form of fencing, which varies between white, black, unpainted wood, and metal. Fencing not only delineates land held by different property owners, it also serves to create spaces within a single property for use as corrals, paddocks, and racetrack s. Fences are one of the pre dominant features of the Marion County landscape (Figure 4-9).

PAGE 92

92 Vegetation in the county is still repr esented on some farms through traditional agricultural crops, but large trees also comprise the vegetation element, as they provide much needed shade for horses from the Florida sun (Fig ure 4-10). Buildings present on the majority of farms reflect outbuildings necessary for equine activities, such as hous ing, training, and racing. These buildings are typically grouped within prox imity to each other, and reflect a particular architectural style. Some buildings are more ornate or differ in size, depending on the farm (Figure 4-11). Structures in the region include fencing, wells, and troughs, while objects include equipment needed in farming, such as trucks, tr actors, horse trailers, and the like (Figure 4-12). Clusters occur throughout the county; grouped outbuildings such as barns and training facilities often appear (Figur e 4-13). In some instances these groupings may include a residential building for the farm owner. Fences also appear in groups, as they not only surround the farm overall, but also serve to create smaller pieces of land within the larger parcel of land for use as paddocks and training sites. Archaeolo gical sites in the count y include the Fort King site, which although no longer standing, is the so urce of ongoing archaeological investigations (Archaeologists digging up Fort Kings Past, 2003). The Fort King site has been designated a National Historic Landmark by the NPS (Figure 4-14) Seasonal bales of hay, ornate signs and gates identifying the entrance to individual horse farms, a nd equestrian-crossing signs are examples of small-scale elements in the county (Figures 4-15, 4-16, and 4-17). Overall, Marion Countys landscape characterist ics are in many ways directly analogous to the Bluegrass region of Kentucky, a cultural landscape whose farms, horse barns, paddocks, fences, and tree-lined roads have been identi fied as in danger by the World Monument Fund (Bluegrass Cultural Landscape of Kentuc ky, 2006). Though perhaps not as well known, Marion Countys cultural landscape is no less sign ificant or worthy of protection, and no less in

PAGE 93

93 danger than that of Kentuckys horse farms. The equine industry in Marion County is a major economic and cultural contributor to the region, and without this industry, the character and economy of the area would be suffi ciently depleted. Evaluating pr otective mechanisms for this equine-oriented agrarian landscape is a ma tter better considered now than later. Existing Planning & Zoning Regulations As previously discussed, planning and zoni ng can be an im portant strategy in the protection of cultural landscapes. Planning al lows for inclusion of cultural landscapes in considering an areas future, and zoning acts as a way to restrict land uses in a way that favors cultural landscape protection. Evaluating Marion Countys existing planning and zoning demonstrates how the equine cultural landscape of the area is currently addressed, and highlights room for improvement. Marion Countys Comprehensive Plan Reviewing Marion Countys comprehensive pl an provides insight into how the regions unique cultural landscape is addressed in govern mental policy. Marion Countys plan currently provides for landscape preservation primarily in the Future Land Use Element, last revised in March 2005. The primary goal for this element is to [e]nsure that the ch aracter and location of land uses maximizes the potential for economic benefit while protecting the current unique character of our urban, rural, and environmentally sens itive areas (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-1). The second and third goals, re spectively, are to discourage urban sprawl and conservation of natural and man-made resources (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-1). This combina tion of natural and man-made resources is indicative of a cultural landscap e; however, the implementati on of this goal is largely accomplished in the plan, not surprisingly, by considering natural elements separately from manmade resources.

PAGE 94

94 Implementation of the above goals is referenced in Objective 3 of the plan which seeks to preserve permanent open space and the character of the countys rural areas while allowing the provision of basic services by dire cting growth to urban areas or clustering rural development in hamlets, villages, towns, and commercial nodes (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-19). Policy 3.1 enumerates how this objective will be attained throu gh the designation of hamlets, villages, and towns. For each of thes e designations, requiring a certain percentage of space remain permanent open space attains la ndscape preservation goals. The remaining percentage not in open space preservation is the la nd that is available for development. General rural areas must have a density of one dwelling per ten acres, and any clustered development in these areas must be clustered on no more than 40 % of the gross land area in the development. The remaining 60% is to be open space. Hamlets allow a density of one dwelling per five acres, but 60% of the development must remain open space. Hamlets are intended to be from 40 acres to 159 acres. Open space is defined as lands fo r passive recreation such as hiking or biking, conservation, or agricultural use. (Mar ion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-19) Rural Village District development may occur on a minimum of 160 acres and a maximum of 640 acres. Two options exist for ru ral village district de velopment. Option 1 requires that 80% of the land area in the dist rict remain permanent open space, leaving 20% buildable land with a one dwelli ng to five-acre density ratio. Option 2 provides 60% of the land remain open space, leaving 40% buildable land that may have up to a one dwelling per one-acre density ratio. Selecting Option 2 requires that the district be w ithin one mile of an urban area, and that urban area must be at least 40-60% deve loped within one to two miles of the district. Both options require a comprehensive plan amendment under Chapter 163, a time consuming process that involves state-level review and approval of the amendm ent. Buildable land in these

PAGE 95

95 districts must be compact and clustered, while open space is left for passive recreation, conservation, and agriculture. (Marion C ounty Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-20 and 1-23) Rural Towns are only allowed when they go through the Development of Regional Impact process, required by the state to review especially large developments that affect more than just the immediate area. Rural Towns, in addition to the Development of Regional Impact and comprehensive plan amendment process, must also provide for not more than two dwellings per acre, and leave a minimum of 65% of land in open space. (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-21 and 1-24) Existing agricultural land uses are given priority to continue, and agriculture in general is encouraged to continue through the designation of lands solely for agricultural use. Objective 4 of the Future Land Use Element calls for the impl ementation of a transfer of development rights program in the county in order to prevent furthe r degradation of natural and historic resources (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-31). Overall, these policies attempt to accommodate growth in the region, while balancing a need to retain the rural character of the lands cape that distinguishes Marion County. However, none of the above elements mention the equine i ndustry as what contribu tes to the unique rural character of the area. Though these measures are a step in the right direction and an acknowledgement of the need to preserve open sp ace, it remains the effect on the overall rural landscape is unknown. Patchwork development with some open space may alter the ability for large farms to continue operating in one contiguo us place. Further, where open space is left open to interpretation among recreation, conservation, or ag riculture, agriculture may often be the last choice in an increasingly populat ed area. Developers and resi dents of developments may be more interested in living next to a park than a functional horse farm. Not requiring at least some

PAGE 96

96 open space to remain agriculture may be detrimen tal to the equine-influenced nature of the county. However, of particular interest in preservi ng the unique cultural landscape is Policy 3.17, which attempts to account for the needs of the equine industry. This policy states, Marion County shall create a Special Equine District Committee whose objective shall be to establish incentives for the preservation of the equine i ndustry. The Committee shall consider incentives which will maintain permanent open spaces such as additional use of clustering, and the transfer of development rights (Mari on County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-29). However, after initial organizing, the Committee has been inacti ve for many years, largely due to planning policies felt by the Committee as already incorp orating Committee concerns for the equine industry (Marion County Planning Department personal communication, October 4, 2007). Policy 4.12 of the plan states that identif ied historic, cultur al, or archaeological resources shall be evaluated for significance and value of preser vation utilizing state historic preservation guidelines and policies recomme nded by the 1987 Historic Survey of Marion County (Marion County Comprehensive Plan, 2005, p.1-41). This policy, however, only provides for evaluating those sources already identified, and makes no provision for identifying new historic or cultural sites. Following state historic preserva tion guidelines also presents a problem since the state is not currently making pr ovisions for cultural lands capes as part of the state historic preservation program. Further, the county s evaluation relies on guidelines published in 1987. Twenty years have passed since that survey, and preservation has shifted in the meantime, namely in the form of more wi despread recognition and inclusion of cultural landscapes and landscape protecti on. In addition, the Marion County comprehensive plan does not include the optional histor ic preservation element.

PAGE 97

97 Natural resources in Marion County have protection in the form of the plans Conservation Element. Where this section could provide for landscap e protection, it only considers the natural elements of the landscape and does not consider th e interaction between natural and man-made resources. This element doe s not make the same reference to natural and man-made resource protection as does the Fu ture Land Use Element. Policy 3.9 of the Conservation Element addresses the need for development of criteria for a transfer of development rights program in order to pre serve locally important and prime farmlands, though no details are provided on what these locally important or prime farmlands are, or how to identify them (Marion County Comprehensiv e Plan, 2005, p.9-18). Marion Countys plan does not include a provision for a Rura l Lands Stewardship program. Marion Countys Land Development Code Marion Countys zoning ordinances are in cluded in the County Land Development Code (LDC). The LDC contains numerous rural zoning designations for Marion County. The first is Rural Residential, which accommodates rural residential development with home sites and certain agricultural uses. Horses for personal use are a permitted use in areas zoned Rural Residential, but commercial hors e operations and othe r livestock must be approved by the zoning board as a special use (Marion County Land Development Code, 2004). The second rural designation is General Agriculture, of which the intent is to preserve agriculture as the primary use. Any general agriculture use is permitted in General Agriculture areas. (Marion County Land Development Code, 2004) Third, county zoning includes Improved Agriculture areas, which provide for general farming and animal husbandry and which may requi re restrictive zoning in order to minimize conflicts and protect the characte r of the area, although what contributes to the character is not defined. The first permitted use in this category is agricultural production of livestock,

PAGE 98

98 including horses. Other permitted uses include public riding academies. This provision also includes a density requirement of 9,000 square feet of open space for one animal, and 6,000 square feet for each additional animal for thos e parcels between one and 9.9 acres in size. (Marion County Land Development Code, 2004) B ecause this designation recognizes the need for certain animal husbandry operations to subs tantially improve and develop their land with accessory uses in conjunction with the albeit undefined character of the area, Improved Agriculture seems an ideally suited designation for the majority of the equine farms that define the Marion County cultural landscape. However, the zoning classification does not explicitly state this purpose, and only close examination of the language appears to support this theory. The fourth agricultural zoning designati on, Residential Agricu ltural Estate, also encompasses animal husbandry with accessory uses, but this designation goes on to include small parcel development, as a way of protecting reasonable use of the pr operty while deterring rapid expansion. The Residential Agricultural Estate zoning designation does not seem ideally suited for protecting the cultural landscape, wher e larger parcels are el igible for small-scale development. The last three rural designations Rural Commercial, Rural Activity Center, and Rural Industrial are designed to encompass th e needs of agricultura lly-zoned districts by providing services necessary to keep farms productive and residents comfortable. (Marion County Land Development Code, 2004) The Marion County LDC also c ontains the countys overlay di stricts, of which there are only three. None of the three districts, the Airport Overlay Zone, the Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Zone, or the Floodplain Overlay Zone, a ddresses the equine landscape of the region or the importance of retaining land nece ssary to support this landscape, as an overlay district with special restrictions could do. Though the Envi ronmentally Sensitive Overlay Zone seeks to

PAGE 99

99 protect natural features, it is designed to addres s issues of water quality and water supply in relation to springsheds, rivers, lakes, and wetlands, but it does not address land conservation, as would be necessary for the cultural landscape. (Marion County Land Development Code, 2004) As part of their zoning regulations, the County has implemented a TDR program, as expressed in County Comprehensive Plan (see Objective 4, Marion County Board of County Commissioners, 2005). This program is designed to promote the preservation of rural farmland areas and protect those areas from incompatible land uses, while providing additional incentives and benefit to those participating in the progr am (Transfer of Development Rights Program, 2004). Two areas have been created, the Se nding and Receiving Areas, where, respectively, development should be avoided and development should concentrate. The Sending Area is in the northwest portion of the county and has been named the Farmland Preservation area. The Receiving Areas are in parts of the county zoned Urban Reserve. A simple explanation of the TDR program is that property owners in the Sending Area petition to participate in the program, and if selected, donate their land to the county through a conservation easement. The county then grants the owner development credits to be used, or sold for use, in the Receiving Area. The exact number of credits depends on calculations related mostly to how much land is donated. Marion Co untys TDR program is at this point too recent to determine how successful it will be in preserving farmland in the area. Summary: Existing Planning and Zoning Regulations Marion County, through community m embers and elected officials, co uld provide better protection of their unique equine cultural landscape, which represen ts a long tradition of agrarian life in Florida, and significantl y contributes to the character of the region. In addition to not being part of Florida initiatives such as the Rural Lands Stewardship program, Marion County does not include any overall cons ideration of the impor tance of the equine industry included in

PAGE 100

100 their planning and zoning, except peripherally. Although the Agricultural Improvement zoning designation appears to contemplat e space for the equine industry, it does so vaguely and without any reference to the industry sp ecifically. Given that planning and zoning are within the governmental realm, and are not without political pressures, the curren t planning and zoning is commendable where open space and preservation policies are encouraged. However, where feasible in light of polit ics, the County should include the equine industry in their planning and zoning policies. Because Marion County follows the traditional method of considering natural heritage and cultur al heritage separately, focusing specifically on the equine industry in planning and zoning regulati ons may be the best way to incorporate both concepts and protect the significant cultural landscape of Marion County. Integrating Cultural Landscape Protection in Marion County Initial Considerations The equine industry is the m ost significant contributor to Marion Countys cultural landscape, providing easily recogni zable physical features, and contributing heavily to the economy and culture of the area. Protecting this unique equine cultural landscape will preserve the communitys character and economic health in the face of increased development pressures. While focusing on this significant industry alone narrows those areas of the county deserving protection, further limiting of significant areas with in the equine industry may be necessary to ensure protection while still acknowledging the reality of growth. To accomplish this, preservation planning can assist in identifying and prep aring for protection. General logistical planning is the first necessary st ep in evaluating cultural landscapes and is important in light of Floridas lack of a state program specifically surveying landscapes.

PAGE 101

101 Preservation planning, designed to address cultural landscapes exhibiting primarily historic qualities, can be extrap olated for use with cultural landscapes generally. Preservation planning (Birnbaum, 1994) incorpor ates the following procedures: Historical research Inventory and documentation of existing conditions Site analysis and evaluation of integrity and significance Development of a cultural landscape preser vation approach and treatment plan Development of a cultural landscape management plan and management philosophy The development of a strategy for ongoing maintenance Preparation of a record of treatment and future research recommendations. Protective mechanisms are not incl uded, although the NPS may consid er these part of the larger management plan. Arguably, this failure to spec ifically include protective mechanisms indicates that planning should be the first step in evaluating cultural lands capes, and implementing protective mechanisms should follow. The Massachusetts Heritage Landscapes program guide, Reading the Land which suggests that every community have a landscape program, is an example of how one state has chosen to assist their communities in planning for cultural landscapes. Following the NPS model, but providing information sp ecifically for the local level, Reading the Land encourages developing partnerships, conductin g an inventory of local landscapes, evaluating significance, and distribution of the inventor y to the community for education purposes. After completing these initial planning steps, planni ng for protection is suggested. Planning involves setting shortand long-term goals for the landscapes, identifyi ng protective mechanisms such as master or comprehensive planning, zoning, st ate protective laws, and non-regul atory tools such as outright land acquisition and easements. Reading the Land is geared towards those laws and legal mechanisms in place in Massachusetts, but prov ides an overall strategy for how to implement landscape planning on a local le vel. (Massachusetts Department of Conservation and

PAGE 102

102 Recreation, 2004) Marion County pla nners and those involved in s eeking protection of the local cultural landscape could utilize Reading the Land in considering how to initiate protection planning within the region. Although the Massachus etts state laws will not translate to Marion County, the guide is beneficial in providing an overview of how to begin to integrate cultural landscape planning into the local community. Given that Marion County has not updated th eir Historic Survey since 1987, general preservation planning for the landscape is an impo rtant first step. Local surveyors familiar with the area will be best suited to identify those regi ons of the county most significant to the cultural landscape. Looking to the areas that the count y has designated as Farmland Preservation Area for purposes of their TDR program provides a star ting point. In additi on to the procedural guidelines given by the NPS for pr eservation planning, surveyors will need to be aware of the issues relating to cultural landscapes: the ev olution of the cultural landscapes identified, definition of the size and scope by instituting boundaries of the landscape, long-term protective planning, and potential pr operty rights conflicts. Including the Equine Cultural Landscape in Comprehensive Planning After the County conducts general planning and inventory, consideratio ns of protective m echanisms can then be addressed. Because tr aditional planning treat[s] historic resources versus natural and open space resources as separa te entities (Massachus etts Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2004, p.35), integrati on of the two is necessary in order to accommodate protection of the equine cultural lands cape. This integration is best accomplished through the inclusion of the equine landscape in the county comprehensive plan, but especially through the creation of a i ndividual element specifically providing for protection. This integration is demonstrated by Loudoun County, Virginia, who in the course of revising their comprehensive plan included cultural landscape considerations. Housed within the

PAGE 103

103 context of the preservation plan element, cultu ral landscapes merited discussion as explored through an issues paper presented to the Count ywide Heritage Resources Preservation Plan Citizen Advisory Committee. This paper presents questions as to how best include cultural landscapes in the general plan, presents pr os and cons as to each option, and makes recommendations as to which options to select. Issue questions include: what landscape types should be included in Loudoun Countys approach towards developing a protection strategy for cultural landscapes, how boundaries of the landscapes should be defined, and how the county should protect the landscapes. (Loudoun County, n.d.) The latter, how the county should protect th e landscapes through their comprehensive plan, is broken into two options: protection th rough current regulatory practice and protection through an advisory function. The first option di scusses pros and cons of current regulations, which include the use of Historic and Cultural Conservation Districts (H CC). The cons include the reality that cultural landscapes may exist outs ide those districts and th at protection of cultural resources is largely voluntary. The second optio n, a county advisory role, includes the creation of guidelines for identifying and delineating cu ltural landscapes in the county, county selection of particularly significant cultural landscapes, development of county la ndscape inventories and reports, and assistance to the publ ic and county staff as to how best protect these landscapes through incentives. Ultimately, a combination of the two options is recommended, as the HCC districts are effective for protec ting already included areas, a nd advisory functions regarding potential incentives for cultural landscape prot ection can work well with regard to newly identified cultural landscapes or those that ar e of a larger size. Although the paper does not recommend an entirely separate element of the comprehensive plan dedicated solely to cultural

PAGE 104

104 landscapes, it does advocate for the integration of natural and cultural resources in Loudoun Countys plan (Loudoun County, n.d.). Where the Loudoun County issues paper addre sses cultural landscapes generally, it is very clear that while a general inclusion of natural and cultural integration would benefit Marion County, inclusion of the specific equine cultural landscape is the most important step. Four preservation organizations in the Kentucky Blue grass region are working to create a specially designed comprehensive plan. The Kentucky Heri tage Council, the Blue grass Conservancy, the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Pres ervation, and the University of Kentuckys Center for Historic Architecture and Preservation are working as a team to develop a comprehensive plan to combat the rapid loss of historic farms and related structures in the Bluegrass Region (Bluegrass Cultural Landscape of Kentucky, 20 06). Undoubtedly, the plan will highlight the equine industry as a significan t contributor to the appearance and influence of the Bluegrass cultural landscape. The Equestrian Land Conservation Resource (ELCR), a national organization dedicated to the preservation of open land for equine s port, recreation, and indus try purposes, recognizes the importance of planning for equine landsca pes (Focus on ELCR, 2007). In 2004, the ELCR in conjunction with the State Horse Council Advisory Committee, a subsection of the American Horse Council, commissioned a report on e questrian community designations by local governments ( Equestrian Community Zoning 2004). Communities across the country were identified as providing for or desi ring to provide for equine land pr otection in their local plans. Included in the report are such communities as Jurupa, California, whose plan includes a provision for a Protected Equestrian Sphere. Within this sphere, the local Jurupa government is to enact policies that protect the equestrian area and way of life. Also in California, Rolling Hills

PAGE 105

105 Estates includes equestrian land planning in their land use elemen t and directs the creation of a horse overlay district to be in cluded in the community zoning regulations. Putnam Township, Michigan community members recommended that their local plan include recognition of the connection between rural character and equestrian character, identi fy the equestrian character of their town, and provide for this character through an equestrian overlay district. ( Equestrian Community Zoning, 2004) Closer to home, the Village of Wellington, Florida has recognized the importance of planning for the equine landscape, and has enac ted an equestrian element of their village comprehensive plan. The Equestrian Preservatio n Elements goal is to ensure the preservation and protection of the neighborhoods which comprise this area, the equest rian industry and the rural lifestyles which exist in the Equestrian Preserve (Village of Wellington, 2006, EQ-1). The element directs the village to create an equest rian overlay district protecting equestrian preservation areas. The village is to then enac t specific policies for the overlay district that provide for and encourage conservation easem ents, encourage cluster development while maintaining projected density limitations, limit co mmercial uses that support the equine industry, provide for preservation of rura l lifestyles, and establish site development regulations that implement the characteristics of equestrian us es and structures. (Village of Wellington, 2006, EQ-1) In addition to the Equestrian Preservation El ement, the Wellington plan also provides for the creation of a subcommittee w ithin the local planning agency to advise the planning and zoning agency on land use decisions affecting th e equestrian areas (V illage of Wellington, 2006, EQ-4). The Wellington Equestri an Committees mission is to provide advice upon the request of Council or the Planning, Zoning & Adjustment Board on a) protecting and pr eserving land in the preserve as

PAGE 106

106 equestrian, b) safety of riders, c) flooding and drainage in the preserve, d) having representation within the Village on policy and planning, e) permitting, zoning and code enforcement within the preserve, f) designating the equestrian preserve as permanen t and inviolate, g) land development regulations as they apply to the pres erve area, h) recommended equestrian projects for inclusion in the Capita l Improvements Program, i) the design and/or configuration of equestrian ca pital projects (Equestrian Committee, 2006). The Equestrian Committee has the ability to advise the Village Council and the planning department on almost everything that could affect the vitality of the equestrian preservation areas. This power to be involve d in local government decisions helps cement the protection of these landscapes in Wellington, and ensures that local officials are aware of impacts on the equestrian cultural landscapes in the village. Wellington is just outside the Palm Beach regi on of Florida, and has already experienced, and continues to experience, the tremendous imp act of growth and expansive development. Perhaps this reality forced Wellington to proactiv ely provide for protection of their equestrian landscape. Marion County, no stra nger to loss of farmland and threat of development, should follow in the footsteps of Wellington and the other communities and enact a provision in their comprehensive plan that identifies the signifi cance of the equine cu ltural landscape to the community and make provisions for its protection. Although the current Marion Count y plan attempts to provide for the equine industry through the creation of a Special Equine District Committee, this does not demonstrate the level of commitment the county needs to make to prot ect its equine cultural landscape. Planners in Marion County should review the equine planning elements of the commun ities identified in the ELCR study, particularly the Village of Wellington s element. Wellington must abide by the same state planning laws as Marion County does, and thus provide s an example of how to make such an element work in Florida.

PAGE 107

107 Including the Equine Cultural Landscape in Zoning Regulations Zoning, or restrictions p laced on land use, are created to enact policies as directed by the comprehensive plan, illustrate d above through comprehensive pl an elements requiring zoning regulations be established to cr eate equine overlay districts. Given that these equine overlay districts are already in place in ot her communities, and in Florida in particular, equine zoning is a viable option for Marion County to pursue. Where Marion County may not want to adopt a specific equine overlay distri ct, they could employ the strategy used by Loudoun County and others. Loudoun County, in addition to planning for cultural landscapes generally through their plan, provides for specific landscapes through their zoning designations. For example, AR-2: Agricultural Rural 2 has a purpose to sustain and nurture economica lly significant equine industry ( Equestrian Community Zoning 2004, p.8 ). The purpose and intent of a Norco, California zoning designation is to preserve and enhance equest rian-oriented environment and potential for equest rian recreation ( Equestrian Community Zoning 2004, p.4). Other communities provide for considerati on of the equine lands cape through allowing equines and equine-related activitie s in specific zones, although the intent is not to preserve the equine industry or rural charac ter, but rather to permit horse ownership. Seatac, Washington has a Horse Suburban District that permits horse owne rship within city limits (City of Seatac, 2006). The E district in Orange County was establis hed to allow the keeping of equi in certain developed residential areas so th at residents may retain and pres erve a semi-rural environment, including the retention of eque strian uses (Orange County, 2005) Considering that Orange County is highly developed, while this represents equine zoning, it also re presents an option for already developed areas. Providing for such a di strict in Marion County may suit those parts of the county that are already devel oped, but for the county in general, wider protection of the rural landscape seems a better option.

PAGE 108

108 An equine overlay district would provide be tter protection for the Marion County cultural landscape through greater reach a nd emphasis on the importance of the equine landscape to the entire county. This countywide overlay distri ct would require inter governmental cooperation with the localities in the county and perhaps mo tivate those localities to incorporate equine landscape protection in their plans as well. Th e Village of Wellingtons Equestrian Overlay District is contained in thei r LDR. The purposes behind enac ting the overlay district are to protect and enhance the Equestrian Preservation Areas of the Village, as created by the Comprehensive Plan; to preserve, maintain and enhance the e questrian community associated with the Village of Wellington; to preserve, maintain and enhance the rural lifestyle associated with the equestrian co mmunity; to identify and encourage land uses that are supportive of the equestrian and ru ral character of the Equestrian Preservation Areas; and to preserve, maintain and enhan ce development patterns which are consistent with the overall character of the equest rian community (Villa ge of Wellington, 2005, 6.2.17). Considering that Marion Countys contribution to the hor se industry in Florida, and the country, is arguably more significant than that of We llingtons contribution, adopting a similar zoning overlay district is not unreasonabl e since these types of policies al ready exist in other areas with equine landscapes. An alternate option for Marion County to explore would be adapting the Thematic Resources District (TRD) to the needs of their unique cultural landscape. However, while the TRD does provide for incorporati on of cultural landscap es that do not fit the confines of a traditional historic preservation overlay district, it may not be the best option for a cultural landscape such as Marion Countys that is easil y identifiable and able to be narrowed to a specific attribute, in this case, the equestrian-oriented landscape of the area. Marion Countys cultural landscape may be better served by implementing equine-focus ed overlay districts in part due to their use elsewhere in the state, and in pa rt due to their ability to be clearly understood by community members. The TRD is an innovative districting method that would be of relevance

PAGE 109

109 to a cultural landscape containing a variety of areas that may ha ve varied cultural and natural references, such as the Eco-Heritage Corridor along the St. Johns River that represents multiple layers of heritage and ecologi cal resources. In Marion County s case, however, where the significant cultural and physical aspects of th e landscape are so closely tied solely to one characteristic, the equine industr y, specially tailored po licies would be effective in protecting the areas cultural landscape. Draft Planning and Zoning Documents for Ma rion Countys Equine Cultural Landscape Incorporatin g the equine cultural landscape into Marion Countys comprehensive plan and land development code could potentially be a lengthy process given time for political discussion and community input. Additionally, draf ting and redrafting of specific provisions and the political process for approval of new provisions, further slows matters. When the process is complete, however, Marion County could have strong policies in place that specifically provide protection for the equine cultural landscape. Draft policies provide simple examples th at could be expanded depending on specific needs, and illustrate how Marion County could begin to integrate cultu ral landscape protection (Appendices B and C). The draft comprehensive plan element draws upon the idea of the Special Equine District Committee already refe renced in Marion Countys existing plan, and expands the functions and duties of the Committee by borrowing some of the functions of the Village of Wellingtons Equestrian Committee. Provisions are included for the Special Equine District Committee to meet on a regular basis throughout the year, and to provide input to the Board of County Commissioners an d the Growth Management Depa rtment on issues of concern to the equine industry. The draft plan elem ent also borrows the concept behind Wellingtons Equestrian Overlay District, a nd provides for a Special Equine District overlay within Marion County. Within the district, land conservation strategies are encour aged, as are commercial uses

PAGE 110

110 that support the equine indus try. The draft element furthe r requires that guidelines for development within the District be created that ensure any future development is consistent with the character of the equine landscape, also modeled on the Village of Wellingtons comprehensive plan element. Provision of an intergovernmental cooperation component allows for Marion County to coordinate with local governments within the county on equine landscape protection strategies. A draft overlay district pr ovision for Marion Countys land development code expands on the Special Equine District referenced in the dr aft plan element. Highlighting the intent and purpose behind the Special Equine District is especi ally critical, as it must relate to the public health, safety, and welfare. The purpose created for this draft district is to preserve the equine industry and rural lands used to support the equine industry in promoting the welfare of Marion Countys citizenry through protec tion of the economy and charac ter of the region. Specific criteria included in the draft overlay district borrow from the format and language of Marion Countys existing overlay districts. Permitted uses, special uses, densities, and lot and building standards are provided as guideli nes only, and would require more substantial evaluation in order to be sufficient protection for the equine landscape. These draft policies are intended to provide a framework for considering integration of the equine cultural landscape in Marion County s comprehensive plan and land development code, and do not purport to be legally sufficient. However, given that the Village of Wellington already has similar policies in place, Marion County may find that any changes made to existing policy to include the equine cultural landscape would be a more fluid process than it would absent already existing equine legislation elsewhere in the state. Utiliz ing Village of Wellington equine policies as a model may well serve th e equine cultural landscape of Marion County.

PAGE 111

111 Summary Since the earliest days of Flor idas history, agriculture has play ed an sign ificant role as an ever-present contributor to th e states way of life and economy. Florida has some existing options in place for protecting agrarian cultural landscapes, and a growing awareness exists that agricultural land protection is essential to the vitality of the state, but are existing options enough? As encouraged by state planning statutes, innovative planning is much needed in the face of an increasingly threaten ed landscape (Figure 4-18). Im plementing new strategies and approaching preservation from a different pers pective cannot come too early. Including cultural landscape protection allows these agricultural land s to stay as they are, as working agrarian landscapes, whereas conservation alone implies some thing different, a static quality that does not suit the need for these lands to be agriculturally productive. Limiting cultural landscapes to significan t landscapes enables a community to narrow protection of landscapes to those that contribute to their region in a meaningful way. Once the particular cultural landscapes have been surveyed and their particular characteristics identified, as is the case with th e equine cultural landscape in Ma rion County, protection of a specific, significant landscape may be simpler than planni ng for cultural landscapes generally. While integration of cultural and natural elements is important in advancing the protection of cultural landscapes, plan elements and zoning districts targ eted at an already identified cultural landscape are more likely to find success politically and soci ally than a broad element attempting to protect cultural landscapes in general. Putting a name or identifying title on a landscape, such as the Marion County Equine Landscape, helps to narr ow the scope to thos e significant cultural landscapes worth protecting in a particular community.

PAGE 112

112 Table 4-1. National Park Service Rural Landsca pe Characteristics (McC lelland, Keller, Keller, & Melnick, 1999). National Park Service Characteristics of the Rural Landscape Processes 1. Land Use and Activities Human activities, such as mining, farming, ranching, recreation, commerce, social ev ents, and industry that have left an imprint on the landscape 2. Patterns of Spatial Organization Large scale land organization based on natural features, politics, economy, and technology. Reflected in road systems, field patterns, proximity to water resources, and orientation of structures to sun and wind. 3. Response to Natural Environment Major natural features influe ncing location and organization of rural communities. Climate is included as forcing land settlement. 4. Cultural Traditions Religious beliefs, soci al customs, ethnic id entity, and trades and skills evident in physical features and uses of the land. Physical Elements 5. Circulation Networks Systems for transp orting people and goods. Range in scale, and may include roads, canals, major highways, railways, and airstrips. 6. Boundary Demarcations Delineate areas of ownership and land use. Also separate smaller areas of land within larger parcel for use as corral or field. Includes fences, walls, tr ee lines, hedge rows, drainage or irrigation ditches, ro ads, creeks, and rivers. 7. Vegetation Related to Land Use Crops, trees, and shrubs for agricultural or ornamental purposes, as well as naturally growing vegetation. May include indigenous, naturali zed, and introduced species. 8. Buildings, Structures, and Objects Structures and objects serving human needs related to their occupation and use of the land. Buildings include human shelters; structures include dams, fencing, agricultural outbuildings such as silos a nd grain elevators, and mining systems. Objects include markers, monuments, machinery, and equipment. 9. Clusters Grouping of buildings, fences, and other features. Repetition of similar clusters may indicate vernacular patterns of siting, spatial organization, and land use. 10. Archaeological Sites Sites of prehistoric or historic activitie s or occupation that provide information about prior land use, social history, and methods and extent of activities. 11. Small-scale Elements Features that ar e characteristic of a region and occur repeatedly, such as road signs, fence posts, or bales of hay. Features may be permanent or temporal.

PAGE 113

113 Table 4-2. Marion County Horse Country Cultura l Landscape Features Utilizing National Park Service Rural Landscape Char acteristics (Author, 2007). National Park Service Characteristics of the Rural Landscape: Marion County Horse Country Processes 1. Land Use and Activities Largeand sm all-scale farming and horse ranching 2. Patterns of Spatial Organization Land is divided into individual farms, and further subdivided into sections based on differi ng activities on the individual farm. Farms are located close to roadways for access. 3. Response to Natural Environment Limestone ridge enriches the grass, providing impetus for equine industry to locate in the area. Hilly terrain and warm climate contribute to success of industry. 4. Cultural Traditions Equine industry is a way of life, and influences economy and social aspects of the area. Physical Elements 5. Circulation Networks Evolved over time from dirt paths to railroads to highways. Roadways remain the primary method of transport. 6. Boundary Demarcations Fences, and some times trees, provide the main form of boundary demarcation. 7. Vegetation Related to Land Use Large oak trees provide shade for animals, and enriched grasses encourage healthy de velopment of thoroughbreds. 8. Buildings, Structures, and Objects Equine facilities and residences are the main buildings in the region. Structures consist of fences and equine sporting elements, while objects incl ude trucks, trailers, and agricultural equipment. 9. Clusters Fences used to delineat e sections of a farm and buildings grouped together are the primary clusters. 10. Archaeological Sites Fort King is a significant archaeological site in the area. 11. Small-scale Elements Signs identifying horse farms are a common repeating element, as are entry gates. Bales of hay may be present in fields, depending on the time of year.

PAGE 114

114 Figure 4-1. Farming is a major land use in Marion County (Author, 2007) Figure 4-2. Land is spatially organi zed into individual farms (Author, 2007)

PAGE 115

115 Figure 4-3. Farms are often located close to the roadways for easy access, demonstrating patterns of spatial orga nization (Author, 2007). Figure 4-4. The hilly terrain and warm climate of the region contribute to agricultural success (Author, 2007).

PAGE 116

116 Figure 4-5. Brightly painted hor se statues located throughout the region demonstrate the cultural importance of the equine industry to Marion County (Author, 2007). Figure 4-6. Marion County proudly displays its Horse Capital of the World title (Author, 2007).

PAGE 117

117 Figure 4-7. The Florida Horse Pa rk, home to national equine ev ents, demonstrates cultural significance of the sport and also shows modification of the landscape (Author, 2007). a Figure 4-8. Scenic roads serve as part of the countys circulation network (Author, 2007).

PAGE 118

118 Figure 4-9. Trees and fencing prov ide boundary demarcations, and the road displays the areas hilly terrain (Author, 2007). Figure 4-10. Vegetation in the form of la rge trees provides shade for horses (Author, 2007).

PAGE 119

119 Figure 4-11. Equine facilitie s dot the rural landscape in Marion County (Author, 2007). Figure 4-12. Buildings, stru ctures, and objects of the Ma rion County ru ral landscape (Author, 2007).

PAGE 120

120 Figure 4-13. Farm fencing and buildings repres ent the cluster element of NPS rural landscape characteristics (Author, 2007). Figure 4-14. A marker designates the archaeolog ical site of Fort Ki ng, a National Historic Landmark (Author, 2007).

PAGE 121

121 Figure 4-16. Signage identifying farms is represen tative of small-scale elements in the area (Author, 2007). Figure 4-17. Signs in conjunction with entry gates are common small-scale elements (Author, 2007).

PAGE 122

122 Figure 4-18. Street signs, another small-scale element, inform driv ers that roadways are not just used by cars (Author, 2007). Figure 4-20. Increasingly frequent farm sale s indicate a landscape in danger (Author, 2007).

PAGE 123

123 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS Conclusions Cultural landscapes are conceptually based on the integration of human cultural elements and natural elements reflected in the physical landscape. Treating these elements separately, as current international, national, state, and loca l legislation often does, will never completely address the complexities inherent in such an inte grated concept. Rather, legislation specifically contemplating the blend of natural and cultural elem ents is needed in order to fully provide for cultural landscape protection. In the absence of such legi slation, cultural designation pr ograms such as those operated by UNESCO, the NPS, and various agencies on a st ate and local level can help create awareness of cultural landscapes and fill th e void of current legislati on. These programs, with the assistance of non-profit and professional organizations interested in cultural landscape protection, can increase awarene ss and protection of cultural la ndscapes. Increased awareness may lead to a point in time when natural and cu ltural elements are considered in tandem in legislation particularly, but also within the field of historic preservation. State historic preservation programs should incorporate cultura l landscapes within th eir domain, and not assume that landscapes are better left to the realm of parks or natural conservation efforts. Agencies and organizations concerned with cultural landscape protection should adopt a unified definition of cultural landscape for a variety of reasons. First, in the event legislation is one day enacted to protect cultural landscapes, a unified definition will be necessary. For legal reasons, codification and legislat ion mandates not only a uniform definition, but a precise one. Second, a unified definition eliminates confusion a nd informs the public, as well as the agency or organization, as to what exactly constitutes a cult ural landscape. Considering that organizations

PAGE 124

124 charged with protecting these landscapes already seek to protect sites that are significant, this limiting factor should be included in a uniform definition. Wher e significance is a criteria buried in historic preservation legislation, it should not be so for cultural landscapes. Significance as a defining characteristic of cultural landscapes would set these protective agencies apart from other disciplines th at define the term more broadly. Significance as a limiting factor in defi ning cultural landscapes will enable simpler identification of which cultural landscapes me rit protection. Once a significant cultural landscape is selected for prot ection, a protection plan can be implemented. Depending on the specific cultural landscape, it may be that prot ection plans can be narro wly tailored to that particular landscape, as is the case in Marion Co unty. Other cultural landscapes not fitting so easily into one definable category may be better served by other protect ive tools such as a cultural district designation, whic h could be created through use of innovative ideas such as the Thematic Resources District. Thorough pla nning for a cultural la ndscape should include consideration of these available tools, and must also address cultural landscape issues such as scope, presentation, long-term prot ection, and individual property in terests. Cultural landscapes are indicative of an enduring relationship between humans and th e land over time, and planning and protective strategies for these spaces must be given respect and thoughtful consideration. Future Research Cultural landscape protection offers an endle ss array of research opportunities. To begin, a more expansive consideration of significance and the cultural landscape could explore how communities could go about defining significance fo r purposes of identifying cultural landscapes worthy of protection. From there, a review of na tional and state legislatio n would be useful in ascertaining whether other laws exist that may provide for cultural landscapes, and how they incorporate significance, if at all. A survey of existing le gislation across the country would be

PAGE 125

125 beneficial in understanding where cultural landscape protection has already been incorporated, where it would likely be included, or where it ha s little chance of cons ideration under current policies. Looking to those legislative policies in a regi on such as the Bluegrass of Kentucky could in particular provide analogies for Marion County. Additionally, consid ering applications of incentive zoning such as tax-increment financi ng districts and how thes e districts could be applied to cultural landscapes is worth additional re search. Lastly, a more in depth evaluation of the role of regional planning and regional pl anning policies in cultu ral landscape protection should be conducted. Considering the legal validity of any new ordi nances or district de signations would also be instructive. Where these or dinances have a reasonable relati on to the public health, safety, and welfare, and where they are not found to c onstitute a taking, their success is likely. Comparing other innovative mechanisms used in ot her localities, and any legal challenges to those mechanisms, could provide insight into how well a cultural landscape ordinance or district would stand up agains t legal questioning. Another potential addition to th e cultural landscape protectio n field is the realm of ecoheritage tourism. As a new sector of the to urism industry, eco-heritage may provide a way to garner support and advocate for awareness of these integrated landscapes. Studying existing eco-heritage sites, how they were created, and how they are protected or managed would be a different approach to cultural landscape study. Eco-heritage is yet another way of defining a cultural landscape, adding to the already varied terminology a nd definitions, but should be embraced as part of the movement to identify and protect these landscapes.

PAGE 126

126 Lastly, directly engaging with a local group or state agency on cultural landscapes would function as a utilitarian step for future researc h. Where Florida has yet to incorporate cultural landscapes into their preservation program, attempti ng to work with staff within the Division of Historical Resources would move the discus sion of cultural landscape protection from the theoretical to the practical. Similar outreach to a local community such as Marion County would have the same effect and bring the concept of cultural landscape to an agency or organization that is currently unfamiliar with the idea. Cultural landscape protection and preservation will only be successful where awareness is increa sed, and as evidenced by the varied resources available on the topic since Sauer initially introdu ced the term, this awaren ess is growing and is an encouraging progression that may lead to more protection of these spaces in the future.

PAGE 127

127 APPENDIX A IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION TOOLS FOR CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN THE UNITED STATES (as adapted from Coleman, 2003, Heritage Office, NSW Department of Planning, Australia). International Tools UNESCO World Heritage Listing International Landscape or He ritage Protection Treaties National Tools National Laws: NHPA, NEPA, Farm Bill, Coastal Zone Management National Register Listing National Park Service and BLM Designations Department of Transportation Byways State Tools Historic Preservation Laws and State Register Listing Growth Management Laws and Regional Planning State Protective Legislation: Farmland, Landscape, Easements Delegation to Local Entities Cultural Designations Local Tools Easements Certified Local Government Status Comprehensive Planning Zoning and Overlay Districts Transfer/Purchase of Development Rights Programs Non-Government Tools Land Trusts Non-Profit Organization Assistance: Cultural Landscape Foundation, National Trust

PAGE 128

128 APPENDIX B DRAFT MARION COUNTY COMP REHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT Marion Countys current Com prehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Policy 3.17 reads: Marion County shall create a Special Equine District Committee whose objective shall be to establish incentives for the preservation of the equine industry. The Committee shall consider incentives which will mainta in permanent open spaces such as additional use of clustering, and the transf er of development rights. The Committee shall consist of not more than 10 persons appointed by the Board of County Commission. As a replacement better attuned to protecting the equine cultural landscape of the region, consider: OBJECTIVE X: Preserve the cultural lands cape of Marion County through provisions intended to protect the equi ne industry as a major contributor to the economy and character of the region. Policy x.1: Within one year of the date of this plan, the Board of County Commissioners shall appoint no less than 10 members to a Sp ecial Equine District Committee. Members of the Committee shall comprise representati ves of the equine industry, equine farm owners, and representatives knowledgeable in planning, law, and conservation in a number to be determined by the County Comm issioners. The Committee shall advise the County Commissioners and members of the C ounty Growth Management Department on matters of land conservation and matters of concern to the equine industry. Policy x.1.a: The Special Equine District Committee shall hold public meetings no less than 4 times a year to address topics to be discussed at the next scheduled County Commission meeting. Policy x.1.b: The Special Equine District Committee shall create an advisory document to assist landowners in explor ing options for protecting their lands, including but not limited to easements and deed restrictions. Policy x.2: Within one year of the date of this plan, the County shall create and adopt one or more Special Equine District overlay zone s, intended to preserve the equine industry and protect the unique character of the C ounty. Members of the County Commission, the County Growth Management Department, a nd the Special Equine District Committee shall work with members of the community, as well as land cons ervation and cultural landscape professionals, to prope rly identify and delineate si gnificant areas of equine industry that would benefit from Special Equine District designation. The County Commission shall then designate the specific boundaries for inclusion in the County Land Development Regulations, and provide for th eir incorporation on the Future Land Use Map.

PAGE 129

129 Policy x.2.a: Within one year of the date of this plan, the C ounty shall identify incentives and plans for land conservation strategies within the Special Equine Districts, including but not limited to conservation easements, cluster development, or limited density requirements. Policy x.2.b: The County shall encourage co mmercial uses within the Special Equine District that supp ort the equine industry. Policy x.2.c: The County shall implement guidelines for the Special Equine District that ensure development is cons istent with the character of the equine landscape. Policy x.5: The County shall work with local governments w ithin the county to coordinate efforts for protection of the equi ne industry, including assistance with local planning and zoning initiatives design ed to protect the equine industry. Policy x.4: The County, in coordination with the Special Equine District Committee, shall coordinate with regional, state, and federal entities re garding protection strategies for the equine industry.

PAGE 130

130 APPENDIX C DRAFT MARION COUNTY OVE RLAY DISTRICT As adapted from and in addition to the curr ent Marion County Land Development Regulations: Sec.6.4. SED Special Equine Districts. 1. Intent and purpose. a. The Special Equine District overlay is intended to supplement or supersede the development regulations provided in underlying zoning classifications, where necessary, to protect the rural lands within the SED. b. The purpose of the Special Equine District is to preserve the equine industry and rural lands used to support the equine industry in prom oting the welfare of Marion Countys citizenry through pr otection of the economy a nd character of the region. 2. Boundaries. a. Special Equine Districts shall encompa ss the boundaries as determined by the Board of County Commissioners, and included on the Future Land Use Map prepared by the Marion C ounty planning department. 3. Permitted uses. a. General agricultural use, including agricultural production of horses, and any accessory buildings necessary to production of horses. b. Single family residential dwellings. c. Veterinarian office, clinic, or hospital. d. Public or private riding academy. e. Equine event faciliti es, under 5 acres. f. Public parks, with equestrian trails. g. Buildings necessary to facilitate hay sales. h. Bed and breakfast or inn. 4. Special uses. These uses may be approve d upon application to th e Zoning Commission and approval of the Board of County Commissioners. a. Horse racing facilities or equine event facilities, more than 5 acres. b. Public parks without equestrian trails. c. Equine sales facilities. d. Equine-related commercial entities, limite d to farm supply stores, farm equipment sales, agricultural credit en tities, and stabling facility. e. Parking for commercial vehicles over 10,000 lbs. f. Poultry raising, less than 30. g. School. h. Church. 5. Densities. a. Maxim um of one residential dwelling unit per ten acres. b. Density per acre animal limitations based on size of parcel shall be based on the following ratio: For each parcel that is 1 to 9 acres in size, there must be 9,000 square feet for first animal and 6,000 square feet for each additional animal. 6. Lot and Building Standards. a. Height Limitation: Maximum of 50 feet, except for those ag ricultural buildings such as silos, which must not be more than 100 feet.

PAGE 131

131 b. Setbacks: Front, side, and rear setbacks must be 30 feet. c. Lot Width: Must be a minimum of 200 feet. d. Lot Size: Must be a minimum of ten acres.

PAGE 132

132 LIST OF REFERENCES Alanen, A., & Melnick, R. (2000) Why cultural landscape preserva tion? In A. Alanen & R. Melnick (Eds.), Preserving cultural landscapes in America (pp.1-21). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation. (2006). AHLP poster. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.ahl p.org/docs/AHLPPoster2006.pdf. Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation. (n.d). What are historic landscapes? Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.ahlp.org/docs/about.html. Am erican Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center. (2007). Status of state PACE programs Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.farmlandinfo.org/farmland_preserva tion_literature/index.cfm ? function=article_view &articleID=34142. American Farmland Trust. (2007). Whats happening to our farmland? Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.farmland.org/ resources/fote/default.asp. American Planning Association. (2007). Cultural landscapes/Cultural towns. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.planning.org/c onferences/newharmony2007.htm Arendt, R., & Yaro, R. (1989). Rural landscape pl anning in the Connectic ut River valley of Massachusetts. APT Bulletin, 21 (2), 13-20. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources. (2007). UluruKata Tjuta national park Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/uluru/. Australian Heritage Council. (2007). Periodic report Retrieved August 29, 2007, from http://www.ahc.gov.au/publicati ons/ahc-periodic-report.html. Barrett, B., & Taylor, M. (2007). Three models for managing living landscapes. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship, 4(2), 50-65. Birnbaum, C. (1994). Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment, and Management of Historic Landscapes. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.nps.gov/history/hps /tps/briefs/brief36.htm Bureau of Land Management. (2004). National landscape conservation system. Retrieved September 19, 2006, from http://www.blm.gov/nlcs /brochure/index.htm Centralpark.com. (2007). Central Park history Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://www.centralpark.com/pages/history.html.

PAGE 133

133 Colburn, D. (1996). Florida politics in th e twentieth century. In M. Gannon (Ed.), The new history of Florida (pp.344-372). Gainesville, FL: Un iversity Press of Florida. Coleman, V. (2003).Cultural Landscapes C harrette Background Paper Retrieved August 29, 2007, from http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/CLBackground9-03.pdf. Com pton, M. (Ed.). (2007) Horse capital digest. Ocala, FL: Florida Equi ne Publications, Inc. Conaway, J. (2006). Magnificent possession. Preservation, 58(3), 28-33. Conservation Trust for Florida. (n.d.). Guide to conservation easements and other land conservation options. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.conserveflorida.org/Protecti ngHorseCountry-010907_FINAL VERSION.pdf. Conservation Trust for Florida. (2007). Protecting horse country Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.conserveflorida.org/farmlandproject.html. Council of Europe. (n.d.). Aims of the European landscape convention Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.coe.int/t/e/cu ltural_co%2Doperation/enviro nment/landscape/presentation/ 3_Aims/index.asp#TopOfPage. Council of Europe. (n.d.). Why a landscape convention? Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co -operation/Environm ent/Landscape/. Council of Europe. (2007). State of signatures and ratifications. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://conventions.coe.int/T reaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp ?NT=176&CM=8&DF=&CL=ENG. Cullingworth, J. B. (1993). The political culture of planning: American land use planning in comparative perspective New York: Routledge. Cultural Landscape Foundation. (n.d.). Cultural landscapes defined Retrieved October 3, 2007, fro m http://www.tclf.org/whatis.htm. Cultural Landscape Foundation. (n.d.). Our organization Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.tclf.org/organization.htm. Cultural Landscape Foundation. (2005). Stewardship stories Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.tclf.org/stewardship/thompson.htm. Delaware Farm land Preservation Program. (2007). Farmland preservation in Delaware Retrieved October 6, 2007, from http://dda.delaware.gov/aglands/lndpres.shtml. Departm ent of Agriculture. (1997). Horses and ponies inventory Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/cen sus97/rankings/tbl49.pdf.

PAGE 134

134 Department of Agriculture. (2007). USDA Florida Fact Sheet. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/FL.htm. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2007a). Historic route 66 overview Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://www.byways.org/explore/byways/2489/stories/63753. Department of Transportation Fede ral Highway Administration. (2007b). Learn about byways Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://www.byways.org/learn/. Dubrow, G. (2000) Asian Am erican imprints on the western landscape. In A. Alanen & R. Melnick (Eds.), Preserving cultural landscapes in America (pp.143-168). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Equestrian Land Conserva tion Resource. (2004). Equestrian community zoning Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.elcr.org/resources/R12.html. Equestrian Land Conserva tion Resource. (2007). Focus on ELCR Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.elcr.org/index_focus.php. Fairclough, G. (1999). Protecting the cultural landscape: Na tional designation and local character. In J. Grenville (Ed.), Managing the historic rural landscape (pp.27-42). London: Routledge. Fleming, J., & Ammidown, M. (2007). Thematic resources district ordinance: A potential for resolving matters that do not neatly fit into historic preservation ordinances: An update Proceedings from the American Law Institute-American Bar Association Continuing Legal Education Course of Study. Philadelphia: American Law Institute. Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 9J-5 (2007). Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 35 U.S.C. 1701 (2007). Florida Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources. (2007a). Mission statement Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Parks/bncr/default.htm. Florida Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources. (2007b). Staff fun ctions Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/P arks/bncr/default.htm Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association. (2007). Annual conference 2007: Planning a delicate balance Retrieved October 6, 2007, from http://www.floridaplanning.org/conference/index.asp. Florida Comprehensive Planning Statutes, Fla. Stat. 163 (2007).

PAGE 135

135 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2006). Florida agriculture statistical highlights Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://www.floridaagriculture.com /pubs/pubform/pdf/Florida_Agriculture_Statistics_Brochure.pdf. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (n.d.). Florida horse industry. Retrieved September 6, 2007, from http://www.floridaagriculture.com /pubs/pub form/pdf/Florida_Horse _Industry_Brochure.pdf. Florida Department of Envi ronmental Protection. (2007). Florida forever Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/la nds/acquisition/FloridaForever/. Florida Department of State. (2007). Office of cultural and historical programs Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http: //www.flheritage.com/. Florida Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Program review. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/scenichwy/programoverview.htm. Florida Division of Co mmunity Planning. (n.d.). Waterfronts Florida partnership program Retrieved October 15, 2007, fro m http://www.dca. state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/wa terfronts/index.cfm. Florida Division of Historical Resources. (2006). Planning for the past: Preserving Floridas heritage 2006-1010 Retrieved September 16, 2007, from http://www.dhr.dos.state.fl.us/prese rvation/planning_for_the_past.pdf. Florida Division of Housing and Community Developm ent. (n.d.). What is Floridas communities trust? Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.floridacommunitydevelopment.org/fct/. Florida Earth Foundation. (2007). FLUI central Florida forum Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://floridaearth.org/index.cfm?fuseact ion=events.one_event&event_id=35&x=6567537. Florida Historical Resources Act, Fla. Stat. 267 (2007). Florida Redevelopment Association. (2006). What is tax increment financing? Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.redevelopment.net/crafaq.aspx. Freeman, A. (2003). Finding the there there. Landscape Architecture 98-103. Goetcheus, C. (2002) Cultural lands capes and the National Register. CRM Magazine, 25 (1), 24-5. Grossi, R. (1999) National perspectives: Ameri can farmland trust. In C. Beaumont (Ed.), Challenging sprawl: Organizational responses to a national problem (pp.14-15). Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation.

PAGE 136

136 Groth, P., & Wilson, C. (2003). The polyphony of cu ltural landscape study: An introduction. In P. Groth & C. Wilson (Eds.), Everyday America: Cultural landscape studies after J.B. Jackson (pp.1-22). Berkeley, CA: Univer sity of California Press. Hardesty, D. (2000) Ethnographic la ndscapes: Transforming nature into culture. In A. Alanen & R. Melnick (Eds.), Preserving cultural landscapes in America (pp.169-185). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. H.B. 956, 2003 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2003). H.B. 7203, 2007 Leg. (Fla. 2007). Ingerson, A. (2000a). What are cultural landscapes? Retrieved July 8, 2007, from http://www.icls.harvard.e du/language/whatare.htm l. Ingerson, A. (2000b). What does it take to keep farm landscapes working? Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://www.icls.harvard.edu/ workland/essay1.htm l. Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies. (2003). About the institute Retrieved July 8, 2007, from http://www.icls.harvard.edu/about.html. Johnson, C. (1993). Florida thoroughbred Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Land Trust Alliance. (2 005). National land trust census Retrieved October 6, 2007, from http://www.lta.org/aboutlta/census.shtml. Lea, D. (2003). Americas preservation ethos: A tr ibute to enduring ideals. In R. Stipe (Ed.), A richer heritage: Histor ic preservation in the twenty-first century (pp. 1-22). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Loudoun County, Virginia Histor ic and Cultural Conserva tion Districts. (n.d.). Background. Retrieved June 24, 2007, from http://www.co.loudoun.va.us/planning/historic.htm#background. Loudoun County, Virginia. (n.d.) Issues paper: Cultural landscapes Retrieved June 24, 2007, fro m http://inetdocs.loudoun.gov/revisedcomp/docs/preservationpla_/issues_/culturallandsca/culturalla ndsca.doc. Marion County Board of County Commissioners. (2005) Marion County comprehensive plan Retrieved October 7, 2007, from http://www. marioncountyfl.org/PL271/PL_Comp_Plan.htm. Marion County Board of County Commissioners. (2004a). Marion County land development code Retrieved October 7, 2007, from http://www.municode.com/Resources/ClientCo de_List.asp?cn=Marion%20County&sid=9&cid= 11253.

PAGE 137

137 Marion County Board of County Commissioners. (2004b). Scenic roads Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://www.marioncountyfl.org/PL271/PL_Scenic_Roads.htm. Marion County Board of County Commissioners. (2004c). Transfer of development rights program Retrieved June 14, 2007, fro mhttp://www.marioncountyfl.org/PL271/PL_TDR/ PL_TDR.htm. Marion County Visitors a nd Convention Bureau. (2007). Ocala/Marion count y visitors guide Ocala, FL: Author. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (2007a). Marylands rural legacy: Introduction Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://www.dnr .state.md.us/rurallegacy/rlprogram/ introduction.html. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (2007b). Rural legacy program Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://www.dnr.state.md.us/rur allegacy/rlprogram /index.html. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (2005). Statewide map of rural legacy areas. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://www.dnr.state.md.us/rural legacy/rlprogram/state_RL_05.pdf. Massachusetts Department of C onservation and Recreation. (n.d.). Heritage landscape preservation program Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardshi p/histland/Inventoryprog.htm. Massachusetts Department of C onservation and Recreation. (n.d.). Historic landscape preservation program Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewards hip/histland/overview.htm. Massachusetts Department of C onservation and Recreation. (2004). Reading the land: A guide to identification and protection. Boston: Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Mayes, T. (2003). Preservation law and public policy: Balancing prio rities and building an ethic. In R. Stipe (Ed.), A richer heritage: Historic preservation in the twenty-first century (pp.157186). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina. McClelland, L., Keller, L., Kelle r, G., & Melnick, R. (1999). Guidelines for evaluating and documenting rural historic landscapes Retrieved March 4, 2006, from http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb30/. McMahon, E., & W atson, E. (1992). In search of collaboration: Historic preservation and the environmental movement. National Trust for Historic Pr eservation Information Series, 1-16. Melnick, R. (1987). Rural surveys: Tools and techniques. The Public Historian, 9 (1), 20-30.

PAGE 138

138 Melnick, R. (2000) Considering nature and culture in historic landscape preservation. In A. Alanen & R. Melnick (Eds.), Preserving cultural l andscapes in America (pp.22-43). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Milanich, J. (1996). Original i nhabitants. In M. Gannon (Ed.), The new history of Florida (pp.115). Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Miller, H. (2002) Countrysides lost and found: Discovering cultural landscapes. CRM Magazine, 25(3), 14-6. Miller, J. (2004). A laypersons guide to historic preservation law Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation. National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 (2007). National Park Service. (2007a). Canyon de Chelly national monument Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://www.nps.gov/cach/. National Park Service. (2000). Designation of National Park System units Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.nps.gov/legacy/nomenclature.html. National Park Service. (2007b). Ebeys turns 30 Retrieved Septem ber 11, 2007, from http://www.nps.gov/ebla. National Park Service. (n.d.). Historic landscape initiative Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.nps.gov/hps/hli/index.htm. National Park Service. (n.d.). Jimmy Carter national historic site Retrieved October 14, 2007, fro m http://www.nps.gov/dsc/b_what/b_5_zd_jimmyCarter.htm. National Park Service. (2007c). National register information system Retrieved October 3, 2007 from http://www.nr.nps.gov/. National Park Service. (n.d.). What is a national heritage area? Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://www.nps.gov/history/he ritageareas/FAQ/INDEX.HTM. National Park Service. (n.d.) Welcome to the national register. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.nps.gov/nr/about.htm. National Park Service. (n.d.) What ar e the criteria for listing ? Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.nps.gov/nr/listing.htm. National Park Service. (2006). Whats a corridor? Retrieved Septem ber 9, 2007, from http://www.nps.gov/blac/parkmgmt/whats-a-corridor.htm. National Register Criter ia, 36 C.F.R. 60.4 (2007).

PAGE 139

139 National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2007a). Northeast preservation news Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.nationaltrust.org/northea st/newsletters/nero-0907.pdf. National T rust for Historic Preservation. (2007b). Preservation easements Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http://nthp.org/legal /easem ents/index.html. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. (2007). Heritage areas. Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://nysparks.state.ny.us/heritage/herit_area.asp. Ocala Star Banner. (2003). Archaeologists digging up Fort Kings past R etrieved October 3, 2007, fromhttp://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030101/ OCALACOMHISTORY/ 101010021/-1/community0102 ODonnell, P. (2005). Evolving heritage landscapes within their settings: Ex amples of planning for the stewardship & sustainability of pr otected landscapes in the United States. Proceedings from the ICOMOS General Assembly, Xian, China. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from http://www.heritagelandscapes.com/cl/index.htm. Old Florida Heritage Highway. (2007). Vision statement Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://www.scenicus441.com/. Orange Co., Cal., Code -9-120 (June 7, 2005). Ott, E., & Chazal, L. (19 66). Ocali country: Kingdom of the sun Ocala, FL: Marion Publishers, Inc. Parks Canada. (2004). Cultural landscapes: Cana dian approach. Retrieved June 24, 2007, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/r /p ca-acl/sec2/sec2c_e.asp. Paster, E. (2004). Preservation of agricultu ral lands through land use planning tools and techniques. Natural Resources Journal, 44, 283-318. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York 438 U.S. 104 (1978). St. Johns River Eco-Heritage Corridor. (n.d). Objectives, mission, and go als for the St. Johns eco-heritage corridor. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://nefhsc.org/river_corridor.htm#Eco-Heritage%20Corridor?. St. Johns River Eco-Heritage Corridor. (n.d.). What is an eco-heritage corridor? Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://nefhsc.org/rive r_corridor.htm#Eco-Heritage%20Corridor?. Salsich, P., & Tryniecki, T. (2003). Land use regulation: A legal analysis & practical application of land use law (2nd ed.). Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing.

PAGE 140

140 Schuyler, D., & ODonnell, P. (2000). The hi story and preservation of urban parks and cemeteries. In A. Alanen & R. Melnick (Eds.), Preserving cultural landscapes in America (pp.70-93). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Seatac, Wash., Code .28.060 (2007). Siegan, B. (1997). Property and freedom: The Constitution, th e courts, and land-use regulation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area. (2006a). About us Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.silosandsmokestacks.org/home/CMS/About_Us.php. Silos and S mokestacks Nationa l Heritage Area. (2006b). Sites Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.silosandsmokestacks.org/sites/. Silos and S mokestacks National Heritage Area. (2006c). Who we are. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.silosandsmokestacks.org/home/CMS/About_Us/Who_We_Are.php. Stipe, R. (20 03). Preface. In R. Stipe (Ed.), A richer heritage: Historic preservation in the twenty-first century (pp. vii-xi). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Tappendorf, J. and Cunningham, K. (2004). From the traditional to the more creative: Incentives for historic preservation In P. Salkin (Ed.), Current trends and practica l strategies in land use law and zoning (pp.111-132). Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing. Trust for Public Land. (2007a). About TPL Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.tpl.org/tier2_sa.cfm?folder_id=170. Trust for Public Land. (2007b). TPL to help protect the Alexander/Wilson house. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm ? content_item_id=21229&folder_id=251. Tyler, N. (2000) Historic preservation: An introduction to its history, principles, and practice. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Or ganization. (2007a) Ecosystem and relict cultural landscape of Lop-Okanda Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1147. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2005). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: World Heritage Centre. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Or ganization. (2007b). Rice terraces of the Philippines Cordilleras. Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/722.

PAGE 141

141 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Or ganization. (2007c). Royal botanic gardens Retrieved October 14, 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1084. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Or ganization. (2007d). World heritage cultural landscapes Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/en /culturallandscape/. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1999). World heritage nomination Pyrnes-Mont Perdu Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/a dvisory_body_evaluation/773bis.pdf. University of Pennsylvania Design S tudio and Univ ersity of Central Flor ida Metropolitan Center for Regional Studies. (2007). Florida 2060: We can do better Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://metrocenter.uc f.edu/files/Florida2060.pdf. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co ., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). Village of Wellington, Florida. (2006a). Equestrian committee Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.wellvillage.com/agendas_bc_equestrian.htm. Village of Wellington, Florida. (20 05). Land development regulations Retrieved October 7, 2007, from http://www.ci.wellington.f l.us/vdept_pzb_planningzoning_LDR.htm. Village of Wellington, Florida. (2006b). Village comprehensive plan Retrieved October 7, 2007, from http://www.ci.wellington.fl.us/PDF/Public ations/2006%20Publicati ons/2005%20Comp%20Plan %20pdf.pdf. Watson, E., & Nagel, S. (1995). Establishing an ea sement program to protect historic, scenic, and natural resources. National Trust for Historic Preservation Information Series, 1-19. World Conservation Union. (2007). What is the World Conservation Union? Retrieved October 3, 2007, from http://www.iucn.org/en/about/. World Monum ents Fund Worl d Monuments Watch. (2006). Bluegrass cultural landscape of Kentucky Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http ://wmf.org/resources/sitepages/ united_states_bluegrass_cultural_landscape_kentucky.html. Zelin, J. (2007). Florida jurisprudence: Buil ding, zoning and land controls (2nd ed.). Eagan, MN: Thomson West. Ziegler, E., Rathkopf, A., & Rathkopf, D. (2007). Rathkopfs the law of planning and zoning (4th ed.). Eagan, MN: Thomson West.

PAGE 142

142 Zwick, P., & Carr, M. (2006). Florida 2060: A population distribution scenario for the state of Florida. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from 1000 Friends of Florida site: www.1000friendsofflorida.org/PUBS/ 2060/Florida-2060-Report-Final.pdf.

PAGE 143

143 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Adrienne Dessy received her Bachelor of Arts in history from the University of Virginia in 2002, and entered the University of Florida s Levin College of Law in Fall 2004. Adrienne combined her interest in law w ith her interest in historic pr eservation, and began concurrent graduate studies in the Master of Science in Architectural Studi es program in Spring 2006. As a law student, she concentrated on environmental a nd land use law, serving as Co-Chair of the 13th Public Interest Environmental Conference and Co -President of the Environmental and Land Use Law Society, in addition to serving as a General Board Member of the Journal of Law and Public Policy As a graduate student, due to her interest in land use planning and conservation strategies, her preservation focu s shifted to historic and cultu ral landscape protection. After graduation, she hopes to work on la nd conservation initiatives.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101211_AAAACI INGEST_TIME 2010-12-12T04:31:14Z PACKAGE UFE0021582_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 5734 DFID F20101211_AACDIG ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH dessy_a_Page_007.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
e69e429281f717ae14e966fec6c222c9
SHA-1
58f536ba720c359e6fac75f1e15c29f94cba240c
25271604 F20101211_AACDHR dessy_a_Page_135.tif
db77b79221d757ffd18c3d13b0e4ca4e
1386b27eb20b2baf083e1cf43621030037bfe861
15243 F20101211_AACDIH dessy_a_Page_008.pro
7d84ab5c07577edda993738b2d68fd5a
2c15b03bd61ede3fc1d1a9f8f9896c382e8efe2d
F20101211_AACDHS dessy_a_Page_136.tif
871f94df26f9c6f250473e8fb8ab7127
1b10acbc9381a36e59630e3980783fefd478e075
60649 F20101211_AACDII dessy_a_Page_009.pro
5100137b2634f33ea5cbf7678e9b29d9
85c8ab12d59b160850dbd8a69eb60b86dc97ef95
F20101211_AACDHT dessy_a_Page_137.tif
6c060bf53cedeefef9554facdaf3d484
5b4c8ec676af6508779394d541511de4ecf32e8a
17893 F20101211_AACDIJ dessy_a_Page_010.pro
a094e700cf9daa343d49b345bc80da79
6725ffe649f45c6c709749aad96852b05cffa251
F20101211_AACDHU dessy_a_Page_138.tif
54e0d2cb793efb36f5243c93987cbca1
786dcab3c68a7b218c41433540855c32afa5adc3
44342 F20101211_AACDIK dessy_a_Page_011.pro
b6a75cf998b1ff90b98f8040fdf71a32
051a6385d992af5469356951251a92fa47e1ac96
F20101211_AACDHV dessy_a_Page_139.tif
a4650588ce8a37080674032ba1b8fc03
3ee16aa0046a99563883c2177b31081917e6bffb
50050 F20101211_AACDIL dessy_a_Page_012.pro
9d9fa7b395051cba4fe1a165035ea41d
c6c8046eeea0a9d50954c4fc7cb764a2d058cf51
F20101211_AACDHW dessy_a_Page_140.tif
af6103b69ae20c717aac85273569b59f
12df84e1882f8dc8276b28d6b088b05925061c76
F20101211_AACDHX dessy_a_Page_141.tif
d38a98b6df733fe0904800e721b16f0a
babeda39ee2aa4ab3fd7749c64b5e6be75afcd8d
58781 F20101211_AACDJA dessy_a_Page_029.pro
696b87437bd317dba5233300433cad99
a5801572c71cbeabb9ffba4885fa0fba19978728
56586 F20101211_AACDIM dessy_a_Page_013.pro
a11a3f56bf78a290463b42a7c1f12dcf
2f5cf2bd95392d730cf274681d996fdbfa5f9e0f
F20101211_AACDHY dessy_a_Page_142.tif
34a3e0e612a7e23b52be9dadc3c2370f
5669e71d0fdec9129267cb1e9e86e75bff0ce7c8
54545 F20101211_AACDJB dessy_a_Page_030.pro
22f97be51d86d92a178defbd96dacb2d
629fb8950f39a68cf2879819c5abd818045ac38e
53683 F20101211_AACDIN dessy_a_Page_014.pro
7c826b30f77d8a59cfd6a925e297b064
06501475c5e88cf97a5947439e952abc418cce58
F20101211_AACDHZ dessy_a_Page_143.tif
ed052a637153ea27e5c0e541d5b52a87
f47568b6ad07042e5ee6f12305df276e9e266496
55147 F20101211_AACDJC dessy_a_Page_031.pro
dcfc9e98c41089d75916fd8796f21e19
53bfe2b3e1487afdbcbcd8cfdcc476859dde6a24
33482 F20101211_AACDIO dessy_a_Page_015.pro
69102337775668da09e8a0f3d405f0ee
5421c9dad7626b95d9b86d3a65e7aedec1a60100
52610 F20101211_AACDJD dessy_a_Page_032.pro
e80d880f5fbded810df0837ce5e8fcb0
18b054596414f4ab795de8bc2251d8394f9a48a9
56247 F20101211_AACDJE dessy_a_Page_034.pro
6c9935f18245e059dc1570ce0738d00d
9bc40401ca14186b89c4c31bacaa93640d61d58e
52001 F20101211_AACDIP dessy_a_Page_016.pro
65ec1b719280005871a9c1ced4a8d140
fc52295336fd9b84348ff647e8c11fdfaf5ea887
55101 F20101211_AACDJF dessy_a_Page_036.pro
4da40cc1e93fda523d56b3207c9e6e8e
f9bf5110e2754ceead2f1c53dffd2fb50a942cef
51439 F20101211_AACDIQ dessy_a_Page_017.pro
7ef2fe008e3ab39aca76411e7e41dbd3
9fc970f23ad83d83730d9263f14d3646847f02ac
54085 F20101211_AACDJG dessy_a_Page_037.pro
878ddb81141d3c8534e7db66bd4f366c
3e8cc5b561e045f362a8048415255412ddd6b60e
55585 F20101211_AACDIR dessy_a_Page_018.pro
aeb575eb70fec8efe916a72260dab611
780da405c072da05e34645f7f4de5a39dfc981e8
27015 F20101211_AACDJH dessy_a_Page_039.pro
c9f6eb2226ee1f4a876f8b3b110fce47
3ee03820a405c37ca3cae92fd79bbbd85ddbc7f2
65415 F20101211_AACDIS dessy_a_Page_020.pro
e09fe22266615707f013929505fb28a4
025e09102197c1a5f5be3442880ae8ef126cf5bc
56138 F20101211_AACDJI dessy_a_Page_040.pro
5140b0f56657066f52b74e7ddacbb53c
6dd093810d4703b8e4dfd926b935529a8aa63ec9
57673 F20101211_AACDIT dessy_a_Page_021.pro
d0a22072efa6b45605818217be3fc795
a9aca8be08acae9c2bcd89173e36413f8286e42b
52913 F20101211_AACDJJ dessy_a_Page_041.pro
5fc806a2fb596725508892b4d0423301
05b01143760f2c907bcf51a6a0bb398922d4dc45
52088 F20101211_AACDIU dessy_a_Page_022.pro
72ec2db46d5d395b3912e5bad9d4db8b
a3e7c4ba7d18b7e01127fddb9247b3990e344939
52619 F20101211_AACDJK dessy_a_Page_042.pro
f08910b2e79aeef0273ee2c46f647a61
f705dfbb20f88410ceca927d8dd435aeb911d842
62012 F20101211_AACDIV dessy_a_Page_023.pro
0a280fec1714fb7b1df1558dfbc6f9cb
416ba693e6c74afe1415a98039002413d8e4c3f8
54820 F20101211_AACDJL dessy_a_Page_043.pro
95c9ca95f8c4bf178bcecbfe6596189e
4fc857a163e438c7e84de06be8e549ced16e2ee2
55593 F20101211_AACDIW dessy_a_Page_024.pro
c90897a755e6a34d28c053e75711f285
ac1b7d8c1db7b6bb0e81a180042959476739c698
55787 F20101211_AACDKA dessy_a_Page_058.pro
75209a1b727aac39351916c9ef8fa88d
406eff182bed3c63ea59bb6ed03f5f096b41439d
54139 F20101211_AACDJM dessy_a_Page_044.pro
04439fbbdbf74320b0c10cbe72d07198
f1b7956035260b7b7f2b347e11e26764bc007f0b
52897 F20101211_AACDIX dessy_a_Page_025.pro
51be828faa9192f6dc0cbe93c5881da3
2692df61b3e9b7c57bfff4698be728fb4727e915
52770 F20101211_AACDKB dessy_a_Page_059.pro
27d18eb29340eebc3078177568b057dd
57d7eac986185f90000a37357b81fd2f6e12694b
54149 F20101211_AACDIY dessy_a_Page_026.pro
7ea7fde56cd628262faaf666d109d3ef
f0e54b32378c4682f9074f0fc754d3cbc66d6863
49170 F20101211_AACDKC dessy_a_Page_060.pro
9523d764d46ec9ca5e590fb714fb7c18
33bf1662f52ee48d1f563865000250246a4372d3
52907 F20101211_AACDJN dessy_a_Page_045.pro
32d7f8a32843a05fec450c57fd4b4772
a0943779353f0e873a66bc03e054855df4d7f013
57528 F20101211_AACDIZ dessy_a_Page_027.pro
5d33a785ad18065a28c552f1f847011a
94d69c447fb40736ba9755efacde7efbbc237e34
53340 F20101211_AACDKD dessy_a_Page_061.pro
014cf982e64dfe35bf1debe8d26a503b
a35542e11c6db9e2e3387e3495fb95e975529ffc
54330 F20101211_AACDJO dessy_a_Page_046.pro
a696adfcc543545480744e77d46f327d
c13a44fa8c4dd70a7f8b4822ec82696f0b67cde9
54031 F20101211_AACDKE dessy_a_Page_062.pro
c769d7871c82e71016da2ac5231a1894
0a34171c1f143398812343a22c41a18694702033
52027 F20101211_AACDJP dessy_a_Page_047.pro
f40aa470ff0f9c465a10b1ab666e59bb
fe15a99f41c3ce5f9b8e75a250b706952117d6c3
56720 F20101211_AACDKF dessy_a_Page_063.pro
b13543434bbcec7a8c06a2fa576cad63
44f2cf3794655256d6927decade39a49dd45566f
54133 F20101211_AACDJQ dessy_a_Page_048.pro
cdbdcf89ecc2cce0d9c46bfaf7d56b51
41f1fd35057f342a37b578fc71f82b9299117b48
55522 F20101211_AACDKG dessy_a_Page_064.pro
05c074c4d2ebb5d6b7025d5acd0fc75c
4b365ceb8124a40a77d32e5d3958cea94a0a14ba
53446 F20101211_AACDJR dessy_a_Page_049.pro
678b0e4e87a214612e4160689751247d
2a2253b0b5201dd33252fc9df4b2f400083ef7fc
57050 F20101211_AACDKH dessy_a_Page_065.pro
b3c7b4d8bd68984ee485d9ae11a7de55
ab0319538eb1bc50a4b4731e3c4538430705a044
54575 F20101211_AACDJS dessy_a_Page_050.pro
b96dfdfded2a44bf0623d19b078075db
5c259ac59b859b9a867892b537358d280479e810
62022 F20101211_AACDKI dessy_a_Page_066.pro
3ef897dccc1179ea8fb62bb6f76251e3
be64aaa47b1f14e788298b8d767b67798404ce4d
51264 F20101211_AACDJT dessy_a_Page_051.pro
de79a1e01021e430e3abc6e85ceaca4b
24c5613ab53a0bd92e374c8927965167825b7243
F20101211_AACDKJ dessy_a_Page_067.pro
9375f169871ee451eaf888c595570b0c
2c51c5c6f0c7a83069fae01bc7fcb883e4e93cca
56499 F20101211_AACDJU dessy_a_Page_052.pro
18672e9922ed2b2f367b774c3ec6e19f
bd5435dc5d0974ee56168a066ea826a2a3171feb
13669 F20101211_AACDKK dessy_a_Page_068.pro
75f9053f08110e50fb7c5feb075d4185
e4d9f227c2af4961ef4806741e5fddd684031661
52241 F20101211_AACDJV dessy_a_Page_053.pro
2c98b82165a2a6c453b736d8b1061472
bd6884ffbdf41da9df8357ea9f27340741f70567
53196 F20101211_AACDKL dessy_a_Page_069.pro
44fa17c918b77fc1f461289724338b3a
466e8f4765f5cc0233e0f09838afa5618c620a27
54835 F20101211_AACDJW dessy_a_Page_054.pro
3152b2a45943a1eada277be25953d6e2
f7075cff28161441ac0f012e3979074384dbd29b
55964 F20101211_AACDKM dessy_a_Page_070.pro
af92059cd5bdcbc7822de7bb7ac5fd07
714cbc615439ea8c3c0309cd7697b0043f5e8546
53988 F20101211_AACDJX dessy_a_Page_055.pro
7ba417b929d20225895e3d224ba259e1
09b4ddb951b9e1adcd28744295c84c79efb08dfb
56126 F20101211_AACDLA dessy_a_Page_084.pro
42601e8dff22edcbb6a02e0bb4824b5b
7536810cc006848c420a949fbcec124cd02f8701
51228 F20101211_AACDKN dessy_a_Page_071.pro
7c75e45b48d5ab129cf95ecbc7ecc587
840102a7955af051a132679f737b2c9cce1679e2
56216 F20101211_AACDJY dessy_a_Page_056.pro
f6fd756323cc6fd881698cca31c8d22c
c8771dfbffd268a42f0d3cf03060c9998cbf4e50
54821 F20101211_AACDLB dessy_a_Page_085.pro
97267423599ad5c20f7dfdbf6a9dfe1e
02d220050804d31cf5784a7c8a382d9288a7f376
53788 F20101211_AACDJZ dessy_a_Page_057.pro
62b88de44dec85ae222a5f44a35f9eaa
c8f85dfc8db2765158212982c474d7ebb62184ce
53361 F20101211_AACDLC dessy_a_Page_086.pro
2b38385555ea0c7023c8e736b8ac980c
15cdb62423a437f0d75916f21ff295ce8e309ff5
55170 F20101211_AACDKO dessy_a_Page_072.pro
8e6c10b9f0fcd8f956e4b13367fe7fbe
1daf6ad5735f72cdaf5ef8c9918307c1faa4b47c
54832 F20101211_AACDLD dessy_a_Page_087.pro
14a0ec714d98740bc6d32d44c2ee7496
f935eb022095609538f07d6f3d0414ad91842191
54991 F20101211_AACDKP dessy_a_Page_073.pro
5a8581186d971f7359b76a3c28a0f9cc
0c353071dc54d1f7ff7c5c61b25423d2c19a67af
56455 F20101211_AACDLE dessy_a_Page_088.pro
2bbffc12088bb53cbb43f35e6c13e4e2
2c56fd688888ff3e9a6c3b5ebf34af1e00eb436b
57055 F20101211_AACDKQ dessy_a_Page_074.pro
9a6b2df0927d3d418b11a032df2749f3
27cf1c639a426f4236fab699a016f58f1fa5344e
55015 F20101211_AACDLF dessy_a_Page_089.pro
55af0bdcb60c8a5729eff05c56796524
a72858d098e0597e359ec964a1e96e31ed545040
54092 F20101211_AACDKR dessy_a_Page_075.pro
311bb81e53595d0183432ec4400f0e08
58abef87f0f58b816274f592f106e5a5bb5f8d47
F20101211_AACDLG dessy_a_Page_090.pro
65818b70e2a78a4ab2803d79982fd6f7
3701212c3afe64fa43f776304a551463519db3b9
54224 F20101211_AACDKS dessy_a_Page_076.pro
4572d8d4d2001c8961683d20251546de
405dadc7f553ca61cc7fdab9da0c104bb28a1df9
51561 F20101211_AACDLH dessy_a_Page_091.pro
bff050b70cb0d83d560a2c1985e3208b
9b92a1c6580d10795959786d10deb4b2377224c4
52211 F20101211_AACDKT dessy_a_Page_077.pro
6d50f6e1941a4004eb4aa9ba1a634fb0
968132bc6afd7c7f1d1ae5d711d0e8ec229d02b1
56887 F20101211_AACDLI dessy_a_Page_092.pro
ee388bef924c35d8649cfa7a87cff91a
537a3e44cd91c1d7502800cb35c29fbbd473c9d0
54492 F20101211_AACDKU dessy_a_Page_078.pro
1f093ba19073522bb28a466e42ad94f8
6602702a3e136a8677f50a2602265a4fba44a6ee
51155 F20101211_AACDLJ dessy_a_Page_093.pro
c8fce4f01dd6fa7f761a42eab65a6f6f
0f85452d8f7b0031ced3c4eac782d5cd1552f9e3
4094 F20101211_AACDKV dessy_a_Page_079.pro
1bc0a67042ab7a3cf724f2fbbef06732
c62817ee67798a0839b88eaf56fa310e68d1cab8
56581 F20101211_AACDLK dessy_a_Page_094.pro
978b4e0e5ee149a8a29db130d8da9f56
c3b92a9cbfe964afa9b00de11de7a2790daaf258
50136 F20101211_AACDKW dessy_a_Page_080.pro
0bfa19ac5df7d1426f5d9c0fded2ce1d
2c118eaffca1b2b3036224fede6351e945b835b1
54071 F20101211_AACDLL dessy_a_Page_095.pro
03005407bca0d76e50ed9a1a23ebd8a1
0e8ccb0edd42b8846e123f436cd223f92e989692
55018 F20101211_AACDKX dessy_a_Page_081.pro
2de6d01ff34c6475d292883e00194bdd
b4e4fd174a4c90adddbf516e01aca75c3164fdb6
54401 F20101211_AACDMA dessy_a_Page_110.pro
6262e69fa6d404eda94975a1245340d3
70e99fff98750129d3120e702e0b79b603d555fe
53249 F20101211_AACDLM dessy_a_Page_096.pro
f9ab627f7e958634a033506730753efb
6913be0af5f72f939130bae2bd2753692e2e9092
51410 F20101211_AACDKY dessy_a_Page_082.pro
e53ab6880f551c222f78751fe986f27a
75a140ee31bf9f0cad1b5a5648410da25c94b033
51149 F20101211_AACDMB dessy_a_Page_111.pro
45d6f8a435d120ea279df6175a82fe05
2ae15a00b59a8c700363119ff83068cb8716ac57
53888 F20101211_AACDLN dessy_a_Page_097.pro
e19e04132c0dbc682ba1d6efcc5958fd
a84cecf39f442fb21efea0699fd2237decefeba3
54093 F20101211_AACDKZ dessy_a_Page_083.pro
1c0e8d5fb009385b9ee0b21ebe6b7f7c
2cbbe4cc4d0924ad9190e1a28f6258568928e8ed
65123 F20101211_AACDMC dessy_a_Page_112.pro
f5968558da561fd0eaa32955c597b036
6b7dfcb8c1fab450ab56a1d64732b262dcf44116
55052 F20101211_AACDLO dessy_a_Page_098.pro
4fe95b824c9ee10fe2b0023943cb190e
329c968348921f0e5b2e8daaba1e5e3acb444f3e
49390 F20101211_AACDMD dessy_a_Page_113.pro
9d5040b778996746e8f2632fee6c9a09
59cf9cea69e00faa036a27e610df62d0c383d893
4207 F20101211_AACDME dessy_a_Page_114.pro
ccbc4abec8914ccc7bc366f3cca42155
1a4bd9b8f3c599ea6eaf724de72822c8bdb6b699
57034 F20101211_AACDLP dessy_a_Page_099.pro
53a92575ffbab2bf18f313c38ab1ad06
2653c564c4889d17ced0e6a4c68d6752f1004be7
7065 F20101211_AACDMF dessy_a_Page_115.pro
865253b5f88f6524978584b4298375c9
badfe23048bf160f47eb7ce62da9c08f15bcd272
49996 F20101211_AACDLQ dessy_a_Page_100.pro
868341e93c61a25b73431327da0286ac
1a542744de88ac08bf23e01cd8684c66b40f4d64
7399 F20101211_AACDMG dessy_a_Page_116.pro
f7ff37b878fbebe6aef7a515e548e3ee
aae5e196e13b56afaed5f2a028a80a1e3b93db52
55560 F20101211_AACDLR dessy_a_Page_101.pro
e0bffa3187ae0a831faa9257cec179cc
a285769fbc74bb1aebe6e05f1ae3807943d45d04
7515 F20101211_AACDMH dessy_a_Page_117.pro
9e7fe147cf975a53f598fc72826c1aff
e0c3fde7ce06da93e68182c03615f5373cc537f1
56155 F20101211_AACDLS dessy_a_Page_102.pro
90d8bdb8ac5528970548731a6e63f606
1808f883e7f5d3ee2adb38c27057eeb7d173e198
6204 F20101211_AACDMI dessy_a_Page_118.pro
d9ea3becde97b1f3c4cb45f0e4e6803f
8bf1da2be010256be6caec8534562e689db192e7
53488 F20101211_AACDLT dessy_a_Page_103.pro
0c9eede0fd89dafee34aa9add1f39e1b
e9ec0fd599fac2e6dc5130866ff40ea21e875fe0
5345 F20101211_AACDMJ dessy_a_Page_119.pro
6671f0e329b65902d09acbbff2397c95
eda03c40cd080b9820dfdc72f4c65f2a1ec6c51b
53173 F20101211_AACDLU dessy_a_Page_104.pro
c6e3d1a942e6dc2e5a6ffc1f2d9076f4
666640b553814207a2473855ee33a71b3048bd3e
6863 F20101211_AACDMK dessy_a_Page_120.pro
2190628ff4269c500bb2f7927b25bbcf
8442583adc6df2b8d3adaad90d9e02809c11d7e6
53482 F20101211_AACDLV dessy_a_Page_105.pro
2d35697c80cf29f0c7cfcfe01fcbff89
1f3ff16b5aaf60240ac78d288179f7047852447c
5971 F20101211_AACDML dessy_a_Page_121.pro
b4a6042d97d3c18e056e06e0912831f5
803ac627b302ec1f3d4a9ca3031ccf194d23ef75
56725 F20101211_AACDLW dessy_a_Page_106.pro
2956fd5a5c17b718b8cecf16d3cb54ee
7a375021a343168fc064b4b8a5f91dd88e75fd47
59006 F20101211_AACDNA dessy_a_Page_136.pro
25cdcc705473f651a736787303bf5d24
2b2ac5fee6f6ac27156da3d38e55fbfc77fd892f
6256 F20101211_AACDMM dessy_a_Page_122.pro
e3f5ad550e36d3deacb0bec6c8b4c3fc
2d3d170b1313da6671201226ac2b2a0c5c47bf4e
57259 F20101211_AACDLX dessy_a_Page_107.pro
b4b9651fc99001f9899f7de877a7fcd0
51d27768c991c84c001a410ad4e9946cb0356ca8
61484 F20101211_AACDNB dessy_a_Page_137.pro
b2e52866d952910fef1f43a121b7ad20
f45546a13933acb025cb84f7df35838c247aa6e8
52216 F20101211_AACDMN dessy_a_Page_123.pro
1fa1152953d898b3a040118a107171a4
0e293e681f8a21aff73e720066014b0711262ab5
61765 F20101211_AACDLY dessy_a_Page_108.pro
71306752cc0c2d2e31bd9c81b3e7de37
3f09ae3c1377340dbf94e6fd46e8cd34c8643319
56305 F20101211_AACDNC dessy_a_Page_138.pro
30d09cbb485e8f574ec76df36b02644c
bdb9a33c096a2d1a382d804d4a15035d7b7684af
57343 F20101211_AACDMO dessy_a_Page_124.pro
cad07fcd62ef8dfc16c33cd35a795932
0018b8f90eb3a77cf5cdf9dbb4caa77ce8e4928c
56154 F20101211_AACDLZ dessy_a_Page_109.pro
3893ed2a435b017919190f7cf99d48cf
f751b1dddab566f6946e204c36376e3d601d469a
63316 F20101211_AACDND dessy_a_Page_140.pro
ea7300ac8a2ffb14ef1c43b88b2dfd01
2fe1f3b4d227941b347f60b1a47e6b00f7f5402b
48540 F20101211_AACDMP dessy_a_Page_125.pro
cb1beeeb6329e85549dccfb6d26df615
9c2cbef59f4e5dbc029d80d88f7a44f245f376d5
58178 F20101211_AACDNE dessy_a_Page_141.pro
85f434483ed9e35316f1737983e2ef4d
966b78902ea92037e89d5d86b249831b9be2d601
6631 F20101211_AACDNF dessy_a_Page_142.pro
2b92a5bc0f6726af2578a7180be0701f
235b1f3a36419fe4bd2a920fdf7cae1c0ced6b87
24833 F20101211_AACDMQ dessy_a_Page_126.pro
cc9f02288711004f3b7a8c5376fcf14b
cf5751358e2fc01233c614d4e70eaa1d051fa214
24456 F20101211_AACDNG dessy_a_Page_143.pro
2bbdf2b62a63691178b5e5753e41fad6
3f9563ab9dab2eca0e439d824140674f3d7b488c
26868 F20101211_AACDMR dessy_a_Page_127.pro
75e2c7f790545fbe1714a0656a98497d
385e359b30e922be36f9eac25dfb895f6019f79e
479 F20101211_AACDNH dessy_a_Page_001.txt
42457cdebc76b0711778ca728379f9de
2b11487b5de608b1bbff155b127ac11ce6eda0dd
70064 F20101211_AACDMS dessy_a_Page_128.pro
392ce5bc8d58a290b59965101476ec60
fd7df4f41ec7bdb170a290c9a0fae34198bdd668
91 F20101211_AACDNI dessy_a_Page_002.txt
a11f397c26775d798fb6d8e99a55014f
38985b4b7bb14abb4c2a26149a2d514ca569eeb7
26827 F20101211_AACDMT dessy_a_Page_129.pro
ad83d7d9ebfd2b6906b6ed5358431ab1
ba14cfde404157a9c89be4a291c2500441dddfd3
84 F20101211_AACDNJ dessy_a_Page_003.txt
3a66415ca857aa5a5a9c7fb1b9944d0b
cab9c57b5590de4de3cd456a4fc12beed507848e
62830 F20101211_AACDMU dessy_a_Page_130.pro
d5cb8ddff6d824f4cecf39ed7fe95783
0c388059a0608ff8bd9c93e04b4a971997b7bfed
3155 F20101211_AACDNK dessy_a_Page_005.txt
02bfa35cb764cc08bed24b903bba0922
b1695657ea8f433d5928979f7fec2d4c6fc76a1d
4213 F20101211_AACDMV dessy_a_Page_131.pro
3125d592767fdd593b805cc40e785de5
ff88b195a35a94d02efb7c269408e9ecfc111b71
211 F20101211_AACDNL dessy_a_Page_007.txt
2c156f323813b7ee475b0165caf7aca3
7250e14d423efc2611cafbff456c3387d3ad90d5
58840 F20101211_AACDMW dessy_a_Page_132.pro
74790f203bd2a8feed23ea5872922814
488c598913d1f6921d67e4ab65f302f9f402fb0c
649 F20101211_AACDNM dessy_a_Page_008.txt
eb2c6bb4ca28296599758ff7b2e13d00
d2bac0f526ba8f020f533d9c8224bf90671fb4bc
60293 F20101211_AACDMX dessy_a_Page_133.pro
ee3a84fbd19582f1469e2932bc49671c
ea21f7bd0aa364ca21fc4ab169b32a29e5ac06b8
2494 F20101211_AACDOA dessy_a_Page_023.txt
ebab235769cdc5113a56db3fac746aa6
ae4ee0f557c713f965b6ffbc7d3297b4b2166266
58511 F20101211_AACDMY dessy_a_Page_134.pro
f7a3c1c244839fa0246f3ff3557306f8
f8c8fda7a1b157a8b5e981828e89d28bf5bbe952
2177 F20101211_AACDOB dessy_a_Page_024.txt
1a409799d10daf508ac4c8a0ca9bce7f
63323a274ca308e5b891822f5b7bac2b2e97aeec
2474 F20101211_AACDNN dessy_a_Page_009.txt
c69668777f0a62af38abf4d74af4a750
0a2b2736ee9c61ad98e8308ff76c9c7b7f5b63e5
61409 F20101211_AACDMZ dessy_a_Page_135.pro
09198345c8659f776eb916691474d196
1556dbfc36ccfaff5e4183f5ad4f59ba18ffd619
2080 F20101211_AACDOC dessy_a_Page_025.txt
725bb9d4cbf2f070337f17077f4bc4d1
07e258103e46c910d2fde6b4e162eabe8d7757c8
780 F20101211_AACDNO dessy_a_Page_010.txt
66aee318d9ffaf6dd63fcb528d66f5f1
8a4c7f01a43fdf037bba854015a34031177dc4ba
2133 F20101211_AACDOD dessy_a_Page_026.txt
0ba62ba54e93bb889f48d77a25696bea
ed82016a766c4bfc0463c44c7129b8231fd082eb
1946 F20101211_AACDNP dessy_a_Page_011.txt
22bea26caa4d8f5e29967022f05fd005
cf2392c44352f67ebe776212228c570d84c1bf55
2287 F20101211_AACDOE dessy_a_Page_027.txt
aec82062d3943ca36711da8e6d5d8ed9
ab5d90b40ef6891640cb28b10e80b275c0209295
2088 F20101211_AACDNQ dessy_a_Page_012.txt
36d44c31ea2ed3dac0b1bd35d664e258
87afea2afa168e704207b6fef03f616859ed32eb
2479 F20101211_AACDOF dessy_a_Page_028.txt
04dc8cf88dfc0374345c2ff9773e680f
3fa2da4d40c8a07aad02c49ab16d406a5bc04121
2143 F20101211_AACDOG dessy_a_Page_030.txt
ca9d1b5b16d873275a7b79067e143e49
24ee442b4ca343a9a43a8c4384040035936cf34d
2261 F20101211_AACDNR dessy_a_Page_013.txt
2e5db660664c51128177bdd0e0f56f4e
4a79442c21ea655e036ae146a50a3c3af1bc7652
2199 F20101211_AACDOH dessy_a_Page_031.txt
11d2ca7a0d2097a758c852b802086980
00667d5a6779b2d25cead928450c60338a21b7a4
2123 F20101211_AACDNS dessy_a_Page_014.txt
0fbf01d71ade52a74cab8ae6d389f409
a437e5e77a59aacba91385244a36efff7feeed98
2201 F20101211_AACDOI dessy_a_Page_033.txt
18ba6079223372ec2da6b88cc32d2fe2
6340ab0d42049e0dbb3845c89830f99b69c1199e
1371 F20101211_AACDNT dessy_a_Page_015.txt
d35746c430004fa27124bb05d3f31736
cace401bcdd2fd9c7504f9e3b79fc7317897c476
2220 F20101211_AACDOJ dessy_a_Page_034.txt
f06f40a6d6e5309216e384ce0856e7a8
7a2b458b92c2554904b5520e5ffb2400425edddc
2148 F20101211_AACDNU dessy_a_Page_016.txt
438973001776007b411af2c92e22b577
0589fad336988837c7bdcf40c4b5aebfe0506ffd
2208 F20101211_AACDOK dessy_a_Page_035.txt
96f34d4d685c7e8f881221e3d8b5ef3c
828770f7e78eab9d741085495f9f452a2752dd00
2033 F20101211_AACDNV dessy_a_Page_017.txt
21f8e8ad33e3d649d422915a16ee5853
eedcfcf2621fa1ce21b9396b3949f2bc2f2a94fd
2166 F20101211_AACDOL dessy_a_Page_036.txt
96557089e0147514727c4ef18593af4a
1845f8e5617e280394877ada722053e5b9387a5a
2003 F20101211_AACDNW dessy_a_Page_019.txt
5875f297dfcc891c58e50f6ad771a4a8
298900ad30d14f2b8c58eb5e19626a78f7a5932e
2025 F20101211_AACDPA dessy_a_Page_051.txt
82ee8207741ba25b00c77cdb7903a8ba
57987ef8a12e01b03589a2b36fe3706ef0502c3e
2171 F20101211_AACDOM dessy_a_Page_037.txt
10b22c8a356798f6f2ea44761b103ea5
97a42105e3cc08d0f74fee2bb005d6ece32e0b78
2613 F20101211_AACDNX dessy_a_Page_020.txt
e1d0cb673fe716cf5440a7e38bc210c6
396a21ab7f3398d77246698cdf01b49c82670e3b
2216 F20101211_AACDPB dessy_a_Page_052.txt
3aa79fd2d021016ff5bd64a8e5cb6140
a6d899ae85b74a6f6649c25bd433aad0aabd13f2
1212 F20101211_AACDON dessy_a_Page_038.txt
28a666492d5e71b1cb100a017babd845
f9bb589339b9d5ec6b224fc9376dd18b1a1e7a1a
2289 F20101211_AACDNY dessy_a_Page_021.txt
0f5e33108aa5c0ec50aa2f7f9c37e296
e19088e0f4223d955bd040803f6c8979f6043b29
2063 F20101211_AACDPC dessy_a_Page_053.txt
f798fdfdbfc1ae6e0c0d59db1ce2b215
85c28e5e266067f12693ae537605670bb320e1a8
1196 F20101211_AACDOO dessy_a_Page_039.txt
6044aedc004824f80425d461f985e117
5ded6551b95d781d357a4a5c8c226dd7ef37cb27
2058 F20101211_AACDNZ dessy_a_Page_022.txt
8732f67512427ba5f06925f2613a4a95
0759a5f7fb94e0346904707674bb69a39d46c3f8
2164 F20101211_AACDPD dessy_a_Page_054.txt
a029a8d61eff0dc2d6cb618c4db3cc64
d5decef40741612fe9e005c2810f580f906e1da4
2267 F20101211_AACDOP dessy_a_Page_040.txt
889439c85860e1598679c82dff7101dd
6c73799fbaa086f56fb17ee1d9d9b2080c4e5f9c
2122 F20101211_AACDPE dessy_a_Page_057.txt
6cf8f2a95942d4dccdf48052584e3545
8e0ddb11ae2bea8bbed74eee535fde7753cb081f
2157 F20101211_AACDOQ dessy_a_Page_041.txt
f73d4b050e2b5dcb5cc66961481d3e56
5305799e0125ee6421acb93d029dd2b791a34ebd
2184 F20101211_AACDPF dessy_a_Page_058.txt
e0c023f8bbaf140892de6ac9e1376000
7818806bc2c6560663b8dc93cfff65e1fdbcb622
2078 F20101211_AACDOR dessy_a_Page_042.txt
2531f7eafe58230a073b2027e9816541
45c55b6cd06aedb2c9b85c2836a5ce0ee6c0521e
F20101211_AACDPG dessy_a_Page_059.txt
32e345ab428cade06b88f5535968fc8b
b2a6d9af4665d69913a3ab49e3334d740c9ec49a
1949 F20101211_AACDPH dessy_a_Page_060.txt
7f52540e4608bb88dc8292e214b1b2b7
0115602d22b962e5973d89b9c482aafb3f66e8b6
2162 F20101211_AACDOS dessy_a_Page_043.txt
e535782ba0015e1640f58c4df73e2dc4
9d9d25c1c181346149f1d959157fe7511aca50ad
2106 F20101211_AACDPI dessy_a_Page_061.txt
8c5c1db2cc91f2333ac7a30a698f1ca6
63e469947caf4bfc03888570d176867faad11588
2134 F20101211_AACDOT dessy_a_Page_044.txt
da2e5635bec8b095a7e2b46f4d7588cc
4770eebe5d17ad544c5336dcbbcee88ea30055a8
2136 F20101211_AACDPJ dessy_a_Page_062.txt
54ad01142a4205be7a29e3f680516f48
dff0c52b096791a485af7e429c004125db514373
2108 F20101211_AACDOU dessy_a_Page_045.txt
cfcb276d91e1bfecc428d91ab83f59ed
5e0e087aa343d40dbddc548ec6ce5b0f35c5b61c
2221 F20101211_AACDPK dessy_a_Page_063.txt
bab5b65deac5f7e0cccc4826debff8f3
d880f32bcad9e7791a1a25f960c8496a43adc591
F20101211_AACDOV dessy_a_Page_046.txt
42588f84720bcb784a4fc74a6e426980
8dba04659ab3823efce1b382c7d830ea8822043c
2186 F20101211_AACDPL dessy_a_Page_064.txt
b1793f701a228c76ac111f1f35dce84b
be29899503c3cac0fbac6af5c7cb254d2506f37f
2047 F20101211_AACDOW dessy_a_Page_047.txt
5710867d29f0c452a64be621c1c260e8
387bf4f80bec7f97448aee38d9d226f75bf47088
2265 F20101211_AACDPM dessy_a_Page_065.txt
254348c27bb6baf2c98ed2eb9ae04a93
c59e7801e116ee04608a10f8aa655259211ede7c
2129 F20101211_AACDOX dessy_a_Page_048.txt
71b40dd618eb9faf391d2ee8b0e2052d
594829bebc3b860b912ffff91116ccb9d9545913
166 F20101211_AACDQA dessy_a_Page_079.txt
2b52b15f16362ac88b9b7deb0ac793e2
8d2f8783eea047fa94dfd2517a9c9621ebd25dfb
2513 F20101211_AACDPN dessy_a_Page_066.txt
35f988b402f00b9e21393bea0799f159
02575e4756eed8236dcb2b7a43208460cc3b9c24
2102 F20101211_AACDOY dessy_a_Page_049.txt
3d683b0e9f9f5e748a20f9d76cb98374
cb3c1d6d043ecc151fe5d18286ccf8cb815dc766
2064 F20101211_AACDQB dessy_a_Page_080.txt
b63f5cc549d5369752776646635a78a2
1b2f9ea6ba685c2971bebbbbef5063e45daedc0d
2218 F20101211_AACDPO dessy_a_Page_067.txt
1bcfd1b9204b1c0a1e35036e9a4a5999
a504811eff2e6392fcdaa4cbb5d77c7dfbabc1b5
2145 F20101211_AACDOZ dessy_a_Page_050.txt
4a650e10053ff7693309fd9e8af38485
00a02dee303fd74a2283faa31a1d7ee023e55903
F20101211_AACDQC dessy_a_Page_081.txt
e44e5eb4dda090624e432e712d7ea3ee
0aa380a7158327206b94b155e6e00c14f4c997af
544 F20101211_AACDPP dessy_a_Page_068.txt
da6b8ad857c787c8807d6c5c66b2c558
7df297183ca21fbd6d294af7efacca5ecdd8814f
2027 F20101211_AACDQD dessy_a_Page_082.txt
b20327ab873e75ea56b53679a2f343ce
82a3d1d767407f6f251e99a208e3ac3ab1013772
2191 F20101211_AACDPQ dessy_a_Page_069.txt
139b7bfbdd542de95e7b667eea90b2bd
6a9121ebf30c880ae48177c51329774d5bb18d25
F20101211_AACDQE dessy_a_Page_083.txt
5aa0e2aba19e3d41d33a6596a1a1f2ec
e3d779c5086654c00cb45a5eca488ab0ad785106
2200 F20101211_AACDPR dessy_a_Page_070.txt
7010f91a0a4e2dc92dcb24e18ddc2332
303271b53fd228ccd291c43594be6686e23b6a2a
2230 F20101211_AACDQF dessy_a_Page_084.txt
b5b8e275cd8c317086a3c38c88e94bf0
3fc450a710596486814bd5ca5a4f0a71b67f920c
2022 F20101211_AACDPS dessy_a_Page_071.txt
77307f9e2e7bbf95125799a5f317c76d
0e62a90a94d332dac240243100252e1daa69a45f
2155 F20101211_AACDQG dessy_a_Page_085.txt
e9b1bd6801f2fa96c19e7ab95c0cfaff
a60dacbb13326030535971de62042587c87b4c01
2101 F20101211_AACDQH dessy_a_Page_086.txt
447fe34d87599156ccf8242423779d7a
2edf8117401f101534bc3e41d8c9bd6e48b50478
2202 F20101211_AACDPT dessy_a_Page_072.txt
e9cc20ae332e80dbab7c713748a4651e
b0aa219d8efa90e7dcc346435af57479f8648c8c
2231 F20101211_AACDQI dessy_a_Page_088.txt
b71b61b3b8fc46332ee1719d8deee260
9a818e78e9558339147e30dfe5313b13ce5f4f28
F20101211_AACDPU dessy_a_Page_073.txt
2a415c7a243f2f2ebc82dea7e7ddbcf5
528305bfea76facb274d1d7ef83f2a4cc3d4556c
F20101211_AACDQJ dessy_a_Page_089.txt
67276533b926733c348eb3f807a66b68
64787817b88eff205b9c28967d244f4afb677b89
2247 F20101211_AACDPV dessy_a_Page_074.txt
3abf4128cb694934a75ecfa615c148d7
c34b927aef2b716f8582ff6d7a42e792fad2b6da
2179 F20101211_AACDQK dessy_a_Page_090.txt
390bf2c2838ee6ae20f424b4f6c11b04
e6f0cd5b23300e45712841628b311c436513f0fd
2126 F20101211_AACDPW dessy_a_Page_075.txt
035f27997030bca9ca9859968d61570a
2715fc338783b85c6402cc063ab45fd94eb45f2b
2040 F20101211_AACDQL dessy_a_Page_091.txt
5b159e7fa760d9ace21358837a105d87
696dfc5e54523a3dc6745692ea268a12d06b58a8
2132 F20101211_AACDPX dessy_a_Page_076.txt
8a6f6d439e067cc094466afc740e8144
8c7df0847e4a5863185b3091f44b21b3ddfeaaa8
2285 F20101211_AACDRA dessy_a_Page_106.txt
d653f586541619c3ac14e42c7a1742fe
39ece9feb8304a29425dab3e792741f3b1bd62a7
2243 F20101211_AACDQM dessy_a_Page_092.txt
850c7baeef721b47ae6c7ed5ce3cbf22
cbbd691cdbbef7d00cb26d264587b32292bc55da
2062 F20101211_AACDPY dessy_a_Page_077.txt
b90eb6152f8f084177a9a8c25be54219
5b2169e4e72f21e9a408007ba4164b41140492a4
2249 F20101211_AACDRB dessy_a_Page_107.txt
d53bef4b0d1aa8fe4ac4398c0e573467
459747ced0c8dac1cfdc94aa510e3d0a30afebc6
2045 F20101211_AACDQN dessy_a_Page_093.txt
79f2f155aae00aa57b83363010f6eb41
c4ed3af695538c24025b183468c5be20864805f4
2198 F20101211_AACDPZ dessy_a_Page_078.txt
1955a14199be016ede674151bffc2d5c
a3df0702023416f6b7febdb21a8562aa47ce9c0d
2473 F20101211_AACDRC dessy_a_Page_108.txt
f55ff7617951eeca262914dabe3abfc1
764635b964dac549f5df102d93302e1a6414a40b
2224 F20101211_AACDQO dessy_a_Page_094.txt
05c5d3d8b8eb5181944dd1b16970ab4e
68f0067926eb8645147e8df58907e43135ff3935
2203 F20101211_AACDRD dessy_a_Page_109.txt
d6dd35e41353a961076a57d2c71372a4
46bf5269d30de9a8c1f58bfb57d598bafff27091
2131 F20101211_AACDQP dessy_a_Page_095.txt
b8c39ff265ad3559abf0db436efddb86
e65e45766f846d23013fd81714ead64e663937bd
2138 F20101211_AACDRE dessy_a_Page_110.txt
8a7643e6e3edccfdcd277de71e7604cc
c29dac7dca894eb10786275e7c465658d6caad97
2099 F20101211_AACDQQ dessy_a_Page_096.txt
20947c45a082760f9649bd9ec156ca09
5b7a7d8a53a60d4bb482e6515407c0b82552bbfc
F20101211_AACDRF dessy_a_Page_111.txt
c16563b6ebb9117e9b1e102e8153c2e0
60c5847bd9c9623677c5dfddfb9b14a2b077356c
F20101211_AACDQR dessy_a_Page_097.txt
a297ec9296b9fb1be8ff7d2a14d36735
8c752c497609a0da934cf3c1dab18ab7cc0a6842
2596 F20101211_AACDRG dessy_a_Page_112.txt
48272113fc2c60745e7b4f1993827b1e
7c0952c3122186719afba182a97f7e8567182e4e
2163 F20101211_AACDQS dessy_a_Page_098.txt
5042e0bf8547f30462a4c773ae15f4de
9b92f35d78883f747087a4a011e93a135b9416ac
2012 F20101211_AACDRH dessy_a_Page_113.txt
8d910ad293ce65db1da9321c1f3549c5
440bb4b8057404d353d4db692ceeecc8c6f86d7e
2245 F20101211_AACDQT dessy_a_Page_099.txt
d1a9ca64aff1b4ab3926ae71c2b679cf
9c79eda449dda709ec8f86af4b4a0deff5809444
210 F20101211_AACDRI dessy_a_Page_114.txt
7fad9b7f8c743375e1fb1cea25f257b8
5914924e08089fbf3660edc4c52f35bb506e63a5
330 F20101211_AACDRJ dessy_a_Page_115.txt
76103f31a536ccb8031b39e889a0bfbd
7d32cd2a183d5082e9032f6b9226b56d51348524
1992 F20101211_AACDQU dessy_a_Page_100.txt
08ab9650924b8f5bf451a63f8bbdb1a8
a21531a901b824ad884d59890ef08ebe341be524
352 F20101211_AACDRK dessy_a_Page_116.txt
4d250d1fdf54c7feb8ca4c20550753fe
8236c14bfa54f33bfdd32802b355aa854384b5d6
2227 F20101211_AACDQV dessy_a_Page_101.txt
b7ca6920ec04895ab2d58e9e1e11dd97
465816c594467a0c7ecfb55ae5eb8480cf76d64a
359 F20101211_AACDRL dessy_a_Page_117.txt
83eb235242acd7b082858469de67f9a7
9309afdb9193ab49eb5fe301ce540e10a34ebff1
2211 F20101211_AACDQW dessy_a_Page_102.txt
2c2a5fbfd14b4ba176e042742c8afc86
3a7a0c7f884737b9d0fdfbf5783de0945e66a87c
F20101211_AACDSA dessy_a_Page_132.txt
d5cc959706565ccec2d856c9e4a9a300
fb00b0cb12bc7aed753a9e742876d0570988ec04
300 F20101211_AACDRM dessy_a_Page_118.txt
7728243a929a91668e2b831c343b18f5
8b45ab38f23c0a18df1f8f52d2cfa31b2fa73882
F20101211_AACDQX dessy_a_Page_103.txt
3f58bc6800fb37934bfbfb0b77a50119
6fec6d63a2475940ed0d97b717bccf57c51c03a9
2346 F20101211_AACDSB dessy_a_Page_133.txt
8b03d2c9778a851263b73e992ed9060f
4b940bd9e1c38bb2719ca6cf2fca419dd7873e71
247 F20101211_AACDRN dessy_a_Page_119.txt
3f3d8ca2be7b483cf6fb17ae89cdf61a
15edabeb32ae29aa21e0716a7619727b99efbaef
2090 F20101211_AACDQY dessy_a_Page_104.txt
3d5a43a17eb22978c50391e95014bf83
95c891811e69986b8443fea7d81b9bc10c146505
2277 F20101211_AACDSC dessy_a_Page_134.txt
2039330b0e6dbf7650b9e908a871aff2
67ee450ba4c531929b970688d86e81519583753e
332 F20101211_AACDRO dessy_a_Page_120.txt
0158093ca13fdd227de7bd446c56671d
33360211f398171031bcbc7e4e1f48ba23309ad4
2116 F20101211_AACDQZ dessy_a_Page_105.txt
a10fcc8dafdc94cfc5a1224c3dff402e
d77497a6af2352bdf7ea71c566c838c8fe40c71c
2386 F20101211_AACDSD dessy_a_Page_135.txt
4db242d474debf9eb7e85fd449a00ec6
8dc62e55170fdfe0daeef14c27d0b82dd437e537
301 F20101211_AACDRP dessy_a_Page_121.txt
e9f172bae59bc98fbcca75f3b00f411a
a99e6ee92d87ca829ea743aef23a69d56335d3b1
2288 F20101211_AACDSE dessy_a_Page_136.txt
366302344278a4761f648d6c644d37c3
289fa70189f0f59ad6717e02230a8ddf6e80008d
304 F20101211_AACDRQ dessy_a_Page_122.txt
2666901aee9ca54c36d67633b9333996
de2753e0a16076b7cf3406e3f19ac2784c84278d
2385 F20101211_AACDSF dessy_a_Page_137.txt
bcfd9027d4f2a4708f9a33745f40b0bf
2b4cfac4775e7ceafb75b32fd2a65eb49841b116
F20101211_AACDRR dessy_a_Page_123.txt
a39cf563ab5d9f34e22810e508fbe788
f9ab82115730dc9954671c3d75310d5f63046d82
F20101211_AACDSG dessy_a_Page_138.txt
2a559df2badd5b55b0c48711e1ca0b2a
e488f8e030890bbd645cfd3a20ac47ec1cf6bcf6
F20101211_AACDRS dessy_a_Page_124.txt
1f1b1c9e6b250c5d23b2e224036ca5f6
f68e5f205a7c9de8b9cee853e72bfb4bdbddcacd
2293 F20101211_AACDSH dessy_a_Page_139.txt
c024e8f5242c9fab08407a0c5aa4adee
e9be409e184b3a04a7d4e42e04c6209206df2be7
1926 F20101211_AACDRT dessy_a_Page_125.txt
beaea60697ce9b2fde5e279a7e528442
42729d0ec5a6e3819ed0a2e67115f57fb73e85d3
2455 F20101211_AACDSI dessy_a_Page_140.txt
c0192190282ef6c030581d8d5045dadb
13fb4b1db1e78814c263cea80985533fab629046
990 F20101211_AACDRU dessy_a_Page_126.txt
beb455d0899143ad3fa7284c8301167a
7b178aab54e0ce92b6000de3b934b689b312ea7c
F20101211_AACDSJ dessy_a_Page_141.txt
d4eccb50f91a521d24dd2d8aeecca608
c721f53ab10312e4f5f1dada5b219fdd94df8536
1197 F20101211_AACDRV dessy_a_Page_127.txt
da4b102ff62189d85863c53758538ad0
5ed6868873b90b058d80bd0cfbb805e6259bbe95
262 F20101211_AACDSK dessy_a_Page_142.txt
995b5f26547eee7379129be648174088
b5f98dac307f570b1db71cd25f31bf21b20a8f7d
2995 F20101211_AACDRW dessy_a_Page_128.txt
3864c207cdbfc571828dae3efe11673a
2dd2c300e72164516cff791c552de3fcbcd4dd04
1010 F20101211_AACDSL dessy_a_Page_143.txt
59dc6d516418299e90d54d291732c696
2e68421a3e99cd33006cecd4ffd590b1a08e751f
1115 F20101211_AACDRX dessy_a_Page_129.txt
06628aeafe6e18c6480a1c0cfd8e698b
a57e3ddd67457bed733ab89b0c159d980da4a16c
8949 F20101211_AACDTA dessy_a_Page_084thm.jpg
0354b4376efb301b6398f77b4ef999b4
ab7f52f4e621efb0d16ae7add850b36748706991
2005 F20101211_AACDSM dessy_a_Page_001thm.jpg
27ed2635fceccac6a5e1730d0517840b
51ff697fcbc526b3700aaa4dfd08602d181888d2
2869 F20101211_AACDRY dessy_a_Page_130.txt
493e5e0abb3ef5911ad660dc7b9df0e3
0db93b2f58be1a2e2b7c3744685cdd07becb4975
35164 F20101211_AACDTB dessy_a_Page_049.QC.jpg
7c20c0e4950aee0592dc380df9d39b46
0fa91b4eda34a7b9939bbbb6b451c684a4f176da
941891 F20101211_AACDSN dessy_a.pdf
4181a2728bda929f8f891e2c9dca8715
81c5e9f51d959ce53ea031d062fac05be1eee503
171 F20101211_AACDRZ dessy_a_Page_131.txt
93249e13089dda6e93641409c4bc1468
71dce605caead674bdd02af491aba3cb6eb64f4c
36447 F20101211_AACDTC dessy_a_Page_067.QC.jpg
37f4e20f2fbf40eb89ef09a4e6b68c75
b439570bc9e3e6dd21e2b6c1de3021a845d5ab82
8938 F20101211_AACDSO dessy_a_Page_122thm.jpg
4d616f1e8969fde703f3c92a71bc2d4e
f0fbfec5513c5bd53b04c71c7883b78f7156f59f
17512 F20101211_AACDTD dessy_a_Page_143.QC.jpg
0d67ebc1cb3266ebfeec8157f2ddbd77
ec1806abc68bf49b23a06a96645322ab10665203
7469 F20101211_AACDSP dessy_a_Page_011thm.jpg
12f022c06dc9d4907c5112a144960363
43a46c4c7358afb6cb24bfd5891b942fea34c820
36407 F20101211_AACDTE dessy_a_Page_050.QC.jpg
35b89f19c1a79e52bdaf8741b5214ba8
a5515a11f80fb2d15a61bcdfd167579ec60ebfe2
8548 F20101211_AACDSQ dessy_a_Page_071thm.jpg
c2d7873bc96589861631be0429e96d4c
e902cc63a97a5ce02bec7751efb526aeb4a4c406
34369 F20101211_AACDTF dessy_a_Page_132.QC.jpg
90556867dfb57de5ba00810af28979fa
a60954666a88204bb0cdb78ff989c66d481f21f0
8808 F20101211_AACDSR dessy_a_Page_072thm.jpg
cd406116b87cf5dd69bf63f387b3cf02
afe09b16b25b8c887d56f2ccc30973e54f84203b
34275 F20101211_AACDTG dessy_a_Page_082.QC.jpg
891ca155e80d072c495e61040666ef13
c86791ae747ab53dadbf22d00d13e60b276fe0c4
9113 F20101211_AACDSS dessy_a_Page_052thm.jpg
242b60c5326f3f0761f29331cf8bc8cd
c36c0246cfb48539d612759df000b5996a260645
8706 F20101211_AACDTH dessy_a_Page_037thm.jpg
a0d16607623ee4f97584b6b394fbabeb
1e1a3a25f636787c3119dd83aef53b363d212061
36674 F20101211_AACDST dessy_a_Page_035.QC.jpg
697993093486d1753daf12ccd70b908e
d251bfbd2183d2a8352a936ab28f710646e65e65
9205 F20101211_AACDTI dessy_a_Page_094thm.jpg
950e2bb963a3f002c99c8e7494e944de
cbe7bd8033c77622298db056a5439f9b8d483f13
8876 F20101211_AACDSU dessy_a_Page_086thm.jpg
dd6a7d5d03150913692f4dc3e7bcee07
f0d613096e463b989bc7ce86b36c614b5e7e65cc
9194 F20101211_AACDTJ dessy_a_Page_108thm.jpg
ff9f60c506e32a40c674bf6c490806e4
fac59e773772369c28fe8c4246406c4ad7d4f190
36718 F20101211_AACDSV dessy_a_Page_031.QC.jpg
fa7a1de4e99e2df755788e0724bc0947
8a49f1120e2162e720b50f46b24295f704822f35
8747 F20101211_AACDTK dessy_a_Page_065thm.jpg
094b59ac57e3417b941f646300078904
454b1e6302fbc8b02fd4e30f387b929ca62d6cf9
32794 F20101211_AACDTL dessy_a_Page_006.QC.jpg
b06c1a7ded5188cb17eb2856b90e5c8b
33465d59fcac83b85e58b582301e610f974b645e
38632 F20101211_AACDSW dessy_a_Page_099.QC.jpg
4923f443179df70a8997691315002607
19466e59ce138c4a01ba9cdf381f927869f0bef8
3535 F20101211_AACDUA dessy_a_Page_131.QC.jpg
75efa5870ecbbfee56bce6603ecaa8be
eb27cf39e912ee8f432631d75bcc162963c9319c
8819 F20101211_AACDTM dessy_a_Page_035thm.jpg
f75204ee7e354e2feb7eb1cfcec5d631
d926bc05499ab8d76e9dbdfdbfa95166cd38098a
34960 F20101211_AACDSX dessy_a_Page_093.QC.jpg
46b9b567bc0e9bb504470cb217328cdd
187159fb885883940b5ea392934a65a63a1a8b04
5073 F20101211_AACDUB dessy_a_Page_142.QC.jpg
197578c7f56fb9ba460adf35624577b0
f0da6d99405e3f7726727278a88e37fadd79c81d
37092 F20101211_AACDTN dessy_a_Page_046.QC.jpg
23376de31d646dcaf19a726ac1332fd9
aba7d2c924f2bf8143cf4420b83346f67af2c907
37067 F20101211_AACDSY dessy_a_Page_102.QC.jpg
b4a77b09c0b5b82963b0731e0aecff85
357b8e8138ff0d7d754dd328617b600deb744154
8589 F20101211_AACCRA dessy_a_Page_080thm.jpg
74d42ac430fb0064f9fb907f1b669a5a
f27ab19b5e744b15d0bb311b0f5552f8168126ed
8354 F20101211_AACDUC dessy_a_Page_125thm.jpg
3cd23c5618420585385a11dbe5f53ccb
d4e3b402abe3bb90673a926572aeec9cd8427263
3284 F20101211_AACCQM dessy_a_Page_006.txt
e36f2fac36d85299c5044ec790754c1b
fd86119574f9c19b98b169201d3d31b7e39c3abb
8766 F20101211_AACDTO dessy_a_Page_062thm.jpg
0a4266542ce410dd03fac0724d030c0a
84a51d86a924e20e8febf47c433d5af841c45e10
9331 F20101211_AACDSZ dessy_a_Page_092thm.jpg
3c6689e1d101992ce5ef8dec423aad72
49060177f0ff402dc0d564af95fcbd928d159877
8437 F20101211_AACCRB dessy_a_Page_017thm.jpg
486bdf8e0c4ed6a79a2bcff27683a2da
f3147bab5f9bf77b085f2b8efe23938079a096ef
9063 F20101211_AACDUD dessy_a_Page_024thm.jpg
f432d376b3b4c6c35ae4abceb73c0e5e
5dd8260d2db20c41fb87674888fac147a879f4c3
115063 F20101211_AACCQN dessy_a_Page_092.jpg
6063d5d93c918f789eaab8048b9927f9
4a7f81efc6e88038fdee930f1023068167616b42
34051 F20101211_AACDTP dessy_a_Page_138.QC.jpg
5da643a7f28530c70b05695f6326aed9
4b2a2d95f3d36bc116f83ead11d2be0d608cf19e
59060 F20101211_AACCRC dessy_a_Page_139.pro
a15ea0c9771d5a4de6881f1279c27b98
1262051cc6646cd3c2a2dc4c9ac7c960465100f7
8472 F20101211_AACDUE dessy_a_Page_135thm.jpg
0a69cc71e1a39f41cfdc41743dafa432
1defff70e368439c0c5e621e4b5a704bf2768b8a
33525 F20101211_AACCQO dessy_a_Page_091.QC.jpg
0b388fcbde4879eb30956f8bfc1b55cd
732c5e09ecff1aa1ddda82665fe0e07793533983
8628 F20101211_AACDTQ dessy_a_Page_045thm.jpg
e6ce3c12a07a04e01f1a4e645e38c5f8
8ee175f233c25de98233ad0272e0e19d4b9dda74
9156 F20101211_AACEAA dessy_a_Page_028thm.jpg
ca507b62f6b8e047ecd271eb7971b8e3
3a2d6c6e37c61cfbe300f337beb6df7f335686b6
62469 F20101211_AACCRD dessy_a_Page_028.pro
e5041550999cbe57bd8709a6fb06b3c9
75e9a5306ba36746710e1c8ecec2f8aa7e86394f
8798 F20101211_AACDUF dessy_a_Page_133thm.jpg
5613d1746dfcc8e5754026b9c093381a
ff910e774cc6966d87d121c83576ac748a91580b
2121 F20101211_AACCQP dessy_a_Page_055.txt
0fda690d3e75a44d47817c2a42b08497
13af973cbb2d4b0305290413a56a6e6d257d717c
10146 F20101211_AACDTR dessy_a_Page_068.QC.jpg
d01646534b474294c76860d53944dd7e
fc9d1afe92af8e815af70ae9ed90a7b8375a4974
36734 F20101211_AACEAB dessy_a_Page_029.QC.jpg
0ccb9188967e27723f69f34934c9b429
da7b469b0c4a75d6454b7be614c1410203126827
2077 F20101211_AACCRE dessy_a_Page_032.txt
30265fc575e1ec33cc8ef6109a2c7874
58c7f76ab74fb41d4297efd0920917bfb174cf38
35598 F20101211_AACDUG dessy_a_Page_048.QC.jpg
1716977c8c6fa0f2f28935bd198ec36a
07d4dddfe91f890c57614d1b75a569ca84c237eb
2176 F20101211_AACCQQ dessy_a_Page_087.txt
9cae5bddc4f4e55c8f975febd721fbec
789df13d1578267755eaa5d9f3ca3d7f40631bea
34277 F20101211_AACDTS dessy_a_Page_123.QC.jpg
7c2bb43f1a501982cae911689931be76
78b271d47427bd15a6efce1db85c60d45e3001a8
35339 F20101211_AACEAC dessy_a_Page_030.QC.jpg
23566f28c6c3a46aeee237516ed49d50
08e829a623150306f6cee0941946a841ffbcf4f5
106665 F20101211_AACCRF dessy_a_Page_061.jpg
ad4c5cb0b389a19e160bc397ffbff2d3
e97ba85047ea297e177a447ed82564e7a1f71d0a
34664 F20101211_AACDUH dessy_a_Page_051.QC.jpg
aaa3c67f5f8ce66bb920b90ffc420c84
4a50e7e581aa69c7203b5a6fd328d14a3d6affde
114655 F20101211_AACCQR dessy_a_Page_018.jpg
34c7d3a4204eb7025d457100c8b0b169
2d9dd54d15768ab0af87c42fad3f87e628f7c067
8404 F20101211_AACDTT dessy_a_Page_100thm.jpg
0ac451f8e016271e941be93a8b2ce14b
0f6f9d71bc41a3fed26948ec30fee03df39678a7
8650 F20101211_AACCRG dessy_a_Page_132thm.jpg
11eedec0c1e48b3565271847ed9ab674
09c89e1a289b932006ed1e619a3f04af1766efe9
8642 F20101211_AACDUI dessy_a_Page_120thm.jpg
9a3cc43e7920fe01a91a3fba5708fb0f
4e831c1142fd36625e3412e61f09d21a484c938c
8139 F20101211_AACCQS dessy_a_Page_115thm.jpg
6f5c09c71dd59ca56b78e622826cb977
2aeff5d48409956def3dce6676cb7fcdf2c94e25
37086 F20101211_AACDTU dessy_a_Page_062.QC.jpg
24bc8677bb6d9f58fa94e5db6d760004
ef55d9e633cdf1c43c5711d978d463b7cbc541c2
9025 F20101211_AACEAD dessy_a_Page_031thm.jpg
ce909b15dee5cdc0170e20f96411c009
aacd2a47d22006e21c5f337f2717b2a50baeef9d
97745 F20101211_AACCRH dessy_a_Page_079.jp2
dcddf9a543cc68bb32970b528b48fc27
7fc0e84f8607c2fc96a7b47dca483728033709a0
31051 F20101211_AACDUJ dessy_a_Page_120.QC.jpg
74471e790a108012b3ef5bc8e119153b
809294a983200b70d979bae8a3a37045973beb59
1051949 F20101211_AACCQT dessy_a_Page_071.jp2
4f06bd007138e42e1e09732bcbed72a0
cb315bf9feb3f2d81ff98251fdbe54830dcc2de1
5124 F20101211_AACDTV dessy_a_Page_039thm.jpg
81af48c74c6823b801d7407ac0056ea3
3d28452601a76b6bf4272dc6b154adc8c3a89b7a
8523 F20101211_AACEAE dessy_a_Page_032thm.jpg
72359fe3cf9d4fb3d2009389237fd233
acfaa0cfb7b3efab4bc6d3e39665febdf39e5e9a
8512 F20101211_AACCRI dessy_a_Page_136thm.jpg
80a9afbf66cd7edf766a0da7773b69a6
721f5e1d455ce4c343fbdb4f24d21d2f2d6b839f
4158 F20101211_AACDUK dessy_a_Page_079.QC.jpg
dfc7649eb13bacb5a3f70cbf7148cda8
9a2203b348875f0716a8d3cfacc153c6321eae59
50682 F20101211_AACCQU dessy_a_Page_019.pro
1c210a8b2be9190558a2dfb57717a195
4e364b262a92a8f059f8387e861a085f94459f1c
37142 F20101211_AACDTW dessy_a_Page_034.QC.jpg
735bf9af9c48b3477e3d1ecb12cebb88
1a8f0e84e4f73f245a4bff0e3d3f5f4c31f8a0b7
36099 F20101211_AACEAF dessy_a_Page_033.QC.jpg
2908c64483642da2b41a945e58b2bd7a
f71ecc5bea1eb96eb3c2632b9ee857e8a43b07c8
F20101211_AACCRJ dessy_a_Page_054.tif
c29b6afe9c7f947f3a8d455648cbd121
4a20b7aee68deac347c8f7dd9d9fd0d4f49818cf
4414 F20101211_AACDUL dessy_a_Page_126thm.jpg
fed3d78095daf0bb52def736bd671fbd
570c63e2baf5ac8ac22d7ae1cd526751f569f02d
8923 F20101211_AACEAG dessy_a_Page_034thm.jpg
ebe1ba401c1794af4a66c0b380146cbc
a385e209d91cee20c2c8ea8a8e136c4771b3790d
1207 F20101211_AACDVA dessy_a_Page_002.QC.jpg
a0b99cbbabb165ac5c651ca2ca19ea03
0daef7dd0a4d1f7a09c59aeeed74fbd8c77ad79a
56214 F20101211_AACCRK dessy_a_Page_035.pro
f5178f2b39512d07a7957aa380920c2a
4e1b913051e3054b3a7d615fee4e210de562470f
9077 F20101211_AACDUM dessy_a_Page_107thm.jpg
a4c8955dd1fc47654e9bb938b506c74b
b13261db0369c71dab0b0cadaf7abd16b4e60595
F20101211_AACCQV dessy_a_Page_018.txt
7b1b82b90c615eaac73ee591eebc55ae
346df01ff65bca8c67a1bfaac690785d44471958
33715 F20101211_AACDTX dessy_a_Page_100.QC.jpg
2d7ddf1011eef7f735ab9d18cb98f82d
4aa8193eda967f595e75d363d16b3b5b7b2ac269
8839 F20101211_AACEAH dessy_a_Page_036thm.jpg
6bb1f28a9fadc244c0f75ee7c8745c07
1043fe240b25cb997387fdac64859de5b897af3c
8647 F20101211_AACDVB dessy_a_Page_059thm.jpg
0633125e6b7113ec32bacfe08cf9eeac
f6df43ccaed7e939741c70b44ccc9cd18da170b7
17432 F20101211_AACCRL dessy_a_Page_126.QC.jpg
c61b794f2120a3d32a2b87d69560d100
49391d52a7c9c0dde9ef3605d7d867c14a3264a8
8991 F20101211_AACDUN dessy_a_Page_070thm.jpg
b8cf74bf30b3c6309c814504cc7745aa
925c50ae1f48b37f218c7640c0e0de86f278b6ea
648 F20101211_AACCQW dessy_a_Page_004.txt
d45e96ab5e73960ef04dabe4f3a81c0a
6707376148c404c3150c1aa59d8c3a3766409b73
1147 F20101211_AACDTY dessy_a_Page_007thm.jpg
7c09fe7faeeba7c27daffb01899497c3
40ffd825f157f2e3cda65fd16fc7361d48d211f6
34619 F20101211_AACEAI dessy_a_Page_037.QC.jpg
bca4532327327299e6acd776c0d69f04
29fd693ea6807aa26e091c9e9741c1a5e8100877
8970 F20101211_AACDVC dessy_a_Page_043thm.jpg
ac5c1665476d05420547ff8d3deb6ca0
d86697dabc102dd2e66c4b4ddedbd2d0cf2dc1d4
30413 F20101211_AACCRM dessy_a_Page_038.pro
2cd71a022c6d76d21ef7b968c8e58ff9
f2f58583b84d1b5ab9cbc13ec842f8e008a4d36b
38106 F20101211_AACDUO dessy_a_Page_107.QC.jpg
7a2897b2ed4f9019638244568c640127
2bb89f4434c4b43fddb939f56a27acf0f5ecce8c
2324 F20101211_AACCQX dessy_a_Page_029.txt
11054e81ecc60da7166c8a1077692f1b
6ca8a11c3c1614b1603d7d6d9bd4b70c66f0e3b5
8950 F20101211_AACDTZ dessy_a_Page_029thm.jpg
ff4baf37d77fb4c361c6407f843b30a5
e667931b681ce30db03d20c2be8812c8e35dfd37
4087 F20101211_AACCSA dessy_a_Page_003.jpg
cc190b0572201d37dc3ddb977249e565
7c68afb5b6050b2b295608c14dfb931aebd4c8a6
7776 F20101211_AACEAJ dessy_a_Page_040thm.jpg
033e742f19965fc2f064c3a5107d53ca
cfe0b56f65e50220e56d73ffb00dd0e7b3711640
8773 F20101211_AACDVD dessy_a_Page_093thm.jpg
022fdb142872146290110c9b3a0486aa
65b95e83c9dac5e90f6b69b9c99e5497e4894539
55105 F20101211_AACCRN dessy_a_Page_033.pro
7033d6918f05dc02b8c87b9a47f61762
df9a6ba57dcce618ad0336d27c1661a86a0e7c4f
23089 F20101211_AACDUP dessy_a_Page_015.QC.jpg
09b78bd77cdeed970036d2d170be3247
c5b16f878a41a0b8b14fbd54018aafd628a4822a
8261 F20101211_AACCQY dessy_a_Page_106thm.jpg
8f85bb96dd5a9dbec6336b5a51878ce1
1ce65a55fc07df02e6386c26795c6d2b31040acf
34923 F20101211_AACCSB dessy_a_Page_004.jpg
d2884870e71b46ae6949c4b06b2b0f43
a93ecb9d03653b093b147de32fcea464e0aff357
8626 F20101211_AACEAK dessy_a_Page_041thm.jpg
ee5b9e72fca54fe482d321c3437e3430
860cdfacc3737e7c39623a7ec6ce1eec1918a627
8730 F20101211_AACDVE dessy_a_Page_140thm.jpg
cb4ddbf0fa5a78e5320501b80933b816
067c87ba3201f133d33baf46439ac1e794d503da
2213 F20101211_AACCRO dessy_a_Page_056.txt
7532e7c4c804b34ad48a767f94866606
00d8102c77cd1a35ffd6ba1fb0d0e876efd9bb1e
36153 F20101211_AACDUQ dessy_a_Page_135.QC.jpg
87dc5ac9e3abcaaefcb0a0087dbafd97
6463c80f63bb303bc8e5443b644e09a10979a7a0
1051983 F20101211_AACCQZ dessy_a_Page_076.jp2
76a78030c61a994d75948543a9746389
464f957fcf1f65bdfac73eb2ac80928860f8c42a
117962 F20101211_AACCSC dessy_a_Page_005.jpg
3bcafb207437f8bd66609a8bf43808f0
a4991d0575c3f54aeca3ff18c78361faefaf111f
35608 F20101211_AACEBA dessy_a_Page_061.QC.jpg
6751dce796a96f37a7b21f51ec81c2cd
cb50adde90733b950592e0b049fc03cb00230795
36712 F20101211_AACEAL dessy_a_Page_043.QC.jpg
9e9a0cca44bd2282510cab9d04eb9fa3
c0718d46dc38206606ced63c84518002b8695019
32134 F20101211_AACDVF dessy_a_Page_130.QC.jpg
1485be4cb6dee5c3cd9e4499338e9d14
05668b8216cd503664543af87349d23f14019010
F20101211_AACCRP dessy_a_Page_074.tif
5b86fc19c7e39d616a769cbc6a64d4b3
8695bbd6232ebaa1c728c6369e6d414b115fa9b5
3718 F20101211_AACDUR dessy_a_Page_007.QC.jpg
3255cfba1488a2d98cb69d357267dacd
f6503d5ace6eb4c9e679629f47083736b85d9ec1
141678 F20101211_AACCSD dessy_a_Page_006.jpg
31defb0bb94b613d5fe6c09afa1e6992
b659d538cb02932fe4580139fcf4c067f1cdd40f
37279 F20101211_AACEBB dessy_a_Page_063.QC.jpg
e5433d6f5dab071f2d20c99e505905d4
eca101ecea22c54229edc279e2e3b579184f0166
35281 F20101211_AACEAM dessy_a_Page_045.QC.jpg
8566404f17172faad643783b91618b3e
5ee2de4ce2ff131c48e3778be12eb02122f10e19
9192 F20101211_AACDVG dessy_a_Page_116thm.jpg
0ba21c7b4e209c31c7f3b84102e6c789
08bd27a77392dcf3fbfd6c68e51d52050e1619dc
36758 F20101211_AACDUS dessy_a_Page_021.QC.jpg
284e553d534caa9d18cfc9115d7a8eac
a69fd8e023d4ee39d8aeccca7ad0c21e94506008
F20101211_AACCRQ dessy_a_Page_117.tif
f7858ecd1849a04f39c8db13497eaf73
dbfa7e7eec558f7a294a48e01f645805e9329a54
34330 F20101211_AACCSE dessy_a_Page_008.jpg
418b851381d9d601dbaec80a9baadba3
0784e651f89eb4682cd53bd4204158e870f4b8c7
36527 F20101211_AACEBC dessy_a_Page_064.QC.jpg
245dfeccd51e2210a80c96e5825deef5
e9f6ab25bef2a0d74c01e3355403933574a26a92
8561 F20101211_AACEAN dessy_a_Page_047thm.jpg
425ae9fa02448a046a51969559b17865
82b9d302fe0e025a92b0edfa06a2a64ba6471a2c
8687 F20101211_AACDVH dessy_a_Page_105thm.jpg
ab533f83355975c272712d8522931c1c
4078b9b067bc543b6036173ace5e44a897260dd5
8297 F20101211_AACDUT dessy_a_Page_123thm.jpg
e22df60859864c2aea583bbef273a1f0
bdaaf1d56fe85974dd8f20975583c97da31686b5
9161 F20101211_AACCRR dessy_a_Page_058thm.jpg
2c51af18bb45d33b0a3863de0e560ca1
8cb5290141468cec7da9e2bb6658d352d15e3411
124320 F20101211_AACCSF dessy_a_Page_009.jpg
cacf7977045d2bf108cfb40395c55e01
8dde779d42b5150455203a4d652bfac2e46000b8
36888 F20101211_AACEBD dessy_a_Page_066.QC.jpg
63c95f817e8cc01e5d27d939efa15479
1dd940a9f920cdaeeead0a3d7851c1b239dfbee5
F20101211_AACEAO dessy_a_Page_050thm.jpg
f8ff9b3bb6c5d0157d2d882208ff0b27
5bac37baa19e367af250e8766d298acae178befa
35747 F20101211_AACDVI dessy_a_Page_075.QC.jpg
f3efb35e8d6b745b772482b7466d5160
e602983d902de517d1407c37387358caa49a8721
8595 F20101211_AACDUU dessy_a_Page_091thm.jpg
9e026e9ec60368f19e35db3ed1c38dc0
28328ebfd3dc90f98f0c62932cbbd44e869ab083
12793 F20101211_AACCRS dessy_a_Page_007.jpg
446c5f48f689a9a7ce1b5707edc2fe3f
1bbaef7e36dd9bd69cef6103697ca7823abeddbf
42266 F20101211_AACCSG dessy_a_Page_010.jpg
303122967b69d66935b3069b7570235d
6d55983c7f8a5926e678cfcb7eb284bd603f2acf
8692 F20101211_AACEAP dessy_a_Page_053thm.jpg
75fe4fe31bec77df402fb254e9317015
4b341792babe41457875fa9438cfbe1113d9cfc8
37584 F20101211_AACDVJ dessy_a_Page_018.QC.jpg
fe1a73cd552eabcc4a1d213e3b245fcc
3083fb3945bb6b7f6bca9d747758ef0edf58a0d7
8944 F20101211_AACDUV dessy_a_Page_109thm.jpg
3219cab21d9e6a37c7ea89008616b624
704cd03178c9ab56ed725cc3e991f05fd3b92f55
114491 F20101211_AACCRT dessy_a_Page_074.jpg
2f5494c2fa686de3b52a38d8b3efe2ed
45844ab7f0d87587d47cb46a1993a72a228fc4e2
93009 F20101211_AACCSH dessy_a_Page_011.jpg
8f63191c639bcab0c5a4150f4de9cf1c
886d8810b8a96fd667f00420b0378def45286273
2554 F20101211_AACEBE dessy_a_Page_068thm.jpg
85f7d0aec38476fdca9163ac0174067e
314012f4f4ae980aebb40d2c6124adafbb009246
8768 F20101211_AACEAQ dessy_a_Page_054thm.jpg
d4d8878a927e14342e44b2f206bc0f9a
2ef06f98fca7c8645e376e5ca29c3a16fc86ed4d
8787 F20101211_AACDVK dessy_a_Page_078thm.jpg
333ea302524c7e4f4c03acc0d6dc8f45
5b5054da0662c10c7047c56b6aafcc654394c4cb
33807 F20101211_AACDUW dessy_a_Page_134.QC.jpg
5a5901e0ca579d2708606bfc1765801c
1bd37e55f0ae02f0e7a6cc9c2c0ee821ff794423
9266 F20101211_AACCRU dessy_a_Page_023thm.jpg
06985dc4f5952f759e166161bf3f13bb
a0c3598963f5c0451771ad12600af98f4409d186
101422 F20101211_AACCSI dessy_a_Page_012.jpg
db91e61b7f57895f20ac3eb81faaec66
46bc5a9cb3a5688c62925c2372335bbc7c318498
34929 F20101211_AACEBF dessy_a_Page_069.QC.jpg
6fb85d570c8078fa999889ade6272155
d39f6758a5fe206102a7f4ea204b389de5e5761f
36187 F20101211_AACEAR dessy_a_Page_054.QC.jpg
aa52afae36961a507ed35c766e97bfbf
2b63df70d5a395a37471770ea2c06e86b87d2530
35252 F20101211_AACDVL dessy_a_Page_137.QC.jpg
9f18c12ad0d655d9de509c214371a928
f15a0d30d4ad09d10ac4a06f78b17912cdceb678
36281 F20101211_AACDUX dessy_a_Page_095.QC.jpg
0efcb3ba9d238b3fcc523f774c90138d
3ca1682616809802fb29b4ed7017f474b1e5f80e
164826 F20101211_AACCRV UFE0021582_00001.mets FULL
8e1f20adbfb22e5b251a825fc228a641
e19159fd3835c06a9228e13eff81b18603a4f232
113731 F20101211_AACCSJ dessy_a_Page_013.jpg
2724b999be5ed68d3e73bf6d29e5e72b
fa202b1db4327d09cdc46f0181b7b4d68b50987d
36628 F20101211_AACEBG dessy_a_Page_070.QC.jpg
5e29cbab2d23c5aa5748b04cd06fed95
9f9b1c7ee3fc8851b41291d996abbe4112343658
9082 F20101211_AACEAS dessy_a_Page_055thm.jpg
6ccafd2e839ca46337db367894c121c6
6a09c49f8429e90df9973561d0965c9c61a8a2ab
8719 F20101211_AACDWA dessy_a_Page_104thm.jpg
e8926fea0f960268d5f1a736fd046d24
dd3a717dc3b0065a26261222230b4555c813bb7d
38427 F20101211_AACDVM dessy_a_Page_109.QC.jpg
77f534b2c2a76024ab982428beef0630
89d274add36be7f4a986859e8c81bff93093139e
107515 F20101211_AACCSK dessy_a_Page_014.jpg
f31a6bf7ad03022a7ddb591bb1a79c53
2d25cea7266a56e545fef3b8be1a752c04ee6f6f
36177 F20101211_AACEBH dessy_a_Page_073.QC.jpg
6f1ee6118e7de8ddec3f045c3e7c3504
82916d96f6befb08268e29ac6a458cc93b551530
8814 F20101211_AACEAT dessy_a_Page_056thm.jpg
3d98857fbe85512a37ad890d6636a678
3f3493c9518884fcffad0a515b5950e54e8ad182
9103 F20101211_AACDWB dessy_a_Page_021thm.jpg
239f281e94315057f77fb6b7b709e2be
795d6361ee931098f1f870860ee04cd810e18af4
554 F20101211_AACDVN dessy_a_Page_003thm.jpg
f7a8cd77535208a0d674c5b0da2f9840
f04edfcb23edb2eb4ba2005c4956aac820590293
35855 F20101211_AACDUY dessy_a_Page_044.QC.jpg
0c17afba792c66febd95a2bb46049ef7
d41efb6d8bd8dde2df78e150d8637dc84ab86dfa
69413 F20101211_AACCSL dessy_a_Page_015.jpg
65f0dd51fc93665939ff937a7f0f9f46
1bae5f1ca77fa13aea660449ba2649b5007c09ba
8966 F20101211_AACEBI dessy_a_Page_075thm.jpg
810bada39441f23c6857be7f56b8d239
26091a2dcfc2c95ab857216da7e6466ce7ad8e1d
37743 F20101211_AACEAU dessy_a_Page_056.QC.jpg
eed04e31beb2b1ca0ead33b9cd55beab
345691f0bbfcd7faae9971c58d174cf692968af8
18082 F20101211_AACDWC dessy_a_Page_039.QC.jpg
d7678a779f055529bfc54407068d8333
3a1043f5ae18b584c1d0d23663382f736a5f6432
5579 F20101211_AACDVO dessy_a_Page_015thm.jpg
5ea071d3ac8938797de2d71e83e9c83d
93b9ab7c8f625b0b97d1193a0c2b276d66d316fd
8391 F20101211_AACDUZ dessy_a_Page_069thm.jpg
f548ce49b8ec9fff8ed0e80806fb3d07
53c35d30f91258d6f8c0a14b31721dd1aa3c8558
113658 F20101211_AACCTA dessy_a_Page_031.jpg
ca4f8e3039fc4d0a219120f21e556f55
d50a2287a0bed6b83881b2b4c33bdcaf41c351f6
104722 F20101211_AACCSM dessy_a_Page_016.jpg
56352c31c9e4773dbd5397fe968e1e49
db31f3e0b93a2b54eb94e8ad0fc84333fc38f64f
8972 F20101211_AACEBJ dessy_a_Page_076thm.jpg
428f049d9f87bdd60477ea4da881cf22
a0de773b91cdc0d3143b5f206cc066c9dd18462a
8711 F20101211_AACEAV dessy_a_Page_057thm.jpg
721c798ed11d65d34855d36115d01120
79f514fc3d5bed06b5623596655cb88beaef1af5
8622 F20101211_AACDWD dessy_a_Page_033thm.jpg
48a988f1cc372bd1fc0522261a3247b4
dedb1ed5dee5d96b1ec89927f67528f9875baa79
8686 F20101211_AACDVP dessy_a_Page_019thm.jpg
fcbd6c044c9ce7878027f993facd5a87
c4e578c4d196f11912c6d3197854481d865cb0b6
108443 F20101211_AACCTB dessy_a_Page_032.jpg
2203cb0b91314152c36b35fd5438ff59
9b077e4e99453d0307b303545b0c918d70725417
104595 F20101211_AACCSN dessy_a_Page_017.jpg
246df05751fce0296f4ddae3aa471efb
bc8ff00527786d0ffffa2d2406ef8a0b7a94018c
27136 F20101211_AACCRY dessy_a_Page_001.jpg
6619f00071ca803748798e52dd115cb7
3663f98ac2c48c72397f37cc85de36e2a4831574
1095 F20101211_AACEBK dessy_a_Page_079thm.jpg
fd79f962a6bc14ba624ca2037c3220de
90af5c71c89c0e3b03cb569864d679ea1966cf93
36248 F20101211_AACEAW dessy_a_Page_057.QC.jpg
91d9d2ca893872486b61c67761c574cd
69f60b0d7eac2963d831deaa36de8bd7faf96598
34647 F20101211_AACDWE dessy_a_Page_042.QC.jpg
0a744681f5631def402599ec25076067
7851f038cf47716609022e266c5345d3a4d9a240
F20101211_AACDVQ dessy_a_Page_048thm.jpg
881b8c8fba5ac587fae446dd0c353134
ce2a8458fc443320fe7ab6eadb1109f5ba4f62d0
110322 F20101211_AACCTC dessy_a_Page_033.jpg
e41ce0ec1c6edabd1a49c8d672e77b3f
76c0585fe49e578e0d003b6a7c7d6fb506e3ef9d
103774 F20101211_AACCSO dessy_a_Page_019.jpg
3c00c9c28e9625342ca0de3091e76495
31c43d7c2c610828fec6dbc5cdd8258680996ed6
4055 F20101211_AACCRZ dessy_a_Page_002.jpg
1f1b68ed702f389f03a08bc18e587d5d
16188b1de44044416a9bf630dd8be83ef0049139
36673 F20101211_AACECA dessy_a_Page_098.QC.jpg
cd3f76349e9ac95517df2d59a162e11a
1001b3dad2022be6583ec363cc985eda1a59ed4c
9035 F20101211_AACEBL dessy_a_Page_081thm.jpg
6048bc5b111600cf829ea51fa4b4fb2e
55ace084bd45a10d38d757a4dec6184b8508918f
36123 F20101211_AACEAX dessy_a_Page_058.QC.jpg
5ebc7518646f6eb1f7932f63559cef0b
1352e1ad47e6f03180e08a8b703fa1284dfdad39
37374 F20101211_AACDWF dessy_a_Page_094.QC.jpg
5ad831d00a709ec9e27c73fd03b33e70
89cc68d4010e4d7c4e2f6809d2137f1068ad2dbc
37653 F20101211_AACDVR dessy_a_Page_124.QC.jpg
777c6592f3343fdd3d611b6acd565408
9b08cf526a34a74410bc2503440e71cc083dabf0
114165 F20101211_AACCTD dessy_a_Page_034.jpg
b31036de9ff1f3770f5c206b3832541c
952ac6b1b8c90e0c7df7510fc54b89af848d7aac
125680 F20101211_AACCSP dessy_a_Page_020.jpg
940b7e84d11a1ba12783946c98a08293
1b4b4aba5b2f5a380d0b2a38afb3faf81128963b
9259 F20101211_AACECB dessy_a_Page_099thm.jpg
a6bcf73db56aad969ddf6833392c7c76
4ab1228d9c00b0f71b30401db4a931d01490acb5
36725 F20101211_AACEBM dessy_a_Page_081.QC.jpg
a314555eee6c6b21003ff5d406c8807f
c2ed3e77bdbb976af026570e15162dc56fccb451
32262 F20101211_AACEAY dessy_a_Page_060.QC.jpg
ad041fd344f0b906776d9c045315f061
a8f607a887529bb87d54fbf7f2b7ad46f3441ce4
35438 F20101211_AACDWG dessy_a_Page_140.QC.jpg
4996f2875c13c822d0c549a8b8ef8bcd
f71b47331386656e4a64f37105d179af5f099295
36204 F20101211_AACDVS dessy_a_Page_078.QC.jpg
07f34fea867c14f770d741a01b1f4f07
72c61281c1f9e7c4f7d2266aa31843b0fee1347c
113933 F20101211_AACCTE dessy_a_Page_035.jpg
582dcd37c2ff73c70d484507bee8b38f
1fc273c98cfbecc1143c735d08f133c7803fe7a9
117751 F20101211_AACCSQ dessy_a_Page_021.jpg
b26aff31c9cc4233806e953f37fd5bc4
dce8e9caf39e2b6acb868ec8b1974543824e5e9e
35941 F20101211_AACECC dessy_a_Page_101.QC.jpg
f06578f385ea60b924a53941608e0c9a
33bff72d4d7e1ac271d624355d693b5c6b7a36ff
36202 F20101211_AACEBN dessy_a_Page_083.QC.jpg
518da9ab9bc19695a03edb03d56b007f
32632b272b26b6c0df88a4dd77c2131f6ed60462
8733 F20101211_AACEAZ dessy_a_Page_061thm.jpg
a32e39c97aa2fa50c486f553d5de4172
3581912f789ec5c9da3e115339a38ea7835b9e03
35669 F20101211_AACDWH dessy_a_Page_086.QC.jpg
eca73b28ac024604f53efedca4f424bd
f50ca4ba296344244da0ce2899bc6ff3c1c4d9a6
35064 F20101211_AACDVT dessy_a_Page_103.QC.jpg
0817c41fd9d222fb6ab7756fb4604c34
02ae46b1163b78de1d03e18dc4bfff7871f78e99
111613 F20101211_AACCTF dessy_a_Page_036.jpg
978f1a6910f2b9f1eadd2d7cf751df1c
35fb959a65cee5a83c8b30cf739b3b0a238db6d7
105613 F20101211_AACCSR dessy_a_Page_022.jpg
6261ff76df4a705e9855c7278bd88020
0f8b4b713561ab8d0c73d4cac41695e6e1b39635
8805 F20101211_AACECD dessy_a_Page_101thm.jpg
8b49a28c2f3ce37ea58e6e693f72cc59
32944a057440a6d37dda5bc0c46bb0e7e2a16647
37296 F20101211_AACEBO dessy_a_Page_084.QC.jpg
5d9566ec06fbdd9fcaef3760645d6da1
cbdce9a7fae045fc61793ca6269aad5c7d737d97
8736 F20101211_AACDWI dessy_a_Page_051thm.jpg
dad2e17c109830842f4094d4077f1494
8947d7362eea502a6e744ac0886379552117ee25
35738 F20101211_AACDVU dessy_a_Page_076.QC.jpg
1fc51dde29ad9495e750a853f69bcbcf
031ad4e2c6283e71533f2cdf6763025d3774d220
107404 F20101211_AACCTG dessy_a_Page_037.jpg
26c5677349a3f9d55a8bb6e8b1c8013d
987277db9e8b0edb8324bfc7bbc2b7946a35f3cb
124214 F20101211_AACCSS dessy_a_Page_023.jpg
6e928257329fb1be0d036cd6c4e2b909
9d610050249add4ac9122b21f96072a3c22c42ef
35531 F20101211_AACECE dessy_a_Page_104.QC.jpg
938a122f99aa8313a94e3c19f085186a
1a8b221a3a4ae42cf3b65dc7e5ac554f0c4cb08c
9209 F20101211_AACEBP dessy_a_Page_085thm.jpg
8d284f9afb837ced6eb5e8fd79808f98
0248a5548cd5d06e54dea564c3bc52ca2c728f6c
34376 F20101211_AACDWJ dessy_a_Page_071.QC.jpg
c424b265e7d8efc8c5cf655d845355bb
ee2118eb82d8d25b3db91b1abccb33ee4c70ed85
7505 F20101211_AACDVV dessy_a_Page_119thm.jpg
cfe11c5acea481f6597ae645c4a29a02
5dc912a54254f81401cfa5b771305eb8108afd28
63446 F20101211_AACCTH dessy_a_Page_038.jpg
67e3264457bdab729238b900cf2c9d84
da05bf25306109edba84b911781186cdcd2a20c4
113675 F20101211_AACCST dessy_a_Page_024.jpg
d8eb0d9fc7a54ce918a826cd97b59e33
17635dc5d05e8002bbeb41b2d210b9d15d4b5b8f
8607 F20101211_AACEBQ dessy_a_Page_087thm.jpg
4631dd5ae1a409ca53f0070f98ee20b6
b193197e0146503a701ae950d483ff41bba648d7
35506 F20101211_AACDWK dessy_a_Page_110.QC.jpg
3e762dd7fd02120fb531dbe6a345737d
1be12fc62f8e83deacaff3d18a708ddc6e48ba08
32139 F20101211_AACDVW dessy_a_Page_116.QC.jpg
a0cd34efb59d54c0871d4e78c9a630b2
4ad9effb6a1055018a7d6ffea6c2b6c5b9c9d3d2
61396 F20101211_AACCTI dessy_a_Page_039.jpg
3ea5b1d6301507b31ca5876cfd10568f
8ade8af1fb245566356d0d58e4b62e8ae02d393d
107380 F20101211_AACCSU dessy_a_Page_025.jpg
bde8c23b0e23246492b60f37d5f201fd
ec497d1179b5d8f68025383288e7106173bcc9c9
34928 F20101211_AACECF dessy_a_Page_106.QC.jpg
1dfd87fb67427dfadd8f82557daf92ce
96a47976551b605eb4748c257af202ad29bbb5ec
36502 F20101211_AACEBR dessy_a_Page_089.QC.jpg
f873c0f2fd55a33daf37ccf9b6655498
af04260f0cdcdab51230c2f6127e2d210d151cd0
8547 F20101211_AACDWL dessy_a_Page_112thm.jpg
c987dd9aa39ffd9a1b09a09bb789ba45
2ac2f6ad319aa57e228f266940f32b9602ee6665
20975 F20101211_AACDVX dessy_a_Page_038.QC.jpg
738c06045858ae6d3461f425c06c5c30
a234f1b6b83fb35b63a3ab160caf73f76d6eb795
114277 F20101211_AACCTJ dessy_a_Page_040.jpg
5df0cc36a939fd797ac32af66f20d96e
e5fe0c35cbc25d987f105e9d113269f5f0b8657f
110031 F20101211_AACCSV dessy_a_Page_026.jpg
7858b7b4e40aeb2abefca0f6c88cc585
4a443bccbdbcbb75cd3604d63cfb17b2a536b557
37306 F20101211_AACECG dessy_a_Page_108.QC.jpg
0347e399864d3d30fe664c33014200ff
9d4eab03e885a505fbc99a9cf2ff118bbd468587
8883 F20101211_AACEBS dessy_a_Page_090thm.jpg
5d7d5d63edfffa05635c70c0a18a1eab
81700ad0312d7ab522d3309517efa49c23d1ce86
8894 F20101211_AACDXA dessy_a_Page_083thm.jpg
b3f691a17f4b25304fd39a6c89c91e37
bccfb4dedc004425fe7b27f0ee420c8ec982f511
8608 F20101211_AACDWM dessy_a_Page_103thm.jpg
a52900e01e7edb86fdb36f078d73a499
e8ddfa5f890f74e9b526829cc211ff315c23ad70
9002 F20101211_AACDVY dessy_a_Page_049thm.jpg
5b18854286cf1a275f31ed5607794444
d26bc9e2b64ce9ba6b8cf12fa465be89cf377a85
111609 F20101211_AACCTK dessy_a_Page_041.jpg
d7b8b58c5293cfd9f98c7f861c58a707
0b5cb2c82c21a1b1e8d7c4a5e8493e32b976303c
116682 F20101211_AACCSW dessy_a_Page_027.jpg
ee2c655e079d714e01f7b4af334728d3
13dfdb28bc8fa7a1881fe39b039689bc30d4ef58
F20101211_AACECH dessy_a_Page_110thm.jpg
78f842684fb2690fd20c782286785206
02a1e9b9ce9734f2ddf695d7f5a46fdcab884a12
35679 F20101211_AACEBT dessy_a_Page_090.QC.jpg
3f1a39496631df649d85966762b685de
86a65b1e26e6348815928ef2e210404b3d64347a
1278 F20101211_AACDXB dessy_a_Page_003.QC.jpg
991ef38cb52e5df97daf8e361d755705
187da26f16ca6bf68f3ff81f7715b6993be0dd02
8910 F20101211_AACDWN dessy_a_Page_027thm.jpg
7b4237cf52e4798a7e8361ba5f18dcd1
b382dad67f3fa8a1b67da3a5b9c686f890f0900c
108239 F20101211_AACCTL dessy_a_Page_042.jpg
697da3abaf8695a8cdd5016397a2cf2f
4db72df418796d4103194a5c0bd9282f568aee3f
32899 F20101211_AACECI dessy_a_Page_111.QC.jpg
429efb18079fda0057a98c00a619da5c
817ee1144f13a76469c9b1ddea143d7d4e6f87d1
37293 F20101211_AACEBU dessy_a_Page_092.QC.jpg
836ac6c0504f8c87b31e8296ee4b5b06
70b4226201ad0f76dc8bdfae131f79afdbe73f6b
36507 F20101211_AACDXC dessy_a_Page_087.QC.jpg
446f9c5e1be07e41675070339c20f36c
78e1ba00eb81227eaab5721c8b65ac1dd5960d0a
32793 F20101211_AACDWO dessy_a_Page_012.QC.jpg
b69581c31e52cfc6ad6e2adfcb9fa280
e922ddf4555136d77d03bc7a7b5cef4a54f5de10
33923 F20101211_AACDVZ dessy_a_Page_141.QC.jpg
0c2ec4fd45f00655d19ca7c7dc80a070
e97f3b62976e43c87c387a1041d1b2e5059a3f0e
111847 F20101211_AACCTM dessy_a_Page_043.jpg
b7ed4f2e2bf67fffca1dc88eb3d8ba23
90500f071fff94e28f943dd349b0635c940abca3
119231 F20101211_AACCSX dessy_a_Page_028.jpg
b76f04b05890d3f0bf3d8f5371aebfa6
9029e71d1238af77969af850bb9c6789f6882be5
107546 F20101211_AACCUA dessy_a_Page_057.jpg
09540d74eed03dd1fa080f347148a5e8
a0d03d5462e009992052946736cfac4a04d92008
34332 F20101211_AACECJ dessy_a_Page_112.QC.jpg
8a8a1f0d5c54dce13ca9718c36f83235
9bb1eebeae56ab21fb181110e7ab8f466b7662cc
8841 F20101211_AACEBV dessy_a_Page_095thm.jpg
d669b86e1dfd8219b632c83f00e3a15a
5af4e7d55203555c75a31a70788e5d502567304f
4028 F20101211_AACDXD dessy_a_Page_010thm.jpg
54a0191e4e2307fe479caf99da4e5a0a
86a8ca6a326fb6b95cadd58c94768176272e86c5
33722 F20101211_AACDWP dessy_a_Page_080.QC.jpg
b846afd73b535a7e9f968676838dc792
258f95cc5cc16a773db921688d13e7838735a4ac
110673 F20101211_AACCTN dessy_a_Page_044.jpg
831c859a6927b11161a08152fdcadfbd
1e562d9c9dbf77b47c3bcf364ef7aadee3e3ca17
116095 F20101211_AACCSY dessy_a_Page_029.jpg
f357c2f9cfa49a0536243f43e7d040ad
a5e0c3d34c1e20c5b9b1374388a2a85e2e64081e
112091 F20101211_AACCUB dessy_a_Page_058.jpg
0a6f744b245ee5db75d0b3564db90348
850087f4383cafd398703b35b9274fa920f9d358
27539 F20101211_AACECK dessy_a_Page_113.QC.jpg
de62c773221804a4b319c06fc3ffc938
cac8c8a3f76516984d65b83435afb9d5a4dfa523
8676 F20101211_AACEBW dessy_a_Page_096thm.jpg
fcd90544299d5f3c0d2ab210e6b78438
b389fc9cce7055d74454ca05b1608231e1becd5c
14825 F20101211_AACDXE dessy_a_Page_129.QC.jpg
96f980f491d5848cc024d882f2441153
8020b157df1b5de81a678ddab65929923343a2b4
34905 F20101211_AACDWQ dessy_a_Page_032.QC.jpg
cf0b43e15d240e91d542e71fedd774e8
b8537f57fdb67c6805ea72aed2ec020c0c18fac3
108324 F20101211_AACCTO dessy_a_Page_045.jpg
a44680aeb204d9be0636b5b98ba42d7a
1bb33313641741293cc75b330f3127444aabd932
110426 F20101211_AACCSZ dessy_a_Page_030.jpg
ea1519d90dbf8e6cf4a321900111a1e1
b125649aa4b3f23b598712acc1e6f6ec0554d161
106361 F20101211_AACCUC dessy_a_Page_059.jpg
e5f64b2d7e3687b8219f473cbca4a297
87543be2f6713ec93444eecb48d0a2d140fb2a47
8463 F20101211_AACEDA dessy_a_Page_139thm.jpg
236a6eb0b1e855d13e99d8081ca738b6
f216fcb6326b16fdbe0bc924cb22547ac12d8dc5
6555 F20101211_AACECL dessy_a_Page_113thm.jpg
717ffbeb8f9296cc2e69883026e41f8c
c27e63b1c902112cd8c28fdd30c87b85e650bc40
34578 F20101211_AACEBX dessy_a_Page_096.QC.jpg
95930efd7a92a3029bb89d99632a2c13
d750ae41f727e1786b47bce2f2357b95cacd086f
9136 F20101211_AACDXF dessy_a_Page_089thm.jpg
8819ce017a46d86d4e7c028a5a09bf12
416249ef115fb87423717a41d68da63eb296d18f
36400 F20101211_AACDWR dessy_a_Page_013.QC.jpg
2592aee0cfa7617e45cad5c6b5359822
52374703d4b0ea0c1a9c3cf4a278821d0c70cdf8
108864 F20101211_AACCTP dessy_a_Page_046.jpg
c7cd815b14989376b72ec48f86bba521
d6bc8e9839f5c5e604ec88b1344d4fc0974e84e4
100439 F20101211_AACCUD dessy_a_Page_060.jpg
0dad417448dfaf90b8705eb6cfc8ceee
f7417e385305ac05568aeb2de356f6cb660a9871
8504 F20101211_AACEDB dessy_a_Page_141thm.jpg
2c1e69d575c3814ccfc6cf98de91bfca
85cd9545e7cf1cfc0c29684a830adb1e895f2337
24518 F20101211_AACECM dessy_a_Page_114.QC.jpg
cf993d6de5ceaa2f293b84716cb99c7d
0830bb458520ba425870f232f7ee5e34cb53577a
36501 F20101211_AACEBY dessy_a_Page_097.QC.jpg
9ca3607b2f24284c6cc8bb70065e006c
f854157071219d12bbbccd862dbce789bee2df53
8807 F20101211_AACDXG dessy_a_Page_138thm.jpg
c689536245ddf97393652cc8813543b1
5a973a092d6071d139dbf164cd587e1f1d95df19
8890 F20101211_AACDWS dessy_a_Page_066thm.jpg
492d5298673675706171fbadf4a5679c
f9171903c3c5a56288f5faa939d0712b44d306fb
106871 F20101211_AACCTQ dessy_a_Page_047.jpg
5a0f36e6f2fdc336294e2a1c835b2ea4
2a3e72cdafe45195bdd46317e88aa5ac316dce3e
110580 F20101211_AACCUE dessy_a_Page_062.jpg
b56445dc4a81df0e714c0a307fa2919a
9a34c570a9ff482e9fd0ec374f0cd60cc0f00c80
1330 F20101211_AACEDC dessy_a_Page_142thm.jpg
c8f2c3c6aff392a1a0502c27404d9a0c
4287236c23b66eecb150faef9cb48d8c9773f619
7058 F20101211_AACECN dessy_a_Page_114thm.jpg
4169c1cf0e303bc7dcc7bfcc3743dcdd
5ccfa00e95c957bc8bb07bb094958e7a02945a9e
9088 F20101211_AACEBZ dessy_a_Page_098thm.jpg
101a6bb871475b3a5d5ce12380aa4bf7
30838cfcabfb45e8b2530d167377109531bcaf19
9147 F20101211_AACDXH dessy_a_Page_074thm.jpg
60d3f9222793db02b49d1c2e0e3ddf76
5c88cd7e7a6cda7e58a6e860a71ad547c8cabdc9
34845 F20101211_AACDWT dessy_a_Page_047.QC.jpg
137a8ec44d61ff07dfd6e5c6560197b7
fd18ab9b474b0b2afa7d5232112fbec7cf032f52
110412 F20101211_AACCTR dessy_a_Page_048.jpg
e0f91f85775d9c8b17d314955c76a37a
4b2c2152c8f805049819fac33ad998e3c8849fae
1051950 F20101211_AACDAA dessy_a_Page_074.jp2
c36234b043e32e718ec833650aa0687e
6b7157306e29f3f9075f24b196f09cf10e18bc57
115238 F20101211_AACCUF dessy_a_Page_063.jpg
b8adda6db380412b808f7548ad5de184
fdcdfa8a9575dd1ee033ea4cab3a4c27ba507c7a
4288 F20101211_AACEDD dessy_a_Page_143thm.jpg
cf57dd53ca6fd2e39914aeae42a06913
7590bf4273ffda04dea3188ba02aa121cf72b534
25987 F20101211_AACECO dessy_a_Page_117.QC.jpg
a27b74adf033bbdaff4f49f05428dcfa
3cea73064bce9b507434cc4556230ca833935a2d
8271 F20101211_AACDXI dessy_a_Page_111thm.jpg
9d1a3ec05882d049252aced1fc9e7c06
8e6b4ffd9f38c9a09f41b98ffae12fd467fa7323
36530 F20101211_AACDWU dessy_a_Page_036.QC.jpg
e79e44fecdd9ab154d1e563eba53ba2c
44ff57acd2cc44bcea678cfad32377c32d68a529
109768 F20101211_AACCTS dessy_a_Page_049.jpg
aa17f852a648db84a825a39d2f3f4f26
eb6c59c4aae1436dfd0d4acc876004188e3bfff7
1051921 F20101211_AACDAB dessy_a_Page_075.jp2
4d42e6aa6b2e9e52ccd3260cdb4ffd72
9c7d9b4eedf2aae093e68eeaeb4a3a4697c39940
112466 F20101211_AACCUG dessy_a_Page_064.jpg
73ed39051165c3ccf1f7bc05549ee209
a7890164a9ce6a10e54bb9d893274b2f6924b069
7467 F20101211_AACECP dessy_a_Page_117thm.jpg
2195edef802460da9587305bfe1fde6f
7fcd9c09529882ee0cbfc5f78813c3fb0f9673af
8705 F20101211_AACDXJ dessy_a_Page_137thm.jpg
58605158fb847c28e609b2d29fe03d1d
831646ebafd552522769fd614b3105198cee397d
34649 F20101211_AACDWV dessy_a_Page_009.QC.jpg
01b8e88c638a36072fc00da00ec8d74c
0f975befe74aa5d60f8b34c4cd10171f14ccb8f7
112816 F20101211_AACCTT dessy_a_Page_050.jpg
403f00e3463956cb053842e509dfda6e
297b0b6efa7f569c81bfd048dd3abc116c4dca13
1051955 F20101211_AACDAC dessy_a_Page_077.jp2
bc8873a68e79d1e8554c388e97abdcbf
81f8fe22c511d0cccc07132950a733d7b4531e69
114048 F20101211_AACCUH dessy_a_Page_065.jpg
731978ca8dd3dd827929ac7954f6b29c
44914f90d1c8f7b243a3909901d2080c47825ba0
25662 F20101211_AACECQ dessy_a_Page_118.QC.jpg
a9c439b4b75f0b12cd38c515c993eee9
b1e3928bf9f3f8ed347d2067dcf441653ccee126
36899 F20101211_AACDXK dessy_a_Page_028.QC.jpg
d60579e59b1850be7af60f5641f5adca
d0f126d7b902481f463fdaeb22b4c09d1e6b5f8d
8423 F20101211_AACDWW dessy_a_Page_082thm.jpg
0e227cf69b85c538a09222f4cfd9d022
7df9d7849051a38781d24ded022e68fa3af8bbea
108373 F20101211_AACCTU dessy_a_Page_051.jpg
2892bd66bc5ca878de096f0cb75e1896
62b586e7d799767cc9f4d23144337f41524054ee
1051971 F20101211_AACDAD dessy_a_Page_078.jp2
40b7e9fc0c662b599f61728a6bc5daa4
25c6cd5ea3dfc7bd5bdb147e5a5438bed2074d80
120868 F20101211_AACCUI dessy_a_Page_066.jpg
45df8bb94298c0fc213020fe9d9a119f
6580a90b99d0893843e360475a0dfa7181854c96
24584 F20101211_AACECR dessy_a_Page_119.QC.jpg
4d33f7c3d08e6b2b168555794011e6f4
d665611d2034c98abed73d2aced4aab788a6a4aa
28712 F20101211_AACDXL dessy_a_Page_115.QC.jpg
4be1eaf9ee4d058fe6b2f4a2afee4eb1
c9bb1f2dfa39fb9e943761fc6beb68b273b430dc
8645 F20101211_AACDWX dessy_a_Page_014thm.jpg
1654a155258ab7ef167bd1af7cc63e5b
ab1c921d2c504ef9c9c4f0a27201eed59e246081
115285 F20101211_AACCTV dessy_a_Page_052.jpg
19134740f069115f2721f0178676bcf5
091b80f7c91f9cfc529e944305362f81942764b6
112673 F20101211_AACCUJ dessy_a_Page_067.jpg
69f4ea3b44ec213a5d360413c18c30ee
4e7740ccfcfe6b0dcacebc0300e0660adfe66b42
30641 F20101211_AACECS dessy_a_Page_122.QC.jpg
05bd3e01578e4de64e2adc9e48a4bb8b
4dedf3fecfa3b26960df2d660a1016337b304e5c
8655 F20101211_AACDYA dessy_a_Page_042thm.jpg
0b8e0dc9c53af5e6582c9e74be4658fc
e6f8e34801c34402edb762199903c6470ee90d27
36701 F20101211_AACDXM dessy_a_Page_072.QC.jpg
968ab5dcf83a84be8f0e6cdc3d8effb3
dfee03bab5c0460c53d29a20014665f16d2bb957
37590 F20101211_AACDWY dessy_a_Page_024.QC.jpg
159c8a189a1ffdb7d20a075f39458360
bf848d36f1f802d0207869cbd31a1ec27b73731d
106238 F20101211_AACCTW dessy_a_Page_053.jpg
04e1ba461bbf41f6bac660755e78ec62
213d2c9c88466aa3e4a1c515b63319ce923ef36e
1051985 F20101211_AACDAE dessy_a_Page_080.jp2
9d19118900c5bb3bf0ad8f7b5cc32c44
0bb47dc6a69ac2a47849bfa6886a18f6ac25de26
30075 F20101211_AACCUK dessy_a_Page_068.jpg
3f373cb5179129c9c3c270c89018a6ef
20bc4fabe81fc098d67b3bb9c12f1385fa72941d
32365 F20101211_AACECT dessy_a_Page_125.QC.jpg
78eb2a7926bb855f3fa2d7bc78aa7a87
3369fc5781bfef942e2e2bb751174813983c749c
34234 F20101211_AACDYB dessy_a_Page_121.QC.jpg
b9b5f2cb7d11ef5e2baa1d0c942a1abe
f8f47c06c02b04510e472244a38acdd483f005d6
9081 F20101211_AACDXN dessy_a_Page_102thm.jpg
f1b23840c0dd3747db19bb012a441904
0200768e400838339ca70ba1dc94ad2576bbf611
8003 F20101211_AACDWZ dessy_a_Page_060thm.jpg
075601b6d6d75ca51175672f5a5b87ef
b7c287acb29aea4a8b54cc08b39e8381e80a8fb9
111160 F20101211_AACCTX dessy_a_Page_054.jpg
4b159dcc6edc137b24deb0d5be5b1573
1db5816fafabc3e73d3c93e74ed6433c2f5cff0d
1051924 F20101211_AACDAF dessy_a_Page_081.jp2
1db1338652b54a80bc6cab7db915a3c4
c4ac15a03622181d9109b4bb67dc5da3d59a4f0d
107663 F20101211_AACCUL dessy_a_Page_069.jpg
529b4b3df45b859d87e1b3ee0c961f5a
cbb69692a4f73d9968fe6cc7de14b04677dcf454
7991 F20101211_AACECU dessy_a_Page_130thm.jpg
ec11242ac9ae78e101209ddcab9dfc3b
96f225f9bf194c90e4bf79d650582b8e02f70ec5
3807 F20101211_AACDYC dessy_a_Page_129thm.jpg
5c53c0ed641b81802e7264d907d1f15b
79c1a03ccb51ee985466db1b1fc441d7f73a4404
38091 F20101211_AACDXO dessy_a_Page_052.QC.jpg
a33a63165b5a1487fea2d56da9be0ad0
882cc3b55ad112fa48c0cbf582a9984a823fe956
1051910 F20101211_AACDAG dessy_a_Page_082.jp2
b51ec1c095b2f3c35030fa0aac37cc2e
b943d0a7ef92a8635c32a5a00b6a34aae11a129b
114350 F20101211_AACCVA dessy_a_Page_085.jpg
bb51725bd36c37f35d77e6e566e2f522
de5a72bc80d40dbdb707f6a8b5a5db0bd2503344
111733 F20101211_AACCUM dessy_a_Page_070.jpg
40280b1e7135de50ef5bac86e3b2c367
b8d86e0c18b248f9599141ab482f0c7c8887a8fe
1024 F20101211_AACECV dessy_a_Page_131thm.jpg
92cbcbe8633cdf376ea8efc2d71879f6
3f7a7e088121c743dbb882f1253ea10d22d69be3
34337 F20101211_AACDYD dessy_a_Page_059.QC.jpg
ecdde26654ae528476ec1ab2e46a24ea
b8215e5a55b1cfe7ad67d9b1d899100027d5c63a
8193 F20101211_AACDXP dessy_a_Page_001.QC.jpg
e4e7f70fde7cb09200e6c2bd1af1b489
dd0d5c34cc0b40e194c664e25e1ac8e11fc2cd62
110137 F20101211_AACCTY dessy_a_Page_055.jpg
a3acee56cdb7660b5758e8b483fbea9b
a7c9a49fd2a7dff9a0a4ecda4a299a6ea3ed3bb7
1051974 F20101211_AACDAH dessy_a_Page_083.jp2
2f9e1af9cc47d038215524c990a64603
6322c756ada9fd379cd53668c3784d037b6b7506
109541 F20101211_AACCVB dessy_a_Page_086.jpg
7a13f4c5a9b1ba00c70424c0741eb54c
6361108fb29fffdf6ccb192f0fd12c5aaff5cfae
105490 F20101211_AACCUN dessy_a_Page_071.jpg
f9983eb9eff785975640cba497ebeafe
5a661b74651c4735fb9ee7f2763716dace1e8b58
35708 F20101211_AACECW dessy_a_Page_133.QC.jpg
6de4f807a6256aae4c9b2d52fd8abbcb
5b207c4e4c21ca815573dcc329a4a26284ca39e8
30851 F20101211_AACDYE dessy_a_Page_040.QC.jpg
06d94a548e5c0303895ea49ecda7acb8
8d5761d1d50607958bccb3d5994dc916e5edf0d8
36636 F20101211_AACDXQ dessy_a_Page_065.QC.jpg
de84c2225b92ee7a001d307b8c577505
15a524ca3b3e64a496e989be48e24be81476dea7
113563 F20101211_AACCTZ dessy_a_Page_056.jpg
94720ffa351218d4599c8c8e2a79b8b6
15e6109b71626bb0a5dc7036f76e58f9499adffc
1051931 F20101211_AACDAI dessy_a_Page_084.jp2
2f91d18255eacb078fe8d313a46cb5bc
510262a16f9a9742a16c44796de2392fa33ed6ac
109773 F20101211_AACCVC dessy_a_Page_087.jpg
7d8eda943a85dc3169c758f9b28783eb
96e5f0d21c8c2c2859dac6abb1095aecb0a386a2
111828 F20101211_AACCUO dessy_a_Page_072.jpg
247f2ee51f3776e5ffb575b187cb4d64
5baa49e7abc84509416ef589e3d8120aed83150d
8410 F20101211_AACECX dessy_a_Page_134thm.jpg
9b0681a665b4746d5f0e5ba9673a2a63
5335d005eb7cad55cb0889b29f1f8a98a700ef54
34804 F20101211_AACDYF dessy_a_Page_053.QC.jpg
204be0bf9632162a9ee8b819429ff490
95b51b09bd232fdc21faf721a974a81dcc207eb0
6318 F20101211_AACDXR dessy_a_Page_127thm.jpg
eb66f7864dbf72207e7b9dcf8655c91f
7c5f7164362094f78fddb52e90a3709d4adf09af
F20101211_AACDAJ dessy_a_Page_085.jp2
e940aea83cf1370e78e9f966518d1b2b
b0c67039403e18158b58acda7589605617903784
114708 F20101211_AACCVD dessy_a_Page_088.jpg
34cf1682b40f4af3d9c3f3dd25ac670d
82f6610fea709e4328874b225b5542bcce12afdf
110489 F20101211_AACCUP dessy_a_Page_073.jpg
a779b17c5a03e699e242121a372c319d
ba317e16ed0593a1aed99ae9cf8bf63d7c738ede
34528 F20101211_AACECY dessy_a_Page_136.QC.jpg
4e05524db267ea3d27eba32d54b4b43e
79f059cf367bf0bad19e24b51b304dc5505161f1
34489 F20101211_AACDYG dessy_a_Page_077.QC.jpg
9e694aa2a35accbd92a252a28c602d12
c027923c413a6c247532074a6159a075393a6ca9
2921 F20101211_AACDXS dessy_a_Page_004thm.jpg
f419560184242440c843163e19325bae
92f0f1d9605c07a58c335a6bf2b38ca3dee8f1bd
1051970 F20101211_AACDAK dessy_a_Page_086.jp2
fc59d6546ab7b2627715639347c5cb7d
7f19692cebbfcec41b737727ee937f2283349c42
111600 F20101211_AACCVE dessy_a_Page_089.jpg
0eaef8bb7bd246260bf3d19ede01fbe0
8bc5bbd23bf016f237a88720addc1f8a5b2bf681
111387 F20101211_AACCUQ dessy_a_Page_075.jpg
1bac7eae8c64563cf2c7ce4317c159a1
301563eb4fe3e9b3306b5030bdecf732665c1d51
34223 F20101211_AACECZ dessy_a_Page_139.QC.jpg
a4ea089525e14d638349d29bf542845e
3f41a2b54de912cac59485e417afe05cb36aa1a9
8333 F20101211_AACDYH dessy_a_Page_128thm.jpg
a7b88076d665c6c941693abea14c03b8
c0050255fdc9edc808fb02a522622b21d2233b49
8490 F20101211_AACDXT dessy_a_Page_077thm.jpg
4e8e4f4a0c6fe435aacf767cf6d195fc
eeb820fcdb895c73947f47093df09b998e7fbf1b
1051979 F20101211_AACDAL dessy_a_Page_087.jp2
360c2f01b87498e981494242cbab9ba1
4195fec45f1a1c0a7c8c79f37a7eb365bea92a1f
111040 F20101211_AACCVF dessy_a_Page_090.jpg
15528f13b01ff101d9a2029d9844e701
402911da7dadae2663b58d516d1ee1bcb4763965
108238 F20101211_AACCUR dessy_a_Page_076.jpg
a010abe473227f8bd0952d32b9e9dbb9
07a22c9cea7dd4bdd6c96484ece6900ad17d88ec
1051969 F20101211_AACDBA dessy_a_Page_102.jp2
4c214c2b4a1d1663ed283f6522489b9a
2ef8714e42ed8c6c52d350d3ccedee17e7a8b124
23279 F20101211_AACDYI dessy_a_Page_127.QC.jpg
cbc32e3733abc3230f5f773fc23a925b
883228fadac239cdd7cc27e46f47bf7965b7a8aa
26000 F20101211_AACDXU dessy_a_Page_005.QC.jpg
087c36586a4ee6e110907e7a70f17f01
de64a1ffc99deeefb3d288e9e3fd0bc6cb43fccf
1051975 F20101211_AACDAM dessy_a_Page_088.jp2
4151783d1a9f8cbe3f7e7b8bd0131a6c
422072d25973aa247b8941aedc09886101aae8ac
103794 F20101211_AACCVG dessy_a_Page_091.jpg
2217fafa11f53fe85a1963537426b64c
52c486465df284fe6bdd136c448125f8ff8b0029
106672 F20101211_AACCUS dessy_a_Page_077.jpg
3b3d63952659838bdee868d9fbb5848f
5a883f48282e6512fc91a6688bd89ce673f78620
1051963 F20101211_AACDBB dessy_a_Page_103.jp2
a64d45ec6558b1eb136f60dd2e633b38
559fe6f91bafa73e09cb2215729e524fc4c503d0
9476 F20101211_AACDYJ dessy_a_Page_121thm.jpg
040c693a2e5f3e1a252fcf4a6652b002
169c291e36a8cb0adbd9edb38071d6bf116f4388
8829 F20101211_AACDXV dessy_a_Page_067thm.jpg
6ea4305f4bd98c6455589ecfead16778
14f20ce7b92bb6d5f4f97fda0ec5744517c0ff2f
F20101211_AACDAN dessy_a_Page_089.jp2
2b6e9731c9f337a98b6af00f37ec63ad
5aa4c589f59d68bdd20f5a83da2f4d0c5725eb9d
105083 F20101211_AACCVH dessy_a_Page_093.jpg
b880f5896b3aba1fba3e1592be48f3fc
3e7c36f81c3d7a038db2f910b713450c3eeaefaf
111531 F20101211_AACCUT dessy_a_Page_078.jpg
edaaa25be3087e8d293fffe62b194763
ea05ab7f43af1cf9b4113029235a8e78f1fd670d
F20101211_AACDBC dessy_a_Page_104.jp2
69c9a449db8d9e8d4955a45bf34336db
c366c47a87d2c7fa8c15701515addb5f4f6e2de6
29247 F20101211_AACDYK dessy_a_Page_011.QC.jpg
d5b6a96bbd779be81c6a81a2ac26d536
244c69b4f5ed389dc9eaefea357cddef6e074e7f
36306 F20101211_AACDXW dessy_a_Page_128.QC.jpg
7d884efc27a5a557df2ee73a4ab14038
a970d654d758728058289deb1bb7b4279ee0dfa6
1051939 F20101211_AACDAO dessy_a_Page_090.jp2
0660eb96bfae6414fc8745475ada3d8b
0c2237aa54fd4fff7f72f384c54e1c4fb39e2a35
115155 F20101211_AACCVI dessy_a_Page_094.jpg
0fdf780aa8563af93d432a49ba4db774
a81e2965d2578441c8c92276c38a915cc16bec1e
11167 F20101211_AACCUU dessy_a_Page_079.jpg
c43f93a2285b65faba619d3c6d5667e6
48bdf2f2d7fdef0db10c568497f359ed020c7fbd
1051986 F20101211_AACDBD dessy_a_Page_105.jp2
1129e34bef5934f5a5a8dbd19969e782
1e25a096e7e69304f3890de37e39aa1c229af92d
9117 F20101211_AACDYL dessy_a_Page_030thm.jpg
6602e96a1b92325d16ab59e89f35f1c2
f6c62f6c2db54a57215a1ea55dc3e1f9e8835a87
531 F20101211_AACDXX dessy_a_Page_002thm.jpg
77420e298ee6ea0dcc061c831ced8509
2e105e6629ba7a5a73705a3ac071b915008a1822
1051981 F20101211_AACDAP dessy_a_Page_091.jp2
4184e2385da12ee3a91f0fe876037b03
566a7371023130b6b0df3e8f2f3b2107684bf1be
109201 F20101211_AACCVJ dessy_a_Page_095.jpg
4a0bb1e85492445f1f3bf615adddd2cf
ba443cae9df4d83758f2c2d64624068d09df4f6f
104419 F20101211_AACCUV dessy_a_Page_080.jpg
42a8b89e3390ca4430e4c774324670f3
236e26620447fe063144bb875c9aded91676e2f1
1051976 F20101211_AACDBE dessy_a_Page_106.jp2
8c2eca45cb54fda4e24e7ca87cbf08a2
42115dd5d9fdfc9ab9e76c910ac1f8cb9edb023f
37144 F20101211_AACDZA dessy_a_Page_085.QC.jpg
7bb7aafb86a071623c60e7f868cd4b2f
3290eda695669f6fdb80957e3d1fc1ec549fd3b8
35682 F20101211_AACDYM dessy_a_Page_026.QC.jpg
2fe213c0c2764963db6ac348ff7a8891
1feeaba99174dca87da55cf13b8df5b31efe9851
35580 F20101211_AACDXY dessy_a_Page_055.QC.jpg
9dd546d4b21be3e8a3ccbdf1d9223c17
30667c15340c06b6c4a0e827e43ccf472f5041db
1051934 F20101211_AACDAQ dessy_a_Page_092.jp2
b5d1d60dc75f7c2c1447d9874678c39f
717188a0b59dd709b7db3356d38cd43412bd09b1
108039 F20101211_AACCVK dessy_a_Page_096.jpg
e760bfaed5c0554cde2e30483db25b17
77289b038810b8cbd9296ea68bc3b25059559700
110975 F20101211_AACCUW dessy_a_Page_081.jpg
55da80924fd8518908521ba03d63a2eb
48381023218a52f0ffa7449844f882e53bac3f24
8825 F20101211_AACDZB dessy_a_Page_073thm.jpg
69b27436b4073fda371a100077a50792
226a098e3d3f5aa7e5c3eee2fa95b0da3884c0ed
6284 F20101211_AACDYN dessy_a_Page_005thm.jpg
ed67e525225d47aa963327bf22843731
76d1e9885140bce1a082b8c5069d1dd9319ddf51
8518 F20101211_AACDXZ dessy_a_Page_064thm.jpg
812156452e92e01f9332b0a7b4629b3f
ffc3c19e507e58a0664aeeb70d8ec06b93fa60d7
1051972 F20101211_AACDAR dessy_a_Page_093.jp2
0b88987bb47cdc88ca4a81f812941864
cb6511845fd816d713cf79c227964186e1049e15
113127 F20101211_AACCVL dessy_a_Page_097.jpg
02ea503640461bbbda6700fa53dae7fb
0935cc355c444a49f1204c1924b8fb849781caf8
106947 F20101211_AACCUX dessy_a_Page_082.jpg
79f43116f3f5f9ee7c39b50a46bb9e8e
09b935f449004aab3f9a327ccde7450bb392c155
1051947 F20101211_AACDBF dessy_a_Page_107.jp2
482f6175400980e2c230d0062950bb56
52350bbd6b09d0506abafc2a8e53fbc59dcb81be
34876 F20101211_AACDZC dessy_a_Page_022.QC.jpg
aa9689ea5dfcf2b6a0c81c1fcfa8dea0
8877bff413e93974c0e4321c0dd2df4d21075f13
9083 F20101211_AACDYO dessy_a_Page_124thm.jpg
3ab5309c4591ec6b698fc11d3cafef4b
1817b57b92cf92a28cca6005e429c6bfd2030ee0
125271 F20101211_AACCWA dessy_a_Page_112.jpg
0aa08856b2aaf5e013ab5f269c3cfa3a
41f10611417671442efad37f25111a995755884a
1051944 F20101211_AACDAS dessy_a_Page_094.jp2
43c97a34b2e1dfbd82e97f0ad9a4e68b
111f1a8539a704d8671c3bbadea8b8ac25294a6a
111806 F20101211_AACCVM dessy_a_Page_098.jpg
331678ea64e65e648f6319ad6d47ddb5
9df8ff430a1f3eeaf38410ad52e52524b6b1eaa4
112026 F20101211_AACCUY dessy_a_Page_083.jpg
c84b0335eb2acad495c4d966a9b98c67
2817c7c1c36d7e0a285698dc20223879f64e846e
F20101211_AACDBG dessy_a_Page_108.jp2
2f6cbd87b22ab10769be85ad5222ee4b
a851c1e96aae5e25492672ab5b5f58cb8bea3b45
213256 F20101211_AACDZD UFE0021582_00001.xml
a75f531ae0be56f332b0b0e2885de4e9
ebaf992e36f670ea90cb197b73121fc4ef0cc270
8822 F20101211_AACDYP dessy_a_Page_097thm.jpg
09d89cbbbf6ff3cfe85b88f9af00daba
a5acc9f7b562a6a329bd6ce7468bacd00e1215ca
99744 F20101211_AACCWB dessy_a_Page_113.jpg
ed44269ba7f3e713f94bc478337557ec
906025d8414ff432ec7e5c536e216c79ac5d0d49
1051909 F20101211_AACDAT dessy_a_Page_095.jp2
7bb1dbc480d06efa7aefedd089ac8521
08ac00051f91ca0b0bd29f28a655b6927f5c020c
117073 F20101211_AACCVN dessy_a_Page_099.jpg
df9a10e3221f7e4c7ed54e59d0132e43
a2c9197e45f9992090323ca3e2655b2432a6800a
F20101211_AACDBH dessy_a_Page_109.jp2
13423804b0931211ba54e55a02e44282
84404e0d60fb7454ac5557a1a999739ad30af187
11487 F20101211_AACDZE dessy_a_Page_004.QC.jpg
45ec4b29fa213251fae20b544492c6b0
b97a3223ed6cfbea74bf78c1146c2bc483771bbd
7480 F20101211_AACDYQ dessy_a_Page_118thm.jpg
1877c95a1df2b8e30c0259288c3ea463
55a80f26a6a87d35a2721b6c320ee8bfe6c4f001
82039 F20101211_AACCWC dessy_a_Page_114.jpg
90fb52f878dc82a1b566d300e9b61339
b33320898fbf6dbe601301a4aa0b43a92c4d5cf8
1051984 F20101211_AACDAU dessy_a_Page_096.jp2
d75232f0a9ace13533d9c68eb8a7161e
b9ab49a968ca916e6837d7b3be1c0de9ca6f9288
102911 F20101211_AACCVO dessy_a_Page_100.jpg
16c12bbfca61b0720456583ee190c149
12dbda0fe7e1936ea2bdd4efd1cc6afe432db1d1
112855 F20101211_AACCUZ dessy_a_Page_084.jpg
f40dc037b1897c7b24ab4e368f752837
5ca1aa3c23a6e05e498d0fc0e6c5e00368989596
F20101211_AACDBI dessy_a_Page_110.jp2
03df432caeb0b9abf9ec9c12eb39b5cf
ed969f05b61e53c6d49a7722419fda79f76c0098
8012 F20101211_AACDZF dessy_a_Page_006thm.jpg
7f5f7ca43246154aa300086eba01fd4a
c95c159a15fa4eae49cdb794a3b21fae1f029469
35769 F20101211_AACDYR dessy_a_Page_041.QC.jpg
248a363f687b22babc1ed7e19cd31531
b3eda10c2d6ccf2fe4a0ea768bbee5c4159b1de6
95162 F20101211_AACCWD dessy_a_Page_115.jpg
f90d787b828be00c8433e218d8f4d592
7734e8868da654c18cdb871a1b0a1e0111cb0987
F20101211_AACDAV dessy_a_Page_097.jp2
42299daa2d4102bc2605b02394840cfc
140e5640e04b86474f06b512abb570bcf62f44d7
112844 F20101211_AACCVP dessy_a_Page_101.jpg
9502af1f6d6e73fec6e3e5af365856ad
d9769cbc182e65f5a25e0117d2af7834e4ec8c4f
1051926 F20101211_AACDBJ dessy_a_Page_111.jp2
53d07871c6b3b35166a144648131afc0
6294ae7147cf3b7a8fe4f779cc2cdd2396d71cf1
2689 F20101211_AACDZG dessy_a_Page_008thm.jpg
595703cf3c8695f91c0d6817734a8a9b
b5c50aea12525f20fbc2ffe9d6b4029b3f22ef91
8812 F20101211_AACDYS dessy_a_Page_046thm.jpg
61fa165c945f81d7cccfce07142998ba
94ca59cb017605a53793a50d04134fac367c28e9
100930 F20101211_AACCWE dessy_a_Page_116.jpg
1cae6d5b858d4614615dee2a450d62f8
4440ce9be50ba4f77e80b42831a802927525a19e
F20101211_AACDAW dessy_a_Page_098.jp2
37ff14725dbce95970fb653a181b2fa0
4f26b4567b7fb0e76095bdf5361ad4b8e8a334fe
114222 F20101211_AACCVQ dessy_a_Page_102.jpg
412b568e26e5a223894a29449370891b
997dd0289903baa2ed26800307b3f69203222ebd
1051965 F20101211_AACDBK dessy_a_Page_112.jp2
bd68d3d58069551b1caaa9329a8708e6
2a0deee5860a42179b2266ddb2eed880dbc8f4a8
10197 F20101211_AACDZH dessy_a_Page_008.QC.jpg
c621dd48cd681a2ffb128f06eda70143
c52813996e38780c97a268d8efb47a9c056016f5
9021 F20101211_AACDYT dessy_a_Page_063thm.jpg
bb5a92cec546d969708e7e609553628e
cb8287679a1bc5909a1d88b7c7ee809025638bc4
81043 F20101211_AACCWF dessy_a_Page_117.jpg
90bda81bc28aed333d31795b0e18a679
5572972b8d0a62e078319d00a31ffbd02a346213
F20101211_AACDAX dessy_a_Page_099.jp2
0bfc946eb6d87654871177e7a60ab65f
b9b921ad9c205a406dcbb6990ef5568837efef16
108908 F20101211_AACCVR dessy_a_Page_103.jpg
e66d7c7d9333188ab6b364b3af95cb55
8414c66464115c8a4375430612e553c553dc7d0e
1051980 F20101211_AACDCA dessy_a_Page_128.jp2
11519061574bcf603b913285e6450321
923e3db6c16f39ab7271cba4d7f0fcf2a62491ba
1051908 F20101211_AACDBL dessy_a_Page_113.jp2
ae323ac651a8150b6a28f6585cdf14fc
cd34ca95e07c8861310c655e743fa320ef2d7ae3
F20101211_AACDZI dessy_a_Page_009thm.jpg
bbd4a95ad3e6a6d06ca6ff00856cd720
9503a05905665c79c6574f2c21a3bf18d4dc1b7f
34796 F20101211_AACDYU dessy_a_Page_105.QC.jpg
5b901ae0ce4181a75d12f0e9ab39df97
9cea080036728418b8a9a38d419c92f7d3920119
81261 F20101211_AACCWG dessy_a_Page_118.jpg
a3ec4e4e4903e69dbf061d42a5e503f2
dbbe0d8bfcb43d87f01e5bea08fcfb6e8dd80ded
F20101211_AACDAY dessy_a_Page_100.jp2
735536bbd82cc35d83259e760fc90e45
c970faaed56106519fd92dc82ffeea948198f6b9
108624 F20101211_AACCVS dessy_a_Page_104.jpg
a38e774fdd75229f6829114f0123f121
2d4800c681ddedb6b2deef2fd2b9d6f891d73ead
585354 F20101211_AACDCB dessy_a_Page_129.jp2
7aac644fbf9e37b77e1158c3b63bd65c
b1a3d6f39d852cc2fc29a192671929db52151885
1051982 F20101211_AACDBM dessy_a_Page_114.jp2
af365cff6c084216fc5ca00f462d1399
e4edeec4c86b89a8f99c22bec4229164baa67ced
14386 F20101211_AACDZJ dessy_a_Page_010.QC.jpg
e98abbbf88ef1b2d852cf41b2d94a7cb
42333eea5f48b896e717d299a20571667c4384ec
9086 F20101211_AACDYV dessy_a_Page_088thm.jpg
ca78ceed9073d051684e6b2afa7c027e
c6ea85de7f5ba79a3c7f21374db565ed3774b968
75851 F20101211_AACCWH dessy_a_Page_119.jpg
a2b3e70c02821e8ab258eeb7cbe57923
015bad8ca01beb390ec750fd89a447c610fb4d53
F20101211_AACDAZ dessy_a_Page_101.jp2
b509875c03f578fdf6cc672e5dc4d82e
e5cdcf1ed8efd399ef33fc0c2c78c068de68bba6
107134 F20101211_AACCVT dessy_a_Page_105.jpg
d3e90b94ac665791954225671ea2ee9b
ab1688890167f7e51b3d631929e406f7d8a0211c
1051852 F20101211_AACDCC dessy_a_Page_130.jp2
9d1794efb530ff351b22bdd1fd79077c
c8fed85274b0718da83446741c946d48cd1531ea
F20101211_AACDBN dessy_a_Page_115.jp2
0df9fa373ab6d3159bfc200230c0488c
c051d43ddca643fee251cc6a9a0b5e05d24f1c42
8363 F20101211_AACDZK dessy_a_Page_012thm.jpg
6ccddc9a28976c72f0fc2fcd4f9e3fb7
9bd79243a7dcd258a55c47089efcb95bfa2a977d
5056 F20101211_AACDYW dessy_a_Page_038thm.jpg
40fdde4677a52b7c746c70a46665538a
5b32e8bb07ece8c20758bad25690f12ebb64f5a6
101023 F20101211_AACCWI dessy_a_Page_120.jpg
f2b2af9d9110738242f64e9469833dd9
05ded729f6b713d921c2362cd04adebe091b7fbd
113876 F20101211_AACCVU dessy_a_Page_106.jpg
88cfb3f136478649a4335690f59316fe
d000e4c7139a1eb0d11b2e5cfbf5eadee6e70af1
94874 F20101211_AACDCD dessy_a_Page_131.jp2
ac120874d3d96156eb114fede9999185
7f15464a9b2f03dcc8e306cd344a9ac9df8d0a4b
F20101211_AACDBO dessy_a_Page_116.jp2
e7e1a5c0f46e8caacea401b7c8443ba7
be863b8a9b5f7d122f68c102dc788126f1a02900
8877 F20101211_AACDZL dessy_a_Page_013thm.jpg
215f0d6c9a0525807f76dd73e85d0398
cb9c28ec9945bc503eb4b2954dcbea31fe2460c6
8689 F20101211_AACDYX dessy_a_Page_044thm.jpg
6e5ad3a7da9deb978adec1fe534b92ce
d1c1c9cf158cd38ae230c3153e6d9901696b2fc9
113847 F20101211_AACCWJ dessy_a_Page_121.jpg
a958a5a8afdb08404cde2807dcbdc4cd
20e729e9f7f9b4f2519111775bede580e3107000
117300 F20101211_AACCVV dessy_a_Page_107.jpg
60abff82edd2bc6f31f7a469033d1e0d
8b40b549150c442c0091b0682f0c35bc00503739
F20101211_AACDCE dessy_a_Page_132.jp2
7fe5ff1f7a1de6bfa4bff4d56cecd168
40bff144ec2471af3afc8b00bb9caab371c50d69
F20101211_AACDBP dessy_a_Page_117.jp2
3a42b2ddabcdeef5ac29fec817a74a95
394cbe7f0d3488d79b18417cbf91c5c627fe0a8a
34485 F20101211_AACDZM dessy_a_Page_014.QC.jpg
bc4b293f15c996ecc221e0161f456c5d
d5958c8f2d9372b3a985b434d5b01f3dfaeed2ac
36990 F20101211_AACDYY dessy_a_Page_074.QC.jpg
fe8c474e2628c9188e40aba509f810a1
27c4fd6b3812bc3b564b7f9f8c9a342dc3193922
96150 F20101211_AACCWK dessy_a_Page_122.jpg
68bbe9e6e18b12679af9794146e1ed62
1dc4bd5e89bb42a1c59ccc6d339cda7afab03b25
120847 F20101211_AACCVW dessy_a_Page_108.jpg
1c587e5cb00dab2d9d4b74773558a1bc
a959d4243625f3ba9adf486b979b3d7b50765c96
1051912 F20101211_AACDCF dessy_a_Page_133.jp2
b0cf9cd728ebe433a0c6fc2657b67523
cf8f10b56aee4f86b719c908021ddec352dbd39e
F20101211_AACDBQ dessy_a_Page_118.jp2
5994e234667337147ac90c0170be404b
16af63d29d2bf9ebe57f3d7e0887758ea4fec669
8834 F20101211_AACDZN dessy_a_Page_016thm.jpg
cf7e3d6ae66499f8dbf7b07fbf90220e
a32ac514b85ec48a544f87a9841bd947a8133899
37902 F20101211_AACDYZ dessy_a_Page_088.QC.jpg
0a29f844e41c723a810ed810c8eb544d
0266a00f597e372641c8f49a15f123b7c9cbf3af
105976 F20101211_AACCWL dessy_a_Page_123.jpg
0ce1060c55635810451e53ef5f32afa3
8e5721521016b31b3cb216d8204283365b56849d
114314 F20101211_AACCVX dessy_a_Page_109.jpg
5e7cfd5e204212a8c921e19e8579ca96
94166af3dabb5f103c2f6924941179edf09f32df
1051977 F20101211_AACDBR dessy_a_Page_119.jp2
fe17c67962eaf4f0c2a6a87d1d16003c
0730eb686e346fb0e4538df573039e110f90be28
34219 F20101211_AACDZO dessy_a_Page_016.QC.jpg
b56bb8703dd03ea965502b3acc149581
da0a272d54bf51abc9adf9e9b38d38b4cef0ec3a
113715 F20101211_AACCWM dessy_a_Page_124.jpg
3572f75797bdecade424644ba45d684c
e51221311b26de0583833522a311a7d070b766bb
110261 F20101211_AACCVY dessy_a_Page_110.jpg
9ffc94902cd0df171e9bdf7ff973e5a6
85864a832ce82f9b419b6a539927809d168463a0
F20101211_AACDCG dessy_a_Page_134.jp2
87b339b343f337ad6f6fe309cf7e6522
0ce33d75798d0206f59e6d946a5833684275f9d5
114185 F20101211_AACCXA dessy_a_Page_138.jpg
aeea610557e4bda09a86227990b63ba8
edf212d64bf58cf81e19fa86669fd980013e7303
F20101211_AACDBS dessy_a_Page_120.jp2
cf0e35f6f2a42bd005aaea3ba498414b
df0cda670db1b7fa862974525432e04100209c64
33253 F20101211_AACDZP dessy_a_Page_017.QC.jpg
df9d717fcbb70c924b65c6b414567bc0
c2ddfb13ebfaf8df9207bdd3e8c63cf2f6f4932a
99100 F20101211_AACCWN dessy_a_Page_125.jpg
6300f9246539f93002d3799d28d9b58c
52243f19b0b0dde92adbc73710430249efead709
103864 F20101211_AACCVZ dessy_a_Page_111.jpg
11e3f2fdea585bb13f879ac13625dcf6
1bd894c552f4849ead5433952e7e02fb8581c4d5
1051966 F20101211_AACDCH dessy_a_Page_135.jp2
1cb1fe5e5abab3d15f4737c8b8103773
52aca3ff0c83f4def134c885e9ab1f0b966a647f
119250 F20101211_AACCXB dessy_a_Page_139.jpg
e3c74ff3dd3a2cdbb6a0f93a70c7200f
ccd563d2c88793fb5c627a46c900925ada8b5bb9
F20101211_AACDBT dessy_a_Page_121.jp2
9812dfab687f6a886e5baf5bba21907d
9bea756369d2e6fb51d83c907d320835ee0f7177
9094 F20101211_AACDZQ dessy_a_Page_018thm.jpg
8bbbabc27667669751f5a048c900e54d
6fcbff8bf36bd11b9350e6cf129e3786cb4534c4
53017 F20101211_AACCWO dessy_a_Page_126.jpg
54b606a8f60bd2b7a3121ee1d621aea1
135aa3978166bcf7d24c090c522f5588e3e1b905
1051876 F20101211_AACDCI dessy_a_Page_136.jp2
54d98fb8a4ec6b51f4fbce4bafbfcdab
f81fa8c6ef2c5a2fd07ae9861667a27f55098291
125137 F20101211_AACCXC dessy_a_Page_140.jpg
b2a025dd7ec30c9cae1501ca96ede909
3819d797aca1c2e8418733870c8a1d97b339d698
1051967 F20101211_AACDBU dessy_a_Page_122.jp2
a77679d4444af7c3805da86f43fb1011
8ef7388c8a2a47f90b8402e52da552fdb247c963
33140 F20101211_AACDZR dessy_a_Page_019.QC.jpg
9c51c1024464a6bb049669cbd73376a3
97ecaa2e9b91e6d6d697bf1a5d6219647fcf5f12
69811 F20101211_AACCWP dessy_a_Page_127.jpg
66c63eb454b8fa028d9cd6dc3b4329b2
2b8857f4a61ff8f630c382671b7167e7554867b7
F20101211_AACDCJ dessy_a_Page_137.jp2
79c6f0b991092c532e266fc35c782edb
4a794a34200863298c3d06d369e06dea861909f6
116823 F20101211_AACCXD dessy_a_Page_141.jpg
55457b50322797a2a98d9214c2b1f5dd
0824ea814b690180771f84f9375bce3a26481583
F20101211_AACDBV dessy_a_Page_123.jp2
162cc9048b3967a7af750af5625c6479
52597ab224dcd435815cfdbfe64933c9eed66e44
9069 F20101211_AACDZS dessy_a_Page_020thm.jpg
591c9f75da976c59e681e8d026b298c7
a2e1851ccf0a6b6a3b14c7c709b13001647f13a6
137924 F20101211_AACCWQ dessy_a_Page_128.jpg
069005f788b76dd91a7bd2265cf0beef
4f9dc3310ecd607f46c3981b94cb733d1f9c04c2
1051943 F20101211_AACDCK dessy_a_Page_138.jp2
71af5010cd9800ed39b8398c5893df6d
76060b82df38695121251bf85bb5fb05933bba04
17006 F20101211_AACCXE dessy_a_Page_142.jpg
26cc5fbf3005e7801efc8341da7d1ab8
33a99023c08f3f804c9ea8063f699aa4cfbd6e82
F20101211_AACDBW dessy_a_Page_124.jp2
78da80bbabc8a24959c388e63df6154f
3cbdabae48c312e04d6e302e67f1fc1180e085fa
37859 F20101211_AACDZT dessy_a_Page_020.QC.jpg
46cd3b428dc89ba2d91a902cf606397f
41a159c5a8a01c579e669351151969e0dd20c0f5
54230 F20101211_AACCWR dessy_a_Page_129.jpg
0d2623cfd430b94b96b5f5de6bad30c2
259c49711211100d3c661386b6b63d62742d330e
F20101211_AACDDA dessy_a_Page_011.tif
77f58499d1592969714edf4d18a9b1be
e6e49198d87693962c39a003c4bf93d683374c8e
F20101211_AACDCL dessy_a_Page_139.jp2
f7c09b67996475e478e9fe9e8ccfb90f
5e92b01518a1f4fb90488727075a4168ad4b246c
53342 F20101211_AACCXF dessy_a_Page_143.jpg
2f6bf7c5e8a266c391ed635c65762070
2a83b4220b9ff1767a9a22705b7b1f57356765e1
1051964 F20101211_AACDBX dessy_a_Page_125.jp2
73dcdeb09246fb2ea3b1af41d5eb240f
54af32cfe0bb2dac93047419a1bf23c12035cdd3
8519 F20101211_AACDZU dessy_a_Page_022thm.jpg
345a3e84eacffbfcd57de54d41a239b5
6990fa690fb62883ce0c090781fa9e871b91100a
119866 F20101211_AACCWS dessy_a_Page_130.jpg
164f427bf17f667409941e12c9334201
9dcfe5336a5bb16d09dca036625b824ba1d48e16
F20101211_AACDDB dessy_a_Page_012.tif
eeaac8d0f5dc19c8f615ca7a951b2080
c2c0e9b8ee2f3d4b31799ecfbe4d7ed30dc67dcf
1051962 F20101211_AACDCM dessy_a_Page_140.jp2
5c45fa1c85a0a5f72fe225c806bc34af
e245217ff700d68b42e85af8b1933474762bbfb5
261703 F20101211_AACCXG dessy_a_Page_001.jp2
962927023687efd77586689a0b6f49e5
f7790b44b516cdb394bd3f045a9f28bd4e3cbce2
558901 F20101211_AACDBY dessy_a_Page_126.jp2
e61154ba750c9db9f844a9aae4ce0871
4d4255f996b00a44ecc834e8a40b8b0f94d0c780
38285 F20101211_AACDZV dessy_a_Page_023.QC.jpg
57b5b7f8e44b6be43f519595ba13a4cf
e05bac33e06dcb21805a6dd883df1284697a9a5b
11611 F20101211_AACCWT dessy_a_Page_131.jpg
08a48431c3c9b5b2395f7775ffd96946
a38f55ce8f08d80cb613b9a8db85ecdcab2ecbcc
F20101211_AACDDC dessy_a_Page_013.tif
dc9551744e7a25cee3462af3f9967c2d
a8ea535806944db2bfb02237756a5ff94ffab7c7
F20101211_AACDCN dessy_a_Page_141.jp2
5b885a8715e4d0f8d1e881afc8ec6281
5be937f253a2b259fcac81d124d00ced03702dcd
26433 F20101211_AACCXH dessy_a_Page_002.jp2
bd70def7bbf7d87f3eb90f8e31c607f3
a4269836c24ef6f14e9e92357f64014074e07da7
688622 F20101211_AACDBZ dessy_a_Page_127.jp2
96c197fd24adc085d950dffe7bbe40d5
88364b39b5256f2a511f2ab14f040f34ed34fbc6
8917 F20101211_AACDZW dessy_a_Page_025thm.jpg
0f89abc39b7b0f1a0568f182ce831f0e
2b971ada32a62fbca7f8809435aad15600a8d412
119900 F20101211_AACCWU dessy_a_Page_132.jpg
9989c9b66038f1d6e3118698f6332c68
41a6d8c6bec8c8d041ab5aa1a696a13c34389b0c
F20101211_AACDDD dessy_a_Page_014.tif
40619a5195b666a20ea51f069c632486
87ff8d0002bbe7fd45f31de64ec6759f293604d0
158521 F20101211_AACDCO dessy_a_Page_142.jp2
e50bfb5bda1916ea3c35b85ab13095f1
664d1695c2e4973e655dcbb6a429df04225f7967
F20101211_AACCXI dessy_a_Page_003.jp2
40b5c5e9cf0e89f53d0a3fa7b414006a
924a60b4f2ee229630e3da3dd55206aaa7bbc80d
34956 F20101211_AACDZX dessy_a_Page_025.QC.jpg
8620068cb4ef360b1748aceb0833a18f
8a4336ffec9459a3756e1c90875558557b6a85f5
F20101211_AACDDE dessy_a_Page_015.tif
00ecc736438cba1cc1e6f279276e9181
c19ab8b5f5ff6365850d4892d9ef8c95ee4b7281
559625 F20101211_AACDCP dessy_a_Page_143.jp2
d4c984b40edd60e9f4bd64b1fa6a17d4
f2fa5d72909e56b37f6bd1de876d0f38b226d14a
350612 F20101211_AACCXJ dessy_a_Page_004.jp2
1e40b85513d30992e3ab7db1fd42c884
7e6d373860dc279ae97df56eecfa9bac6870b947
122668 F20101211_AACCWV dessy_a_Page_133.jpg
33d81a2d6ff1209e4fd98c4cc633af52
666e25581b14c1a073c3cd6c59f32190f00f3896
8795 F20101211_AACDZY dessy_a_Page_026thm.jpg
10935ecaa2b75b1f1a36cacb7dbdffdf
43cdc802015be36e5c24e64cd01ddf0ba25e5129
F20101211_AACDDF dessy_a_Page_016.tif
b2b5ed92229f9cc51264fb78cf24304e
07e6b54562979af994eaeffe5edfc9df587d397a
F20101211_AACDCQ dessy_a_Page_001.tif
60c2642a4ae95164adbcf937232d7c33
3a3eb1a5cf210d98992c7df946f4d047380398d7
1051978 F20101211_AACCXK dessy_a_Page_005.jp2
f3b59b517187bd7c77b013a0855b3b3c
3e07614455800f441035cbe0465f9c8968c1faf1
117147 F20101211_AACCWW dessy_a_Page_134.jpg
77ccf7f21c827083b097086425c217d2
35bb0f1ba8a4ea3b33ebfa47a872a9479bcdbdcf
37796 F20101211_AACDZZ dessy_a_Page_027.QC.jpg
46b9533a6e74d9cd3e59c82c5654a2cc
e01dcb0b5709a8ec164b9389fdf76880c3ca62ff
F20101211_AACDDG dessy_a_Page_017.tif
f66dcb1950e6168fda445daf222a1eaa
61e1072d82a3beb470417eb66892e8c3296891aa
F20101211_AACDCR dessy_a_Page_002.tif
45f3f5efa2a5a31d1b26af09a4077196
7165c800be4d6ea045bd94e90ae3e715e5fe13f7
F20101211_AACCXL dessy_a_Page_006.jp2
64026e791c7de7852a5871530a9910cc
977be6f0beede57dbcb6dafa42a372f661e3b9c5
124146 F20101211_AACCWX dessy_a_Page_135.jpg
16f91e6e5b772ceaf4e831574ad717b0
ba16e1994813fd1131925ed69b79e30fbba2bc82
F20101211_AACCYA dessy_a_Page_021.jp2
76810ed5c3e017adb6e3d777dc5ce268
f2fcd22adb03a229b3e06e9e5e5d57f41b992849
F20101211_AACDCS dessy_a_Page_003.tif
d12e65b1e2f37543bf550975dda4da7d
b1094202328ada028764cb4dee4297768910445c
161662 F20101211_AACCXM dessy_a_Page_007.jp2
a2fdb634e04cc5e1f223b3a1d2a3c055
e9a36a0242aff8f8b573d21efb613f01e182a896
118267 F20101211_AACCWY dessy_a_Page_136.jpg
600e422f7dd5c7967cd0aa7cf8c60b4a
faf7a145ac1b60ada68a31ffb58c92931d0c3045
F20101211_AACDDH dessy_a_Page_018.tif
8fd934c2ff17c0e6d286dd2c592314f6
ee06bc530c280358d694d11ed8fa7453467b26a4
1051927 F20101211_AACCYB dessy_a_Page_022.jp2
11d0a5e30eff141b518944b6ee2b792e
caad7b6a77a472a3c81c2544bdb929cf5fa78ec5
F20101211_AACDCT dessy_a_Page_004.tif
9381040af3a6a920d8f0480d369bfeb6
9976d6713efacc180d66f39a302edd5e90f7dd2f
578928 F20101211_AACCXN dessy_a_Page_008.jp2
816af05cf2bf6d01a12ae96f8050d6a7
8a3f3c6568ad33a353a00aef3235baca82d3cd42
124696 F20101211_AACCWZ dessy_a_Page_137.jpg
96154628586532517e65f24a39127985
dc57e654c64cfec233a7623fa2c15e9178d9a6ec
F20101211_AACDDI dessy_a_Page_019.tif
3ec40daf19e2d82baf8915a9f9d70e53
df9955b65f3bc06040919845f190333b61f8aebe
F20101211_AACCYC dessy_a_Page_023.jp2
1c09d2a92cb90caa2a2a6d4950a2e890
b158b084d57d3f8a6e33dd1dde303ec73f8e8e3c
F20101211_AACDCU dessy_a_Page_005.tif
40208d0a6826ab854bc5bde9b3842b2b
b25a524fcbef0709332a3f09d4ad629504f22bd3
F20101211_AACCXO dessy_a_Page_009.jp2
9d9472f6b70765a6fa8343436705fd8c
3e48fab2b1a7b6fbec867ac8f687214526709d56
F20101211_AACDDJ dessy_a_Page_020.tif
015ec735203274a5ca77ca2699c0ab16
c51830962e1970fc9837d2d6677e6ebc3b2dae5f
1051907 F20101211_AACCYD dessy_a_Page_024.jp2
66e3b3c0c6cf88dbc94f1a4ebe1493c5
58bfd7cd1290d0e9c756e63e87168df0f0242798
F20101211_AACDCV dessy_a_Page_006.tif
c7b9ad820d7cdecc4363a95672deccef
a7bf3bc253daa882b593811e396004a4a4b8654c
435075 F20101211_AACCXP dessy_a_Page_010.jp2
8cb87eed60f61f13ca3f3b9c916c00ac
2cbb6e168000fdf40b2ba8b0203b2f6075a51f25
F20101211_AACDDK dessy_a_Page_021.tif
aa6da876ea79d369b23711e44c68f65b
f6ff5050f70bcab4c3a515c842e79f88a2d0e40f
F20101211_AACCYE dessy_a_Page_025.jp2
98e97c70c57eaf467a3c8dca946f168d
2060ee0238a860bba2024cb7511dbaa303d1a0de
F20101211_AACDCW dessy_a_Page_007.tif
94376fabb346334471899f1b540f385a
5614ea85246b1a59137272c2a216be4dc92d4f03
1008619 F20101211_AACCXQ dessy_a_Page_011.jp2
352a356ee50e9f026ded3e062ae2cc64
f05037f2dc029e93207c4591160466bb4af456d0
F20101211_AACDDL dessy_a_Page_022.tif
1c4495bbbedc28b571a42a4c6e23809b
61225b58e03e93bc381c37ef477b38c2a7c74e87
F20101211_AACCYF dessy_a_Page_026.jp2
013a327306a12ca5f34466317d01b098
9433d90f849694c7f668bc1176b3112bc6f6af17
F20101211_AACDCX dessy_a_Page_008.tif
56f6dd0d941bd1851f7830d206c30de9
009d18378225d32f7626a728def69e4d3fa76d1a
1051936 F20101211_AACCXR dessy_a_Page_012.jp2
007ec0499652faed9a238042070272f9
aba37590a1d18b0e06fe45934add13936e94d8b7
F20101211_AACDEA dessy_a_Page_037.tif
2bd35533691f28a4438b784ebdada6e7
a3578f2e3a2b33fde42dc29a99441d2caf1add1a
F20101211_AACDDM dessy_a_Page_023.tif
46bbca9a86ba82cba48bb1ca448afb01
551cf5ead048cd4237a3724d8315628de6c6f30b
F20101211_AACCYG dessy_a_Page_027.jp2
5aae98f1cad1ad6fb134a3cc27b54a2f
da7f6e2a92b73a69738ded08f6b56a5b8f99dcf8
F20101211_AACDCY dessy_a_Page_009.tif
54643ad3bef00009fd043213b0e51447
8083da29b8f7f1a9d544927b7125bf56ced64215
1051940 F20101211_AACCXS dessy_a_Page_013.jp2
2e3bee36be96cc873a9a165fcb4adb7d
c46141f2423cc9f68ed1242ed19cbc510e91d368
F20101211_AACDEB dessy_a_Page_038.tif
e158cf66b367c09810a6e6082fc026dd
2c0f9f6b5fb58d21ed0b34724e9f11974c630b84
F20101211_AACDDN dessy_a_Page_024.tif
b4683ae9585da44401c3fe0a1c23a026
efa96d3c0a4b37a8ec6ea0ea49f4f17af69aedd0
1051960 F20101211_AACCYH dessy_a_Page_028.jp2
296c163638721db39be0606486b795fc
86e172f0db9c3b1a5bb02732f491f3d266ed70dc
F20101211_AACDCZ dessy_a_Page_010.tif
d8817e5722609a074d0f952459c3e00f
68069bcb2e9d699e04fd1efabe15699aeb786f8d
1051961 F20101211_AACCXT dessy_a_Page_014.jp2
c59c25e4fe4764e3fffea13c9c24f65a
95ee6fb91ecaf1c47a19558063abfbb45031cc48
F20101211_AACDEC dessy_a_Page_039.tif
a9a9d6372b27493f892df9e9c17fd182
8d95a4bed57463e19e4898394489317d762a6999
F20101211_AACDDO dessy_a_Page_025.tif
a0ffb1d35bdfd932d776de8713728e22
aabe000b7aae795e0713c392c686a63dc0340ad1
1051941 F20101211_AACCYI dessy_a_Page_029.jp2
b4832cf0b09649b6565b18adab75505e
908e9b2c63fc366891105e11fb9fdff5fda5f482
749849 F20101211_AACCXU dessy_a_Page_015.jp2
241555067f87b9729ada93aa25e38ce0
b24ec4ffa5a6dd6e593bf27b4c85ce7d3b95125f
F20101211_AACDED dessy_a_Page_040.tif
874cb804d75b7502498440269ec47109
c12c8d08ede177f6a3b60cfe875292182bc061ad
F20101211_AACDDP dessy_a_Page_026.tif
a6db8f1fbfe71588427559f8fe976f99
ebeb7dde1fddd1cf76a1c3b02a255e0682b086d1
F20101211_AACCYJ dessy_a_Page_030.jp2
55f0eebc4a0e54110366e85ca1669533
b3c4962c6a3fa205720d750b43e60e76bae8de20
F20101211_AACCXV dessy_a_Page_016.jp2
59df44e7e6fa8f18fa0b4738a4786a7c
6eb75923d26d90eda2584082b6f898ac4153497b
F20101211_AACDEE dessy_a_Page_041.tif
758a770fb7e195e2befb9f19fed3ef33
1ecfff9df27b5535ba933f329b770f49d9e760a6
F20101211_AACDDQ dessy_a_Page_027.tif
fa153d4359071c2ed9084dede6243e13
07c3b8bf169b943b0a363e897ce05cced263d773
F20101211_AACCYK dessy_a_Page_031.jp2
15376508f3d938f3b70e9b03b7665c9f
c7b8f39e214ceefefe39fd2b9dce3d54d477532d
F20101211_AACCXW dessy_a_Page_017.jp2
9b7fbc0fbf6b134d1ea0a023f100c091
12f06731baf1e75cc960edf31028b143da76e231
F20101211_AACDEF dessy_a_Page_042.tif
141137317d61da531217244db650f778
b836c1eb961eb4d58b7f0ea9c43513bfd5fb7c5e
F20101211_AACDDR dessy_a_Page_028.tif
6a904c6b7afeb4f4a6d2ee0e500bb377
12acc5f3bcdbbd503a521dd45778d86428405d7d
F20101211_AACCYL dessy_a_Page_032.jp2
ac0a542c073c664a77cb9fe6fe3c0bce
ffb80dad7d085accc7ed32f36f0eefcbe58be636
F20101211_AACCXX dessy_a_Page_018.jp2
49ee4b0166d76826cf5ce38786b21bd9
989c295a96d13dfbb5d49415132ac4fc766f654d
F20101211_AACDEG dessy_a_Page_043.tif
a0239744cd0dad53bde8d387d7601261
160f8361e1aba5a4ed1b63bf24e0b3855918e295
F20101211_AACCYM dessy_a_Page_033.jp2
14c1ca004a5ba3f9aa19f8d964e898bb
1475a8602ad0b02494a61221fe54c2d60a5331d4
F20101211_AACCXY dessy_a_Page_019.jp2
c548cad310f5acb246c13fae7c72b551
44a696bb4358dc441ada424295e3cd7f347acb10
F20101211_AACDEH dessy_a_Page_044.tif
15b35b633c367ff2ca8297da02abe283
29d85faa2af9124aa26360547e61234df8414846
1051928 F20101211_AACCZA dessy_a_Page_047.jp2
d6f70917d814b1638983fad20261f0cd
eae01d9a84f35c1ed5c0f3272c4169146b55312a
F20101211_AACDDS dessy_a_Page_029.tif
eed815c46617955ed9770577ce6bb569
c66359c17ebb8766c0b4d467949528887f1b6956
F20101211_AACCYN dessy_a_Page_034.jp2
46f7aec4d087052e43acf44592232594
38dd491c37304ffb2cf79f03116cd3fb89d2ff6d
1051954 F20101211_AACCXZ dessy_a_Page_020.jp2
0e0b5fa160a4505daaf0098415766891
bf23d72636344a993fdc3939f08e215078663121
1051914 F20101211_AACCZB dessy_a_Page_048.jp2
96e71e7df50ccbc861f97d982b62bce9
9414db15b016fba9bd9b5e929d400f2f334cf167
F20101211_AACDDT dessy_a_Page_030.tif
c55cdb7e8a0b51e01adac473e3dccb77
8fae89513d076d527fcc87e83889d68a2e6499f9
F20101211_AACCYO dessy_a_Page_035.jp2
4f9f10cad7ffd40d40841edcfaae45ed
d9a0b27d3c9fe22c024c91f41af1586b23a611ac
F20101211_AACDEI dessy_a_Page_045.tif
bdce26d808599491d47cc730da23befa
19cf02f569481a52d13244defc4997e05f540b22
F20101211_AACCZC dessy_a_Page_049.jp2
17846a50a73d45226206fd508385a15d
4c736a0b26674113d730c63c4bfaa3eef4ee3d01
F20101211_AACDDU dessy_a_Page_031.tif
9e0c8fd26889226b26e8cf63440bd835
1adfa0f1299fe98f561db24c56fa6c5f5851e6a1
1051973 F20101211_AACCYP dessy_a_Page_036.jp2
3112c98084917d596121486f96714160
ef2ef28c659848439bd89a48bc599834ae8ebdef
F20101211_AACDEJ dessy_a_Page_046.tif
1eabe19e25d9a243c8393c578d721c21
ea95be19c27d20a43939a6051133fed161868faa
F20101211_AACCZD dessy_a_Page_050.jp2
9507328f5de63b5cb9ad6a504c58caf0
e1166ad9c7b856785d3dd7fa075111252474779f
F20101211_AACDDV dessy_a_Page_032.tif
6aeac83518e4cf9becbd9c4e7cf01de0
d6bd6e85eafbda81ccdf642cca780b9bf94b15e9
F20101211_AACCYQ dessy_a_Page_037.jp2
c8dbf958fb9c82a4c7f2bcdd980b9d14
265afa030d385a72f8d22f943a8073906cedf6cc
F20101211_AACDEK dessy_a_Page_047.tif
74169ffff78b179e003df8bead2ca779
961ac9e1f883159266b03b027b0058fa3642620c
F20101211_AACCZE dessy_a_Page_051.jp2
b9657db8da4c431e4ba8e2d226130efa
a083d1daa30e7c2bf0eb689382c71e1db3c1b4a6
F20101211_AACDDW dessy_a_Page_033.tif
62db199b7bfca5fd346d6bd2d7b91913
5cb20b659b40cf412b0ec76811244d6f8a58779f
678564 F20101211_AACCYR dessy_a_Page_038.jp2
052e8f880dd3e6a4ee35a6dca60e8825
3d75e0191741264035ed7cedf1240e1a0dc9a0e2
F20101211_AACDFA dessy_a_Page_064.tif
eb9ea8b4f211901b42053a86ef801f61
1aeaf0781e16bce2ec75ef2f35dfe425a0a5c285
F20101211_AACDEL dessy_a_Page_048.tif
253970d54a68bdcc1a94d11a09256fcb
6bbdb20ac34921cc535a33181f24b878222ebdf1
1051968 F20101211_AACCZF dessy_a_Page_052.jp2
e7929f143b2ce789cf664972d8a7214d
ece5cd2b8c81688a31d05c0e67c691dda4c7aae1
F20101211_AACDDX dessy_a_Page_034.tif
746bfac851cf7447057e0548b9fed5c9
a74811d270c2ebced25fd223bf81911ddd2266d4
612730 F20101211_AACCYS dessy_a_Page_039.jp2
d0e3dc9c35021dc8f72fcef4a8b1aeb7
402feeaaa62e88c0c172a208f2e38f80d61fb236
F20101211_AACDFB dessy_a_Page_065.tif
a024d27306ed73ab6a5bc1995e9e9c14
bd41a89218151dafb564a1a32e165423a77cec2a
F20101211_AACDEM dessy_a_Page_049.tif
55e45136efef02aba970697068cc4ce8
a373aabb6d45cbd64f827ca6b9069d255223e275
F20101211_AACCZG dessy_a_Page_053.jp2
a62260a7bccbf687516fd56da2666dc6
19c0d5caa87f43c464d10c44f6577252bfb3c565
F20101211_AACDDY dessy_a_Page_035.tif
01e79bc58135b4c1dc7873dfb6486356
eb07d8a37738cdce7c050db574fc96f53162bdc9
F20101211_AACCYT dessy_a_Page_040.jp2
e117a971bbdd10334f99c2084337cab0
6c8b54df072f8062b60b7609abdfb2d682f02029
F20101211_AACDFC dessy_a_Page_066.tif
2be027ddeef07a8fb62cfa6a4dc5eeff
ed98b1f13e55c1d736b9d365bee272577f4d76cd
F20101211_AACDEN dessy_a_Page_050.tif
755c1f4291058b74b4c0f39813e5fa35
1549555c979d8da56a6ce1ac8effb36202b29104
F20101211_AACCZH dessy_a_Page_054.jp2
a750f2769c78838490981ae40fb3709a
f42bce35dde8d85cdfc6c5208c8b62eaf41858e9
F20101211_AACDDZ dessy_a_Page_036.tif
86dfb848ab1a3596a2fa8ec721aff8fe
697126529df4ce6952ae858af95422302c79afce
F20101211_AACCYU dessy_a_Page_041.jp2
618a4c93671701e4be0ff323c208b160
0368292ed60620536adf3c4680fdbc0982c41337
F20101211_AACDFD dessy_a_Page_067.tif
22a3e8a35a79fc90529bd509f3a5ffbb
b9a5574c16e37256bb91dc8e153c9f5e29f8df8e
F20101211_AACDEO dessy_a_Page_051.tif
d6c285c7a5a3b5dc54f3faea004efd34
2c8140b3302f8633d531a0f7fe67471edf8dab00
1051959 F20101211_AACCZI dessy_a_Page_055.jp2
0a1d805812b65046bf517be9cbbb8cc3
7efde066c2752085fef683f947271565859b1e14
F20101211_AACCYV dessy_a_Page_042.jp2
d9938c3159a257aa63fa78b1592302da
ffb4b6a4d29af84df663a1bd18a50382e7b3508f
F20101211_AACDFE dessy_a_Page_068.tif
473144635f31105fc6ba75dd3829f8b1
3e96e7ecfae250ca652cb689314b21d348b5b055
F20101211_AACDEP dessy_a_Page_052.tif
41792a4a96ce04249b12c4d0deefbe0c
39d6434d387e20df206ca84ad6794603ada3bb45
F20101211_AACCZJ dessy_a_Page_056.jp2
7e70f7ab3bed0e28b2a9ab748f81c191
6dd97e1ad5e382a901044c57cdcce67ab306380a
1051952 F20101211_AACCYW dessy_a_Page_043.jp2
dbc6872990f85258162eb95a587b81ef
b1d18af98d893302711129d8fcf5daa1396da94e
F20101211_AACDFF dessy_a_Page_069.tif
51a0be66d45ebaee1510de4d87078e87
182692a39876665882a07ab07479b49eccf1fe11
F20101211_AACDEQ dessy_a_Page_053.tif
da54b0fbe479843d02d4052fd672e47b
f9fd57fed12e8e67b0db3baba49a6064f23361c0
F20101211_AACCZK dessy_a_Page_057.jp2
66bcdf8b08d2f267a279d4b65680438f
90121b83f5eb0f94a4f98b1617b9cf27681f1082
F20101211_AACCYX dessy_a_Page_044.jp2
57a830b860b5849e91211ee31604bf47
4d78c0aec270b342cbca7807d0ab5e81a30aef17
F20101211_AACDFG dessy_a_Page_070.tif
313117a8da089c0e611bb5ade2c92022
a3fa32fa2c59e4fcb791588f2cb475ae5e7bd0de
F20101211_AACDER dessy_a_Page_055.tif
e90fa45d325760ff85ad9ec5bac348ec
221521a3e43a51ceff46770968db39fd0a423fea
1051929 F20101211_AACCZL dessy_a_Page_058.jp2
e80152524bd3e5474a088f0e75baec82
824acb6e57f0ee114e443bde04eff32ee2993106
F20101211_AACCYY dessy_a_Page_045.jp2
ac937b75a7cfc118b0ca0d5c19c9b7b3
47c149ad090291a18cac462029358a09d1eef5e5
F20101211_AACDFH dessy_a_Page_071.tif
e6f831b11c676fad962fb88d2c469b1b
91f5421f90cffc32aa7f50bbb11d03e3cc496306
F20101211_AACDES dessy_a_Page_056.tif
7f1b8fe7018d8d2ee3f46251c06888ad
b2771f4a6fdff80ff60cae8891433825fcf1c45f
F20101211_AACCZM dessy_a_Page_059.jp2
8f3a71ce27f13b7ad68bcffc22f34d3f
b01d5cf0eb032d021e0489e55cbc28d5c7d7ee2f
F20101211_AACCYZ dessy_a_Page_046.jp2
6417a5290a14ed1482d9f2593485a92e
74352792643195e12344729bc0756088c5d6820d
F20101211_AACDFI dessy_a_Page_072.tif
f1595c02992947f559649fb5b9391469
c8163c43b976fbf2fde666610f05c45c2c62df53
F20101211_AACDET dessy_a_Page_057.tif
c29726b1945b4b71ddabebae42642aeb
b9f1293d6b152c0de99112f0ad86fdcbc6b7fbac
F20101211_AACCZN dessy_a_Page_060.jp2
03349bdfb5192fdc754eb8c47a239f4e
be4e51f48f0539acb981b557938696b01bbbd986
F20101211_AACDEU dessy_a_Page_058.tif
9fc36950b5e0ac2de6c7691fa511c730
cdc86e1d1eca7f78bea8ef2fe8e279d3fdcdbec2
1051945 F20101211_AACCZO dessy_a_Page_061.jp2
f845abb35e89cfb6a8c1aad40c62446c
9e75e53d474f29e133bc9f88aa7e0327811597aa
F20101211_AACDFJ dessy_a_Page_073.tif
c569ab636516b32c5d711f81a6468166
01c73be94ab79e0a8d6438cb85c20cc8c0f4815b
F20101211_AACDEV dessy_a_Page_059.tif
38c4113822f8bc7e72795804376ac17f
e42a53f594efa84c956bfc795f104440bbfae428
1051958 F20101211_AACCZP dessy_a_Page_062.jp2
aba614edb6f931771b2a8265b9394fbc
f50f67182b49502c72b8f5d8945adabebd022e6a
F20101211_AACDFK dessy_a_Page_075.tif
7c11dd017da186168dd798d46d4e6d5e
f51e86cf82e0674e76b108521527171997a15569
F20101211_AACDEW dessy_a_Page_060.tif
df7bc2ca920a3a464fbf174609a0d715
1788198f6e51e8928496b563c713e271e5ecf009
F20101211_AACCZQ dessy_a_Page_063.jp2
e2338756e1e6fab2bcbaaa18e760bc8e
1a61d3cb47ff27617f9c31762bf6d111d4387170
F20101211_AACDFL dessy_a_Page_076.tif
7a970772e5e5a457242903848009f4a7
ada6f294fecf4742565ac99ebb971ad0e308ce3d
F20101211_AACDEX dessy_a_Page_061.tif
73016cc9d763f163debcb056c294dc01
6fd5aaad926c83dec9868e89250cc3e22b4e430c
F20101211_AACCZR dessy_a_Page_064.jp2
0f53f07463d200a9f5b56dc3355ffba9
c45171b2fc50bc594fb6e3afbc73c5269598246b
F20101211_AACDGA dessy_a_Page_091.tif
71503e131fad90710bb39e1fa0daac94
402f2669e3122ab55808a3ea69f541a2348b7c15
F20101211_AACDFM dessy_a_Page_077.tif
c8d253e6f59d4dda500161a0b49f66d2
221b0a20ac7b02c00a2560bb54d119323d9b4206
F20101211_AACDEY dessy_a_Page_062.tif
ea2506d79e948743b5c96c098c59a549
d162dde6fe8f30ad325e82e7e2631393354920bf
F20101211_AACCZS dessy_a_Page_065.jp2
f78e9e50a4d63e5cffdcf3c39a1fd630
f39cc4d619898b0233827eba074229d8a37b0d20
F20101211_AACDGB dessy_a_Page_092.tif
4054acd61aaae443c377eaf1e5d2b965
cd86375590b41fb0c48526dabdb413294ec8bd13
F20101211_AACDFN dessy_a_Page_078.tif
ac35c0c2444885601b40b5a56cd88f3b
36311ee43077093d74f60b93247a9e0177a3c584
F20101211_AACDEZ dessy_a_Page_063.tif
35d4981fafa30ebe01554dba13225ab2
27eea3ae7ddfe52271c7b9a01ca3cbad34b0d161
F20101211_AACCZT dessy_a_Page_066.jp2
74a72a5ba5a5dfae21bda18e563ca546
31ba68f02b9c75609a632d6b5a2c08c9f016c8e5
F20101211_AACDGC dessy_a_Page_093.tif
b7c4c1ad88cdf6efaf2d62653c149f08
739b1fc233e94e85f70ceb1254bc905c2097816a
F20101211_AACDFO dessy_a_Page_079.tif
a220ba5fd119a5cbde50a2fff9e5dc2b
50529e6fcc7a72f2f7626ecda99800ed47f67f29
F20101211_AACCZU dessy_a_Page_067.jp2
e365bec40262e584e8351f6562dc5af9
d38d40c1412e758ef581a1f4f15dda45069d259f
F20101211_AACDGD dessy_a_Page_094.tif
6bb29227a3ea91a6924ffcc9ae12f2c1
53d02ca50cd965be50ba54dfffb198f1ad74d83b
F20101211_AACDFP dessy_a_Page_080.tif
8fc3702d7f2f1bb46910d174fdcee184
ce4f0602799cf999284e2d8cb6f4c5a7d7fcec5d
310584 F20101211_AACCZV dessy_a_Page_068.jp2
708bc3d54bbda3dbc341696391a85dbf
861f6ea6a16110043ed937dc2d3a3ee636208881
F20101211_AACDGE dessy_a_Page_095.tif
540e19406b0f2202ae6c35f00207947a
fc96a6bfc846e7f6417dcb8af10c430d594e7cf7
F20101211_AACDFQ dessy_a_Page_081.tif
c92b175d80dbe9015518d1ec094fd916
fd692d83303b8eb27cf9c5f33dc99ebdadf02544
1051951 F20101211_AACCZW dessy_a_Page_069.jp2
8c6bd6b8174a60f8f8b9c2010a6f36ae
9041e828440098848c22c0718b95f12e320df190
F20101211_AACDGF dessy_a_Page_096.tif
fbd1d43cd1b871cc687318d5ee1383e9
a4e084f5113d57cdf3da96ee57b76dcd857904ba
F20101211_AACDFR dessy_a_Page_082.tif
8decc151d729e67a695c8de1cd4d468e
04b54a239768f9d9b7183e307f2dd477be196863
1051930 F20101211_AACCZX dessy_a_Page_070.jp2
102346bc0eaac0d73f628157b4a398b6
337570f60381a6bcacac160b5916c27df8a640d8
F20101211_AACDGG dessy_a_Page_097.tif
00086bf8209de5d810bb1f7e25a8ff5e
c5e4fcf7224b14d5774ce029cd69899b69bb2083
F20101211_AACDFS dessy_a_Page_083.tif
bb807582808e0d3c063eb2036c467a10
4e7924b0d4148e4414cee94faec7edd0a39c170a
F20101211_AACCZY dessy_a_Page_072.jp2
f239b3642fa201c79ddd222fd7cd2030
b493d32e04ebe47fa18189f88aa4eb14e20a3b6e
F20101211_AACDGH dessy_a_Page_098.tif
32e642389e76bd135cb7563089015740
1ac9407461a49dc1ad4d381a4ce2639ee01abadc
F20101211_AACDFT dessy_a_Page_084.tif
ae8e15450c2aed7509a6b946bc1d4fe3
59f28a1077a1c7172f4a79dd8c5a008db1666315
1051942 F20101211_AACCZZ dessy_a_Page_073.jp2
42e4969fd11c889839dcee93d1a93c54
6ff2d50949f757b55c2e6af0e1e00aa61488f974
F20101211_AACDGI dessy_a_Page_099.tif
ad414a39e2e572b7ecfcee24848fa93a
150fe4158cb3f359790f9d897fb1f2c81687008b
F20101211_AACDFU dessy_a_Page_085.tif
ecdd422777b055da95e65ee722d5e346
95ac571fabbe908c71929a384e0b374b4181bf77
F20101211_AACDGJ dessy_a_Page_100.tif
9ff61186938d709d336e4060e4f850c7
8fcea22398a78bf67de4a8c640e4af0340e6ac42
F20101211_AACDFV dessy_a_Page_086.tif
055786060edc506823d3da8ee1d46acc
b8ec4ba0087292a14245ee85223e06f4f6d116fd
F20101211_AACDFW dessy_a_Page_087.tif
27867f9fd838f9014d072bf8d099298f
a1b6d26efc5ccec2f3a75f8a275028fe83283910
F20101211_AACDGK dessy_a_Page_101.tif
d5c7ba20ccba7d6101b82173c0ee074e
32fc4c97439ae738a698fe682ff88001aec6a783
F20101211_AACDFX dessy_a_Page_088.tif
66d3e603f1ccb5dccb214360ec44d7b2
11448d5fb49e22354c533e15662583c5e128721f
F20101211_AACDHA dessy_a_Page_118.tif
fb73b9f2b2254785a75d1e462c16095d
fbcc85b70cb810630cf15dc6f45ef93e525eb6a6
F20101211_AACDGL dessy_a_Page_102.tif
8a47e5c339f1ffe66849214ffec853f2
2fd573169ee09c09c0cee7468987c0b0f0e27494
F20101211_AACDFY dessy_a_Page_089.tif
c5babf64eb8e012bf0669504bbffcb6c
33200e211b512f331d77e9583d454be5a852492f
F20101211_AACDHB dessy_a_Page_119.tif
30bef71937d3e3a9ac888d149868b6f3
6776afab75c2f1cd7654dd57ed2cf8df29921114
F20101211_AACDGM dessy_a_Page_103.tif
697ef1b091719a3a9de4ea3aa4b56e63
ceb0a9f2bbaa9def414b361333b7ed000a917037
F20101211_AACDFZ dessy_a_Page_090.tif
e0eda4939eec128774432c98c5c950e1
859c2440c14466f755f1a01b90cf5ff2de357ffe
F20101211_AACDHC dessy_a_Page_120.tif
7d7b6c029a672a2f4fad8563d9f7671e
ca09853c108971380296f972a52b8a5d7a56964a
F20101211_AACDGN dessy_a_Page_104.tif
f83a4cb14d0d24e9e993f0de4e271999
77fa5964a6aff53f7301f3ce18685dce40fae412
F20101211_AACDHD dessy_a_Page_121.tif
5d97da27a6a5f26c354ad3e87a256d8c
e7d9e1b2ff454eeb0f20696d1217ba587ca67ca9
F20101211_AACDGO dessy_a_Page_105.tif
4c2ff7a867f0d01a32e78c89a988874b
f1e5646948901c8e791f07145c439df387926f12
F20101211_AACDHE dessy_a_Page_122.tif
5cc4f8574bdee1effc450874216b7f68
dbeb6bbc85a8676507c2d64fd048c8e2ca16f565
F20101211_AACDGP dessy_a_Page_106.tif
c63fd0b03e4670f9c244073cbd960ce0
d5757cb9c1bffa4dc7473cb46c79dd3f1b09d0a6
F20101211_AACDHF dessy_a_Page_123.tif
a26c20e96422ad4f4f1d0430829e97e9
e718c5438b0b58edcf0a062ed4bab9f18b615e03
F20101211_AACDGQ dessy_a_Page_107.tif
4b2313be59ea829eee8a7ac8516b0239
fb06d1af0e91781ab7360037c861f8db29b879be
F20101211_AACDHG dessy_a_Page_124.tif
7249692373ebeb8156da14f1589646ed
577a062661971c69b42a6dc97ed9bc9353101bbd
F20101211_AACDGR dessy_a_Page_108.tif
7e30efb0dfebc9eb5669b66a7a6de6c1
afb3a1f8a008997f0fe3e60921674e5546d5e128
F20101211_AACDHH dessy_a_Page_125.tif
01c645df73e0f78fd1e33217f664c8cc
683ec030e3c222c047c013733ffdd683231a8168
F20101211_AACDGS dessy_a_Page_109.tif
8195c43c7cd0805f2880a93c8cdf9470
587adfa77f4ce79e397324d87cb3a67892610c4d
F20101211_AACDHI dessy_a_Page_126.tif
d2ead095d8d5b3b57863018e7ed6ee11
3460c976b61cad371f240f8b3035a8ae27bbd111
F20101211_AACDGT dessy_a_Page_110.tif
0ab28481c71fc8411902e0e049a9ee48
29a938e3ec84eaed7de22ac3cbe264aed292322a
F20101211_AACDHJ dessy_a_Page_127.tif
1f08412ca3b24f9a4bdb3664685435a8
59de6d864992aed5d685833f28658950e59b140b
F20101211_AACDGU dessy_a_Page_111.tif
d0d17111a42978ac0d59debc5693f73d
9cbc0aea1b212fcde532867279514539220cb846
F20101211_AACDHK dessy_a_Page_128.tif
103f929c339589ea109e623468ad7438
46f34b249c14443525b3cc8c235dadbcad625b26
F20101211_AACDGV dessy_a_Page_112.tif
bfbac3410eebfdfa9ecc87602bb75a58
a97dbb107a753d6a4953340f50c70dace6303663
F20101211_AACDGW dessy_a_Page_113.tif
1dd54a6d4c24cf235c71f9578d23e678
a2320435e5a0df365b749905a5fbd626b601c0d2
8905 F20101211_AACDIA dessy_a_Page_001.pro
8424d13c96ac0f4e9361154748d2821f
fcf40d8c678e6d22071f879d6992a658ca117dda
F20101211_AACDHL dessy_a_Page_129.tif
0958bb589a646f81342013aadea4e017
614bc9c1a6a8690ad26a8d84524e307900555ce3
F20101211_AACDGX dessy_a_Page_114.tif
66f8f452764b9cb6b880f1e0c033fdcf
fe7c680527cb804553ee948e2ecf4338459a4568
907 F20101211_AACDIB dessy_a_Page_002.pro
cbc3170345a3476badbfb8859b2868c6
adf0e93e3223cd39c6d19dba0ead4a73a6261f24
F20101211_AACDHM dessy_a_Page_130.tif
3900ad525d9aa33671216e411e4e1c18
316e2e81a3e5f952cad9257f5710efccb677a321
F20101211_AACDGY dessy_a_Page_115.tif
7e2149ff398979b841f3c5984bfabdec
c534d0c80bbebb300e4f45e1f9aab11eb94f95a0
933 F20101211_AACDIC dessy_a_Page_003.pro
7371998fd654d2620095ecf20e693fac
acc5dbdc38f354c20b2f0c3b3c16925cf8e07a27
F20101211_AACDHN dessy_a_Page_131.tif
73c4d8c504bb60f5a31632ec4cb2fbd1
6ec513b47073e4b102bb09282c2811e2854b847e
F20101211_AACDGZ dessy_a_Page_116.tif
49e47c080c06c64020d417e1776f5dbc
4580c793110ab090121128f8713803a71a78762b
15258 F20101211_AACDID dessy_a_Page_004.pro
ef24ba72f385517a3616d9e9eba98f06
38d0cb1b0fc56d7b38ba22633c053c162c74cb80
F20101211_AACDHO dessy_a_Page_132.tif
319504fdd3f7c5e784679068ed31c0db
8a36876d115cd183fabde0bb8f921d264564579d
70565 F20101211_AACDIE dessy_a_Page_005.pro
ea4b1b25c4662145476e272198f86744
fd8c238bc4f9024ff973279fd1288eb4a8826a44
F20101211_AACDHP dessy_a_Page_133.tif
73b53c8750440d81ca1a8ea7631589aa
328dd6abd416b2f12eedb61f46b48b10f56bd4d9
76082 F20101211_AACDIF dessy_a_Page_006.pro
3d57ca6c8b2061e80cf7501af9a06cf9
4df2a22b2b43feb56ee50a7d276db09eaa356c8d
F20101211_AACDHQ dessy_a_Page_134.tif
1ef5e99c28b33693e8fd32d2f11d299c
5ca50f30f320ef34f521edab39d50fc210a54dee