Alternate Use Study Surplus Lighthouses, Canada

Final Report
March 2011

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 Mandate and Approach

The recently introduced Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act (HLPA) 2010 allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act also facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has declared a number of custodial lighthouse properties surplus to its operational requirements. In alignment with the HLPA and respecting its custodial obligations in accordance with Departmental and Treasury Board (TB) policies, DFO will consider proposals aimed at divesting its surplus lighthouse facilities.

It is expected that the introduction of the HLPA will accelerate the pace of lighthouse divestitures. Accordingly, the Department is seeking to better understand conditions under which surplus lighthouse properties can be redeveloped for viable alternate uses, particularly those alternate uses which afford ongoing public access to the site. This review will assist DFO in assessing proposals it is likely to receive for the transfer of its surplus lighthouses.

The review can also be used to identify criteria under which disposals which ensure ongoing public access may be most successful, and similarly conditions under which public use disposals may not be viable.

Additionally, this review can be used by those seeking or interested in acquiring surplus lighthouses, by identifying conditions and criteria under which proposed alternate uses are most likely to be viable and by extension identifying the elements that should be considered and addressed within an acquisition proposal.

The scope of the study, as per the Client Terms of Reference therefore, has been to:

• Research and identify potential alternate uses for surplus lighthouses;
• Identify conditions under which alternate uses which promote ongoing public access are most likely to be successful; and similarly,
• To identify conditions under which alternate public uses are likely not viable.

This mandate has been accomplished primarily through the identification and review of actual examples or case studies where surplus lighthouses have been disposed and subsequently adapted for alternate uses, both in Canada and Internationally. This included examples identified through consultations with DFO officials in the various Regions across Canada, and other examples identified through independent research conducted by the Study Team comprising CRG Consulting and Colliers International. In accordance with the Client Scope of Work (SoW), site visits were not conducted to any lighthouse properties.

The research identified approximately 80 lighthouse properties that have been successfully disposed and adapted for alternate uses. This includes properties both within and outside Canada and comprising a wide cross section of lighthouses according to type, size, construction materials, age, location, those which include/exclude ancillary buildings, excess lands, etc. This number of examples and facilities is considered sufficiently large to identify key trends and themes in terms of uses pursued, ownership structures, and common criteria or key success factors.

1.2 Research Findings

1.2.1 Alternate Uses

The research identified a wide cross section of successful alternate uses for lighthouse properties which involve and permit ongoing public access to the sites. The most common alternate public uses are tourist or cultural/heritage related. This includes numerous examples of lighthouse facilities that have been converted for uses such as:

• Museums;
• Inter-active/Interpretive centres;
• Eco-Tourist related facilities (locations for whale/bird watching, etc);
• Parks;
• Tourist accommodations (boutique hotels, bed & breakfast establishments, youth hostels, campgrounds, etc.);
• Special event facilities (for meetings, receptions, corporate retreats, fishing lodges, etc.);
• Restaurants;
• Gift shops; and,
• Research/Education facilities with affiliation and management with a Post Secondary Education Institution or School Board.

These types of uses are generally to be expected given the waterfront and often tourist locations associated with lighthouses, although some lighthouses in isolated locations have been successfully converted – including those on islands, adding to their appeal for certain uses, boutique hotels and destination getaways for example.

Also common as an alternate use for lighthouses is conversion for private residences. There are many examples of this type of conversion, both in Canada and Internationally, although in Canada lighthouse disposals and conversions for private residences occurred mostly prior to 1960. There is evidence and numerous international examples where conversion for use as private residences has retained the heritage character of the lighthouse. Indeed, it is a requirement in most countries that the heritage character of the lighthouses be retained, regardless of the alternate use.

In these particular instances, primarily within the United States examples, the structure of the purchase and sale agreement between Government and individual purchaser has specified the retention of heritage features as well as the expressed obligation for the environmental and structural et al. rehabilitation of the facility.  Further, the purchaser is obligated to accept the property on an ‘as-is where-is’ basis with no representations, studies, due diligence provided by the Vendor to the Purchaser.  This disposition structure is effective in limiting the potential liability risks associated with the sale of this particular asset class, especially those properties where environmental remediation is required or where significant deferred capital investment has occurred.

Other uses, albeit less common, include retail commercial operations – for a time Canada Post Corporation operated a post office in a functioning Nova Scotia lighthouse, and there are even examples where lighthouses which have been converted for use as schools – among its facilities Niagara College occupies a former lighthouse, and a former lighthouse in Florida is used as a marine laboratory. These two particular examples are instructive in that the educational partners have entered into a long term lease ensuring that operations and maintenance liabilities are the responsibility of the Lessee as opposed to the Owner.

1.2.2 Ownership Models

The research also revealed a wide range of ownership models, the most common being outright sales, although long term and triple net leasing does occur as well.

In Canada, lighthouses that are disposed are most commonly transferred/sold to other levels of government, be it to another Federal Departments (OGDs such as Parks Canada and INAC), or to a Province or to a Municipality. This approach is common in other countries as well.

As key conditions of the sale or transfer, provisions are included in most cases and countries to ensure access to remaining operational areas. Provisions are also included to ensure that the heritage character of the lighthouse is retained. In the United States for example, a Review Committee comprising experts in relevant fields evaluate all disposal proposals including compliance with standards for the treatment of historic properties and associated legal requirements.

Further, the prospective Purchaser, Lessee or Partner is required to accept the property ‘as-is where-is’ after conducting their own site inspection and project underwriting/due diligence.  Generally, no representations, reports or information is provided by the Government pertaining to the condition of or status of the particular asset.

In Canada and elsewhere, the transfers often occur in a shared or partnership style ownership-management fashion comprising a Municipality along with a Community Group or Non-Profit.

In some cases, the transfer is direct to a municipality and in others it is to a Community Group/Non-Profit. This latter model is common in Atlantic Canada where former lighthouses have been transferred to Community Groups/Non-Profits, who then seek recapitalization and operating funding from the local municipality, the province, the federal government (including from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency – ACOA), and/or private sources (donations from industry, fund raising, etc).

There are many positive examples of these types of transfers, both in Canada and Internationally. In these cases, the former lighthouses are typically converted for uses such as museums or related tourist attractions.

The other common ownership model is simply to transfer/sell former lighthouses to private individuals. There are numerous examples of this, both in Canada and Internationally, although as noted lighthouse disposals and conversions for private residences occurred in Canada mostly prior to 1960. In these situations the most common alternate use is as a private residence. There are also numerous examples of successful conversions for private tourist related businesses – boutique hotels, youth hostels, restaurants, etc. Again, there is good evidence that conversion for these uses has not come at the expense of the heritage character of the lighthouse. On the contrary, private individuals are often in the best position and with the greatest motivations and financial wherewithal to ensure heritage compliance.

1.2.3 Disposal Processes

The research also demonstrates a need for well established, clear and transparent disposal processes, and this is considered paramount to the success of both individual disposals and larger disposal initiative. The United States (US) in particular has well established disposal processes for surplus lighthouses. These were introduced a decade ago as part of the US National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (2000).

These processes are described herein and are similar to those used by the Canadian Government in surplus property disposals. They are characterized as a top-down approach whereby facilities are offered first to other federal agencies, then to other public organizations, and finally for private sale.

In the event a surplus lighthouse is offered for disposal in the US, a process is followed which involves submission and evaluation of a detailed business plan. The key differences from traditional real property disposals are provisions to ensure the preservation of historic elements and of the character of the lighthouses, plus ongoing access for any operational elements.

1.2.4 Key Success Factors

In addition to identifying alternate uses, the research also yields a series of common criteria under which disposals which permit ongoing public access appear most likely to be successful, and by extension conditions under which public use disposals may not be viable. Knowledge of these criteria, and their relative importance, can assist DFO in assessing its portfolio and any proposals it is likely to receive for the transfer of surplus lighthouses. Equally, this information can be used by those seeking or interested in acquiring surplus lighthouses, by identifying conditions and criteria under which proposed alternate uses are most likely to be viable, or not viable.

The following criteria were identified. They are described and rated in more detail herein. Also provided is an assessment of their relative importance meaning how significant each is deemed to be for the successful re-use of lighthouses (see Table A-1, below), although it should be emphasized that relative importance may vary by circumstance:

• Accessibility – meaning how accessible the lighthouse is (rated to be of High importance);
• Proximity – related to accessibility is the issue of proximity, meaning how close the former lighthouse is to major roadways, population centres and other cumulative attractions (rated as Medium importance);
• Image/Profile/Symbolism – meaning what is the profile of the asset, both in its community and beyond, including its heritage profile (rated as High importance);
• Condition – meaning what is the condition of the asset, what is required to upgrade and maintain it, and what are the associated costs (rated as Medium importance);
• Revenue Potential – meaning what is likelihood that the new owner can generate revenues, in order to cover both operating and recapitalizations costs (rated as Medium importance) ;
• Ownership Model/Uses – this refers to the ownership model and planned use of the lighthouse including defined roles, responsibilities, financial commitments, support from outside organizations, etc. There are numerous successful ownership models and a key element of any model is having a “champion” or group of individuals committed to the lighthouse project (rated as being the most or Highest importance);
• Complexity/Risk – meaning how complex or risky is a potential transfer (rated as Low importance);
• Functionality, Flexibility and Quality of Space – meaning how useful and usable is the resultant space and how flexible is it for alternate uses (rated as Low importance);
• Site Flexibility/Potential – meaning does excess land exist that offers potential for alternate/future uses (rated as Low importance); and
• Operational Efficiencies – meaning would the acquisition of a former lighthouse yield operational efficiencies for the new owner (rated as Low importance).

In general, these criteria reflect the ability to divest/ ease of generating market interest in a specific asset. For example, some of the successful case studies do not necessarily meet the high importance criteria, but they do illustrate that criteria weighting is important due to the difficulty and extended nature of the disposition process.

The above elements represent the items that should be considered and addressed within any acquisition proposals.

Of these, the research shows that the proposed Ownership Model/Use is the single most important criteria. Also of high importance are Accessibility and Image/Profile/Symbolism, and it is the strength of these combined elements that will largely define the potential success of any re-use.

1.2.5 Portfolio Tiering

As a further step, the above analysis and identified key success criteria can be used by DFO to “Tier” its portfolio of surplus lighthouse assets. Tiering is typically performed by a portfolio owner seeking to assess or rank its assets and/or to assist in making strategic decisions on its assets such as to identify which should be retained, which recapitalized, which disposed, etc. In the case of DFO, however, the decision to retain or dispose of a lighthouse is driven primarily by the navigational importance of the facility.

The approach uses contributing lines of evidence, to suggest one or more actions for an asset and an entire portfolio. A Tiering exercise could assist DFO in identifying the most likely candidates for disposal and re-use in a manner that promotes ongoing public access to the site and similarly those least likely for public use disposal. 

Actual Tiering of the DFO portfolio was not conducted as part of this mandate and indeed cannot be conducted without detailed knowledge of the surplus lighthouses and their characteristics. Nonetheless, the evaluation criteria and weightings provide the basis for tiering and this tool is a consideration and possible next step for DFO in regards to its portfolio of surplus lighthouses.

2.0 Study Scope and Approach

2.1 Background

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has declared a number of custodial lighthouse properties surplus to its operational requirements.  In alignment with the HLPA and respecting its custodial obligations in accordance with Treasury Board (TB) policies, DFO is willing to consider proposals aimed at divesting its surplus lighthouse facilities.

The HLPA came into force on May 29, 2010 and in addition to facilitating the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses, the Act is designed to ensure the conservation and protection of lighthouses. The legislation is expected to achieve this goal in several ways:

• The Act provides for a process for the designation of heritage lighthouses;
• The Act requires that public consultation occur before heritage lighthouses are sold; and,
• The Act requires that lighthouses be reasonably maintained after their transfer and that any alterations comply with national and international conservation standards, indeed many of the surplus lighthouses that are eligible for transfer have already been designated as heritage buildings by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office (FHBRO).

In addition to DFO’s responsibilities under the HLPA, the Department is also required to manage their lighthouse portfolio in accordance with Treasury Board Policy on the Management of Real Property. In accordance with this policy, DFO must ensure that “best efforts” are made to arrange for appropriate alternative uses of under-utilized or surplus assets, first within the federal government and then as needed outside the federal government.

Prior to the HLPA, DFO had a lighthouse disposal strategy that was primarily focused on transferring surplus assets to other levels of government, municipalities, and local non-profit groups. Over the past approximately 15 years, DFO has transferred numerous lighthouses and associated properties. Many of these assets remain accessible to the public and some have been further developed with complimentary uses.  Some lighthouses have been sold to private interests and typically these have been incorporated or converted to private residences or seasonal dwellings, although in Canada, lighthouse disposals and conversions for private residences occurred mostly prior to 1960.

It is expected that the introduction of the HLPA will accelerate the pace of lighthouse divestitures. Accordingly, DFO is seeking to better understand the conditions under which surplus lighthouse properties can be redeveloped for viable alternate uses, particularly those which will permit ongoing public access to the sites. This review will assist DFO in assessing proposals it will receive for the possible transfer of its surplus lighthouses.

2.2 Study Scope and Approach

The scope of this study has been to research and identify potential alternate uses for surplus lighthouses, as well as conditions under which alternate uses which promote ongoing public access are most likely to be successful.

The mandate has been accomplished primarily through the identification and review of examples or case studies, both within Canada and Internationally, where viable and sustainable alternative uses for lighthouses have been found, especially those that conserve the heritage character of the lighthouses and result in ongoing uses and public access.

The research can also be used in reverse, to say it can be used to identify conditions under which alternate uses that promote public accessibility are likely not viable. In these cases, the most appropriate option may well be sale to private interests and as the research shows this approach need not be at the expense of protecting the lighthouse and its heritage character.

This report provides the research findings, analysis and specific recommendations. In reviewing the report and its findings it should be recognized that it has been prepared solely on the basis of the information and assumptions as set forth in the accompanying text.  CRG Consulting and our Study Team have attempted to verify this information wherever possible, using a combination of data checks and interviews with various officials.  However, it is not possible to fully document all factors, nor to account for all of the changes that might occur in the future.  If, for any reason, major changes occur that influence the information and assumptions set forth in this report, the findings should be reviewed in the light of these changed circumstances and revised, if necessary. Note in this regard, and in accordance with the mandate and associated Statement of Work (S0W), no actual site visits were conducted, rather research was compiled via a combination of data searches and interviews.

3.0 Research Findings

The scope of the study has been to research and identify potential alternate uses for surplus lighthouses, as well as conditions under which alternate uses which promote ongoing public access are most likely to be successful.  This has been accomplished primarily through the identification and review of examples or case studies, both within Canada and Internationally.

The Consultant Team identified and researched numerous examples of lighthouse re-use, both in Canada and Internationally. The findings of the research are summarized below. The detailed investigations (case studies) are appended, broken down between Canadian examples and those outside Canada. The latter includes examples identified in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and selected additional international locations.

A total of approximately 80 examples of lighthouse re-use were identified and researched. This comprises 60+ Canadian examples including those transferred to/for private usage and those transferred to/for public usage. International examples (approximately 20 in total) were identified from the United States, Britain (UK), Australia and other international locations. This included examples identified through consultations with DFO regional officials and other examples identified through independent research conducted by the Study Team comprising CRG Consulting and Colliers International. In accordance with the Client Scope of Work (SoW), site visits were not conducted to any lighthouse properties.

A summary of the research and identified alternate uses is provided below. The individual case studies and actual examples are appended: Canadian examples (see Appendix A), International examples (see Appendix B).

3.1 Alternate Uses

The research identified a wide cross section of alternate uses which permit ongoing public access for lighthouse properties, the most common of which are tourist or cultural/heritage related. This includes numerous examples of lighthouse facilities that have been converted for uses such as:

• Museums;
• Inter-active/Interpretive centres;
• Eco-Tourist related facilities (locations for whale/bird watching, etc);
• Parks;
• Tourist accommodations (boutique hotels, bed & breakfast establishments, youth hostels, campgrounds, etc.);
• Special event facilities (for meetings, receptions, corporate retreats, fishing lodges, etc.);
• Restaurants;
• Gift shops;
• Research and Education; and,
• Others.

These types of uses are generally to be expected given the coastal and often tourist locations associated with many lighthouses. Indeed, many of the lighthouses that have been converted are located on islands, adding to their appeal for certain uses – boutique hotels for example.

Another common alternate use is for private residences. There are many examples of this type of conversion, both in Canada and Internationally, although in Canada lighthouse disposals and conversions for private residences occurred mostly prior to 1960. There is also evidence and numerous international examples where conversion for use as private residences has retained the heritage character of the lighthouse. Indeed, it is a requirement in most countries that the heritage character of the lighthouses be retained, regardless of the alternate use, and private individuals are often in the best position - with the greatest motivations and financial wherewithal, to ensure heritage compliance as well as undertaking any deferred maintenance in order to upgrade a facility to meet current Building Codes. Such covenants may, however, impact the market value and achievable sale price of a property.

Other uses, albeit less common, include retail commercial operations – for a time Canada Post Corporation operated a post office in a functioning Nova Scotia lighthouse, and there are even examples where lighthouses which have been converted for use as schools – among its facilities Niagara College occupies a former lighthouse.

3.2 Ownership Models

The research revealed a wide range of ownership models. In Canada, lighthouses that are disposed are most commonly transferred/sold to other levels of government, be it:

• Other Federal Departments or OGDs (Parks Canada and INAC for example);
• Provinces; or,
• Municipalities.

In the latter case this often occurs in a shared or partnership style ownership-management fashion with a Community Group or Non-Profit. In these cases, the community organization is typically responsible for the management and operation of the former lighthouse. In some cases, the transfer is to the municipality and in others it is direct to the Community Group/Non-Profit. This latter model is common in Atlantic Canada where former lighthouses are commonly transferred to a Community Group/Non-Profit who then seeks funding from the local municipality, the province and/or the federal government (including from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency – ACOA). In these transfers DFO typically addresses any environmental issues.

The other common ownership model is simply to transfer/sell former lighthouses to private individuals. There are numerous examples of this both in Canada and Internationally. In these situations the most common alternate use is as a private residence.

There was a bias towards Long Term and Triple Net lease structures where a Community Group or Non-Profit organization was involved in the partnership structure as the operating entity. Whereby, private individuals typically favoured outright sales with Freehold Ownership.

3.3 Processes

To achieve successful disposals, the research also demonstrates a need for well established, clear and transparent disposal processes, and this is considered paramount to the success of both individual disposals and larger disposal initiatives.

The United States (US) has well established disposal processes for surplus lighthouses. These were introduced a decade ago as part of the US National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (2000). US processes are characterized as a top-down approach whereby facilities are offered first to other federal agencies, then to other public organizations, and finally for private sale.

In the event a surplus US lighthouse is offered for disposal, a process is followed which involves submission and evaluation of a detailed business plan. This plan, which is evaluated by relevant experts in the fields of cultural resource management, maritime history, preservation, and parks and recreational programs, must describe the proposed use as well as provide a:

• Preservation and Maintenance Plan;
• Use Plan;
• Financial Plan;
• Management Plan; and,
• Associated Covenants and Agreements, key of which are provisions to ensure the preservation of historic lighthouse elements and of the character of the lighthouses, plus ongoing access for any operational elements.

Key excerpts from the US National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (2000) and associated disposal processes are appended – see Appendix C. In accordance with the HLPA, DFO has established similar procedures and requirements including “Guide to Preparing a Business Plan Acquiring a Surplus Lighthouse” (May 2010).

3.4 Key Success Factors

In addition to identifying alternate uses, the research can also be used to identify common criteria under which disposals which permit ongoing public access to the sites may be successful, and similarly conditions under which public use disposals may take longer in duration or may not be viable altogether. Knowledge of these criteria, and their relative importance, can assist DFO in assessing its portfolio and also assist in assessing proposals it is likely to receive for the transfer of surplus lighthouses. In considering these criteria, it is important to note that relative importance may vary by circumstance; nonetheless certain criteria are clearly more important than others. The following were identified:

• Accessibility – meaning how accessible the lighthouse is. Islands and similarly remote locations are by their nature less accessible and the potential for alternate public uses is clearly impacted by accessibility, although remoteness in and of itself need not be a negative – there are numerous examples of remote lighthouses, including those on islands, being successfully converted into boutique hotels, destination getaways and private residences. Accessibility also refers to whether the lighthouse itself is accessible – to DFO should operational areas remain, and also to the public – can people tour it, walk up to the light area, etc. The research shows that facilities that are physically accessible to the public are more successful as tourist establishments and on this basis this criterion is rated as having High Importance for an alternate public use.
• Proximity – related to accessibility is the issue of proximity, meaning how close the former lighthouse is to major roadways, population centres and significantly cumulative attractions. There are numerous examples of successful conversions of lighthouses into alternate uses which promote public access such as museums, interpretive centres and other tourism related uses in part because they are close to other related facilities. On the other hand, facilities that lack proximity and cumulative attractions are less likely to be successful. While being close to population centres is desirable, it is not mandatory, particularly when dealing with transfers to OGD's for alternate uses such as parks. Also, for private divestitures, proximity to population centres may actually be a disincentive. On this basis this criterion is rated as having Medium Importance for alternate public uses.
• Image/Profile/Symbolism – meaning what is the profile of the asset, both in its community and beyond, including its heritage profile. Certain lighthouses enjoy national even international profiles. The research suggests facilities with higher profiles are more likely to be sought for transfer; indeed if a site has historical significance it will generally be far more attractive to the local community, non–profits and others. On this basis this criterion is rated as having High Importance for both public and private alternate uses.
• Condition – meaning what is the condition of the asset, what is required to upgrade and maintain it and what are the associated costs. Assets that are in poor condition or which require significant recapitalization are less likely to be candidates for viable re-uses, unless the transferee has access to the funding needed for the recap. Significantly, the intent of DFO is to transfer lighthouses in their current condition – “as is and where is”, and further that as a condition of sale, DFO will not warrant the condition or be responsible for future repairs. Due diligence is therefore highly recommended on the part of prospective purchasers. This same approach is used in the US, whereby prospective purchasers are required to accept any/all responsibility for the condition of the assets and needed future recapitalization and in accordance with heritage conservation and it is expected that proper due diligence will be conducted by prospective purchasers. Notwithstanding, the condition of a facility can significantly impact its attractiveness for disposal and also its market value. This criterion is rated as having Medium Importance for alternate public uses.
• Revenue Potential – meaning what is likelihood that the new owner can generate revenues, in order to cover both operating and recapitalizations costs. Museums for example typically charge an admission fee, similarly hotels and restaurants charge for the services they provide, and sites with excess lands or buildings may have the potential to generate revenues. Those former lighthouse assets which have the potential to generate significant revenues are more likely to be successful under certain re-uses than those with limited revenue sources although the importance of this criterion clearly depends upon the use contemplated. This criterion is rated as having a relative Low Importance for alternate public uses.
• Ownership Model/Uses – this refers to the ownership model and planned use of the lighthouse including defined roles, responsibilities, financial commitments, support from outside organizations (e.g., financial commitments, fund-raising, shared space, advertising, willingness to create an exhibit or other interpretive material, technical assistance, transportation, etc.). There are numerous successful ownership models. These range from long term leases and outright sales, as well as partnerships between municipalities and community groups. There are positive examples of all of the various ownership models. Each also has pros and cons which would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. For example, transferring to a Community Group may ensure that those with experience, passion and vision are directly involved with the operation of the former lighthouse; however, these organizations typically have little/no direct access to funding. Key to this criterion is the need for a “champion” that is someone or some group who is committed to the project and willing and able to spend the time and resources needed. On this basis this criterion is rated as having High (Highest) Importance for both public and private alternate uses.
• Complexity/Risk – meaning, how complex or risky is a potential transfer? Simply stated, those assets which are viewed as being easier to transfer are more likely to be pursued than those which are more complex, have competing interests, multiples stakeholders, etc. There are examples where potential transfers have been scuttled due to their complexity/risk and the associated time and costs involved in the transfer. This criterion would also consider level of disruption. It is fair to say that all transfers will have elements of risk and complexity, although the extent of both will vary. On this basis this criterion is rated as having a relative Low Importance for alternate public uses.
• Functionality, Flexibility and Quality of Space – meaning how useful and usable is the resultant space and how flexible is it for alternate uses. Assets which yield better quality and more functional space and/or space that is flexible for alternate uses would therefore be superior for potential transfer to those which are not. The lack of these features could be a problem for municipalities or non-profits, but a relatively minor issue for OGD's or private individuals who would focus more on their vision for the site as opposed to what is there now. On this basis this criterion is rated as having a relative Low Importance for alternate public uses.
• Site Flexibility/Potential – meaning does excess land exist that offers potential for alternate/future uses. Assets with excess lands would generally be regarded as being superior to those which do not, although again the importance of this criterion would depend upon the use(s) contemplated. This criterion is rated as having Medium Importance for alternate public uses.
• Operational Efficiencies – meaning would the acquisition of a former lighthouse yield operational efficiencies for the new owner – operating multiple facilities in a single location for example could yield efficiencies. This is a relatively minor criterion which would apply in limited circumstances and on this basis is rated as having Low Importance for alternate public uses.

4.0 Portfolio Tiering

As a further step, the above analysis and identified key success criteria could be used by DFO to “Tier” its portfolio of surplus lighthouse assets.

Tiering is typically performed by a portfolio owner seeking to assess or rank its assets and/or to assist in making strategic decisions on its assets such as to identify which should be retained, which recapitalized, which disposed, etc. The approach uses contributing lines of evidence, to suggest one or more actions for an asset and an entire portfolio.

The criteria used in the tiering evaluation are typically developed through a consultative process.  They often include elements such as Financial Performance, Strategic Value, Social Value, etc. It is these criteria that, when ranked or scored at the asset level, generate a “score” and subsequently a Tier for a given property. The criteria can be weighted if deemed appropriate – for example if Financial Performance is deemed more important than Strategic Value. To further refine the Tiering exercise, an optional “portfolio based” indicator can be applied and this portfolio “lens” facilitates the migration of a property to an “adjusted Tier”.

The Tiering process is ultimately completed at an asset level, generating a “score” for each asset (1-10 or similar). The resultant scores are then used to Tier the assets and the portfolio. Those assets achieving a score over a certain threshold are placed within the first or top Tier (i.e., Tier 1), and so on (typically ending with Tier 4). Placement within a certain Tier generally infers certain performance and actions. The highest Tier properties typically represent the highest performing assets, and thus those which should be retained. At the other end of the spectrum, those properties within lower/lowest tiers are often flagged for disposal.

In the case of DFO, the Tiering approach can be used to assess its portfolio of surplus lighthouse assets to help DFO in identifying the most likely candidates for disposal and re-use in a manner which would promote ongoing public access to a site (i.e., those scoring highest - and being placed in Tier 1), and similarly those least likely for re-use with public accessibility (i.e., those scoring lowest - and being placed in Tier 4). Of course, the decision to retain or dispose of a lighthouse is driven primarily by the navigational importance of the installation. Tiering would occur only on those assets deemed surplus and being considered for disposal.
 
The evaluation criteria used to Tier the DFO portfolio would therefore be different from those used by an owner seeking to make strategic decisions on its assets. The criteria could comprise the “Key Success Factors” identified already herein. The approach is highlighted in the table below.

Actual Tiering of the DFO portfolio cannot be conducted without detailed knowledge of the surplus lighthouses and their characteristics; nonetheless, the table serves to explain the concept of Tiering in the DFO environment and with respect to the surplus lighthouse assets.

As noted, the lighthouse assets could be assessed across the consistent criterion (key success factors) and with certain of these weighted, if appropriate. When viewed in aggregate, and after all criteria score ranges and weightings are put in place, each surplus lighthouse asset can be ranked into a Tier, ranging from “Tier 1” (considered the most viable for transfer), to “Tier 4” (considered the least viable for transfer).  The Tiers could also carry associated suggested options and actions for further consideration by DFO.

Appendix A: Project Examples – Canada

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Cape Forchu / Yarmouth / NS / Canada 
Current Owner / Operator:  Municipality of Yarmouth - Friends of Yarmouth Light Society
Primary Contact Name:  Denise Nickerson 
Primary Contact Phone:  902-742-7159
Primary Contact Email:  yarlighthouse@eastlink.ca

Secondary Contact Name: Trudy LeBlanc
Secondary Contact Phone: 902-742-7159
Secondary Contact Email: trudy@district.yarmouth.ns.ca

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

Primary contact not there during the transfer. Secondary contact provided information.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

Tourist attraction. The former keeper's house is now a museum, craft shop and snack bar - tea room. There is a picnic area and parking for visitors.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

Owned by Municipality of Yarmouth and leased to Friends of Yarmouth Light Society for $1. The Friends of Yarmouth Light Society operate the property.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

Strengths are the property being the most photographic site in Nova Scotia to attract visitors. Weaknesses is the dependence on tourism, being in a small town that is hard to access. In the past, used to have two ships bringing tourists. Due to the economic situation in the south (Maine) and lack of support from the new provincial government to provide subsidies to tour guide companies, tourism has dropped.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

There never was any challenges in establishing a use for the property. Used other lighthouses experience to develop the idea for the tea room. The gift shop is leased out to help cover some of the operation costs. Gift items are provided by locals on consignment and a percentage of the sales are provided to assist with operation costs.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Always had the support of local residents. Recognition of the site and its importance to the town. Museum items were donated from other local museums. Recently, partnered with five other museums by paying a participation fee to obtain grants from the Department of Heritage.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

Landlord type of ownership with the Municipality of Yarmouth. The Friends look after the day-to-day operations and cost and the Municipality handles the larger costs.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

In 2006, the tea room was opened in one of the keeper's houses. The gift shop and museum are in the other keeper's house and have been in operation since taking over the site in 1996. All renovations have to go thru the development office and the required licenses and permits are obtained.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

Yes, ACOA and Federal Stimulus Fund ($2.7M). No real funding from the province other than providing summer students.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

Yes, the property had to be closed in 2000 by the Coast Guard because of lead paint. The Municipality of Yarmouth stepped in and took over the site and paid for the costs of removing the lead paint.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

Not aware

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

Not aware

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

Not aware

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

The rent from leasing the gift shop, percentage of the sales of gifts, membership fees and donations. Different grants are available and have assisted in the development of the look-offs and interpretive panels. Always have to be innovative to raise funds. When the site is closed during the winter months, always being creative to raise money by having baking and yard sales.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

Rent from the lease of the gift shop, percentage from sale of gifts, donations, membership fees, fundraising events, and sales generated by tea room.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

There was an agreement for 10 years that has expired. The active marker on the lighthouse is maintained by the Public Works Department of the Municipality of Yarmouth.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

None, the only challenges is raising the money.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

By holding different events - Lobster Fest, Dumping Day (1st day of lobstering), Seafest (in summer 150 boats pass the lighthouse), planning events and broadcasting with CTV-Atlantic, and social media i.e. Facebook, Twitter
Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

Information on website. Municipal brochures have the lighthouse in the background. Provincial advertising in the Doer and Dreamer Guide - Tourism information.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Dalhousie Wharf / Charlo / NB / Canada
Current Owner / Operator:  John Audet
Primary Contact Name:  John Audet
Primary Contact Phone:  1-506-684-3400
Primary Contact Email: 

Secondary Contact Name:
Secondary Contact Phone:
Secondary Contact Email:

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

In 1960, John Audet placed a bid with a deposit on the lighthouse. This was accepted by the Crown and cleared to the satisfaction of the engineers. Mr. Audet made arrangements to have the small tower trucked to his property.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

Originally used as a storage shed. In the summer it was used as a playhouse and later as a garden shed. Currently sits empty and Mr. Audet would like the community of Charlo to take over the property with compensation for the costs incurred over the years. The community has shown interest in the lighthouse and would move the structure to a beach owned by the municipality.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

Owned privately by John Audet.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

Maintenance costs have been about $20,000 over the years.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

In the past the lighthouse has only been used by the family for their own personal use.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Successful other than the maintenance costs and having to turn the lighthouse over to someone else. Mr. Audet is 90 years old and would like a group to provide him with a decent offer and recognize his family for their efforts.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

The costs have been at the expense of Mr. Audet.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

The lighthouse was improved by rebuilding the deck, new windows and frames, the solid copper roof was fixed with proxy, new stairs, and a new floor. The structure was raided using fork lefts and cement blocks were placed under the lighthouse.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

No.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

No.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

No.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

No.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

No.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

Maintained by Mr. Audet at a cost of about $20,000.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

All out-of-pocket costs.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

No arrangements. Owned since 1960 and only recently someone from a heritage group meet with Mr. Audet to provide information on available funding. This offer has been delayed with the changes in the levels of government.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

None.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

Not at the present moment. Mr. Audet would like to transfer the property to the village to attract visitors. He would like to recuperate the maintenance costs and to be given recognition for maintaining the property since 1960.
Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

None Available.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Flowerpot Island, Tobermory, ON
Current Owner / Operator:  Parks Canada
Primary Contact Name:  George Fenn 
Primary Contact Phone:  905-639-6139
Primary Contact Email:  george.fenn@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Secondary Contact Name: Warren Ford (HLPA)
Secondary Contact Phone: 403-292-5165
Secondary Contact Email: warren.ford@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

Went well, good rapport with Parks Canada. To facilitate the process CCG had to declare the lighthouse surplus to their needs. Directors in both DFO and Parks signed off on the MOU which was reviewed and signed off by the justice branch on both sides.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

The lighthouse was built on Castle Bluff in 1897. Four years later, a keeper's home was build down on the shore. In 1969, the lighthouse was replaced with an automated steel tower. The Friends of Fathom Five National Marine Park, concerned about preserving the marine history of the island, have restored the main buildings. In 1969, the lighthouse building was pushed from the cliff and replaced with a steel tower, still a functioning beacon at the site. Concerned about the deteriorated condition of the lightstation, the Friends of Fathom Five and the Canadian Coast Guard came to an agreement in 1995, handing over to the Friends lightstation maintenance and restoration, which began in 1996. General cleanup, repainting, roof re-shingling, garden and lawn care, trail improvements, signage and a composting toilet have all been the projects of dedicated volunteers. The century-old lightkeeper's house is open for tours, cold drinks and souvenirs. The Flowerpot Lightstation is accessible only by boat from mainland Tobermory. Tour boats leave from Little Tub Harbour and there is a Parks Canada user’s fee on the island.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

Parks Canada maintain responsibility for the overall park; the Friends of Fathom Five National Marine Park have agreed to maintain the facilities through volunteer labour and raise funds by renting out buildings, and operating the museum. Blue Heron Cruises bring people to the island from Tobermory.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

Current ownership/operator model works well.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

DFO had to return land to pristine condition before Parks Canada would take over the property. DFO had to maintain a national parks setting at all times which made remediation work difficult.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Divestiture completed 2 to 3 years ago, considered very successful.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

Maintained by the Friends of Fathom Five National Marine Park. Parks Canada may pay for materials and they can apply for Trillium Funds from the province. There is no further DFO involvement.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

Friends of Fathom Five National Marine Park maintain 2 houses on the site; one as a museum the other is used by volunteers working on the site.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

Friends of Fathom Five National Marine Park obtain support from Parks Canada and the Ontario Trillium Fund

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

Some problems with hydrocarbons, lead based paints and a dump site which was used by former lightkeepers.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

DFO had completed a site specific risk assessment. Parks Canada wanted a full clean up of the site including removal of the dump site. This was done by DFO to Parks Canada satisfaction at a cost of about $175,000.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

Divestiture was carried out through an MOU between DFO and Parks Canada which specified who would do what and included Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) provisions for the property.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

First Nations were informed of the transfer but this was not a problem as it was a federal to federal transfer.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

Friends of Fathom Five National Marine Park do the day to day maintenance with oversight by Parks Canada. The Friends have a separate MOU with Parks Canada outlining roles and responsibilities.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

Friends of Fathom Five National Marine Park generate revenue by admission to the museum and donations. Parks Canada cover any major maintenance and capital costs.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

Access to the site is covered in the MOU with Parks Canada. CCG will maintain the light, solar panel and batteries as required. Parks Canada require prior notice for the larger jobs.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

The island was gazetted in the 1930's and is now the Parks Canada responsibility.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

A lightstation host program, begun in 1998, offers Friends of Fathom Five volunteers the unique experience of lightkeeping by living for several days at the lightstation and performing the lightkeeper's duties for $100 a day for a party of four.  They also offer tours and special events for the station's visitors, over 10,000 per year. A Junior Lightkeeper's Program runs several times during the week in July and August.  The Flowerpot Lightstation Anniversary is celebrated annually on the third Saturday in July. This site is also part of the provinces lighthouse tour and is advertised on the provincial website.

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

Nothing readily available.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Head Harbour Lightstation, NB a.k.a. East Quaddy Lighthouse 
Current Owner / Operator:  The Friends of Head Harbour Lightstation www.campobello.com/lighthouse
Primary Contact Name:  John Ford, DFO
Primary Contact Phone:  902-426-6054
Primary Contact Email:  john.ford@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Secondary Contact Name: Dianne Lejeune, DFO
Secondary Contact Phone: 902-426-3900
Secondary Contact Email: Dianne.LeJeune@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

Contact not involved in the initial transfer but considers it particularly successful. Secondary contact noted that 'The Friends of Head Harbour Lightstation' under the direction of Terry Green (retired), were very proactive and focused on the transfer, attended many information sessions, and responded to all requirements. The actual transfer was a long process extending over several years.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

Operated by 'The Friends of Head Harbour Lightstation'  on a seasonal basis. The lightstation while located in Canadian waters is most easily accessed through the U.S.A., see Campobello lighthouse Web site.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

Owned and operated by 'The Friends of Head Harbour Lightstation'. As an active lightstation, CCG retain access to maintain the navigation aids. The FHHL has two mailing addresses, in Wilson's Beach NB and in Lubec, Maine.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

Current ownership model works particularly well.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

DFO had extensive consultations in the community in order to garner support for their organization / vision for future use of the property. Initially, there were a number of competing local interests to be reconciled. A DFO representative would have been present at a number of public / private meetings to outline the divestiture process and terms / conditions of the required sales agreement. Not aware of any other challenges / opportunities.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Considered particularly successful because of community interest in the project.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

The 'Friends of Head Harbour Lightstation' pay all maintenance and recapitalization costs. CCG pay only the costs associated with the navigational aids and maintain a separate meter for electrical service to the aids.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

The station now includes an interpretative centre and 5 structures: the light tower itself (1829);the adjoining dwelling; a fog alarm building (1914-15); a work shed (1914-15) and a boat house (1947). These buildings have been submitted to Transport Canada for FHBRO review. The essential character of the site is being maintained by the new owners. As a point of interest the Chesapeake Bay Lighthouse Association recently spent a week on the site painting, building steps, replacing and glazing windows and performing other restoration tasks. Other than regular maintenance (painting, life cycle repairs, etc.), there was no on site development while under DFO ownership.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

DFO paid for environmental remediation measures, see below. Not aware of any funding provided. Prior to divestiture, DFO worked with the group and the Province of NB to ensure that the site was designated under provincial heritage legislation. Apparently there are funding opportunities associated with that designation, but DFO do not know if the recipient organization applied or received any such assistance. After divestiture support was provided to the FHHL from the Provinces Built Heritage Works Program for reimbursement for supplies used in maintaining the facilities, provided the work is done in conformance with the Standards and guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, see question 15.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

An environmental site assessment was done by Jacques Whitford in March, 2000. Problems were found with lead paint, soil contamination and asbestos. At the 11th hour a leak was discovered in the furnace oil tank in the basement causing soil contamination, which was also cleaned up.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

Remediation measures were completed through  PWGSC prior to divestiture. Cost to DFO about $15,000. Contact in the DFO regional office on environmental issues would be Tasha Andrews 902-426-9908 or Joanne Nause 902-426-6726.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

All sites 40 years and older would have to be evaluated by the Federal Heritage Buildings & Review Office (FHBRO) as a matter of policy. Head Harbour is a federally-designated heritage site, and the heritage character statement would have been provided to the group, along with any federal preservation guidelines / best practices via Parks Canada. DFO encourages organizations to pursue professional advice where they have questions about other areas of their future operation. A detailed business case was apparently prepared by 'The Friends of Head Harbour Lightstation' Property was transferred 5 or 6 years ago. A Sales Agreement is on file via Intranet.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

No land title issues. Title would be thoroughly investigated and corrective action taken if necessary prior to divestiture. Also prior to a divestiture being completed, all levels of government must waive their interests (other federal departments, province & municipality).

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

Site is being managed by 'The Friends of Head Harbour Lightstation'. DFO maintain the navigational aids.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

The Friends of Head Harbour Lightstation' maintain and upgrade the facilities through donations, membership fees, admission fees, selling of maps and special events such as 'Lighthouse Days' in August. As an economic consideration the FHHL provides employment for students and long term sustainable employment for several island residents and significant economic spin off for the local business community. Support in the order of $12,000 was provided to the FHHL from the Provinces Built Heritage Works Program for reimbursement for supplies used provided the work is done in conformance with the Standards and guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

Access to maintain the navigational aids was guaranteed in the original divestiture agreement. Typically CCG go to the site when a problem occurs, there seems to be no regular scheduled for maintaining the navigation aids. The Friends of Head Harbour Lightstation will advise CCG when the light is out. CCG maintain a separate electrical meter for the navigation aids.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

The major CCG concern is the viability of the group wishing to take over the facility. Parks Canada require a detailed business plan as part of the NLPA review. CCG tend to focus more on the navigational aids. Should 'The Friends of Head Harbour Lightstation' sell the land, the Crown would be reimbursed the estimated market value at the time of initial transfer. Should the operator wish to change the use of the property this would require the approval of the Minister or the land could revert back to the Crown.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

The 'The Friends of Head Harbour Lightstation' mission statement is to preserve, protect and promote the cultural and historical value of the Head Harbour Lightstation for the enjoyment and education of all. As a sub activity they provide an emergency response service for disentanglement and the rescue of stranded marine mammals in the Bay of Fundy area. The site has several features to attract visitors including its claim to be the most photographed lightstation in the world; its historical significance including being one of the oldest wooden towers in Canada, established in 1829; and that Campobello Island was the former summer residence of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The 'family cottage' is now at the center of the Roosevelt Campobello International Park, established in 1964.

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

DFO maintains reports that would allow them to meet their disposal due diligence (i.e. environmental, aboriginal title, heritage, etc.). These would have been shared as required with the recipient organization. Generally, DFO do not provide or maintain information on marketing, tourism, etc.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Hope Island ON
Current Owner / Operator:  INAC / Huronia Light station Preservation Society / First Nations
Primary Contact Name: George Fenn DFO
Primary Contact Phone:  905-639-6139
Primary Contact Email:  george.fenn@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Secondary Contact Name: Warren Ford (HLPA)
Secondary Contact Phone: 403-292-5165
Secondary Contact Email: warren.ford@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

The 100 acres in question was removed from the local first nations reserve in the 1800's. DFO wants to return the land to INAC as an 'expansion to reserve' and have upgraded the property to INAC standards.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

Hope Island Light station was built in 1884. It was positioned in a line of lights  in order to ensure safe passage for the heavily traveled shipping lanes carrying grains and other products from US and Lake Superior Ports to the elevators and industries of Northern Simcoe County.

The structure, now is a state of disrepair, is a 45’ high tapered, square wooden tower with an attached 1-1/2 storey dwelling. The light station was automated in 1988 after 104 years of continuous light keeping. The original light is no longer active and has been replaced with a steel light tower. 

This site is of great significance to the area as it is the last of these stations to retain all of its original buildings (1884 lighthouse, 1904 Fog Horn Building, 2 separate keeper's houses, a generator shed and1884 boat house).

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

Huronia Lightstation Preservation Society (HLPS), is prepared to initiate an extensive restoration of the original lighthouse and grounds. The lighthouse building is not currently open to the Public.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

The HLPS want to look after the original lighthouse building but there is conflict with the First Nations group who want to use the site for other purposes. DFO is not involved in these issues.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

DFO want to be out of the picture through a Federal to Federal transfer of the site to INAC. The only issue seems to be a wharf structure which was built on a provincial waterlot. This waterlot has since been purchased from the province by DFO which is hoped to facilitate the transfer.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Work in progress. DFO is to approach INAC again now that the site has been cleaned up and the waterlot issue has been resolved. An MOU remains to be negotiated. CCG would retain access to maintain navigational aids.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

To be determined.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

The old lightstation has been removed from the site and a new light tower was installed by CCG. The Huronia Light station Preservation Society would replace the lightstation on the old foundation.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

Not applicable in this case.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

DFO was required to return the site to pristine condition in anticipation of transfer to INAC.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

DFO spent nearly $1 M to clean up the site.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

Not applicable in this case. Transfer would be handled through an interdepartmental MOU.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

A wharf structure which was built by DFO is on a provincial waterlot. DFO purchased the waterlot in anticipation of transferring the property to INAC.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

To be determined.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

To be determined.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

The MOU with INAC will include provisions for DFO to maintain access to the light tower.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

To be determined.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

To be determined.

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

Nothing readily available at this time.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Ile du Corossol, Sept-Iles, QC
Current Owner / Operator:  Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC)
Primary Contact Name:  Donald Moffet, DFO
Primary Contact Phone:  418-648-7497
Primary Contact Email:  donald.moffet@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Secondary Contact Name:
Secondary Contact Phone:
Secondary Contact Email:

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

Contact was involved directly in this transfer. This was an inter-departmental transfer with the original intention to resolve aboriginal land claims and possibly develop the property for tourism. The facility was not developed as expected and is now in a state of disrepair. Access to the island is restricted.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

The site is under the ownership of INAC. The island is one of the islands in the Sept-Iles archipelago. The lightstation consists of an octagonal light tower abandoned in 1985 and replaced by a skeleton tower.  All facilities are no longer used as navigational aids and are in a state of disrepair. The lightstation is accessible by water only but access to the island is restricted. The island is an official migratory bird sanctuary.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

The site was transferred to INAC in 2000 and DFO is not aware of further development on the site.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

This island was the subject of an aboriginal land claim and was quickly taken over by INAC to resolve these issues.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

INAC took over the property to resolve a land claim issue.  The island is known as a migratory bird sanctuary.  There is potential for development as a tourist attraction but no development has occurred yet.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

This transfer is not considered a success story since no development of the property has occurred.  Access to the island is currently restricted.  Structures on the island are in a state of disrepair and considered unsafe. Environmental issues with the site have just been resolved between INAC and DFO in recent years.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

This was an inter-departmental transfer.  Not aware of the financial details of the transfer.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

The site has not been developed or maintained.  It is in a state of disrepair and considered unsafe.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

Not aware of any funding provided to develop the site. 

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

Environmental issues were not dealt with properly during the transfer.  The site was contaminated with lead, mercury and petroleum products.  The environmental remediation measures were funded and completed in recent years by DFO.  All contentious issues with the site have been resolved.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

Environmental remediation measures were identified during the transfer but only resolved by DFO in recent years.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

Not aware of any professional services provided to study development of the site

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

There are aboriginal land title issues on this property.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

The site is currently under the responsibility of INAC.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

No development occurred on site to date.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

Navigational aids no longer in use at the site.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

Aboriginal land title issues are being handled by INAC.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

The site has a lot of potential for development as a tourist attraction.  Not aware of initiatives undertaken to develop the site.

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

Documentation pertaining to the transfer of the property would be available through INAC archives.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Letete Passage Lighthouse, Greens Point NB
Current Owner / Operator:  Greens Point Lighthouse Association
Primary Contact Name:  John Ford, DFO
Primary Contact Phone:  902-426-6054
Primary Contact Email:  john.ford@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Secondary Contact Name: Tasha Andrews (environmental contact)
Secondary Contact Phone: 902-426-9908
Secondary Contact Email:

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

No problems with the divestiture.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

After being fully automated since 1996, Green’s Point Light was officially decommissioned on September 8, 1999, though the fog alarm remains in use. Ownership of the lighthouse and station was transferred to the Green’s Point Light Association in July 2008. The former Coast Guard monitoring station has been renovated into a charming, cozy cottage which can be rented by the public on a weekly basis. The Lightkeeper's house has been turned into an interpretive center/museum/aquarium and displays a wide variety of items from this area. CCG continue to maintain the fog horn and communications equipment. Access for the fog horn was confirmed in the terms of transfer. Space is being leased back from the Green's Point Light Association for the communications equipment.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

The lighthouse is maintained by the Green's Point Light Association (GPLA), a non-profit organization made up of members of the community. The purpose of this association is to preserve the lighthouse at Letete Passage for its historical value. The mandate of this group is provide access to the public and develop an educational facility.  Memberships are open to anyone interested in preserving this site, its public access, and the development of the Marine and Coastal Interpretive Center. For the history of the lighthouse see the following.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

Current ownership model works very well.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

After news of the planned de-staffing of Green’s Point leaked out in 1995, a few concerned citizens formed the Green’s Point Light Association to maintain the station as an educational and recreational facility. An informational meeting was held in the remaining keeper’s dwelling on November 10, 1996, and with growing support, an agreement allowing use of the property was signed between the association and the Canadian Coast Guard on December 4, 1996. The following July a Marine and Coastal Interpretive Center, which has displays on the lighthouse, coastal flora and fauna, and local marine industries, was opened in the keeper’s dwelling.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Outcome considered to be very successful.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

The Green’s Point Light Association pays all maintenance and recapitalization costs. This is typical of all divestitures in the region.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

Focus of the Green’s Point Light Association was the conversion of existing facilities for their use. Any additional capital developments were paid for and maintained by the association.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

DFO not aware of any such support.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

There was some metals and hydrocarbon contaminants in the soil. Levels of contamination exceeded residential but were within commercial guidelines. With soil and grass cover this was not considered a hazard.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

No remediation measures were undertaken by DFO. The property was transferred with full disclosure of the contaminant issue to the recipient.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

The Green’s Point Light Association prepared a business case as part of the divestiture process. It is not known if they received any professional assistance in this regard.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

None.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

Day to day management of the site is the responsibility of the Green’s Point Light Association

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

This is a registered non-profit organization and provides official tax receipts for all membership fees and donations. Family membership is $20, single is $15 and corporate membership is $30. Donations are also welcome. The cottage can be rented for  $500 (Ca) per week.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

Access to the fog horn addressed in the terms of divestiture. A portion of the land transferred to the Green’s Point Light Association has been leased back for the DFO/CCG communications equipment. Access to maintain equipment has never been an issue.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

Local interest and participation was the key to success. In some cases the local association will contact DFO if they wish to take over the lighthouse; in other instances, DFO may approach the municipality to see if there is any local interest in taking over a facility.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

Lighthouse is advertised widely in brochures and on the provincial website. This lighthouse is also included in the Quoddy Loop Tour and Guide ... covering the Passamaquoddy Bay area in the western Bay of Fundy! 

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

Nothing readily available through DFO at the regional level. The GPLA may be a better contact in this regard.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Long Point, Twillingate Island, NL
Current Owner / Operator:  Town of Crow Head
Primary Contact Name:  Taryn Dutton
Primary Contact Phone:  709-772-0621
Primary Contact Email:  taryn.dutton@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Secondary Contact Name: Albert Linehan (ret.)
Secondary Contact Phone:
Secondary Contact Email:

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

DFO has divested of surplus land and buildings to the Town of Crow Head including a single dwelling, currently operating as a gift shop, and a double dwelling attached to the lighthouse, which has a heritage designation. DFO has retained the lighthouse, equipment building, office building and right of access to the site to maintain navigation aids.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

Long Point Lighthouse, built in 1876, is located at Crow Head, Twillingate and has been one of the biggest tourist destinations for decades and one of the most photographed landmarks on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland.  More than 300 feet above sea level, this is a lookout point where thousands of visitors every year enjoy the panoramic view of the Atlantic Ocean with the possibility of viewing icebergs, whales, seals and sea birds. The Long Point Lighthouse Centre offers visitors visual exhibits to ensure an understanding of why we have a sense of achievement and identity from traditional hunting, trapping, and fishing pursuits.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

The Twillingate Island Tourism Association (TITA) promote tourism on Twillingate Island. An agreement has been reached between TITA and the town to operate the old double dwelling as an artist's studio and possibly an upscale restaurant, TITA are now renovating the building as an artist's studio.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

Seems to work well although there was opposition to the restaurant idea by local businesses.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

Opposition remains as to the use of the site.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Basically successful but full potential yet to be realized.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

TITA has acquired both ACOA and Provincial funding but no details available. There has been no municipal funding involvement.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

No DFO involvement. TITA has developed the adjoining property including walking trails, parking and viewing areas, with the approval of the Town of Crow Head.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

TITA has acquired both ACOA and Provincial funding but no details available. There has been no municipal funding involvement.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

Minor problems with lead paint, hydrocarbons and metals in the soils.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

DFO carried out all remediation measures through PWGSC. They also relocated a VHF tower to enhance the site.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

The Town of Crow Head initially approached DFO to take over the lightkeeper's building adjacent to the lighthouse. No outside assistance was required in the divestiture process.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

None, except that DFO has to establish paper title.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

The Town of Crow Head manages the site in close cooperation with TITA.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

DFO have a blanket easement to all buildings they own and for the maintenance of navigational aids.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

None Cited.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

The Long Point Lighthouse is advertised and promoted on the provincial tourism website and is a major provincial tourist attraction. Tours, such as McCarty's Party, have Long Point as a regular stop.

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

Little on file except a plan by Landwash Enterprises, the original operators of the gift shop.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: L'Orignal Front & Rear Range / L'Orignal / Ontario / Canada
Current Owner / Operator:  A La Rochelle Campground
Primary Contact Name:  M. Daniel Brisebois
Primary Contact Phone:  613-295-1451
Primary Contact Email: 

Secondary Contact Name: Mme Lili St-Gelé
Secondary Contact Phone: 613-675-2277
Secondary Contact Email:

Section B - Key Themes
Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

Both lighthouses are located on M. Brisebois' land and were both sold to the land owners (which at the time belonged to M. Brisebois' parents). To M. Brisebois' recollection, the lighthouse transfer was a non-issue.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

Same as original, no alternate uses have been considered.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

Private ownership, operated by both M. Brisebois and Mme St-Gelé. They are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of both lighthouses.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

Not Applicable.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

Primary challenges include financial obligation and unwillingly attracting the public to what is in fact private property. No opportunities were realized as they are not showcased to the public.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

The outcome is what was expected and successful.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

The owners are financially responsible and costs are disbursed on an as-required basis.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

Yes, a home was built between both lighthouses and the new building does comply with zoning by-laws.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

No.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

No.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

No.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

No.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

No.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

Non-issue as management of lighthouses is undertaken by owners.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

No revenues are generated by lighthouses, all costs are absorbed by owners.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

Not applicable.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

Not applicable.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

Not applicable.

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

None available.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information
Site / City / Province / Country Name: Pointe à la Renommée, Anse à Valleau, Gaspésie, QC
Current Owner / Operator:  Municipalité de Gaspé / Comité local de développement de l'Anse à Valleau
Primary Contact Name:  Donald Moffet, DFO
Primary Contact Phone:  418-648-7497
Primary Contact Email:  donald.moffet@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Secondary Contact Name:
Secondary Contact Phone:

Secondary Contact Email:

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

Contact was involved directly in the transfer of this property and considers it particularly successful. The "Comité local de développement (CLD) de l'Anse à Valleau" under the direction of Claudine Poirier, are very proactive and focused on making this site a successful tourist attraction. The actual transfer was a long process however, extending over several years.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

The property is under the ownership of the Municipalité de Gaspé but the site is operated and maintained by the "Comité local de développement (CLD) de l'Anse à Valleau". The lightstation is accessible by a 5 km long gravel road from the main highway (Hwy 132). The site is open to the public from June to October.  There is a light tower, a lightkeeper residence and a few other buildings depicting life in the early 1900's.  Guides are available during the summer to escort tourists.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

The property is owned by the Municipalité de Gaspé and the site is operated and maintained by the "Comité local de développement (CLD) de l'Anse à Valleau". The CLD is a not for profit corporation and is solely responsible to manage and develop the facility as a tourist attraction. The site is no longer used for navigational aids. The Corporation is formed of volunteers and is well organised.  It hires guides through the student summer employment program to escort tourists through the museum and other buildings on site.  Community events are held on site during the summer months.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

The current ownership model works well.  The Corporation is solely responsible for all expenses and has been able to make the operation viable through the help of subsidies, community fund raising, admission fees and other funding programs.  The Corporation is constantly looking for additional funding to improve the site and make it more attractive.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

The Corporation worked very hard to finally convince CCG to transfer the property to the Municipality for a nominal fee on the condition that the Corporation would pay to move the lighthouse from Québec City back to its original foundations. The Corporation also rebuilt the dwellings on the site to their original plan.  The Corporation is constantly looking for new subsidies or engaging in fund raising activities to develop the site further as a tourist attraction.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

This venture is considered particularly successful because of community interest and participation in the project.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

The Corporation pays for all operation, maintenance and recapitalization costs. Their funding is raised through subsidies, community fund raising events and government funding programs.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

The station now includes the light tower itself, an adjoining dwelling and a few other buildings which are used as a Museum and an interpretive center of early 1900 era. The light tower is a unique steel structure which was dismantled by CCG once declared surplus in the late 1980's, and moved to a hangar in Québec City. The Corporation had the light tower moved back to the original site in 1997, restored it to its original condition and rebuilt the adjoining dwelling and buildings. It is a point of interest on the "Route des phares" in the Gaspé peninsula. The Corporation is planning to continue to improve the site to further develop the site as a heritage village, as the necessary funding is made available.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

CCG paid for all environmental remediation measures when the site was transferred to the Municipality. The Corporation obtained the necessary funding from various heritage restoration programs to move the light tower back to the original site and rebuild the dwelling.  The Corporation seeks funding from summer student employment programs to hire guides for the summer and must engage in fund raising activities and seek other subsidies for further development work. Not aware of any other funding provided.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

An environmental site assessment was completed and remediation measures implemented by CCG before the site was transferred to the Municipality in 1997.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

Remediation measures were funded and completed by CCG prior to divestiture in 1997.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

The services of a professional firm were required to move the light tower to the site from Québec City and reassemble it on the site. Any documentation pertaining to a heritage statement (the site is apparently not recognized), business case or sale agreement rests with the Comité local de développement de l'Anse à Valleau.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

No land title issues. The property was transferred to the Municipality who turned it over to the Corporation to manage.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

The site is managed and maintained by the "Comité local de développement de l'Anse à Valleau", a not for profit corporation, exclusively. The Corporation obtains its funding through revenues generated and various subsidy programs and fund raising events. Navigational aids are no longer used at this site.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

The Corporation maintains and upgrades the facilities through donations, admission fees, selling of souvenirs, and special fund raising events. The Corporation is managed by volunteers and uses the summer student employment program to provide employment for students as guides during the tourist season.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

Navigational aids are no longer in use at the site.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

The transfer of the property to the Municipalité de Gaspé was the main impetus for the Comité local de développement de l'Anse à Valleau to proceed with its project to revitalize the lightstation site and open the site for tourism.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

The CLD de l'Anse à Valleau is a member of a larger network known as the "Corporation des gestionnaires de phares de l'estuaire du St.Laurent" who promote the "route des phares" in the Gaspé peninsula. The site has several features to attract visitors including it's claim to be the first maritime radio station in North America installed by Marconi in 1904; being a unique light tower entirely constructed of steel and a site depicting life in a typical early 1900 era at Pointe à la Renommée.

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

Documentation pertaining to the divestiture of the property would be available in DFO archives.  Marketing, tourism or business information would be available through the Corporation managing the facility. The Corporation is currently managed by Claudine Poirier at 418-269-3310.  See also www.routedesphares.qc.ca

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Port Dalhousie - Rear (Inner) Range / Port Dalhousie - City of St. Catherines / ON / Canada
Current Owner / Operator:  City of St. Catherines / Niagara College
Primary Contact Name:  Shirley Tomovic
Primary Contact Phone:  905-735-2211 ext. 7521
Primary Contact Email:  stomovic@niagarac.on.ca

Secondary Contact Name:
Secondary Contact Phone:
Secondary Contact Email:

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

Niagara College was not involved in the transfer.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

Classroom for the Niagara College Sailing School. Provincial College.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

City of St. Catherines owns the property. Niagara College has a guest arrangement to use the lighthouse and pays an annual fee.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

Perfect for school operation, provides a good opportunity for students.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

No challenges. Provides a great opportunity for students to learn in a unique atmosphere. Easy access for an off-campus location. Capacity for 8 students.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Yes, and the current approach has been successful for over 20 years.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

College pays an annual fee to the City of St. Catherines who maintains the property. Friends of the Lighthouse painted the lighthouse in the past.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

No.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

Not aware of any. The College is a non funded activity and operates based on student tuitions.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

No.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

No.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

Don’t know.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

No.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

The College is appreciative of the City in working with them to meet the needs of the people in the Niagara Region.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

Not applicable.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

Not applicable.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

None.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

Sailing Flyer and College website to promote the site as an off-site location.

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

Niagara College website.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Port Medway / Port Medway / NS / Canada
Current Owner / Operator:  Municipality of Queens
Primary Contact Name:  Jill Cruikshank
Primary Contact Phone:  1-800-655-5741
Primary Contact Email:  jcruikshank@regionofqueens.com 

Secondary Contact Name:
Secondary Contact Phone:
Secondary Contact Email:

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

Community group initiated the project and the Municipality of Queens purchased the fish park with lighthouse in 2001. Remediation required to move/raise the wall to higher level.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

From initiation it was to be a park.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

Municipality owns the property and the community group operates the park.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

The responsibility and cost to upkeep the property. Burden on lower level of government.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

Originally, there was a struggle between the community group and the municipality. In the end the municipality obtained ownership.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Successful other than the ongoing costs.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

Municipality pays for insurance, utilities and maintenance.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

Yes, lots of development and the old fish plant was removed except for one building. The building is used for art shows, table tennis tournaments and to support the garden park. Extensive landscaping. Complied with zoning by-laws.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

Funding from three levels of government and the community association.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

No.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

Remediation during the development of the park to increase the water break to protect the property from the ocean.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

Not aware of any during the proposal stage. A professional firm was retained to develop the site concept.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

No.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

No issues.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

It's a cost to the municipality.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

Not applicable.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

The ocean force was the risk. Two years after the park opened, the White Guan storm over ran the park and washed the landscape and moved huge rocks. The community group helped with the remediation.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

Listing on tourism site, highway signage, lighthouse tour brochure and partner with on shore events to promote the site.

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

Yes, to email marketing material and other documents.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Presqu'ile Point / Brighton / ON / Canada
Current Owner / Operator:  Ontario Parks - Province of Ontario
Primary Contact Name:  Tom Mates
Primary Contact Phone:  1-613-475-4324 ext. 226 
Primary Contact Email:  tom.mates@ontario.ca

Secondary Contact Name: Friends of Presqu'ile Park
Secondary Contact Phone: 1-613-475-1688
Secondary Contact Email:

 

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

In 1954 by order of council to the province of Ontario.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

Cultural Heritage. The lighthouse still serves as an aid to navigation. The park is a historic zone and is an icon of the local municipality of Brighton.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

Province of Ontario owns the park. Friends of Presqu'ile Park assist in the research of the park.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

The weakness is the costs to operate the property. The onus is on the province to maintain the lighthouse and the coast guard still uses the property as an aid to navigation.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

The property use was mandated as cultural heritage. Part of greater interpretive centre of the Great Lakes.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Successful other than the ongoing maintenance costs.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

The Province pays for the maintenance and recapitalization.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

The old Keeper Cottage was restored on the exterior and the interior was modernized. Used as an historical interpretive centre for marine heritage.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

No, just the province.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

No.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

The stone building was wrapped with 2x4 and shingled.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

Not prior to divestiture. In 1991, a consultant was retained to investigate options for use of the property.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

No.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

Needs are the funds ($300,000) to remove and replace the weathered shingles.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

The Ontario park system. Fees fund all provincial parks. No special funding for upkeep of the lighthouse.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

There is a clause in the agreement that permits the Coast Guard access to the lighthouse. They show up with no prior arrangement.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

Financial challenges for the maintenance of the lighthouse.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

Ontario Parks strategy that has been in existence for over 100 years. The park is promoted on the Ontario Parks website with history of the lighthouse and signage on Hwy 401.
Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

Other than the website, the documents available are only available in hard copies.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Rose Blanche, NL
Current Owner / Operator:  Rose Blanche Lighthouse Inc. 
Primary Contact Name:  Taryn Dutton
Primary Contact Phone:  709-772-0621
Primary Contact Email:  taryn.dutton@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Secondary Contact Name: Albert Linehan (ret.)
Secondary Contact Phone:
Secondary Contact Email:

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

This is the only granite lighthouse in Atlantic Canada and is a registered heritage structure. DFO was originally approached by the Southwest Development Association in 1988 to take over the property which was derelict at the time. The property was transferred to the Town of Rose Blanche who turned over operation to Rose Blanche Lighthouse Inc. DFO reinstated the light and continues to maintain solar panels and batteries for the light.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

Located in scenic Rose Blanche , just a 45km drive along Route 470 from Port aux Basques. Built in 1871 from a nearby granite quarry. Restored in 1999 and furnished with 19th century reproduced furniture and local antiques, this lighthouse is a must-see for all lighthouse enthusiasts. The lighthouse is open to the public on a seasonal basis.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

Active Lighthouse operated on a seasonal basis by Rose Blanche Lighthouse Inc. for the Town of Rose Blanche

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

Considered a major success attracting thousands of tourists every year.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

There was no paper trail for the property which was taken over by the Federal Government as part of Confederation. To facilitate the transfer DFO quit claim to all interests in the property and the Town applied to the Province for title.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Considered highly successful.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

DFO continue to maintain the light. Maintenance of the property and lighthouse is by the Rose Blanche Lighthouse Inc.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

Enhancements include an interpretive centre, stage for performances, local flea market, arts and crafts outlets, walking trails, patio and viewing areas. No conflict with local bylaws. A Bed and Breakfast is located at the end of the road, about 1km from the lighthouse. 

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

Funding by various government agencies including ACOA, the Province and the Town. DFO is normally not aware of any such funding arrangements. Light was given to the Town by CCG. To allow the Town to qualify for certain funding sources the property was initially leased to the Town by DFO for a 10 year period. Apparently Provincial support to the various development associations has now been phased out.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

None, property was in derelict condition at time of transfer.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

None, the development association approached DFO to take ownership of, what were then, ruins.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

The Southwest Development Association (now defunct), under the direction of Rita Anderson, prepared all required documentation. No consultants were involved. Rita retired when the province ceased funding to development associations.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

None, the town was fully supportive of the transfer.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

Managed by the Rose Blanche Lighthouse Inc. who report, in some fashion, to the Town of Rose Blanche.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

Rose Blanche Lighthouse Inc. charge admission to the site. Tour guides are paid through a provincial program. Volunteers cover much of the site maintenance.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

An agreement on file allows CCG unobstructed access to the light and associated equipment. The Town, however, has legal title to the land.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

None cited.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

Part of the provincial advertising program plus marketing efforts by the Town including brochures distributed widely to attract tourists.

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

Taryn will review what is available and forward any readily available and non-sensitive material through DFO in Ottawa.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Sandy Point / Shelburne / NS / Canada
Current Owner / Operator:  Sandy Point Recreation Group
Primary Contact Name:  Bernice Goodick
Primary Contact Phone:  902-875-2919
Primary Contact Email: 

Secondary Contact Name:
Secondary Contact Phone:

Secondary Contact Email:

 

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

The site was originally transferred to the Atlantic Lighthouse Council on behalf of the Sandy Point Recreation Group. This didn't work out and the Group paid $2,500 to take over the property. The base of the lighthouse was strengthened and other improvements at a cost of $110,000.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

Tourist attraction. The hall is used for weddings, lobster fest etc. The light is kept on for comfort. An adjacent property was purchased from the municipality and a new hall was built. Another property was purchased and cleared to develop a parking lot.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

Citizens of Sandy Point own the properties and volunteers operate the site.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

Strengths are the ability to host festivals and attract tourists. Weaknesses are that people get tired and the need to recruit new volunteers. The younger generations are not as interested.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

The Atlantic Lighthouse Council ownership issues.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Very successful. There are a lot of grants available to assist community groups.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

The Sandy Point Recreation Group have their own financial account thru a trust to cover maintenance and recapitalization.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

Just on adjacent properties that was purchased to develop the hall and parking lot. Zoning by-laws were followed and the required approvals were obtained from the municipality.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

In 2008, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency invested $ 38,274, Nova Scotia Economic Development contributed $20,000, the Municipality of the District of Shelburne donated $10,000, and the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society pitched in $6,600 to restore the Sandy Point Lighthouse and make it more tourist friendly. That summer, the lighthouse base was strengthened, the tower received new siding, a stairway to the top of the base was added, and interpretive panels were put in place. Private businesses, individual donations and fundraising events helped cover the remaining costs. A plaque of the outline of the lighthouse in the hall is used to raise donations, and individuals names are placed on the plaque based on their donation amount.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

There were a few concerns and tests were done to ensure there was no asbestos or environmental contamination.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

No.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

No, the group bravely took on the project.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

No.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

The Group knows the maintenance requirements and deals with them as they arise.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

Donations and fund raising.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

Not applicable.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

Biggest issue is the liability and the cost of the insurance. 30-40 volunteers with a core of 10 people ensure things are safe and well maintained.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

Brochures and the internet. A movie clip is available on the internet that provides a history of the lighthouse. Obtained Provincial Heritage Status and would like to acquire Federal Heritage Status.

Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

None Available.

Data Collection Template - Alternate Use Study of Surplus Lighthouses

Section A - Contact Information

Site / City / Province / Country Name: Wilmot Bluff / Lower Lincoln / NB / Canada
Current Owner / Operator:  Gerald & Jo Gilles 
Primary Contact Name:  Gerald & Jo Gilles
Primary Contact Phone:  1-506-446-6815
Primary Contact Email: 

Secondary Contact Name:
Secondary Contact Phone:
Secondary Contact Email:

  

Section B - Key Themes

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has declared a number of lighthouses across Canada to be surplus to its operational requirements. The new Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act allows for the designation of lighthouses as heritage properties. The Act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses so that they may be available for public purposes. We are conducting research on behalf of DFO with other organizations relating to their experience in the divestiture of assets and particularly alternate uses that were implemented after divestiture.

Questions and Open-Ended Detailed Responses

• Please provide an overview of your experience in the transfer of ownership of the property.

Clarence Gillies was the last keeper of the light and served from 1949 to 1967. When the lighthouse was decommissioned, he expressed an interest in purchasing it, however the government favored having the tower moved. In June of 1969, the lighthouse was instead sold for $604 to Gillies' son-in-law, B. Napier Simpson, who planned to cut it into three sections and move it to Ontario. This plan proved too costly, and after six months the government threatened legal action as the agreement had been to either remove the lighthouse or reduce its height by 15’ so as not to confuse mariners (this amounted to removal of the lantern). In the end the government agreed to let the lighthouse remain where it was. Napier signed ownership of the tower over to his mother-in-law who in turn signed it over to her son Gerald Gillies. In February of 1970, the Superintendent of Lights inspected the property and agreed that Gerald Gillies could in fact keep the lighthouse intact at its original location if it were maintained in good condition.

• Please briefly describe the current use of the property and if alternate uses were considered.

Storage. No alternate uses were considered as the lighthouse sits on the family property.

• What is the ownership structure used to operate the property? Who is involved and in what capacity?

Owned privately by Gerald Gillies.

• What are the strengths / weaknesses of the current ownership model?

Well built structure that only requires painting every few years.

• What were some of the challenges (both those that were overcome and those that could not be resolved) the organization faced in establishing a new use for the property, as well as the opportunities that were realized?

Was only used for their own personal use.

• Was the outcome what you expected and is the current approach successful / unsuccessful?

Yes, the outcome was successful for its intended use.

• What are the financial details (e.g. who pays for the maintenance and recapitalization)?

Family pays for the maintenance.

• Was there any additional development undertaken on the property to enhance the site? If yes, did it comply with zoning by-laws and have the support of the appropriate municipal authority?

No.

• Was funding provided from other organizations (i.e. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, provincial and municipal governments, and other non-governmental organizations)? If yes, by whom and how much?

No.

• Was there any environmental concerns and site issues?

No.

• Prior to divestiture, were remediation measures required? If yes, were these completed prior to divestiture or was funding provided to insure that remediation is completed in an expedient manner?

No.

• In preparing the proposal for divestiture, were the services of a professional firm retained to help identify costs associated with preservation and further development of the site?

No.

• Were there any jurisdictional issues regarding the transfer of the property?

No.

• How are ongoing management needs addressed to make the current approach successful?

No management needs. The property has been in the family for over 58 years.

• How is the site kept financially self-sustaining to generate enough revenue to offset operating costs over the long term?

Not applicable.

• What are the arrangements made with the transferee (i.e. DFO or CCG) should they require access to a navigational aid? Do personnel access the site frequently and do they have an impact on the current use of the property?

No arrangements. The family has owned the property since 1952.

• What were some of the potential risks and challenges and the strategies the organization adopted to reduce and manage them?

None.

• How does the organization attract visitors or clients to the site? Include information about possible tie-ins to provincial and community marketing campaigns aimed at tourists and residents.

Do not attract visitors due to liability issues.
Data Request

• Can you provide us with any documentation (i.e. business plans, reports, marketing material, etc.) that can shared with DFO to assist in our research.

None available.

The following table provides project examples of former DFO-owned lighthouse properties that were divested for an alternate public use.

Former DFO-Owned Lighthouse Properties Divested and Privately Owned

Lighthouse	Location	Current Owner / Use	Open to Public	Notes	Photos
Midland Point Front Range	Midland, Ont.	Privately owned	No	14.5 m (48 ft) square pyramidal wood tower with lantern and gallery, painted white with red trim and a red vertical stripe on the former range line. Located at the end of Midland Point Road north of Midland. Site and tower closed, but the lighthouse can be seen through trees from the road.
Midland Point Rear Range	Midland, Ont.	Beacon Shore Bed and Breakfast	No	8.5 m (28 ft) square pyramidal wood tower with lantern and gallery, painted white with red trim and a red vertical stripe on the former range line. Located at the end of Midland Point Road north of Midland. It is now stands in front of a bed and breakfast inn. Site open to guests, tower closed
Corbeil Point	Batchawana Bay, Ont.	Private residence	No	The land for this lighthouse was first purchased in 1873 from the Indian Department, and the government recognized its obligation to turn the land back to the Indian Department as Indian Reserve in 1967. The land around the lighthouse (50 acres) and a second parcel (115 acres) were set aside as Indian Reserve for the Batchawana Indians. Hereditary Chief Edward James Sayers first inhabited the abandoned structure in 1972, and Hereditary Chief Joe Tom Sayers has lived in it since 1995.
Coppermine Point	Hibbard Bay, Ont.	Privately owned	Grounds only	This lighthouse was discontinued in the 1960s.  It was moved by a local resident to a site next to Highway 17 and became part of a restaurant complex.  The restaurant is no longer in operation but the lighthouse still stands though has fallen into a state of disrepair.
Tomahawk Island	Morson, Ont.	Museum	Yes by appointment only, May to September	This lighthouse was sold into private ownership in 1963. It was moved, restored and converted to a museum located on Lighthouse Road in the village of Morson.
L'Orignal Front Range	L'Orignal, Ont.	A La Rochelle Campground	Grounds only	The range light towers are in a private campground on the point, just west of the village of L'Orignal. There is no public access, but a polite request to enter the grounds and view the towers may be received favorably.
L'Orignal Rear Range	L'Orignal, Ont.	A La Rochelle Campground	Grounds only	The range light towers are in the A La Rochelle Campground on the point, just west of the village of L'Orignal. There is no public access, but a polite request to enter the grounds and view the towers may be received favorably.
Dickinson Landing	Morrisburg, Ont.	St. Lawrence Parks Commission	Grounds only	Dickinson Landing is one of ten small villages on the St. Lawrence near Cornwall that were flooded during construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The St. Lawrence Parks Commission removed many historic buildings from the villages, including the lighthouse, and moved them to a heritage park near Morrisburg called Upper Canada Village. Part of the park is a short canal along the riverbank, and the lighthouse was located at the west end of the canal. Owner: St. Lawrence Parks Commission. Site manager: Upper Canada Village Heritage Park. Grounds open, tower closed. 7 m (23 ft) square pyramidal wood tower with lantern and gallery. Lighthouse painted white; lantern roof is gray.
Salmon Point	Cherry Valley, Ont.	Salmon Point Campground	No	This lighthouse is on the grounds of a privately owned campground. The lighthouse is rented as a rental property limiting access to the grounds.
Old Cut	Long Point, Ont.	Private residence	No	This light once marked a channel or "cut" through Long Point. The light was deactivated after the cut gradually filled in. This coupled with the reduced shipping traffic led to the decommissioning of the Cut Light in 1916. By 1918, the lantern was removed, and it was sold off. The lighthouse changed hands numerous times since decommissioning. The first owner used it as a cottage. By the 1960s, third owner would rent out the cottage for $1,000 a month. The tower was sold again in 1968.  Instead of the lantern room, one of the owners during that time put a new top on. Instead of looking like a lighthouse, it resembled the tower of a fort. By 1999, it was on the market again. The original lantern was removed and was replaced by a very different structure. The lighthouse was completely restored during 1999-2000 and now closely resembles the original structure built in 1879. It is used as a private residence.
Leamington	Leamington, Ont.	Membership community - Lighthouse Club Ltd.	No	On the western shores of Lake Erie in the town of Leamington, Ontario, is a family-oriented, membership community of 64 modest summer cottages named The Lighthouse Club. Generations of families have owned cottages here since the late 1940s. The club operates through bylaws voted on by cottage owners and the costs of utilities, taxes, ground maintenance, and club-related expenses are covered by annual cottage dues. The anchor of the club’s landscape is a hilltop lighthouse that overlooks the cottages. The lighthouse, functional, but no longer in use, was transformed into restrooms for club members, and a clubhouse was built adjacent to it.
Woody Point	Amherst Shore, NS	Private residence	No	Barnes Point, also known as Woody Point, is situated along the eastern shore of Cumberland Basin, just south of Sackville, New Brunswick. In 1912, John A Lea of Sackville was contracted to build a twenty-seven-foot-tall square wooden tower, with sloping side, surmounted by a square wooden lantern for a cost of $983. After the Coast Guard deactivated the light in 1976, the tower was sold and relocated to Amherst Shore near Coldspring Head in Nova Scotia, where it was greatly modified to be used as part of a summer residence near Amherst Shore.
Pugwash	Pugwash, NS	Privately owned	No	In 1871, Pugwash Lighthouse was established on Fishing Point at the entrance to Pugwash Harbor and the Pugwash River. John B. Reed was granted the $1,195 contract to construct the lighthouse, which was built in a “schoolhouse” design with a square tower rising from one end of the rectangular dwelling’s gabled-roof. This style of lighthouse is uncommon in Canada, but was frequently used in the United States. The narrow point of land on which the lighthouse stood was often subjected to erosion and flooding. A stone revetment was built along the bank in 1878, and various measures had to be taken every few years to protect the point from erosion. The gallery deck atop the tower was rebuilt in 1880 so that a larger lantern could be used along with a more powerful optic. Around 1960, a new tower with an enclosed upper portion and skeletal lower sections was built on the point, and the old Pugwash Lighthouse was sold to the Mundle family, who moved the structure to their nearby farm. The new lighthouse is still owned by the Canadian Coast Guard.
Mullins Point Rear Range	North Wallace, NS	Private residence	No	The original lighthouse still exists but has been moved. Its design is unique in the Atlantic provinces, although a few examples of this style are known in Ontario's Georgian Bay (Jones Island Rear Light and Snug Harbour Rear Light). The Mullins Point Lighthouse, now a private property, has been recognized as a heritage structure. In 1965, the range lights were unmanned after the wooden range lights were replaced by steel skeleton towers. Mr. and Mrs. John Sproul purchased the combination dwelling/tower and moved it roughly 1.5 km along the shore from its original location. The Mullins Point Lighthouse continues to be used as a private residence. The present tower was built in 1965 and is used as an active aid to navigation.
Wallace Harbour Rear Range	Malagash Point, NS	Private residence	No	Two range lights established on Macfarlane point, in Wallace harbour, on the south side of the Strait of Northumberland, were put into operation on the 20th October, 1904. The buildings were erected under contract by Mr. John D. Reid, of Head Wallace Bay, N.S. His contract price was $2,400. Forty one people signed a petition in 1986 requesting that foliage be cleared to make the Wallace Harbour Rear Range Light more visible as several vessels had run aground the previous year. The Coast Guard tried to clear the offending trees and brush, but the owner of the property on which the vegetation stood was uncooperative. Rather than enter into litigation, the Coast Guard converted the front range light into a sector light in 1990.
				The tower’s square lantern room was removed and replaced with a rectangular lantern to house the new light. At the same time, the marking on the seaward face of the white tower was changed from a vertical red stripe to two horizontal red stripes. Later, the tower was changed to have just one red horizontal band. In March of 1995, the rear range tower was sold to Graham Long, who cut the tower into three pieces and relocated the sections to Malagash Point, where the tower was reassembled and converted into a summer vacation home.
Black Rock Point	Bras D'Or, NS	Private residence	No	This lighthouse was sold in 1979 after being replaced by a new structure. It was moved a few hundred yards away and is a private home. The new tower was built in 1978 and is owned by the Canadian Coast Guard.
Munroe Point	Bras D'Or, NS	Rental property	Guests only	Located in St. Ann’s Bay near the North River and the Cabot Trail in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, the Munroe Point Lighthouse and adjacent rental cottage are only 45 minutes from Sydney and 60 minutes from the nearest airport. Last year the owners of the property, Gordon and Ingrid Boutilier, decided to rent the cottage out on a weekly basis to cover the costs of erosion control and upkeep. The cottage was enlarged before the Boutiliers acquired it, eliminating the old “widow’s walk.” Sold to a doctor from Switzerland.
Owl's Head	Ship Harbour, NS	Cottage	No	This lighthouse stood on the head, at the outer entrance to Ship Harbour on the Eastern Shore. The lantern was red on the roof of a wood dwelling painted white. Between 1966 and 1970 it was replaced by a skeleton tower with white slatwork daymarks. We believe that this lighthouse building is now used as a summer cottage.
Medway Head	Medway Harbour, NS	Private residence	No	The first Medway Head Light was a lantern on the roof of the keeper's house.  The building still stands; it was sold to an individual and moved up the hill from the present lighthouse.  There is no longer a lantern on the roof. Inactive as a lighthouse since 1966. 2-story wood keeper's house. The lantern, formerly mounted on the roof, has been replaced by a square observation room. Relocated in 1980 across the road from the active light and in use as a private residence. Located on Long Cove Road on the west side of the entrance to Medway Harbour.
Salmon River	West Pubnico, NS	La Lighthouse de Pombcoup - Craft Shop	Yes	This lighthouse was originally located on a breakwater at Salmon River near Yarmouth.  It was discontinued and in the 1980s it was moved to West Pubnico and became part of a craft shop.  Visitors may go into the base of the lighthouse but not into the lantern.
Bass River	Burntcoat Head, NS	Private residence	No	Bass River Lighthouse was deactivated around 1992 and then sold in 1994. A one-story dwelling was built into the base of the tower to serve as a summer home.
Dalhousie Wharf	Charlo, NB	Privately owned	No	In 1960, John Audet purchased the decommissioned Dalhousie Wharf Lighthouse after seeing a notice posted in a local store. Being in need of a storage shed at the time, Audet placed a bid of $25 on the lighthouse and ending up winning. Workers who were dismantling the wharf volunteered to take the lighthouse down off its supports, and Audet made arrangements to have the small tower trucked to his property. In 2002 the railing was still in place around the gallery deck, and there was a metal ladder going up the outside of the tower. The lighthouse has been maintained in excellent condition over the years with Mr. Audet even building stairs on the inside. He has plans to eventually donate the lighthouse to the community of Charlo and to this end he secured a modern lens from the Canadian Coast Guard in 2009 and has installed a mounting device in the lantern room.
Belledune Point	Seaside, NB	Privately owned	No	This lighthouse was moved in June 2002 to Sea Side, a community located about 22 miles west of Belledune. Charles Stewart acquired the tower and cut it up into three pieces, which he moved to Seaside. In place of the wooden tower that needed regular maintenance, the Coast Guard erected a square skeleton tower on Belledune Point to serve the port. Stewart had planned to reassemble the tower on his bayside property in 2003 and eventually provide public access, but as of 2009, the individual pieces were still awaiting restoration.
Grant's Beach Front Range	Lower Newcastle, NB	Privately owned	No	Grants Beach Front Range Lighthouse was purchased in 1972 and moved from a location near the main road to a spot closer to the riverbank and near a beautiful 1825 heritage house. Today the lighthouse sits in a park-like setting where it has been maintained in reasonably good condition.
Grant's Beach Rear Range	Lower Newcastle, NB	Privately owned	No	Around 2007, the Grants Beach Range Rear Lighthouse was moved approximately 8km (5 miles) east of its original location, which was a field adjacent to #339 on the north side of Route 11. The tower now sits in an open field on the banks of the Miramichi River, ironically not far from where the old Oak Point Range Lights once stood. In 2009, the current owners were in the process of renovating the house on the property and planned to paint the lighthouse that summer.
Grand Dune Flats Front Range	Burnt Church, NB	Private residence	No	This lighthouse was replaced by a skeleton tower, and was later moved to its present location where it serves as a private home.  The rear range was and still is a skeleton tower. After deactivation the lighthouse was relocated to Burnt Church. It has been altered by a modern addition. Located on Bayview Drive a short distance east of Church River Road in Burnt Church.
Pecks Point	Rockport, NB	Privately owned	No	This lighthouse was originally located at Ward Point and was moved to Pecks Point in 1908. The lighthouse is currently owned by Ken Tower, whose father purchased and then relocated the tower and other station buildings over the winter ice from Pecks Point to their current location. Ken has installed vinyl siding on the tower in order to better maintain it and keeps it and the entire property in immaculate condition. The keeper's house is on the adjacent property and belongs to his sister with the old equipment shed sitting between the two properties.
The Cedars	Long Reach, NB	Kingston Peninsula Heritage	Grounds only	The Cedars Lighthouse was decommissioned in May of 1994, and in 1996 Peninsula Heritage began trying to acquire it from the federal government. It took nine years, but in 2005 the lighthouse was finally turned over to the group. Unfortunately the tower is not a high priority for the organization, which doesn't understand the potential of the project. Though the future of the lighthouse is still in question, a trail to it was finally opened in 2008 making the secluded lighthouse accessible to the public by land for the first time in its history.
Wilmot Bluff	Lower Lincoln, NB	Privately owned	No	Clarence Gillies was the last keeper of the light and served from 1949 to 1967. When the lighthouse was decommissioned, he expressed an interest in purchasing it, however the government favored having the tower moved. In June of 1969, the lighthouse was instead sold for $604 to Gillies' son-in-law, B. Napier Simpson, who planned to cut it into three sections and move it to Ontario. This plan proved too costly, and after six months the government threatened legal action as the agreement had been to either remove the lighthouse or reduce its height by 15’ so as not to confuse mariners (this amounted to removal of the lantern).
				Mrs. Gillies, whose husband Clarence had unfortunately passed away by this time, was very upset by the thought of the lighthouse being demolished or blemished so in the end the government agreed to let the lighthouse remain where it was. Napier signed ownership of the tower over to his mother-in-law who in turn signed it over to her son Gerald Gillies. In February of 1970, the Superintendent of Lights inspected the property and agreed that Gerald Gillies could in fact keep the lighthouse intact at its original location if it were maintained in good condition. Gerald and his wife Jo have maintained the lighthouse in a reasonable manner doing a bit of maintenance work each year. While some sections of the tower may be in need of paint, the grounds surrounding the light are always maintained in a park-like manner.
Pointe Bonaventure	Bonaventure, PQ	Privately owned	No	The light was established in 1902 at nearby Pointe Echouerie and moved to Pointe Bonaventure in 1907. The lighthouse is on private property. It can be seen from Highway 132 a few miles east of the town of Bonaventure.
Cape Tryon	Cape Tryon, PEI	Private residence	No	This lighthouse was moved from its original location after being replaced in 1969 by a new lighthouse. After the original Cape Tryon Lighthouse was decommissioned, it was moved a short distance to Cape Road, where it sat empty and neglected for a few years. Around 1964, a family from Montreal, Quebec purchased the lighthouse and relocated it a few kilometres to the west to their property in Sea View. Ron and Alberta Somers purchased the lighthouse and moved it to its current location in Park Corner, where they lovingly restored the lighthouse to serve as a summer cottage. The Somers just happen to be related to two of the keepers who served at Cape Tryon. Ron's great-uncle is James Graham, and Alberta's great-great-grandfather is Captain William Bell, first keeper of the lighthouse.
Georgetown Range Front	Lower Montague, PEI	Privately owned	No	This lighthouse was replaced by a new tower in 1969. The lighthouse on St. Andrew’s Point was completely destroyed by fire in October, 1894, and a new tower, was built the following year. The historic 1895 lighthouse is privately owned and houses a small apartment. The rear range lighthouse now has a vertical red stripe on its seaward face.
Douse Point Front Range	Murray River, PEI	Privately owned	No	After they were discontinued, the Douse Point Range Light towers were sold to a private owner and were moved. The lights were purchased by the Boul family in the 1980s and relocated to Murray River, where the have gradually fallen into a state of disrepair.
Douse Point Rear Range	Murray River, PEI	Privately owned	No	The Douse Point Range was coordinated with the Brush Wharf Range to guide vessels to the Orwell River. A black band was painted on the rear tower in the early 1920s. After they were discontinued, the Douse Point Range Light towers were sold to a private owner and were moved. They now stand on a back road near Murray River, Prince Edward Island.
Brush Wharf	Vernon River, PEI	Privately owned	No	The Brush Wharf Range Lights were established in 1899. The status of the companion rear range light is unknown. The Brush Wharf Range was coordinated with the Douse Point Range to guide vessels to the Orwell River. The front range tower is now privately owned; it has been moved about 1/2 mile to the east.
Summerside Range Front	McCallum's Point, PEI	Privately owned	No	This lighthouse was replaced in 1961 by a skeleton tower.  It was moved to private property on MacCallum's Point, across Summerside Harbour. The wooden front range tower remained in use until 1961, when it was replaced by a skeleton tower. The tower was subsequently relocated to MacCallum’s Point by the Clark family, where it was to be a focal point in a park. This plan, however, didn't work out, and the tower was relocated a short distance and incorporated into a cottage around 1990. The Summerside Rear Range Lighthouse remains in use today and now features a vertical red stripe on its seaward face.
Miminegash Rear Range	Kildare, PEI	Privately owned	No	Today, a pair of skeletal towers serves to mark the entrance to Miminegash Pond. The old, wooden Miminegash Rear Range Lighthouse has been relocated across the northwest tip of Prince Edward Island to the grounds of a private cottage near Kildare. This tower was formerly located at the village of Miminegash, on the west coast of the island, about 10 miles west of Kildare.
Northport Rear Range	Northport, PEI	Privately owned	No	This former rear range light is approx. 13 meters (43 feet) tall. It is a square pyramidal wood tower with lantern and gallery. After deactivation, the lighthouse was sold, relocated, and incorporated into a 2-story private residence, located at the end of Carol Street in Alberton. Its former front range light became the Rear Range Light in Northport.

The following table is an illustration of the Portfolio Tiering Approach.

Former DFO-owned lighthouse properties divested for alternate public use

Lighthouse	Location	Current Owner / Use	Open to Public	Notes	Photos
Cape Race	Ottawa, Ont.	Museum of Science and Technology / Museum exhibit	Grounds only	This lighthouse was originally erected at Cape Race in Newfoundland in 1856.  In 1908 it was relocated to Cape North in Nova Scotia.  It remained in service there until 1980, when it was moved to Ottawa's Canada Science and Technology Museum.
Presqu'ile Point	Brighton, Ont.	Ontario Parks - Friends of Presqu'ile Park / Interpretive Centre	Yes	There is a Lighthouse Interpretive Centre at Presqu'ile Provincial Park.  Regular interpretive programs are offered in the park from April through October, including slide talks, guided hikes and children's programs. Presqu'ile is French for "almost an island." Presqu'ile is one of the best places in Ontario for birdwatching. The lighthouse still serves as an aid to navigation. The region has become a popular location for camping and recreational boating. The keeper's cottage still stands, and is part of the Lighthouse Interpretive Center, which provides information on the natural history of the region.
Gibraltar Point	Toronto, Ont.	City of Toronto -Toronto Parks and Recreation / Part of public park	Grounds only	This is the oldest surviving lighthouse on the Great Lakes, and the oldest landmark in Toronto. In 1958 the lighthouse was transferred to Toronto's Parks Department and it was renovated during the Winter Works Incentive Program in 1961-1962. The Toronto Island Ferry offers public service to the Toronto Islands, including Hanlan's Point, except during the winter season when a limited schedule is in effect. For more information, 392- 8193.
Queen's Wharf - Rear Range	Toronto Ont.	City of Toronto / Part of city park	Grounds only	This lighthouse was originally one of two range lights at Queen's Wharf that marked the passage into Toronto Harbour.  It was moved to its present location, about a half-mile from the water, in 1929. The lighthouse is in a park near Exhibition Place. It is at the end of a trolley line.
Oakville Light	Oakville, Ont.	Oakville Yacht Squadron / Part of marina	Grounds only	The first Oakville Lighthouse was destroyed in a storm in 1886.  This lighthouse was moved to its present location at a marina in 1960.
Port Dalhousie - Rear Range	Port Dalhousie	Niagara College (Sailing School) - City of St. Catherines / Classroom - Part of sailing school	Grounds only	This lighthouse is used today by the Niagara College Sailing School.  The school holds occasional open houses. The lighthouse is located at the inner end of a pier at the Port Dalhousie Pier Marina on Lighthouse Road.
Point Abino	Fort Erie	Town of Fort Erie / Historic property	During scheduled tours only	The Point Abino lighthouse is considered an important example of Greek Revival architecture, and was one of the last lighthouses in Canada to be automated.  It was originally built to replace the Buffalo Lightship, which sank with all hands in a 1913 storm.  In May 2001, the town council voted to purchase the Point Abino lighthouse complex from the federal government and maintain it as a historic attraction. The Point Abino Lighthouse has been designated as a 'Classified' Heritage Building by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, as a National Historic Site, and as a Classified Federal Building. The concrete Lighthouse is recognized for its unusual shape, classical detailing, and efficiency of structural design. The Lighthouse consists of three structures: the deck, tower and fog alarm building. The Town of Fort Erie acquired the Point Abino Lighthouse from Public Works Canada on April 30, 2003. The lighthouse is now on private property and is best viewed by boat.
Port Burwell	Port Burwell	Municipality of Bayham - Port Burwell Historical Society / Museum	Yes	This is one of the oldest wooden lighthouses in Canada.  It was restored in 1986 by Mennonite craftsmen using the same hand tools and techniques used when it was originally built. Across from the lighthouse is a museum exhibiting marine and domestic artifacts. The museum has one of the best collections of lighthouse lenses on the Great Lakes. The museum is open mid-May to Labor Day, other times by arrangement. The lighthouse serves as a tourist information office.
Point Clark	Point Clark, Ont.	Parks Canada - Point Clark Lighthouse National Historic Site / Active aid to navigation, museum		This lighthouse was one of six "Imperial Towers" built in the late 1850s on Lake Huron.  It was acquired by Parks Canada in 1967.  The Township of Huron-Kinloss has an agreement with Parks Canada to operate the lightkeeper’s house as a local museum.  The light station is a National Historic Site. There is a museum in the keeper's dwelling, displaying local history and marine artifacts. The public can also climb the lighthouse tower. Open daily from mid-June to Labour Day 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Port Medway Light	Port Medway, NS	Municipality of Queens / Part of public park	Grounds only	This lighthouse fell into disrepair after being decommissioned. In July 2000 it was purchased by the Municipality of Queens. After a $602,000 facelift of the lighthouse and its surroundings, a new Port Medway Lighthouse Park was opened in October 2002.
Fort Point	Liverpool, NS	Town of Liverpool - Queens County Department of Tourism & Development / Museum	Yes	This is the third oldest surviving lighthouse in Nova Scotia. It has been operated as part of Fort Point Lighthouse Park by the town of Liverpool since the 1970s. The lighthouse is open mid-May to mid-October daily. The ground level of the lighthouse is handicapped accessible. The museum features models, interpretive panels, and a video presentation. As early as 1946 federal plans to demolish the old light were stopped by concerns from the Town of Liverpool which began to help with maintenance in the 1950s and by 1970 acquired the surrounding land for a park. The Fort Point Lighthouse Museum Interpretive Park opened in September 1997.
Sandy Point	Shelburne, NS	Sandy Point Recreation Group / Tourist Attraction	Nearby park only	In May 2004, ownership of the lighthouse was officially transferred to the Sandy Point Recreation Group and Atlantic Lighthouse Council, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canadian Coast Guard). In 2008, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency invested $ 38,274, Nova Scotia Economic Development contributed $20,000, the Municipality of the District of Shelburne donated $10,000, and the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society pitched in $6,600 to restore the Sandy Point Lighthouse and make it more tourist friendly. That summer, the lighthouse base was strengthened, the tower received new siding, a stairway to the top of the base was added, and interpretive panels were put in place.
Cape Forchu	Yarmouth, NS	Municipality of Yarmouth - Friends of Yarmouth Light Society / Active aid to navigation, museum	Yes	The Coast Guard decided in 1961 that the original Yarmouth Light must be replaced; area residents were surprised when the new tower turned out to be a radically different, slender tower, sometimes referred to as "apple core" shaped.  The Friends of the Yarmouth Light Society runs a museum and gift shop in the keeper's house.  In June 2000 the light station was officially transferred from the Canadian Coast Guard to the Municipality of Yarmouth. The former keeper's house is now a museum, craft shop and snack bar. There is a picnic area and parking for visitors. The museum is open May 21 - October 31, 9 am to 9 pm daily.
Campbellton Rear Range	Campbellton, NB	Campbellton Lighthouse Hostel / Active aid to navigation, youth hostel		The Campbellton Lighthouse is a rear range. The front range is a simple skeleton tower with a red stripe on a white daymark. The rear light is also on a skeleton tower (1978), but the lighthouse attached to the youth hostel was built around it in 1985 and “hides” it.
Caraquet Range Rear	Bas-Caraquet, NB	Town of Bas-Caraquet / Part of the Bas-Caraquet Municipal Park		After it was replaced by a modern skeletal tower, this lighthouse was moved from its original location to the Bas-Caraquet Municipal Park, and a covered patio was built on the side facing the Baie des Chaleurs. (The 37-foot tall skeletal tower is still active; it exhibits a fixed yellow light with a focal plane height of 66 feet)
Rose Blanche	Chanel-Port au Basques	Rose Blanche Lighthouse Inc. / Museum, private aid to navigation	Yes	This is the last remaining lighthouse of its type in Canada.  The lighthouse had fallen into ruins and was reconstructed between 1996 and 1999.  The lighthouse was relit on August 3, 2002.  Visitors to the lighthouse may also visit the quarry where the granite was cut for the original construction and the reconstruction. Elementary schools and youth groups are encouraged to visit Rose Blanche.  The history of the lighthouse and the site is presented, and they are given a tour of the site.
Fisgard	Victoria, BC	Parks Canada - Fort Rodd Hill & Fisgard National Historic Sites / Active aid to navigation, historic site, museum.	Yes	This is the oldest lighthouse on the west coast of Canada. The Fisgard Lighthouse Preservation Society assists Parks Canada in operating the canteen and supporting Parks Canada programs. Museum: Open daily March 01 - Oct. 31 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m, and weekends Nov. 1 - Feb. 28 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Inside the keeper's house are two floors of exhibits, dealing with shipwrecks, storms, lighthouses, and the everyday working equipment of the lightkeeper a century ago. Fisgard Lighthouse is staffed on weekends by Parks Canada volunteers. Other Buildings: Brick, two-story keeper's house.
Cape Beale	Bamfield, BC.	Parks Canada - Canadian Coast Guard Pacific Region / Active aid to navigation	Yes	The lighthouse can be seen from hiking trails in the Cape Beale Headlands near Bamfield.  Access to the Headlands is from Imperial Eagle Road in southeast Bamfield.  The lighthouse is open to the public but visitors are only permitted to climb the tower if accompanied by one of the keepers.
Pachena Point	Bamfield, BC.	Parks Canada - Canadian Coast Guard Pacific Region / Active aid to navigation	No	This lighthouse is on the West Coast Trail in the southern part of the Pacific Rim National Park.

Appendix B: Project Examples – International

1.0 General Summary of Case Studies and Findings from other Research

Type of Agreements will depend on the proposed use and particular site specific characteristics. They will be generally used when a lighthouse is still in operation and they include:

• Partnership Agreement;
• Full Maintenance Lease;
• Shared Maintenance Lease;
• License Agreement for Public Access; and,
• Management Agreements for Public Access.

2.0 Case Studies from the United Kingdom

Trinity House is the general lighthouse authority for England, Wales and the Channel Islands responsible for a range of navigational aids, from light houses to radar beacons. It is a non-departmental public body and charitable organization dedicated to the safety, welfare and training of mariners. They are funded from light dues levied on commercial ships in the ports of the UK. Trinity House has been selling redundant lighthouses for years, and today only maintains about 70 lighthouses.

2.1 St. Mary’s Lighthouse

St. Mary’s Lighthouse is located on the outskirts of Whitley Bay approximately 15 kilometres northeast of Newcastle Upon Tyne. A light house has been present at this location for over four hundred years, with the current lighthouse built in 1898. It was taken out of service in 1984 by Trinity House and was bought on behalf of the local community by North Tyneside Council with financial and operational assistance managed by the R.W. Mann Trust. The Trust was formed to manage the facility; however the acquisition was managed through the Council in order to be eligible for Government grants in support of the purchase. Volunteers founded the Friends of St. Mary’s Island in 1990, which raises funds to contribute to the safeguarding the future of the lighthouse and its nature reserve. In 2002, the group obtained Charitable Status.

St. Mary’s is reached via a short causeway from the car park on the mainland at low tide. Visitors can climb the 137 steps inside the tower to the lantern room. Other exhibits include a museum and visitor’s centre that explain the history of the lighthouse and local maritime environment. The small, yet important Nature Reserve comprising the property includes rock pools, a beach, freshwater ponds and cliff top grasslands and provides habitats for a rich variety of marine life and spectacular flights of resident and migrating seabirds. There is also a café on site.

The property is comprised of three main buildings including the lighthouse itself. All have been constructed of stone and mortar. Financing for ongoing maintenance is primarily generated through the Friend’s of St. Mary’s Island charity and are generally comprised of membership dues, on site sales from the café and admission fees, as well as donations. Given that the site has significant historical value as well as being situated in close proximity to a major urban centre, there is a significant amount of visitor traffic in the summer. However, because it is a charitable organization running a costly to maintain property, there is a significant reliance on Heritage Grants in order to supplement the North Tyneside Council’s contribution to supporting the property.

In summary, while the adaptive reuse of this facility has taken great care in maintaining and improving the property – protecting through a charitable trust structure – there is still a significant reliance on outside funding sources in maintaining the property as on site sources of revenue are insufficient.

2.2 Corsewall Lighthouse Hotel, Scotland

The Corsewall Lighthouse is remotely situated on the Western coast of Scotland, approximately fifteen kilometres north of the Town of Stranraer, a two hour drive south of Glasgow. Situated in the Scottish countryside and facing the Irish Sea and Northern Ireland, the conversion of this property to a hotel seems like a natural adaptation from its original use as a navigational aid at the entrance to Stranraer Harbour.

Built in 1817, the Corsewall Lighthouse was automated in 1994 and is remotely monitored from Edinburgh by the Northern Lighthouse Board. The former Lightkeepers accommodations and the grounds were sold and are now operated as the Corsewall Lighthouse Hotel, the only lighthouse in the UK that is a four star luxury hotel.

The Hotel is a small scale seasonal operation that appears to meet its operating costs through its primary business operations without any grant or donation requirements. The Hotel and its restaurant are well regarded with room rates starting at $180 CDN per night. This is a popular area for tourists as it is located in a scenic rural setting with easy access to Glasgow and southern Scotland. Both the light house and the Hotel (former light keeper’s house) are made of stone and mortar.

2.3 Clare Island Lighthouse

The Clare Island Lighthouse, situated on the northwest coast of Clare Island, was originally constructed in 1806, with a second, larger lighthouse constructed in 1818. Clare Island is a remote island on the West Coast of Ireland. The Island is accessible via a daily ferry service and is predominantly rural with only a small collection of farm houses and businesses on the southeast side of the Island around its main harbour. There is a small elementary school on the island with children attending high school on the mainland. Galway is the closest City, an approximately two and a half hour drive by car.

The Clare Island Lighthouse was taken out of service in 1965 and sold to a private Owner, replaced by the Achillbeg Island Lighthouse. The property consists of the two lighthouse towers, a main residence and various other outbuildings. The property had a succession of private owners over the years, at one stage operating as a successful bed & breakfast. Over the years the residence was extended and renovated to the highest standards, with a new roof heating system and other modern amenities.

In 2008, a German doctor bought the property as a birthday present for his wife. Originally offered at 2.1 million euros, the property sat on the market for months until the price was dropped to 500,000 euros. At that price, multiple buyers were interested and the owner auctioned off the property for a final price of 1.05 million euros. It is now a private residence.

3.0 Case Studies from the United States

The US Coast Guard has been building and maintaining lighthouses in the United States since 1939. GPS units and the automation of navigational tools mean many lighthouses have been rendered obsolete. The National Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000 (NLPA) established the process to divest historic light stations from the Federal Government’s inventory to qualified new stewards. The NLPA was an amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. It establishes a multiple step process involving the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the General Services Administration (GSA) and the National Park Service (NPS).

The first step is the determination of the property as “excess to service requirements” by the USCG and its identification as a historic structure. The GSA gives notice that application may be made for the structure. In this phase, non-profit and/or historical organizations may apply for ownership. If application is made and accepted, the lighthouse is simply transferred to the applicant subject to compliance with requirements to maintain the site and make it available to the public. State historical agencies typically review the applications, as does the NPS. Eligible entities are given an opportunity to inspect the property at a site visit. The US Secretary of the Interior recommends the winning applicant.

If no steward is identified through the no-cost transfer application process, GSA will sell the lighthouses through a competitive online public auction. The agency sets a registration deposit for interested bidders, an opening bid and minimum bidding increments. A “soft-close” for each auction is also indicated, meaning if a new bid comes within 24 hours of the soft close date, the auction continues. GSA works closely with state historic preservation officers to ensure historic preservation requirements are in place to protect these properties as part of the conveyance.

3.1 Point Arena Lighthouse, CA - non profit

Point Arena is located approximately 200 kilometres North of San Francisco via Highway 101. Originally constructed in 1870, the current building was constructed of steel and concrete in 1907 after an earthquake destroyed the original structure. Located in the Arena Rock Marine Natural Preserve, the Point Arena Lighthouse Keepers, a nonprofit organization, acquired the property in 1984 as part of a 25 year land lease from the Coast Guard and Department of Transportation. In 2000, the property was transferred to the organization in recognition of the preservation and educational value of their reuse of the property.

Daily visitation, gift store sales and memberships provide desperately needed income for ongoing preservation, facility upgrades and educational endeavors. The rental of the historic Keeper's homes on the property as vacation houses are another source of income. In spite of best efforts, the nonprofit organization still relies heavily on grant funding and donations in the active maintenance of the property. Funding is also provided by the California Cultural & Historic Endowment and an endowment fund established specifically for the property. Given its remoteness and the northwest coast of California approximately a half hour drive off of highway 101, usage/ tourist visitation is primarily seasonal.

3.2 Thimble Shoals Light - private individual

The Thimble Shoal Lighthouse is situated in Chesapeake Bay approximately four miles from land in the main navigational channel between Newport Beach and Norfolk Virginia. The area is heavily used by commercial and naval maritime traffic as well as pleasure boaters.

It is a ‘sparkplug’ lighthouse only accessible via boat that was subject to an auction process in August 2005. Because of the regulatory requirements in place, the US Coast Guard is required to transfer the property to a qualified nonprofit organization for ongoing management. After an extensive process, no organization was found and an online auction was conducted to sell the property. Interested bidders were required to give a $5,000 deposit to the General Services Administration and were allowed to tour the lighthouse on specified dates. Because of the significant deferred maintenance on the property, proponents were required to take the property ‘as is where is’.

The invitation for bids informed interested parties that the lighthouse would need to be maintained according to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation the right of ingress and egress would be retained by the Coast Guard to operate, repair, replace or relocate the aid to navigation located at the property lead-based paint and asbestos might be present at the lighthouse Peter Jurewicz submitted the winning bid of $65,000 with the intention of restoring the structure and using it as a family vacation home.

3.3 Morgan Point Lighthouse - private individual

Morgan Point is situated in the town of Noank Connecticut approximately 80 kilometres southwest of Providence. The Morgan Point Lighthouse has stood on Connecticut’s Fishers Island Sound since 1868. When it was replaced by an automatic light to the east in 1919, it was sold to a private party.
In 1991, after seeing an add in the Wall Street Journal, Jason Pilalas purchased the Lighthouse and surrounding land for $1.29 million with the intention of renovating it as a summer home. He set out to restore the exterior to its original appearance, and converted the interior to a comfortable living space. A new lantern room was added to replace the one destroyed decades earlier. The total costs of the upgrades are estimated to be over one million dollars. The lighthouse and surrounding grounds are now closed to the public, although the structure is well maintained and remains an important visual landmark for traffic coming into the harbor.

3.4 Pigeon Point Lighthouse Hostel

Located 50 miles south of San Francisco, the 140 year old Pigeon Point Lighthouse is still an active Coast Guard aid to navigation. The lighthouse and land around have been preserved as Pigeon Point Lighthouse Station State Historic Park. The lighthouse itself has been designated a California historical landmark.

A hostel in the restored lighthouse keeper’s quarters offers unique seaside accommodation. Guests can stay in a shared dorm room ($23-25) or in a private room ($59-111). The hostel is especially popular during whale migratory season where guests can see whales from outside their windows.

Each November, thousands of visitors gather to witness the annual lighting of the original Fresnel lens, during a daylong celebration of the anniversary of the first lighting. Instituted by Hostelling International USA, Golden Gate Council more than a decade ago, the event has become so popular that the California State Parks department now acts as master of ceremonies by inviting the U.S. Coast Guard to switch the lights, and local community and environmental organizations participate as well.

The Pigeon Point Lighthouse hostel is operated by the Golden Gate Council of Hostelling International, a nonprofit membership organization, with cooperation from the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the United States Coast Guard. In 1960 the US Coast Guard built four, three bedroom houses next to the lighthouse. Today, through the efforts of Hostelling International, these structures offer lodging for up to 50 hostellers of all ages. The actual lighthouse tower has been closed for tours for nearly a decade due to structural decay. A grant has recently been dedicated for the necessary repairs.

3.5 Cedar Key Lighthouse, Seahorse Key marine laboratory

The Cedar Key Light is located on the small island of Seahorse Key approximately 180 kilometres northwest of Orlando Florida. In 1929, the Cedar Key National Wildlife Refuge was established by preserving three of the keys as a bird sanctuary. In 1936 Seahorse Key was added to the refuge. The lighthouse was built in 1854 and is on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1951 the US Department of Interior leased the lighthouse to the University of Florida for use as part of its Seahorse Key Marine Laboratory.

The island is a valuable location where scientists study ecological organization under simplified conditions. The refuge is used heavily for public environmental education, with workshops and school groups visiting. The lighthouse itself serves as a dormitory with six bedrooms and twenty six bunk beds. A laboratory is located on site and other supporting facilities are also located on site. The University of Florida utilizes the field station for ongoing support and research of coastal and marine related subjects.

3.6 Tillamook Rock, Oregon - cemetery

Constructed in 1881, the Tillamook Rock Lighthouse is located on a rock in the Pacific Ocean off the Oregon Coast. Nicknamed Terrible Tilly, the light was a nightmare for lighthouse keepers and maintenance workers, and was constantly damaged due to flying debris during storms. The commute to the rock was also very difficult, even today access to the site is severely limited, with a helicopter landing the only way to access the rock. The lighthouse was decommissioned in 1957, and sold to a private party.

The lighthouse was sold again in 1980 to real estate developers who turned it into the Eternity at Sea Columbarium. Interested parties could have their ashes placed inside the lighthouse, for anywhere between $1,000 to $5,000. After being late with paper work, the owners of the lighthouse lost their license to operate as a columbarium in 1999. In 2005, an application for a new license was rejected due to questionable records and improper storage of urns. Eternity at Sea still plans to raise additional money and construct niches in the structure to store some 300,000 urns. It is estimated only about 30 urns have been placed in the lighthouse to date. The site is now a part of the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

3.7 Beaver Island Lighthouse – school

Beaver Lighthouse is located at the south end of Beaver Island, Michigan approximately 140 kilometres southeast of Sault Ste. Marie. The current 46 foot tower was built in 1858 to replace a previously constructed tower in 1852. Other buildings on site include an attached lighthouse keepers dwelling and assistant keepers dwelling. A fog signal building was constructed in 1915. In 1962 the station was decommissioned and declared excess after a radio beacon tower was constructed nearby.

In 1975 the Charlevoix Public Schools purchased the lighthouse and surrounding 64 acres of land for a total consideration of one dollar. In following, years the lighthouse suffered physical deterioration and destruction due to vandalism. Renovation of the lighthouse began when the School District initiated a summer work-study program for disadvantaged youth. The program involved various stages to fix up the distressed site. Today, the Lighthouse school is a residential alternative high school program which offers students aged 16-21 an opportunity to return to school, change environments, and hopefully, acquire a new perspective on education & life. A rigorous 7 day a week academic schedule includes work experience and recreation. The tower is a national historic building and free self-guided tower climbs are open to the public daily.

3.8 St. Augustine Lighthouse – Museum, bookstore, theatre

St Augustine Lighthouse is located on the north end of Anastasia Island, near St. Augustine, Florida (a suburb of Jacksonville). The original tower was Florida’s first lighthouse in 1824. However, in 1870 the tower was threatened by beach erosion and construction began on a new tower, which was completed in 1874. Two years later a brick light keeper’s house was added to the site, where light keepers lived until the tower was automated in 1955.

In 1980 a group of women in the Junior Service League of St. Augustine began a fifteen-year campaign to restore the keeper’s house and the tower that was destroyed by a fire in 1970. Subsequently, the lighthouse was placed on the National Register of Historic Places due to the group’s efforts. The house was opened to the public as a museum in 1988, and in 1993, the tower was also opened to visitors. A Coast Guard barracks and garage are located on the property and are in use. The site is also a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station.

In 2002, the United States Coast Guard, through the General Services Administration, transferred the deed of the tower to the St. Augustine Lighthouse Museum Inc. This was the first transfer of a lighthouse to a non-profit organization under the National Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000.

Guests can examine artifacts in the museum and climb the 219 steps to the top of the tower. There is also a guest keeper program available, which includes three days on site at the light station and the opportunity to shadow museum staff.

In addition, the St. Augustine Lighthouse and Museum’s Lighthouse Archaeological Maritime Program (LAMP) is dedicated to the study, investigation, preservation and interpretation of the submerged cultural resources of St. Augustine and northeast Florida. LAMP is the only maritime research institution permitted in what is known as the St. Augustine Reserve Area. The site contains artifacts from seafaring culture and the group is committed to continuing research and preserving this maritime heritage. LAMP was also instrumental in developing the first underwater archaeology program to enter a public school system. Over 54,000 school aged children have been on site through summer camps, tours and other programs.

3.9 Newport News Middle Ground Lighthouse

Newport News Middle Ground Light is located in Hampton Roads, Virginia and is situated in close proximity to the Thimble Shoals Light (a previous case study). Built in 1891, the lighthouse’s caisson foundation is 58 feet high and has five levels and three rooms. The station was automated in 1954 and the state of the structure deteriorated due to neglected maintenance.

In 2005, the Newport News Middle Ground Lighthouse was auctioned off on an online sale by the General Services Administration after no eligible government or non-profit group wanted to assume stewardship of the property. It was sold for a mere $31,000 given its structural deficiencies and poor condition. Though sold at auction, it still provides an active aid to navigation and the owners are required to provide safe access to the Coast Guard to service the light beacon. The purchaser, Robert Gonsoulin, renovated the structure with a new electrical system, toilets and other improvements with the property currently in use as a vacation home for his family.

4.0 Case Studies from Australia

Federally owned lighthouses in Australia are operated by The Maritime Safety Authority. After automation of many of the lights, AMSA transferred many of the properties to the control of local and state authorities or organizations, mainly the Parks and Wildlife Services in each State. In some cases, local Port Authorities own the lighthouses.

Those that are protected by the Parks and Wildlife Services are often historic, and the agencies aim to ensure the public is able to access and appreciate the sites. Through adaptive re-use, they aim to increase tourism opportunities available at the lighthouse sites, with the proceeds being used to support their conservation management. The Parks and Wildlife Services will also enter into lease agreements to transfer management and maintenance to interested parties, while retaining ownership of the historic sites.

4.1 Smokey Cape Lighthouse - B&B / cottages

The Smokey Cape Lighthouse is situated just outside of the town of South West Rocks, NSW approximately 380 kilometres north of Sydney. Sitting on a hill in the Hat Head National Park, the historic Smokey Cape Lighthouse is the most elevated lighthouse on Australia’s east coast.

Operated by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the lighthouse was automated in 1988 and is still an active navigational aid today. In 1998, Smokey Cape was the first NSW Parks and Wildlife Service lighthouse to be opened for tours. The site has also been an Australian Bureau of Meteorology site for gathering climate statistics since 1939.

The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service lease the lighthouse and surrounding properties to a private tourism operator. The head lighthouse keeper’s cottage has been restored and converted into a two room bed and breakfast. The two assistant lighthouse keeper’s cottages have been converted into self-catered cottages which can accommodate up to six people.

4.2 Table Cape Lighthouse – Tulip farm

Table Cape is an extinct volcano located near Wynyard, on the north coast of Tasmania. The area was first settled and developed by the Van Diemens Land Company in the 1820’s. After several shipping accidents, a lighthouse was constructed in 1888 along with three keeper’s cottages. In 1920, the lighthouse was automated.

The farmland surrounding the lighthouse was been with the same family since 1910, and in 1984 was converted into a tulip farm. The farm now specializes in tulips, lilies, and iris bulbs and flower production. The farm is one of the largest bulb producers in Australia forms the backdrop the Wynyard’s annual tulip festival, attracting thousands of visitors each year.

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority was reluctant to open it up to the public until 2010, when after years of lobbying, they finally agreed to lease the heritage-listed lighthouse to a third party tourism operator. A $185,000 grant from the Commonwealth Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism allowed necessary maintenance to be undertaken on the tower. The Table Cape Lighthouse is now the only working lighthouse open to the public in Tasmania.

4.3 Lighthouse Lodge, Flagstaff Hill

Flagstaff Hill overlooks Lady Bay at Warrnambool, Victoria approximately 180 kilometres west of Melbourne. The grounds have two active lighthouses which are both on the State Heritage List, Lady Bay Upper Lighthouse and Lady Bay Lower Lighthouse.

The Flagstaff Hill Maritime Village was built around the lighthouses and operates as a heritage attraction and museum, housing a collection of shipwreck and maritime artifacts. The city of Warrnambool leased the site from the National Park & Wildlife Service, including the lighthouses, to develop the museum in 1974. Today, lighthouses are also accessible to the public, where they can climb atop the towers.

Lighthouse Lodge in the grounds of Flagstaff Hill Maritime Village is the latest lighthouse accommodation to be opened to the public. Guests can stay in the original lighthouse keeper’s cottages, which have been renovated and have three rooms. The Village offers a variety of amenities, including a gift shop, restaurant, tearoom, and conference facilities.

4.4 Cape Don Lighthouse – Fishing Lodge

The Cape Don Lighthouse is located on the Cobourg Peninsula approximately 360 kilometres northeast of Darwin. Constructed in 1971 by the Commonwealth Government, as the passage between the peninsula and Melville Island, the light station is located within the Gurig National Park. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority operates the light, and when it was automated in 1983 the cottages were handed over to the Northern Territory Conservation Commission. The remainder of the site is operated by the Garig National Park authorities. The site is accessible via air, boat and 4WD only in the dry season.

While the tower itself is closed to the public, today the lighthouse keeper’s cottages are utilized as the Cape Don Fishing Lodge. The fishing lodge leased the facilities from the Northern Territory Conservation Commission. Fitted with modern facilities, the lodge has 5 large bedrooms and a dining and lounge area. Guests come for the renowned range of sport fishing available in Cape Don, although the lodge has a strict catch and release policy.

5.0 International/ Other Case Studies

5.1 Susac Island Lighthouse, Croatia

The island of Susac is located south of the island of Hvar in Croatia on the Adriatic Sea. It is a private island that can be rented, with the lighthouse providing accommodation. The Susac lighthouse was built in 1878 on the southern side of the island. It is a stone, ground-floor building with two four-bedroom apartments. There is a berth where boats docked as it is only accessible via boat. The only inhabitants of the island are the lighthouse keepers. The lighthouse keepers provide meals for guests. The remote isolation of the lighthouse is a major selling point, with visitors paying approximately 400 euros a week for their stay.

Appendix C: US National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act – Excerpts

Maritime Heritage Program

National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000

Back to NHLPA - Main Page
Back to Lighthouse Heritage

The NHLPA Program at a Glance

Excess Government Property and the Notice of Availability

When a federal agency determines a historic light station to be excess to its needs, GSA will issue a “Notice of Availability” (NOA) for the property. Once the NOA has been issued, any eligible entity with an interest in acquiring the light station must 1) submit a letter of interest to GSA and 2) submit a copy of the letter to the SHPO of the state in which the light station is located within sixty (60) days of the date the NOA is issued. Letters of interest must include:

• Name of the light station property
• Name of the eligible entity
• Point of contact, title, address, phone number(s) and email of the eligible entity
• Nonprofit agencies must provide a copy of their state-certified articles of incorporation

GSA will forward a list of eligible entities from information provided in these letters to the NPS.

The NHLPA Application and Open House

NPS will send an application to eligible entities that have submitted a complete letter of interest as determined by GSA. Eligible entities will then be given an opportunity to inspect the property at an open house, the date of which is set by GSA and USCG. The completed application must be submitted to the NPS ninety (90) days after receipt of the application.

The NHLPA Review Process

The NPS Review Committee is made up of:

• at least one expert in cultural resources management;
• at least one expert in maritime history and/or preservation;
• and at least one expert in park and recreational programs.

The NPS Review Committee will evaluate the applications for completeness; past performance; ability to carry forward the goals of the NHLPA; compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68); and most important, compliance with legal requirements of the NHLPA and the National Historic Preservation Act, of which the NHLPA is an amendment. The application is the sole document judged by the NPS Review Committee in determining the conditions under which the applicant will manage the property. The application, once accepted, becomes the principal planning document for the light station. In addition, the SHPO of the state in which the light station is listed will be provided with copies of all submitted applications for comment. At the end of the evaluation process, the NPS Review Committee will submit a recommendation to the Director of the National Park Service who will in turn make a recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. In cases where there are multiple applicants for a single light station, the applicants whose applications were rejected will have the opportunity to request a review of the evaluation and recommendation.

Transferring NHLPA Light Stations

The Secretary of the Interior will notify the Administrator of GSA as to the recommended applicant and GSA will complete the conveyance to the selected recipient. If no acceptable steward is found at the end of the NHLPA application process, the property will be offered for sale by competitive bid or auction. Lighthouses for sale will be posted at http://propertydisposal.gsa.gov.

NHLPA Application Criteria

An application packet for the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Program will be sent to eligible entities by the National Park Service once they are qualified by the General Services Administration. Following is a sample of what might be required of potential applicants. Please note this information is provided for reference only and is subject to change. Therefore it is not advisable to assemble an application for a historic light station prior to receiving a cover letter and official application packet from the National Park Service.

Title Page
Must include:

• Name of applicant organization and representative
• Name of prospective transferee (if different from applicant organization)
• Physical address of applicant organization: street, city, state, zip code
• Daytime telephone number of applicant organization and/or representative
• Mail Address (if different from physical address)
• Name of historic light station property and GSA Control #
• Physical address of property: street, city, county, state, zip code

Executive Summary

Provide a general statement that summarizes in one page the overall goals of this project, describing the intended use and future plans. Include a statement of why the Applicant(s) should be the recipient of the property.

Property Description and Supporting Documentation
Do not include copies of newspaper articles, etc. as a means of conveying information - they will not be read for content. They may be attached, however, as an appendix to document local interest and visibility of the lighthouse and community involvement.

• Provide a physical description of the historic light station being requested, including character defining features of the historic buildings and structures and key geographic features (topography, vegetative cover, water bodies, and other natural features). The text must identify cultural, and natural property features, including historic structures, buildings, archeological features or sites, and general landscape.
• Discuss the historical value of this particular property (i.e. integrity of workmanship, materials, character, role, and setting). If the property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, do not repeat information found in the nomination but reference the enclosed nomination.
• Indicate where the principal access roads will be located to and within the property, as well as public parking areas, if applicable
• Describe the relationship of the property to the surrounding uses and adjacent properties.

Supporting documentation must include:

• a map or site plan;

• property adequately documenting spaces and features addressed in the "Property Description" and "Preservation and Maintenance Plan." These need not be professional photographs but should be clear color or black and white, 35mm prints. Digital prints may be submitted ONLY if developed by a professional lab. Polaroid and digital photographs other than those developed by a professional lab are not acceptable as their prints are not archivally stable. A map of the site (may be a free hand drawing or duplicate of an existing drawing) indicating the direction of the photographs may be helpful; and
• a copy of the National Register of Historic Places nomination form or a copy of the Determination of Eligibility.

Master Plan for the Historic Light Station

a. Preservation and Maintenance Plan
Provide plans for the preservation and maintenance of the historic light station property in graphic and narrative form. Detailed plans and specifications are not expected, but it must be clear that the Applicant has fully recognized areas of historic significance and will plan to minimize the impact of any proposed work on these significant areas.

Preservation:

• For each historic building/structure and landscape feature of the property, describe how it will be repaired, rehabilitated, restored or preserved -- include the impacts of new utilities, handicap accessibility, parking and other modifications.
• For archeological areas, describe security and maintenance to stabilize the site, control vegetal growth, or avoid damage.
• Describe how hazardous materials including but not limited to lead paint and asbestos will be handled. All remediation must conform to state regulations.
• List the increments and time schedules for phased preservation work and the estimated cost of each increment.
• Provide summaries of any supporting documentation used in the development of plans such as historic structures reports and engineering studies. (NPS may request full copies of these reports at a later date.)
• Describe preservation planning experience at this and other similar sites managed by your team.

Maintenance:

• Describe the cyclical maintenance plan for both the built and natural environment.
• Describe maintenance planning experience at this and other similar sites managed by your team.

b. Use Plan
Describe in detail the planned use of the historic light station.

• Describe the educational, park, recreation and/or cultural use of the property and how this will be implemented. Include estimated time the historic light station will be open to the general public.
• Establish the suitability of the property for the proposed uses and the compatibility of the proposed revenue producing activities with the historical and/or architectural character of the property.
• Discuss how the proposed use will meet both federal and state accessibility laws and regulations.
• Differentiate between public-use activities and revenue-producing activities.
• Identify any portions of the property to which public access will be denied or restricted, such as the support areas and USCG controlled areas.
• Compare the planned use of this site with work your organization has performed in the past.

• Provide a statement of current assets and cash flow. Identify projected income from all sources, including income from fundraising, specific grants, cash and in-kind matching funds with specific dollar amounts. Identify projected expenses for repair, rehabilitation, recurring maintenance, insurance, and administration and operation of the historic light station as identified in the preservation and maintenance plan.
• Provide either audited financial statements or financial statements reviewed by a certified public accountant for the past three (3) years.
• Provide budget summaries for the next five (5) years, describing the preservation and on-going maintenance and operation costs needed to bring the property to optimal condition and to maintain it in that condition.
• Identify any capital already invested in the operation and maintenance, preservation, or educational use at this or any other historic site.

d. Management Plan
Provide a management plan that includes organizational structure, stewardship history and capability, and administrative procedures.

• Describe the organizational structure. If you are submitting a joint application (i.e., multiple organizations forming a partnership to manage the light station), describe how each organization will contribute to the effort; how the organizations will work together and make decisions; and which organization will own the lighthouse. For joint applications, all partners must provide a written statement that defines roles, responsibilities, and financial commitments. Newly-formed organizations may not have the required knowledge and experience to be successful candidates and may wish to consider forming a partnership with an established organization with expertise that can complement areas in which the new organization is deficient.
• If the applicant currently holds a license or lease with the USCG for the historic light station property, provide a copy of the insurance binder or certificate. If the applicant does not hold a license or lease, provide a copy of an insurance estimate for the property.
• Include letters of support from outside organizations; please note that letters should specify the type of support to be provided (e.g., technical assistance, financial commitments, shared space, advertising, willingness to create an exhibit or other interpretive material, fund-raising, transportation, etc.). These letters are from organizations that are providing narrowly defined assistance to the applicant or joint applicants.

In addition, non-profit corporations must provide:

• evidence of qualifying state non-profit status;
• corporate by-laws;
• corporate officers by name and title;
• description of succession plan; and
• number of existing members -- DO NOT include a list of members.

Covenant Agreement

A covenant agreement will be included in the NHLPA application packet - it will need to be read and signed by applicant and submitted with other application materials

Resolution/Certification 0f Authority to Acquire Property
The Applicant must submit a certified copy of a resolution, certificate of authority, or similar public document executed by its governing body, that states its desire and ability to acquire surplus Federal property, and designates the person legally authorized to apply for the property. A sample format is available in the application packet. This document should be separate from the application packet and attached to the end of your completed application. The resolution or certification to acquire property must contain the following:

a. A statement that the application is being made for acquisition of the property under the provisions of the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 470w-7) and procedures promulgated thereunder.
b. Identification of the name, location, acreage, and General Services Administration Control Number, if applicable, of the property requested.
c. An authorization to acquire the property exclusively for education, park, recreation, cultural or historic preservation purposes for the general public.
d. A certification that the Applicant is authorized, willing, and able to assume liability and responsibility for the development, maintenance, and operation of the property.
e. A designation by title of a specific official to act as the authorized representative in all matters pertaining to the transfer of the property.
f. A certification that the Applicant is willing and authorized to pay the administrative expenses incident to the transfer.

Environmental Analysis of Probable Impacts:

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (P.L.91-190) requires an analysis of the probable environmental effects of the proposed project. The applicant shall provide information responsive to the environmental questionnaire found at the end of the application packet. The Applicant must furnish sufficient information to demonstrate that it has considered all environmental impacts cited in the questionnaire. Processing of applications will be deferred pending receipt of such information, since required assessment of the environmental impact of any particular project cannot be initiated without prior submission of such data by the applicant. Applicants are cautioned that conformance with these procedures shall not obviate the need for compliance with applicable State and local environmental use and review requirements. The GSA will examine the information and determine whether the analysis is acceptable. In the event that preparation of further documentation is necessary, the applicant may be requested to furnish additional materials to the GSA in order to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.

Provide a narrative explanation of the probable environmental effects of the proposed program of use and preservation occurring in each of the following 12 areas of importance. The environment should be considered as the area that the proposed project would both impact and serve. The greatest detail should concern the probable environmental impact of the project on the particular property and its surrounding community, both in the short and long term. This section should broadly and briefly discuss the geography of the area, wildlife, water and air quality, area population, and potential users of the service to be provided, the economy of the area, and any current environmental concerns.

1. Please describe the specific property that will be directly affected in terms of its current use and proposed use. If the land is in a natural state, please provide a brief description with respect to plant and animal life.

2. Describe the surrounding area. Is it primarily residential, industrial, agricultural, etc.? Is the property in a rural, urban, or suburban area? Has the area been formally zoned for specific uses? Please provide a map of the immediate area covering approximately one square mile.

3. If the proposed action is in a floodplain or affects a floodplain, please list all pertinent restrictions (with citations) on land use under Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, and any actions applicant proposes to mitigate foreseeable adverse effects.

4. Will the proposed action directly or indirectly affect a wetland? Please list any pertinent Federal, State, and local wetland regulations and any actions applicant proposes to mitigate foreseeable adverse effects.

5. Will the proposed action have a direct or indirect effect on any Federally or State-listed endangered species? If so, please describe any impacts as well as any actions applicant proposes in order to mitigate foreseeable adverse effects.

6. Is it reasonably foreseeable that the proposed activity will have a direct or indirect effect on natural resources, land uses, or water uses in the coastal zone? If so, describe how the applicant will comply with the State's enforceable and mandatory coastal zone policies. Please describe any impacts as well as any actionsapplicant proposes in order to mitigate foreseeable adverse effects.

7. Approximately how many visitors will be introduced to the area on a daily basis during operations? Approximately how many vehicles will be introduced into the area on a daily basis as a result of the operation of the facility? Will there be any identifiable increased traffic in the surrounding area as result of the proposed use of the property?

8. How much water will the applicant use on the property in a normal day? What system will provide the water (name and address of system)? How much sewage will the applicant generate on a daily basis? Will the sewage be handled by a sewage treatment facility? If so, please provide the name and address of the system.

9. Will the proposed use of the property likely result in the use, storage, release and/or disposal of toxic, hazardous, or radioactive materials, or in the exposure of people to those materials? If so, please describe these proposed activities.

10. Will the proposed use of the property destroy or decrease access to any known or potential archeological sites? If so, please describe any impacts as well as any actions applicant proposes in order to mitigate foreseeable adverse effects.

11. Will the proposed use of the property violate or require a variance from any Federal, Tribal, State or local laws pertaining to the visual environment, odors, public health, and noise? If so, please describe any impacts as well as any actions applicant proposes in order to mitigate foreseeable adverse effects.

12. Will the proposed use of the property violate or require a variance from any Federal, Tribal, State or local laws pertaining to land, air or water pollution or land use? If so, please describe any impacts as well as any actions applicant proposes in order to mitigate foreseeable adverse effects.

Also included should be the name of the preparer; qualifications of the preparer and contact information including mailing address, telephone number, fax number and email.