[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF RESOURCES MANAGEMENT JULY 1977 GC 1021 T37 034 0 PENNSYLVANIA 1977 04 z x C@OASTAL ZONE go MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 04 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Milton J. Shapp, Governor DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Maurice K. Goddard, Secretary OFFICE OF RESOURCES MANAGEMENT C. H. McConnell, Deputy Secretary PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PRELIMINARY DRAFT The Coastal Zone Management Program is partially financed by the Federal Government through the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) Prepared by OFFICE OF RES0URCE MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF RESOURCES PROGRAMMING HARRISBURG, PA JULY 1977 At the request of Governor Shapp, the Office of Resources management of the Department of Environmental Resources has directed the Commonwealth's efforts to develop a plan for managing Rennsylvania's coastal resources in a sound.and rational manner. This complex and innovative three year planning program has involved professional and coordinative assistance from the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Philadelphia, Pa.), the Erie Metropolitan Planning Department (Erie, Pa.), the Edinboro Foundation (Edinboro, Pa.) and the Marine Science Consortium (Millersville, Pa.), continuous cooperation with local governments, and consultation with the affected public. Special recognition should be given to those individuals who have provided guidance and assistance to the planning staff through their participation on State and Local coordinating committees, (see Appendix B). While many professional and technical staff members of the aforementioned agencies contributed @to the preparation of this document, the Coastal Zone Management staff of DER's Bureau of Resources Programming and the office of Enforcement and General Counsel, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and the Erie Metropolitan Planning Department were directly responsible for its contents. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I CHAPTER I - INVE NTORY OF COASTAL RESOURCES AND USES Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . 1-1 Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Socioeconomic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 Land Uses and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 Water Uses and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11 Lake Erie Coastal Zone Socioeconomic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 1-21 Land Uses and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -26 Water Uses and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-32 CHAPTER II - CURRENT AND PAST PROBLEMS AND ISSUES Introduction . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Land Use, Resources and Environment., . . . . . . . 2-2 Economic Health and Revitalization . . . . . . . . 2-7 Public Involvement and Education . . . . . . . . . 2-7 Government Regulation and Responsibility. 2-8 Lake Erie Coastal Zone Land Use, Resources and Environment . . . . . . . . 2-9 Economic Health and Revitalization . . . . . . . . 2-11 Public Involvement and Education . . . . . . . . . 2-12 Government Regulation and Responsibility. 2-13 CHAPTER III - FUTURE DEMANDS AND DECISIONS Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Projected Population Change and Land Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 Future Port Viability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Page External Decisions Affecting Coastal Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;. . . . . . 3-10 Recreation Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14 Lake Erie Coastal Zone Projected Population Change and Land Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26 Future Port Viability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32 External Decisions Affecting Coastal Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 3-37 Recreation Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-38 CHAPTER IV EXISTING MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 Land Use, Resources, and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Economic Health and Revitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 Public Involvement and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14 Governmental Regulation and Responsibility . . . . . . . . . 4-14 Local Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26 CHAPTER V - COASTAL ZONE POLICY FRAMEWORK Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 Land Use, Resources and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Economic Health and Revitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 Public Involvement and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7 Governmental Regulation and Responsibility . . . . . . . . . 5-8 CHAPTER VI - COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT BOUNDARY Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 Preliminary Study Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 Defining the Coastal Zone Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 -3- Page Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Guiding Principles for the Coastal Zone Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 Description of the Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . . 6-8 Lake Erie Coastal Zone Guiding Principles for the Coastal Zone Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11 Description of the Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . . 6-12 CHAPTER VII - PERMISSIBLE LAND AND WATER USES Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Permissibility of Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2 Permissibility Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5 Local Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9 Lake Erie Coastal Zone Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17 Permissibility Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17 Permissibility of Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-23 Local Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-25 CHAPTER VIII - GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 Criteria for Designation of GAPC's . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 Purpose of Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2 Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Delaware County GAPC's . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4 Philadelphia County GAPC's . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12 Bucks County GAPC's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21 -4- Page- Lake Erie Coastal Zone Western Study Area GAPc1s . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30 Central Study Area GAPC's . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38 Eastern Study Area GAPC's . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44 CHAPTER IX - PRIORITY OF USES IN THE COASTAL ZONE Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Broad Priorities for Resaurce Use . . . . . . . . Priorities for Uses in GAPC's. Areas for Preservation/Restoration . . . . . . . Local Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake Erie Coastal Zone Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zone-wide Priorities for Resource Use . . . . . . Area Type Priorities for Resource Use . . . . . . Priorities for Uses in GAPC's . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Coastal Resource Use Priorities to The Formulation of Coastal Use Policies. . . I Areas for Preservation/Restoration . . . . . . . CHAPTER X - PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Proposed Means for Program Implementation . . . . . . . . 10-1 Proposed Organizational Network for Program Implementation Roles and Responsibilities of The Implementing Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4 Interagency Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-9 Continuing Program Review Process . . . . . . . . 10-11 Information Management System . . . . . . . . . . 10-15 Federal Consistency Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 10-16 Federal Actions Affecting the Coastal Zone . . . 10-17 Criteria for Assessing Consistency . . . . . . . 10-19 -5- Page Review Process for Assuring Consistency . . . . 10-20 Excluded Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-23 APPENDIX A - FEDERAL CONSULTATION . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . Al APPENDIX B - INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B1 APPENDIX C - TECHNICAL SUPPORT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . C1 APPENDIX D - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . D1 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Following Number INTRODUCTION Page I-1 Regional Location II 1-2 Organizational Structure:' Draft Technical Record. IV CHAPTER I DELAWARE ESTUARY i-1 Population Map 1-4 i-2 Black Population Distribution in the Preliminary Study Area 1-5 i-3 Median Family Income Map 1-5 1-4 Employment Map 1-5 i-5 Regional Development Pattern 1970 1-7 i-6 Existing Land Use Map - Delaware County 1-8 i-7 Existing Land Use Map - Philadelphia County 1-9 i-8 Existing Land Use Map - Bucks County 1-9 i_9 Land Resources Delaware County 1-10 i-10 Land Resources Philadelphia County 1-10 i-11 Land Resources Bucks County 1-10 i-12 Comparison of six largest non-utility industrial with six PECo stations 1-13 i-13 Municipal Withdrawers in the Study Area 1-14 i-14 Water Use - Intakes and Dischargers - Delaware County 1-15 i-15 Water Use - Intakes and Dischargers - Philadelphia County 1-15 1-16 Water Use - Intakes and Dischargers - Bucks County 1-15 i-17 Generalized Trend in Water Quality in Delaware Estuary 1-15 i-18 Four major Water Quality problems and their primary causes 1-15 i-19 Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants in the Study Area 1-15 i-20 Water Use: Channels, Anchorages and Marinas - Delaware Co. 1-16 i-21 Water Use: Channels, Anchorages and Maripas - Phila. Co. 1-16 i-22 Water Use: Channels, Anchorages and Marinas - Bucks Co. 1-16 i-23 Fish catches in the Delaware Estuary 1850-1965 1-16 LAKE ERIE i-24 Lake Erie Coastal Zone 1-21 i-25 Population Map 1-24 i-26 Black Population Distribution 1-24 i-27 Median Family Income 1-24 i-28 Employment 1-24 i-29 Existing Land Use - Western Study Area (WSA) 1-26 i-30 Existing Land Use - Central Study Area (CSA) 1-26 i-31 Existing Land Use - Eastern Study Area (ESA) 1-26 i-32 Land Use Chart - WSA 1-27 i-33 Land Use Chart - CSA 1-27 i-34 Land Use Chart - ESA 1-28 i--:35 Beneficial Land Resources - WSA 1-28 i-36 Beneficial Land Resources - CSA 1-28 1-37 Beneficial Land Resources - ESA 1-28 i-38 Limitation Land Resources - WSA 1-29 i-39 Limitation Land Resources - CSA 1-29 i-40 Limitation Land Resources - ESA 1-29 i-41 Wastewater Dischargers 1-34 i-42 Water Use - Intake and Dischargers - WSA 1-34 i-43 Water Use - Intake and Dischargers - CSA 1-34 i-44 Water Use - Intake and Dischargers - ESA 1-34 -2- Figure Following Number Page i-45 Water Use: Channels, Anchorages and Marinas - WSA 1-36 i-46 Water Use: Channels, Anchorages and Marinas - CSA 1-36 i-47 Water Use: Channels, Anchorages and Marinas - ESA 1-36' i-48 Fish Catch (Poundage) 1-37 DELAWARE ESTUARY . CHAPTER 2 ii-1 Location of Tanker Casualties, 1969-1974 2-4 CHAPTER 3 DELAWARE ESTUARY iii-I Population Change 3-2 iii-2 Change in Population and Land Use: 1970-2000 3-2 iii-3 External Decisions affecting the Coastal Zone 3-10 iii-4 Recreation Planning Area 3-16 iii-5 Demographic Based Projected Recreation Participation 3-16 iii-6 Local Recreation Needs, Year 2000 3-16 LAKE ERIE iii-7 Population Change - 1960, 100-2000 3-27 iii-9 Population Change - 1970-2000 (Individual Municipalities) 3-29 iii-8 Population Change - 1970-1975, 2000, City of Erie 3-27 iii-10 Percent Population Change Map - 1970-2009 3-30 iii-11 Demographic Based Projected Recreation Participation 3-38 iii-12 Recreation Planning Area 3-38 CHAPTER 4 DELAWARE ESTUARY iv-1 Summary of Problems - Adequacy of Authority 4-18 iv-2 Local Land Use Plan - Delaware County 4-20 iv-3 Local Land Use Plan - Philadelphia County 4-20 iv-4 Local Land Use Plan - Bucks County 4-20 iv-5 Generalized Zoning - Delaware County 4-23 iv-6 Generalized Zoning - Philadelphia County 4-23 iv-7 Generalized Zoning - Bucks County 4-23 LAKE ERIE iv-8 Local Land Use Plan - WSA 4-24 iv-9 Local Land Use Plan - CSA 4-24 iv-10 Local Land Use Plan - ESA 4-24 iv-11 Generalized Zoning - WSA 4-25 iv-12 Generalized Zoning - CSA 4-25 iv-13 Generalized Zoning - ESA 4-25 -3- Figure Following Number Page CHAPTER 6 DELAWARE ESTUARY iv@l Delaware Estuary. Coastal Zone 6-10 LAKE ERIE vi-2 Lake Erie Coastal Zone 6-14 CHAPTER 7 DELAWARE ESTUARY vii-l Land and Water Uses to be Tested for Permissibility 7-4 vii-2 Permissibility Guidelines Matrix 7-4 vii-3 Flow Chart of Procedure for Making Permissibility Recommendations 7-5 vii-4 Coastal Resources 7-5 vii-5 Impact Categories 7-6 vii-6 Capability and Suitability of Coastal Resources to Support Uses 7-8 vii-7 Resources Comprising Each Area Type 7-8 vii-8 Matrix of Compatibility of Potential Uses in Each Area Type 7-8 LAKE ERIE vii-9 Impact Assessment - Residential, Commerical, Agricultural 7-20 vii-10 Impact Assessment - Industrial, Transportation 7-20 vii-11 Impact Assessment - Recreational 7-20 vii-12 Impact Assessment - Extractive 7-20 CHAPTER 8 DELAWARE ESTUARY V13-i-1 Detailed Sector (1) Map 8-29 viii-2 Detailed Sector (2) Map 8-29 viii-3 Detailed Sector (3) Map 8-29 viii-4 Detailed Sector (4) Map 8-29 viii-5 Detailed Sector (5) Map 8-29 viii-6 Detailed Sector (6) Map 8-29 LAKE ERIE viii-7 Detailed Sector (1) Map 8-47 viii-8 Detailed Sector (2) Map 8-47 viii-9 Detailed Sector (3) Map 8-47 viii-10 Detailed Sector (4) Map 8-47 viii-11 Detailed Sector (5) Map 8-47 -4- Figure Number Following CHAPTER 9 Page DELAWARE ESTUARY ix-1 Demand for Uses of Greater than Local Concern ix--2 Broad priorities for the Coastal Zone ix-3 Relating Coastal-wide Priorities of GAPC's LAKE ERIE ix-4 Character and priority for action of Areas of Significant Natural Value i@@5 Character and priority for action for Development Opportunity Areas CHAPTER 10 X-1 Implementation Alternative 1 10-2 x-2 Implementation Alternative 11 10-2 x-3 Proposed Coastal Zone Management Board 10-5 x-4 Data Modules, Types and Functions 10-15 x-5 Potential Users of Coastal Zone Information 10-16 C INTRODUCTION "The key to more effective use of our coastline is the introduction of a management system permitting conscious and informed choices among development alternatives ... in order to insure both (the) management and sound- utilization of (coastal) resources." Our Nation and the Sea - A Plan for National Action Stratton Commission, 1969. Background National concern over development pressures on the ocean, Great Lakes and estuarine shorelines led Congress late in 1972 to enact the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583). The Act encourages states to develop comprehensive programs to ensure wise and effective management of valuable coastal resources. In formulating their programs to comply with the Act, states may choose the management approach which is most appropriate for their particular problems and issues, from several possible alternatives. The Coastal Zone Management Act makes it national policy: 0 to preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, to restore our coastal resources 0 to help states manage their coastal responsibilities wisely through the development of app@opriate management programs 0 for all federal agencies engaged in work affecting coastal areas to consult closely with the state agencies responsible for administering the coastal management programs r 0 to encourage cooperation among local, state and regional agencies Although participation in the program is voluntary, all 30 eligible states and three territories are currently engaged in the coastal planning process. Included within the coastal fringes of the participating states are: 0 9 of the 11 counties which had the fastest growing populations between 1960-1970 0 the nation's 8 largest cities 0 1 of the U.S. population 0 60,000 miles of shoreline 0 50% of the manufacturing facilities in the U.S. Two kinds of federal incentives to foster state participation are built into the Act: 0 Financial assistance goes to states to help them meet costs of developing and ad- ministering coastal zone management programs, to assist in acquisition of estuarine sanctuaries and lands that improve beach access. 0 Once the federal government approves the state management program, all federal agencies conducting or supporting activities in the coastal zone must make them confrom to the state plan to the maximum extent practicable. Pennsylvanials Coastal Management Program According to the definition in the Act, Pennsylvania qualifies as a "coastal state" because of two widely separated areas. The 63 mile long Lake Erie shoreline and the 57 mile segment of the tidal Delaware River in Pennsylvania are both eligible for Coastal Zone Management. Interestingly, Pennsylvania is the only state in the country, other than New York, with two, geographically distinct Coastal Zones. Figure I-1 indicates the position of Pennsylvania's two coastal zones relative to those of nearby Great Lakes, New England, and Mid-Atlantic states. Although the Coastal Zone Management Act was passed by Congress, and signed into law late in 1972, funding was not available until 1974. In June, 1974, Governor Shapp designated the Department of Environmental Resources as the lead agency for Pennsylvania's Coastal Zone Program. During the next three years, -the Department of Environmental Resources worked with other State agencies, local study area consultants, elected officials, shorefront industries and interested citizens'to produce the Coastal Management Program, described in this Draft Technical Record. The first year of the program was devoted exclusively to inventory work and data gathering. During the second year, work progressed on respurcp analysis, and the development of working papers and technical memoranda on elements required by the Act and the Federal guidelines. Finally, the third year of the program was spent in preparing the Draft Technical Record and more than 60 accompanying maps. The Act defines a management program as "a comprehensive statement in words, maps, illustrations, or other permanent media of communication ... setting forth objectives, policies and standards to guide and regulate public and private uses of the land and waters in the coastal zone." This draft document represents the first and most comprehensive statement to date by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the protection and development of coastal resources. Required Elements The requirements of the Act focus on process and leave the details of the management programs to the individual states. However, there are specific elements which the Coastal Management Program must address, including: oQ C A N A D A 0 N T A R 1 0 L A K E LWE E?,tF- MICM/qAN C-OAzU.L- Zot'M NEW YORK 0 M A R Y L A N 0 W 9 3 T v I A 0 1 N I A D EL 1) identification of the boundaries of the coastal zone which will be subject to the management plan 2) a definition of permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone 3) an inventory of geographic areas of particular concern 4) broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular areas, especially those uses of lowest priority 5) the means by which decisions affecting the coatal zone will incorporate a broad statewide viewpoint 6) a description of the organizational structure that will implement the management program, including the interrelationships of local, areawide, state, regional and interstate. agencies The Act is unusual in that the implementation strategy must be developed and presented with the other elements of the program. Historically, many plans have been produced and presented to the public without a discussion of how to make the recommendations happen. The Coastal Management Program requires that all necessary legislative actions and executive authorities be developed before funding begins. In the case of Pennsylvania (as with many states), it was necessary to conduct a detailed inventory of existing state authorities in order to determine if they were adequate to implement a Coastal Program. (The results of the inventory are described in Chapter IV.) How to Use the Draft Technical Record r The Draft Techn ical Record and the accompanying maps cover both coastal zones in Pennsylvania - the Delaware Estuary and the Lake Erie shoreline. It is anticipated that most readers will be primarily concerned with only one of the two areas, considerably reducing the volume of material to be covered. Readers are urged to review the general introduction to each chapter and then skip to the section of interest. In each case the specific information for the Delaware Estuary is presented first, followed by the section devoted to Lake Erie. Readers who examine the entire Draft Technical Record will f ind great similarity in the organization of the work for the Delaware Estuary and for Lake Erie. Occasionally differences in methodology occur but efforts were made to keep the general approach to problems as similar as possible. Reviewers who do not have the time or the need to examine all 10 chapters in detail will benefit from the following discussion of organization and format, and will be able to concentrate on the chapters of greatest individual interest. This discussion is supported by figure 1-2. The Draft Technical Record, consisting of over 500 pages and more than 60 maps is divided into 10 chapters, with an appendix of four sections. The book is quite large and at first imposing but this results from the decision to include a good deal of background information and inventory data in the Technical Record. Other states have elected to publish the information Figure 1-2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE: DRAFT TECHNICAL RECORD .......... .-Ma"M .2 ZE HIM CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER. 6 EXISTING 130UMARIES AUTHORITIES CEAPTER 3 CHAPTEP 7 FUTURE DEVANDS & PE79SSTRT DECISIONS USES r-rj POPULATION, LAND z USE, DPAAND E-1. PR,<),=IONS CRkPTER 8 CHAPTER 2 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF E-4 PROBLEMS PARTICULAR & CONCERN ISSUES CBAPTER 9 oz PRIO= OF USES CHAPTER 1 COASTAL RESOURCES & USES CFAPTER 10 PPC(-14wlr IMPLEMEN@TATION COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IV as separate documents or to make it available in working papers. In Pennsylvania, however, it was deemed beneficial to include as much of this information as possible in order to support the conclusions and recommendations that are presented. Because this work is the first in the State to concentrate on coastal areas, there is no source of relevant information in a convenient "package." The Draft Technical Record has been designed to fulfill the need for a well organized, readily usable source of coastal information, as well as to present the Technical Elements and details of the proposed Coastal Zone Management Program. Readers who are primarily concerned with background data and information may choose to concentrate on the first four chapters. These four chapters include information on existing conditions, projected trends, problems and issues and the present legal/institutional framework of the state's two coastal zones. Taken together these four chapters form a mini-encyclopedia of necessary background information, inventories and history. As in the case of an encyclopedia, many readers will prefer to use the table of contents to direct their attention to specific sections of interest, rather than reading straight through. Footnotes are provided throughout, for those who require more detailed information on particular topics. The first four chapters contain most of the maps included within the re port. ''these maps have been prepared specifically to support this document and most have never before been published. They provide a valuable service and must not be overlooked. In many cases the text has been considerably abbreviated because of the information presented visually on the maps. Chapter IV will be of special interest to some readers because it includes the legal/in- stitutional inventory of the coastal zone and determines that new legislation will be required In order for Pennsylvania to successfully implement'a Coastal Zone Management Program. Some readers will choose to skip the detailed discussions of Chapter IV, and will simply accept the conclusions drawn at the end of the chapter. Chapter 'V, the Policy Framework, summarizes the introductory four chapters, and presents goals, objectives, and policies for Coastal Management. This chapter serves as a transition between the background, inventory chapters and the technical elements and recommendations included in chapters six through ten. This chapter should be of interest to all readers and is fortunately, the shortest chapter in volume. Some may choose to begin with this chapter because it summarizes the first four sections and establishes a context for the following chapters. Chapters VI, VII, VIII and IX are required by the Act and the federal guidelines. These chapters describe the detailed elements of coastal boundaries, permissible uses, geographic areas of particular concern and priority of uses in the coastal zone. These chapters contain the most specific recommendations developed in the Draft Technical Record. Detailed maps of each coastal zone are included in chapter VIII to enable the reader to determine the exact boundaries within which the recommendations apply. Chapter X, one of the longer chapters in volume, is an important one for all readers. The major concepts of implementation are presented along with suggested roles for State and local governments and coastal zone steering committees. Finally, the Appendices include a summary documentation of interagency co-ordination, public participation and interim products produced during the three year planning process. The last appendix includes an Environmental Impact Assessment required by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. V What Happens Next? This volume, entitled Draft Technical 'Record, will be distributed widely throughout both Coastal Zones.' It is called a "Draft" because revisions will be incorporated following a thorough review by federal and state agencies, local governments, shorefront industries, e nvironmental groups and concerned citizens. This document will circulate for approximately six months during which time numerous public meetings and at least one formal, public hearing will be held in each coastal zone to gather comments. At the same time, it is anticipated that a much shorter and more readable "Executive Summary" of this document will be prepared encompassing perhaps 40 pages. This document, printed in larger quantities than the Technical Record, will introduce the major concepts and refer readers with detailed questions to this document, or previously prepared working papers. It is hoped that the public education effort will be supplemented by a film and public service announcements prepared for television and radio. By early 1978, it is expected that draft legislation will be introduced in the General Assembly to implement the concepts, goals, objectives and policies included in this document. Not until the necessary legislation is enacted by the General Assembly can the program be signed by the Governor and approved by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce allowing Coastal Management to begin in earnest. VI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INVENTORY OF ICOASTAL RESOURCES 11 I AN D U-SES 'INVENTORY OF COASTAL RESOURCES AND USES INTRODUCTION The Inventory of Coastal Resources and Uses is a summary of the -information base used to prepare the Coastal Management Program in Pennsylvania. - In accordance with guidelines' prepared by the National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing sources of information have been used wherever possible in order to reduce costs and permit the Coastal Zone Management Program to be prepared in a relatively short time. Fortunately, a great deal of research, analysis and planning relevant to coastal management has preceded'this study in each of Pennsylvania's two coastal areas. The inventory of the two Study Areas is a significant section of the Management Program because it summarizes much of the information used to prepare the overall Policy Framework (Chapter V) as well as major Program Elements. These elements, described in chapters VI, VII, VIII, and IX, include: Final (inland) Study Boundary Permissible Land and Water Uses Geographic Areas of Particular Concern Priorities of Use for Particular Areas In order to furnish interested parties with as much information as possible, the Inventory'covers a wider strip of land than that which was ultimately designated as the Coastal Zone. In both coastal areas this wider strip, called the Preliminary Study Area, was chosen through a process described in Chapter VI (Boundaries). The parameters covered in the Inventory include: . Socioeconomic Characteristics . Land Uses and Resources Water Uses and Resources DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE Historically, the character of the Delaware Valley region has been affected by the dominant role of the Delaware River in the region's development. Ea 'rly development occurred almost exclusively along the River. The Delaware was the reason for, and the means of, the region's rapid growth from the time of William Penn's settlement through industrialization in the nineteenth century. The counties bordering the Delaware River have traditionally been forerunners in regional expansion, and only recently has the pace of development slowed.2 Although much industrial growth is occurring inland because proximity to the Delaware is no longer essential for many manufacturing processes, the coast will continue to be the regional center for industry and commerce. over a half-million people work in the Delaware Study Area, and over 100,000 jobs are directly tied to the Port of Philadelphia. The port is the largest freshwater port in the Yorld, and handles over 80 million tons of cargo annually. The Riverfront has valuable historical sites, and, as water quality improves, the value of the Delaware for fish and wildlife propagation and recreational activity will complement -the River's central economic role in the metropolitan region. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Historical Background -- In 1680, the white population of the entire 3 Delaware Valley was approximately five hundred. It was a homogeneous group, mostly Northern European males working as fur traders.4 Beginning in 1682, William Penn's settlers arrived by the thousands, significantly changing the population's socioeconomic profile. Farmers soon outnumbered fur traders, and family units replaced the previously all male society. By 1700, the area population was 20,000, divided almost evenly between city dwellers and farmers.5 Settlements had spread out from the original site at the confluence of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, following the shorelines of the Delaware and its tributaries. Farming remained the principal occupation of the region until after the mid-nineteenth century when a combination of political and technological events triggered rapid changes in the study Area's social and economic character. In 1860, the population of Philadelphia was over one half million, but the city was essentially a very large central market for agricultural goods.6 By 1900, Philadelphia was a major industrial center with a large and rapidly growing skilled labor force.7 In addition, industry was spreading to other parts of the Preliminary Study Area. Industrial expansion was most dramatic south of Philadelphia. Between 1860 and 1900, the population of Delaware County increased 210% (from 30,597 to 94,762), with most of this increase concentrated along the Delaware River corridor.8 World War I accelerated the growth of industry in the Study Area. Again, industrial expansion was predominantly southward into Delaware County.9 Service industries and residential population, encouraged by improved transportation facilities, followed industry's lead and located just inland of the waterfront's emerging industrial corridor. The socioeconomic character of the Study Area has been influenced by two waves of immigration. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the region absorbed a steady stream of foreign immigrants. This new and ethnically diverse population, drawn to the 1-2 area in response to the expanding need for industrial labor, altered the region's relatively homogenous population. The influx ended in 1925 when federal laws severely restricted foreign immigration. A second wave of immigration to the Study Area came from the southern states. During and after World War II, northern industries, including those of the intensely developed Study Area, attracted large numbers of rural southern blacks.10 This influx was largely over by 1960, a year which marked the end of almost one hundred years of continuous social change and economic growth. Socioeconomic Resources -- Resources are drawn upon to support the growth and maintenance of society. Early settlers relied on the Delaware River for transportation, on forests for lumber and on productive land for food and fiber. Man, through technological advance and innovation, was able to expand his physical resource base, using drills to extract oil and building rail systems to gain access to new forest and farm lands. modern society draws from a pool of resources much larger than the physical resource base. This pool contains socioeconomic resources which allow men to efficiently process raw materials and to coordinate a highly interdependent economic system. The following overview illustrates the essential role of socioeconomic resources along the Delaware estuary. Industrial production capacity, a skilled labor force and efficient distribution systems are several of the vital socioeconomic resources sustaining coastal activities. Raw materials and semi-finished goods are transported by rail, ship and highway networks to coastal industries for processing, fabrication and assembly. Finished products, in turn, are distributed to large markets in the metropolitan region, as wdll as to national and world markets. The extensive transportation network is also responsible for bringing a skilled labor force to its work place each day. Public services are important socioeconomic resources. Public water supply and waste disposal facilities, gas piplines and police and fire protection services are available to residents and workers alike. Industries choosing to locate along the coast may be able to take advantage of building sites offered by public agencies and access to publicly-managed marine terminals. In addition, government assistance is available to provide low-interest financing for construction and mortgage. Businesses along the coast can draw on other resources. The aggregation of economic activity supports a wide variety of business and personal services, financial institutions and commercial establishments that offer specialized services not as readily available elsewhere in the metropolitan area. The coast also performs a wide assortment of functions for the rest of the city and for the outlying metropolitan area. Food, machinery, and household furnishings, produced by ccastal industries, are sold 1-3 throughout the metropolitan region, and many intermediary products are sent to other industries in the region for further processing into finished goods. Such public services as sewage treatr6ent, water supply and power generation are located on the coast but serve a much larger area. The concentration and diversity of economic activity along the coast, in addition to fostering a wide variety of business ,services, provides tax revenues for support of such services and amenities as museums, libraries, colleges, social services and the performing arts. Because the importance of the coast extends back to Colonial times, historical areas along the coast are cultural resources attracting interest from throughout the region and nation. Although presently deficient in recreational opportunities, the Delaware River also holds considerable potential as a resource for boating, sailing and fishing by the region's citizens. Chapter III contains an analysis of recreational demand and opportunities in the coastal zone. In shortr the coast provides resources for local businesses and also offers many social, economic and natural resources to citizens throughout the region. Population -- Several parameters are discussed below in order to portray the socioeconomic character of the Study Area. of the various available parameters, the ones presented here include: population, median family income, and families with incomes below the poverty level. This information has been summarized in charts and maps in order to save space and simplify presentation." Population density in the Preliminary Study Area is high, and the general character of the area is urban. The Study Area population, which in 1970 was 677,428, is 5.7% of the total population of Pennsylvania, although the Study Area is less than 1% of the area of Pennsylvania. The three coastal Counties on the Delaware Estuary, Philadelphia, Delaware, Bucks, are, respectively, the first, fourth, and fifth most populous in the state. The Preliminary Study Area includes the most developed sections of the three coastal Counties. The Bucks County Study Area, the most residential of the three, is only 8% of the County's total acreage but contains 27% of the County population. The Study Area- of Philadelphia and Delaware Counties have, respectively, 23% and 18% of each County's population. In addition to large residential populations, the Study Areas of Philadelphia and Delaware Counties have major industrial concentrations. Populations may have declined along the coast between 1970 and 1975, according to recent population estimates.12 Philadelphia lost an estimated 108,196 people between the 1970 Census and April 1975, continuing a trend that began as early as 1950. However, for the first time, Delaware County's population declined from 603,456 in 1970 to an estimated 601,356 in 1974. Bucks County's population was estimated to have increased from 416,728 to 458,187, but much of this growth occurred inland beyond the Study Area. 1-4 V41" Cb t 0 67 3-3,o3a dol- @t PhiladelDhi, CL 120 54 06 T 1 INCH= 2 MILES a 10 2 10 L---i 2 L- =6 1 INCH=3.2 KILOMETERS 4 SQ. MILE 0 KEY MAP POPULATION 197 L'CkS Co. ."'gome Co. Cheater Co. D ware hila. co" DELAWAR NEW JERSEY DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE 2'75,570 8.3,.3 6 238,152 Xv /7-1 lk % \ ly 961440 ell Far )YOrthp 43,465 ID C,.@Far NorThe Lower Lower 1011-s'rigtor, Narth N Center Ph,la orth City hfia "Q South philac'el UP? X J@ CV -k bi Jf In -1970, nearly 12% (81,897) of the Study Area population was black (Figure i-2). over one-half of the black population in the Preliminary Study Area lived in Philadelphia, while only 6% reside in Bucks County. Perhaps a more significant factor is the proportion of each County's total black population residing in its Study Area. In Bucks and Delaware Counties, the majority of the Counties' black population is concentrated within the Study Area (See Figure i-2). Conversely, only 7% of Philadelphia County's black population lives in the Preliminary Study Area. Because coastal communities tend to be the older areas and contain less expensive housing, median income tends to be lower in coastal areas than inland. while Delaware County as a whole has the highest median income ($11,822) of the three Counties, its Preliminary Study Area has the lowest median income ($9,978) of the three coastal areas.13 In general, the median incomes for municipalities in the Bucks County Study Area are similar to the County-wide median income. In contrast to both Delaware and Bucks Counties, the Study Area in Philadelphia has a higher median income than the city as a whole ($10,180 vs. $9,366). This is due to the location of several new or restored residential districts, such as society Hill and the Art Museum area, within the Philadelphia Study Area. In 1970, 13,991 families, or 10.4% of all families, in the Preliminary study Area were classified as below poverty level.14 This percentage for the Study Area is approximately equal to the regionwide percentages. The Study Area in Philadelphia has the most families in the Study Area below poverty level and has the largest areas of poverty concentration. Kensington, lower North Philadelphia, South Philadelphia and Southwest Philadelphia are Philadelphia communities with a significant number of families below poverty level. The Study Area in Delaware County has a much higher percentage of families below poverty level than the County in general. Seventeen percent of Delaware County's coastal families are classified as below poverty level, while the County percentage is only 4.6%. Bucks county's Study Area has no particular section where families with poverty level income are concentrated. Employment -- The Study Area is a major center of employment for the Philadelphia metropolitan area.'s Study Area employment in 1970 was just over 550,000, which is about 32% of the 1,740,043 jobs in the five county metropolitan area of Southeastern Pennsylvania. A vast majority (74.8%) of the jobs in tfie Preliminary study Area are in Philadelphia. Even though only a very small portion of each coastal county is actually in the Preliminary Study Area, a relatively large proportion of jobs are located along the coast. Nearly half (43.5%) of all job opportunities in Philadelphia are in the Study Area, and the Study Areas of Bucks and Delaware counties have, respectively, 31% and 36% of their countiest employment. Manufacturing is the largest category of employment in the Study Area of Bucks County16 (See Figure i-4). In Falls Township, the community 1-5 BLACK POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN PRELIMINARY' STUDY AREA WHITE 40.5% DEL POPULATION BLAC POP 6.3 % BUCKS 12% 53.2 % PHILA. TOTAL PRELIMINARY STUDY AREA POPULATION [653,574 598,542 BLACK POPULATION BY COUNTY (SHADED AREAS REPRESENT PERCENTAGE OF BLACKS IN EACH COUNTY LIVING IN STUDY AREA) 432706 7%- 41 Rc)8 8,323 73%- 3 906 K 4@ 4 60% BUCKS DELAWARE PHILADELPHIA Cr"k 10,440 i - 14 0 10,89 % H,940 5A 10,3 0 9,200 Ob CPO, ),A, k@ 0@- 151'aade h IDh gap, N"hop vw crwk AN I It Li 61 @k, 01 7" - tell . .. . .... ., 1 NCH =2 M I LES 10 1 2 I1w 10 1 2 6 1 INCH=3.2 KILOMETERS 4 SQ. MILE 4 SQ. KM. KEY MAP MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME moritoome Co. Chester CO. nila Co 11FLAWAH D 7 NEW,,F@EY DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE 040 Pil. el 14,1 0 10, 0, 9, 0 17 Far N vt N ell 8,570 'S, 45 0 Near Northeast PhiladelDhia Lower Lj a. Lower N n P West Phila. Ce r C L--j Center cftW* 7- City South Philadelphia L- st Philad ia r !r LEGEND $3,000 F@ LESS THAN $9,000 F@ $9,000 $11,000 GREATER THAN $11,000 SOURCE: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION Of PENNSYLVANIA. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS.1970 123150 1 t 1 370 JD,-620 10,92 0,950 7 @v. 760 10,450 940 10,610 1 070 0,280 l-, (-),@ 57 late A4,8,3 0 4) @q. Z z u., ep? ft Soutt- j---5 \mac- eo on s Is 5 @2O @@92 1wr Cl-)", r,0, 4N creak Crock 8,123 771 adelphia 0/0, 1 INCH= 2 MILES 14 10 2 @:-j 4 10 1 2 6 1 INCH=3.2 KILOMETERS 4 SQ. MILE 4 SQ. KM. EMPLOYMENT KEY MAP ks Co. "19orner uc Co. BY JOB LOCATION Chester Co. hits. Deiaware C o.. WAR MD. NEW JERSEY (DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE 185,238 Ate* 14 -If % 61,127 0 32,677 367 24,453 t 5 '00, Far Northeast Pi- Near Northeast ph,,,, crMA Lower North Phila Kensington Lower No h West Phila Center Phila C"y /'04 Ce r/ W % 15 South Philacdlelpth)ja r -A IL I)- LEGEND 1''= 1000 EMPLOYEES FINANCE, SERVICE. GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY, WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRANSPORTATION AND C OMMUNICATION CONSTRUCTION AND MANUFACTURING FEWER THAN 4000 EMPLOYEES SOURCE: 1970 STATISTICAL SURVEY OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE DELAWARE VALLEY REGION. DVRPC S -oo- Af #06 f'!-- ,, S/3 24 kf >1 1@7 ,7 1 85 2 006!@ 16 1@3 86 m 2 03 I*-.. Southwest Philaclelpm,a 415 IS a On with the largest number of employment opportunities (11,824), 88% of all -jobs are in manufacturing. United States Steel's Fairless Works contributes most of the over 10,000 manufacturing jobs in Bucks County. whole,sale and Retail is slightly larger than Finance, Service, ,Military, and Government (FSMSG) employment within Bristol, Tullytown and Morrisville Boroughs (see Figure i-4). However, in Falls, Bensalem and Bristol Townships the FSMSG category has substantially more jobs than does Wholesale and Retail. Transportation and Communications have a small, evenly distributed number of employees throughout the Bucks Study Area. As in the other two coastal Counties, there are very few Agriculture and Mining employees in the Bucks Study Area. In the Delaware County Study Area, 84% (in 1970, around 31,500 jobs) of Construction and Manufacturing employment is in three municipalities, Tinicum, and Ridley Townships and Chester City. These three municipalities are also the Delaware County Study Area leaders in total number of jobs (See Figure i-4). Wholesale and Retail employees outnumber Finance, Service, Government and Military employees in only three of the fourteen Delaware county municipalities. In Lower and Upper Chichester, Norwood, and Ridley Park, the largest employment category is Finance, Service, Government and Military. In contrast to the other two coastal Counties, the Study Area in Philadelphia has the bulk (48.3% or 218,400 jobs) of its employees in the Finance, Service, Government and Military category. Construction and Manufacturing comprise 26.6% of Philadelphia's employment. This category is highest in Kensington and Lower North Philadelphia. In summary, a large proportion of the regional employment is located within the Preliminary Study Area. For the five county area consisting of Philadelphia, Montgomery, Bucks, Delaware and Chester Counties, over one-quarter (26.3%) of all jobs are located in the Philadelphia Study Area, a very small portion of the total county land area-. The other two Study Areas, while not having the enormous number of jobs which Philadelphia has, do have a significant concentration of jobs in their Study Areas. Unemployment -- The sheer number of employees working the Study Area (562,200, or 41.7% of the three coastal counties' 1,346,000 employees) attests to the Area's importance as an economic resource. But the Philadelphia region, like other Northeastern metropolitan areas, appears to be experiencing an outmigration of population to Southern and Southwestern cities of the U.S. Also, like the rest of the nation, the region has been hit in the last several years by high unemployment. The depressed economic situation of the region is reflected by the many recent plant closings and major Jayoffs. Some of the larger ones are: Boeing Virtol Corp. (Ridley Twp., Delaware County) layoff 600 employees (12/76) 1-6 FMC Plant (Marcus Hook, Delaware county) closing 500 employees planned (1/77) Westinghouse Electric Co. (Lester, Del. County) layoff 684 employees (1/77) Mobil Oil Corp (Philadelphia) closing 325 employees (1/77 planhed)' Within the Preliminary Study Area, there are several areas designated by the Pennsylvania State Employment Service of the Department of Labor and Industry, as "areas of substantial unemployment". Coastal areas that have sustained unemployment of over 6% or higher for at least two years include: parts of Bensalem, Bristol and Falls Townships and Bristol Borough in lower Bucks County; all Delaware County Study Area municipalities, except Tinicum Township; and Philadelphia.17 For the last two years, Chester City has had the highest rate of unemployment in the Study Area. Since February 1975, unemployment in Chester has not gone below 12%, and during several months in the past two years umemployment has been over 14%. Other coastal areas have had radical rises in unemployment since 1970. Philadelphia, which had an unemployment rate of 4.6% in April 1970, has been hovering around 10% during 1976. Southeastern Delaware County has gone from a low 3.2% in 1970 to 10% in 1976. An increase in umemployment of nearly the same magnitude has occurred in lower Bucks County (3.7% to 10.3%). Like Chester City in Delaware County, Bristol Township in Bucks County is a municipality with Chronic high enemployment. Bristol Township, which had 4.2% unemployed in April 1970, topped 11% during several months in 1975 and 1976. LAND USES AND RESOURCES Introduction -- Present land use in the Study Area is the product of three centuries of incremental growth. Today, in spite of competition from the rest of the region, the Study Area remains the most intensely developed part of the Delaware Valley. Figure i-5 shows the regional development pattern in 1970. Past industrialization and development, while insuring a dominant role for the Study Area, have also solidified a pattern of land use which resists change and shapes future growth patterns. The information on existing land use has been compiled and mapped using data from the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). Land use information is from 1970 except-where specifically 1-7 all, 110 4 WT-- 0, A 00 .0p 4 '7v' A ol@@ A* P ... 6,0.(SL 3@ NIL, 4 V. @m' a F'-' rb. Aw c v-:7- 4- - ;REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, 1970 EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC USES@ RESIDENTIAL AND RELATED USES REGIONAL PARKS PRELIMINARY COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY 1 INCH - APPROX. 5 5 MILES SOURCE YEAR 2000 REPORT NO.4. DVRPC. 1976 noted otherwise. Although there has been considerable change in some instances since 1970, land use maps have not been updated for this study. Significant changes not reflected on the 1970 map are described in the text. The inventory employs thirteen categories of land use: 1. single family detached residential 7. community services (institutions) 2. multiple unit residential 8. military 3. manufacturing 9. recreational and cultural 4. transportation 10. agricultural 5. communications and utilities 11. mining 6. commercial, wholesale and retail 12. forests and undeveloped land 13. water areas As can be seen on the Existing Land Use maps (figures i-6, i-7 and i- 8), agriculture is a minor land use in the Study Area. Mining and military uses are also very small, together comprising less than one tenth of one percent of total acreage. The only mining in the Preliminary Study Area takes place in the Van Sciver Lake area of Bucks County. Delaware County -- Delaware County has an industrial corridor which stretches the length of the County along the Delaware River. The Delaware County Planning Commissionts Delaware River Corridor Study characterizes the coastal area as densely populated with a heavy concentration of old, often obsolete, industrial development along the River.18 The only exception to this band of industrial use is in Tinicum Township where there is undeveloped and residential land on the riverfront. There is a clear residential division in the Study Area between the eastern and western parts of Delaware County. West of Ridley Township, residential land use is almost exclusively multiple unit housing (see Figure i-6); east of Ridley Township, single-family, detached residential use is dominant. Ridley Township is also the approximate dividing line between a high percentage of manufacturing land use in the western portion of the Delaware County Study Area and a much lower percentage in the eastern part of the County. One of the largest tracts of undeveloped land within the Study Area boundary is in Tinicum Township. Much of this land is Tinicum Marsh, which is of particular interest because of its size (approximately 10% of the undeveloped land in the Delaware County Study Area) and its location on a tidal tributary of the Delaware River. Chester Township and Upper Chichester also have several tracts of undeveloped land in-the Study Area, tfut unlike Tinicum Marsh, these are suitable for development and are not located on a waterway. In light of the extent of industrialization and development in Delaware County, undeveloped land is surprisingly the single largest land use in the Study Area, accounting for about 33% of the total 1-8 I I I I I figure i-6 EXISTING LAND USE - DELAWARE COUNTY STUDY AREA 1 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I area. Transportation systems and residential areas, covering a combined 39% of the Delaware County Study Area, are other large land uses. There is very little commercial land use in the Delaware County Study Area; less than 1% of the land within the Study boundary in Delaware County is utilized for wholesale and retail commerce. This is very slight in comparison to the Study Areas of Philadelphia ,(6.1%) and Bucks (3.2%). Philadelphia County -- In contrast to the other two coastal Counties, a large percentage of the land within Philadelphia's Preliminary Study boundary is devoted to commercial, institutional, and recreational--cultural uses (5.2% in Bucks County). Single family residential use is comparatively small in Philadelphia (See Figure i- 7). The only area in Philadelphia with a significant amount of single family housing is the Far Northeast. Even there, multiple unit residences comprise a higher percentage of land acreage (13.8%) than do single family residences (7.7%). The Study Area in Philadelphia also has a smaller percentage of undeveloped land (17%) than Bucks and Delaware (each with about 33%). Transportation is, by far, the largest land'use in the Philadelphia Study Area, totaling approximately 26%. Land for transportation is distributed fairly evenly within the city's Study Area. Manufacturing, at approximately 10%, is another large use but is less evenly distributed. Southwest and South Philadelphia, in particular, have very little land devoted to manufacturing use. Unlike Delaware County, manufacturing in Philadelphia is not clustered exclusively on the waterfront. Occupying about 40% of the land in the Philadelphia Study Area, public facilities and utilities are the largest riverfront land use. Riverfront land utilized for manufacturing, wholesale commerce and transportation combined is about 37%, which is still less than the land utilized by Federal and municipal.facilities (56%). In light of the importance of the Philadelphia port, it is interesting that, in 1974 14.1% of riverfront land was classified as undeveloped19 or vacant. Philadelphia's Riverfront Development Study found that previous users of Center City waterfront tracts have migrated within Philadelphia to South Philadelphia, the Near Northeast and Shackamaxon-Pt. Richmond.20 The Riverfront Study also found that public access to the waterfront in Philadelphia is severely limited. Only 6.5% of total riverfront land is in retail, recreational or institutional use. Bucks County - The Bucks County Study Area has a wide mix of land uses. The Existing Land Use map (Figure i-8) shows large tracts of undeveloped land-in the Study Area, particularly in Bensalem and Falls Townships. Since 1970, however, Bensalem has been extensively developed as single family residences. Falls Township, with well over one-half of all manufacturing land in the Bucks County Study Area,-has experienced fewer recent changes, but plans are underway for future development, including residential. Falls Township also contains extensive man-made lakes created by sand and gravel mining. Bristol and Tullytown Borough are old urban industrial areas that 1-9 .......... 4F 0 4? 9 Jo 9 /96 /d_ /0 19 4p a 6 9 S 6 6 /0 1 INCH= 1 MILE s /0 /0 2' 10 1 16 10 -73 e a I INCH=1.6 KILOMETERS 34? SQ. MILE 0 / '/p 3 .9 4? SO. KM. /0 4? g -j /0 9 0 KEY MAP BUCks Co. EXISTING LAND USE 197 L Phila. T (@@ A< 4- Btve -PHILADELPHIA --STUDY_.__.ARE1A.. p 0elaware Co. DELAWARE ESTUARY-COASTAL ZON_@, u IIV Au (D Cl) 0) C, Au /b IV 04@ IV IV 0) A) 0) v Aj 0) Q, (a C-4/ C, cv IV co C@ C. 0) /b (0 0 0) CY C@ n /U (V ;V@$D 0 IV 14 C@ /b /U v fu cv aj -lu re I Cv CZ (o 0) fu IV ,v Cu 0 N, Aj I'u C@ cv C., CV cu /b IV -A /b (b 0) 0) Cb /-U IV 14 4>, L-3 CV J*b 05 Q djo@ CV IV CV IV to /U (0 \ 0).j 0) CV CA/ Cv cv cv 'I tu (0 a) /b CV CIV A) A" 19, 67 0) CV Ab CV CO 0) cl, Or) N C', (b CAV v fb CV 4 Iq 0) C', 0) CP) cv.. AU /U CV a) cq aj cv Aj CV (0 IV CV CAW 0) IV lu v 0) u IV 0) IV V CF) IV lu 'y 4-V V CV (0 @v cv Cv (b 4 (,D . 0 (0 Aj CIV (V /b TV (0 Au C, CO a) fu 0) AL) U (4D 0) (D 0) ru /b CV C4 (40 C4V 0) V IV cv V (b . C4 IV (0 Gai A. 0) -u V Q) 0) 10 LEGEND: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 'DETACHED RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE UNIT MANUFACTURING 9 TRANSPORTATION COM MUNICATIONS AND UTILITIES COMMERICAL COMMUNITY SERVICES SOUACE: DVRPC LAND USE FILE. 1970. T-T" 'r, 27 L MILITARY RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL AGRICULTURAL 19 MINING ;> ;> 9 40 FORESTS AND UNDEVELOPED 2 9 WATER ? ?-0 9 6 g .3 9 > 9 6 3 11@0 9po 9 6 6 6, 6 4@9 A I I I I Figure i-8 EXISTING IAND USE - BUCKS COUNTY STUDY AREA 1 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I have tended to lose jobs and residents in recent years, although considerable potential for redevelopment exists. Bristol Townshipe typified as a suburban community, experienced explosive single-family development (such as Levittown) in the 1940's and 19501s and remaining vacant parcels tend to be developed as multi-family residences. Land Resources -- Most Categories on the Existing Land Use Map imply the kinds of social and economic activities presently occurring in developed areas. But land (particularly land classified as forest and undeveloped areas) may also perform significant natural resource functions. Forests, wetlands and flood plains, three land resources of considerable ecological and social importance, are displayed on the Land Resources maps (Figures i-9, i-10 and i-11) and are discussed below. Forest resources sustain wildlife, absorb noise, oxygenate the atmosphere, protect land from erosion, and provide a visual buffer between developed lands. At the edges formed by forests and open fields an especially diverse animal population can be supported. The largest forest areas are in Bucks County, both along the coast and scattered throughout the Study Area. Little Tinicum Island, Pennypack Park and Poquessing Creek Valley are significant woodlands in Delaware and Philadelphia counties. The Land Resources map shows two other features, flood plains and wetlands, that perform significant natural functions. Flood plains are level streamside areas where the 'force of flood waters is dissipated. As long as floodplains are left undeveloped, floods are contained within the plain without threat to life or property. moreover, undeveloped flood plains provide diverse kinds of food and cover for wildlife. Structures built in the flood plain, however, may not only aggravate potential flood hazards above and below the construction site, but are also subject to flood damage which only can be ameliorated with expensive, and sometimes unsuccessful, flood- proof ing techniques. Bulkheading and channelization of riverfronts in Delaware and Philadelphia counties have extensively altered the natural configuration of flood plains, leaving only a few natural ecosystems. As a result, a considerable number of residential and economic- related land uses are within the 100 year flood plain (this area has a 1% chance of being flooded in any given year). . A comparison of Existing Land Use and Land Resources maps can suggest (at least where flood plain data is available) the extent of potential flood damage to developed areas. Much flood plain in the Bucks County Study Area is unaltered, except around Bristol Borough and southern portions of the county. A comparison between flood plains on the Land Resources maps and the forest and undeveloped areas on the Land Use maps can give a general indication of where natural, undisturbed flood plains still exist. Wetlands are lowlands covered with shallow water. They were once abundant along the coastal zone, but now consist of Tinicum Marsh in 1-10 Ir tv A f 0 -<Wr 1 Ir 1:4 4- V@ 41111PRMA. do lit "oo ...Vr -max 4It owl T 'Its X x 41! 1 INCH 1 MILE W L.-tr 4. V 5 2 :,'%r 7. 10 1 "Cow 2 10 A 1 INCH=1.6 KILOMETERS. '@4, @74 SQ. MILE c SO. KM. 4 KEY MAP Bucks Co. LAND RESOURCES -N SIVE Phila. Delaware Cc DELAWARE COUNTY STUDY AREA DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE@ _7@ 7 15@ -041 LEGEND TIDAL WETLANDS NON-TIDAL WETLANDS MATURE WOODLANDS NEW WOODLANDS. FLOODPLAIN FEDERAL PROPERTIES NO FLOODPLAIN DATA 0. e SOURCES WETLANDS: DELAWARE RIVER ESTUARINE MARSH SURVEY. THE ACADEMY OF'NATURAL SCIENCES.1973. TWO STUDIES OF TINICUM MARSH. JACK McCORMICK. 1970L WOODLANDS: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY DVRPC. 1975. FLOODPLAIN: 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, DELAWARE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE. 1975. ult., A 10 :7 V14 dk .7r, -41 A* li %it A Ali. c n",*wt ;A 0-1 49, OF Figure i-10 LAND RESOURCES PHILADELPHIA COUNTY STUDY AREA 1 mile -Figure i-11 LAND RESOURCES - BUCKS COUNTY STUDY AREA 1" 1 mile Delaware and Philadelphia Counties and a few small tidal wetlands along Neshaminy Creek, The Delaware River and Biles Creek. Wetlands absorb flood waters, cleanse polluted water, provide productive wildlife habitat, help augment stream flows in summer by releasing stored water, are spawning grounds for commercially valuable fish and are outdoor laboratories for educational and scientific activities., when wetlands are disturbed by development activities, many of these valuable functions can be lost. Wetlands are identified on the Land Resources map and are included within the forest and undeveloped areas category of the Land Use map. Undeveloped land is a resource for a wide variety of possible activities, such as recreation, residential and economic development, and sand and gravel extraction. Undeveloped land adjacent to the shoreline is especially valuable as a land resource for future marinas, power plants, sewage treatment facilities and other uses requiring immediate access to the water. Residential developments and neighborhood parks, although not water-dependent, are greatly enhanced by, the River's visual appeal. In Falls Township, Bucks County, a considerable amount of undeveloped land is adjacent to existing sand and gravel mining operations, and some of these areas one day may be converted to this economic use. In short, many land areas shown as forest and undeveloped on the Land Use map are valuable natural resources or are.resources for potential economic- related activities. Conclusion -- The Delaware riverfront is highly urbanized and, though each county has its own particular land use pattern, the counties have several features in common. Between 10% and 11% of the land in each county is devoted to manufacturing use, even though many of these industries are not directly dependent on the River. About 20% of each County's Study Area is occupied by residential communities. Communities in Philadelphia are predominantly multi- family residential, whereas in Bucks county single family homes dominate and in Delaware County residential types are more evenly mixed. Undeveloped land is the largest single category of land use in Bucks and Delaware County, accounting for about a third of all land in these two Study Areas. In Philadelphia, only 17% of the Study Area is undeveloped, but compared to Delaware and Bucks a much larger proportion is occupied by transportation uses (more than one- quarter of the Philadelphia Study Area). Philadelphia also has more than twice the percentage of land in the remaining four land use categories than do neighboring counties; 22% of the Philadelphia Study Area is taken up. by commercial, communication, and utility, community services, and recreation and cultural uses. WATER USES AND RESOURCES Introduction -- The Delaware River, which is the major water resource in the Study Area, originates in New York State, 330 Miles above Delaware Bay. At Morrisville, the fast, free-flowing river passes its, last series of rapids and becomes an increasingly broad, navigable estuary. The tidal Delaware and its tributaries are a resource for such diverse uses in the Preliminary Study Area as navigation, drinking water, waste assimilation, industrial cooling, fish propagation and recreation. ,History and Concepts -- Conflict among water users is a relatively new phenomenon on the Delaware River. During the region's early development and into the nineteenth century, there was coexistence among uses as diverse as transportation, commercial fishing, swimming and waste disposal.21 A small population and low density, combined with lack of industralization, permitted the Delaware to support a wide variety of uses, as well as to regenerate and renew itself. Eventually, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the assimilative capacity of the Estuary was strained beyond its regenerative ability. From the late 1800's through the 1940's, water quality in the Delaware River was severely degraded as a resillt of increased population density and extensive industrial development.22 Simultaneously, the pattern of water use changed. Wells pumping groundwater for drinking water and industrial uses experienced declining yields and became grossly polluted as urbanization intensified.23 Surface water was increasingly exploited once technology for large scale, efficient distribution was developed. The first Philadelphia Waterworks was completed in 1803. A century later, the urban population relied almost exclusively on surface supplies for drinking water. Ironically, the improved technology for pumping, which made surface water supplies available, also spurred industrial development which, in turn, contributed to subsequent degradation of surface water quality. In the twentieth century, the Delaware Estuary has periodically experienced such indicators of pollution as low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, high concentrations of heavy metals, and high chloride concentrations. The Estuary does not meet water quality standards established by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. The presence of such heavy metals as iron (maximum values periodically exceed 1.5 mg/1) is a result of industrial discharge.24 Dueto organic loading, DO content is seasonally depressed below the levels necessary to sustain fish and their food chain2s. Seasonal low flow conditions allow chloride concentrations to rise to values as high as 500 mg/1 near Marcus Hook, Delaware County.2 .6 Groundwater Resources -- The Delaware Study Area was naturally endowed h groundwater supplies of excellent quality and quantity- The characteristics of the coastal plain topography and climatic conditions provided adequate amounts of recharge. The geological features provided favorable conditions for the storage and circulation of the groundwater. This resource which was readily available became immediately exploited by the rapidly expanding population. Those areas of groundwater recharge were developed, urbanized, and paved. The recharge waters were polluted by industrial and municipal 1--12__ dumps, as well as sewage and cesspool leakage. In general, the whole groundwater hydrology was significantly and detrimentally changed, and by the late 1950's- and early 1960's groundwater consumption dropped to almost nothing and all water consumption came from surface water supplies. 27 Water use may be divided into two categories .-- withdrawal uses and instream uses. Instream uses employ water resources without removing water, even temporarily, from the stream. Water-based transportation, fish and wildlife management, recreation, fishing and waste assimilation are major kinds of instream uses found in the Study Area. Withdrawal is the diversion of water from the stream for domestic and production uses. Except for water lost to evaporation or exported to other drainage basins, most withdrawn water is eventually returned to the stream as wastewater. The vast majority of withdrawals in the Study Area are by municipal authorities, self- supplied industries and electric utilities. The principle kinds of withdrawal and instream uses are described below. Withdrawals - Utilities -- Electric generating stations withdraw more water than municipal and all self-supplied industrial users combined. One electric generating plant alone withdraws over a billion gallons daily.28 Six of Philadelphia Electric Company's (PECo) eight stations are located within the Study Area boundary. The combined withdrawals of all municipal and self-supplied industrial users in the Study Area total less than half the withdrawals of these six stations. United States Steel, the largest industrial user in the Study Area withdraws less water than all but one of the generating stations. Figure i-12 compares the PECo plant withdrawals with those of the six largest industrial withdrawers. Withdrawals - kgriculture and Export -- Compared to other uses, withdrawal of water for agriculture and export of water to other basins is a minor use of water resources in the Study Area.. There is no export of water from the Tidal Delaware River to other basins. But, on the upper Delaware, diversions of up to 900 million gallons per day (MGD) by New York and New Jersey have potential for affecting flow rates in the Study Area, particularly in drought years.29 Agricultural acreage-in the Study Area is less than 4.5% of total land area, so water utilized for irrigation and livestock has minimal impact compared to other uses. withdrawals - Municipal and Industrial -- The Delaware River is the' primary water resource for municipal and industrial use.30 Municipal suppliers, while not the largest category of withdrawers, service a wide spectrum of users. Their customers are commercial, industrial, institutional and domestic users. Most municipal water in the Study Area is sold domestically. There are a few cases in which industry buys a large portion of a municipal supply. For example, the Chester Water Authority sells 49% of its supply to industry.31 The Bristol Borough and Philadelphia Water Departments are two other municipal suppliers which sell a substantial portion of their water to industry. 1-13 Figure i-12 COMPARISON OF THE SIX LARGEST INDUSTRIAL WITHDRAWERS WITH SIX PECO STATIONS Company/Station' County Source Withdrawals (million gallons Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) per day) Richmond Philadelphia Del. 561.1 Eddystone Delaware Del. 552.5 Southwark Philadelphia Del. 350.5 Delaware Philadelphia Del. 287.0 Schuylkill Philadelphia Schuly. 274.7 Chester Delaware Del. 193.2 Six Largest Industrial Users U. S. Steel Co. Bucks Del. 237.9 Sun Oil Co. Delaware Del. 121 Publicker Ind. Philadelphia Del. 49:3 Gulf Oil Philadelphia Schul. 46.4 Rohm & Haas Philadelphia Del. 32.0 Union Carbide Delaware Del. 30.3 Totals: PECo = 2219.0 million gallons per day others = 488.5 million gallons per day Source D.R.B.C. (these are the latest complete intake figures available). Most industries clustered on or near the riverfront withdraw their own 'water (i.e., they are self-supplied) rather than purchase water from municipal suppliers. Because high water quality is not essential for some industrial processes, Delaware River water may need little or no treatment when withdrawn for industrial uses. Figure i-13 lists the municipal withdrawers, and their intakes in terms of million gallons per day. Figures i-14, i-15, and i-16, identify municipal and industrial water intake points as well as municipal and industrial wastewater discharge points. 'New Jersey withdrawers and dischargers on the Delaware are also shown in order to complete the picture of demand for water resources in the Delaware River.- Instream Uses - Waste Assimilation -Quality is the primary water issue in the Delaware Estuary. A major factor affecting water quality -is the use of water resources for disposal and assimilation of wastes. Assimilation of wasteloads by biological activity in the stream is classified as an instream use of water. As early as the 18501s, dumping of urban and industrial wastes into the Delaware was overtaxing the River's assimilative capacity.32 Water quality probably reached its lowest point in the 1940's when dissolved oxygen (DO) was flextremely low in large portions of the estuary.1133 In 1946, no Do existed in the twenty mile stretch between Chester and the Benjamin Franklin Bridge.34 The low quality period of the 19401s triggered an avalanche of protests from citizens, dock workers, and sailors over the foul smelling hydrogen sulfide gas emanating from the River.35 The gas was a result of inadequately treated municipal and industrial sewage. Ship owners contended that their vessels were being damaged by the hydrogen sulfide. Paint was eaten away, brass and silver tarnished overnight and, more seriously, ships' equipment was ruined. Largely in response to the outcry over these conditions, Philadelphia upgraded its original (Northeast) treatment plant and constructed two new primary plants (Southeast and Southwest) in the early 19501's. The construction of treatment plants by Philadelphia and other municipalities along the Delaware resulted in the water quality improvements demonstrated in Figure i-17, which shows the 100 year trend in water quality. The plants have significantly reduced the waste load the River had been carrying. Though discharges from storm sewers during heavy storms may periodically release large waste loads, continuous municipal and industrial discharges still remain the major cause of water quality problems in the Study Area. Figure i-18 illustrates this with a list of the four major water quality problems in the Estuary and their primary causes, The three large Philadelphia plants, six smaller ones in Bucks and thirteen plants of varying size in Delaware County constitute the present municipal dischargers in the Study Area. In addition to servicing the Study Area population, they collect from all of Philadelphia and lower Bucks Counties, eastern Montgomery County, and 1-14 Figure i-13 MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WITHDRAWALS AND DISCHARGES IN MGD (numbers refer to map locations on Figs. i-14, i-15, i-16) PA. Industrial and Municipal WLthdr- is' Ph nd,strial & Municipal Discha "e, pA Industrial & Municipal Discho "es- , Continue !!LD MAP 0NAME !aP# NAME MCD Co. rl--t-r (37.13) 100. AkIl.d Ch..i -1 .277 179. Sun Oil Co. Tank F. - 2 .0 14 I AI'dheml' 'P. 1.5 Philadelphia R.fi-y 22 785 0 Sun Shipbuilding Co. 3. 3225 8 .1, 4, C"" Am 3 FMC 101: 11old Be fL.-Y 6 1 Tdyn: -.111 .010 : IN Atlantic Mich I -a 4 PECo - Eddystone l.. Tran.CE_ay Co. Co. Plant A of Inc. 1 88 183. U I.. C. rbLd. Lind. DL@. 30-L6 101. W: ch &house Les',er Plant 'P 'P loo. C I. 1. Sur, S'iCb. "5 :IiO 184. 11.023 ' ' i"i'g Corp. 1 'o 7, Union 1-@Id. Corp. ,Lind. (30.2) 01. Eaton Corp. "n .4 a Sun oil Co. 111. 1jb!r'1,C9o, mm- I Co. ':'T: (109. 4:@30 1 TinCork -it )1) 1 r;.OeH. 86* Me 9. V .. ,%no,:* 1.1ect,ic Corp. 36. 09. L 06 187. Borough rc Hock S,..,. Treatment Plant 10 Cott Pop. C . 20.6 110. E.-h Corp. L88. Central Delaw re County Authority STP 10.810 II: P.hru,yl-i. Industrial Chemical N/A "I. Gulf Oil Refinery 41:1 11 189. Do rby 1r,,*,k.1:,1n1 ITP i'. ' 12. Baldin - Lima Hamilton Corp. .33 112 Meted, He- Corp. To rmin,l DELCOgACrSTP Ill. 30 13. Che to, N/A 113. J. D. Morrissey .050 lql@ Eddystone Borough Was- to, Treatment Plant zO II Petroleum Co. Terminal N/A 192. M.ckihp.te, ST? .75 - - I': N:y, I 15 K- MLCe. Chemical Corp. .4 tlonal S. go R fi. ing Co. 17 .546 193. Tinicum T-ship STP .8 16: Philadelphia Coke (5.0) 116. N-l Ship Engin:,ri', Center .1 30 114 3 11: P-*II-rk (269.3) 1,* Philadelphia Coke Co. 4:8 11 N,J, Industrial and Municipal Withdr- 13 3 11 'EC.Richmond (340.6) 118. PEC. - Richmond 3. 13, I, PEC, Dal 264.3) Ph -3" 73 He I.S""' (17.1) 1" 1:- CC,- Wor"ks' 94 -- Rpi'Zy,"Id 110. 1-1 )up*,t DeH-.r, I ,at Refining Co. I : Phiii 12'.128 2. NI .;.I. n. H.t Co. Plant A I- Tlin Co@'.- .9 22: Publicker Industries Inc. 49,63 .. Pblicknd1 52. 35 @0. 0r 16.8 23. Motor Corp. 14 a 123. R._ & H::.. Co. 8.919 203. Mobil Oil Corp 29.7 24. (12:0) 124. U.S.,_ Main Mill 1.07 204. CItis. S_i.. Oil Co. "' Co. G'P 205. CAF C 'P. R:h`i'l"C (2.8) 125. U.S. 10 Ih-i &I Products W.'n..N-y . Philadelphia Shipyard 28.921 C'gi;IFr:i fl, Corp. 3:@ 5. r!r!y C@ ,Co* Ty .025 06. 26' I.Lb rp. 1.6. Pis In%, .4 21. United States Gypsum 127. WarnerC0-11 Plant .056 @:t.b 1 19 L28. PE . - Dole- 114:382 ZO8. Kind 4 Kc.. C.L.ti. Co. 29. PECo - Schuylkill 210. K whee Oil Co. I D P '* "'no &C:. 31. Gulf Oil of lan..yt-i. (49,2) 11: 11C. -.S.Uth",rl 26' .498 John 'l fCo . S.hy (212 .3) 1'1 "I,Iphi. Int- I ... I Airport @'l ft.And... I Folb 111 212 '0 - C-10tex COT 1 209 30 1- 1). N-ur. Co. (3 7) 0 Plk 4.25 12. 33: 'ti._l MillIng and Chmair.1 Co. .01 132. C'tty"Otl Co. To -11 n!i M/A RCA Corp. Plant 14: Arl... I. Richfield Co. (9.,) 133. Gulf Schuylkill Tank F. .256 2113. C.F.,& I.GCorp. R *1,1,1h, I 11il:1:.1p1I ty T r-d.l. 2 134. Phil- M E Water P:!.luti,n Control Plant 19 214. P.S. , &. Co. &urI,on St.. .2.1 ii L: Ci 2 S. St:.pht, ChenicaL Co. 6. PhdhCity Belmont I.'3 13 S. Philadelphia SuuthtWPCP t27. 2tb. Ch p, I:,GIn,.M.,_ 3 1Do lommul. Co. (2 2) 13 Phil,d lphi, South-t WPCP 139 ' '. -!'Pont 67: AIn W:,d Coated Metals 317 S. .6 3'. '.nh..lc Co rp' 03 13 :032 Can ... toT 39. at .... @ P.-h"" Pop- Co. (8.7) 1M: l,p,,I,.r.llnc.C .03 218. Trento. Ci;y* 37.6 '0. PP,r,x Corp. .4 139 E.I. D, c. 2.19 41. R,h% &Haas Co. (11.) 140: Federal Steel C:* .01 N.j. Industrial and M.niciD.1 0 42- U. S. Steel Corp. (300.5) 141 Mor,L-ill, F.tltrati- Plant Point Plant N/A 43 Schutte & Koettin! Co. .006 142. Patterson Patch- Paper .:'6 @n 300. To- -CE.git. C , We th Co.. a I d p. - Va .4 143. 1:@,.!@J'M-I-ill. let 041 "- f- .. "A 45 Warn:r Co. ' We tlid:' 3.03 144, 1Corp. .025 103- 'u- NIA 16 Bristol Bor -gh -7 - R'hm @S Has, 0. 11.630 3.4 MoZlo'llo 15.64 17, Louer BucksoConty Municipal Authority 14465. straightlineC Manufacturing 4 * Morvis,ille Municipal Authority 1.8 147. U.S. Steel Co. 294", 305: M.n.!hO.'Colp. N/A 48. 1 306. Te-..'Inc. .4/A i1a: 11 :340 0005 r!.-n@1n,1,1L.B /A 1: H:::'1!lP&.Ch-I1I .c 49 011 N 6 GI. ift. Go .01 150. Stauffer Chemical Co. Co. /A 151. W that Co. - Terminal Plant 40 309. City S-i.. Oil /A '- M."."- ,52. 11re, Corp, L11* 31* Phil I'p,'PCet;Dlem Co. .4/A Ha-h- Chwaical Co. 00 20 Mri.r Metal; Co. VA " - 'ti .. I1*1,.nl,, Inc, H'A 15' an- Oil C. Inc 31 1;" PC.-d' CAP Corp. L56, 1,1:,,*l Tl@o I;r%e Treatment Plant RCA Corp. R5. and F. rbe Industries N/A 15 fri .1P Me1 3.6 15 Le,itt- WpC 8 Md., Cit@ In P :n B' 7 -, Corp. N/A 15 Morris,ille :steva- Treatment Plant Z* 31,. Stephen ChI 9@ W 31 N/A 16 TIP. Fall, At hority WPCP 2 1. BP OIL Refinery tzo.'@ . 160, NO. Griffin Plot. Product Co. 40 ,@2 Be, d.io - Lima - Hamilton Co. 3 rt'l '114 [email protected] Comp.nv No 163 C.n Corp. .7490 12' US. lip.'I 164. D.L.- .County Incinerator #1 .002 32" public So-ke El.c &Ga. N/ A 1165 Delawr C.- unty Incinerator #2 .821 324' Tenn:,* Ch-il 11C:11. .40 66i Elst-eFla- Hardening Co. .0 3 326 A' r. I:I V 167. FMC *,po "'0' 311@ Al.- 1@,'d.:ttri.l I.,:, N/ 118- H;K. 0 @2B Be rly-r:lera..th, 6 ': S _A.th. 16 ArProd. I C@';-'Z`c.dry Lb. Cl_...in. . I.790 170, Morro. Ch..i,.l Co. 330. Borough Rivercon .210 I'l PEC. Ch-er - 'o f Palmyra NA 172' PI IIdd,,111 142 9 .. ' ',us, . C. 2.0 8 3. .171 oll Co. N A 173 Ph 001 333' P 111, Is ""* at. .088 174' R.Yin.111. metal :.c. 2974 334' C,,Iof Tenlo." 20 1, '5. Scott Paper Co. 0' 176. Scott Paper Co. .79 17 '. "'In' Ve"ol C 541 178. Sun oil Co. Refinery 92.35 1. 111@h" I,@,t on Surfer. list., [email protected], 1972" (unpublished). Numbers In par-the-1 are from "Ar-ide W-t-ter Treatment Management Plan Inventory". Cho.Ler-R- Engineers (in pro-3). - CBE 3, DRBC. NVOLS permits, 1971. most of Delaware County. Also, any wastes not assimilated in upstream tributaries will, in the natural course of events, be carried into the tidal Delaware. Clearly, the Delaware River is a major resource for disposal and assimilation of municipal wastes. Besides municipal dischargers, the Study Area has numerous industrial waste dischargers. Because water is used for a wide range of industrial processes, industrial waste products often differ greatly from domestic wastes, thereby requiring special treatment processes. Although municipal facilities often treat industrial wastese many industries must employ their own pretreatment technology, in order to comply with state and federal regulations. Figures i-14, i-15, i-16 indicate the location and volume of both municipal and industrial waste dischargers in the Study Area, as well as water supply intake points. Because the map does not show treatment level or type of pollutant, water quality cannot be inferred from this map. Figure. i-19 lists municipal dischargers, their level of treatment and effluent volume in MGD. This figure also summarizes recommendations for each plant made in response to Pennsylvania's Act 537, the Sewage Facilities Act. Instream Uses - Navigation -- Commercial navigation is a major instream use of water resources. Historically, water transportation is the most significant use of the Delaware River. The "Ports of Philadelphia" (including, besides Philadelphia, berths south to Wilmington, Delaware, and from Camden up to Trenton on the New Jersey side) is the largest freshwater industrial port in the world. It is the second largest U.S. port in number of vessels handled, and the third busiest seaport in the world.36 Five thousand cargo ships were loaded and/or unloaded between Trenton and Philadelphia in 1973; and in the same year, 10.4 billion ton-miles of commercial freight traffic passed between Morrisville and Philadelphia on the Delaware. That year, the port facilities in Delaware County (primarily in the Marcus Hook - Chester City area) handled over 26 million tons of cargo.37 Commercial shipping, both international and domestic, is a key factor in the Study Area and region-wide economy. over 9000 manufacturing concerns and 100,000 job opportunities are directly dependent on Port activity. In order to maintain the instream navigational capability of the Estuary, the Corps of Engineers dredges the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. The Delaware is dredged to maintain a depth of 40 feet and a width varying between 400 and 800 feet as far north as Newbold Island in Bucks County. Between Newbold and Morrisville the River depth is maintained to 3 '5 feet. The Schuylkill River is dredged to depths between 26 and 33 feet six miles inland from its confluence with the Delaware. Above South Philadelphia, the width narrows and is only broad enough for small ships. It has been estimated that since 1836, over one billion cubic yards of dredge spoil has been removed from the Delaware River alone. Annually, about 10.5 million cubic yards 1-15 Ate. all N 1A te 41 zip,% sot-- Z Oar- f., R'l I 4 zi -e, P"t 77, > 168 -tit, 414 k F47, JP3 144 ,)k .01 4;@i 17 R -- 'ke4 1INCH 1 MILE % 5 10 1 5 2 f 10 1 1 INCH=1.6 KILOMETERS. SQ. MILE % so. Kj. 1L KEY MAP WATER USE --x BUCke Co. INTAKES AND DISCHAR *177' (D P @EYM A e 11=ka Co Re phila Dale c we,. 0 DELAWARE COUNTY STUDY Delaware Co. ARE,@ DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE@' LEGEND MUNICIPAL SOME LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE INTAKES DISCHARGES _4r 13 C3 0 .99 MGD El 1 - 50 MGD OVER 50 MGD //INDUSTRIAL SOME LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 0 0 0 .99 MGD 1 - 50 MGD OVER 50 MGD NO DATA OUTSIDE STUDY AREA SOURCES. PA. ;NDUSTR@AL & MUN:C;PAL INTAKES: DRBC PERMITS, CHESTER-BETZ ENGINEERS. NOUSTR AL & MUN C PAL DISCHARGES: CMESTER-BETZ ENGjNE_E_RS_ N J. :NDUSTRIAL & MUNICIPAL INTAKES OFIBC. NOUSTRIAL & MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES; NPOES PERMITS. it 065 179 82 r F R 0, 174 85 16 ar lei 171 0166 1.41% H A -1 T lilt lei: m ."low A k 305 L -7.1 A I I I I I Figure i-15 I WATER USE - INTAKES AND DISCHARGES - PHIIADELPHIA COUNTY STUDY AREA 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pigure i-16 WATER USE INTAKES AND DISCHARGES - BUCKS COUNTY STUDY AREA 1 mile Figure i-17 GENERALIZED TREND IN WATER QUALITY IN THE DELAWARE ESTUARY a: a: a: 0 0 0 1 0 a. a. Ix _j DELAWARE _j RIVER GOOD OX A @fw .......... AMD UP- . . . . . . . .Z-0 40m -, TR A NT OF WASTEWATERS ADING OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL TREAT- MENT PLANT3 0 FAIR LU --OZYGE14 DEPLETED -1 STRETCH 114 POOR 14_ 46 .......... 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 YEAR Source: I'Chopter V1 .... Quality :I Chester -Betz Engineers, 1975. arm Figure i-18 Four Major Water Quality Problems and.Their Primary Causes Problems Primary Causes Dissolved oxygen depletion Municipal and industrial discharges, algea respiration, urban/suburban runoff, benthic deposits High ammonia levels Municipal discharges, benthic deposits High phosphate and nitrate Municipal discharges, urban/suburban levels runoff, agricultural runoff High concentrations of Acid mine drainage, industrial dis- heavy metals charges, municipal discharges receiving significant industrial loads. Source: "Chapter VI, Quality," Chester-Betz Engineers, 1975. Figure i-19 Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants- in the Study Area FACILITY TREATMENT LEVEL ,IGD ACT 537 RECOMMENDATION Bucks Bristol Boro STP Secondary 1.4 Expand 1980 (under construction) Bristol Twp WPCP 1.8 Expand 1980 Levittown WPCP 8.7 No Change Morrisville Wastewater Treatment Facility 2.78 Expand 1980 (under construction) Twp Falls TPCP 2.3 No change Philadelphia N.E. WPCP Intermediate 195. Expand & Upgrade 1980 S Primary 127. Expand & Upgrade 1980 S.W. WPCP Primary 139. Expand & Upgrade 1980 *E* WPCP Delaware Marcus Hook STP Primary Central Del. Cty. Auth, TP Primary --- Darby Crk STP Secondary Delcora Chester Primary 10.3 Expand & Upgrade 1976, 1989, (Secondary Under 1999@ 2000 Construction) Eddystone Boro WTP Primary .2 Phase out by 1976 Muckinpates STP Secondary 5*75 Phase out by 1981 Tinicum Twp STP Secondary .83 Phase out after 1981 Source: Chester-Betz Engineers questionnaires W of sediment are dredged from the Delaware, Schuylkill, and Christina Rivers.36 In addition to channel dredging, six deep water anchorage areas are maintained on the Delaware away from through traffic. Each of the anchorage sites is 40 feet deep. Three of these, Five-Mile Point, League Island and Thompson Point, are natural deep water areas; League Island and Thompson Point, are natural deep water areas; the Port Richmond anchorage has not needed dredging in recent years; but two anchorages, Marcus Hook and Mantua Creek, require continued dredging due to chronic shoaling from upstream sediment loads. Four or five 500 foot ships can anchor simultaneously in any one of the anchorage areas. Figures i-20, i-21, i-22 show the areas dredged and the location of the anchorage sites. Within Philadelphia, there are fifty general use pier facilities with the capability of handling liquid bulk, bulk, containerized, refrigerated and roll on/roll off cargo. The riverfronts of Bucks and Delaware Counties generate only private industrial water -traffic; industries import crude goods and ship products from their own facilities. Petroleum products constitute the greatest share, by far, of cargo handled in the Delaware Estuary.39 Instream - Recreation -- The volume of commercial shipping is a limiting factor for recreational use of Delaware River water resources. Water recreation includes fishing, boating, bathing, and sightseeing. Recreational use of the River is governed by water quality, by access to the water and by the extent of waterfront parkland. All three factors are limited in the Study Area. Poor water quality bars use of the River for bathing, and the highly urbanized character of much of the Study Area has traditionally restricted public access. There are 23 marinas, including private and restricted facilities, in the Study Area. The great majority of boaters wishing access to the Delaware within the Study Area are dependent on the three public boat launching ramps. Locations of marinas and boat ramps are indicated on Figures i-20, i-21, i-22. An instream, use of water resources which enhances recreational opportunities is fish and wildlife propagation and management. A 1972 summer and early fall collection of fish in the Estuary within the Study Area counted twenty-eight different species.40 The Estuary is especially important to anadromous fish which live most of their lives in salt water and ascend fresh water streams to spawn. Fish, particularly shad, had a substantial economic importance in the nineteenth century. In 1896, nearly 20 million tons of shad were netted and 21 million tons of oysters were collected. Between 1900 and 1920, shad, oysters and many other commercial species virtually disappeared from the Estuary (Figure i-23). Pollution, dredging, sedimentation and dams destroyed spawning areas as well as feeding grounds of many fish. In recent years, some commercial species have begun a comeback, although in limited numbers.41 1-16 Fiqure i-20 WATER USE CHANNELS, ANCHORAGES AND MARINAS DELAWARE COUNTY STUDY AREA 1" 1 mile Figure i-21 WATER USE CHANNELS, ANCHORAGES AND MARINAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY STUDY AREA 1" 1 mile I I I I I Figure i-22 WATER USE - CHANNELS, ANCHORAGES AND MARINAS - BUCKS COUNTY STUDY AREA 1 1" = 1 mile I I 11 I I I a I I I I I I a w I Figure i-23 FISH CATCHES IN THE DELAWARE*RIVER 1850-1965 30 TOTAL FIN FISH, CATCH IN STUDY AREA U) 20 z SHAD CATCH DELAWARE RIVER 13AY 0 CL z 0 1c, 01837 '50 *60 '70 80 '90 1900 '10 '20 '30 '40 '50 '60 YEARS Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Study (July 1966) p. 50 over 250 species of birds are known to nest or migrate through the Delaware Valley.42 Within the Study Area, Tinicum Marsh in Delaware County is the main stopover and nesting site for waterfowl. Tinicum Marsh and other wildlife areas, including Little Tinicum Island, Biles Island and the Warner Lakes area, are discussed in a separate indepth report, "Four Environmentally Sensitive Areas," produced in conjunction with the Coastal Zone Management study. 1-17 FOOTNOTES 1.. Federal guidelines were published in the Federal Register on November 29, 1973 (15CFR 920) and August 21, 1974 (15 CFR 923). See also Report No. 94-1298, available from the U.S. Government Printing office, for a report on Senate Bill 586, the 1976 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act. 2. Joseph Oberman and Stephen Kozakowskif History of Development in the Delaware Vallfty Region, (Philadelphia, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 1976), p.103. 3. Ibid., p.14. 4. Ibid., p.13. 5. Ibid., p.16. 6. Ibid., p.31. 7. Ibid., p.58. 8. Ibid., p.59. 9. Ibid., p.69. 10. Ibid., p.105. 11. Except where noted, the data used to provide this summary is from characteristics of the Population of Pennsylvania, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Censusp 1970. 12. "Delaware Valley Data: 1974 Population Estimates for the Delaware Valley Region," (Philadelphia, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, October 1975); these reported estimates were formulated by the National Planning Data Corporation, Ithaca, New York. 13. Data is from the 1970 Census. 14. Census Data for families with income below poverty level is based on Thresholds derived from a number of variables, including family size, sex and age of family head, and number of dependents. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau poverty cirterion for a family of four with a male head is $3,745 per year. 15. Information on employment is drawn from the 111970 Socio-economic, Employment, and Land Use Data by Census Tract for the Nine County Delaware valley Region," D.V.R.P.C. computer files, updated 1975. This data is not drawn from U.S. Census information, which gives employment figures for persons residing in each census tract, but is based on figures for total number of employees working in a census tract, regardless of place of residence. with this method 1-18 (employment by place), figures are a function of the concentration and intensity of local industries and commerce. 16. DVRPCIs twelve employment categories have been grouped for mapping purposes into five representative categories. 17. This information is derived from reports issued by the Pennsylvania State Employment Service, Bureau of Employment Security, Department of Labor and Industry. Reports for January and February 1976 and preliminary estimates for March 1976 are reflected here. 18. "Delaware River Corridor Study,, "(Media, Pennsylvania, Delaware County Planning Commissions, 1976), pp. 3-5. 19. Nagle, John, Riverfront Development Study (Philadelphia, Philadelphia City Planning Commission, 1974). 20. Ibid. 21. The Delaware River Basin: An Environmental Assessment of Three centuries of changes, (Washington, D.C., Council of Envii@o`nmental Quality, 1975). 22. Paul R. Niry, An Historical Look at the Water Quality of the Delaware Estuary to 1973, (Philadelphia-,A7cademy Z-f Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1975), p.10. 23. David W. Greenman, et al, Groundwater Resources of the Coastal Plain Area of Southeastern Pennsylvania, BuYi-etin W-13, (Harrisburg, T@;p_ographic and Geologic Survey, Pennsylvania Department of Internal Affairs, 1961), p.3. 24. "Chapter VI, Existing Water Use and Quality," Comprehensive Water Quality Plan, Lower Delaware and Schuylkill River Basins,(Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania,-Chester-Betz Engineers, 1975), p.VI-B200. 25. Water Management of the Delaware River Basin, (Trenton, N.J., Delaware River Basin commission, 1975), p.I-43. 26. "Chapter VI, ... Quality," op. cit., pp. VI-B-186 to VI-B-200, summarizes water quality data from various sources of inf ormation. 27. Groundwater Resources of the Coastal Plain Area of Southwestern Pennsylvania, D. W. Greenman# D. R. Rima, W. N. Lockwood and H. Meisler. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Internal Affairs, Topographic and Geologic Survey, 1961. 28. officials at the Eddystone power plant estimated, in reply to a 1975-1976 questionnaire submitted by Chester-Betz Engineers, that the latest discharge figures are 1442.5 million gallons per day, as of 1971. The Delaware River Basin Co,.Amission estimated that 1-19 "this facility consumes 0.7% of its withdrawals, suggesting that the intake rate would be about 1453 million gallons per day. 29. Water Management of the Delaware River Basin, (Trentont N.J., Delaware River Basin Commission, 1975), p. 1-40. About 30 MGD, however, are imported into the Study Area from the Octoraro Creek in the Susquehanna Basin. 30. "Chapter VI, ... Quality,: op. cit., p.VI-13. 31. Ibido, p. VI-18. 32. The Delaware ... Change, op. 33. "Chapter VI, Quality," op. cit., p. VI-51. 34. Kiry, op. cit., p. 27. 35o Information in the remainder of this section was derived principally from, "Chapter VI, Quality," (Chester-Betz Engineers), op. cit. 36. Adam Tait, Ed., Bulletin Almanac, (Philadelphia, The Evening and Sunday Bulletin, 1976) poW. 37. For additional information on marine transportation refer to Delaware Valley Transportation Facts and Facilities, annual editions, (Philadelphia, Penjerdel Corporation,1975)*. 38. Final Composite Environmental Impact Statement, Proiect Maintenance, (Philadelphia, U.S. Army Engineer District, 1975), p.1-4. 39. For a recent analysis of the present and projected role of petroleum in the Port of Philadelphia refer to Oil Port UPdate, (Philadelphia, The Penjerdel Corporation, May 1975). 40. Kiry, o2. cit., Table 8, for combined samples from Marcus Hook, Pa., and Florence, N.J. 41. The Delaware o. Change, op.- cit. 42. Environmental Overview Statement for the Delaware Valley Region, (Philadelphia, Delaware Valley Regional Planning commission, 1976). 1-20 LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE Lake Erie has traditionally been the dominant force behind the development of the Erie County coastline. Early development resulted from the military significance of a harbor on the Great Lakes which provided access to the North Atlantic and was within a' single day's journey from the headwaters of the Allegheny River system, a system which led to the Ohio River and the entire center of the North American continent. Long after its military significance ended this transportation system became the region's doorway to commerce and industry.- The small port of Erie soon became a bustling center of trade because of easy ties with the other Great Lakes communities and with Pittsburgh through the Erie Canal System. The Lake Erie Coast has caused the occurrence of a diverse development pattern in the coastal area. The coastal zone, which originally served as a strategic outpost to protect north-south trade and traffic, soon became part of a major arterial for east and west bound travelers who were bypassing the Lake Erie barrier. Thus the Lake, by serving as both an access route and a transportation barrier, initiated settlement of the port of Erie and other coastal communities as centers of trade. The intersection of access routes soon enticed industrial development which was accompanied by growth in populatibn. Today, as in the past, the Erie County Coastal zone, is strongly influenced by its proximity to Lake Erie (see Figure i-24). The coastal study are-a, continues to attract diverse development. The Lake offers recreational opportunity to the public, particularly where access to the water is available. The Presque Isle Peninsula and a limited number of local public and private areas serve as access points along the coastal zone. Lake Erie is also a major source of water for both household and industrial users. This almost unlimited supply of water has encouraged recent siting proposals for both a major steel producing facility and a major power generating plant within the coastal zone. In addition, the climatic effect of Lake Erie affords the shoreline area an extended growing season and permits the production of special cash crops, such as grapes and other orchard crops, another extremely valuable economic resource. Thus the Lake Erie coastal zone resources are greatly in demand. This demand is reflected by the variety of uses which the coastal lands can accommodate and indicates the need for special emphasis upon a balance between existing and proposed economic uses, as well as the need for preservation of the many significant environmental aspects of the coastal area. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERICTICS Historical Background - The first European settlers in the Erie area were by the French, who, after years of expeditions built Fort Presque Isle and Fort LeBoeuf in 1753 for the purpose of protecting 1-21 Figure i-24 LAKE ERIE.COASTAL ZONE LOCATION MAP 111 2 miles the@- portage route between their St. Lawrence and Mississippi colonies.1 This route was part of a supply chain between their major fortifications at what are now Pittsburgh and Buffalo. After these latter two fortifications were destroyed by the British, during the French and Indian War, withdrew from the region entirely in 1759. A year later the British arrived and reconstructed the two Erie County forts, but these too were destroyed in June, 1763 by an Indian uprising known as Pontiac's Conspiracy. White.men did not settle the region until 1794-95 when American troops reconstructed these same two forts. Immediately thereafter the towns of Erie and Waterford were surveyed and layed out by General Andrew Ellicot who also planned the layout of Washington, D.C. Settlers, encouraged by land companies, began arriving in the late 1790ts. The U.S. Census records the 1800 population of the town of Erie at 81 persons.2 Erie was one of the few American settlements on Lake Erie when the War of 1812 broke out with Great Britain. Its strategic importance became apparent, as naval control of Lake Erie would determine the fate of the Northwest Territories. With a population totaling about 400 people, the Borough of Erie became the shipyards for the American fleet. From the autumn of 1812 until.August of 1813 the fleet was constructed in Presque Isle Bay. The Battle of Lake Erie occurred on September 10, 1813 with the resultant defeat of the British. The development of the County continued at a steady pace after the war from 3,758 people in 1810 to 31,344 in 1840. This growth was aided by various improvements in transportation. The federal government dredged and improved the Erie harbor and in 1844 the Erie Extension Canal was completed, providing cheap transportation to the Pittsburgh region. This link in the Pennsylvania canal system remained in use until 1871, by which time the railroads had replaced it. By 1860, the port at Presque Isle was an active part of a flourishing lake trade. Locally owned schooners were engaged in the profitable enterprise. of carrying agricultural products, raw materials for manufacturing plants, and finished products. More than 600 ships cleared the port in 1860 with total cargoes of 600,000 tons.3 Despite the 'demise of the Extension Canal, port traffic increased steadily with 3.9 million tons of cargo passing through the port in 1890. By the 1890*s, Erie County with a population approaching,100,000 people, was a flourishing agricultural and manufacturing center. Apples, a new commodity, began to rival the cereals, grains, potatoes, livestock, and dairy products which predominated in the mid-18001s. Foundry and machine shops gained dominance among Erie's manufacturing industries and maintained this position well into the twentieth century. The principal manufacturing products included machinery, steam engines and metal products. Commercial fishing, a third activity of substantial consequence in the development of Erie County, emerged in the mid-nineteenth century. Whitefish, salmon, trout, and sturgeon were among the main fish commodities netted by a fishing industry which rose steadily during the 1890's and peaked during the 1910's and 1920's. Employing 1-22 500-men, and operating @0* steam and 14 sail craft, the fishing industry represented an investment of $250,000 in 1893.4 The more valuable species disappeared as a result of pollution in the Lake, and overexploitation of fishing stocks, resulting in the fishing industry decline to the present low point. Between 1890 and 1920 the number of manufacturing establishments declined sharply. However, capital investment, number of employees, wages and salaries, and value added by manufacturing activity all rose sharply. The decline in number of establishments reflected the national trend toward concentration, and the growth of activity was, in part, the result of the stimulation of manufacturing during World War 1. The growth in manufacturing overshadowed the decline in the significance of agriculture in the decades after 1890. The number of farms, acreage and farm employment gradually declined in each decade. The value of land and buildings doubled between 1900 and 1920 and declined by the same proportion in the next two decades. Similarly, the value of farm products rose from $3.7 million in 1900 to $12 million in 1920, but declined to $5.9 million in 1940.5 only the steady growth of orchard produce countered an otherwise dark picture for agriculture. The base of the Erie County economy had clearly been transformed with manufacturing industries assuming dominance. By the late 1920's many of Erie County*fs current major industries were established, * including the General Electric Company, Hammermill Paper Company and numerous foundries. It was in this periodthat the expansion of manufacturing activity provided Erie with a reputation for the remarkable diversification in products that characterized its industrial base. These 'industries also induced population growth. From 1900 to 1930 the population grew from just under 100,000 to 175,277 people. Nearly half of this 78% increase in growth occurred in the dacade from 1910 to 1920. World war II again increased Erie Countyls manufacturing significance. The resurgence in industrial activity during the war and the high consumer demand in the following years increased the population between 1940 and 1960 by over 38% from 180,889 to 250,682 people. During the 1960's and through the mid-1970's the County-wide population has continued at a slower growth rate. Most of this reduced rate of growth can be attributed to the outmigration which has affected western Pennsylvania as a whole. The diversification of manufacturing-and the resultant availability of jobs has continued to keep Erie County growth ahead of the State average and on par with the U.S. average. The County population has increased 168% from 1900 to 1970.6 This compares with a 167% national growth rate and only an 87% growth rate in Pennsylvania. From 1960 to 1970, however, Erie County has grown by only 5.2%. This growth was significantly below the national 13.3% growth rate, but managed to outstrip the Commonwealth's growth rate which was only 4.2%. 1-23 Thu@� the Erie area has established itself as a mid-sized and diversified manufacturing center providing expanded employment opportunities for a steadily growing community. Its location on Lake Erie adjacent to the Presque Isle Peninsula provided he initial impetus for this growth, and continues to offer an additional economic bonus as a center for tourist trade during the summer months. Socio-economic Resources - The Erie Metropolitan area is characterized by an abundance of man-furnished resources which effectively serve to meet the requirements of the region's population. Such resources include a variety of public services such as water supply and waste disposal, power generation and distribution systems, and a transportation network including three major railroads, a port open to Great Lakes and worldwide shipments, and a complete highway arterial system linking Erie with other urban centers as well as its own rural hinterlands. Such services as these draw industry and commerce to the area, offering jobs to existing residents and attracting additional individuals in search of employment. The significant number and variety of manufacturing and commercial establishments in the Erie area supports the existence of a skilled labor force, which in turn makes use of the public services indicated above. The concentration and diversity of economic activities along the coast and throughout the remaining metropolitan area provides the need for and consequent support of amenities such as colleges, libraries, social services, and the performing arts. Numerous recreational facilities, too, have been made available for use as part of the local and regional tourist trade. Lake Erie has substantially influenced man's use of the shoreline for his own purposes. These uses have resulted in a variety of socio-- economic resources which will continue to serve the needs of area residents. Population - one indication of the socio--economic character of the Preliminary Study Area is population, density and growth (see Figures i-25 and i-26). Also significant are financial characteristics such as median family income and families with income below the poverty level. This information has been summarized, where possible, in chart and map form in order to save space and simplify presentation.? The Preliminary Study Area population, which in 1970 was 214,157, is 1.8% of the total population of Pennsylvania, although comparatively, this Study Area is only .5% of the Commonwealth's area. The number of people per square mile ranges from 182 in the Western Study Area to 263 in the Eastern Study Area to a substantially higher figure of 3,221 people per square mile in the Central Study Area. The entire Preliminary Study Area supports an average number of 903 people per square mile. The 1975 Preliminary Study Area population was 215,863, up .8% from the 1970 population figure. Thin modest increase occurred solely in 1-24 Figure i-25 POPULATION BAR MAP 111 2. miles BLACK POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IN PRELIMINARY STUDY AREA 1970 .43% WEST -84% EAST WHITE POPULATION 9873% <@BLACK POP. CENTRAL 4.1% TOTAL PRELIMINARY STUDY AREA POPULATION 12-13,803 89951 131 -1.5% BLACK POPULATION IN ERIE COUNTY (SHADED AREAS REPRESENT PERCENTAGE OF .*'[email protected].'-.'-................................l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*'@."...""""""""""""""""""'I@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . BLACKS LIVING IN STUDY AREA) 98.5% the West and East Study Areas which had an 11.3% and a 7% growth rate, respectively. The Central Study Area lost slightly over 1% of its population. The substantial growth within Millcreek Township did not balance the outflow of people from Erie City proper. Both Lawrence Park and Wesleyville accommodated a growth rate of about 5% and both communities are now densely developed. The 1975 population of the Western Study Area was 21,326 or 9.9% of the entire Preliminary Study Area. Within the Central region resides a population of 172,754 or 80.0% of the population within the preliminary coastal boundary. The Eastern Region accounted for 10.1% of the Preliminary Study Area population or 21,783; a figure nearly identical to the western Study Area. The median income in the Preliminary Study Area was $9479 for 1970, somewhat higher than the County median income of $9363 (see Figure i- 27). The Central Study Area accounted for the lowest median income of the three study areas. This figure was $9388, slightly higher than the County's figure. The more suburban East and West Study Areas had $9579 and a $10,182 incomes, respectively. In 1970, 3546 families in the Preliminary Study Area were classified as having an income below the poverty level. This figure amounts to 6.6% of all families in this region. The Central and Eastern Study Areas had 6.8% of their families below the poverty level. In contrast, the western Study Area had only 4.4% of its families below the designated 1970 poverty line. No significant concentration of poverty level families exists in the Preliminary Study Area. The City of Erie does have 2,475 families below the poverty level which accounts for 70% of the Preliminary Study Area total. Compared to the number of families residing in the City, however, only 7.7% exist at a lower than poverty level income. Employment - In 1970, the Preliminary Study Area was th4 location of employment for 81,202 people or about 82% of Erie County's employed labor force. over 66,000 of these jobs were within the Central Study Area. The East and West Study Areas employed about 7,800 and 6,700 people respectively. Due to the similarities of employment statistics in the East and West Study Areas, most of the employment figures for these two regions have been combined in the following write--up for an easy comparison with Central Study Area employment percentages8 Employment statistics have been divided into six categories of study (see Figure i-28). The largest category, manufacturing and construction, employed an overall average of 45.5% of the employed labor force in the Preliminary Study Area. The Central Study Area was slightly below this percentage with 44.7% of its working population employed in either manufacturing or construction. An average of 49.2% of the East and West Study Areals work force was designated as having employment under this classification. Finances, Services and Public Administration was the second largest field of occupation in 1970. A total of 28.1% of the Preliminary 1-25 I I I -.I 1, I I Figure i-27 MEDIAL FAMILY INCOME I I I .. I I I I I I I I I I I I i Figure i-28 STUDY AREA EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS Study Areas was employed in this category. The Central study Area had -a toal of 29.3% of its employed labor force in this classification compared with an average of only 22.6% in the remaining Study Areas. These percentages indicate the greater availability of service oriented jobs in the more urban Central Area municipalities. The third largest occupational category, Wholesaling and Retailing, 'employed 18.7% of the working labor force in the Preliminary Study Area. This figure breaks down into 19% of the Central Study Area - employed labor force and an average of 17.3% of the same force in the East and West Study Areas. The forth employment category, Transportation and Communication, contains almost 5.6% of all employed individuals in the Preliminary Study Area. The Central Study Area figure is slightly over 5.6% of the total employed population and the East and West Study Areas average 5.3% of the total employed for this same category. Unlike the other employment categories mentioned so far, the East and West Study Areas do not have a similar proportion of employed in the Transportation/Communication category. only 3.7% of the East Area is employed in these fields while 7.1% of the working labor force in the West Area is employed in this field. The number of transportation and communication employees in Springfield Township and East Springfield Borough amounts to over 15% of both municipalities' employed labor force, and this number, in turn, increases the Western Study Area average as well. This high percentage is probably due to the number of individuals who work at both the port facilities in Conneaut, Ohio, and the Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad yard near Albion Borough and live in the Springfield area. The fifth employment category is Agriculture. A total of .8% of the Preliminary Study Area's employed labor force is classified as farm laborers. only .2% of the Central Study Area work on farms. The Western Study Area has 2.6% of its employed labor.force classified as being agriculturally employed and the Springfield Area, with slightly over 5% of its employed populace classified in this category, pulls p the Western average for this classification. The Eastern Study Area has an average of 4.8% of its employed labor force working on U farms. This high average is due to an agricultural labor force totaling nearly .17% of North East Township's population. The production of vineyard and orchard produce is thus, an activity of significant economic value. About 1.3% of the remaining Preliminary Study Area labor force are employed in job classifications other than those mentioned above. This is an average of 1.2% of the Central Study Area's employed labor force and 1.8% of the same force in the East and West Study Areas. Unemployment - the following write--up has been based on acquired statistics for the years 1970,1975 and 1976. It is interesting to note that Erie County has generally followed a similar pattern to the national trend during the 19701s, one which has been greatly affected 1-25 by both a major recession and the maturation of the post World War 11 "baby boom". In 1970 Erie County had a labor force of 98,722. With 4,200 unemployed, the rate of unemployment totaled 4.3%. The Preliminary study Area had a labor force of 81,202 with 3,474 unemployed, also a 14.3% unemployment rate. Through figures which were obtained for each municipality, the unemployment rate for the West, Central and East Study Areas was calculated at 8.5%,4% and 3.2%, respectively. By 1975, the Countywide labor force had risen to 120,700, a 22.3% increase over 1970 and the unemployment rate had reached 9.0%. The City of Erie had a 59,916 labor force and with 5,422 out of work, also had a 9.0% unemployment rate. The remainder of the County had a labor force of 60,784 and also a 9.0% rate of unemployment. In 1976, the Countywide labor force had reached'121,600 or a rise of .75% over the previous year and the rate of unemployment had dropped .to 8.6%. The City of Erie's labor force was 60,362 and, with 5,223 out of work averaged an 8.7% rate of unemployment. The remainder of the County had a labor force of 61,238 and an unemployment rate of 8.6%. LAND USES AND RESOURCES Introduction -- The Preliminary Study Area of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone covers the entire range of man's utilization of land from intensely urban developed areas to completely undeveloped natural areas. The various land use patterns within this coastal area are noted on the Existing Land Use Maps (Figures i-29, i-30 and i-31). Land use information has been compiled from aerial photos and is based on 1975-76 data.9 These maps should provide the visual reference needed to comprehend the current land use situation in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. The following inventory is based on fourteen categories of land use: 1. single family detached residential 8. community services (institutions) 2. multiple unit residential 9. military 3. seasonal dwellings 10. recreational and cultural 4. manufacturing 11. agricultural 5. transportation 12. mining 6. communications and utilities 13. forests and undeveloped land 7. commercial, wholesale and retail 14. water areas 1-26 I I I Fiqure i-29 EXISTING LAND USE - WESTERN STUDY AREA I 1 1" = 1 mile A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure i-30 EXISTING LAND USE CENTRAL STUDY AREA 1 mile I I 1 -1 I Figure i-31 EXISTING LAND USE - EASTERN STUDY AREA 1 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I I I I I I I I a PR I Western Stud Area Residential land use in the western Study Area is almost.exclusively devoted to single family homes. A few areas of cottage development occur along the lakeshore at points having easy access to the water's edge.. Developmental patterns center around the boroughs and otherwise are spread out along local roads. The highest concentration of urban-related land uses exists in an area east of ,Elk Creek and north of Interstate 90. Most of this region is still predominantly agricultural, forested or undeveloped. land but developmental pressures are intensifying. The several major single family subdivisions which have recently been constructed are evidence of a development trend which is in its early stages. The remaining lands in the western Study Area are at a very low stage of development and probably rank among the least developed areas along the southern shore of Lake Erie. The. initiation of a major U.S. steel corporation industrial complex would dramatically alter the rural character of much of this area. Chart i-32 categorizes the land uses of the Western Study Area by acreage and percent and indicates the rural character of this region:10 Central Study Area -- The Central Study Area is the most densely developed area of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone.' Residential and other urban related land uses predominate in this region. Portions of this region still remain largely undeveloped, specifically Presque Isle State Park, and the southeast and southwest corners of Millcreek Township4 A significant amount of Millcreek's lakefront also remains sparsely developed. Development of this Township is occurring at a continuing, if not accelerating pace. The City of Erie, Lawrence Park Township and Wesleyville Borough are entirely urbanized, except for a minor area in the southeast corner of the City of Erie and the many public parks located in these communities. one other large undeveloped area is the Lawrence Park Golf Course, a 147.2 acre parcel located along the'lakefront in Lawrence Park Township. Chart i-33 categorizes the land uses of the Central Study Area by acreage and percent:" Eastern Stud Area -- The East Study Area consists primarily of prime agricultural and undeveloped lands, much like the land use pattern in the West Study Area. The difference between the study areas lies in the type of agricultural activity which occurs. Unlike the dairy farming which predominates in the West, the Eastern Study Area is best suited for vineyard and orchard produce. As one travels south of Interstate 90 the major land use activity gradually changes to dairy farming and undeveloped land. Two principal urban areas exist in the Eastern region. The western half of Harborcreek Township accomodates much of the exodus from the City of Erie. The urban pattern which has developed thus far is one in which the residential areas have branched-out into the Township 1-27 I I I I Figure i-32 LAND USE CHART - WESTERN STUDY AREA I i I I I I I I I I I I I - I I a I Figure i-33 LAND USE'CHART CENTRAL STUDY AREA aloilg its principal access routes, leaving large blocks of undeveloped and agricultural areas within their midst. Northeast Borough is a second urban concentration within the Eastern Study Area. Some residential growth has begun to extend into North East Township along the lakeshore and along access routes, but,'thus ,far, the high cost of vineyard land has retarded major urban expansion. Chart i-34 categorizes, by acreage and percentage, the land uses of the Eastern Study Area:12 Land Resources -- Land resources have been divided into two Z-a-tegories, areas having beneficial natural features and areas where natural restrictions place limitations on development. Both of these resource categories have been mapped (Figures i-35 through 40) to better familiarize the reader with the more significant natural functions of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. In this presentation natural features include forested lands, flood plains and wetlands, and agricultural lands. Forested lands provide numerous recreational, aesthetic and economic benefits which suffer from poorly regulated use. Likewise the destruction or deterioration of woodlands negatively affects the ability of forests to moderate climatic phenomena, flooding and high winds, siltation of watersheds and erosion. The forest floor also acts as a filter to water percolating into groundwater reservoirs, and the forest itself can improve air quality by absorbing some air pollutants. within the preliminary boundary of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone, one- third of the total acreage of this region is designated as open or undeveloped land. Most of this land is forested or in the process of reforestation. Thus the very amount of forested land indicates the significance of this natural resource. Flood plains have been determined and mapped according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development designated 100 year flood plain.13 Flooding is by no means an unnatural phenomenon; it occurs regularly to some extent in all streams during periods of heavy precipitation and melting. An increase in impervious structures, such as roads and buildings, concentrates runoff through the storm sewer systems and increases the runoff entering streams. Impervious structures inhibit the infiltration of water into the soil while storm sewer systems transport the runoff much faster than natural drainage patterns. Flooding in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone is usua lly minimal. The lack of developed areas adjacent to local streams and creeks is the reason for this phenomenon. This is not to say that flooding does not exist, but rather that flooding cannot damage structures and property which are not located within a flood plain. Destruction of property due to flooding in Erie County is more apt to occur along the Lake Erie shoreline. Much of the port and waterfront 1-28 Figure i-34 LAND USE CHART EASTERN STUDY AREA I I I I I Figure i-35 NATURAL FEATURES - LAND RESOURCES - WESTERN STUDY AREA I 1 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure i-36 NATURAL FEATURES LAND RESOURCES CENTRAL STUDY AREA. 1" 1 mile I I I I Figure i-37 NATURAL FEATURES - LAND RESOURCES - EASTERN STUDY AREA 1 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I I district of the City of Erie is subject to high water damage during Lake- Erie storms. These same storms also damage cottages along the shoreline by two methods; 1) by high water during storms, and 2) by erosion of the sandy soils on which many lake cottages rest. wetlands, too, are a local natural feature.. The most noticeable Yetlands occur on the Presque Isle Peninsula. Virtually all other coastal wetlands occur in the Western Study Area between the Ohio boundary and Elk Creek. The predominant causeof the occurrence of wetlands in this area is the extremely small slope (often less than 3%) and poor soil drainage conditions. Wetlands are significant natural areas which require protection. Their benefits are many and include the protection of water quality, the retention of water during floods, and the provision of. essential nesting and feeding grounds for many forms of wildlife. Agriculture is also a significant land use activity which cannot truly be considered as a natural process, but rather as an initial stage of mankind's development. Nonetheless, agriculture has a significant impact upon natural areas and is the most natural of all forms of man-made development. Economically, it provides an important areawide income by employing a significant number of people, particularly in the Eastern Study Area. Other important aspects of agriculture include both ecologic and aesthetic values with its most obvious and significant value, being the provision of food and fiber products. Within the Preliminary study Area boundary, about 37% of the total land area is being farmed. As is indicated on the Natural Features- Maps, agriculture has been divided into, three segments for clarification purposes. These include: 1) vineyards, 2) orchards, and 3) all remaining agriculture. Slightly over 2% of the Western Study Area is devoted to raising fruit products. The Central Study Area has no production of orchard or vineyard crops. The Eastern Study Area, however, devotes almost 33% of its acreage to fruit production. North East Township utilizes almost 53% of its entire acreage for. production of fruit products alone. Thus, fruit production in much of the coastal zone ranks as the most significant farming activity. Development Considerations -- A second group of natural features are those phenomena which act as limitations upon development. These include slopes of 25% or more, prime agricultural soils, soils with severe limitations for on-site septic systems, and mineral excavation sites. Slopes of 25% or more occur throughout the Lake Erie Coastal Zone and are located along the shoreline and adjacent to the numerous streams and creeks which have cut gorges through the lakeplain en route to Lake Erie.14 over 85% of the Western Study Area shoreline consists of bluffs which reach heights of up to 120 feet above the water's edge. There are.three principal stream systems in this area which have cut 1-29 I I 1 1, -1 I Figure i-38 NATURAL FEATURES - DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS - WESTERN STUDY AREA I 1 1" = 1 mile I I .. I I I I - I I I I I I I I I Figure i-39 NATURAL FEATURES DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS CENTRAL STUDY AREA 1 mile I I I I I Figure i-40 I NATURAL FEATURES _ DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS - EASTERN STUDY AREA 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I steep slopes'within the otherwise relatively flat lake plain. These are Crooked Creek, Elk Creek and its tributaries of Halls Run and Little Elk Creek, and Walnut Creek. The Central Study Area has bluffs fronting the Lake which vitually extend along the entire lakeshore and bayfront. Over 80% of these ,bluffs have a slope of 25% or more. Walnut Creek and Mill Creek have formed most of the remaining steep slopes in the Central region. In the Eastern Study Area about two-thirds of this coastline consists of steep escarpments, some of which reach 170 feet above lake level. creeks which have developed major gorges with banks having a 25% slope or higher include: Fourmile, Sixmile, Eightmile, Twelvemile, Sixteenmile and Twentymile Creeks. Prime agricultural soils are a second phenomena which have been categorized under the "development limitations" classification.1 5 Unlike other phenomena being discussed, prime agricultural soils do not at all limit development but rather require protection from urban development so that such soils can be continually utilized for agricultural purposes. The most fertile soils An Erie County occur along the Lake Erie coastal plain extending the length of Erie County. In Springfield and Girard Townships, the greatest concentration of these soils occur in an area north of Interstate 90. one major exception is north of the Conrail tracks in Springfield Township. In Fairview Township there are still large blocks of prime agricultural soils immediately north of 1-90 but the highest concentrations of these soils are found in a more narrow band to the north of Route 20. This pattern continues through Millcreek and the City of Erie where urban development has completely enveloped some of the largest blocks of prime agricultural soils in the coastal zone. Through Lawrence Park Township and western Harborcreek Township prime agricultural soils are limited to a strip immediately adjacent to both sides of Route 20. Beginning in eastern Harborcreek Township and extending to the New York State line is a band of prime agricultural soils from Route 20 north to the Lake. It is an unfortunate occurrence that these soils may well become completely and irretrievably utilized for urban-related purposes before the significance of the agricultural industry which bases much of its productivity upon such soils is realized. A foresighted land management program is required to retain this essential resource as a unique agricultural area. A third phenomenon which limits development in the coastal'zone occurs where soils have severe limitations for the use of on-site septic systems. such soils are usually composed of silt and clay which impede the percolation of materials through the soil. Within much of the East and West Study Areas, soils having limitations on standard on--lot septic systems roughly occur between an area about one mile south of Route 20 and the Preliminary Study Area boundary. In the Central study Area soils south of 38th Street predominantly 1-30 consist of silt and clay materials which place limits on standard septic systems. Since such a large land area within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone supports soils with severe limitations for the use of on-site septic systems, only those areas supporting soils suitable for the use of on-site septic systems have been mapped. The fourth and last phenomenon which limits urbanized development is the extraction of minerals. The Preliminary Study Area does not contain an abundance of mineral resources. There are, however, some sizeable deposits of sand and gravel having commercial value, and some areas where natural gas has been located although its commercial exploitation has been limited. Proper planning must be exercised so that future exploitation of these natural resources is not excluded by sprawling development patterns. Sand found both on and offshore is probably the-most important mineral resource within the coastal area. It does not pose major limits upon the utilization of land but is nonetheless a major mineral resource of the area. An average of 125,000 tons of sand is dredged per year. The excavation is done in a twelve square mile area, slightly over seven miles northwest of Presque Isle.16 This area designated for Commercial dredging is located on Figure I- Gravel is a second important mineral. There are at least@ 20 gravel pits in the Preliminary Study Area. Most of these are located along the Route 20 beach ridge in the West and East Study Areas. The largest gravel pit consists of about 180 acres and is located north of Route 20 on the Fairview/Girard Township line. The third resource of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone is natural gas."? serious land exploration for commercial gas began in 1954, but has met with only limited success for commercial purposes. In 1975 there were six gas fields in the Preliminary Study Area as well as 19 other producing or potentially producing gas wells. Since their discovery they have produced over fifteen billion cubic feet of gas. The average home will utilize approximately 180,000 cubic feet of natural gas for heating purposes annually. The fifteen billion cubic feet taken cumulatively would therefore have sufficiently heated approximately 83,000 homes for one year. Almost 99% of the gas discovered thus far was from three fields in Springfield Township. Two offshore exploratory wells were drilled in Lake Erie in the 19501s. one, off the shore of Springfield Township, was completed in 1958 and.produced up to 190,000 cubic feet per day. The well has since been abandoned. The second well off the shore of North East Township was completed in 1959 and subsequently abandoned after a good show of gas. Conclusion -- Pennsylvania's Lake Erie coastline is a uniquely diversified region which, while encompassing the City of Erie and most of its suburban reaches, still remains as a ruralp developing area. The largest single land use classification is agriculture with 37.2% of the ent-'-re Preliminary Study Area under cultivation. The 1-31 second largest land use category is the forest and undeveloped classification which comprises 33.0% of the land in the region. About 12.5% of the region is a combination of all residential land use and a very high percentage of this figure is under the single family residential classification. All remaining land use total 17.3% of the coastal zone area. The following chart designates by acreage and percent the land use classifications of the Lake Erie coastal zone.16 WATER USES AND RESOURCES Introduction -- Lake Eriel lying on the international boundary between the United States and Canada, is the southernmost of the five Great Lakes. It is about 240 miles in length and is 57 miles wide at its broadest point. It is the most shallow of the Great Lakes, only 210 feet at its deepest point and is 9,940 square miles in size.19 The Lake serves many essential requirements of the Preliminary Study Area, most notably as a water supply for drinking and manufacturing purposes, as well as a resource utilized for navigation, recreation, the fishing industry and for dispersement of wastes. Water Quality -- The waters of Presque isle Bay and the near--shore zone of Pennsylvania's Lake Erie waters have been degraded over recent decades and are in various stage's of eut'rophication although recent trends have indicated that some improvements in water quality have occurred. For example, the beaches of Presque Isle have not been closed due to pollution for several years. The water quality of the beach areas along the north side of Presque Isle is good. Presque Isle Bay suffers from significant bacteria contamination.20 The causes of contamination are many. Principal waste sources in the study area include: residential and industrial wastes, combined sewer overflows, urban and rural runoff, and agricultural wastes. In addition, accidental spills of toxic and hazardous chemicals and road deicing compounds contribute some waste loads. Water quality which is so seriously affected by waste products from these sources will improve provided that water quality management plans throughout the Lake Erie basin are implemented. Groundwater Resources -- Subsurface water supplies in the Lake Erie Basin of Pennsylvania are small to moderate. Small springs are utilized in locations where they are convenient and of high quality. Many dug wells are still in use but, they are gradually being abandoned because of their unreliability in the dry season and their vulnerability to contamination. In many areas high sodium chloride concentrations make the available groundwater supplies unusable. Sand and gravel areas of the glacial drift are by far the largest producers of groundwater. There are areas such as valley bottoms or buried and filled valleys where the sand and gravel areas produce very little water. Soft formations above the sand and gravel often cave into the wells resulting in their abandonment. Modern methods of well finishing have decreased the incidence of well abandonment. 1-32 The"shale and sand formations found in the study area yield small quantities of groundwater. In some sections of the study area water under artesian pressure is encountered in the bedrock formation. . The quantity and quality of water resources varies depending upon the proximity to Lake Erie. The water supplies closer to the Lake produce sufficient water but the quality of the water does not meet drinking water standards. Subsurface water supplies in this area are often located near the surface because deeper wells often strike salt deposits, sulphurous water, or possibly natural gas. wells nearer the surface are often contaminated by the percolation of polluted surface waters. Farther back from the Lake, the population is less dense, the water table is deeper and therefore the water quality is higher. Withdrawals - Utilities -- The Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec) is by far the largest water consumer in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. It withdraws approximately 126'million gallons per day from Presque Isle Bay for use in cooling steam generators.21 The withdrawal site is located in the East Canal Basin directly north of the main plant at the foot of French Street. There is also a back-up intake in a slip east of the Grain Dock for use in emergencies. This water is discharged into the West Canal Basin of the Bay. Withdrawals - Municipal and Industrial -- There are four other water withdrawal systems in the study area which use Lake Erie as a water source. Two of these are municipal systems and two are industrial systems. The Erie Bureau of Water has two underwater pipelines which reach across the Presque Isle Peninsula and into Lake Erie. One of these begins approximately 1.2 miles offshore from Presque Isle and carries water through a 72 inch intake to the Sommerheim Filtration Plant located adjacent to Presque Isle Bay at the foot of Sommerheim Drive in Millcreek Township. This plant has a rate capacity of 56 mgd (million gallons per day). The other is a 60 inch intake which begins approximately one mile offshore from Presque Isle and goes to the Chestnut Street Plant, located adjacent to Presque Isle Bay at the foot of Chestnut street. This plant has a rate capacity of 32 mgd. In 1973, these two plants combined pumped a record 18.67 billion gallons from Lake Erie, about 58% of their capacity.23 A fourth major withdrawer is Koppers Company, Inc., a manufacturer of metallurgical coke, located at the foot of East Avenue in the City. The withdrawal intake is located in Lake Erie, a few hundred feet east of Presque Isle Bay. Approximately 400 million gallons per year are withdrawn here and used in the coke production process. The fifth intake pipe is owned by the Hammermill Paper Company and is located approximately 1,800 feet offshore from its plant. This intake withdraws an approximate average of 400 million gallons per year for use in paper production. 1-33 Waste Assimilation The major source of waste which finds its way Tn-toth coastal waters of Lake Erie is from sanitary sewers. Included in this category are municipal, industrial and private sewage discharges (Figure i-41). All permitted sewage treatment plants that discharge into surface waters that find their way to Lake Erie have been mapped on Figures i-42, i-43 and i-44. (These.Figures ,also locate the five water withdrawers mentioned above.) A total of 56 permitted sewage discharges are located in watershed tributaries to Lake Eriq.24 Of these, six (6) go directly into Lake Erie and the -remainder discharge into streams which flow into Lake Erie or Presque Isle Bay. Included within the total number are eight (8) municipally owned facilities, 20 industrial facilities, 27 privately owned wastewater facilities,, and one (1) power generating discharge facility. The total number of waste water discharges into streams and Lake Erie on a daily basis amounts to some 207.48 million gallons. of this, 60.1 million gallons are discharged.via municipal systems. The City of Erie treatment plant accounts for nearly all of this municipal discharge with apprcximately 58 million gallons per day being discharged directly into Lake Erie. The City of Erie wastewater treatment plant began operation in 1975 and has been plagued with legal and technical problems since. The Environmental Protection Agency has filed1civil suit in Federal Court against the City of Erie, charging that the treatment plant is unable to sufficiently treat effluents to meet permitted standards. Although the suit is still in-litigation the fines are in excess of 2.3 million dollars. The technical problem associated with the Erie treatment plant involves the inability to properly remove suspended solids, biological oxygen demand and phosporous. The bacteria used in the treatment process are not heavy enough to settle in the plant basins, and therefore escape with the effluent into the Lake. Though there are 27 private wastewater discharges throughout the watershed area they only account for approximately 440,000 gallons per day, or .2 percent of the total Study Area discharges. Industrial facilities (including Penelec) account for approximately 146.94 million gallons per day of discharge, or 70.8 percent of the total. Some of this is untreated water used for cooling purposes. .Penelec is by far the largest contributor of industrial wastewater discharge, with 126.05 million gallons per day. This water, used in their cooling process, goes directly into Presque Isle Bay and alone accounts for 60.8 percent of all wastewater discharge in the Preliminary Study Area. Navigation -- The Erie harbor is completelysurrounded by the Presque Isle Peninsula except for the channel entrance, a man-made inlet about 400 feet wide and about 3,600 feet in length (see Figure i-45). The harbor itself averages 4.5 miles in length and more than a mile 1-34 Figure i-41 WASTEWATER DISCHARGES ACTUAL AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (mgd) BREAKDOWN Cooling or Industrial Backwash Sanitary INDUSTRIAL 'DISCHARGERS Waste Dischargers Waste RECEIVING WATER WESTERN STUDY AREA 1. Gunnison Brothers .035 Brandy Run 2. Parker White Metal Co. .016 Stored in Lagoons to evaporate 3. Pennsylvania Fish Commission .200 (b) or seep into ground water Unnamed Tributary to Trout Run 4. Erie Suburban Water Co. - .001 (a) Unnamed Tributary to Trout Run 5. Erie Suburban Water Co. - .004 (a) Bear Run to Walnut Creek 6. Erie Bronze Co. .003 .049 Unnamed Tributary to Walnut Creek CENTRAL STUDY AREA 7. Ervite torporation - .017 (d) Presque Isle Bay (d) 8. American Sterilizer .200 .001 Unnamed Tributary to Cascade Creek 9. Lord Manufacturing 263 Unnamed Tributary to Cascade Creek 10. Reed Manufacturing .016(c) :019 Cascade Creek 11. National Erie Forge 1.100 (d) .030 (c) Cascade Creek (d) 12. Erie Malleable Company 152 - Pres que 1117 Bay (d) 13. United Erie Inc. O0Ojc' :006 (d) Lake Erie c -Presque Isle Bay 14. Erie Brewing Company .420 c) Lake Erie (c) 15. Pennsylvania Electric - 126.049 Presque Isle Bay 16. Koppers Iron Co. 023(c)) .972 Lake Erie Hammermill Paper Co. (C 17. 12.800 - Lake 'Erie 13. General Electric Co. .440 (a) 3.620(a) Unnamed Tributary to Lake Erie EA.STr_RN STUDY AREA 19. Welch Grape Juice Factory Z19 (e) Sixteenmile Creek (a) 20. Electric Materials Co. .115 (e) .096 Lagoons-evaporation & ground water 21. North East Water Works. - .072 Sixteenmile Creek MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS 'WESTERN STUDY AREA 1. Lake City Borough Service Area .520 Elk Creek Girard @orough Service Area .237 Elk Creek 3. White Swam Subdivision North .017 Walnut Creek 4. White Swam Subdivision South .040 (c) Walnut Creek 5. Greenbrier Hill .028 Walnut Creek CENTRAL STUDY AREA 6. Citv of Erie Service Area 58.000 Lake Erie EASTERN STUDY AREA 7. South Shore Service .060 (a) Lake Erie S. North East Borough Service Area 1.200 Sixteenmile Creek OTHER PRIVATE DISCHARGERS WESTEILN STUDY AREA 1. Talarico Truck Stop .008 Unnamed Tributary to Raccoon Creek 2. Ashland Service .006 (a) Unnamed Tributary to Crooked Creek 3. Lucman Land Corp. .080 Unnamed Tributary to Lake Erie 4. Erie County Home .093 (a) Trout Run 5. White Consolidated .003 Trout Run 6. (a) Trout Run Pioneer Tavern .001 (a) 7. Alpine Manor 010 (a) Trout Run S. Whitehall Village .035 Unnamed Tributary to Trout Run 9. Fairview School .006 (a) Trout Run 10. Willis Co. .004 (a) Unnamed Tributary to Brandy Run 11. Wenners Humble Oil .005 (b Unnamed Tributary to Brandy Run 12. Commodore Downs .020 Unnamed Tributary to Brandy Run 13. Top Roc Precast .001 (c) Walnut Creek 14. Kahkwa Club .010 Unnamed Tributary to Walnut Creek 15. Harman Electric Co. .000 Unnamed Tributary to Walnut Creek 16. Lake Shore County Club .010 @a) Lake Erie CENTRAL STUDY AREA 17. Presque Isle Park '001 (b) Lake Er4e 13. Ramada Inn .017 Unnamed Tributary to Mill Creek WASTEWATER DISCHARGES (cont.) ACTUAL AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (mqd) BREAKD Cooling or Industrial Backwash Sanitary INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS Waste Dischargers Waste RECEIVING WATER OTHER PRIVATE DISCHARGERS EASTERN STUDY AREA 19. Behrend Campus of Penn State Univ. .050 Unnamed Tributary to Fourmile Creek 20. Clark Elementary School .012 (a) Sevenmile Creek 21. Wilson 4otel .018 (a) Unnamed Tributary to Sixteenmile (a) Creek 22. Sunoco Station .002 Unnamed Tributary to Sixteenmile 23. Lake View Development 010 (a) Creek Si a xteenmile,Creek 24. Family Affair Campgrounds :009, nnamed Tributary to Sixteenmile 25. Larry's Econo Station .012 (a) Creek (a) Unnamed Tributary to Lake Erie 26. PA-N.Y. Truck Stop .010 Unnamed Tributary to Twent7mile 27. Mums Motel .007 (a) Creek Unnamed Tributary to Twentymile Creek WATER INTAKE FROM LAKE ERIE AND PRESOUE ISLE BAY' INDUSTRIAL INTAKE AVERAGE DAILY INTAKE AVERAGE YEARLY INTAKE 1. Pennsylvania Electric Co. 126.049 million gallons 46.0 billion gallons 2. Koppers Iron Co. 1.095 million gallons .4 billion gallons 3. Hammermill Paper Co. 12.868 million gallons 4.7 billion gallons MUNICIPAL INT.MKE AVERAGE DAILY INTAKE AVERAGE YEARLY INTAKE 1. Sommerheim Plant combined intake of combined intake of 2. Chestnut Street Plant 51.116 million gallons 18.67 billion gallons SOURCES: Erie Metropolitan Planning Department and Erie County Health Department (a) Comprehensive Waste and Water Quality Management Study of the Pennsylvania Portion of the Erie Basin and the Erie Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, March, 1974 (b) Actual Daily Average during Seasonal Use (c) Discharge into Erie City Sanitary Sewer System (d) Discharge into Erie City Storm Sewer System (e) Discharge into North East Borough Sanitary Sewer System I , I I I I Figure i-42 WATER USE - INTAKES AND DISCHARGES - WESTERN STUDY AREA 1 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure i-43 WATER USE INTAKES AND DISCHARGES CENTRAL STUDY AREA mile I , I 1 .1 I Figure i-44 WATER USE - INTAKES AND DISCHARGES - EASTERN.STUDY AREA I 1 1" = 1 mile I I .. I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I in -width and is-maintained at a 28 foot depth by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Erie harbor is currently not used to capacity. The principle existing shipping and docking facility in the port is the Erie International Marine Terminal. This facility is owned and operated ,by the Erie--Western Pennsylvania Port Authority and is located in the East Bay Area immediately west of the channel entrance. Basic facilities include: Three docking berths, three portable cranes with capacities of a 125 tons, a 140 tons and a 300 tons respectively, a railroad siding, a 50,000 square foot storage shed and a bulk storage area.25 There are also two petroleum storage facilities utilizing the Erie harbor. The Gulf oil Company maintains an off--loading pipeline for tankers on the Lake side of the channel entrance near the foot of Pennsylvania Avenue. - Petroleum is temporarily retained at this location in six storage tanks prior to further distribution. United Oil Manufacturing Company maintains a 5.5 million gallon storage tank capacity near the foot of Cascade Street at the western end of the harbor. A fleet of twenty tankers dock and unload their cargo at this location during the shipping season. Shipbuilding and repair services are a third major activity of the Erie harbor. The most modern shipbuilding facility on the Great Lakes is located immediately north of German Street. This site has been leased by a division of Litton Industries. This firm has recently constructed the two largest ships on the Great Lakes, the Stewart J. Cort, a lake freighter, and the Presque Isle, a self- propelled taconite barge, both of which are over 1,000 feet in length. This shipbuilding complex includes fabrication and assembly facilities as well as dry docking berths.26 other smaller shipbuilding facilities include two firms located on the East.Canal Basin which specialize in custom building of sail and power pleasure craft. A firm specializing in ship repair services is Perry Shipbuilding, located at the foot of Cascade Street. This firm leases berthing facilities in order to maintain and repair lake freighters such as those mentioned above. A fourth navigation--related industry is commercial fishing. This industry, although only a fraction of its former significance continues at a small scale. The fishing season lasts from March to December. During this time, the largest company, Munch Fisheries, processes approximately 200 tons of its Lake Erie catch. This company utilizes a fleet of eight vessels, all of which berth in the West Canal Basin. Several smaller fishing companies also exist along the coastal zone. 27 Recreation -- Recreation is by far the greatest use of coastal waters in Erie County. All types of recreation associated with water are to be found along the shore of Lake Erie and Presque Isle Bay. Some of these include: swimming, sail and power boating, water skiing, fishing, ice fishing, skating and ice boating. 1-35 Ple'asure boating of all types is found during the summer months all along the lake shore of Erie County and in Presque Isle Bay. The Bay Area has the largest concentrations of population because of its accessibility to large concentrations of population and its natural shelter. There are three major marinas in the Bay Area which afford shelter for thousands of private boats (see Figures 45 through 47). The largest is the Erie Yacht Club, located on the southern shore of the Bay approximately 1.2 miles east of the neck of the Peninsula. This private facility has a large club house, berths for over 600 boats, launching and storage facilities, and a fueling dock. The Presque Isle Marina is maintained by the Commonwealth as part of Presque Isle State Park. This large man-made bay in the south central portion of Presque Isle has a direct connection with Presque Isle Bay, and has berths for some 430 boats, as well as launching and fueling facilities. Presque Isle Yacht Club is another private marina located at the foot of Peach Street in the West Canal Basin. It maintains berthing facilities for approximately fifty boats as well as a club house and launching and fueling facilities. Many other pleasure craft are kept at smaller sheltered and unsheltered commercial and private docks all along the southern shore of Presque Isle Bay, and near the Public Dock. The State Park at Presque Isle also leases marine facilities to private firms at two sites within the park. One on the Bay near the Red Cross Station is inoperative at this writing due to flooding .caused by high lake levels. When in operation, one can rent small outboard motor and row boats for fishing and pleasure on Presque Isle Bay. The other, located at the eastern end of the Peninsula's lagoon near Misery Bay, is open during the summer months. Patrons may rent canoes, small motor and row boats, and paddle boats. All along the shore of the Coastal Zone there are private launching sites for small boats as well as individual moorings. There are also unorganized marina facilities within the sheltered estuary portion of the mouth of Elk Creek in Girard Township. Public boat launching sites include the following: Raccoon Creek County Park, Springfield Township;Pennsylvania Fish Commission site at the mouth of Walnut Creek, Fairview Township; several sites on the bay side of Presque Isle State Park; two ramps operated by the City of Erie; shades Beach County Park, Harborcreek Township; and Dalrymple Beach operated by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission in North East Township. Sport fishing is a year--round activity in the waters of the Erie County Coastal Zone. Presque Isle and Misery Bays are particularly active spots where fish are caught throughout the year. Lake fishing is also actively pursued especially near the mouths of streams where spawning fish are found. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission stocks tJie 1-36 Figure i-45 WATER USE CHANNELS, ANCHORAGES AND MARINAS WESTERN STUDY AREA 1" 1 mile Figure i-46 WATER USE CHANNELS, ANCHORAGES AND MARINAS CENTRAL STUDY AREA 1 mile Figure i-47 WATER USE CHANNELS, ANCHORAGES AND MARINAS EASTERN STUDY AREA 1" 1 mile Lak6 and streams with game fish. one of their more successful programs has been the stocking of coho salmon, an excellent game fish. other species of game fish found in coastal waters are: trout, walleye, small mouth bass, perch, and smelt. Muskellunge and northern pike are sometimes caught in Presque Isle Bay. Fish and wildlife Propagation -- There are about 30 fish species found in Pennsylvania's portion of Lake Erie coastal waters.28 These fish can be broken down into three main classes: rough fish (carp, suckers, etc.), forage fish (shiners, alewife, etc.), and sport fish. Sport fish include yellow perch, white bass, walleye, trout and salmon. Fish which live close to the beaches closely resembly the open--lake fishery. many of these sport fish are bred and stocked by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission.' Presque Isle Bay and the lagoons of Presque Isle are fertile fishing waters. Ice fishing is a popular sport on these waters during winter months and gives way to bow fishing during the rest of the year. The Presque Isle sport fishing is composed of the following species: bullheads and catfish, yellow perch, northern pike, largemouth bass, bluefull, crappie, sunfish and muskellunge. Erie's commercial fishing industry reached its peak in the 1910's and 1920's with catches averaging about 800,000 pounds per year.29 In the 1960's Pennsylvania's Lake Erie fish catch had declined to less than 90,000 pounds per year. Thus far in the 1970's the trend seems to have improved slightly to about 110,000 pounds annually (see Figure i-48). Wildlife is also abundant in the Preliminary Study Area. The Pennsylvania Game Commission has published a list of mammals in Western Pennsylvania.30 This list, which includes forty wildlife species, is probably representative of the coastal zone. Predatory animals are few and most of the remaining mammals are scavengers. A large variety of birds exist in the coastal area. A total of 237 species of birds have been seen on Presque Isle and its immediate vicinity, a larger number than have been identified in any other area of comparable size in Western Pennsylvania.31 Seventeen of these species are permanent residents of Presque Isle, 88 are summer residents and 25 visit Presque Isle in the winter only. The remainder are transient species which are not common in the vicinity. 1-37 Figure i-48 LAKE ERIE FISH CATCH (POUNDAGE) FOOTNOTES 1. Erie Coun Historical and Architectural Preservation Plan, TETie, Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, 1976), p.21. 2. Population Analysis, Citv 2f Erie, (Erie, Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, 1972, p.2. 3. Erie County Industrial Study, (Erie, Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, 1973), p. 23. 4. Erie County Economic study, (Erie, Erie Metropolitan Planning DeparT-ment, 1971), p.2. 5. Ibid., p. 3. 6. Erie County Population Analysis, (Erie, Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, 1972), p. 6. 7. Except where noted, all data regarding population and median income are derived from the 1970 Census of Population and Housing for Erie, Pennsylvania, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970. 8. Except where noted, all data regarding labor force, employment and unemployment have been obtained from the Bureau of Employment Security. 9. Real Estate Data Inc., Miami, Florida, 1975, 1976. 10. Acreage totals have been derived from Erie County Tax Assessment records, Erie County Courthouse. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Data regarding the 100 year flood plain is current and relatively accurate. Engineering must still be finalized by HUD before detailed and accurate flood maps are available. 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Erie County Soil Suvery (Washington, D.C., 1960). Index beginning on page 121. 15. "Prime" agricultural soils are not necessarily Class I and II soils as determined by the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. These soils quality under a complicated formula dealing with slope and permeability. 16. Information obtained from the Erie Sand and Gravel Co. 17. Information obtained from the National Fuel Gas Co. 1-38 18.- -Acreage totals have been derived from Erie County Tax Assessment records, Erie County Courthouse. 19. Garland, John H., The World Book Encyclopedia", Volume XII, p- 40. @20. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cooperative Beach Erosion Project at Presque Isle Peninsula, (Buffalo, 1973),- P. 12. 21. Erie Metropolitan Planning Department and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Comprehensive Waste and Water Quality Management Study Interim Report, Cleveland, 1974), p. VII-16. 22. Ibid.,. Figure VI - 1. 23. Data obtained from the City of Erie Bureau of Water. 24. Erie Metropolitan Planning Department and the Department of Environmental Resources, Comprehensive Waste and Water Quality Management Study Interim Report (Cleveland 1974), p. VII-8 and VII-9, VII-16 through VII-19, VII-23 through VII-28. 25. Data obtained from the City of Erie Port Authority. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid. 28. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cooperative Beach Erosion Proiect at Prescrue Isle Peninsula, (Buffalo, 1973), p. 34-36. 29. Data obtained from the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. 30. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cooperative Beach Erosion Project at Presque Isle Peninsula, (Buffalo, 1973) p. 22. 31. Ibid., p. 23. 1-@39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I z- I CURRENT AND G---I ; PAST PROBLEMS I ND ISSUES t.;UKKtN I ANU FAb i VKUOLMMO ANU R)IOUr-O Introduction Many of the problems and issues in.the Delaware Estuary and Lake Erie coastal areas result from conflicts between land and water uses and coastal resources. Problems were discovered and documented from many sources, including local governments, the business community, interested citizens, county and local planning commissions, and members of the coastal zone steering committees. Both county and regional planning commission files were reviewed. Existing reports such as the Riverfront Development Study produced by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, the Delaware River Corridor Study by the Delaware County Planning Commission, the Erie County Comprehensive Plan by the Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, and the Erie Port Development Plan prepared by the Port Commission of Erie were useful in identifying problems. In addition, many of the problems emerged from research conducted during the Inventory of Coastal Resources and Uses (Chapter 1). The problems documented in this chapter were identified and discussed in earlier draft working papers produced by the coastal zone staff and reviewed by the steering committees and interested citizens. A complete listing of the problems and issues identified in each coastal zone is contained in the Coastal Zone Policy Framework (Chapter 5). Some of the most important are described below, with illustrative examples provided where appropriate: The problems and issues discussed in this section are longstanding and-chronic ones which, given present'programs and regulations are difficult to solve. These problems were used to establish the coastal management goals and objectives which serve as the foundation of the Policy Framework, around which the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program is structured. It is clear that many of the problems and issues involving the use, management, and protection of resources, are not unique to shoreline areas, but exist throughout the Commonwealth. They have been presented because they can be significantly improved or eliminated through the implementation of a carefully prepared, well-conceived Coastal Management Program. While the list of problems and issues is quite broad, it is not a complete catalogue of "all problems" in waterfront areas. Coastal Management cannot attempt to solve all the environmental, social and economic problems that exist in each study area. These are important problems,in the coastal areas as well as the Commonwealth as a whole. However, they will have to be the focus of other studies and programs. Coastal problems and issues have been categorized under four major headings: . Land Use, Resources, and Environment . Economic Health and Revitalization 2-1 . Public'Involvement and Education . Government Regulation and Responsibility unfortunately, due to the close interrelationship among the problems and issues, they rarely fit into any single category. For example, problems of undeveloped recreation potential (identified in the section on Land Use, Resources and Environment) overlap with issues of public education and appreciation of the coastal area. 'Each of those problem areas will require,attention if the situation is to be improved. DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE LAND USE,RESOURCES, AND ENVIRONMENT Many of the resource and environmental problems that have been identified relate to the use of land along the Delaware River. Some of these are more obvious while others are not as readily apparent. one significant problem that has received little attention involves industries and public facilities which occupy prime shoreline locations, yet no longer use or require access to- the river. The force which keeps these uses in their present location is sometimes described as "historical inertial, - a combination of tradition, convenience, and the inability or'lack of incentive to profitably relocate. This trend is especially common in the city of Philadelphia. The Riverfront Development Study found that 60% of all riverfront industries classified themselves as not river dependent.' Throughout the Study Area this trend is a problem which will be very difficult to resolve. Clearly, it would be impossible to relocate existing non-river-dependent uses to inland locations. On the other hand, steps must be taken to insure that in the future waterfront sites are available to the industries and facilities that require them. If prime shoreline sites which are currently available (or which will become available) are not designated and reserved.for the potential future activities which depend on them, such activities will be forced to locate elsewhere. This loss can, and must, be avoided through sound planning. Another critical problem identified in the Delaware Estuary Study Area is dredging and spoil disposal. Dredging itself cannot really be considered a debatable issue since this activity will be required on a continuing basis if the collective IlPorts of Philadelphia" are to remain viable and competitive. However, steps can be taken to minimize the adverse impacts that result from dredging (See Chapter 1, Water Use, for more detail). Spoil disposal is the major problem resulting from dredging. Historically, wetlands were used as convenient spoil disposal sites, but increased awareness of their 2-2 natural and ecologic values has led to the prohibition of spoil disposal in wetlands. Sites which are convenient and economically attractive are increasingly ruled out for social or environmental reasons. As a result, economically feasible disposal sites are in increasingly short supply. There are numerous adverse physical and biological impacts upon the immediate area of a'dredge spoil disposal site.2 Physically, spoil disposal can cause chronic turbidity in water adjacent to the site, change natural land drainage patterns, destroy the natural and. biologically productive inter-tidal areas, and potentially contaminate aquifers through leaching. In addition to the environmental impact, economic and social concerns are part of the dredge spoil disposal problem. The opportunity costs associated with the loss of scarce and valuable riverfront lands used as spoil disposal sites can be high. Until the site is stabilized enough to be reclaimed for future uses, it can serve few other purposes, and access to the river is lost. This loss of shoreline access (even if temporary) can be a problem for potential industry as well as citizens seeking recreation opportunities. Finally, disposal sites are usually stripped of vegetation and diked, resulting in areas of low aesthetic appeal.3 Like dredge spoil, sewage sludge generated in the Study Area presents many environmental, social, and economic problems. As treatment plants are upgraded in response to State and Federal water pollution control programs, increasing amounts,of sludge will be generated and require disposal. Smaller plants in municipalities with fewer industrial customers can generally dispose of their sludge in landfills or as fertilizer. However, larger, industrialized municipalities have the dual problem of generating more sludge than they can easily sell, or even give away, and of having less desirable sludge due to the potenti ally toxic materials it may contain. Philadelphia is facing a crisis over the disposal of 155 million gallons of sludge its sewage treatment plants generate annually. The three regional sewage treatment plants in Philadelphia generate the majority of the sludge in the Study Area.4 By 1981, with the current mandated upgrading of treatment plants, the City can be expected to generate approximately 228 million gallons. of sludge per year. A recent EPA ruling requires the City to stop dumping sludge in the Atlantic ocean by 1981. Various schemes as far ranging as barging the sludge to the Bahamas have met with regulatory obstacles which have led to their eventual abandonment. Attempts by Philadelphia to buy or lease land for sludge disposal sites in nearby counties have met with continuing local opposition. Since its storage lagoons are nearly full and land available within the City for disposal is scarce, a solution involving some sort of regional cooperation appears to be urgently required. The highly industrialized riverfront in the Study Area presents considerable potentia I for accidents. The concentration of petroleum 2-3 related industries and the congestion of river traffic in the channel. have created an environment in which frequent oil spills, serious fires, explosions, rammings, collisions, and groundings occur. In the first week of 1977, two oil tankers went aground in the Delaware River, with one of them, the Olympic Games, spilling well over 100,000 gallons of oil into the Estuary (Figure ii--1 illustrates the location of tanker casualties in the Delaware Estuary between 1969- 74). Unfortunately, many of these accidents only come to the public's attention when they are sufficiently large or tragic. Since 1970, a series of major accidents in the Study Area have attracted widespread attention.. On August 17, 1975, a major fire at the Gulf Refinery killed eight firemen and resulted*in the loss of numerous pieces of fire equipment and $10 million dollars in damage to Gulf facilities. 0 On January 31, 1975f the Edgar M. Queeny collided with the tanker Corinthos off Marcus Hook, killing 25 persons. 0 On April 9, 1974, the tanker Elias exploded and burned while unloading at the ARCO docks adjacent to the Philadelphia airport, killing 12 persons. . on May 11, 1970, the explosion of a 13--story catalytic unit at the ARCO refinery killed 7 persons. While large scale tragedies such as these are uncommon, the problem of smaller persistent accidents in the study area poses a threat to the natural environment (especially water quality), public and private investment, and to human welfare. Another problem identified in the Delaware Study Area is flooding. The problem is made especially severe by the concentration of population,jobs, and facilities along the Delaware River and its tributaries in flood-prone areas. Pennsylvania has no statewide floodplain law and at this time only a few coastal municipalities have adopted floodplain regulations in accordance with the Federal Flood Insurance Program sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (This is a good example of a problem that overlaps two general areas.- Land Use, Resources, Environment and Governmental Regulation.) Since the effectiveness of floodplain regulations in a municipality is partially dependent upon its neighboring municipalities developing floodplain ordinances in conformance with federal guidelines, municipalities are vulnerable to the impacts of unregulated development in the floodplains of other coastal communities. Alsof the extensive channelizing, bulkheading, and filling along streams and rivers in the Study Area increases the severity and extent of flood damage (See Chapter 1 for further discussion). The lack of an adequate planning process for dealing with issues and problems that cross municipal and county boundaries is a problem throughout the State of Pennsylvania - not just in the two Coastal Zones. certain land and water uses affect traffic flow, air and 2-4 Figure ii-1 DELAWARE RIVER PENNSYLVANIA SCHUYLKILL RIVER MANTUA CREEK 8 COLLISIONS 4 GROUNOW" piq (( LPMA CASUALTIES NORTH OF 4 RAMMINGS SCHULKILL RIVER MARCUS HOOK CHKE ER 6 GROUNDINGS 6 RAMMINGS 10 COLLISIONS 6 GROUNDINGS Co I RAMMING RACCOON CREEK GROUNOIN R.IC75 2 RA&"NGS7"@-X, JERSEY GROUNDING SALEM CHESAPEAKE G DELAWAR9 CA 9 GROUNDINGS +16p ROUN 1146 MIA C COMANSKY RIVER )ATLANTIC COUNTY NEW CASTLE COUNTY MAURICE RIVER KENT COUNTY 111, 25 DIN" 2 COLLISIONS 2 GROUNDINGS DELAWARE BAY DELAWARE OIL BARff LIGHTIERIMOAREA 4 COLLISIONS ROUNDING I GROUNDING CAPE MAY cot I ISION R.M.00 PAIN LOCATION. OF TANKER CASUALTIES 1969-1974 DELAWARE RIVER water resources, or the "quality of life" outside the jurisdiction (municipality or county) which has the planning or regulatory .A.@_--JYWJLJL.3.L1Jility for the activity. In ma'ny cases neighboring areas suffer negative impacts but are powerless to intervene or demand changes either before or after a facility or development is built. Problems of this type frequently occur with facilities near municipal boundary lines. In some cases there may be recourse through the courts, but litigation is slow, expensive, and uncertain. Within the Coastal Zone an overall management framework is needed to enable neighboring municipalities or counties to jointly plan for and accommodate uses which are of "regional benefit" and which must locate near the river. Such locational decisions are too significant to be determined by one group acting alone. An example may be drawn from the sewage *sludge disposal problem discussed previously. Because the City of Philadelphia treats sewage from many surrounding jurisdictions, -its major treatment plants should be recognized as uses of "greater than locai concern," or "uses of regional benefit." The facilities not only serve many municipalities but because of the tidal action of the Delaware River, their effluent can potentially affect the quality of the water in the Delaware upstream and downstream for many miles beyond the City's borders. For-this reason the treatment plants and the sludge they generate should not be viewed as Philadelphia's problem alone. Issues of this type can.be of concern throughout the Coastal Zone. The inseparable relationship between the quantity and quality of both surface and ground water supplies makes water resource problems particularly acute in the Delaware Study Area. The water quality of the Delaware and its tributaries does not currently meet State standards. The Department of Environmental Resources has identified the Delaware River in the*Study Area as "water quality limited." In particular, dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are low, and coliform bacteria counts (an indicator of pollution from organic wastes) exceed State standards in various portions of the estuary. Although the quality of -the water has improved drastically since the mid- 1940's allowing many species of fish to return and prosper in the river, significant problems still remain. Water quality is not the only concern within the Delaware Estuary Study Area. The future availability of adequate quantities of surface and ground water is an important issue. During periods of extensive drought, flow in the river is not sufficient to hold back the intrusion of salt water. In the summer of 1962, salt water intrusion threatened to curtail operations at the Torresdale Water Treatment Plant - the largest in the Study Area. The effects of even a temporary shut-down would have been extremely serious, since it provides a substantial portion of Philadelphia's water su@ply. Geologically, the Delaware Study Area is considered to be an area of groundwater recharge. However, the potential for groundwater recharge has been reduced due to additional development adding to an already high percentage of impermeable surface areas.5 There is some evidence that the normal flow of groundwater to surface water has 2-5 been reversed due t o increased use of groundwater. This "induced recharge" of groundwater supplies is a serious problem, since the polluted and slower--moving groundwater does not have the flushing capabilities of surface waters. The anticipated future development and accompanying population growth in this area will compound the problem, since there will be a greater demand upon the water supply systems and a decrease in the recharge areas. Polluted'ground water is therefore a serious problem, but one that is more strongly felt in the New Jersey counties across the Delaware River than in the Study Area, which is largely dependent on surface supplies (See "Water Use" in Chapter 1). Like water resource problems, air pollution issues also defy local boundaries and become regional in nature. Large portions of the Coastal Study Area fail to meet EPA air quality standards. Quantities of some pollutants (sulphur oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide) have been decreasing over the last several years. But others, particularly oxides of nitrogen, are increasing. A 1973 study of the nine county DVRPC region (plus Salem County in N.J. and New Castle County in Delaware) indicated that Delaware and Philadelphia counties were the two highest in percentage of total air pollutants, measured in annual average tons per day. Bucks County tied for fourth.7 The Study Area still has problems.with air quality in spite of some recent improvements. Water related recreational opportunities in the Study Area are limited for both local and regional populations. County reports indicate that the River has not been 'developed to its full potential for open space or recreation. The Delaware River Corridor Study states "Public open space is generally unavailable on the river shoreline'17 while Philadelphia's Riverfront Development Study notes that 11 .... very little riverfront land (6.4%) is presently devoted to residential, recreational, institutional, or commercial use.116 Bucks County has more undeveloped land in the Study Area than the other counties, but access is limited since little of the land is publicly owned. One of the problems with expanding waterfront recreation opportunities is that the favored traditional approach has been fee . ple acquisition. But this method has become prohibitively expensive in this region. Alternative approaches, such as easements sim across private land, need to be pursued for the Study Area. (This problem is covered in more-detail in the "Recreational Deficiencies" section of Chapter 3). In addition to the problem of lack of open space areas available for public access, the waters of the Study Area do not currently provide much opportunity for water related recreation. Swimming in the Study Area streams is limited by the low water quality levels, while recreational boating and fishing are plagued by lack of access points. In the main channel of the Delaware and Schuylkill, recreational boaters must be watchful of commercial river traffic. (Recreation is discussed in greater detail in the section on "Water Use," Chapter 1 and in "Recreation Demand," Chapter 3). 2-6 he Delaware study Area has a significant number of areas which are historically, environmentally, or aesthetically unique. Most of these areas are subject to frequent damage due to a lack of public interest and awareness and uncoordinated planninq. Even where there is public interest in the protection or preservation of such areas, Tinicum Marsh being a prime example, acquisition is too expensive for. local governments or private interest groups. In addition, historical and architectural preservation goals are often viewed as a desirable luxury that must be sacrificed to more acute or pressing economic interests. This need not be the case, since successful programs have been adopted throughout the country to achieve such- goals and could be utilized within the Delaware Study Area. ECONOMIC HEALTH AND REVITALIZATION Both Philadelphia and Delaware Counties are concerned with declining populations and job opportunities. The Delaware River Corridor Study states "(the) corridor has seen the beginning of decline in recent years.119 Between 1965 and 1976, Philadelphia lost almost 85,000 jobs while between 1970 and 1974 the population dropped by 108,197 persons (5.5%). Recently, Delaware County's population dropped from 603,456 in 1970 to 589,400 in mid-1974 (both 1974 figures are Federal-State Cooperative Program estimates). Economic problems are not confined to*the waterfront alone, but a general urban decline is affecting the overall economic health of the Study Area. The recent layoffs at the Boeing-Vertol 'plant in Delaware County and at Bucks County steel plants combined with the announcement of the closing of the FMC plant in Marcus Hook are serious blows to economic vitality in the Study Area. The early development, of the riverfront relative to other parts of the region has meant earlier obsolescence for much of the infrastructure and many of the services within the Study Area. For example, the development of containerized shipping facilties has resulted in lower utilization and the eventual obsolescence of the many finger piers on the Delaware. Roads and railroads also need more maintenance as they age. Under utilization and abandonment of facilities reduce the tax base. Ironically, the presence of some of the obsolete facilities prevents utilization by other, potentially more beneficial, uses. For example, rail use by the Port of Philadelphia industries has declined as trucking has appropriated increasing portions of commercial traffic. Yet railroads continue to occupy 11% of the Philadelphia riverfront, sometimes preventing the land from being utiliz'ed by alternative facilities which could benefit from the location. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EDUCATION 2-7 Many of the preceding'problems are, at least partially, caused or intensified by the lack of public knowledge concerning the Delaware Estuary. The improvements in the Delaware since its "black" days of the 1940's are not generally well known. As a result, the River's potential as a recreational resource is often overlooked by many who could possibly.benefit from its proximity. Because of the lack of public awareness of the Estuary's problems and potential, there has been no strong, public mandate for a Coastal- Management program in Pennsylvania as there has been in other "coastal'$ states. Among those who are aware of the program's existence, there is often confusion about its goals and potential benefits. For many worried about costs, there is an erroneous fear .that increased recreation is the dominant goal of the program. GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND RESPONSIBILITY Many of the problems identified in the Study Area and described above can be traced directly to a lack of a comprehensive, coordinated, and uniform approach to governmental regulations, laws, and administrative procedures along the water's edge. Many separate authorities have responsibility for separate areas or actions along the riverfront. For years the. regulation of water quality in Pennsylvania has been viewed by government as separate and distinct from land use regulations. It is now understood that the use of land and the use of water are closely related, and programs that attack single problemse without considering related issues,. are doomed to failure. The overlapping, competing regulation by various agencies within the coastal zone, coupled with the absence of clearly defined, mutually agreeable goals, has led to: the siting of incompatible uses near one another, especially near boundary lines. the progressive degradation of air and water quality through the cumulative impacts of facilities that would be acceptable in limited quantities. costly delays when multiple permits and environmental statements are required. loss of economically beneficial uses to areas that have completed advance planning and preparation. The problems and issues covered in this chapter are part of the background for the more complete picture the Policy Framework will give in Chapter V. These prob@ems are the input into the "Goals and Objectives" from which the policies of the Coastal Management Program will be drawn. The following chapters will discuss anticipated problems and the existing means of controlling land and water uses in the Study Area. 2-8 FOOTNOTES PROBLEMS AND ISSUES 1. Philadelphia City Planning' Commission, Riverfront Development study, December, 1974. 2. U.S. Army Engineers District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Delaware River, Trenton to the Sea and Schuylkill River and Wilmington Harbor Tributaries New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware (Final Environmental Impact Statement) 1975. 3. Ibid. 4. Chester-Betz Engineers, Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan Lower Delaware and Schuylkill RiveT -Basins (Draft) 1975. 5. Geraghty and Miller, Inc., DVRPC 208 Areawide Waste Treatment- Planning, Ground Water, Description of Ground Water System, October, 1976. .6. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Environmental Overview Statement for the Delaware Valley Regio 1975. 7. Delaware County Planning Commission, Delaware River Corridor Study June, 1975. 8. Philadelphia City Planning Commission, op. cit. 9. Delaware County Planning Commission, op. cit. 10. Philadelphia City Planning Commission, op. cit. LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE LAND USE, RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT In terms of complexity and cost, probably the single most important' problem in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone Study Area, involves maintenance of the Presque Isle Peninsula. Presque Isle, a Pennsylvania State Park, is a 3,000 acre peninsula (more accurately a large sandspit with a neck connecting it to shore) that is both a .recreation and natural area. Presque Isle possesses within its boundaries various fragile eco-systems containing many unique plant and animal species (both land and water varieties) which can be easily destroyed or irreplaceably altered. At the same time, Presque Isle provides over seven miles of beaches, boating facilities, etc. for recreational use which attracts over three million visitors a year. Finally, the peninsula encloses and shelters one of the finest natural harbors on the Great Lakes. This significant natural area and economic mainstay of the Erie metropolitan area is constantly threatened by severe erosion of the beaches on its exposed lakeward side. Due to higher than average water levels in Lake Erie over the last several years, storms (especially in winter) decimate the beaches and flood the neck of the peninsula, Such storms constantly threaten to sever this narrow neck and thereby ruin tourism, the harbor and the significant natural aspects of the area. Already, large amounts of Federal and State money have been spent on holding the beach line until a permanent solution can be effected. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is in charge of coordination efforts to develop a solution to this problem. They addressed various 2-9 alternative solutions to the problem and the environmental impact of each. As a result of the Corps investigations, a "partial breakwater" device was found to be the most feasible solution; this concept calls for the construction of an offshore broken breakwat@r at three key locations. It is hoped that this would cut erosion in half and still allow wave action to reach the beaches in order to preserve the shoreline ecosystems. Unprotected areas would still erode and be artificially replenished with sand. The basic problem is to protect the economic value of the peninsula, while at the same time allowing the natural forces, which create and maintain the peninsula as a significant natural area to operate relatively unhampered. A problem similar to the Presque Isle erosion is the natural and accelerated (man caused) erosion of the Lake banks and bluffs which exist along most sections of the Erie County shoreline. There are 40 miles of lakeshore excluding Presque Isle Peninsula, most of which are being affected by the higher than average lake levels. The clearing of trees on the lakefront (in order to provide scenic vistas) has disrupted normal drainage, thus accelerating bluff erosion. The use of groins by individucils protecting their property has accelerated erosion by adversely affecting the shoreline farther to the east. In addition homes and cottages have been constructed generally too close to the Lake or the top of the bluffs. Over two dozen cottages have been destroyed and over 100 damaged, while hundreds of other existing structures are perrenially threatened. Also related to shoreline flooding is the periodic stream flooding in the Lake Erie Study Area. Most streams within the coastal zone are quite short causing a very unpredictable difference-in water stages between normal conditions and periods of intense or extended precipitation. Stream flooding has caused some property damage, and -current development is encroaching upon flood hazard areas along stream corridors. A water pollution problem of constant concern is the suitability of soils for on-lot sewage disposal (septic). This greatly affects development patterns in rural areas where there are no public sewer systems. Thus many municipalities in the Coastal Study Area are directly affected. Generally soils in these municipalities are poorly suited to on-lot disposal due to high water tables and poor permeability. In recent years, a suburban/rural municipality in the Coastal Study Area experienced a major problem with groundwater supplies due to the contamination of wells used for water sources by many septic systems that were located in areas of poor soil drainage. An inter-related problem concerns the City of Erie and t he surrounding suburban area. The Erie metropolitan area has developed through the common method of sliburban sprawl and strip development along major highway corridors. While. this method has produced a diversified metropolitan area, scattered pockets of development have been inter-mixed with substantial tracts of land remaining agricultural or open space uses. While this situation is not as dramatic in scope as the Delaware Estuary area, such extremely low 2-10 overall density development makes extension of water and sewer facilities very impractical from a cost efficiency standpoint. Thus, this situation forces many "suburban" areas to rely on groundwater (wells) and on-lot septic systems leading to the pollution problems just mentioned. Agricultural lands in and around this overly large metropolitan area are therefore under constant development pressure. Agricultural lands are often good for septic systems therefore compounding the problems of suburban sprawl, inability of public sewer and water extensions, as well as the loss or irreplaceable prime agricultural lands to development. The present system of vehicular access to the shore areas of Lake Erie is inadequate, especially in terms of recreational resources. -In the western and eastern portions of the Erie Study Area there is highly limited-public access to the shore making several good beach areas inacessible by car. In addition, boat launching sites are limited in these rural areas. In general, the availability of water dependent facilities, such as boat ramps, marinas and fishing and beach access points falls far short of the demand for such recreational facilities. Water pollution, both in Lake Erie and the streams that discharge into the lake, has been a problem in Erie Study Area for many years. Due to past extensive pollution levels of Lake Erie as a whole and probable over-harvesting in the early 20th century, over harvesting, commercial fishing in the Pennsylvania portion of Lake Erie has steadily declined until annual tonnage in the 1970's in only 13% of that in the 1940's and a mere 40% of that in the 1910's. other water pollution problems include: Presque Isle Bay (harbor), greatly affected by untreated urban runoff, has difficulty cleansing its waters due to impeded movements, water currents and a small entrance to the bay; non-point source stream pollution frc;m agricultural fertilizers; soil erosion from farms and construction sites; and the introduction of salt into streams and storm sewer systems through extensive use deicing compounds on roadways during severe winter conditions. Although,natural gas drilling in Lake Erie is a topic that could be placed in the other three problem and issue categories it will be discussed in this category for natural gas is a natural resource. As of this time, there has been no development of this potential offshore natural resource in the Penns'ylvagia portion of Lake Erie. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the question of offshore drilling is a controversial environmental issue. However, the resource could be of great economic potential to the Erie Study Area and the Commonwealth especially considering the current home heating fuel cutbacks experienced in this area of the State. ECONOMIC HEALTH AND REVITALIZATION 2-11 The major economic natural resource in the Coastal Study Area is Presque Isle Bay. It is one of the finest natural harbors on the Great Lakes providing excellent storm protection and winter layover areas. The Port of Erie marine terminal boasts the largest capacity rane facilities on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes. The major problem is one of vast underdevelopment. Specific lesser problems c include: location of non-water dependent industries on the bayfront, which could be put to better use by facilities which depend upon a. waterfront location for operational and transportation needs; under- utilization and abandonment of facilities (grain elevators, coal and ore docks) and in a small degree, overuse of lands by rail facilities. An immediate problem is the lack of reasonable highway transportation facilities in the immediate bayfront area and the absence of a major and direct connection between the bayfront/port area and the interstate highway system two miles to the southwest of the harbor. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EDUCATION Several of the problems and issues just discussed are in part caused by or at least aggravated by the general public's misconceptions concerning coastal resources. In these problems or issues, complete lack of knowledge of available information or inability to recognize the magnitude of the problems by the public is a direct contributing factor to their solution. Presque Isle for example, is not generally recognized as the extremely sensitive'and unique natural area that it is. The excellent recreational value of the beach, fishing and boating areas is recognized as important in the public mind, therefore making the protection of these facilities paramount. However, the natural forces that tend to destroy the recreational uses, are the very essence to the continuation and maintenance of,the significant natural aspects of the peninsula, which the gerieral public does not fully appreciate. To fully protect the recreational assets would surely contribute to the elimination of natural assets and vice-versa. This highly complicated trade-off is not well understood by the public, and consequently, public measures to reach a compromise solution to this problem have been viewed with disfaction by many people. Other problems where the general public does not fully appreciate the magnitude or consequences are: the building of structures too close to shoreline and bluff crests susceptible to storm and erosion damage; flood plain encroachment and flood insurance availability to those residing on or near flood prone areas of the shoreline and streams; soil suitability for on-lot septic systems and ground water pollution; the need to conserve agricultural land; attitude concerning the potential pollution problem of developing the natural gas resources in Lake Erie. A conservative attitude exists despite little or no adverse environmental damage experienced by the more than 800 offshore gas wells in the Canadian portion of the Lake. 2-12 An overall public education problem is that of the Erie Study Areas's national public image in terms of water quality and associated recreation. The stigma of the commonly referred to phrase that "Lake Erie is dead" seriously affects the creditability of the area as a recreational site. Although in years past the lake was in serious trouble, the remarkable recovery of Lake Erie water quality, due to advanced treatment of many lakefront urban sewage and industrial wastes was not brought to the attention of the general public. Therefore, the erroneous belief, that Lake Erie is dead causes continuous harm to the economic health of the area which is only locally known for its truly prime water recreational facilities for both vacationer and fisherman alike. GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND RESPONSIBILITY Local governmental controls have, up to this time, not been effective in assuring the best possible use for the types of land involved. The nature of this problem is that local land use controls (zoning, subdivision ordinances, etc.) existing in the Erie Study Area have not been oriented toward management of coastal land or water resources. Some municipalities along the coast do not have comprehensive plans to guide development, and other municipalities which have them do not necessarily follow them and fall prey to development pressures. In relation to this point, it is interesting to note that during the period from 1970 to 1976 the local governments in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone approved 62% of the total zoning map amendments that were proposed. Hence, it can.be observed that the official land use control tool (zoning) is often subject to change within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. Also, there is a need for uniform requirements regarding setback regulations for bluff development for all the local municipalities on the Lake in the Coastal Study Area.- Finally, a policy must be formulated regarding prime agricultural land management and protection throughout the Study Area. FOORNOTES 1. Coastal Zone Resource*Analysis for Lake Erie; September, 1975. 2. IdentifiZ-atio'n and Analysis of Lake Erie Coastal Hazard Areas; June, 1975. 3. A Lake Erie Offshore Ecological Investigation; July, 1976. - 4. @ir;-asoT -Nat-ural Value., Erie County Coastal Zone; January, 1976. 5. Cooperative Beach Erosion Project at Presque Isle Peninsula, Erie, Pennsylvania, Summaryof Environmer-tal Considerations; May, 1973. 6. Port of Erie Waterfront Development Plan; April 1968. 2-13 a I I I i I I I I i I I I a I I I i FUTURE DEMANDS *-- ., A AND DECISIONS 0--, I 3 FUTURE DEMANDS AND, DECISIONS DELAWARE ESTUARY STUDY AREA PROJECTED POPULATION CHANGE AND LAND REQUIREMENTS Introduction and Overview A major issue in all coastal management program -s is whether there is enough land to meet future demand. Determination of potential demand for land within the Preliminary study Area is based on DVRPC1s Year 2000 projections of population, employment and land use.' In this chapter, future land requirements, based on Year 2000 data, are summarized and compared within the Preliminary Study Area. Areas which are especially appropriate for future development, identified in Chapter VIII as Development Opportunity Areas, are compared with projected demand. While Development Opportunity Areas are not the only parcels available for development in the Study Area they have been studied and analyzed in terms of development potential. Priorities have been assigned within these areas. (The process and recommended priorities are described in Chapter 9.) By comparing the acreage of Development Opportunity Areas to projected land requirements, a rough approximation of future competition, scarcity and overall availability of land. can be obtained. The Year 2000 projections forecast population increases in most parts of the Preliminary Coastal Study Area. The majority of the increases are small, although there are several areas where substantial gains in population are projected between 1970 and 2000. The smallest increases, as well as some areas of absolute population loss, are projected for the immediate riverfront. As can be seen in Figure iii-1, the municipalities which are projected to have large increases are those which extend substantially inland. Most of their expected population is in inland census tracts. The lack of projected population growth in riverfront census tracts is primarily. due to the industrial character of the immediate riverfront. There are very few residential neighborhoods on the riverfront. For instance, two of Chester City's three riverfront census tracts are nonresidential and are, therefore, not projected to add population. The third riverfront census tract has the smallest projected.increase of Chesteres remaining study area census tracts. Even though Chester's Study Area is projected to have an overall increase in population (see Figures iii-1 and 2), its riverfront will not be affected due to its industrial orientation. This pattern is followed throughout the Study Area. 3-1 Within the entire Preliminary Study Area, projected change of both residential and industrial land follows a consistent pattern. Residential expansion is projected to occur within and around existing residential areas. Industrial expansion, when it occurs, is expected in existing industrial areas, but in many cases this acreage is projected to decrease within the Preliminary study Area. The decline of industry within the Coastal Study Area (discussed previously in Chapter 2, Problems and Issues, and in this chapter in the following section) is not @@_a_usea -bya lack of available land. Where industrial acreage is expected to decline, it is more than compensated for by expected increases in acreage devoted to ,commerce and services. Figure iii-2 gives a municipal breakdown of projected population and land-use change between 1970 and 2000. The following sections will summarize -the changes indicated on this chart. Delaware Stud Area -- This area has a projected population growth of 17,000 by 2000, which represents a 15% increase. The population. increase is concentrated in the western part of the Study-Area (see Figure iii-1). In particular,- Chester City is projected to have a 34% increase in population between 1970 and 2000, all of it inland. In sharp contrast, the-eastern part of the study Area in Delaware County is expected to experience-no change or population losses. In spite of these projections of population decline, every municipality in the Delaware Study Area is projected to have an increase in residential acreage Again, it is inland communities which have the greatest future demand for residential land. The inland municipalities of Lower Chichester and Chester Township lead the -study Area in percentage of residential land use increase, with 85% and 82% respectively. Industrial acreage increases are much smaller tha n residential increases in the Delaware County Study Area (Figure iii-2). Most of the projected 148 acres of future industrial demandare in the western portion of the Study Area. The only projected losses in industrial,land are in eastern municipalities. The total Year 2000 demand for industrial, residential, and commercial and services land use in the Delaware County Study Area is 1240 acres (an increase of 13%). Development opportunity Areas alone total 716 acres, and these are all within the narrow, final inland boundary (Chapter 6). Since most of the demand within the final boundary will be for industrial acreage there appears to be an ample supply of land to meet the demand. Philadelphia Study Area - The projected population increase of 49,123 in the Philadelphia Study Area represents a 11.5% increase from 1970 to 2000. Almost all of the growth is in three areas; Southwest Philadelphia, Lower North and the Far Northeast. (Figures iii-1 and 2)'. of these three sections, Southwest 3-2 I I I Figure iii-l POPULATION CHANGE 1 1" =-2 miles i I I I I I I I I I I I II I I Figure 111 2 CHANCE IN POPULATION AND LAND USE: 1970-2000 COASTAL ZONE STUDY AREA POPULATION MUNICIPALITY CHANGE LAND USE ACREAGE CHANGE Delaware Residential Industrial Comnercial Land Use and Services Totals Trainer 216 30.3 107.6 3.1 141 Marcus Hook 0 0 16.5 0 16.5 Lower Chichester 649 91 7.3 .7 99 Upper Chichester 658 92.2 14.8 130. 237 Chester r-;ty 159127 127.8 -4.2 52.6 206.2 Chester Township 640 89.7 9.8 40.8 140.3 Eddystone -1 7.9 29.7 11.6 49.2 Ridley Township -115 36.6 -16.7 5.6 28.5 Ridley Park -91 29.2 -1.3 -.7 35.6 Prospect Park -74 28.3 -.8 1.4 28.9 Tinicum 9 76.3 -13.3 5;-.1 121.1 Norwood 3 25.3 0 13.3 38.6 Folcroft 0 35.5 -.9 31.6 66.2 Darby 0 23.5 -.8 9.4 32.1 Totals 17,021 693.6 147.7 395.9 1240.2 Philadelphia Center City 6136 38.9 2.9 47.2 89 Southwest 14,135 326.7 115.' 621.4 1063.1 South Philadelphia -923 71 -141.6 224.6 154 West Philadelphia 2603 15.5 -10.7 30.4 35.2 Kensington -2941 98.9 -45.9 103. 156 Lower North 14,385 57.6 -5 14.7 67.3 Far Northeast 24325 816.6 42.8 877.5 1736.9 Near Northeast -8597 32.7 -27.2 109. 114.5 Totals 49,123 1457.9 -69.7 2027.8 34116 Bucks Bensalem 15,145 692.5 -34 216.7 875.2 Bristol Boro - 2584 131.8 -7 23.7 148.5 Bristol Twp. 400.8 54.7 161.1 507.2 Tullytown 23,176 170.2 1.6 30.2 202 Falls 140.3 30.3 82.5 253.1 Morrisville -269 21.3 - 2. 16.3 35.6 Totals 35,468 1556.9 -65.8 530.5 2021.6 Philadelphia stands out for several reasons. The population growth in the Lower North and Far Northeast is expected to occur in inland census tracts within established residential areas. Southwest Philadelphia, because of the enormous Eastwick redevelopment project, is the only area in the entire three county Study Area which is projected to shift from predominantly industrial to residential in character. Even though the Philadelphia area is projected to lose 70 acres of industrial land by Year 2000 and gain 1458 residential acres, the Study Area will still be predominantly industrial, especially near the riverfront. This is because industrial acreage is currently far greater than residential in the Study Area (Refer to Existing Land Use map, Chapter 1, figures i-6,7,8). Within the Philadelphia Study Area the greatest demand for land will be generated by commercial and service uses (2028 acres). This represents an increase of 49%. The net demand will be for 3416 acres, most of it concentrated in census tracts inland from the River. Since *the Philadelphia Study Area has about 2300 acres of Development Opportunity Areas on the Delaware (identified in Chapter VIII), there should be a wide range of available sites for various types of future riverfront development. Bucks Study Area In Bucks, as in the rest of the Delaware Estuary Study Area, the areas of greatest population growth are expected to be inland, within the large municipalities. The overall population increase of 35,470 represents 31% increase, the largest percentage gain of the 3 counties. Smaller- riverfront municipalities, such as Bristol and Morrisville Boroughs are projected to have small decreases in population by 2000 (Figure iii-2). Between 1970 and 2000, the Bucks Study Area is projected to have the largest residential acreage increase of the three Study Areas (Figure iii-2). Much of this growth has already taken place in Bensalem and Bristol Townships (see Chapter 1-Land Use). The Bucks County Study Area has the greatest abundance of development opportunities in the entire Study Area. With a tot4l projected demand of 2022 acres (Figure iii-2), there are over 3000 acres of Development opportunity Areas. This abundance of suitable areas indicates that future growth can be easily accomodated and carefully sited in order to preserve valuable natural areas. Based on the projections of demand for land there appears to be no excuse for siting future development in hazardous areas or in locations where coastal resources will be jeopardized. In addition to tlie 3000 areas- classified in Chapter 8 as Development opportunity Areas there are 1428 acres identified as "Overlap Areas" which have high amenity value and which could support sensitive future development. Based on the "abundant supply of development locations compared to acreage demands, it would seem appropriate to use Overlap Areas rather sparingly and 3-3 sIensitively, with full awareness of natural emenity values. (Further elaboration on Priorities is provided in Chapter 9.) conclusion - Most of the population growth and much of the'demand for lana-projected for the Study Area will be occurring within inland census tracts which are not adjacent to the riverfront. As a result, within the narrowerr river oriented final boundary (Chapter 6), there appears-to be ample land for projected growth. Since the riverfront area is predominantly industrialf it is important to appreciate and take maximum advantage of the opportunities for development which the shoreline possesses. There is land available, over and above the projected requirements for industrial growth, and some of the areas are suitable for other types of development. In summary, the Preliminary Study Area-presently has a pattern of an industrial riverfront with inland residential neighborhoods. That -balance is not projected to change (except in the one instance of the Eastwick redevelopment project). Finally, the projections indicate that there.are more than adequate riverfront development sites, and, therefore, a great deal of.opportunity and potential exists for development through the Year 2000. FUTURE PORT VIABILITY Although total population levels have remained mostly static, the U.S. Bureau of'the Census has reported that Pennsylvania, like the rest of the Northeastr has experienced a rate of net out- migration of -1.5% from 1970 to 1975.2 There has been a notable decline in population in urban areas, a redistribution of people to outlying suburbs and an apparent out-migration of population to the South and Southwestern portions of the U.S. Urban areas have also lost jobs., Although employment in Central Philadelphia has increased as a result of more service .industries, manufacturing throughout the City has declined sharply over the last several decades. In March 1977, an article in The Evening Bulletin reported a-loss of 121,200 blue' collar jobi-in Philadelphia between 1969 and 1976. Communities in Delaware County have also''lost employment as well as population. (Refer to Chapter 1, Population and Employment). The Region has a large manufacturing sector, but these manufacturing facilities are old and relatively costly to operate. During periods of sluggish national economy, unemployment in these old, marginally-profitable facilities-rises rapidly. During periods of economic recovery, increases in employment lag behind the national rate. The efforts of the private and public sector to stimulate manufacuring and halt the loss of manufacturing jr,)bs in urban areas have not, unfortunately, been able to reverse these trends. 3-4 Against this fairly gloomy backdrop, there are reasons for optimism. A major reason is the "Ports" of Philadelphia, one of the Region's major assets. Very few ports have the ability to handle the volume of bulk imports that Philadelphia can. ore, cocoa, coffee, petroleum and sugar. will continue to be major import items. There will be, however, major competition with other North Atlantic ports for future general cargo trade, and it is general cargo that generates the most income for the metropolitan area. Recent projects to revitalize the port have given Philadelphia a relative competitive advantage over New York, as well as the two other nearby ports, Baltimore, Md. and Hampton Roads, Va. About ten years ago the non-profit Philadelphia Port Corporation was formed, and in several years this group had built two major facilities, the Tioga and the Packer Avenue Marine Terminals.3 The Delaware River Port Authority established The World Trade Division to promote the port, and the seven county Southern Jersey Port corporation has begun a wharf expansion project. Many variables will influence the economic vitality and competitiveness of the Ports in the future. Improvement to facilities in New York, Baltimore and Hampton Roads may draw trade away from Philadelphia. The adequacy of existing facilities, for containerized shipping and for bulk cargo as well, will influence the volume of trade. Improvements to the supporting infrastructure system, especially the railroads, would permit more efficient distribution of goods. Some analysts'feel that more industries utilizing petroleum and chemical products, presently produced along the coast, should be actively attracted to the Philadelphia area. If Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil is developed, some existing industries might benefit from related activities. Finally, the publicly-assisted redevelopment of vacant riverfront lands to mixed-use developments such as Penn's Landing, could be the focal point for further revitalization of shoreline properties.4 As mentioned previously, one of the most important variables influencing the attractiveness of the Port is the adequacy of facilities to handle containerized and general cargo. A "Port Facilities Study" is now being prepared for Philadelphia's Department of Commerce to evaluate what actions, if any, the City should take to expand the level and quality of port facilities. A major objective of the study is to determine whether a third marine terminal should be built and to give recommendations on appropriate design, location and cost of a new.marine terminal for the port.5 The whol,-_ metropolitan region has a stake in the viability of the Port. Although many of the demographic and economic factors which have been catalogued are beyond the scope of Coastal Zone Management, it should be noted that some important steps have already been taken and will continue to be developed by various groups to improve the efficiency of the port. Numerous public 3-5 and private groups have direct or indirect impact on port development: Philadelphia, Bucks and Delaware 'Industrial Development Corporations, Chambers of Commerce, The Port Corporation, Delaware River Port Authority, Overall Economic and Development Council, City and County agencies, housing and neighborhood associations, unions, and others. Effective action results both from aggressive leadership within public and private sectors and the many groups working in concert to achieve the common goals for a stronger Port. WATER RESOURCES Background -- There has long been competition among various water users for the resources of the Delaware River. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1954 gave New York and New Jersey the right to divert up to 900 million gallons a day (MGD) from the- Delaware Basin. The decision also inspired the creation of the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to help balance competing water demands in the four-state b asin.6 The severest recorded drought in the Northeast, spanning 1960 to 1964, further highlighted the need for programs to reduce water loss, increase water- storage and improve waste management throughout the.basin. In general, however, communities along the Delaware River have not had difficulty obtaining water for domestic or industrial use. Rather, the major concern has been the quality of water and the kinds of uses to which it could be put. In response to federal and state water pollution regulations, standards were set for water quality throughout the Basin. To achieve these standards, many sewage treatment plants have been or are scheduled to be built, upgraded or expanded. In the,Upper Delaware Basin (above Trenton), for example, the goal is to reduce, waste loads to a level consistent with swimming, conservation and fish propagation. Although water quality standards in the Delaware Estuary are'not so strict, extensive water quality improvements were required in order-to permit safe boating, fishing and passage of migratory fish.7 A second critical water management goal in the-Basin is to assure that sea salts do not contaminate water supplies at the Torresdale intake for the City of Philadelphia. The DRBC goal is to not exceed a 50 mg./liter concentration of chlorides in the vicinity of the intake point.8 In order to ensure that water remains uncontaminated, the flow of freshwater must be strong enough to bar the inflow of sea water from the ocean up the Delaware River. Recognizing the importance of maintaining adequate flows during dry summer seasons, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its 1954 decision, required New York to assure 3-6 a minimum flow of 1750 cubic feet per second at Montague, New Jersey. (For location see figure iii-3.) Subsequently, the Delaware River Basin tommission'recommended that River flows at Trenton not fall below 3000 cubic feet per second (cfs).9 Achieving the goal for minimum low flow will require that a system of reservoirs be installed in the Delaware Basin to retain storm runoff for later release during dry, low-flow periods. There are now some 21 major reservoirs in the Basin that may be used to augment flows. There are plans for about a half-dozen additional facilities, although some of these projects, like Tocks Island Lake, may never be developed. (See the following section, "External Decisions Influencing the Coastal Zone".) Future Water Supply and Water Quality Problems. A major aspect of water resource planning is the projection of future demands for water. Demand for water expands in response to increases in households and industries within the basin and also to growth in adjacent basins where supplies are more limited. Because adequate supplies are essential regardless of yearly changes or variations in weather conditions, critical periods of water shortage are the yardstick for designing systems to meet water demand. Major public investments in reservoirs, water supply systems and sewage, treatment plants are made with the goal of supplying present and future needs, even in drought periods, without intolerable impacts on fish and other aquatic life. Projections for future water demand depend on two levels of projections, 1) projections of population and economic growth and 2) projections of future water use characteristics. It is difficult to reliably predict future population growth. For example, recent population projections used by agencies with on-going water planning projects within the Delaware River Basin differ by more than 2 million people for the year 2000 (the present population is about 7 million).10 These differences in population projections account, in part, for similar wide disparities in projected water demand. But projecting water demand requires additional assumptions that also vary, notably the per capita use of water, the proportion of water withdrawn from the ground compared to surface supplies and industrial demands. When these factors are all considered, it is not difficult to understand why projections of future water demand differ by several hundred per cent." Although total water demand is an important factor, a more critical concern is the increase in the consumptiver or depletive, use of water. Most water used by households is returned to nearby streams or recharged back to grourawater as wastewater, thereby helping to maintain natural stream flow conditions. But such activities as power generation and irrigation are consumptive uses that fail to return large portions of their water back to the ground or stream. (See the discussion of water use presented in Chapter 1.) As consumptive 3-7 water uses increase in the basin, downstream flows decline. This situation is of great concern to .the Delaware Estuary, in particular, because it makes goals for-water supply and quality in the Delaware Estuary more difficult to achieve.12 Anticipating significant losses of water in the, future because of new consumptive uses, DRBC,, together with state and federal agencies, have planned the construction of reservoirs that could be used to compensate for the anticipated increase in consumptive loss of water, in addition to augmenting natural low flow conditions. The difficulty in projecting consumptive use, as with population projections, is 'demonstrated by the wide disparity among projections. For examplet URS/Madigan-Praeger projected consumptive losses in-2025 of 605 million gallons per day (MGD)v and DRBC projects for 2020, a 1353 MGD depletion. both of these figures may be too high. Because recent statistics suggest even lower rates of population growth than these studies used, there would be a proportional reduction in projected industrial activity and energy generation. Therefore, even lower projections of future consumptive losses might be appropriate. Electric generating stations consume large amounts of water through evaporation during the cooling process. About 40% of the increase in consumptive losses projected in URS/Madigan-Praeger study is attributable to losses from energy generation. The URS/Madigan-Praeger and DRBC reports cited abover however, used out-of-date plans for expansion and siting of power facilities. The 1975 Master -Siting Study reveals that two proposed nuclear plants and one fossil-fuel plant, as well as three proposed expansions, were dropped from the 1974 study used in these two reports.13 This major change.in planned withdrawals for power generation could dramatically scale down projections of future consumptive losses. The 1975 Master Siting Study does contain plans for expansion of the Chester and Eddystone stations in Delaware County. It is projected that these plants will consume a total of 9.1 cfs, a loss which appears to have no significant impact on water resources in the Estuary. Because development of reservoirs.is, in part, justified by the need to compensate for future consumptive losses, changing demographic and water consumption patterns might reduce the need for already planned reservoirs. A new planning effort is now underway to reevaluate past reservoir plans. Federal and state laws require that streams meet certain water quality standards by 19483. In order to properly design waste treatment facilities to achieve these standards, two pieces of information are needed: 1) a projection -of the number of residents to be served (and consequently, the volume of waste generated), and 2) a prediction of how much waste may be discharged-to streams without violating water quality standards. Because the stream's assimilative capacity is reduced when the streamflow is low, treatment plants are designed to release effluent of high enough quality that even during drought 3-8 conditions stream standards are met. The drought condition used as the basis for most waste management plans is called Q7-10, a flow that is so low that it occurs, on the average, only once in ten years. The water in the Upper Delaware, subsequently entering the Delaware Estuary at Trenton, generally meets standards and will continue to do so because' treatment facilities will control wastes generated by existing and new residents And industry.14 However, the Delaware Estuary is severly polluted, failing to meet state standards. The pollution is generated from existing sources; population growth will not have a noticeably detrimental effect on future water quality in the Estuary. Major efforts have been made to reduce waste loads discharged by existing industries and municipalities along the riverfront, but improvements to water quality have come SloWly.15 (See Chapter 1, f-igure i-17). on the basis of an early water quality modeling effort, waste dischargers to the Estuary were required to reduce their waste loads to levels set by DRBC. These waste load allocations, however, were not based upon achieving standards during Q7-10 drought conditions, but rather upon an assumption that a flow of 3000 cfs would be maintained at Trenton. At present, the flow of the River at Trenton falls below 3000 cfs about 15% of time, and this flow rate is more than twice the flow that occurred at times during the drought in 1963.16 Moreover, existing and, actively proposed reservoirs above Trenton do not have the capacity to release sufficient water during droughts to achieve the full 3000 cfs goal.17 In practical terms, unless the flow of the Delaware is augmented by releases from reservoirs during commonly dry seasons, the River cannot be expected in the future to consistently achieve water quality objectives.'s In the future, two water quality issues may be raised: 1) In light of changing demographic conditions and public debate concerning low-flow augmentation and large reservoir systems, is the goal of a 3000 cfs minimum flow too high?; and, 2) should the water quality standards be tightened in the Delaware Estuary19 in order*to permit fish maintenance and propagation? An affirmative answer to either of these questions would indicate that present waste load allocations be reduced and levels of waste treatment be increased. The 3000 cfs goal for stream flow at Trenton, besides influencing waste assimilation, is designed to prevent salt water contamination that is hazardous to health and coosive to pipes and industrial equipment. At this flow rate, DRBC feels that chloride concentrations will not exc,--ed 250 mg./liter at the Schuylkill River confluence and will not exceed 50 mg./14Lter at Torresdale water supply intake.20 Additionally, augmented flow would flush oyster beds in the Bay. with sufficient freshwater that predators could not.invade even during-low flows. 3-9 But considerable.debate has centered on whether the 3000 cfs flow rate is a necessary goal for controlling salinity.21 A special studye incorporating mathematical and physical modeling, will soon be underway to reevaluate the relationship between flow and salinity levels in the Estuary. Some observers'feel the present, bigh-flow objective at Trenton will prove to- be unjustifiable because the potential salinity hazard is very small even without augmentation.22 EXTERNAL DECISIONS AFFECTING COASTAL RESOURCES 1ntroduction The inventory in Chapter I summarized the distribution and use of land, water and socioeconomic resources in the Preliminary Study Area. Chapter 2 describes historical and current problems in the Study Area related to land use, resources and environmental quality, and in this chapter future problems have been presented. But major projects outside the Study Area, either beyond the tidal reach or not within the State,, also have a potential to affect Pennsylvania's coastal resources. Three such "external" developments which may have impacts on Pennsylvania's coast are discussed below. There are:. .The Tocks Island Dam .Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Development .Deepwater Port/Pipeline None of the three is yet a reality, and future impact on coastal resources are, therefore, hard to predict. The relationship of the 3 projects to the Pennsylvania Study Area is indicated-in Figure 111-3. Tocks Island Dam -- In 1962, seven years after the worst floods in the history of the Delaware River basin, the Delaware.River Basin Commission (DRBC) adopted a comprehensive plan for water resources management prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The plan waa based on projected increases in the levels of population, industrial employment, production, demand for outdoor recreation opportunities and electric power demand.23 Included in the plan were nineteen major control projects and thirty-nine smaller projects. The Tocks Island project, the keystone of the programs involved the construction of a dam on the Delaware River five miles above the Delaware Water Gap. The dam would create a reservoir extending thrity-seven miles upstream to Port Jervis, N.Y. The Tocks Island project was designed to carry out a number of functions, many of which would impact the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone. The dam was to provide flood control for the particularly flood-prone stretch of the river between Tocks Island and Burlington, N.J., protecting much of the Bucks County Study Area. In addition to flood control, a constant water 3-10 EXTERNAL DECISIONS -AFFECTING T.-HE COASTAL ZONE@ MONTAGUE. NJ. TOCKS ISLAND DW NEW JERSEY NEW YORX 8 VCAT PiNNSYiVA MIA Co-.ASTAL'-ZO'N,E:' STUDY AREA EA A 001, PROPOSED 0-CS LC014G fRACTS PIPELiNci DEEkATER PORT DEIA WA RE SCALE: I APPROX. 27 MILES supply for municipal and industrial users in Bucks and Philadelphia counties would be assured. Control over the flow in the River would alleviate the threat of salt water intrusion and excess pollution in the area of Philadelphia. The dam would also provide a source of hydro-elect.ric power for New Jersey, while the reservoir would become the focus of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DWGNRA). This federally operated facility was expected to draw 13% of its annual visitors from the Philadelphia, Camden, Wilmington area. In the early 19701s, public concern for the environment grew, and the fate of the Tocks Island project became increasingly uncertain. In 1974, a new comprehensive study was ordered by Congress in response to public demands. Following completion of the study in July, 1975, the DRBC recommended that Congress not appropriate funds for construction.24 Although the study co ncluded that the overall benefits of the project outweighed the negative impacts, three of the four basin state governors opposed construction,25 and the Corps of Engineers suggested that the .project be deauthorized so that other alternatives could be pursued. Congress has not yet acted to deauthorize the Tocks Island dam, (as of early 1977) but it is no longer a factor in long-range planning for the basin. A basinwide comprehensive study is presently being undertaken by DRBC to review the needs of the basin in terms of both water quality and quantity. The study is expected to become' the basis for a new comprehensive plan for water management.26 The deauthorimation of the Tocks Island project has several implications for the Coastal Zone Study Area. During the drought of the early and mid-1960's, the salt front in the River intruded upstream to within a few miles of Philadelphia's water supply intake at Torresdale. Although the Tocks Island reservoir was originally considered a necessity to control salinity during periods of lowflow, recent projections show that the probability of significant intrusion is low and that additional low flow augmentation may not be required.27 (See the above section on future water supply and water quality problems for additional discussion of this point.) Planning for flood control will proceed in the direction of nonstructural measures. However, Pennsylvania has not adopted statewide flood plain management regulations, so that damage to structures in the flood plain will continue to be a threat in the absence of structural methods. of control. The original estimate of 10.5 million visitors per year to7the DWGNRA was reduced to 4 million, and the most recent management plan, (currently being prepared by the National Park Service) predicts only 1.5 - 2.5 million visitors per yea .r. The new plan proposes only limited increases in water recreation opportunities. Since 13% of the original estimate of 4 million users were expected to come from the Philadelphia, Camden-and Wilmington area, a continuing demand for water-related recreation 3-11 can be expected from the Study Area population. (See Recreation Analysis, the next section in Chapter 3.) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Development - During the past decade, the idea of tapping oil and gas deposits off the coasts of the U.S. has become a reality in some parts of the country. Due to a decline in domestic production of oil and gas, the Arab *1 embargo of 1973 and escalating prices of crude oil since 1974, exploration of the outer continental shelf (OCS) for oil 01 and gas has accelerated. The middle Atlantic region, also known as the Baltimore Canyon, is one of five OCS frontiers in the U.S. Although the United States Geologic Survey has continued to downgrade estimates of potential oil and gas reserves, the,Bureau of Land Management is presently selling leases on mid-Atlantic tracts. Onshore impacts of OCS development in the Baltimore Canyon region would not be limited to those states immediately adjacent to the drilling fields. This fact appears to have been overlooked in many of the studies concerning this issue. Onshore facilities such as oil refineries, petro-chemical complexes, gas processing facilities and service operations are necessary to support OCS development. The Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone already has a petroleum-oriented industrial infrastructure, including refineries, port facilities, petroleum bulk storage facilities and access to air, road and rail transportation networks. There is, therefore,' a possibility that some of the onshore OCS facilities will locate in the Coastal Zone. Existing studies are limited in the scope of their impact analysis because of several key factors which are still unknown. The uncertainties surrounding the exact location of the OCS deposits, their potential yield and relative proportions of oil and gas make it difficult to predict what onshore facilities will be needed and where they will be located. Before the impacts of OCS development on the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone can be adequately discussed, the attitudes of neighboring coastal states towards the siting of onshore facilities must be made more clear. Some states which were originally opposed to the development of the Baltimore Canyon are beginning to look more favorably upon the prospect of attracting the necessary onshore support industries (for example, New Jersey has recently taken a more supportive attitude). This trend reduces the chance that OCS development will significantly affect the Study Area because Pennsylvania is over 60. miles removed from onshore locations nearest to the tracts. It seems unlikely that development of additional petroleum refineries will occur in the Coastal Zone. The total refining capacity of the facilities which are presently located in the Delaware Valley region is sufficient to process the largest volume of oil estimated to be produced at the Mid-Atlantic 3-12 drilling sites.28 However, if the existing refineries continue to process oil from foreiqn.sources as well as OCS oil, additional refinery facilities may be required. If these facilities were concentrated around existing operations where a service infrastructure and work force are already established, social and economic impacts would not be severe. The'use of oil tankers in the Delaware River will decline if OCS oil is refined in the Coastal Zone. it is expected that most of the oil will be transported by pipeline to the refinery, and tankers will only be used where the drilling site is far offshore. Thus, there will be less danger of oil spills from collisions, groundings or accidents arising from unloading cargo on the River. (For a summary of recent accidents -see Figure ii-1, Chapter 2.) No processing plants for natural gas exist in the Mid-Atlantic region, but from three to eight plants,will be needed when OCS gas is tapped.29 If these plants are sited in the Coastal Zone, both economic and environmental impacts can be expected to follow. Economic impacts include changes in employment, earnings and land use patterns. The environmental impacts of gas processing plants vary with the quality of gas being used. Plants processing gas containing large amounts of hydrogen sulfide may become major sources of sulfur oxide pollution. These economic and environmental impacts are very difficult to quantify because no site specific analysis involving the Coastal zone has been completed and the quality of OCS gas is still unknown. Further analysis of potential onshore impacts of OCS development on the Delaware Estuary is required. In response to this need, the Governor's Energy Council is currently preparing a report for Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Resources. Partial funding has been supplied by -the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). When completed in the summer of 1977, the report will describe the range of impacts that may be anticipated depending on the location, size, timing and quality of.offshore oil and gas. Deepwater Port/Pipeline -- The construction of a deepwater. oil port apd pipeline facility in the Delaware Bay has been under consideration for the past fifteen years. Each time a study has been published, it has quickly become outdated by new economic and political developments in the energy field. For example, construction and operation costs are subject to such a high rate of inflation that the use of new deepwater facilities. may prove to be more costly than the present use of barges and small tankers. Also, the federal policy cf reducing imports of foreign crude oil may limit the number of oil tankers using the new port to the point that the cost will be too high to compete with present methods of delivery. High yields of OCS oil could significantly reduce the need for a deepwater port, though not the need for pipeline construction. Because of these 3-13 ncertainties, the most recent studY30 does not recommend development of a deepwater port at the present time. There,may be, however, several reasons to build the port at a later, more favorable time. The relatively small tankers which, serve the region's refineries presently transfer some of their cargo into barges for delivery, and the shallower draft of the I'lightered" ships permits navigation of the Delaware River and direct delivery of the remaining oil. The huge tankers (with drafts up to 901) which are transporting increasingly large proportions of foreign crude oil cannot ascend the river and will be delivering to refineries outside of the United States unless deepwater ports are developed near this nation's refineries. The port and pipeline facility would decrease the likelihood of oil spills by 1) reducing the number of couplings and uncouplings involved in-unloading a' tanker, and 2) reducing the traffic density and collision hazard in the Delaware River. Despite national goals calling for reduced oil consumption brought on by Project Independence, it is anticipated that the demand for refined petroleum products in the region will exceed the production capabilities of local refineries by 1990.31 Refinery expansion could provide the necessary economic incentive to build the port/pipeline facility. The negative impacts of the development of a port/pipeline facility would be minimal for the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone. A major portion of crude oil deliveries to the local refineries would be a land-based pipeline if the facility were developed.- Delivery by barge and shallow-draft tankers would continue, though at a declining rate. There would probably be less traffic and danger of collision in the River if the deepwater port were built. RECREATION DEMAND The Delaware Estuary, like all coastal areas, presents unique sites for recreation opportunity. People are attracted to a natural water area for active recreation as well as passive recreational activities. The dense population in the Lower Delaware River Area has generated the largest demand for outdoor recreation facilities in the Commonwealth. In order to analyze coastal recreation activities it is necessary to inspect the problems which occur in the coastal area. The second step is to analyze data on supply and demand to uncover recreation trends. The final step is to identify and recommend sites to meet the anticipated need. At the present time, Delaware Riverfront land is almost totally occupied by public utilities, manufacturing, warehousing and trucking, and rail or water transportation facilities resulting 3-14 in high competition for vacant land. since most of the riverfront is in private ownership and use, public access to the river is available at only a few points. Even when accress is achieved, the conflict bet:ween recreational boating and commercial traffic can create a potentially hazardous situation. As a result of the industrialized uses, the quality of the shoreline is very low in many areas being asthetically unattractive and in generally poor maintenance. In addition to the access and shoreline problems, pollution of the river from point and non-point sources seriously limits or precludes water contact activities. The proximity of this area to the Atlantic Coast and the Chesapeake Bay results in an outmigration for most water related activities. An estimated 40% of the resident'population32 leaves the area to satisfy all their outdoor recreation needs. There is; however, a recreation influx created by tourist attractions. These include-historic sites as well as waterfront activities, provide passive recreational, educational and social experiences. DELAWARE ESTUARY RECREATION FACILITY VISITOR SUMMARY33 Facility/Site 1976 Attendance Governor Printz-Park 30,823 1,360,812 Independence Hall National Historical Park Liberty Bell Pavillion 3,633,041 Pennsbury Manor Park 51,546 Neshaminy State Park 416,948* *Includes 18,500 visitors for boating activities According to the Region I date compiled by the Pennsylvania State Recreation Plan, less actual participation for picnicking, fishing, hiking/nature walking and camping occurs than would be expected for the population. The expected rates were projected by using statewide participation figures - with demographic characteristics (age, sex, income etc.). The lack of available sites could have discouraged participation and if more facilities were available, the actual rates might rise to Statewide levels. The catagory of swimming could be used to support this contention. Since swimming participation is actually higher than expected, swimming may have more than adequate facilities. % of Participation of.Persons 5 Years and Over35 Activities Actual Expected Picnicking 65.7 70.5 Fishing 26.9 32.2 Camping 20.2 26.7 Hiking/Nature Walking 37.3 41.0 Swimming 75.2 70.4 Boating/Canoeing/Waterskiing 34.8 34.8 3-15 Bicycling 51.1 50.2 Projections of recreation participation figures for Region I -indicate that by 1990 a supply deficit will occur for all major activities, including swimming at beaches and pools, picnic tables, boat launching ramps, hiking/biking trails and camp sites. These projections are detailed in figure iii-5. Because this data encompasses a large area relative to the actual coastal zone, these statistics can be deceptive. The majority of the beach areas and boat launch ramps are located at reservoirs and 'lakes in the northern reaches of the Planning Region; therefore, these facilities are not representative of the coastal zone. Similarly it must be recognized that the large differences between supply and demand cannot be met in the coastal zone due to resource limitations and conflicting uses. Determining local needs is essential in order to develop a complete picture of the demand for recreation in the study area. Future needs have been determined by comparing the current inventory of park and recreation areas with the acreage that will be required, based on population forecasts and standards for local open space.36 The standards were developed and adopted by DVRPC with-input from the Technical Advisory Committee on open space, composed of individuals from entire region. Traditionally, recreation standards have suggested a certain number of acres per 1000 persons to be provided for recreation. DVRPC1s standards incorporate several other variables such as population density and open space availability. Although the most densely populated areas generally show the greatest need for recreation opportunities, standards there have been relaxed in order to realistically reflect the scarcity of land available for recreation. Higher acreage standards in the surrounding, lower density municipalities make up the difference, since more land is potentially available there.37 Projected local recreation needs for the Study Area Municipalities in the year 2000 have been mapped in figure iii-6. The figures assumeno new recreational areas beyond what existed in 1974. (The acreaqe standards and inventory of facilities do not deal with water related activities). The map shows that severe deficiencies in park and recreation acreage will exist for all but one of the eight Philadelphia districts, as well as half of Bucks County. It has recently been suggested that deficits shown in Philadelphia may be slightly overstated. Large regional parks such as Fairmount, Cobbs Creek and Pennypack are used by neighborhood residents and portions could be considered available to offset some of the local deficit. Normally none of the acreage in these regional parks is included in the.inventories of local facilities. The only municipalitief@ which show a surplus 3-16 Figure iii-4 RECREATION PLANN INGAREA so M " Fiaure iii-5 DEMOGRAPHIC BASED PROJECTED RECREATION PARTICIPATION AND SUPPLY 35 Region 1 (Delaware, Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Chester Counties) 1974 1990 PERCENT OF 1974 1990 1990 ACTIVITY DAYS** PROJECTED ACTIVITY** INCREASE SUPPLY OF REC. PROJECTED ACTIVITY (000's) DAYS (DEMAND) (000's) 1974-1990 (FACILITIES) DEMAND DEFICIT Swimming 87,341 112,097 28.3% 26,400 linear ft. 33,884 -7,484 beach* 2,528,000 sq. ft. 3,244,625 -716,625 pool Picnicking 22,076 25,548 15.7% 10,440 picnic 12,083 -1,643 tables Boating/Canoeing/ 11,212 18,045 60.9% Ill boat launch 178 -67 Water Skiing ramps* Hiking/Nature 25,853 33,032 27.8% 464 miles hiking 593 -129 Walking Camping 10,708 16,642 55.4% 2,435 camp sites 3,784 71,349 Fishing 17,106 23,319 36.3% Sightseeing/ 61,776 69,548 12.6% Pleasure Driving Bicycling 114,922 134,604 17.1% 71 miles (inventoried) The majority of the facilities are found at water impoundment structures within Planning Region I. Based on population figures below Activity Day - participation in an activity on a .1974 1990 particular day regardless of the length of time involved in the activity. 3,630,000 4,041,000 11.3% LEGEND VERY HIGH MORE THAN 400 ACRES HIGH 1 35 TO 400 ACRES TE ji MODERAI ZERO TO 35 ACRES SURPLUS n'- f 1-hj -.77 LOCAL RECREATION NEEDS YEAR 2000 f recreation land by the year 2000 are Trainer, Tinicum, and Tullytown. 0 Because the study area is extensively developed, recreation deficiencies cannot be completely alleviated using traditional methods of locally furnished -facilities or even with the provision of large regional parks. This seems especially apparent in those areas showing deficiencies in -excess of 400 acres. Because of the scarcity of recreation opportunities, alternative planning techniques must' be used in this highly competetive and industrialized coastal zone. Some of these techniques include: More small parks closer to home instead of large ones located at considerable distances. Designating areas for leisure time to include noncompetetive innovative neighborhood activities, such as community gardens, art and craft exhibits, flea markets, etc. Multipurpose use, where appropriate, for active or passive recreation at water and wastewater treatment facilities, airport flight paths, and vacant lands adjacent to industrial plants, bridge right-of-ways. The use of less than fee acquisition methods such as easements and leases to gain access to the waterfront. Such leasing of private, municipal and corporate lands for public access and use has been successfully carried out by the Pennsylvania Fish commission and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The multiple use concept is one possible solution to ease' the highly competetive and conflicting use problem. Multiple use should be considered whenever recreation can occur in combination with industrial or commerical sites as well as other areas such as sewage treatment plants. Public access to the river is another possible multiple use site. This access may be physical, or possibly even visual, but must be accorded high priority in all future plans. In order to establish a priority of sites, various sites with recreation potential were evaluated. Three types of recreation potential ratings were established. The first classification is "Existing" (E). These sites are privately a publicly owned sites currently in public recreational use. They are to be considered for improved maintenance or future expansion as the available funding permits. The second rating is "Immediate Potential" (IP). These sites are publicly or privately owned areas which can help to fill present needs, but require immediate investigation and action through acquisition or other method to preserve the resource. Both of these site classifications 3-17 correspond to natural GAPC's or recreational, cultura'l. historical GAPCIs,(as discussed in Chapter 8). The third rating is "Reserved Potential" (RP). These sites are privately owned areas with existing facilities or recreation potential to serve future public recreational needs but present economic conditions prevent their development or acquisition. These sites generally correspond to the Development Opportunity GAPCIs or the Overlap GAPCIs. The following chart is a brief listing of the sites, their municipality, ownership, potential recreation activities, and the assigned rating. A more indepth description of most of the sites can be found in the GAPC Chapter (8). A description of all the sites classified can be found in the Coastal Recreation Analysis Paper as summarized in Appendix C. 3-18 Potential Recreation Name Municipality ownership Activities Status DELAWARE COUNTY McClure Park Marcus Hook Public PR E Commodore Barry Bridge Area Chester City Private PR,O,BA IP Chester Creek Mouth Chester City Public BA,PR IP Governor Printz S.P. Tinicum Twp. Public HS,PR,O E Essington Waterfront Tinicum Twp. Private BA,M,F IP Little Tinicum Island Tinicum Twp. Private NSA,F,PR,O IP Tinicum Marsh Ridley Twp. Private NSA,F,BA, IP Prospect Pk. PR,0 Norwood Folcroft Tinicum Twp. Folcroft Landfill Folcroft Private PR IP PHILADELPHIA COUNTY Tinicum National Environmental Center Philadelphia Public NSA,PR,F,O E Fort Mifflin Philadelphia Public HS,PR E U.S. Army COE Property Philadelphia Public BA,PR RP Schuylkill River Park Philadelphia Public PR,O,F IP Independence Nat'l. Historic Park Philadelphia Public HS,PR E Penn's Landing Philadelphia Public HS, PRIO E Penn Treaty Park Philadelphia Public PR, 0, F E 3-19 Pennypack Park Philadelphia Public NSA,O,F,PR IP Pleasant Hill Philadelphia Public BA,F,O,PR E Poquessing Creek Mouth Philadelphia Private NSAtF,PR,O IP BUCKS COUNTY Biddle Estate Bensalem Twp. Private NSA,HS IP Bucks Co. Delaware River Access Area Bensalem Twp. Public BA,F,O,PR E Creek Road South Bensalem Twp. Public PR IP Nephaming S. Park Bensalem Twp. Bristol Twp. Public M,S,O,BA E Radcliffe Street Bristol Boro Public HS,PR,O E Private I I Pennsylvania Canal Bucks Co. Public F,O,PR,HS IP Money Island Tullytown Falls Twp. Private F,O,NSA,PR RP Bordentown Causeway Falls Twp. Private O,PR E Van Sciver Lake Falls Twp. Private BA,F,NSA RP Pennsbury Manor State Park Falls Twp. Public HSjPR,0 E Falls Twp.Delaware River Access Area Falls Twp. Public BA,F,O IP Biles Island Falls.Twp. Private NSA,PR,O RP Activities Status F - Fishing E - Existing S - Swimming IP-- Immediate Potential PR Passive Recreation RP - Reserved Potential HS Uistorical Site BA Boat Access 0 Other (Picnicking) (Ball Fields) (Hiking, Biking) M Marina NSA - Natural scenic Area 3-20 FOOTNOTES 1. The year 2000 model simulates regional growth and development for nine county, bi-state regional planning. Regional population- and unemployment totals for year 2000 are the basis for making future land use allocations. The regional totals for future population are based on a combination of past and current trends (from a standard demographic model utilizing cohort-survival statistics) and county level policy decisions. Several points should be noted in the use of'Year 2000 projections for the coastal Study Area. The model is intended to be used on a-regional scale as an indicator of directions and pace of growth for policy planning. There are many unstated assumptions (such as future regional improvements. and national trends) incorporated into the projections which may not be reflected at the scale of the Coastal Zone Management program. Finally, the projected population figures, on which output is initially based, appear in some respects to be contrary to documented Study Area trends which show at least a five year decrease in population in Philadelphia and Delaware counties, and a slowing down of lower Bucks County's 1960's growth rate. In spite of these factors, the Year 2000 projections are the most up-to"dater comprehensive source of available date on future land use in the Study Area, and have been endorsed by the individual counties for regional planning purposes. 2. For an indepth discussion of nation-wide population shifts over the last five years refer to Population Estimates and Projections, Estimates of the Population of States with Components of Change, 1970 to 1975. (Washington, D.C., Bureau of the Census, November T9_76). Series P-25, No. 640. 3. For a general summary of accomplishments of The Philadelphia Port Corporation, refer to Adam Tait, ed., 1976 Bulletin Almanac, (Philadelphia, The Evening and Sunday Bulletin, 1975), p. 419. The Tioga Marine Terminal and Packer Avenue Marine Terminal are the two container-handling projects completed to date. 4. The variables mentioned here are taken from Joan Ominsky, "Not a Lazy River," Region, December 1975, pp. 4-6, 18.' 5. The scope of Philadelphia's new study is given in "Request for Proposals: Port Facilities Study for City of Philadelphia." (Philadelphia: Department of Commerce, August 1976). 3-21 6. For a good summary of the Supreme Court decision in 1954, see James F. Wright, Water Management of the Delaware River Basin, (West Trenton, New Jersey, Delaware River Basin Commission, April, 1975). 7. The uses that standards are designed to achieve are set forth in regulations adopted by the Department of Environmental Resources in "Water Quality Criteria," (Title 25, Park 1, Subpart C, Article II, Chapter 93). B. Although the U.S. Public Health Service recommends a less restrictive chloride concentration of 250 mg./liter, at this level water may have a distinctively brackish taste, water may have an associated sodium concentration that poses a hazard to citizens with heart conditions or high blood pressure, and industrial equipment could be damaged by salts. Hence, 50 mg./liter is considered the better standard. 9. Under natural conditions, flows at the Delaware River are likely to fall below these two values approximately 15% of the time. This is estimated from tables contained in W. F. Busch and L. C. Shaw, Water Resources Bulletin No. 1. Pennsylvania Streamflow Characteristics, low-flow frequency-- flow duration. (Harrisburg, Department of Forest and Water and Health, Prepared cooperatively with the U.S. Geologic Survey, 1966). DRBC acknowledged that the requirement of 1,750 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Montague "has the effect of augmenting natural flows during the periods of lower rates of runoff, and coincidentally, highest rates of water, demand," (Wright, op. cit., p. 1-68). 10. The. Delaware River Basin Commission, op.cit., p. 1-77, projects a basin-wide population in 2000 of 10.1 million and a 2020 population of 12.6 million. In URS/Madigan-Praeger, Comprehensive Study of The Tocks Island Lake Project and Alternatives, (New York, 1975), high medium and low growth rates are offered--9.6, 8.9, and 7.8 million, respectively, for the year 2005. The rate of growth used by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Program and Planning for the Management of the Water Resources of Pennsylvania, November 1971, p.xi, would.suggest a basin-wide population in 2000 of roughly 8.8 million. 11. A startling discrepancy was encountered in comparing DRBC, (op. cit. estimates of 1970 gross water demand with URS/Madigan-Praeqer 1970 estimates of basic-demand. In this case, the DRBC figure was 12.9 billion gallons per day and URS/Madigan-Praeqer's was 3.5 billion gallons per day. Although not explicitly stated, the presumed discrepancy may arise from DRBC's considering both ground and surface supplies and the other study considering only surface supplies. 3-22 12.'These goals, as explained in the background section above, are to maintain at least a 3000 cfs flow at Trenton and*less than 50 mg./ liter chloride cont6nt at the Torresdale water intake. 13. Plans for new and expanded electric generating facilities are prepared annually for DRBC. by a consortium of electric utilities within the Basin. The changes in recent plans can be observed by comparing the 1974 study with the 1975 study. The latest study is, Delaware River Basin Electric Utilities Group, Master 'Siting Study--Maior Electric Generating Projects, 'Delaware River Basin 1975-1989, June 1975, prepared for DRBC. 14. Although water passing Trenton is of good quality, there is a "sag" in the concentratioh of dissolved oxygen. As reported in Chapter VI, (P. VI-B-189), COWAMP/208 plan report by Chester-Betz Engineers, this sag may be due, in part, to - decomposition of plant biomas that has settled out at Bristol after being discharged from the Upper Delaware. 15. The worst Delaware Estuary water quality observed in summer of 1976 was 2-3 mg./liter of dissolved oxygen (DO) near Marcus Hook. The long-term, (1962-1972), average'summer DO in this stretch had been about 1 mg./liter. 16. The minimum recorded flow of the Delaware River at Trenton was 1,180 cfs, on October 31, 1963. (see Water Resources Data for New Jersey, (any water year), U.S. Geologic Survey Water Data Report, prepared by -the U.S.G.S. and U.S. Department of Interior, in cooperation with state and local agencies.) Similarly the minimum recorded flow at Montague, N.J., was 412 cubic feet per second on August 23, 1954, 1 less than one-quarter the target flow of 1750 cfs). See footnote 9 also. 17. Tocks Island was the only reservoir under consideration that could have assured that the 3000 cfs goal would be attained. The.other reservoir projects have a combined safe yield that is less than half of the Tocks Island yield. See Delaware River Basin Commission, pp. cit., p. 11-35. 18. considerable debate has revolved around water quality models of the Delaware Estuary, and a significant new data gathering and modeling effort is now underway in connection with 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Planning. But results will probably not be ready until 1978. During some years, such as 1976, flow rates never -fall below 3000 cfs. But one observer noted that if precipitation patterns in early 1977 are any indication, the flow criterion may be violated in 1977. 19. Unlike the Delaware River above Trenton, the water quality standards in the Estuary are not strict enough to encourage propagation of warm water or migratory fish nor to allow 3-23 body-contact sports. The standards applied to the Estuary are the -most lax available standards for pH, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform and other parameters. 20. This conclusion is supported by W. B. Kerighton, Fresh-Water Discharge--Salinity Relations in The Tidal Delaware River, Geologic Survey Water-Supply Paper 1586-G (Washington: U.S. Geologic Survey, U.S. Government Printing office, 1966). 21. See URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., op. cit., study on Tocks Island for an analysis which questions the need for flow augmentation. The authors conclude, "It is important to question whether any minimum flow, 2300 or 3000 cfs, is required given that there are so few exceedances of the thresholds when no minimum flow is maintained (111-66).11 As these authors pointout, the drought in the early sixties was so extreme that. it has a recurrence interval of several hundred years, yet 50 mg./liter of chloride was not violated at Torresdale, and Camden well fields were also not seriously threatened. They question whether special augmentation should be practiced as a rule when the hazards appear to have an exceedingly small chance of.occurring. 22. However, in a telephone conversation with Patrick Cairo, Philadelphia Water Department, February 22, 1977, Mr. Cairo said that the URS/ Madigan-Praeger study understated the hazard; although their analysis could be right, he preferred to wait for results of more reliable modeling and analysis that is forthcoming. An argument in favor of low flow augmentation and stressing the potential salinity problem was prepared by C.H.J. Hull, "Comments on "The Salinity Problem" in the Delaware Estuary," (West Trenton, DRBC, June 25, 1976), mimeo, 18 pgs. 23. Delaware River Basin Commission, Water Management Plan of the Delaware River Basin, April 1975, p. I-1. 24. URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc. and Conklin Rossant, Comprehensive Study of the Tocks Island Lake Project and Alternatives, June 197 25. The governors of New Jersey, New York and Delawar e voted to not proceed with the project, Pennsylvania supported the project, and the United States abstained. 26. Donn Mitchell, "Looking at the Delaware Or the Ghost -of Tocks Island", Region, vol. 3, no. 1, Jan. 1977, p.'12. 27. URS/Madigan-Praegex, Inc., op. cit., P. ii. 28. Woodward Clyde Consultants, Mid-Atlantic Regional Study; An Assessment of the Onshore Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development, October 1975, p. 51. 3-24 29. Resource Planning Associatest Inc., Identification and Analysis of Mid-Atlantic Onshore OCS Impacts, p. 2-6. 30. Penjerdel Corporation, Oil Port Update, May, 1975. 31. Ibid., p. 13. 32. outdoor Recreation Horizon, 1969 Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters. 33. Based on 1976 State park attendance figures. 34. Region I includes 5 counties: Chester, Montgomery, Delaware, Philadelphia and Bucks - see map. 35. State Recreation Plan, March 1976, Governorts office of State Planning and Development. 36. Population Forecast--Preliminary yr. 2000 projections, DVRPC 1/19/77. Standards--"open Space Standards and Criteria for the Delaware Valley", 2nd Draft, DVRPC 1/26/76. Current Inventory--DVRPC Open Space Inventory, 1974 Update. 37. Most of the municipalities except Philadelphia are.in density category 2 or 3 and therefore use a standard of 7.67 or 9-.5 acres per thousand population respectively. 3-25 LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE PROJECTED POPULATION CHANGE AND LAND REQUIREMENTS Introduction --The Lake Erie Coastal Study Area differs substantially from the Delaware Estuary Study Area in land requirements, future demands and Coastal Zone Management decisions. The major difference between the two is a matter of scale. The population -of the entire Lake Erie Preliminary Coastal Study Area was 214,157 in 1970 located along 43.57 miles of coastline (a straight line from the Ohio- border to the New York border). The Lake Erie Coastal Study Area consists of substantial agricultural and open lands. in the western and eastern portions with one major metropolitan area in the central portion and a number of boroughs and villages. scattered throughout the Study Area. Industrial usage of the coastline is limited, as are areas in the process of redevelopment. As a result of the generally low density development, the.issue of whether there is enough land to meet future demand within the prelimimary study area of the Pennsylvania portion of Lake Erie is not of paramount importance, although it still will be addressed. The major issue here lies in whether proper and desirable utilization of undeveloped available land will take place in the future which will, by the very nature of the future development, minimize the.basic problems in the Preliminary Study Area (discussed previously in Chapter 2, Problems and Issues. Projected population changes were developed for: Erie*Qounty; the Preliminary Study Area; the remainder of the County; the Western, Central and Eastern portions of the study Area; and for each of the 15 individual municipalities that comprise the Preliminary Study Area.' These changes were determined for the Year 2000 with actual and percent increase over 1970 with 1960 populations, actual and percent change to 1970 to give the reader insight into the trends that lead to the projections for 2000 (figures iii-7 and iii-8). The population data has also been summarized in map form (figures to indicate more easily the future population trends-.-- References will be made to open land availability obtained from data presented in Chapter 18 Inventory of Coastal Resources and Uses. Erie Count Preliminary Study Area and Remainder of Erie County-- The Year 2000 projections foFe-casT-population increases for all .parts of the County including the Preliminary Study I Area. Although a few municipalities in Erie County are projected to lose population by the 19801s, it is expected that the population loss will be recovered and some increase shown in. every Erie county municipality by the Year 20002. The County as a whole, will continue a steady increase pattern with a 17.3% increase by the Year 2000 from a population of 263,654 to 309,385. When comparing the Preliminary Study Area with the remainder of the 3-26 county, the Coastal Zone percent increase is only half that of the test of the County, 14.8% vs. 28.2%. However, the actual population increase of the Coastal Zone is well over double, 31,757 vs. 13,974. This is due to the fact that over four times as many people in 1970 resided in the Coastal Zone than in the remaining portion of the County. Migratory trends are clearly indicated within the County for this period of time. The percentage of population increase within the Preliminary Study Area is less than that of the County as a whole. The bulk of the difference between the two will be caused by the relocation of a portion of the population from the Preliminary Study Area to locations within the remainder of the County, primarily that area beginning immediately south of the Central Study Area, then south to the County line.3 3-27 Figure iii-7 POPULATION CHANGE 1960, 1970 - 2000 1960 1970 ACTUAL PERCENT 2000 ACTUAL PERCENJ AREAS POPULATION POPULATION CHANGE CHANGE POPULATION CHANGE CHANGE- ERIE COUNTY 250,682 263r654 12,972 4.9% 309,385 45,731 17.3% PRELIMINARY 208,588 214,157 5,569 2.7% 245,914 31,757 14.8% STUDY AREA REMAINDER 42,094 49,497 7,403 17.6% 63,471 13,974 28.2% OF COUNTY WESTERN 14,891 19,160 4,269 28.7% 30,366 11,206 58.5% STUDY AREA CENTRAL 174,818 174,648 170 .1% 190,215 15,567 8.9%1 STUDY AREA EASTERN 18,879 20,349 11470 7.8% 25,333 4,984 24.*5%j STUDY AREA Source: Erie County Population Analysis, 1972 Figure iii-8 POPULATION CHANGE 1960, 1970 - 2000 INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES 1960 1970 ACTUAL PERCENT 2000 ACTUAL PERCENT AREAS POPULATION POPULATION CHANGE CHANGE POPULATION CHANGE CHANGE SPRINGFIELD 2,132 2,446 314 14.7% 3,533 1,087 44.4% TOWNSHIP EAST SPRING- 511 593 82 16.0% 953 360 60.7% FIELD BOROUGH GIRARD 2,432 3,074 642 26.4% 5,287 2,213 72.0% TOWNSHIP LAKE CITY 1,722 2,117 395 22.9% 3,331 1,214 57.3% BOROUGH GIRARD 2,451 2,613 162 6.6% 3,366 753 28.8% BOROUGH PLATEA 357 354 - 3 -.8% 505 151 42.7% BOROUGH FAIRVIEW 3,887 6,256 2,369 60.9% 10,900 4,644 74.25 TOWNSHIP FAIRVIEW 1,399 1,707 308 22.0% 2,591 884 51.8% BOROUGH CITY OF ERIE 381440 129,231 -9,209 -6.7% 131,470 2,239 1.7% LAWRENCE PARK 4,403 4,517 114 2.6% 4,731 214 4.7% TOWNSHIP MILLCREEK 28,441 36,980 8f505 29.9% 49,714 12,734 34.4% TOWNSHIP WESLEYVILLE 30534 3,920 386 10.9% 4,300 380 9.7% BOROUGH HARBORCREEK 10,569 12,038 1,469 13.9% 15,861 3,823 31.8% TOWNSHIP mw NORTH EAST 4,217 4,465 372 9.1% 5,451 986 22.1% TOWNSHIP NORTH EAST 4,093 3,846 -371 -8.8% 4,021 175 4.6% BOROUGH Source: Erie County Population Azialysis, 1972 Western, Central and Eastern Study Areas-Western, Central and Eastern, Preliminary Study Areas are quite distinct from one another in land utilization (Chapter 1, figures i-29, i-30, i-31). Future population projections and land requirements are highly affected by those differences. Of the three, the Western Study Area will experience a 58.5% increase in population, the greatest percent population increase by the Year 2000. This represents a total population of 11,206 in actual population. Many factors contribute to this increase. There are twelve distinct population centers (7 villages4 and 5 boroughs) and the western tip of the Erie metropolitan area which will be available to accomodate what appears to be a national trend for an increasing segment of the population to move to small towns.5 The predominant use of agricultural land is devoted to cropland/pasture production which, if past trends-continue, is highly susceptible to suburban developmental pressures. only a small amount of the available agricultural land is considered unique which is most in need of protection6 Sewer and/or water facilities are available in some parts of the Area with a greatly increasing service area likely by the Year 2000. Also, a large amount of land has minimal development limitations outside sewered areas concerning on-lot septic systems (Chapter 1, figure i-38). A large increase in land utilized for industrial purposes is expected, especially on the lakeshore due to two future large-scale industrial projects. They are the construction of a regional electric generating plant to serve the tri-state area which will eventually replace the current plant in the City of Erie, and the development of a major steel plant complex which may be one of the largest single employers in Erie County by the Year 2000 (both of these projects are discussed in detail in Chapters 8 and 9). Residential acreage should also increase greatly due to the large population increase and the large minimum lot size requirements that prevail (up to one acre for a single family dwelling) in the Western Study Area.7 The Eastern Study Area will experience less than half the percentage of population increase of the Western Study Area by the Year 2000 with 24.5% representing 4,984 in actual population. It is interesting to note that the present acreage percentages of the various land use functions are nearly the same-for both the Western and Eastern Study Area. For example, the agricultural, forest and undeveloped land for the Western and Eastern Study Areas are 82.7% and 81.6%, respectively (Chapter 1). However, the probable development that will occur in these two Study Areas is quite different considering the following factors regarding the Eastern Study Area versus those factors outlined above for the Western Study Area. There are only four distinct population center:3 (3 villagess and 1 borough) and the eastern tip of the Erie metropolitan area. The predominant use of agricultural land is devoted to orchard/vineyard production which traditionally is highly resistant to suburban developmental pressures. A large amount of available agricultural land is considered unique which is most in need of protection from any-development other than 3-28 SM agricultural.9 sewer and/or water facilities are available in some parts of the Area. Howeverf only a moderate expansion of .service is'expected by the Year 2000 and the majority of that expansion will be in the eastern tip of the Erie metropolitan area. Also, only a moderate mount of land outside the sewered areas has minimal development limitations concerning on-lot septic systems (Chapter 1, figure i-40). Industrial acreage increase is expected to be minimal. Although residential acreage increase will be moderate, the percent increase should be greater than the percent increase in the population due once again to the somewhat large minimum lot size requirements that prevail (up to one acre). The Central Study Area will experience a population increase of 8.9% by the Year 2000, this represents an actual population of 15,567. This is the largest actual population increase in any of the Study Areas as well as the remainder of Erie County. The Central Study Area encompasses the bulk of the Erie metropolitan area and, as such, is reflected in present acreage percentages of the various land functions. In comparison with the Western and Eastern Study Areas' over 81% in the agriculture, forest and undeveloped land, the Central Study Area in the same categories is 31.5% (Chapter 1). However, even with this low percentage, it is not likely that all of the undeveloped land will be utilized as a result of future demand by the Year 2000. Residential acreage should increase proportionately to the population increase and industrial acreage should increase moderately. Individual Municipalities -- The City of Erie was the only municipality within the Preliminary Study Area that had a population decrease since 1970. The City, from 1970 through 1.975, experienced a yearly decline in population - a trend that began after an all-time high of 138,440 in 1960. The Year 1960 was the last decennial year of continual population increase since the beginnings of an Erie settlement in 1800. As can be seen in figure iii-9 however, the rate of decline has steadily decreased to only .4 of one percent decrease in 1975. 3-29 Figure iii-9 POPULATION CHANGE 1960,1970,- 1975, 2000 CITY OF ERIE 1960 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 ZO-0-01 POPULATION 138e440 129,231 126j132 122,503 118,503 118,084 117,560 131,47 ACTUAL 9,209 3,099 3,629 3,597 842 504 1.3,910 CHANGE PERCENT 6.7% 2.4% 2.9% 2.9% .7% .4% 11.81 CHANGE source: Population Analysis, City of Erie, 1972 City-wide Neighborhood Analysis, 1976 zero population change was likely in 1976 due to the construction of a medium-rise apartment complex (12 story) in the Erie central business district in that year which brings the total medium-rise residential structures in-the City of Erie to seven. This recent trend in land utilization to medium-rise apartments, the majority of which are in center City, should continue 'and accelerate in the futur'e.10 This factor reversed a 16 year population decline trend in the City and will assist in maintaining a steady increase in population from 1977 to the Year 2000. This will result in. a net gain of 2,239 population increase over 1970 while a population gain of 13,910 should be expected from 1975 to the Year 2000. Figure iii-10 illustrates the socio-economic impact (land use requirements) and the migratory trends of the population projections down to an individual municipal level. The Percent Population Change Map indicates that the western half of the Preliminary Study Area will, by the Year 2000, expand or newly create community services such as schools, parks, and road systems, as well as public utilities such as sewer and water facilities which will have a direct impact on land use requirements. The Erie metropolitan area will shift westward on the whole, with diminishing influence and population increase from one municipality to the next moving west. In like manner, little population increase is expected eastward with corresponding land use requirements and is also clearly indicated. 3-30 .......... .:.,.C E .......... ............. WESTEiN Eklt'66UN' -Y NORTH E !q I @11@ 211, E W...y I' ft - I'; CITY OF ERIE ORCREEK ..RB MILLCREEK ... ... .... .. ........ PERCENT POPUL !@; Mt TC L k ............. L gal SPRINGFIELD I INCH - 4.5 MILES FiJTURE PORT VIABILITY Before the St. Lawrence Seaway was opened in. 1959, the Erie harbor was a busy port of call. Shipments of grain, iron ore and coal accounted for the bulk of the Port of Erie's volume and prosperity. Due to major changes in regional and world trade trends, increasing utilization of rail transportation and the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, a heavy decline in the cargo movement of these products was realized through the Port of Erie. Grain shipments went the all-water route to the Atlantic seaboard, bypassing Erie. Iron ore became imported through such ports as Baltimore and Philadelphia and then transshipped by rail to the Pittsburgh area, thus reducing southern Pennsylvania's dependence on the Great Lakes region. A major Erie port- dependent waterfront indup'try, which produced pig iron, was drastically reduced because of the less costly imported pig iron obtainable through the St. Lawrence Seaway. And finally, the volume of coal exported through the Port of Erie eventually was diverted to direct rail service or to other ports better equipped to handle coal." In less than a decade, it became clear that changing industrial patterns, relocation of maritime trade routes, and a debilitating lack of efficient and direct highway access from the Port and bayfront area to the Interstate system and other problems (Chapter 2) diminished Erie as a Great Lakes port. Initial steps were taken to revitalize the Erie harbor area in the late 19601s. Emphasis was placed on realistic future port facilities, as well as utilization of the harbor area as a water related industrial center and recreational site, all tied together with proper highway access. By the early 19701s, many of the factors that influence the revitalization process had already been dealt with directly. The first and most important step was the formation of the autonomous body, known as the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority which became the Port and bayfront area. In just a few years since the creation of the Port Authority the original marine terminal was totally replaced and relocated to the mouth of the harbor (entrance channel to Presque Isle Bay). Known as the Erie International Matine Terminal, the Modern facilities include: three ship berths, transit shed, protected storage areas, convenient rail sidings and a north/south access highway. Recently, one of the'largest capacity cranes on the Great Lakes was put into service, further enhancing the attractiveness of the Port.12 A ship building firm relocated to the old marine terminal site and began operations. To date it has constructed the two largest and modern lake ore car:tiers on the Great Lakes in use today. The ship building site is now utilized for winter layover, maintenance and repair of the two ships.13 other recent activities by the Port Authority include the active pursuit of purchasing waterfront properties especially unused railroad facilities and the preparation of a study for recreational uses 3-31 of the port area"# (T he bayfront area can be seen in Chapter 1, figure i-46). Several portions of the revitalization process are still to be accomplished. The attraction of water dependent industries to Authority-owned land will require diligent promotion of the Port Authority. The eventual removal of the several industries along the western portion of the bayfront*that are not water related or dependent to an industrial park elsewhere in the City of Erie will take many years. These industries (and currently vacant land in this area) will be replaced by recreational and commercial projects directly associated with waterfront activities.15 If offshore drilling for natural gas in Lake Erie blossoms into a major industry in the future, the Port facilities could be utilized. Also, related industries for processing and distribution of natural gas could easily be accomodated in the Port area. There is, however, one major factor which is needed to accelerate progress in the revitalization process. The total lack of adequate highway access along the entire length of the bayfront is hampering all efforts to renewed bayfront prosperity (Chapter 2). Federal,, State,, County and City agencies have a coordinated and planned-port access road that will connect the bayfront area to: the Interstate system to the southwest; several points in the local highway system in the central area; the north/south marine terminal access highway in the east (Port area); and to the local highway system to the southeast. Although in the planning stage, actual construction is far from beginning. At this time, the port access road, fully completed and open to traffic, does not seem likely until the late 1980's or 1990 (10 to 12 years from now).16 Such delay will, very likely, postpone an accelerated revitalization during that time period. A completed port access road will provide the most important attraction point for bayfront and Port development, since the completion of the new marine terminal facilities. Efforts in both the public and private sector of the community continue to strive for the earliest completion of this vital transportation link and will continue to implement through the Port Authority, the industrial, commercial and recreational plans and projects to create a viable bayfront and Port for the Erie metropolitan area. WATER RESOURCES Background -- The Lake Erie Coastal Study Area adjoins one small part of the largest concentration of fresh water in the world - I the Great Lakes. The quantity obtainable is, for all practical purposes, limitless. The quality of water today, concentrating on the Pennsylvania portion of Lake Erie, is well within the majority of state standards. water quality is considered excellent for all water contact activities (boating, fishing, 3-32 wimming, etc.) and a minimum of treatment is required for domestic (drinking) and industrial use.17 The other major body of s water within the Coastal Study Area -is Presque Isle Bay and harbor. This area does not fare as well as the Lake in general, and swimming is not recommended, however fishing and boating is still good. The Bay has only a single entrance which slows the flushing process needed for cleansing. Incoming and cutgoing water must pass through the same narrow channel. Therefore, pollutants tend to accumulate rather than dissipate in the Bay waters. Also, a portion of the storm sewer system of the Erie metropolitan area drains into the Bay instead of into the Lake. Within the 50 major and minor watersheds in the Preliminary Study Area,18 the creeks and runs possess varying levels of water quality, and several can be considered as excellent for all uses. A great deal of progress has been made in improving the water quality of Erie County streams. An exception to this is Mill Creek which is located in the Central study Area. Mill Creek runs through a large underground tube for much of the distance that it travels through the City of Erie to its mouth in Presque sle Bay. Portions of the storm sewer system connect directly to the Mill Creek tube causing a substantial amount of the I associated pollution problems mentioned above concerning the Bay.19 Two municipalities are served by surface water sources and are located in the Eastern Study Area. One hundred percent (160%) of the population of North East Borough and 44% of the population of North East Township are served by a single, though many faceted, system. The source of water which supplies the system comes from three impoundment reservoirs located in the Township which store water from several sources, including a number of streams and springs.20 Groundwater supplies (individual, small private and municipal system wells) are the only source of water for the entire Western Study Area, one third of the land area in the Central Study Area and four-fifths of the land area in the Eastern Study Area.21 This represents 100%, 9%, and 36% of the populations of the three Study Areas, respectively. There are three municipal central well water systems in the Preliminary Study Area, all of which are in the Western Study Area. Ninety-two percent of Fairview Borough residents, and 98% of the residents of Lake City and Girard Boroughs are served by three independent systems solely supplied by three wells each. Groundwater availability is generally either fair or unreliable in the areas other than the three just mentioned throughout the Preliminary study Area. There are several reasons for this. one reason i. that the actual watershed areas are quite small. The divide between the Great Lakes basin and the Mississippi River basin runs quite close to Lake Erie along the Pennsylvania portion. so close that the southeasternmost tip of the Preliminary Study Area has the basin divide running through it, just seven miles from the Lake Erie shoreline. This situation 3-33 greatly limits watershed size and as groundwater supplies are primarily developed throug filtration of stream water and rainfall into the subsoil, the small watersheds do not form groundwater supplies of any great consequence.22 Another reason that groundwater supplies are not generally reliable is that the geologic formations along Lake Erie in the Preliminary Study Area are such that nearly no filtration of Lake water into the subsoil occurs. This is apparent in that the most unreliable wells are located immediately adjacent to the lakeshore.23 The majority of the population residing in the Preliminary Study Area (over 77%) are served by the Erie central water system supplies by water intakes about one mile offshore in Lake Erie. The City-owned and operated system supplies all of the water needs of the City of Erie, Wesleyville Borough and Lawrence Park Township, 60% of the population of Harborcreek Township and 58% of those who reside in Millcreek' Township. The average daily consumption during the summer months is 44 million gallons per day (MGD) with a rated treatment capacity of 88 MGD. A portion of this system involves the bulk sale of City owned water to several outlying small private and municipal authority systems.24 A report which inventories the existing water supply situation, and proposes alternatives for future water requirements in Pennsylvania portion of the Lake Erie Drainage Basin and the remaining portion of Erie County is the Comprehensive Water QualitV Management Plan (COWAMP),, published September 1976. This study,inventories existing conditions with regard to population, land use, economy, water use and water quality and general environmental condition. The existing water quality management program, including existing facilities was reviewed and evaluated, future water quality management needs were projected, finally a recommended plan was selected. This plan consists of method to control municipal, industrial, and non-point sources of pollution, recommends management programs, evaluates the programs financial feasibility and indicates water quality monitoring and surveillance methods which are in compliance with current state regulations. . I one of-the main objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Program is the safeguarding of coastal lands which have direct and significant impacts on.coastal waters. The goals of the COWAMP Study closely parallel many of these objectives and hence the recommendations of COWAMP should be taken into consideration and relevent proposals should be incorporated- into the final CZM document. Future Water Supply and Water Quality Problems -- The surface water ceTtral syst-em and the three goundwater central systems in the Preliminary Study Area are adequate for the present population that they serve. Conversion to Lake Erie as a source is likely to take place by the Year 2000 if the projected population increases are to be adequately served by that time in and around these four areas. When built in the early part of 3-34 this century, it was more economical to utilize surface water from streams and springs and groundwater from shallow dug and drilled wells than to extend water intakes into Lake Erie for the .small populations that were to be served. In the future, however,, it appears inevitable that Lake Erie water will be used solely for or at least supplementary to the present systems by the Year 2000 in these areas. The City of Erie water system, regarding its surrounding suburban area, presently handles extension of service in a cumbersome and somewhat unplanned manner through the Public Utility Commission (PUC). There are portions of the suburbs that are in need of public water supplies due to overuse of the groundwater supplies. This situation exists when Lake Erie is only 5 to 6 miles from these water-scarce areas. Development of the suburban areas has therefore occured where groundwater supplies are adequate causing a number of problems associated with the following: scattered development intermixed with agricultural land causing loss of theseprime lands due to taxation and development pressures; groundwater supplies being periodically exhausted and/or contamination of these supplies due to the proliferation of on- lot septic systems; the scattered development pattern later makes extension of water and sewer utilities expensive, resulting in a "catch 2211 effect where more developments rely on groundwater sources in a more scattered. land use fashion making eventual utility extension more expensive and even less likely to occur. This process has created a very low density metropolitan area. The suburban pattern and an understandable reluctance.on the part of the City of Erie to extend service to industrial and residential developments, where City officials fear a declining taxbase, (the City is not yet fully developed and has available industrial and residential land for development) have combined to form a baffling situation that in a coastal area with abundant water resources, residences and businesses go wanting for reliable supplies just a few miles from a major source, Lake Erie. What has long been needed and must become a reality well before the Year 2000 is an Erie Metropolitan Area Water Authority which is promoted in the latest water study for the Erie area.25 The following is taken from that study: "The conclusion has been reached ... that there should be one agency responsible for furnishing water to the consumers in the Erie Metropolitan Area ...In order to implement this conclusion, it is recommended that an Erie Metropolitan Area water Authority be created with ample capitalization to acquire and operate all the treatment and distribution facilities within the 3ervice area. This Metropolitan Authority would be charged with the responsibility to acquire all the local municipal authorities and private companies or other organizations that are presently serving any portion of this area with water and to expand the system as population and land use developments warrant... The basic premise of 3-35 the Authority is that ultimately it would acquire and operate, as one-large system, all existing water systems within the Metropolitan Area ... The advantages of a Metropolitan Authority are: (1) there will be one areawide organization geared to one job, i.e. provide potable water to the consumer (instead of the possibility of two or more agencies which might create conflicts in the operation of the system); (2) the system will not be under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission which presently must approve rates and valuations creating additional expenses and inefficiencies which are paid for by the consumer; (3) the planning for an orderly expansion of the. system can be performed on need and population trends without outside governmental and political influence; (4) a rate structure can be established which will be fair and reflect the true costs to supply water to any consumer; (5) the advantages of having all connections metered can be obtained without having .unnecessary political repercussions to those presently in office in the City of Erie; (6) this method.will allow the recuitment and training of an expanded force necessary to operate the larger system using the present Bureau of Water employees as a nucleus of operation; and (7) as a result of the sale of the system, and with subsidy, and/or assistance from municipalities requesting service, the long overdue improvements to the Cityls system could be constructed." Although many of the problems within the Erie metropolitan area mentioned above are out of the realm of CZM jurisdiction, the resolution of these problems would fall within the objectives of the program concerning. proper water resource use and prime agricultural land protection. If present trends continue, future-stream and lake water quality in the Erie Coastal Zone will progressively improve due to increasingly better regulatory practices of local governmental agencies. Tertiary treatment of industrial and municipal sewage will continue to have positive effects on the water quality of Lake Erie. In recent years the water quality of Presque Isle Bay has also improved due to investigation and cessation of many illegal discharges of the storm sewer system in the City of Erie and will undoubtedly improve in the future. And finally, the major future industrial sites which will locate along the shoreline in the Western Study Area will be subject to very stringent pollution regulations for new construction and should have few detrimental effects on the current water resources in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone,*if State requirements are ciosely adhered to. 3-36 EXTERNAL DECISIONS AFFECTING COASTAL RESOURCES There are or could be events taking place outside the immediate boundaries of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone that would have a direct effect on the coastal resources of the area. There are three future industrially related projects that may develop in the Coastal Zone - a major steel plant complex, a large power generating plant complex and ' natural gas drilling the Pennsylvania portion of Lake Erie. However, the actual impact of these projects will be controlled from outside the Coastal Zone. Federal and State governmental decisions will decide to what extent, if any, these projects will adversely affect the existing coastal resources. The States of Ohio and Pennsylvania are competing with other areas to attract a huge steel plant complex planned by the U.S. Steel Corporation on the Ohio/Pennsylvania border at the western end of the Preliminary Study Area. Decisions, basically political, involving the relaxation (or the non-enforcement) of established Federal Environmental Protection Agency and State Department of Environmental Resources standards, should not be part of the inducement process. It should be noted here that there is absolutely no basis in fact that this hypothetical situation exists. However, unanimous local concern for environmental protection should not be lost in the enthusiasm to locate such massive industrial project in these two States which understandably need to attract such enterprises. A somewhat similar external decision interpretation can be applied to the future Penelec power plant complex in the center of the Western Study Area on the lakesbore which will have four to five times the generating capactiy of the present plant. Recent and future federal energy policies to promote the use of fossil fuel (coal) for electric utility plants could also be developed around the loosening of air pollution standards for the national goal of petroleum independence. Even if such an unlikely situation did not arise for this utility or the steel plant, the special climatic conditions, which help to produce the unique farm lands26 to the east (directly downwind) of these future projects, should be given special considerations when State and federal permits are approved. The third "future project" is the possible development of natural gas pi@oduction facilties in the Pennsylvania portion of Lake Erie. State energy policies are similar to those of the nation to develop all the possible energy sources (reserves) within the country. The State government has not resolved the question of possible pollution versus the economic benefits. The environmental and economic effects, whether good, bad or minimal, will be most apparent in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone rather than Pennsylvania as a wh3le, therefore making the final resolution primarily an external decision on a presently unutilized coastal resource. The three above mentioned projects together will have a beneficial impact on the economic climate of the Coastal Zone in 3-37 terms of jobs, industrial diversification and possible increased Port of Erie usage. However, the prime resources of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone are recreational and agricultural which are directly dependent on the generally good (and still improving). water and. air quality that this area enjoys today. Care should be taken, concerning these and other industrial projects, to assure the continuance and maintenance of high quality environmental standards in the future, while at the same time progressing economically. RECREATION DEMAND The Lake Erie Coastal Zone provides a natural water area with a great recreation-potential. There is a great attraction to a natural lake with its related activities. There is a significant influx of visitors attracted to the Erie Coast to satisfy their outdoor recreation demand. This high demand creates a substantial pressure on the Coastal recreation resources. one major problem which faces the Lake Erie Coastal Area is the lack of public access. Characteristic of most of the U.S. Shoreline, private ownership is a major factor in limiting access. in most areas, natural barriers such as bluffs and marshes further limit access to the Lake. Another major problem faced by the residents is that of shoreline erosion and bluff .recession. Two major causes of erosion and recession are abnormally high lake levels along with increased subsurface flow and man's action on the bluffcrest and bluffbase.27 Additionally, certain areas have problems with the quality of water, beaches, and shoreline. Frequently these areas fail -to meet, D.E.R. water quality standards. This problem may limit or possibly preclude water contact activities. An analysis of the recreational activities, including future supply and demand projections, was used to determine recreation trends. Two sources of data were used in the analysis. The first set of data was taken from the State Recreation Plan which used planning regions (figure iii-11). The second set of data, taken from the State Water Planj considers a much smaller relative area (watershed subbasin 15) and utilizes a set of recreation standards. These standards were developed on a people per unit basis for recreational facilities. The standards are then applied to participation rates and expected populations to determine recreation trends. The tables below and on the following page show the actual recreation supply and demand figures. 'The regional data (figure iii-12) shows bigger deficits than the subbasin because of the larger population taken in account. These figures projected for 1990 are based on the assumption of no supply increase but 3-38 Figure iii-3,j REGION 9 (Erie)* 29 1974 1990 PERCENT OF 1974 1990 1990 ACTIVITY DAYS PROJECTED ACTIVITY INCREASE SUPPLY OF REC. PROJECTED ACTIVITY (000's) DAYS (DEMAND) (000's) 1974-1990 (FACILITIES) DEMAND DEFICIT Bicycling 21,810 25,188 15.5% 39 trail miles (Inventoried) Boating/Canoeing/ 1,950 3,259 67.1% 258 boat launch 431 boat -173 boat Water-Skiing ramps launch ramps 1. ramps Camping 1,981 3,089 55.9% 8,859 campsites 13,814 -4,955 campsites campsites Fishing 3,230 4,374 35.4% Biking/Nature 5,290 6,058 14.5% 449 trail-miles 514 trail -65 trail Walking miles miles Picnicking 4,104 4,667 13.7% 10,677 picnic 12,141 picnic -1,464 p. tables tables tables Swimming 15,345 20,318 32.4% 830,000 sq. ft. 1,098,985 -268,985 pool sq. ft. pool 11.3% 42,300 linear 56,008 linear -18,708 ft. beach ft. beach Sightseeing/ 11,486 12,784 Pleasure Driving 1974 1990 Population 678,000 744,000 9.7% Region 9 consists of 8 counties: Erie, Warren, Forest, Clarion, Venango, Crawford, Mercer, Lawrence Figure iii-12 ERIE -WA-R..R.EN- I CRAWFORD@ FORESTI V E NANGO MERCER CLARION :,LAWRENCE RECREATION PLANNING AREASi, 1 UNIFORM REGION 9. PENNSYLVANIA'S RECREATION PLAN, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. 19.76 SUB-BINSIV 15. PENNSYLVANIA STATE WATER PLAN. 15 1i P DEPT. F ENVIRO A. 0 NMENTAL RESOURCES. 197r7. PRELIMINARY COASTAL ZONE STUDY AREA. 1976 1 INCH 12 MILES ertain population changes by age group and number. Because the subbasin data considers a smaller area, the deficits are smaller Cor even show up as surpluses. Both plans agree that some deficits of recreation facilities will occur in the future. Subbasin 1528 Lake Erie Activity *Demand supply *Demand 1990 Surplus 1970 1970 1990 of Decifit Picnic tables 2,062 1,569 2,159 -590 Beach linear ft. 896 25,409 1,247 +24,162 Pool square ft. 89,261 60,729 76,166 -15,432 Power boating 7,580 31,998 13,790 +18,208 Power acres (1 mi. lake limit)* Nonpower boating 1,196 999 1,940 +7,059 nonpower acres (1/4 mi. lake limit)* Fishing activity 259r613 10117,606 308,762 +857,993 days per year (thousands) Assuming 232,500 253,100 8.9% Population *Developed by the State Water Plan Staff. Although the coastal zone cannot be expected to alleviate the recreation deficiencies it can help to relieve the pressure. Multiple use is a concept which must be given consideration. Multiple use sites should be developed so recreation can coexist with Other uses such as industry, agriculture or residential. Public access to the Lakefront would be made availabler where appropriate, at Port facilities, power plants, and the like. when possible consideration should be given to serving public recreational needs, and'acc,--ss whether it is physical or visual must be accorded high priority in all future plans. In order to establish a priority of sites, various sites with recreation potential were evaluated. Three types of recreation potential rating were established. The first classification is 3-39 "Existing" (E). These sites are privately or publicly owned sites currently in public recreational use. They are to be considered for improved maintenance or future expansion as the available funding permits. The second rating is "Immediate Potential" (IP). These sites. are publicly or privately owned areas which can help to fill present needs, but require immediate investigation and action through aquisition or other method to preserve the resources. Both of these site classification correspond to natural GAPC's'- or recreational, cultural, historical GAPC's (as discussed in Chapter 8). The third rating is "Reserved Potential" (RP) these sites are privately owned areas with existing facilities or recreation potential to serve future public recreational needs but present. economic conditions prevent their aquisition or development. These sites generally correspond to the Development Opportunity GAPC's or the Overlap GAPC's. The following chart is a brief listing of the sites, their municipality, their ownership, the potential activities, and the assigned rating. A more in depth description of most of the sites can be found in the GAPC Chapter 8. A complete description of all the sites classified is found in the Coastal Recreation Analysis Paper as summarized in Appendix C. 3-40 SITE MUNICIPALITY OWNERSHIP ACTIVITIES RATING WEST STUDY AREA Raccoon Creek Springfield Twp. Public SBA,F E County Park Eagle Twp. Park Springfield Twp. Public S,BA E Crooked creek Springfield Twp. Private S,NSA IP Elk Creek Girard Twp. Private S,BA,M,F IP Lake Erie Girard Twp. Public S E Community Park Trout Run Fairview Twp. Private S,NSA IP Walnut Creek Fairview Twp. Public BA,M,F E (Manchester Beach) CENTRAL STUDY AREA Presque Isle Millcreek Twp. Public SrBA.1M,O,NSA E Scott County Park Millcreek Twp. Public 0 IP. Commodore Perry Millcreek Twp. Private BA,M E Yacht Club Erie Yacht Club Millcreek Twp. Private BA,M E East Side Marina Millcreek Twp. Public BAjM IP EAST STUDY AREA Sixmile creek Harborcreek Twp. Private S,,BA IP Sevenmile Creek Harborcreek Twp. Private S RP Shades Beach Harborcreek Twp. Public S,BA E County Park Freeport Beach Northeast Twp. Public S E Sixteenmile Creek Northeast Twp. Private S,O RP (Orchard Beach) Darymple Beach Northeast Twp. Public S,BA,F- E Twentymile Creek Northeast Twp. Private S IP 3-41 ACTIVITIES RATING S-Swimming E-Existing F-Sport Fishing IP-Immediate Potential BA-Boat Access RP-Reserved Potential M-Marina O-Other (Picnicking) (Hiking) NSA-Natural Scenic Area 3-42 FOOTNOTES Erie County Population Analysis,Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, 1972. The methodology selected for projecting future population levels in Erie County is the Cohort-Survival method. Past reliability on a comparative basis of projection has proven this procedure to be the most satisfactory in the past. Moreover, the Cohort-Suvival Method 'is more comprehensive than other population projection alternatives, in that the selection makes use of basic projection variables, i.e., past birth, death, and migration rates, in addition to fertility ratios. The method entails the utilization of numerous refined- calculations and judgements in many factor areas. Among the factors stressed as being of prime importance in making these judgements were 1) industrial employment opportunities and the unemployment curve, 2) transportation and highway construction schedules, and in the light of these, 3) anticipated urban growth, and 4) planned public utility extension. This technique is procedurally more thorough and technically more intricate -and complex than other available projection alternatives practiced tod 'ay. The figures obtained, although slightly dated, are the most up-to-date statistics available for the Preliminary Study Area that are on a comparative basis, municipality by municipality. 2. See footnote #1. 3. See footnote #1. 4. The term "village" is used here, and will be used in this chapter, as.a distinct population center of local importance rather than a minor civil division. There are no political boundaries, nor are there any governmental functions. The seven villages are: West Springfield and North Springfield in Springfield Township; Fairplain in Girard Township; and Manchester, Swanville and Sterrettania in Fairview Township. 5. Information obtained from the U.S Bureau of the Census. 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil conservation Service, Land Inventory and Monitoring Memorandum - 3, October 15, 1975. Unique farmland is prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of Soil quality, 3-43 location, rowing season, humidity, air drainage, air temperature, elevation, aspect, or other conditions needed to produce sustained high.quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed .according to modern farming methods. 7. Information obtained from local municipal zoning ordinances. 8. The'three villages are: Harborcreek and Mooreheadville in Harborcreek Township; and orchard Beach in North East Township. 9. Actually,*other than in the Eastern Study Area, there are no unique agricultural lands, as defined in footnote #6, in the Central Study Area, nor in the remainder of Erie County, with the exception of a single location in the Western Study Area. 10. Information obtained from Population Analysis, City 2f Erie, Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, 1972 and Citv-Wide Neighborhood Analysis, City of Erie office of Policy Planning and Management, 1976. 11. Port of Erie, Waterfront Development Plan, Parsons, Brinck7e_rh6_ff, Quade & Douglas, IInc., 1968, 12. Information obtained from Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority. 13. Information obtained from Litton Industries. The two ships are the Stewart J. Cort and the Presque Isle. 14. Feasibility study - East Side Boat Launching Ramp, Parking and Marina, Erie, Pennsylvania, D"Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1976. 15. These contemplated projects can include: combination luxury and outboard boat marinas; boating and fishing equipment and accessory-manufacture, sales, rental and service shops; seafood restaurants; waterfront hotel/motels; combination parks and swimming pool sites, etc. 16. Information obtained from the Erie Area Transportation Study (EATS). EATS is not a single report, but a continual program of transportation planning through a four phase process: data collection, analysis and forecasts, plan development, and project implementation. 17. Information obtained from Erie County Health Department, Bureau.of Environmental Services. 18. For locations of the watersheds and streams, see Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Resources Analysis for Lake Erie, Erie Metropolitan Planning Dr.,partment, 1975, pages 43, 44, 45, 95, 96 and 97. 3-44 19. See footnote #17. 20. Erie County Water Supply and Distribution Plan, Part II - The Non-Metropolitan Area, Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, 1976. 21. Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Resources Analysis for Lake Erie, Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, .1975, pages 110, 111 and 112. 22. See footnote #18. 23. See.footnote #21. 24. 'Erie County Water SupplV and Distribution Plan, Part I - The Erie Metropolitan Area, Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, 1976. 25. See footnote #24. 26. See footnotes #6 and #9. 27. A Summary of the Erosion Study can be found in Appendix C. 28. State Water Plan. 29. State Recreation Plan OSPD. 3-45 EXISTING AGEMENT AUTHORITY EXISTING MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION Chapters 1,*2, and 3 have provided an introduction to existing conditions, current and future problems, and changes that are expected to occur in Pennsylvania's two coastal study areas. This Chapter examines the existing legal and institutional arrangements which will be utilized to implement Pennsylvania's Coastal Zone Management Program. Regulations adopted under the Coastal Zone Management Act require that "the management program...contain a list of relevant constitutional provisions, legislative enactments, regulations, judicial decisions and other appropriate official documents or actions which establish the legal basis for (Coastal Management)". (15 CFR sec 923.21 (a)). State and local statutory authorities are analyzed for their potential to properly implement the provisions of the Coastal Zone policy fr -amework (Chapter 5). Regional and interstate agreements and federal statutes are also considered. Pertinent judicial decisions are incorporated as required to support specific legal propositions. Chapter 4 is organized into five major sections. For the'sake of simplicity and continuity, the first four are identical to the sections developed in Chapter 2, Problems and Issues, and Chapter 5, Policy Framework, and include Land Use, Resources, and Environment; Economic-Health and Revitalization; Public Involvement and Education; and Governmental Regulation and Responsibility. Existing state authorities in these areas are analyzed for legal sufficiency in implementing the program. The last section, "Local Controls", is devoted to a discussion and analysis of existing local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances and their ability to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the coastal zone management program. of the management program. chapter 4 concludes that although existing state authorities are adequate in some areas to implement the Coastal Zone Management Program, authorities either do not exist or are inadequate in several very critical areas. These include control of land use to assure compliance with the management program; assurance that uses of regional benefit will not be arbitrarily restricted or excluded by local governments; protection of historic and archaeological resources, significant natural resources, and critical areas; and resolution of conflicts between competing land and water uses. Because of these weaknesses additional legislation must be sought if Pennsylvania's Coastal Zone Management Program is to be implemented in a manner that is consistent with federal program requirements. 4@1 I. LAND AND WATER USE, RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT A. Land and Water Use The use of Coastal Zone land is subject to both state and local control. The Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. sec 10101) and the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter (351 Pa. Code sec 4.4-600) authorize municipalities to control development through the adoption and enforcement of zoning, subdivision and land - development ordinances, although such enactments are not mandatory. Under the Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. sec 670-101), the Department of Community Affairs can provide funding for the preparation and development of ordinances, but it cannot require the adoption or amendment of ordinances or otherwise mandate consiste'ncy.with state policies and programs. The Department of Environmental Resources has authority -to ,control the dumping of sludge and dredge spoils into the waters of the Commonwealth (excepting the tidal waters of the Delaware River and its navigable tributaries) under the Water Obstructions Act (32 P.S. sec 681; 25 Pa. Code sec 105.1) and th-e Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. sec 691.1; 25 Pa. Code sec 91.1). Disposal of sludge and dredge spoils is also regulated by the Department under the authority of the Solid Waste Management Act (35 P.S. sec 6001; 25 Pa. Code sec 75.1), but has been restricted to land disp6sal. The location and operation of potentially hazardous facilities and activities are controlled in part through state and local regulations. Siting of such potential hazards may be controlled by local governments under the Municipalities Planning Code and the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. The construction, maintenance and operation of dyeing and dry cleaning plants are controlled by the Department of Labor and Industry (35 P.S. sec 1269.1; 34 Pa. Code sec 23.71). The Department of Labor and Industry may also regulate the construction of buildings in cities other than the first class for the purpose of fire prevention (35 P.S. sec 1221). Among the items subject to regulation are explosive materials and fuel storage within factories and power plants, as well as other types of buildings. The discharge of any polluting substance into the waters of the Commonwealth is regulated by the Department of Environmental Resources under the Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. sec 691.1; 25 Pa. Code sec 101.1). Although this law and regulations promulgated thereunder it do not control the location or operation of hazardous facilities and activities, they do mitigate actual damages which may result by requiring preparation of Pollution Incident Prevention Plans for the operation and maintenance of the facility. The Federal Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C.A. sec 1) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C.A. sec 716) give the Federal Department of Transportation power to regulate the construction and operation of oil and gas pipelines. The existing authority of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission under the Public Utility-Law (66P.S. sec 1101), when coupled with the federal consistency provisions, can be utilized to reduce hazards and assure pipeline safety. Placement of oil and natural gas pipelines under, along or across streams within the Commonwealth is regulated by the Department of Environmental Resources under the Water Obstructions-Act (32 P.S. sec 681; 25 Pa. Code sec 105.141). The Department is also authorized by the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 194 to grant easements, rights-of-way, licenses or other interests in dry or submerged Commonwealth land to public service companies for the placement of public service lines. B. Air and Water Quality and Water Supply Pennsylvania has broad authority to regulate air quality. The Air Pollution control Act (35 P.S. sec 4001; 25 Pa. Code sec 121.1, 143.1) provides for the prevention, control, reduction and a,batement of air pollution through the use of required permits, coupled with civil and criminal penalities for non-compliance. The Commonwealth is also empowered to control air quality under the provisions of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.A. sec 1857). The Uniform Interstate Air Pollution Agreements Act (35 P.S. sec 4101) authorizes the establishment of agreements with state and local authorities.of other states for cooperation in controlling air pollution extending beyond the jurisdiction of the CommonweallEh. Air pollution control or abatement equipment is exempt from Pennsylvania's capital stock tax (72 P.S. sec 7602.1). Pennsylvania has similarly broad authority to regulate water quality and supply. The Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. sec 691.1; 25 Pa. Code sec 91.1 to 107.1) prohibits the discharge. of "sewage, industrial waste or any other substance which causes or contributes to pollution" of the waters of the Commonwealth, unless authorized by the Department of Environmental Resources. Pennsylvania has not been delegated the authority to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program under the Federal Water Control Act (33 U.S.C. sec 1342). The Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act (35 P.S. sec 750.1; 25 Pa. Code sec 71.1, 73.1) gives the Department authority to review and approve or disapprove all municipal sewage plans and local actions under approved plans and establishes standards for the installation and operation of on-site disposal systems. Supplemental authority under the Solid Waste Management Act (35 P.S. sec 6001; 25 Pa. Code sec 75.1) prohibits the dumping of any solid wastes into the waters of the Commonwealth without first obtaining a permit from the Department. The Open Spaces Lands Act (32 P.S. sec 5001) gives the Department the power to acquire property in order to protect and conserve water resources. Under the Delaware River Basin Compact (32 P.t. sec 815.101), the Delaware River Basin Commission is authorized to regulate water quality in the Delaware River and its tributaries, and regulations have been adopted (18 C.F.R. sec 410.1). 4-3 The Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 510--l)'gives the Department of Environmental Resources the power to regulate the acquisition or expansion of sources of water and water storage facilities, and to determine water conservation and distribution policies through the development of a State Water Plan. The Department is authorized to regulate waterworks construction as well as the potability and treatment of water supplies (35 P.S. sec 711). Regulations governing waterworks have been promulgated.at 25 Pa. Code sec 109.1. The Water Rights Act (32 P.S. sec 631) governs the acquisition of surface water rights by public water supply agencies. The Department administers a system of water allocation permits which empowers supply agencies to use eminent domain for the appropriation of water and water rights. The statute is narrow in scope, however, and most water uses in Pennsylvania are allocated according to the common law of riparian rights. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission regulates the operation of all water supply companies with respect to customer services under the Public Utility Law (66 P.S. sec 1101; 52 Pa. Code sec 65.,l). The Department of Commerce has authority under the Site Development Act (73 P.S. sec 361) to make grants for the construction, rehabilitation, alteration, expansion or improvement of water supply facilities, including pumping and distribution facilities. In the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone, the Delaware River Basin Commission has the power to control the use of the basin's waters, and to regulate the construction 'and operation of projects and i-acilities for the storage and release of basin's waters (32' P.S. sec 815.101). Pennsylvania's air and water pollution control authority is adequate for purposes of Coastal Zone Management since it provides a firm basis for regulating air and water quality within the Coastal Zones. The Commonwealth's CZM program comports with sec 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act by effectively incorporating the requisite federal pollution control programs. C. Historical and Archeological Resources Pennsylvania's power to protect.unique historical and archeological resources is basically limited to state-owned lands. The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. sec 716) establishes the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission in order to provide for the preservation, care' and maintenance of the historic and archeological resources owned by the Commonwealth. The Open Spaces Lands Act (32 P.S. sec 5001) authorizes the Commonwealth to acquire interests in historic sites to preserve, develop and.maintain them. Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution declares the Commonwealth to be the trustee of the "historic values" of the environment; this provision has been amplified by Executive order 1975-6, which requires all state agencies to assure that historic resources owned or acquired by the commonwealth are adequately protected. The bulk of the power to preserve and protect historical and archeological resources which are not state-owned is vested in local governments. The Historic Districts Act (53 P.S. sec 8001) authorizes political subdivisions, in their discretion, to regulate construction, destruction or alteration within designated "historic districts" in order to protect the historic character of these areas. A local.historic zoning ordinance has recently been upheld in First Presbyterian Church of York v. York City Council, 360 A.2d 257 (Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 7976T-. - Although the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission must certify the historical significance of an area prior to its designation as an "historic district", the Commonwealth has no direct authority to override local regulations and land use decisions which may adversely affect historic and archeoiogical resources. The Commonwealth may challenge the local approval of the project before the courts or administrative agencies in order to preserve a particular historic site, since such decisions are " subject to the constitutional limitations contained in Article I, Section 27 of the Constitution. D. Significant Natural Areas: Regulation The authority of various commonwealth agencies and political S "-d-'visions to acquire interests in property for the conservat-ion of ul, _L scenic and natural resources is set out below in a separate section dealing with the requirements for administrative grants under sec 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The regul@tion of development in and around sites of significant natural quality, however, presents problems which require solutions other than acquisition. To the extent that the need for control is recognized as a local problem, municipalities can control development under the Municipalities Planning Code and the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. To the extent that municipalities fail to act on their own initiative, however, the Commonwealth has limited authority to affect local decisions i.e. institution of original legal actions pursuant to Article I, Section 27 against particularly offensive projects. It cannot mandate that local regulations be amended to be in accord with the CZM program. The Administrative Code also authorizes the Environmental Quality Board to develop a statewide Environmental Master Plan to set goals and policies to guide the actions of the various levels of government (71 P.S. sec 510-20 (a)). Although development of the plan progresses, implementation is still an open question, and may be dependent upon the passage of supplemental legislation. 4-5 E. Hazardous Areas The Department of Community Affairs can establish criteria and develop model ordinances to control development in hazardous areas under the Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. sec 670-101), but it cannot require municipalities to adopt ordinances as strict as or stricter than the state criteria and models. Under the Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. sec 10601), municipalities have unrestricted authority to develop and enact zoning ordinances to control development in order to protect the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Stricter enactments are encouraged, however, by the National Flood Insurance Act (42 U.S.C.A. sec 4001; 24 C.F.R. sec 1909), which requires the adoption of such ordinances as a prequisite for a community's eligibility for federal flood insurance and mortgage money. 1. Flood Plains The hazards of flooding can be minimized by structural measures and land use controls. The Department of Environmental Resources is also authorized to make flood control improvements (32 P.S. sec 653). The Delaware River Basin Commission is authorized to design, construct and operate flood. control facilities and projects on the Delaware River and its tributaries under the Delaware River Basin Compact (32 P.S. sec 315.1010) TL-ke Departiment o-f -t-1-Ae Arimy, Corps of Engineers, is also vested with that power at the federal level,(33 U.S.C.A. sec 701). r Municipalities have the power to minimize flood damage by enacting ordinances which control development within flood plains under the Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. sec 10101) and the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter (351 Pa. Code sec 4.4-600). The validity of such ordinances has been upheld by the courts. Solomon v. Whitemarsh Township, 92 Montg. 114 (Pa. C.P. 1969). The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development encourages the adoption of flood plain ordinances by providing financial and professional assistance to municipalities to help them achieve compliance with the flood insurance program, and by withholding assistance for acquisition or construction in flood plain areas to municipalities that don't comply with the Flood Insurance Act (42 U.S.C.A. sec 4001). The Delaware River Basin Commission is authorized by the Delaware River Basin Compact (32 P.S. sec 815.101) to adopt flood plain zoning standards for the Delaware River and its tributaries, and may provide technical and financial aid for administration and enforcement to communities which enact zoning ordinances effecting such standards (41 Fed. Reg. 24910 (1976)). 2. Steep Slopes and Bluffs Regulating development in order to preserve the esthetic and environmental value of steep slope areas, and to protect life and property,, is within the general regulatory- authority of municipalities under the municipalities Planning Code and the, Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. The Commonwealth has no means of insuring that municipalities consider steep slope characteristics in their land development plans, but it is able to indirectly regulate such practices under the Erosion Control Regulations (25 Pa. Code sec 102.1). 3. Erosion and Recession Municipalities have the power to prevent development practices that will endanger life and property and accelerate erosion and recession rates in hazardous bluff areas under the Municipality Planning Code and the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. The Commonwealth has no means of insuring that municipalities prevent such development practices, but preventive measures are encouraged by the National Flood Insurance Act (42 U.S.C.A. sec 4001; 24 C.F.R. sec 1909), which requires restrictions upon development in erosion areas as a prerequisite to eligibility for federal flood insurance, development assistance and loans. The Commonwealth, acting through the Department of Environmental Resources, can minimize erosion by two means. Under the clean Streams Law, the Department has the authority io control earth moving activities which create accelerated erosion or the danger thereof. The Erosion Control Regulations (25 Pa. Code sec 102.1) adopted under that law require that anyone undertaking any earth moving activity have an erosion and sedimentation control plan and, in some circumstances, obtain a permit. Under the Water Obstructions Act (32 P.S. sec 681), the Department has authority to regulate the placement of structures and fill material in waters of the Commonwealth, except in the tidal portions of the Delaware River, through a permit process. Further, the Department has specific power to prohibit dredging operations that result in siltation and pollution of the Schuylkill River and its tributaries, and to remove accumulations of such material (32 'P.S. sec 751.1). On Lake Erie, the Great Lakes Basin Commission has authority to make recommendations for erosion control under the Great Lakes Basin Compact (32 P.Si sec 817.1). Researching and monitoring erosion rates is the responsibility of the Commission under the Compact, and of the Department of Environmental Resources under the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 510-9). 4-7 4. unsuitable soils for Sewage Disposal The Sewage Facilities Act, the Clean Streams Law, and the regulations promulgated under both (25 Pa. Code sec 71.1, 73.1) require municipalities to submit official sewage facility plans to the Department of Environmental Resources for approval. Such plans are required to describe existing community sewage disposal problems, and to provide for an orderly extension of community interceptors throughout each ten year period. The object of the program is to ensure the existence of adequate sewage treatment facilities to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into the waters of the Commonwealth. The plans must also contain a survey and, evaluation of soil suitability for individual on-lot sewage disposal systems. Prior to the construction of any such system, a permit must be granted by the municipality, and no permit may issue if the system specifications are not in compliance with Department regulations and th,e local sewage facility plan. The regulations state explicit standards for on-lot sewage systems in order to protect surface and groundwater quality. The Department of Environmental Resources administers the Commonwealth's responsibilities for areawide waste treatment management plans under sec 208 of the Federal water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.A. sec 1288). The development of priorities for the extension of sewer systems will 'Za coord-Liiated t,'Lizough JZ_-.1A-es_= sac plans. F. Natural Resources 1. commercial Fishing The Pennsylvania Fish Commission has general authority to administer all laws relating to the promotion and development of fishery interests, as well as the protection, propagation and distribution of fish. Under the Fish Law of 1959 (30 P.S. sec 1), the Commission regulates fishing practices on inland and boundary lakes and rivers of the Commonwealth. The Great Lakes Basin Commission has the power to consider and recommend means of maintaining and improving the fisheries of the Basin, but not to regulate fisheries. The power of the Fish Commission is sufficient to meet coastal zone objectives. It may also be noted that the reduction of pollution by the Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. sec 691.1; 25 Pa. Code sec 91.1, 101.1) has resulted in a significant increase in the quantity and diversity of fish in the waters of the Commonwealth. 2. Mineral Extraction The Department of Environmental Resources has the power and the duty under the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 510-1) to administer all mining laws. As to offshore mining, it has the authority under the Administrative Code to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any minerals, sand, gravel or silt deposits in or beneath beds of waters owned by the Commonwealth, as well as to regulate all mineral extractions or other alterations in the course, current or cross section of streams under the Water Obstructions Act (32 P.S. sec 681; 25 Pa. Code sec 105.1). Although the water obstructions Act exempts the tidal waters of the Delaware River and its navigable tributaries from its coveragege, the Commonwealth may prohibit or limit exploitation of mineral resources in the tidal ' streams by exercising its propriety powers pursuant to 1908-A of the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 510-8). The Department also has authority to sell or lease the minerals beneath the beds of navigable streams or other bodies of water owned by the Commonwealth (71 P.S. sec 510-8). This has the effect of giving the Department the power to restrict or exclude the removal of such minerals. Warren Sand and Gravel, Inc. v- DER, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 186, 341 A.2d 556 (1975). As to onshore mining, the Department controls surface mining and reclamation by issuing licenses to all operations under the surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act (52 P.S. sec 1396.1;' 25 Pa. Code*sec 77.1), and controls discharges from mines into the waters of the CommonWealth by issuing permits under the Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. sec 691: 25 Pa. Code sec 99.1). 3. Gas and oil Drilling The Department of Environmental Resources is authorized to issue permits for all natural gas wells penetrating below given levels, to regulate well spacing and drilling units, and to promulgate regulations to prevent waste in the drilling, casing, operation and plugging of wells under the oil and Gas Conservation Law (58 P.S. sec 401: 25 Pa. Code sec 79.1). The Gas Operations Well-Drilling, Petroleum and Coal Mining Act (52 P.S. sec 2101) defines the rights and duties of coal mine operators and well operators in cases where the boundaries of their operations overlap, and regulates the underground storage of gas, especially within two-thousand linear feet of an operating coal mine. Implicit in the Department's powers under the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 510.8) to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of oil, gas and other minerals beneath the beds of navigable streams or other bodies of water owned by the Commonwealth is the power to withhold the sale of State owned property. See Warren Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. DER, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 186, 341 A2d 556 (1975). 4-9 4. Farmlands Through the Municipalities Planning Code and the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, municipalities have the authority to encourage farmland ,preservation by maintaining agricultural zones in their zoning ordinances and fostering compatible uses around them. Counties can also encourage farmland preservation by publicizing and utilizing the Clean and Green Act (16 P.S. sec 11941). Under the Act, counties can assess farmland at its restricted, rather than highest use value, if the owner agrees to allow the land to remain as farmland for a period of five, or sometimes ten years. Neither the Clean and Green Act nor the Municipalities Planning Code give the Commonwealth authority to participate in farmland preservation. G. Recreation Special interest recreational facilities can be developed by state, county and municipal governments. The Department of Environmental Resources has the authority to improve parks for outdoor recreation under the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 510-1). Pursuant to this authority, the Department has developed and promulgated a comprehensive State Outdoor Recreational Plan. Under the Open Spaces Tands Act /I,) IZI:511 5001), the Department- c-f Envi-rcnmentai Resources, the Department of Agriculture and county governments have the authority to acquire interests in land for open space benefit, including recreational uses. Acquisitions rare subject to two conditions: (1) the county must approve all acquisitions by the Commonwealth within its jurisdiction, and (2) neither the county nor the Commonwealth may hold land in fee simple for more.than two years without offering it for resale. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission has authority under the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 691) to acquire land for access sites,on lakes and other waterways for fishing and boating purposes. The various municipal codes (53 P.S. sec 1) enable municipalities to acquire and develop recreational facilities. Assistance to local governments in the selection and acquisition of local access and recreation areas can be provided by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the Department of Environmental Resources. The Department of Community Affairs has the general authority under the Administrative Code. (71 P.S. sec 670-101) to provide technical assistance to local governments, and DER has authority to advise them on the development of park land (71 P.S. sec 510-1). Financial assistance can be provided indirectly through State or county acquisition and resale to local governments under the Open Spaces Lands Act (32 P.S. sec 5001). The resale price would normally be lower than the acquisition price because the land would be restricted to open space use after the sale. zi-in Assistance to local governments in planning and executing demonstration rehabilitation programs for recreational areas can be provided by both the DCA and DER under the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 670-101, 510-101). Financial assistance is available under the Open Spaces Lands Act. The Public Utility Commission has authority under the Public Utility Law (66 P.S. sec 1101; 52 Pa. Code sec 21.1, 35.1) to regulate service provided by common carriers by granting certificates of convenience for the operation of bus, trolley, taxi, and railroad service to coastal areas. utilities. In this way, service to coastal areas during weekends as well as non-peak hours can be improved. No specific authority is needed to encourage local governments to publicize recreational opportunities in coastal areas or to clearly post the location of access points to such areas. Both the DCA and DER can do so under their general advisory powers in the Administrative Code. Financial assistance can be provided by the Coastal Zone Management Program. Providing recreational opportunities on non-recreation land can be fostered by the Department of Community Affairs by providing information and technical assistance on the multiple use concept to local governments. H. Esthetics r Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that "The people have a right to... the preservation of the ... esthetic values of the environment.'* Executive order 1973-9 is consistent with the spirit of this provision, and requires all State agencies within the Governor's jurisdiction to ensure that governmental facilities and activities are planned and operated in compliance with all relevant environmental laws and regulations. Although Article I, Section 27 may potentially be extended to require that private developers take esthetics into consideration, it has not yet been so interpreted. Private planning and development is. now regulated by local governments under the Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. sec 10101, 14751). These provisions give municipalities complete authority to make all local land use decisions. There is no requirement that esthetics be considered in arriving at such decisions, and the state government has no authority to impose such a requirement, absent legislative amendment of the statutes. 4-11 II. ECONOMIC HEALTH AND REVITALIZATION. A. Information Systems The Administrative Code provisions relating to the powers and duties of the Department of Commerce (71 P.S. sec 669) and of the Department of Community Affairs (71 P.S. 'sec 670-101) form the legislative framework for the development and dissemination of information about coastal zone areas of economic opportunity. Such information will be presented to development and commerce related agencies and organizations in order to increase awareness of existing and potential opportunities for optimal use of coastal resources. The present authority of these two Departments is adequate for the operation of this type of information program. Additional funds under sec 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act will augment existing funds to allow for the expansion of this program. B. Financial Incentives for Economic Development The Pennsylvania Department of Commerce is authorized to support the development of commercial and industrial facilities in the economic opportunity areas of the coastal zone. The Industrial and Commercial Development Authority Law (73 P.S. sec 371) provides for the creation of local municipal development authorities for the purpose of developing business opportunities. Each authority may accomplish its purpose through the issuance of bonds and through grants from the Department of Commerce under the Pennsylvania Industrial Development Assistance Law (73 P.S. sec 351; 13 Pa. Code sec 3.1). The Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority Act (73 P.S. s 301) establishes the Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority in order to stimulate and assist industrial growth through the issuance of its own bonds and through participation in federal economic assistance programs as authorized by the Pennsylvania Redevelopment Area Economic Cooperation and Implementation Act (73 P.S. sec 331). Under the Site Development Act (73 P.S. sec 301; 13 Pa. Code sec 9.1, 13.1), the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to make grants to municipalities and industrial development agencies in specified circumstances for the construction or improvement of water and sewage facilties, or for acquisition of land located in impoverished urban areas. When combined with implementation funds available under sec 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, Pennsylvania has adequate authority to provide financial incentives for development of commerical and industrial facilities in economic opportunity areas. Under present authority, however, there are no means of assuring that funds will be allocated to particular CZM projects. Such assurance can be provided by a legislative mandate that the appropriate 4-12 agencies and departments cooperate with and contribute to the management ef fort. C. Ports and Transportation Facilities The Department of Environmental Resources is authorized under the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 510-1) to construct, maintain and operate works for channel improvement, and to acquire property for the construction, maintenance, improvement or development of a port or harbor. The Department also has the power to manage, control, protect, maintain and develop public lands for the improvement of Erie harbor. The Navigation Commission for the Delaware River has p6werto license the construction or alteration of harbor structures and to remove or ensure the removal of vessels or other materials blocking the channelways of the Delaware River and its navigable tributaries " delphia outside of Philadelphia (55 P.S. sec 6, 341). The Phila Department of Commerce exercises similar powers within the city limits under the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter (351 Pa. Code sec 4.4-500 (b)). The Delaware River Port Authority Agreement (36 P.S. sec 2502) and the Third class City Port Authority Act (55 P.S. sec 571) create organizations for planning, acquiring, operating and maintaining port facilities in the respective coastal, zones. Under the' Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 512), the Department of Transportation has powers and duties relating to the planning and development of land transportation facilities, including roads, commuter rail systems and motor bus op6rations within the Commonwealth. The Public Utility Commission is authorized under the Public Utility Law (66 P.S. sec 52;1101;1101; 52 Pa. Code sec 21.1, 35.1) the operation of public transportation. Together, these agencies have sufficient power for the planning, development and operation of land transportation facilities to serve the ports of Pennsylvania. The federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act and regulations under it, coupled with the complementary consistency provisions of Pennsylvania's program and the establishment of a state level coordinating body form the framework for coordination between state and federal agencies whose activities support the port and related coastal economic activities. The Department of Community Affairs is authorized by the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec. 670-101) to develop model zoning ordinances which could give shorefront siting priority to coastal dependent uses. Unfortunately, the municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. sec. 10101) and the building regulation provisions for first class cities (53 P.S. sec. 14751) give local governments unrestricted authority to adopt comprehensive land 'use plans and zoning ordinances. Thusj the Department has no power to ensure adoption of model ordinances by local governments. 4-13 III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EDUCATION The goals, policies and objectives of public involvement and education may be implemented without any specific legislative authority. The Department of Environmental Resources and the Department of Community Affairs already engage in extensive educational programs designed to increase public awareness and involvement in their decision making processes. These programs, can be expanded with sec. 306 implementation funds. IV. GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND RESPONSIBILITY:-SECTION 306 REQUIREMENTS. A. Administration, Control and Conflict Resolution: SECTION 306 (dJ (1) . Existing systems for the reporting and monitoring of proposed federal, interstate, regional, areawide, state and local actions with potential coastal zone impact include participation in the A-95 clearinghouse process (41 Fed. Reg. 2052) and monitoring of the Federal Register and Pennsylvania Bulletin. Although these systems are aOealaate for discovering potential state and federal actions which may have coastal zone impacts, they are insufficient for the other levels of governmental actions. These schemes are not coordinated for purposes of selectively reporting only proposals with such impacts, and not all proposals at the interstate, regional, areawide, state and local levels are required to be reported through these mechanisms. No state legislative authorization is necessary to develop an information system for apprising local governments of coastal zone management activities. Such a system could be established and implemented utilizing sec 306 funds. Coastal land use is controlled both directly and indirectly by state and local government agencies. The diversified and varying levels of control exercised by these agencies under existing authorities are generally inadequate for purposes of meeting the "state" control provisions of sec 306 (d) (1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Although a mechanism could be established under existing authorities which would facilitate informal resolution of conflicts among local, state, areawide, regional, interstate and federal jurisdictions on coastal zone management decisions, such resolutions would have no binding effect upon the governmental agencies involved. Thus such a mechanism would be inadequate to meet the requirement that the "state" be empowered to resolve conflicts among competing land and water uses in the coastal zone. The Department of Community Affairs also encourages intergovernmental coordination in -local planning decision making. Two or more 4-14 municipalities are authorized to enter into joint agreements for the performance of their respective governmental functions (53 P.S. sec, 481). In addition,. the Regional Planning Law (53 P.S. sec 491) provides for the creation of regional planning commissions by two or more political subdivisions for similar purposes. The coastal zone coordinating body (Chapter 10) may be utilized to coordinate interstate, regional, areawide, state and local planning decisions of less that statewide significance. This would be adequate, since no formal policy making body is essential to achieve coordination alone. The Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 181) requires cooperation and coordination among the various administrative departments, boards and commissions of the Commonwealth. Further, present authority encourages cooperation among municipalities in the performance of their respective governmental functions, powers or responsibilities, and authorizes them to enter into appropriate joint agreements (53 P.S. sec 481). The Department of Environmental Resources office of Environmental Protection has a policy of coordinating the processing and "issuance of permits within the Department. No such mechanism currently exists, however, for coordinated processing of permits issued by local government agencies or other Commonwealth agencies. Such cooperation could be implemented through the use of legislation, executive orders, or interagency agreements establishing'appropriate coordination procedures. Local governments are authorized to establish Environmental Advisory Councils to identify existing and potential environmental problems, and to recommend plans and programs for the promotion of conservation and the protection and improvement of environmental quality (53 P.S. sec 11501). The Department of Community Affairs encourages the establishment of these councils and provides some financial and technical assistance. Further incentive could be provided through the use of sec 306 funds. The Department of Community Affairs also encourages intergovernmental coordination in local planning decision making. Two or more municipalities are authorized to enter into joint agreements for the performance of their respective governmental functions (53 P.S. sec 481). In addition, the Regional Planning Law (53 P.S. sec 491) provides for the creation of regional planning commissions by two or more political subdivisions for similar purposes. B. Acquisition: Section 306 (d) (2) Powers of acquisition have been statutorily delegated to the various agencies of the Commonwealth based upon the particular need for such powers to ensure adequate performance of their duties. The magnitude of the power vested in an individual agency varies according to its functions and responsibilities, ranging from authority to accept 4-15 gifts of property to the power of taking through eminent domain proceedings. The Department of Environmental Resources has been given the broadest range of acquisitionary powers. Authority to acquire particularly fragile areas of the coastal zone is conferred by the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 510-1) which gives the Department power to act within its discretion to acquire by purchase, gift, lease or condemnation any lands which should be held, managed, controlled, maintained or utilized*as state forests or park lands, or any land, buildings or appurtenances which are necessary for the construction, maintenance, improvement or development of a port or harbor. The Department is also authorized to acquire land for state forest reservations by eminent domain (32 P.S. sec 31), acquire land sold for taxes (32 P.S.sec 161), and exchange of forest land (32 P.S. sec 13-1). The Scenic Rivers Act (32 P.S. sec 832.2) provides for the acquisition by eminent domain of scenic and other easements reasonably necessary for public access to rivers designated;as Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Open Spaces Lands Act (32 P.S. sec 5001) authorizes the Department of Environmental Resources, the Department of Agriculture and county governments to acquire lands for open space benefits,including the protection and conservation of natural and scenic water resources, forests, and areas of historic, geologic or botanic interest. Acquisition by state agencies is contingent upon approval of the county in which the land is located, and acquisitions in @Fzn, qimY--,Jci by --it-her the Commonwealth or the counties must be- offered for resale within two years of the date of acquisition, subject to restrictive covenants or easements. The Department of Environmental Resources possesses further powers to acquire property within specific geographic areas. The Prevention and Control of Floods Act (32 P.S. sec 653) authorizes the acquisition of property or easements for flood protection and control, and the Schuylkill River Pollution Act (32 P.S. sec 751.1) authorizes similar acquisitions for pollution control projects to prevent the accumulation of wastes in the Schuylkill River. Various other State agencies have been granted acquisitionary powers for specific purposes. The Pennsylvania Game Commission has the power under the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 671) and the Game Law (34 P.S. sec 1311.1) to acquire land for game refuges, preservest farms and propagation areas. The Pennsylvania Fish commission is authorized by the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 691) to set aside and close certain waters of the Commonwealth as nursery waters, and under the Fish Law (30 P.S. sec 1), may acquire property for the management of aquatic life or for public fishing and boating access sites. The Department of General Services is authorized by the Administrative Code (71 P.S. sec 1571) to acquire property to add to existing public lands or parks, or for sites on which to construct arsenals, hospitals, prisons or other institutions. The General 4-16 State Authority Act (71 P.S. sec 1707.1) authorizes acquisitions of property interests for the construction, improvement, maintenance and operation of sewage treatment facilities, public buildings and state institutions. The Department of Agriculture is authorized under the Open Spaces Lands Act (32 P.S. sec 5001) to acquire property for the protection and conservation of farmland and other open space uses. The Department of Community Affairs may make acquisitions under the State Planning Code (71 P.S. sec 1049'.l)*of property which is needed to carry out its duties. Although not, strictly speaking, a power of acquisition, the authority granted to counties by the Clean and Green Act (16 P.S. sec 11941) can serve the same purpose. Counties are authorized to covenant with owners of farm, forests, water supply and open space land that the land will remain in such open space uses for a period of five and sometimes ten years in return for lower tax assessments during that period. municipalities have the power to acquire lands for municipal open space use under the various municipal codes and the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. Pennsylvania's power to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in order to achieve conformance with the management program is sufficient to meet the requirements of sec 306 (d)(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act if the property falls within or can be tied to one of the enumerated categories. Under existing authority, however, there are no means of assuring that the various agencies exercise their discretionary powers'of acquisition consistently with the program. This deficiency can be cured by a legislative delegation of acquisition powers to the coastal zone management agencies, or a mandate that existing agencies with such authority exercise it in cooperation with the manag6ment effort within the limits of their fiscal resources. If property is beyond the scope of such authority and its acquisition is necessary to ensure compliance with the management program, the Commonwealth's power would be insufficient to meet the requirement. C. Uses of Regional Benefit: section 306 (e)(2) Pennsylvania's authority to prevent local governments from imposing exclusions or unreasonable restrictions upon land and water uses of regional benefit is extremely limited. The Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. sec 10101) gives municipalities (except first class cities) virtually un-restricted authority to develop comprehensive plans, adopt zoning ordinances and make all other land use decisions within their respective geographic areas. The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter (351 Pa. Code sec 4.4-600) gives similar authority to Philadelphia. Zoning ordinances are presumed to be valid, but this presumption may be overcome by showing a total exclusion of an otherwise legitimate use, one which is not so particularly objectionable that its 4-17 exclusion appears on its face to be designed to protect the public interest. General Battery Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Alsace Township, 371 A. 2d-1030 (Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1977). It is possible, however, for a municipality to establish the validity of a total exclusion by showing a substantial relationship between the ban and the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community. So long as such an exclusion is not capricious, and is imposed under standards and criteria requiring reasonable considerations of suitability of an area for a particular use, it would be in accord with regulations under the Coastal Zone Management Act (15 C.F.R. sec 923.17). The Commonwealth may challenge local zoning decisions in certain circumstances. If the Commonwealth has an interest in land which is affected by a zoning decision, it may appeal to. the zoning hearing board of the municipality in which the land is located (53 P.S. sec 10914). Similarly, if the Commonwealth owns or leases property in the immediate area of the land affected, it has standing as a "person aggrieved". Intervention in an existing zoning appeal before the courts is allowed to any owner or tenant 'of property ''directly involved in the action appealed from (53 P.S. sec 11009). Intervention by the Commonwealth in pending litigation is also permitted under Rule 2327 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure where the public interest is affected. The power of intervention is limited in several respects. First, the opportunity to appear is no guanante6 that decision will be rendered -C r C 4 S 4-or 112-ci-mmonwealth. L. a d-nc-,s--cn ,ot appealand 1--y princ4@@a'l party affected, there is no action in which to intervene. Finally, intervention by the Attorney General is purely,discretionary. I Thus, the power of the Commonwealth to prevent exclusion or unreasonable restriction of uses of regional benefit is inadequate to meet the requirements of sec 306 (e) (2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act. There is presently no authority to administratively override local land use decisions, and the mechanisms of direct appeal or intervention provide only limited means to influence land uses of greater than local benefit. V. LOCAL CONTROLS The strongest tools available at the local level to implement concepts of Coastal Management are comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. The following section outlines the current status of local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances in each study area. It is anticipated that once a Coastal Zone Management Program is implemented in Pennsylvania, local communities will utilize federaland state funds to examine their plans and ordinances and, 4-18 Figure iv-1 SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS AND ADEQUACY OF AUTHORlTY GENERAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS* PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES 1. LAND AND WATER USE, RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT A. Land and Water Use Sludge and dredge spoil disposal Sewage Facilities Act 35 P.S. sec 7 Hazardous facilities and activities Solid Waste Management Act 35 P.S. sec 6 Oil and gas pipelines Clean Streams Law 35 P.S. sec 6 Department of Labor 35 P.S. see I and Industry 1221 Interstate Commerce 49U.S.C.A. se Act Natural Gas Act 15 U.S.C.A. s Public Utility Law 66 P.S. sec I Suburban sprawl and strip development(E) Construction of large industrial facilities(E) Concentrated commercial and industrial Municipalities Planning activities(D) Code 53 P.S. sec I Shorefront siting of non-dependent Philadelphia Home Rule 351- Pa. Code uses(D) Charter see 4.4- B. Air and Water Quality Substandard watercourses and ground Air Pollution Control 35 P.S. see 4 and Supply water recharge Act Competition for ground and surface Interstate Air Pollution water Agreements 35 P.S. sec 4 Degraded air quality(D) Capital stock tax Incentive 72 P.S. see 7 Thermal pollution, diminished dissolved Clear Air Act 42 U.S.C.A.se oxygen, toxic wastes and low fLow(D) Clean Streams Law 35 P.S. see 6 Public Utility Law 66 P.S. see I Site Development Act 73 P.S. sec 3 Public Water Supply Law 35 P.S.sec 7 Water allocations 32 P.S. see 6 DER water supply reg. 71, P.S. sec 5 Delaware River Basin Compact 32 P.S. ser 8 Federal Water Pollution Control Act 33 U.S.C.A.se C. Historical and Archeological Resources not widely recognized Historic Districts Act 53 P.S. sec 8 Resources Alteration and destruction Historic & Museum Comm. 71 P.S. see Open Spaces Lands Act 72 P.S. see 3 Pa. Constitution, Article 1, see 27 Executive Order 1975-6 (E): especially in Erie Coastal. Zone (D): especially in Delaware Coastal Zone GENERAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS* PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES ADEQUACY D. Significant Natural. Areas: Unique and fragile features easily Environmental Master Innadequate Regulation destroyed Plan 71 P.S. see 510-20(a) Dept. of Community Affairs 71 P.S. sec 670-101 Tinicum Marsh (D) and Presque Isle(E) Dept. of Environmental Resource's 71 P.S. sec 510-6 Municipalities Planning Code Limited 53 P.S. see 10601 Dept. of Community Affairs 71 P.S. see 670-101 E. Hazardous Areas Damage to existing structures Natural Watercourse 1. Flood Plains Prevention of future flooding potential improvements 53 P.S. sec 2801 2861, 16 P.S. sec 1947, 5147 DER flood control. Improvements 32 P.S. sec 653 Delaware River Basin Compact 32 P.S. see 815.101 National Flood Insurance Act 42 U.S.C.A. sec 4001 Army Corps of Engineers 32 U.S.C.A. sec 701 2. Steep Slopes and Bluffs Soil erosion and excessive property Erosion Control Regulations Inadequate damage from improper development (E) 25 Pa. code sec 102.1 Municipalities Planning code 53 P.S. sec 10101 3. Erosion and Recession Accelerated erosion and major property Erosion Control Regulations Limited damage 25 Pa. Code sec 102.1 Water Obstructions Act 32 P.S. sec 681 Municipalities Planning Code 53 P.S. sec 10101 Clean Streams Law 35 P.S. sec 691.1 DER research and monitoring 71 P.S. see 510-9 Schuylkill River pollution/siltation 32 P.S. sec 751.1 Great Lakes Basin Compact 32 P. S. sec 817.1 Nat'l. Flood insurance Act 42 U.S.C.A. sec 4001 4. Unsuitable soils for Pollution of ground water and public Sewage Facilities Act Adequate sewage disposal. health hazards 35 P.S. see 750.1 Clean Streams Law 35 P.S. see 691.1 Federal Water Pollution Control Act 33 U.S.C.A. sec 1288 GENERAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS* PRINICPAL AUTHORITIES ADEQUACY F. Natural Resources Pollution and commercial overfishing(E) Clean Streams Law 35 P.S. see 691.1 Adequate Pennsylvania Fish Commission 1. Commercial Fishing 71 P.S. sec 691 Fish Law of 1959 30 P.S. see 1 2. Mineral Extraction Sand and gravel mining (E) Surface Mining Conservation and Adequate Reclamation Act 52 P.S. sec 1396.1 Water Obstructions Act 32 P.S. see 681 DER Mining Regulation 7.1 P.S. see 510-15 DER Sale or lease of minerals 71 P.S. see 510-8 Clean Streams Law 35 P.S. sec. 691.1 3. Gas and Oil Drilling Possible adverse impace on shore(E) Oil and Gas Conservation Law Adequate 58 P.S. sec 401 Gas Operations Well-Drilling, Petroleum and Coal Mining Act 52 P.S. see 2101 4. Farmlands Irreversible conversion to Clean and Green Act 16 P.S. sec 11941 Inadequate Intensive use Municipalities Planning Code 53 P.S. sec 10101 Phila. Home Rule Charter 351 Pa. Code 4.4-600 G. Recreation Maintenance and equipment deficiencies State Outdoor Recreation Plan Adequate inadequate water-dependent facilities 71. P.S. sec 510-1 Underutilization of the coastal zone Penna. Fish Commission 71 P.S. see 691 Acquisition lags behind demand Open Spaces Lauds Ace 32 P.S. sec 5001 Limited Access for urban residences(D) Municipal Codes 53 P.S. sec 1 Department of Community Affairs 71 P.S. see 670-101 Public Utility Law 66 P.S. sec 1101 H. Esthetics Unattractive waterfront development Pa. Constitution, Article 1, see 27 Inadequate Executive Order 1973-9 Municipalities Planning Code 53 P.S.,sec 10101 GENERAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEM* PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES ADEQUACY II. ECONOMIC HEALTH AND REVITALIZATION Loss of Industrial jobs (D) Dept. of Commerce 71 P.S. see 669 Adequate Adandoned or non-dependent uses(D) Dept. of Community Affairs Rail freight decline; 71 P.S. sec 670-101 facilities (D) Industrial and Commercial Development Unimproved land access to port(E) Authority Law 73 P.S, so- 371 Decline In shipping(E) Idustrial Development Assistance Law 73 P.S. sec 351 Industrial Development Authority Act 73 P.s. see 301 Redevelopment Area Economic Cooperation and Implementation Act 73 P.S. sec 331 Site Development Act 73 P.S. sec 301 DER Port improvements 71. P.S. sec 510-1 Navigation Comm. for Delaware River 55 P.S. sec 6,341 Phila. Dept. of Commerce 351. Pa. Code sec 4.4-500b Delaware River Port Authority Agreement 36 P.S. sec 2502 Third Class City Port Authority 55 P.S. sec 571 Dept. of Transportation 71 P.S. sec 512 Public Utility Law 66 P.S. sec 1101 III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND Coastal improvements not generally Dept. of Environmental Resources Adequate EDUCATION known 71 P.S. sec 510-1 Environmental potential Unrecog- Dept. of Community Affairs nized (D) 71. P.S. see 670-101 Environmental protection viewed as incompatible w1th economic growth IV. GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND Overtoning for Industrial use(D) A-95 Clearinghouse 41 Fed. Reg. 2052 Inadequate RESPONSIBILITY Incompatible land use developments(D) Municipalities Planning Code Variances and zoning changes(E) 53 P.S. sec 10101 A. Administration Control Zoning Hearing Board 53 P.S. sec 10901 and Conflict Resolution: Local Agency Law 53 P.S. sec 11301 sec 306 (d)(E) Administrative Agency Law 73 P.S. sec 1710.1 Environmental. Hearing Board 71 P.S. sec 510-21 Environmental Advisory Councils 53 P.S. sec 11501 Joint Agreements 53 P.S. sec 481 Regional Planning Law 53 P.S. sec 491 am as GENERAL PROBLFMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLMS* PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES ADEQUACY B, Acquisition: see 306(d)(2) i,imited Statutory Authorization DERParks,forests and ports Adequate Large scale acquisitions in fee 71 P.S. see 51.0-1 are prohibitively costly (D) Eminent Domain 32 P.S. see 31 Consistency with CZM Program not Purchase of land sold for taxes assurred 32 P.S. see 161 Exchange of Forest Land 32 P.S. see 131 Scenic Rivers Act 32 P.S. see 821.1. Open Spaces lainds Act 32 P.S. see 5001 Prevention and Control, of Floods Act 32 P.S. see 653 Schuylkill River Pollution Act 32 P.S. see 751.1 Pennsylvania Came Comm. 71 P.S. see 671 Came Law 34 P.S. see 1311.1 Pennsylvania Fish Comm. 71 P.S. see 691 Fish Law of 1.959 30 P.S. see 1 Dept. of Ceti. Services 71 P.S. see 1571 Gen. State Authority Act 71 P.S. see 1707.1 State Planning Code 71. P.S. see 1049.1 Clean and Green Act 16 P.S. see lJ91#1 C. Uses of Regional Benefit No administrattve override of titan I cipall ties Planning Code Inadequate see 306(e)(2) municipal land use decisions 51 P.S. see 10101, by Commonwealth 1.4751 Overlapping anti competing regulation Phila. Home Rule Charter 351 Pa. Code 4.4-600 Zoning Hearing Board Appeals 53 P.S. see 10914, 11009 Intervention by the Commonwealth Rute 2327, Pa. Rules of Civil. Procedure where necessary, update them to incorporate coastal goals, objectives and values. DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE Compre hensive Plans - Pennsylvania's coastal municipalities (except Philadelphia) are empowered by the Pa. Municipalities Planning Code to create planning agencies and to prepare comprehensive plans to guide future development. While the establishment of a planning agency and the development of a plan are not mandatory, the process can be used to produce a comprehensive plan which includes the following basic elements: (1) A statement of objectives of the municipality concerning its future development; (2) A plan for land use, which may include the amount, intensity, and character of land use proposed for residencef industry, business, agriculture, major traffic and transit facilities, public grounds, flood. plains and other areas of special hazards and other similar uses; (3) A plan for movement of people and goods, which may include expressways, local street svstems, parkinq facilities, mass transit routes, terminals, airfields, port facilities, railroad facilities and other similar facilities or uses; (4) A plan for community facilities and utilities, which may include public and private education, recreation, municipal buildings, libraries, water supply, sewage disposal, refuse disposal, storm drainage, hospitals, and other similar uses; and (5) A map or statement indicating the relationship of the municipality and its proposed development to adjacent municipalities and areas.' In Delaware County only half of the municipalities in the Preliminary Study Area have prepared comprehensive plans. Although some communities are in the process of preparing and adopting plans, at the time of this study Eddystone, Folcroft, Norwood, Marcus Hook, Trainer and Ridley Park Borough, and Lower Chichester Township did not have comprehensive plans. Philadelphia has a plan, as do five out of the six coastal communities in Bucks County. The difference in the rate of plan preparation between Bucks and Delaware Counties reflects the fact that the municipalities in Delaware County are already extensively developed ( and have been for a long time). For additional information refer to Chapter 1. Patterns of land use are less likely to change in these smaller boroughs than in the townships of Bucks County, where large undeveloped tracts of land still exist 4-19 making the need for a comprehensive plan more obvious. of the thirteen plans completed by communities in the Preliminary Study Area, six were prepared before 1969, while four have been prepared since 1975. Some of the earliest plans were prepared by communities in order to qualify for federal funds to be used for urban renewal, open space, historic preservation, water supply and sewage treatment. (Figures iv-2, 3, 4 are composite maps of locally prepared comprehensive plans. The date that each plan was prepared is indicated in the source information). A review of the composite maps of local plans indicates that some municipalities have proposed extensive open space greenways along stream corridors and the Delaware River. Bensalem, Bristol, Chester and Upper Chichester townships are four examples that are easily identified on the maps. Falls Township has_ planned open space buffers around the man-made "Warner Lakes", while Ridley Township has planned the narrow riverfront and the Delaware River itself for open space/recreation. Much of the riverfront in Chester City and Philadelphia is-"planned for industrial and utility use, while Bensalem, Bristol, and Falls Townships have large industrial areas planned just back from the Delaware. (See figures iv-2, 3, 4 The.plan for Tinicum Township is unusual in its use of large, generalized areas, but it is the only plan in the Preliminary Study Area that has a special category describing waterfront industry. The plans developed for communities such as Chester City, Prospect Park, Darby Township, Philadelphia, Eristol Ecrough and Morrisville were developed after most development had already occurred and therefore, these plans reflect existing land use patterns displayed in Chapter 1. The most significant difference between the existing land use maps (figures (i-5, 6, 7) and the comprehensive plans is that areas in the plans appear more homogenous. The land use plans suggest the replacement of "strip commercial" areas by clustered shopping areas. (The long red strips on the land use maps of Chapter 1 are replaced by larger red areas on the plans). The plans for Chester City and Philadelphia demonstrate this philosophy especially well. (See fig. iv-2, 3). Most of the natural resource areas identified in Chapter 1 seem to be reflected in the local plans which have been prepared. Little Tinicum. Island, portions of Tinicum Marsh, the mouth and stream valley of the Pennypack Creek, the Poquessing and the Neshaminy Creeks and fringe areas around Biles Island and Money Island are planned for future open space and recreation. The Tinicum Township plan proposes development for some areas of Tinicum Marsh, while Folcroft and Norwood Boroughs have not yet prepared plans that indicate the future use of the marsh. Many of these natural resource areas are not presently protected by appropriate zoning ordinances and inconsistencies of this type will be described below. Zoning - The Penna. Municipalities Planning Code and the Philadelphia Rome Rule Charter allow local governments to enact, amend and repeal zoning ordinances. Zoning ordinances typically are designed to promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the 4-20 8.0.U. ACRE N 8 D.U. ACRE 1 INCH= I MILE 1 1.5 1 '72 10 1 @:@. 5 2 10 3 1 INCH=1.6 KILOMETERS. SO. MILE SO. KM LOCAL LAND USE PLAN KEY MAP BUcks Co. Ey MAP@ BUCkS Co ,@"e gj'JE. Phila co. DELAWARE. COUNTY STUDY-AREA Delaware Co DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE," LEGEN-D LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LOT SIZE GREATER THAN 30,000 SQ. FT.) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ( LOT SIZE 5500-30,000 SQ. FT. OR LESS THAN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ( LOT SIZE LESS THAN 5500 SQ. FT. OR MORE THL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES OPEN SPACE SOURCES:LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS: UPPER CHICHESTER TWP. 1966 CHESTER TWP. 1972 ID CHESTER CITY 1972 RIDLEY TWP. 1975 PROSPECT PARK BORO. 1967 TINICUNI TWP. 1968 DARBY TWP. 1975 A I. A Figure iv-3 Local Land Use Plan - Philadelphia County 1 1" = 1 mile I I I .,: I I I A I I I a I I I I a I I Figure iv-4 I Local Land Use Plan Bucks County 1" = I mile I I . .. . . I I I -1 i r I I .-1 I I S I I I community. To accomplish these ends zoning ordinances are designed to regulate, prohibit and restrict: (1) Uses of land, watercourses and other bodies of water; (2) Size, height, bulk, location, erectione construction, repair, maintenance, alteration, razing, removal and use of structures; (3) Areas and dimensions of land and bodies of water to be occupied by uses and structures, as well as areas, courts, yards, and other open spaces and distances to be left unoccupied by uses and structures; (4) Density of population and intensity of.use.2 While zoning is not mandatory, it has been utilized by local governments to regulate development for a longer period of time than comprehensive plans. Zoning has been popular since the early, 19301s and Chester City and Norwood Borough have had ordinances since 1927. only one community in the Preliminary Study Area, Marcus Hook, has not adopted a zoning ordinance. Therefore, in accordance with the Municipalities Planning code, Delaware County has zoning authority in Marcus Hook Borough. There is a wide range of sophistication and complexity among the twenty zoning ordinances in the Preliminary Coastal Study Area. The simplest ordinances are found in some of the small borou-hs of Delaware County, such as Trainer, Prospect Park 'and Norwood. Norwoodes zoning ordinance has only two categories of residential use and one commerical category. Prospect Park And Trainer have two residential classifications and one industrial district. In contrast, the zoning ordinance for the City of Philadelphia is a book of 328 pages including more than twenty-five residential districts, ten commercial districts, eight industrial districts as well as special districts regulating recreation, trailer camps, sports stadiums, and institutions. Philadelphia is the only municipality in the Study Area to enact a special "Port Industrial,, district regulating "the erection, construction alteration and use of docks, wharves, piers, transit sheds and related facilities." The average zoning ordinance in the Preliminary Study Area contains three or four residential categories, two or three commercial classes and two or three industrial districts. Some of the ordinances have been updated to include performance standards for industrial uses which regulate permissible levels of odor, noise, particulates, and smoke emissions. Such standards are included in industrial ordinances for Tinicum@and Bristol Townships and Morrisville, Tullytown, and Bristol Boroughs. Interestingly, the industrial districts in some municipalities are not designed to segregate residential from industrial uses. While industrial uses are usually not allowed in residential districts, residential uses are allowed in industrial districts.- This situation 4-21 results in a zoning ordinance described cis "pyramidal" because districts toward the bottom of the pyramid, permit every use mentioned above. "PYRAMID" ZONING ORDINANCE Residential - Ofily Commercial (and anything above) "Light" Industrial (and anything above) "Heavy" Industrial (and anything above) Zoning ordinances of this type were quite popular in the 1930's and 1940's but are now considered to be potentially troublesome since they may encourage or allow incompatible uses to locate in close proximity to each other. .1: 1 Chester City, Ridley, Bensalem and Falls Townships, and Folcroft and Ridley Park Boroughs have ordinances of this type. In spite of the widespread flooding which has occurred in recent years and the incentives of the National Flood Insurance. Program sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), few municipalities in the study area had adopted floodplain zoning ordinances by 'Che iz-@nkal of- 1376. -Ln Delaware ki--ounty only communities of the fourteen in the study area had enacted ordinances regulating development in flood prone areas. Tn Bucks County three of the six communities have adopted 'floodplain districts. Philadelphia requires setbacks from streams and swales in the Wissahickon Watershed, which, while not a true floodplain ordinance does serve to keep floodplains open and structures safe from damage. For other areas the City has not yet adopted floodplain controls. In time it is anticipated that all communities in the Coastal Zone study area will adopt a set of development control strong enough to satisfy HUD requirements, in order to allow residents to qualify for federally subsidized flood insurance. Figures iv-5, 6, 7, are generalized zoning maps of the Preliminary Study Area. The categories have been standardized for the purposes of comparison with one another, and therefore may not correspond exactly to municipal definitions. For example, low density in a borough (20,000 square foot lots) may very well correspond to medium density in a township. Districts have been coded by lot size requirements and not titles for the sake of ready comparison. An examination of figure iv-5, indicates that most of the Preliminary Study Area in Delaware County, including the entire riverfront, is zoned industrial. Marcus Hook is not zoned. The intentions of the local comprehensive plans to eliminate "strip commercial" are not supported by the adopted zoning ordinances, which still indicate linear strips of commercial uses along major highways.- Tinicum, Marsh ,,,@Res id( Cc ZL-9 9 and Little Tinicum Island are zoned industrial, as is Philadelphia International Airport. n Philadelphia (fig. iv-6) the predominant category is also industrial. The entire riverfront is zoned industrial except for a viery small residential area north of the Torresdale Water Treatment Facility. The zoning ordinance supports the comprehensive plan and discourages strip commercial areas in favor of larger blocks of commercial uses. compare figure i-7, Existing Land Use, Philadelphia with figure iv-3, Comprehensive Plan and iv-6 Generalized Zoning). Bucks County (figure iv-7) is quite different from Philadelphia and Delaware Counties. while much of the riverfront in the Preliminary Study Area is zoned industrial, vast interior areas are zoned for medium density residential uses. Several areas zoned for'low density residential use are indicated in Bensalem Township and in Bristol Township. commercial zoning is largely confined to existing commercial areas along Route 13 in Bristol Township with'smaller areas in other communities. The most striking contrast which is apparent when viewing all three zoning maps is that the open space and recreation areas indicated on the comprehensive plans are not visible on the zoning maps. municipalities which have expressed a desire through the comprehensive plans to preserve stream corridors have not yet enacted floodplain zoning. In addition, very few communities have used open space or institution districts for publicly owned and institutional lands. This technique provides additional protection for these areas and should be encouraged. Philadelphia has 'used the open space category for Roosevelt Park, Liberty Bell Race Track and some smaller city parks, but has not zoned the Tinicum Environmental Center, the mouth of the Pennypack Creek, or the institutions in the vicinity of Holmesburg on the State Hospital ground for open space or institutional use. The zoning categories currently in effect in these areas do not appear to support the ideas of the comprehensive plan. Similarly in Bucks County, the stream valley of the Neshaminy is zoned residential instead of floodplain, and the existing parks in Bristol are not indicated on the zoning maps, but are zoned residential and commercial. Neshaminy State Park is zoned for low density residential use and none of the municipal ordinances reflect the concept of the open space buffer along the Delaware expressed in the local comprehensive plans. Finally, one of the most striking differences is that the buffer strips around the Warner Lakes indicated in the comprehensive plan for Falls Township are absent from the zoning map. 0 4-23 -4 D.U. / ACRE 9 D.U. ACRE L4 3 3 Or 1 INCH= 1 MILE 10 5 2 3 1 INCH=1.6 KILOMETERS. SO. MILE SO, KM- KEY MAP -GENERALIZED ZONING BuCks Co EY @IAP B@Cks Co VA@"e Phila ,.w.re Co @tOeelaware Co. DELAWARE COUNTY STUDY AREA. DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE LEGEND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ( LOT SIZE GREATER THAN 30,000 SQ. FT. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ( LOT SIZE 4500-30,000 SO. FT. OR LESS THAN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE LESS THAN 4500 SO. FT. OR MORE THA@ COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL OPEN SPACE SOURCES. LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCES AND MAPS LOWER CHICHESTER TWP. 1968 RIDLEY TWP. 1970 6* UPPER CHICHESTER TWP. 1973 R:OLEY PARK BORO, 1970 TRAINER SORO. 1962 T NICUM TWP 1970 -MARCUS HOOK BORO. I NOT ZONED I PROSPECT PARK BORO 1970 CHESTER TWP. 1951 NORWOOD 8080. 1927 CHESTER CITY 1971 FOLCROFT BORO 1969 EDDYSTONE BORO. 1908 DARBY TWP. 1967 (o 13 (0 Lt 5 3 4. L+ 3 4r 4. Lk- a I. I Figure iv-6 I Generalized Zoning Philadelphia County 1" = 1 mile I I 1 .1! I I I r I I I I I I I I s I I Figure iv-7 I Generalized Zoning Bucks County 1" = 1 mile I I . . I .I: I I I I I I I I I I I I I LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE' Comprehensive Plans - Eight of the ten Erie County municipalities that extend into the final coastal zone boundary have adopted prehensive plans. A ninth municipality, Springfield Township, has recently completed a comprehensive plan and it is scheduled for com adoption before the end of 1977. Girard Township is the only municipality that has not yet initiated comprehensive planning, however, local officials will shortly begin initial steps toward a comprehensive plan. All existing comprehensive plans were adopted between 1961 and 1972. A review of the composite maps of local plans indicates that Fairview and Harborcreek Townships and Lake City Borough have proposed extensive open space greenways along stream corridors. Harborcreek Township has proposed an agricultural district along its border with North East Township. A large agricultural district is proposed in the North East Borough-Township Plan which is basically-located between Routes 5 and 20. Three areas within the final coastal zone boundary are proposed for industrial development. one is located in the port and waterfront area of the City of Erie. A second area is immediately south of the Village of Harborcreek in Harborcreek Township. The third industrial district is located in North East Borough -along the ConRail 4gl-. _0f_,,qay and eftendn for ahout cne mile into @-Tcrth East Tc-.,rsh-- on both the east and west sides of the Borough. Lands proposed for commercial development arer nearly always areas which have already been developed for commercial uses. Within the final coastal zone boundary most municipalities call for clustered commercial development when in actuality strip zoning predominates, particularly in Millcreek and Harborcreek Townships. Resort commercial areas have been proposed in Lake City Borough and Harborcreek Township. The City of Erie has only one commercial district proposed in its official plan which is located on State Street north of where it intersects 2nd Street. Comprehensive planning can serve as a means for proposing logical growth patterns in those undeveloped and developing areas of the coastal zone. Many of the plans are either outdated or are not technical enough to be reliable guides for establishing sensible zoning practices. Natural resource areas and prime and unique agricultural soils are not protected from urban-related development. Spot zoning is another problem which could be alleviated if comprehensive plans were better utilized. Zoning - All of the communities located in the Erie County coastal zone have adopted a zoning ordinance. Half have been adopted since 1974 and the oldest was adopted in 1965. Zoning restrictions upon developments occurring in natural areas are evident in Springfield, Fairview, Lawrence Park and Harborcreek Townships. only in 4-24 I I Figure iv-8 I Local Land Use Plan-Western Study Area 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I Figure iv-9 I Local Land Use Plan-Central Study Area 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I C I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure iv-10 I Local Land Use Plan-Eastern Study Area 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I r I I I I I I I I I I Springfield and Harborcreek do these regulations effect a very significant part of the natural areas which exist. All restrictions on natural areas that do occur are located in flood,plains and stream valleys. In no community are lake -bluffs restricted from development.. Agricultural districts are located in Girard, Harborcreek and North East Townships, however, no zoning ordinance accurately reflects those areas where undeveloped prime and unique agricultural soils exist. Many of these soils have already been zoned for residential purposes including some farmlands that are currently agriculturally productive and which will not be in the path of substantial urban-related development for many years. Zoning as a local control often does not follow the proposals which were established in municipal comprehensive plans. Strip and spot commercial zoning often occur in the more rapidly developing municipalities. The granting of variances by zoning hearing boards are a common occurrence. only when unnecessary hardships are inflicted by the provisions of the zoning ordinance are variances to be approved. It is commonly misconstrued for unnecessary hardships to be those which are financially related. Zoning is still the single most commonly used legal device available for implementing the land-use plan in a community. ordinarily in the past, zoning has only been indirectly concerned with achieving environmental goals. while environmental protection standards can be I -=r-n 1 1 17 V@Ui 1 4- Jnto local --onincr ordinances, such practices ha,,7e not V___ - --- -_ - been aavanced locally. subdivision ordinances - Subdivision regulations are locally-adopted laws governing the process of converting raw land into building sites. This is normally accomplished through plat approval procedures, under which a developed is not permitted to make improvements or to divide and sell his land until the governing body and local planning commission has approved a plat (map) of the proposed design of the subdivision. The approval or disapproval of the governing body and planning ccmmission is based upon compliance or non-compliance of the proposal with development standards set forth in the subdivision regulations. In the event that the developer attempts to record an unapproved plat in the county Recorder of Deeds office or to sell lots by reference to an unapproved plat, he would be subject to various civil and criminal penalties. Seven of the Erie County coastal. zone's ten municipalities have adopted subdivision regulations. Lake City Borough's was adopted in 1956. The remaining six municipalities which have adopted subdivision regulations have enacted them within the past six years. A seventh coastal zone community, Springfield Township, will be adopting subdivision regulations this year. Another coastal community, Girard Township, has indicated that they are interested in adopting such regulations in the near future. Lawrence Park Township is the only coastal community htat has not adopted subdivision 4-25 I I I Figure iv-12 I Generalized Zoning-Western Study Area 1" = 1 mile I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I Figure iv-12 I Generalized Zoning7Central Study Area 1" = 1 mile I I I .,: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure iv-13 I Generalized Zoning-Eastern Study Area 1" = 1 mile I I I I I .1 I r I I I I I I I I I regulations and is not likely to do so in the future as the Township is nearly fully developed and has determined that subdivision regulations would not be necessary. The Erie County Land Subdivision Regulations, amended in 1972, which are administered by the Erie County Metropolitan Planning Commission carry a review and recommendation role for all communities having already adopted local subdivision ordinances, and carry full decision making power in those instances when a local government has not adopted. Act 537 - Act 537, the Sewage Facilities Act, unlike comprehensive planning, zoning, and subdivision regulations, is not a regulatory control available for use by municipal level governments but rather is a state regulation which acts to restrict local governments and individuals alike. The purpose and scope of this state act is to provide for the planning and regulation of community and individual sewage disposal syl systems; to require municipalities to submit plans for sewage systems in their jurisdiction; to authorize grants to municipalities; to require permits for persons installing such systems; to authorize the Department of Health to adopt rules, regulations, sta standards and procedures; to create an 'advisory committee; and to provide remedies and prescribe penalties. Summary - Comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations are documents that can be utilized by local level governments to establish a policy guide as well as a legal process to decisions about the physical development of a community. They indicate how a community will develop over the next 10 to 20 years. -t is unfortunat-ely evident --ta-t- -!----al co-Immunit-i-e-s I.-lave not always utilized these documents as practical methods for land management of sensitive environmental areas. Thus, the Coastal Zone Management Program holds the potential to control development and resolve conflicts among competing land uses in coastal communities. The objective of*the Coastal Zone Management program is to motivate communities to utilize existing controls to accomplish practical goals for management of coastal lands. Alternatives are available for the state to adopt other methods of control as they have with State Act 537. It is apparent that if the goals of the Coastal Zone Management program are to be realized then enactment of additional controls will be required, if not at the local level, then through state controlled techniques. CONCLUSION Pennsylvania's existing authority for implementation of a Coastal Zone Management Program is adequate in a number of areas. Sludge and dredge spoil disposal, as well as sewage treatment operations, are subject to direct control. Air and water quality and supply are protected by an extensive regulatory programs and planning processes. Extraction of minerals and related activities are also controlled by a comprehensive regulatory program. The conservation of natural 4-26 resources used for commercial fishing and recreation can be assured by present administrative authority. Various agencies have a broad range of powers to acquire land when necessary to achieve conformity with coastal zone management policies. Economic incentives for continued health or revitalization of commerce and industry are provided in existing legislation. Through the establishment of a public information network, Pennsylvania can assure the citizen@education and involvement which is essential to the success of coastal management efforts. Pennsylvania's existing legal and institutional arrangements, however, are generally insufficient for the proper implementation of a Coastal Zone Management Program. Under the provisions of the Municipalities Planning Code, local governments have largely unrestricted authority to make land use decisions, And the State government is unable to exercise the regulatory powers-required by section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Although the Commonwealth has adequate acquisitionary powers to help achieve conformance with a management program, it lacks adequate power to "administer land and water use regulations, control development in order to ensure compliance with the management program, and to resolve conflicts among competing uses." Neither is there presently sufficient power to override local regulations which "unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit." Legislative adoption of one or more techniques of control presented in Chapter 10 of this document will be necessary to give Pennsylvania the management capab-ii-ity required by the Coastal Zone Management Act. 4-27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sm- I COASTAL ZONE I POLICY FRAM EWORK "., 0 I COAS7AL ZONE POLICY FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION Chapters 1 through 4 have provided extensive background information on environ- mental, social and economic characteristics, past and present problems, future expectations, existing legal and institutional arrangements in Pennsylvania's two coastal areas, the Delaware Estuary and Lake Erie. This background informa- tion has been incorporated into the Policy Framework which forms the keystone of the Coastal Zone Management Program. The Policy Framework provides a convenient summary of important issues identified in the four introductory Chapters and identifies goals, objectives, and policies that have been developed in response to coastal problem , The Policy Framework also establishes a context for the final five Chapters 6 through 10, which de- scribe the detailed elements of the Coastal Zone Management Program. These detail- ed elements outline techniques to implement the goals, objectives and policies in order to reduce or eliminate identified problems. The first step in developing the Policy Framework was the identification of coastal problems and issues. General problems common to both coastal areas and specific local problems were compiled from many sources including local governments, water- front industries, county planning commissions, interested citizens and members of the Coastal Zone Steering Committees. (For additional background see Chapter 2, Problems and Issues.) The goals and objectives included.in the Policy Framework were formulated directly rom the problem statements. Goals are general statements of purpose that will guide the overall Management Program. These goals describe desirable end results f or targets, but they only provide minimal guidance in achieving these ends. Objectives are more specific statements which can be used to measure progress towards accomplishing goals. Each goal is likely to have several specific objec- tives which help to further identify or define the target. Policies are developed as courses of action which the Coastal Zone Program will utilize in achieving the goals and objectives. Policies are the most specific recommendations in the Policy Framework. The PolicyFramework on the following pages divides coastal zone problems, goals, objectives and policies into four separate categories representing the major concerns expressed during the preparation of the Draft Technical Record. The largest-area of concern, "Land Use, Resources and Envi ronment" is subdivided into ten general areas which are specifically related to local problems in each Coastal Zone. The other three areas of concern, Economic Health and Revitaliza- tion, Public Involvement and Education, and Governmental Regulation and Respon- sibility, follow the same format, outlining general problems, local problems, goals, objectives and policies. The number of problems within a category or the 5 order of category or problem in the Policy Framework does not necessarily reflect relative importance. The Policy Framework should provide a quick reference guide to the overall Coastal Zone Management Program, and was extensively reviewed prior to the appearance of this document. LAND USE, RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT GENERAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS GOALS SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES POLICIES 1. LAND USE There are no comprehensive Land uses that are not dependent Establish comprehensive land and Provide Information on impacts associa- Provide Coastal Zone Management funds and/or pro- guidelines for land and other on riverfront or other shoreline water use plans which provide for ted with land use patterns and suggest fessional services to coastal municipalities to resource management In the locations are consuming valuable both the protection and develoment ameliorative measures to reduce adverse improve and strengthen regulatory tools. Coastal Zone. Consequently, coastal locations. of the coastal zone. impacts. development is Incremental and Have local governments review, and revise where uses which should be protected Dredge disposal activities have Improve the environmental and ass- a. Implement a system of permissible necessary, their plans and ordinances for compat- or restored are often destroyed caused adverse environmental thetic quality of the coastal zone and priority uses to maximize the ibility with Coastal Zone Management goals, ob- or damaged. effects. Areas suitable for dis- for the future benefit and enjoy- efficient utilization or coastal jectives and guidelines: subject to approval. posal of dredge spoil are ex- ment of all citizens. land and water resources. tremely limited and may tempo- rarily exclude other coastal b. Establish development priorities Adopt, special criteria for grading permits for activities. for areas to be serviced by public sludge and dredge spoil disposal, including an en- facilities. vironmental assessment of the disposal. Higher levels of sewage treat- ment produce greatly Increased c. Encourage multiple use of coastal Coordinate the CZM Programs with all ongoing re- amounts of sewage sludge. Dis- lands. source planning program. (e.g., COWAMP, 206 plan- posal of sludge In the coastal ning, air basin planning, State land use Policy zone. requires land and facili- Identify suitable sites for sludge and Program, etc.) ties. dredge spoil disposal, and indicate sites where disposal is not appropriate. Set criteria and standards for priority and per- The concentration of large in- missible uses to guide future development in dustrial and commercial activi- coastal areas. ties along the Delaware and Discourage suburban sprawl and strip Schuylkill River increases the development trends in favor of more con- Develop guidelines for the location and operation likelihood of accidents, fires, centrated development patterns which or potentially hazardous facilities and activities. explosions, ship collisions, take advantage of existing Infrastruc- spills And other disasters. (D) ture. (E) Suburban sprawl and strip devel- Minimize the occurrence and effects of opment along transportation cor- industrial spills, leaks, fires and ridors have resulted in the inef- other disasters through sound planning ficient utilization of land re- and wise development practices. sources. (E) Construction of large scale fac- ilities could change the rural character and land use patterns In Erie County. (E) KEY (D) indicates problems in the Delaware Estuary Coastal Area. (E) indicates problems in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. Problems not specifically noted are common to both Coastal Areas. LAND USE, RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT GENERAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS GOALS SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES POLICIES 2. USES OF REGIONAL BENEFIT There is no coordinated method Plan to accomodate uses of "re- Provide guidelines for Identifying Set criteria for siting uses of regional benefit. for locating uses of "regional gional benefit, which serve or im- suitable locations for uses of regional benefit," The public is often pact more than a single municipal- benefit. Amend comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and not involved in the planning ity. subdivision regulations as required to accommo- and consequently, opportunities Ensure that uses of regional benefit are date uses of regional benefit compatible with for development are lost through neither arbitrarily excluded nor the CZM program. lack of communication. included. 3. AIR & WATER QUALITY & SUPPLY Various land uses In coastal The Delaware Estuary, Lake Erie, Identify areas where air and water Preserve surface and groundwater supplies by pro- areas degrade air and water and many tributary streams do quality do not meet existing standards. hibiting the construction of on-lot septic sys- quality. not meet existing State and Fed- tems on unsuitable soils, and by protecting re- eral water quality standards. Ensure that existing and future coastal charge areas thru regulation of uses according to development complies with applicable air CZM guidelines. (E) The Philadelphia area has con- and water quality standards. tinuing air pollution problems. Protect clean airsheds while preventing addition- (D) Encourage the long range allocation of al degradation in areas not currently meeting air ground and surface water to assure ade- quality standards. There is competition in the quate supplies for all water uses. coastal zone for water. In cer- Develop priorities for the extension of sewer tain areas, groundwater use to Prevent water pollution and public systems into areas with soil limitations for on- dependent upon recharge from the health problems associated with the lot septic systems in conformance with CZM, river. Thus, the quality and installation of on-lot septic systems. COWAMP, State Land Use Policy Plan, and local quantity of ground and surface (E) objectives. (E) water are closely related. Conserve and protect surface and groundwater The installation of septic sys- supplies by preventing pollution, protecting tems In rural areas with unsuit- recharge areas and regulatory uses. able soils has created water pollution and public health hazards. (E) 4. HISTORIC & ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Valuable archeological and his- Protect unique historic and archeolog- Promote increased use of historic districts toric areas are not widely rec- ical resources through local, state and identified and controlled at local level. ognized and consequently, are national recognition and regulation. often destroyed or damaged by Provide technical and financial assistance in insensitive development. identifying and preserving historic and archeo- logical resources, through a sound planning pro- cess. 5. SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS Coastal areas of significant Natural areas, such as Tinicus Identify and protect areas of sig- Develop criteria and model ordinances for local natural value which possess Marsh and Presque Isle, are nificant natural value. governments which regulate sensitive natural unique and fragile features are especially sensitive to Incompa- areas, and take account of priorities for GAPC's. threatened by incompatible tible adjacent uses. uses. Acquire particularly fragile areas. LAND USE, RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT GENERAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS GOALS SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES POLICIES 6. HAZARDOUS AREAS Areas which are hazardous for Many coastal areas have experi- Minimize damage to life, property and Protect undeveloped flood plain areas (100 yrs.) development are subject to un- enced recurring, predictable the environment in flood plains by en- by encouraging only those land uses minimally controlled and improperly de- flooding problems. couraging those land uses which mini- affected by flooding. Encourage flood-proofing signed development, thereby mize flood damages. and flood warning in developed hazard areas. endangering life, property and Development on steep slopes can environmental quality. cause excessive property damage Protect life property and environmental Set coastal criteria for local governments to in- and soil erosion . (E) quality in steep slope areas by institu- stitute development practices that prevent steep Derelict docks, piers, water- ting development practices that prevent slope disturbances and protect steep slopes des- craft and storage buildings Development near bluff areas re- steep slope disturbances, especially In ignated as Areas of Significant Natural Value. (E) poses a hazard to public health, sults in major property damage areas of high aesthetic and natural safety and navigation. and accelerated erosion problems value.(E) Develop local regulations in accordance with CZM (E) that prevent future development practices which Reduce erosion and recession rates In accelerate erosion and recession rates in haz- bluff areas by avoiding the placement ardous bluff areas. (E) groins and other structures In such a manner that accelerates erosion and re- Under the CZM guidelines, develop model ordinances cession rates. (B) for local governments to utilize with respect to shorefront rehabilitation. Protect public safety and enhance shorefront productivity by restoring, Maintain the regional planning process of studying converting or eliminating derelict and monitoring the effects of erosion and of facilities. evaluating and controlling impacts. 7. NATURAL RESOURCES, Areas with economicaly ex- Water pollution and excessive Protect existing fish species while re- Support ongoing State, Federal and International ploitable natural. resources are fishing have seriously decimated storing indigenous commercial fish efforts to restore and properly manage commercial not always properly managed. once flourishing commercial. populations. fishing in Lake, including research and fishery fishing. Control onshore and orfshore aggregate management activities. (E) Mining of sand and gravel with- extraction activities to minimize en- In the CZM Program, provide guidelines for out adequate controls may poten- vironmental impact.(E) strengthening regulation of onshore and offshore tially cause adverse environ- aggregate extraction activities. mental problems. (E) Investigate the feasibility or develop- Ing the natural. gas reserves In Lake Support legislative and other initiatives on the Natural gas drilling, If Improp- Erie. (E) resumption of offshore gas drilling activities on erly controlled, can cause ad- Lake Erie. verse onshore and offshore Im- Establish safeguards that will minimize pacts. (E) onshore and offshore impacts of orf- Within the CZM program develop guidelines for shore drilling. (E) natural gas drilling to minimize onshore and off- Prime agricultural soils are a shore environmental impacts. valuable resource which cannot Protect prime farmland by encouraging be reclaimed once disturbed.(E) the continuation of viable farming Protec prime farm land by developing guidelines activities. (E) which support the economic viability of agricul- Tidal and non-tidel wetlands are ture in the coastal zone. valuable areas that have been Protect wetland areas that still exist. reduced to a fraction of their Identify wetland areas in local comprehensive original size. plans and develop ordinances to protect these valuable areas. Use priorities and permissibility to keep wetlands from being filled. LAND USE, RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT GENERAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS G0ALS SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES POLICIES 8. RECREATION Recreational opportunities in Existing recreation facilities Develop nodded special Interest recrea- Provide incentives in the CZM Program for local the coastal areas are insuffi- are often poorly maintained and tional facilities. governments to clearly post and publicize the cient to meet local and regional under-equipped. locations of access points and recreational areas. demands. Public accessibility Acquire shoreline access through ease- to shoreline areas is severely There are deficiencies in special ments, leases, fee simple acquisition, and Provide funding and technical assistance to local limited. Interest recreational facilities, other techniques. governments to help them develop and encourage especially water dependent facil- local recreational opportunities. ities such as boat ramps, marinas Maintain and upgrade to full potential and fishing access points. existing recreational facilities. Encourage and popularize the concept of multiple use of shoreline areas. Encourage new and existing Shoreline areas (especially in the Publicize existing opportunities for facilities to make under-utilized land available, Delaware River) have not been recreation and riverfront/stream access even on a temporary, short-term basis. developed to realize their rec- and post clear directions to access reational potential. points and recreational areas. Recreational areas have not been Acquire public recreation areas acces- acquired in proportion to their sible to urban residents. demand. Urban coastal zone residents have limited access to recrea- tional facilities. (D) 9. ACQUISITION Fee simple acquisition, the Promote the use of dedication, acquisi- Develop model ordinances for local governments to most common way to protect tion of less than fee simple Interest to help them preserve open space and encourage pri- fragile environmental areas and control land use and preserve open space vate industry to open available land for public to provide open space and and recreational uses. use. recreational areas, is often too costly for large scale use. Promote the concept of multiple use In commercially developed lakefront areas to increase public access to and use of those areas. 10. AESTHETICS Aesthetic values have not been Many portions of the existing Encourage attractive design in coastal Conduct an extensive education program to in- taken into account in the de- waterfront environment do not development to enhance scenic and crease public awareness of aesthetic values. velopment of coastal resources. enhance aesthetic values. (D) natural qualities. Develop guidelines which will preserve areas with Preserve natural amenities. high aesthetic value and reclaim areas identified as aesthetically degraded. Incorporate aesthetic considerations in the planning and development of coastal resources. ECONOMIC HEALTH AND REVITALIZATION GENERAL POBLEMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS GOALS SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES POLICIES There is outmigration of jobs Industrial jobs have been lost Promote rational socio-economic Promote the economic productivity of Provide information to commerce related agencies and population with resulting because of changes in technology growth, reasonable use of resources Commonwealth port facilities. and organizations to increase awareness of loss of tax base and lag in and the geographic factors af- and an optimum level and variety coastal areas of economic opportunity. personal income growth in the fecting industrial locations.(D) of employment opportunities within Support research and planning Coastal Zone. the coastal zone. activities of agencies responsible for Work with State and Federal agencies whose Finger piers have been abandoned economic, and particularly port, devel- activities support the port and related coastal Urban decline and infrastructure and prime waterfront sites have opment. economic activities. obsolescence, particularly been or are marginally used. Tax of coastal transportation, revenues and economic vitality Promote the establishment of economi- Develop model ordinances that give shorefront limits the economic capacity of have decreased.(D) cally viable coastal dependent uses on siting priority to coastal-dependent uses. the Coastal Zone. abandoned or vacated waterfront areas. Some shorefront Areas are Establish criteria which will provide financial currently being occupied by non- Encourage the Improvement of port incentives for development of commercial and coastal dependent uses. services and alleviation of infra- industrial facilities in areas of economic structural deficiencies (transportation opportunity. Rail transportation or freight Arteries (roads, railroads), power has declined creating unused or facilities, terminal facilities, etc.) Work with transportation agencies and other excessive facilities such as public utilities to improve port and other rail yards and stations.(D) economically vital services. Unimproved transportation access to port facilities has decreased the economic feasibility of shipping activities. (E) Even though Presque Isle Penin- sula provides the Erie area with the finest natural harbor on the Great takes, shipping activities have annually decreased. (E) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EDUCATION GENERAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS GOALS SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES POLICIES Since there Is no coordinated Most people are generally unaware Promote ongoing citizen participa- Encourage a concerned constituency and Conduct frequent, widely publicized meetings in program to publicize the of improvements in the quality tion to Insure inclusion of bitizen [email protected] in each the coastal zone to discuss progress of current Coastal Zone Program most 0 ofetheir coastal environments or needs and aspirations:in coa6tal study area by making CZK information land and water Issues. Pennsylvanians are unaware f t coast potential. decisions. easily accessible. or have erroneous Ideas about - The Delaware, long polluted Appear before elected officials to explainthe pro- its potential. by raw sewage, has'been Sponsor a demonstration clean-up high- gram and offer assistance during implementation. steadily improving since the lighting problems and suggesting alter- A multitude of coast related late 1940's. A wide variety natives. Establish statewide/regional citizens advisory programs and efforts compete of aquatic life can now be committees and define their functions. for the public's attention. As found. Chart the functional responsibilities a result, the CZM Program which - Lake Erie, once considered of various participating agencies in Utilize the media, repository libraries and lacks a strong public mandatein dead, has recovered remark- order to clarify their roles for the public programst as well as school programs, to Pa. Is often either confused ably and now supports the public. Increase awareness of the Coast@l Zone, Its with other programs or viewed cbho salmon. value, benefits, and potential. as one more "big" goverrunent Ensure public participation and feedback intrusion. The public does not perceive the during program Implementation. potential of the Delaware for en- The importance of the port vironmental enhancement and Im- Sensitive policy makers to current facil.ities are often overlooked, provement. The river has been public values and preferences relative even by municipalities which largely'forgotten even by those to coastal resources. benefit from its activities. who work and live nearby. Lack Moot Pennsylvanian's are unaware of current information aggra@ of the value of, or the pressures vates the problem. on our coastal resources. Recreation and aesthetics are viewed as goals that compete with jobs in the coastal zone. These goals are compatible with growth and vitality. The ehoice is not limited to industry 2t: tax exempt regulations. Examples of compatible uses are needed. GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND RESPONSIBILITY GENERAL PROBLEMS SPECIFIC LOCAL PROBLEMS GOALS SPECIAL OBJECTIVES POLICIES Uncoordinated regulatory respon- Local zoning ordinances may not Provide a workable management pro- Coordinate and integrate the plans or Establish a reporting, monitoring and information sibility at the local, regional, adequately address the problems gram which delineates the roles and all agencies, including Fed- dispersal system for proposed federal, state, state, interstate, and federal of managing coastal land and responsibilities of the various eral (to the maximum extent), to interstate, regional, areawide, and local actions levels leads to non-uniform water resources. levels of government with respect optimize the improvement, protection and which may impact the coastal zone. regulation of coastal resources to the coordination, planning and use of coastal resources. and inconsistent planning for Local governments control land regulation of coastal land and Within the CZM program, develop mechanisms to public investments, particularly use patterns in an uncoordinated water uses. Utilize the federal consistency require- implement federal consistency requirements; to uses of greater than local fashion which has resulted In ments to assure that federal actions resolve conflicts; and to coordinate planning concern. overzoning for industrial pur- are consistent to the maximum extent decisions (including permit regulations) among poses and Incompatible land use possible with the management program. state, interstate, regional, areawide, local and Public Investments, such as developments on the Delaware. (D) federal agencies and governmental units. sewerage transportation, water Simplify administrative procedures with supply, public buildings, and Local land use plans are not regard to projects and activities in Promote the establishment of Environmental other strong determinants of being adhered to because local coastal areas. Advisory Councils. growth and development patterns governments have granted incom- In coastal areas, are often not patible requested zoning Co-ordinate Pennsylvania's management Establish a permanent coastal zone management coordinated with on-going changes and variances. (E) program with neighboring states on Lake advisory committee and define its function. planning efforts. Erie and the Delaware Estuary. Establish criteria for regulation of coastal Multiple permit requirements land and water uses of greater than local and poorly coordinated admin- concern. istrative procedures result in costly delays. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - I COASTAL ZONE 4p I MANAGEMENT :. Iov I BOUNDARY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT BOUNDARY INTRODUCTION The Delaware Estuary is 134 miles long, extending from the mouth of Delaware Bay to the falls at Trenton (Morrisville, Pennsylvania). Three states border the Estuary, and each is participating in the Coastal Zone Management Program. Pennsylvania's coastline, about 56 miles long, is the most heavily urbanized of the three. Pennsylvania's Lake Erie coastline, 63 miles in length, stretches from the boundary line of Ashtabula County, Ohio on the west, to Chautauqua County, New York on the east. Unlike the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone, the Lake Erie Coastal Zone is largely rural in nature with the exception of the City of Erie and an occasional strip or cluster settlements. All coastal states must define seaward and inland boundaries for their coastal area. Pennsylvania's Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone seaward boundary is the State border with New Jersey near the middle of the Delaware River. The extent of tidal influence defines the upstream limit of the Delaware Estuary and, hence, the limit of the Coastal Zone Management Program. Tidal influence in the Delaware River reaches to the falls at Trenton and along the Schuylkill River to the Fairmount Dam below the Philadelphia Art Museum. The northern lakeward boundary of the Lake'Erie Coastal Zone is the international boundary line between the United States and Canada and lies approximately 14 miles off Pennsylvania's Lake Erie shoreline. The eastern and western offshore coastal zone boundaries coincide with eastern and western lakeward boundaries of Ohio and New York respectively. Two inland boundaries have been developed for each coastal area, the preliminary and final boundaries. The initial inland boundary circumscribes the Preliminary Study Area, the area for which an extensive social and physical inventory was compiled in early 1975. The final inland boundary, developed in the Fall of 1976, defines the Coastal Zone, the area which will be subject to the management plan. In accordance with an August, 1976, ruling of the United States Department of Justice, federal lands along the coast have been identified and excluded from the boundaries of the Coastal Zone. Although federally owned lands are not officially subject to Pennsylvania's Management Program, guidelines and recommendations resulting from the study will be made available to federal agencies whose activities take place in the Coastal Zone. It is hoped that they will attempt to recognize,and implement-sound Coastal Management objectives whenever possible. PRELIMINARY STUDY AREA The main purpose of the Preliminary Study Area was to establish an area for which social and environmental data would be inventoried. C3 6-1 The initial boundary was purposely'drawn broadly so that subsequent analysis of the Study Area could be used to define a narrower zone subject to the management plan. The inventory developed for the Preliminary study Area has been summarized in Chapter 1. Before selecting a way to define an intitial inland boundary along the Delaware Estuary, and Lake Erie the approaches of different states were reviewed. California and Wisconsin have chosen an arbitrary setback from the shoreline. The State of Delaware has used a system of coastal highways, and, similarly, the City of Philadelphia has set Route 1-95 as the limit for their riverfront .study. Virginia and Texas have utilized political (county) boundaries. A fourth approach, used by Florida, forms an inland boundary out of census tracts. This census tract approach was selected as the best technique for the Delaware Estuary Study Area, and the utilization of political (municipal) boundaries was selected as being most applicable to the Lake Erie Study Area. The major advantage to forming a Study Area from census tracts is the ready availability of land use, housing, population and employment data. Census tracts also permit flexibility in choosing a Study Area boundary. They may be aggregated in such a way as to follow municipal boundaries and to roughly approximate urban neighborhoods. Those census tracts containing land uses with potentially major impacts on the River can be readily included in the Study Area. Some steering committee participants felt that the Study Area should have been large enough to include major upstream and downstream projects and facilities with the potential to impact'the coastal zone. it was judged impractical to stretch the definition of the Study Area to include these projects and in addition the program was limited to areas within Pennsylvania. major projects, however, were considerqd in the Chapter 3 discussion of external decisions of external decisions affecting the coastal area. Many considerations were brought into the mapping of the Preliminary Study Area. Clearly, all riverfront census tracts must be included in the Study Area. But many inland census tracts in close proximity to the riverfront contain major industries and utilities, of importance to citizens throughout the metropolitan area. Refineries and tank farms, rail freight yards, waste treatment a.nd water filtration plants, and airports are some of these land uses of "greater-than local" concern included in the Study Area. These activities have impacts which spill over beyond the boundaries of one municipality. Census tracts near the River with significant natural resource values, such as wildlife habitats, flood plains and wetlands, were also made part of the Study Area. Some residential census tracts adjacent to riverfront properties were included in the Study Area even though it was recognized that these areas might eventually be eliminated from the management program. After a review by the Coastal Zone Steering Committee a Preliminary Study Area was selected, incorporating several additional areas suggested by the committee. The Preliminary Boundary has been seen 6-2 on the maps in all chapters up to this point. A detailed presentation of the initial inland boundary appears in Chapter 8, Figures viii-1 to viii-6. The selection of the southern or inland boundary of the Lake Erie Study Area was established following extensive analysis and evaluation by State, county and local planners, citizens and officials. The preliminary study boundary was drawn so that all coastal-related activities and the areas supporting them were included. This study area was delineated so that information could be easily obtained for analysis and so that all direct and significant impact sources and areas of particular concern were included. This preliminary study area included all municipalities abutting Lake Erie, and consequently, the study boundary was coincident with the southernmost boundaries of these municipalities. To catalyze the development and local coordination of the Program, State and local planners divided the Lake Erie Study Area into three sectors on the basis of geography and similarity of interests and problems. In each of the three sectors, Steering Committees comprised of two elected officials for each local government and the chairman of each municipal planning commission were organized to review and monitor program activities. The preliminary study boundary was found by each of the three steering committees to be logical and acceptable within their respective areas of concern. The preliminary boundary has been mapped in all chapters up to this point. A detailed presentation of both the preliminary and final Lake Erie Coastal Zone boundaries appears in Chapter 8, Figures Viii-7 to viii-11. DEFINING THE COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY After the Preliminary Study Area boundary was determined and an inventory prepared, it was necessary to define the final inland boundary for the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Zone Management Act defines the Coastal Zone, with the exception of federal lands, as: coastal waters ... and the adjacent shorelands.... including transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The zone extends inland from the, shoreline only to the extent necessary to control shorelands the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters (Section 304 (a)) . This is a more difficult task in the Delaware Estuary, than in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. Many of the familiar approaches for dqfining a final inland boundary are based on measuring changes to the quality of coastal waters. This approach may be suitable for rural areas, but in urban areas natural features have been obliterated, and 6-3 biological and physical conditions of coastal waters are already substantially altered. NOAA has recognized that in urban areas "relationships between land and water may-be extremely complex.", Instead of relying on an analysis of these relationships for defining the zone, NOAA suggested that "the state may define inland boundaries on the basis of other factors relating to the strong influence of the waters upon the land, including, dependency of use upon water access or visual relationships between land and water.112 Urbanized coastal areas also face a differen 't set of political realities than areas with primarily undeveloped shores. Whereas the management strategy for undeveloped coastlines is primarily one of developing controls or plugging gaps in existing regulations, urban .areas already have an abundance of overlapping regulations and responsibilities. Along urban coastlines, the coordination of policies and programs needs to be emphasized, and programs aimed at the revitalization of underutilized areas are especially important. Because factors affecting land use are complex in urban areas, Coastal Zone Management should be confined to those lands most directly linked to port and water related activities. This view that the Coastal Zone should be rather narrowly defined is supported by the legislative history of the Act, as well as recent papers and reports. A United States Department of Justice ruling required that all federal land be excluded from the Coastal Zone. Figures viii-1 to viii-11 show federal land in the vicinity of the coast. Although federal lands are contained within the area outlined by the inland boundaries, they are not subject,to the Management Program. Federal agencies, however, are subject to the consistency requirement specified in the Act (Section 307 (c)) that federal activities having a "spillover effect" on lands in the Coastal Zone must be consistent with provisions of the management program. As with the Preliminary Study Area, the Pennsylvania Coastal Zones rely on State boundaries and extent of tidal influence to determine seaward boundaries. Delineation of the inland boundary, as the above passage suggests, should be guided by an operational definition of "direct and significant impact." Because the interpretation of this phrase largely determines the configuration of the Coastal Zone, a detailed discussion of direct and significant impacts is included in this chapter. Direct and significant impacts may be interpreted as measurable changes to physical, chemical or biological conditions of coastal waters. Although this interpretation is somewhat supported by the legislative history of the Act and various reports and papers, biophysical measures of impact alone are not adequate. For some coastal states,.maintenance of water qual--ty may be a prime thrust of coastal management, but in Pennsylvania this task is the province of 12081 or Areawide Waste Treatment planning now underway. For the Delaware Estuary and Lake Erie coastal areas, the thrust of impact analysis is based on how land is affected by proximity to coastal 6-4 waters as well as how water is affected by land use. The Delaware River.is a resource for industrial uses, marine transportation, and fishing and recreation, and the concentration of economic activity within the port is important to workers and residents throughout the metropolitan area. Similarly, Lake Erie contributes greatly to the economy of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. The agricultural industry supported by this area is very dependent upon the climate modifying effects of the Lake. Therefore, When impacts are discussed all social and natural resources along the coast must be examined, not only those related to water quality. (Chapter 1, Inventory, discusses environmental and socioeconomic resources of the Coastal Zone.) In the most general terms, impacts are the positive and negative consequences of using resources. Impacts can be broadly classified as either opportunities or constraints. opportunities arise when resources are available to support a land-use activity or resources are able to absorb consequences of its use. For example, wetlands provide opportunities for wildlife habitat, bird watching and scientific investigations. The River is also able to assimilate some waste loads. A constraint is posed by the destruction of a resource, such as wetlands, by land development. A second constraint to development arises from natural hazards, as in risk of flood damage to structures on flood plains. The analysis of direct and significant impacts was concurrent with another aspect of the Coastal Zone program, permissibility analysis, discussed in detail in Chapter'7. Permissibility analysis looked at the many ways in which a single land use affects a large array of physical and social resources along the coast. Even after a great deal of study, permissibility analysis could describe only general kinds of impacts because of inherent difficulties in quantifying impacts. There is not much information available about actual impacts of industries and other activities upon coastal resources. Generalized, average pollution loads were found in environmental impact statements and engineering handbooks, but there is no way to apply these factors with certainty to existing coastal industries. Impact analysis must address the probability of future direct and significant impacts. Because new industrial processes and pollution control technologies are likely to make loading factors out-of-date, these quantifiable measures of impact are not appropriate for this analysis. Impacts relevant to defining the final inland boundary, therefore,-can be stated in only broad terms. impacts from land--use activities will not have the same magnitude or importance -at all locations along the coast. For example, residential development located in flood plains or wetlands would seriously dilzrupt these resource areas but would have negligible impacts on buildable upland sites. Similarly, such land resources as marshlands, are so sensitive to disturbances that any urban use would have negative consequences. Therefore, not only is it impossible to quantify land-use impacts, but the impacts vary from place-to-place. 6-5 Because land-use impacts-are not uniform along the coast, the unique characteristics of different land areas must be assessed during direct and significant impact analysis. Fortunately,. a study of areas of significant natural value along the coast had been previously completed, leading to a report on Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (see Chapter 8). Four types of Geographic Areas of Particular concern (GAPCs) were identified within each coastal area: "areas of significant natural value," "development opportunity areas," "areas of significant recreational, historic or cultural value,'11 and "overlap areas." Forty@five individual Delaware Estuary sites and twenty Lake Erie sites are discussed in Chapter 8. The process leading to the identification of GAPCS included inventory and analysis of undeveloped or marginally-used land, site visits to selected areas, interviews with property owners and local officials, public meetings at which citizens could recommend additions or deletions to the list and maps of potential GAPCs and review by county planners and the steering committee. The determination of Geographic Areas of Particular Concern, because of its detailed and site specific analysis, provided a strong departure point for the delineation of the Coastal Zone boundary. The principal tools for analysis o f direct and significant impacts were detailed aerial photographs at the 111 to 8001 scale, detailed land use maps and environmental resource maps. Textbook values for impacts from different industrial activities and maps of Geographic Areas of Particular Concern were also available. To draw the inland boundary, land use, water u se, development potential and natural resource characteristics were simultaneously examined for each parcel of land along the coast. A first-cut at the boundary resulted in the formation of five guiding principles for drawing the boundary. These principles are, in effect, statements about where direct and significant impacts are now occurring or could occur in the future. .In addition, all federal lands were excluded from the Coastal Zone, and where feasible Geographic Areas of Particular Concern were included. The boundary guidelines, described in the following section, were closely 'followed. But special conditions along the coast required that judgments be made about the location of the boundary where guidelines could not be followed in a clear-cut fashion. This occurred, for example, where residential communities were surrounded by industries and, therefore, included in the Coastal Zone. Such residential areas are unlikely to be subject to provisions of the management program. 6-6 DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY use of shoreline Properties. The shoreline is heavily urbanized and @_he concentration of industrial activity on the shoreline contributes to the strength of the port economy. Some vacant and marginally developed lands have a potential for new development that could further strengthen the por-t. The most desirable use of these properties would be for economic activities dependent on shore access or river water. Shoreline properties also have a strong visual and aesthetic link to the River, but the lack of access has severely limited public enjoyment of the River. The high amenity value conferred by proximity to the River is also a major advantage for residential developments. Finally, activities at the water's edge have a potential for generating pollutants that could be directly discharged to the River. Boundary Principle--All shoreline properties extending to the first right-of-way are included in the Coastal Zone, including residential areas, industrial and commercial properties and vacant or marginally-used sites. Direct Use of River Water. Direct users of river water (such as marine terminals, petroleum refineries, sewage treatment plants, wa ter filtration facilities and marinas) are dependent either on direct accesi� to the dredged channel or to large volumes of water. These users may (1) consume shoreline space, (2) alter the quality of river water, or (3) be negatively affected by reduced quality or quantity of water as a result of upstream uses. (Many of these users can be seen on maps in Chapter 1.) Boundary Principle--All direct users of River or tidal tributary waters are included in the Coastal Zone, including major water withdrawers, major waste dischargers (including those discharging waste heat), and marine shipping facilities. use of Flood Plain. Any use in the flood plain, except natural resource management, risks potential flood damage and may, in turn, aggravate flood damage up and downstream by increasing the height of flood waters. .Boundary Principle--All flood plains of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers and their tidal tributaries, developed or undeveloped, are included in the Coastal Zone. (Those tidal streams found during the inventory to extend beyond the Preliminary Study boundary are also included in the Coastal Zone.) Development of Vacant or Marginally Used Land. Vacant land at. the shoreline or in close proximity to the River has the potential to be 6-7 develo ped for uses dependent on access to the shore or to large quantities of River water. Other potential uses may also contribute substantially to the economic vitality of the port. There i-s some risk that development of vacant shoreline by non-dependent uses might preempt activities that are water-dependent. Projections of future economic activity suggest that conflicts may not be serious (see Chapter 3). Industrial and commercial development of vacant shorelands may also reduce the potential for recreation activities at the shore, unless a special 'effort is made to provide for a variety of uses. Alternatively, niultiple use of certain sites could allow recreational activities to occur on residential, commercial or industrial property at appropriate times. Boundary Principle--All vacant parcels at the water's edge and large parcels in close proximity to the shoreline (especially those identified in Chapter 8 as development opportunity'GAPCs) are included in the Coastal Zone. Infrastructure Facilities and Ancillary Industrial Services. Highways, railroads and communication and utility rights-of-way are essential infrastructure facilities for the support of marine, industrial, commercial and residential land uses along the riverfront. Also, many manufacturers and business services are closely associated with principal coastal industries and port facilities. These land uses contribute to the vitality and economic efficiency of the port. .Boundary Principle--Principal highways, railroads, rights-of- way, and other infrastructure should be included within the Coastal Zone, as should business-serving and ancillary industries in close proximity to coastal industires. DESCRIPTION OF THE COASTAL ZONE Delaware County Coastal Zone. The 12 mile long Delaware Coastal Zone varies from 1/4 to 2--1/2 miles in width. Figures viii-1 and viii-6 show an exact delineation of the Coastal Zone for Delaware County as well as for Philadelphia and Bucks Counties.. (These maps are in Chapter 8, Geographic Areas of Particular Concern.) The six Delaware County municipalities bordering the River are Marcus Hook, Trainer, Chester City, Eddystone, Ridley Township, and Tinicum. The Coastal Zone comprises all of Marcus Hook and Tinicum, the majority of Trainer and Eddystone and those portions of Chester City and Ridley closest to the River and tributaries. Small portions of several inland municipalities are also within the Coastal Zone. A large portion of the Coastal Zone in Delaware County consists of industries and utilities. Tank farms and refineries are abundant in Marcus Hook and Trainer, and Chester and Eddystone have large industries and a variety of utilities, such as sewage treatment and 6-8 power plants. Tinicum, besides having major industries,, has the Philadelphia International Airport. Lower and Upper Chichester have industrial areas contiguous to coastal industries, and these areas are included within the zone. Tinicum Marsh, Pennsylvania's largest tidal wetland, is mostly within Tinicum Township, but small portions of Norwood and Folcroft Township border on the marsh and are included in the Coastal Zone. Cobbs, Darby, Ridley and Chester Creeks are major tidal streams; their flood plains and some adjacent lands are included in the Coastal Zone. Philadelphia Coastal Zone. Philadelphia's Coastal Zone spans about 21 miles along the Delaware River, extends 8 miles up the Schuylkill River and is around Eastwick, however, the Coastal Zone is as deep as 3 miles inland, and in the vicinity of Frankford the boundary is about 1-3/4 miles inland. " In some locations, such as near the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, the Coastal Zone is only about 1/8 mile wide. The expansive coastal area in South and Southwest Philadelphia includes many land uses of greater than local concern-Tinicum Marsh, Eastwick redevelopment area, economic--related land along the Schuylkill River, Philadelphia International Airport, extensive tank farms and refineries and Roosevelt Park. The U.S. Naval Base, although a dominant feature of the waterfront, is formally excluded from the Coastal Zone. North of the Walt Whitman Bridge, Route 1-95 is the principal boundary because the highway separates industrial areas along the River from residential and commercial uses to the west. The boundary is set back deeper than 1-95, however, around the historical district in central Philadelphia and around important industrial areas in Bridesburg and Frankford neighborhoods. Natural areas along tidal reaches of the Pennypack and Poquessing Creeks are Geographic Areas of Particular Concern in the Philadelphia Coastal Zone. Bucks County Coastal Zone. Bucks County's 24 mile stretch of riverfront is the longest in the Coastal Zone. The width of the Zone is generally less than 3/4 of a mile. Two prominent features of the zone include the narrow band protruding 6 miles inland along Neshaminy Creek and a 4 mile deep "bulge" at the bend in the River. The six municipalities in the zone, each touching the River, include Bensalem, Bristol and Falls Townships and Bristol, Tullytown and Morrisville Boroughs. The inland boundary follows 1-95 through Bensalem until it is diverted around the tidal portion of Neshaminy Creek. In Bristol Township and Borough the inland boundary largely follows the first major right-of-way, and includes the Radcliff Street historical district. In Tully town Borough and Falls Township, the Coastal Zone includes the Warner Lake system created by sand and gravel mining. The old Pennsylvania Canal is the major boundary for this stretch of the Coastal Zone. The portions of Morrisville south of the Penn 6-9 Central railroad and east of route 32 are included in the Coastal Zone. 6-10 % crock -_j Ck pw J- -7 0i" Illot) 1 INCH= 2 MILES 10 2 4 10 1 2 __716 1 INCH=3.2 KILOMETERS 4 SO. MILE 4 SQ. KM. KEY MAP ucks Co. ontgorn Co. Chester Co. 0sla are Co. OELAWAS NEW JERSEY DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE Sot, 4,h C@3 J, %so Do pp Ilk 4f"" fl, -10 '\ 'L@j y 7 loa, LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY Data inventories within the Lake Erie Preliminary Study Area boundary was closely scrutinized before the final coastal zone boundary could be determined. This data, listed in the document entitled the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Resources Analysis for Lake Erie, included much information regarding the physiographic and socio-economic history of the coastal area. Direct and significant Impacts on Coastal Waters. In addition to the aforementioned first ' year report, specific guidelines were utilized for the final boundary designation. It was essential to include all areas where the utilization of land had the most direct and significant impact upon coastal waters. Both beneficial and adverse impacts were recorded. Examples of beneficial impacts include non-polluted waters entering Lake Erie, undisturbed vegetation protecting lake bluffs from accelerated erosion rates, and non-development (except for agricultural purposes) of prime and unique agricultural soils. Examples of adverse impacts include concentrated and untreated urban runoff; thermal, chemical or other pollution of Lake Erie waters; and lake, channel or harbor dredging. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPCfs)_. The second guideline was to include all coastal geographic areas of particular conc6rn (GA.PC's). There are twenty of these areas in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone and they have been categorized as being particularly valuable as natural and aesthetic lands,; development opportunity areas or as recreational, cultural or historic sites of significance. GAPC's are discussed in much greater detail in chapter 8. Physical Features. A third guideline for determining the final boundary designation is the utilization of easily identified physical features. The Lake Erie Coastal Area is a combination of undeveloped, developing and urban lands. In order to determine a final boundary it initially becomes necessary to locate some sort of development barrier. These barriers usually include the first major developmental obstacle as one travels inland from the coastline. Some examples are railroad lines, major highway arterials and concentrated urban development. These barriers are not absolute, however. If a GAPC extends beyond the first inland feature, a further inland alternative feature was utilized as the boundary for that particular segment of the coastal zone. Extent of Lake Modification on Inland Climate. Climate plays a significant role in th= agricultural productivity of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. Throughout the year temperatures are moderated by Lake Erie. In the fall and winter, temperatures are affected by the warm water of the Lake. This warming effect is most noticeable within 5 miles of the shoreline and disappears within 10 to 15 miles inland. 6-11 For this reason vineyards and orchards are concentrated along this narrow strip of lakeshore. The slow warming of the lake water surface during the spring delays the start of the growing season, thus tending to keep vegetation in the lakeshore area from early budding. This cooling effect protects agricultural fruit production by reducing the chances of the debilitating effects of an early frost. As a result, the inland coastal zone boundary includes all concentrations of prime and unique agricultural land within the area of climate modification. DESCRIPTION OF THE COASTAL ZONE Beginning in western 'Erie County, the coastal boundary follows two principle physical features. -The first such feature is the ConRail right-of-way which extends from the Ohio State line to Lake City Borough. Most of the coastal boundary from Lake City to the City of Erie follows West Lake Road, otherwise known as Route 5 (west of Asbury Road) and Alternate Route 5 (east of Asbury Road) with the exception of an area located in portions of Girard and Fairview Townships. Immediately east of Lake City Borough the boundary extends southward to Middle Road between the Lake City Borough line and Avonia Road in Fairview Township in order to include a GAPC noted for its prime agricultural capabilities. Beginning in Millcreek Township and extending into the City of Erie the coastal zone narrows to a strip sometimes reaching a width of only 400 feet. Here the coastal boundary predominantly follows South Shore Drive and West Second Street, thus excluding much residential development of limited coastal significance. One exception is an area near Cascade Creek where the boundary is extended to West Sixth Street. This area is as yet a predominantly undeveloped portion of the City. In east Erie the coastal boundary follows -East Second Street, and at Ash Street jogs south to follow East Third Street for several blocks. At Hess Avenue the boundary turns south to East Sixth Street (East Lake Road). From this point the coastal. boundary follows East Lake Road for seven miles through Lawrence Park Township and then midway into Harborcreek Township. The coastal boundary turns south and follows Bartlett and Depot Roads to a point which is over three miles inland. At McGill Road the boundary turns eastward and follows a line roughly parallel to the Lake Erie shoreline until it reaches the New York State line. This east-west boundary extends a distance of over ten miles and predominantly follows both Sidehill Road and the 1050 foot ridge line. Concentrated within -the bounds oi Erie County from Bartlett Road to the New York State line is some of the most productive farmland in Erie Cuunty on which are grown many of the County's most vital cash crops. A total of ten municipalities and Presque Isle State Park (officially an unorganized territory) encompass the final Lake Erie Coastal Zone. 6-12 Together this area totals approximately 52,800 acres or about 83 square miles. The population of the final CZM area in 1970 was 22,898. By 1975, it had grown to 23,569 people, an increase of 2.9%. The projected Lake Erie Coastal Zone population by the 2000 is 28,337 people, an increase of 23.8% over the 1970 figure. The 'western Lake Erie Coastal Zone area includes portions of Springifeld, Girard and Fairview Townships and Lake.City Borough. The 1975 population of this 15,964 acre area was 3,729 people, a population density of .2 persons per acre. This low overall density is an indication of the rural character of this part of the coastal zone. The central Lake Erie Coastal Zone area includes portions of the City of Erie, Millcreek and Lawrence Park Townships and all of the Presque Isle State Park. With 5,914 acres and a 1975 population of 9,566 people, there was a density of 1.6 people per acre. This density is actually quite low due to the fact that Presque Isle, which is basically uninhabited, is included in this density figure. Excluding Presque Isle, the population density of the central area registers 3.6 persons per acre. The eastern Lake Erie Coastal Zone area includes* portions of Harborcreek and North East Townships and all of North East Borough. This region is 30,966 acres in size with a total 1975 population of 10,274 persons. Accordingly, there is a .3 person per acre density, a figure which closely compares with the density of the western Lake Erie Coastal Zone area. The table following this Chapter indicates acreage and population figures for the final coastal zone boundary by study area and community. 6-13 FINAL COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY Population Coastal Zone Communities Acreages 1970 1975 2000 Western Study Area 15,964. 3,347 3,729 5,633 Central Study Area 5,914 9,396 9,566 10,702 Eastern Study Area 30,966 10,155 10,274 12,002 TOTAL 52,844 22,898 23,569 28,337 Springfield Township 7,997 404 422 584 Girard Township 4,126 552 588 949 Lake City Borough 508 386 418 607 Fairview Township 3,333 2,005 2,301 3,493 Millcreek Township 1,457 3,967 4,180 5,135 Presque Isle 3,242 34 34 34 Erie city 843 3,883 3,821 3,949 Lawrence Park Township 372 1,512 1,531 10584 Harborcreek Township 6,276 2,.888 3,022 3,805 North East Township 23,463 3,421 3,485 4,176 North East Borough 1,227 3,846 3,767 4,021 6-14 a I I Figure vi-2 LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE 1 1" = 2 miles I I I I I . I I I I I I I I . I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w/-- - --@ " I PERMISSIBLE . LAND ----Emmmw w- I AND WATER USES . I PERMISSIBLE LAND AND WATER USES INTRODUCTION The Federal Rules and Regulations for the Coastal Zone Management Program require pa-rticipatinq states to develop a procedure for defining permissible uses within specific coastal areas.. This procedure can take a variety of forms based upon existing coastal conditions. For this reason, the procedures for defining permissible uses within the Delaware Estuary and Lake Erie Coastal Zones are different. Within each coastal zone, capability, suitability and compatibility analyses were completed using slightly different techniques. Within the Delaware Estuary coastal zone a subjective matrix analysis was used to determine use permissibility. An overlay technique similar to t-hat promoted by McHarg and utilized by the State'of California has been used to determine permissible uses within the' Lake Erie Coastal Zone. Because similar techniques have been used to complete all 'previous chapters of this report, it is imperative to emphasize both how and why different techniques were used in the development permissible uses within the Commonwealth's coastal areas. DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE Introduction r Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires the management program to include 'a definition of what shall constitute permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone... 11 (Section 305 (b) (2))- To satisfy this requirement, Chapter 7 makes recommendations for permissible uses in the coastal zone and describes the impact analysis on which these recommendations are based. Recommendations for peimissible uses in the coastal zone are stated in general terms. Future land and water uses may fall into one of three permissibility categories: uses to be actively encouraged .uses to be discouraged, and uses to be conditionally permitted, subject to special consideration. Because land use and development patterns vary considerably along the riverfront, separate recommendations are made for four kinds of 7-1 areas. These four "area types," present along the Delaware Estuary, are: .urban residential--existing developed areas characterized by pr-ea-0-minantly residential uses. .urban non-residential--areas devoted primarily, to industrial, commercial, utility and port facilities. .vacant developable-open land available for development. .natural areas--areas with a high concentration of natural resources and amenities. The kinds of resources that comprise each of these four area types are different. Therefore, future uses are apt to havevery different impacts in each of the different area types. For example, the impacts resulting from a new petroleum refinery will be different in a natural area than in an urban non-residential area. The key to this chapter, therefore, is a permissibility matrix that ar .rays 15 land and water used against four area types. For each area type, uses are recommended to be either encouraged, conditionally permitted or discouraged. chapter 7 is important for two reasons: The permissibility matrix, with its identification of uses to be encouraged, conditionally permitted, or discouraged, can be used as a "yardstick" by local officials to help determine the degree to which local plans and zoning ordinances support the objectives of the Coastal Management Program. Secondly as local officials begin to use "pass-through" monies of the Coastal Program to update plans rand ordinances, the methodology described cts arising from the use of coastal resources. PERMISSIBILITY OF USES Overview--Chapter 7 makes recommendations on the permissibility of land and water uses in the coastal zone, satisfying -a major requirement of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The basis for these recommendations is an analysis of how different land and water uses impact coastal resources. In general terms, those uses with negative impacts and few compensating benefits are judged as least permissible; and, conversely, uses which have minimal adverse impacts and important benefits should be encouraged. Impact Analysis, which will be described in detail later in this chapter, was both the basis for making recommendations on permissibility and the major instrument for defining the coastal zone boundary, a process described in Chapter 6. Two important conclusions influencing both the coastal zone boundary and permissibility were derived from the Impact Analysis: Vacant lands in the vicinity of the riverfront have a potential for supporting uses 7-2 with major beneficial or adverse impacts on co astal resources (in other words, "direct and significant" impacts). All uses, within the coastal zone boundary at the level of detail dealt of this study, have a potential for creating major impacts, beneficial or adverse, depending on their location. (for example, industrial development would probably have major positive impacts in industrial areas, but major adverse impacts within fragile tidal wetland areas. 'The Impact Analysis ties the definition of the coastal zone boundary closely to the identification of permissible uses. Chapter 6, Boundaries, uses Impact Analysis to identify areas where uses might have important impacts on coastal resources. In Chapter 7, Impact Analysis is carried a step further to identify four area types, which uses have major beneficial impacts, important adverse impacts or a mixture of adverse-and beneficial impacts. Definitions--The definitions given below illustrate the conceptual nature of the Impact and Permissibility Analyses described in this Chapter. Because - the familiar kind of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), drafted for very specific facilities and si@_es, are laden with technical data, it would be easy to mistakenly anticipate that the Impact Analysis described in this Chapter would use a similar approach. The impact analysis, however, views the coastal zone as a single unit and focuses, not on a specific facility, but on a wide variety of potential land and water uses. Analysis with this broad scope requires a conceptual approach, not a technical one, because there are severe limits to the availability of information on impact processes. and to the projection of future technology and economic activity. For each of four area types, the.permissibilit@ of 15 land and water uses have been evaluated. Area types are generalized categories of coastal lands classified according to the present mix of resources and existing land uses. The four area types delineated along the Delaware River are urban non-residential areas, urban residential areas, vacant developable areas and natural areas. Most of the coastal zone in Delaware and Philadelphia counties are urban non- residential areas characterized by heavy investments of private and public capital and by economic and public-service activities. Urban residential areas, more common in Bucks County than in the other counties, are lands with existing homes and related facilities (such as local commercial areas, schools, institutions and roads). Both of these urban area types include vacant lots suitable for infilling and marginally used sites available for improvement and revitalization. Vacant developable and natural areas are two categories of undeveloped land. Natural areas are defined as areas of ecological importance for sustaining fish, wildlife and waterfowl and as areas of notable scenic and amenity qualities with potential for recreation. Land in the vacant developable areas include both prepared development sites in industrial parks and open land that, having no unique natural features, is slated for future residential or economic development in local plans and ordinances. Area types have,not been mapped for the coastal zone. Using the general 7-3 definitions presented here, local communities will divide the coastal portions of their municipalities into area types. The range of potential land uses in the coastal zone have been. divided into 15 general categories (See figure vii-1). Most of these categories are development uses, reflecting the heavily urbanized character of the Delaware River shoreline. Not only does this coast have land that could support a wide range of development uses, but the shoreline and water resources have been so altered that few conservation-oriented uses are feasible. Three levels of permissibility are assigned to uses in this analysis: uses to be actively encouraged, uses to be conditionally permitted (subject to special considerations) and uses to be discouraged. Potential beneficial impacts are balanced against adverse impacts to arrive at a judgment of overall acceptability of' impacts upon resources in an area type. Uses that are to be encouraged have benefits strongly outweighing negative impacts and are defined as "permissible." Uses to be discouraged would seriously disrupt or degrade the resources in an area type without compensating benefits', and are, in general, non-permissible. Uses that are conditionally permitted have a number of potential adverse impacts but are also beneficial in some respects. These uses should only be permitted if the adverse impacts can be ameliorated through site design practices or additional technological equipment. The municipality will be the ultimate judge of whether enough reduction of negative impacts can be achieved to allow the proposed use to be built in the coa.stal zone. Those uses that are suggested as "conditionally permissible" should be considered carefully by the municipality in order to see that the most effective steps possible are taken to rsafeguard and wisely utilize coastal resources. These "conditionally permissible" uses may well be the most troublesome and controversial for a coastal municipality since the need for the use may be immediate, while the impacts are substantial. An example of this conflict is the disposal of dredged spoil in most area types. The suggested guidelines presented in the Permissibility Matrix may be modified by municipalities when adopting their local controls, if the locally proposed projects and site conditions suggest that these recommendations are inappropriate. For the most part, the recommendations made below should not generate much controversy and will serve to reinforce a common sense approach to siting uses in coastal communities. Permissibility Matrix--A summary. of the impact analysis and the recommendations for permissible uses in each -area type are given on the Permissibility matrix, Figure vii-2. For most uses, there is at least one area type in which the use is to be encouraged. Howeverm, for a few uses such as air transportation, the choice of sites is so limited and the impacts so substantial that the use has been assigned a conditional or discourage rating for all area types. In the relatively narrow Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone, air transportation activities -will realistically have to be confined to limited expansion within areas already devoted to this use. 7-4 FIGURE vii-1 Land and Water Uses to be Tested for Permissibilit 1. Residential Single family and multiple unit residential neighborhoods. 2. Land Transportation Highway, road and railroad-rights- of-way and rail yards.. 3. Air Transportation Runways, terminals, hangars and other facilities directly related to operations of airports. 4. Marine Transportation Piers and marine terminals and the shipping channel of the Delaware River. 5. Energy Refining Petroleum processing plants, tank farms and special dock facilities. 6. Energy Generation Electric power plants, and associat6d fuel storage and water intake facilities. 7. Utility & Commu- Rights-of-way for subsurface pipe and nication R.O.W.s cable lines as well as overhead electric power lines. 8. Manufacturing Industrial operations of all kinds, e.g., chemical, textile, primary metals, food processing,, machine. r 9. solid waste Public and private landfill facilities, Disposal transfer stations, incineration equipment, open dump sites for scrap metal, etc. 1O.Sewage Treatment Public facilities for the treatment and Water Supply and disposal of wastewater or for filtration of domestic and industrial water supply. ll.Land Transformation Dredge spoil disposal areas and extraction areas for sand and gravel. 12.Natural Resource Areas where wildlife, fish and water Management fowl habitat are protected from human interference. 13.Developed water- Marinas and boat launching facilities front Recreation for water-related activities and and parkland along the shoreline. 14.Wholesale Trade Facilities for the wholesale trade Storage 'and land and buildings used for storage, including export and import items. 15.Commercial & Neighborhood stores, regional shopping Community Service centers business services; schools, hospitals and similar public facilities. FIGURE vii-2 PERMISSIBILITY GUIDELINES MATRIX URBAN NON- URBAN VACANT RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPABLE NATURAL 1. RESIDENTIAL Conditional Encourage Encourage Discourage 2. LAND TRANSPORTA- Conditional Conditional Encourage Discourage TION 3. AIR TRANSPORTATION Cond itional Discourage Conditional Discourage 4. MARINE TRANSPORTA- Encourage Conditional Encourage Discourage TION 5. ENERGY REFINING Encourage Discourage Encourage Discourage 6. ENERGY GENERATION Encourage Discourage Conditional Discourage 7. UTILITY/COMMUNICA- Conditional Conditional Encourage Conditional TIONS R.O.W. 8. MANUFACTURING Encourage Conditional Encourage Discourage 9. SOLID WASTE DIS- Conditional Discourage Conditional Discourage POSAL 10. SEWAGE TREATMENT Encourage Discourage Encourage Discourage WATER SUPPLY 11. LAND TRANSFORMATION Conditional Discourage Conditional Discourage 12. NATURAL RESOURCE Discourage Discourage Discourage Encourage MANAGEMENT 13. DEVELOPED WATER- Encourage Encourage Encourage Conditional FRONT REC. 14, WHOLESALE TRADE Encourage Conditional Encourage Discourage STORAGE 15. COMHERCIAL & SER- jEncourage Encourage Encourage Discourage VICE Permissibility analysis is primarily an evaluation of the appropriateness of new development activities within the four area types. Because most open land is in natural and vacant developable area types, permissibility -evaluations are most relevant to these areas. Urban non-residential and residential area types have space available for 'tin-filling" and construction that represents development opportunities. In addition, the permissibility evaluations reflect those uses whose economic viability and social importance should be maintained and promoted in each area type. Summary of Permissibility Guidelines by Area Type: Urban Non- residential Areas--Manufacturing,'enercjy generation, energy refining, wholesale trade, commerce, public utilities and marine transportation are uses to be actively encouraged in this area type. In fact, more of the 15 uses are to be "encouraged" in this area ty pe than in any of the other three. About half of the uses are recommended to be conditionally permitted, because they are constrained by existing land use patterns. Natural resource management is the only use category that is "discouraged" from this area type. Re!�idential development may be appropriate in mixed-use developments if the impacts of neighboring activities can be rendered unobtrusive. Solid waste disposal might be an appropriate activity on industrial lands with strict environmental safeguards. Urban Residential Areas--Residential, recreation, commercial and community services are uses encouraged in these are types. Airports, utilities (water supply, waste treatment, energy generation and solid waste disposal), energy refining and generation are to be Although the list of discou discouraged. raged uses is long and may appear restrictive, there are abundant sites in the non-residential and vacant developable area types where these uses are to be actively encouraged. Highways, port facilities, manufacturing, and wholesale trade and storage are uses that might be fitted to residential area types; but, specific local conditions would influence the amount of disruption that could be allowed in residential neighborhoods. Natural resource management is not a feasible activity in this area type due to the absence of undisturbed habitats. Vacant Developable Area Types--Lands in this area type are available for future residential, economic-related or public uses. Resource conditions vary considerably between lands in this area type so not all uses characterized as "encouraged" will be appropriate in all locations. Such uses as the airport and energy generation are most apt to locate new or expanded facilities on the same land as existing facilities; in such cases the use is labeled "conditionally permitted" for this area type. Natural resource management is not a feasible use in this area type because all vacant land worthy of management will be included in Natural Areas, the fourth area type discussed here. Natural Area Types--Natural areas are those undeveloped lands most suited for management as preserves for wildlife, Therefore, only 7-5 limited development activity permitted in this area type. Only natural resource management is to be actively encouraged. Developed waterfront recreation is conditionally permitted with only non- disruptive kinds of recreational use of natural areas being acceptable. PERMISSIBILITY METHODOLOGY Definitions--The following discussion of the permissibility methodology is quite detailed and'may not be of interest to casual readers. It has been included primarily for those who feel the need to understand the technical aspects of the program. The flow chart in figure vii-3 is a schematic representation and summary of the methodology for permissibility analysis. The core of the methodology is the Impact Analysis, and most of the discussion in this chapter deals with the various components of this analys@is. Impact Analysis, the foundation for evaluating permissible uses, introduces many expressions and concepts. In the above section, area types, land uses and permissibility categories were defined. To explain permissibility analysis, such terms as resources, impacts, capability, suitability, and compatibility also need to be defined. Resources are those items required to support social or natural processes. Economic resources, for example, include raw materials and distribution systems. Natural resources include woodlands, wetlands and streams that supply food and 4helter for wildlife. Social resources, such as police and fire protection help maintain a cohesive community structure and are inducements for industrial locations. Two principal categories of resources were defined, physical resources, which include land and water resources, and socio-economic resources. Figure vii-4 is the list of coastal resources, and Chapter 1 includes a discussion of these resources in the preliminary study areas. A major effort has been made to give at least as much emphasis to social and economic resources as is given to physical resources. Even though physical resources are the prime focus of coastal management in other states, socio-economic resources, arising from private and public investments, are of major significance to the Delaware Estuary. Impacts are defined here as the consequences of resource use and may be either beneficial or adverse. Beneficial impacts indicate that resources provide an opportunity for use while adverse impacts suggest that there are constraints to resource use. Beneficial impacts resulting from the use of vacant developable land for industrial development would be the increase in tax ratables for the community. An adverse impact from industrial development might occur, however, should scarce tidal wetlands be disturbed. Stated differently, vacant developable land provides opportunities for 7-5 FICURE vii-3 FLOW CHART OF PROCEDURE FOR MAKINC PERMISSIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS Step I Step II Step III INVENTORY IMPACT ANALYSIS (fig. vii-6) EVALUATION * 15 Land and water uses o Define major "Impact categories" Make recommendations on per- (fig. vii-1) - 6 opportunity categories missibility of land and water - 7 constraint categories (fig.vii-5) uses in terms of: * Coastal Resources o Capability & Suitability Analyses o encourage use - 11 physical resources (recorded on an "Impact Matrix" o conditionally permit - 9 socio-economic re- o discourage use sources (fig. vii-4) - capability assess land and water based on balance of opportun- use impacts on physical resources ities and constraints shown * 4 Area types (defined by - suitability assesses use impacts in the Impact Analysis typical set of resources) on socio-economic resources (fig. vii-7) summarized in: o Compatibility Analysis assesses the "fit" betwe*Lln proposed uses and ex- PERMISSIBILITY GUIDELINES isting conditions in area types MATRIX (see figure vii-2) o Count up impacts, both opportunities and constraints, on resources rele- vant to each area type 'a* M1 so, low, '00 low FIGURE VII-4 COASTAL RESOURCES* LAND AND WATER RESOURCES SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES Water for Municipal & Trained Labor Force Industrial Supply, Water for Disposal of Production Capacity Waste Effluent water for Transportation Energy Availability water for Recreation Water for Fish & Transport--Water Based wildlife Habitats woodlands Transport--Land Based wetlands Police & Fire Protection Buildable Sites Water & Sewerage Infrastructure Flood Plains Historic & Cultural Sites Shoreline Access Tax Revenues & Ratables Sand F, Gravel r See Chapter 1, Inventory of Coastal Resources and Uses, for definition of these resources. industrial use, and tidal wetlands pose constraints to industrial use.. The analysis needed to support permissibility recommendations deals with generalized statements about impacts. Opportunity and constraint impacts have been classified into thirteen major-impact categories. There are seven constraint categories and six opportunity categories. This classification is expecially important as a tool for commun 'icating the findings of the impact analysis. These thirteen categories are summarized in figure vii-5. Methodology for Determining Permissible Uses--There are three major steps, shown in Figure vii-3 to the process of determining permissible uses: .Inventory--During the inventory stage, informational inputs necessary for making permissibility recommendations. are defined. .Impact Analysis--Impact analysis examines the impacts of resource'use. Evaluation--Permissibility Guidelines, based on the findings of the impact analysis, are determined for each of four area types. These three steps are discussed in the following sections, and Figure vii-3 provides assistance in examining this methodology. 7-6 FIGURE - vii-5 -IMPACT CATEGORIES Constraints C Use causes loss of habitats and natural areas, 1 coastal-related historic and cultural sites, or potential recreation sites. C Use possibly preempts water dependent uses 2 from vacant or marginally-used shoreline sites. C Use either seriously degrades water quality or 3 is seriously impaired by degraded water quality. C Use poses major hazards to coastal waters and 4 shoreline uses-due to fires, spills, explosions, or collisions. C Use either causes loss of flood plains, thereby 5 increasing flood hazards downstream, or may risk potential flood damages by locating in a flood plain. C Use may potentially conflict with residential, 6 recreational, and natural areas of coast by affecting air quality, noise levels or visual quality. Use imposes a cost that must be borne rout of 7 government funds raised by taxes. Opportunities 0 Use directly employs coastal waters for trans- I portation, water supply, or waste assimilation. 0 Use has potential major benefit to water-based 2 recreation or to preservation of shoreline natural areas. 0 Use derives important locational advantages from 3 access to water, amenity value of water, or existing coastal industries. 0 Use draws on existing infrastructure resourcesf 4 such as water supply and sewer systems,. prepared sites, transportation and distribution systems, and present production capacities. I 0 Use takes advantage of such social resources 5 as trained labor force, police and fire protection, and community services. Use is a major cottributor to port vitality by 6 affecting economic efficiency, tax base, access, job opportunities, etc., or by providing essential goods or services (such as energy). Land and water uses, coastal resources, area types and impact categories are the various elements defined during the inventory stage. These elements have been described in Chapter 1 and in this chapter. The inventory step-is important for establishing the scope of the subsequent impact analysis. In particular, the way impacts, land use activities and resources were defined had to be carefully matched with the level of detail needed to make permissibility recommendations. Impact analysis, the second step in determining permissibility, is designed to explore the complex relationships between coastal resources and land and water uses. The impacts of use on resources are generally not all good or bad; rather, both adverse and beneficial impacts may be associated with resource use. Water represents both opportunities and constraints for waste disposal, for example. Industries use water to assimilate their wastes, but water may be degraded if the assimilative capacity of a stream is degraded. The task of impact analysis, therefore, is to systematically account for the opportunities and constraints that each land use may @ave on coastal resources. only through such an accounting procedure can tradeoffs between economic benefit and environmental cost be demonstrated. Impact analysis, as shown in Figure vii-3, is a three-part process: .Capability analysis explores the ability of land and water uses to support future uses or to absorb negative consequence's of use. Suitability analysis assesses the ability of social and economic resources to sustain uses. r Compatibility analysis evaluates the "fit" between possible -future uses and the existing uses and conditions in the area types. Capability and suitability analyses are handled in similar ways. A matrix is formed by arraying 15 land use ca@_egories against resources. For capability analysis uses are arrayed against 11 physical resources, and for suitability analysis 9 socio-economic resources are arrayed against land and water uses. The "impact matrix" used during capability and suitability analyses employ the 13 impact categories defined in Figure VII-5. Each cell in the matrix represents a "relationship" between a resource and a land use that can be typified by one (or more) of the impact categories. If a varticaar resource supports a land use or successfully absorbs its impacts, the resource provides an opportunity, and the appropriate impact category is assigned to that cell in the impact matrix. Conversely, if a use potentially degrades of diminishes the value of a resource, a constraint impact category is assigned to the matrix cell. 7-7 Figure vii-6 shows the completed impact matrix for capability analysis and suitability analysis. The impact categories have, been symbolized by O's standing for 2pportunities and C's representing constraints. The numbered subscripts refer to the specific categories of opportunities and constraints on Figure vii-5. In addition, lower case letters indicate that the impact represented on the matrix is comparatively minor. Up to this point, the impact analysis has accounted for nearly all possible impacts resource use may have. But resources are not uniformly distributed along the coast; for example, industrial coastal lands have a preponderance of economic resources, while tidal marshes have mostly natural resources. To understand the probable consequences of a land use in a particular area, the resources at that location must be known. Such an assessment of resources by location has been made for area types, making area types the appropriate areal unit for permissibility recommendations. Translating the Impact Matrix, which arrays uses against resources, into a matrix of uses and area types is a straight forward process. Figure vii-7 is, a summary of those resources comprising each area type. When analyzing a single area type, only those opportunities and constraints relevant to that area type as shown on Figure vii-7 are counted and recorded. But before this information on probable impacts is used to recommend permissible uses, the third aspect of impact analysis, compatibility analysis, must be undertaken. Compatibility analysis evaluates the conform"ce or conflict (in other words the "fit") between the uses and conditions existing in an area type and the requirements of potential future uses. Such factors as traffic, noise, air emissions, odor, amenity and pre- emption of land are considered in compatibility analysis. on a "compatibility matrix" an area type containing land uses which are "good neighbors" for a proposed use would be rated as an opportunity,, and those areas containing uses for which conflict is likely pose a constraint. The product of compatibility analysis is a matrix of 15 land uses arrayed against four area types, with Os and Cs in the matrix cells evaluating the "fit" between potential and -existing areas. Figure vii-8 shows the results of the compatibility analysis. The final step of permissibility analysis is making recommendations based an an evaluation of the impact analysis. Using the previous stelo, the impacts of land and water uses on coastal resources had been summarized for area types in terms of opportunities and constraints. Also, the compatibility of potential uses with existing conditions had been assessed. During this evaluation step, the opportunities and constraints (which can also be thought of as advantages and disadvantages or benefits and costs) need to be balanced. 7-8 Figure vii-6 CAPABILITY AND SUITABILITY OF COASTAL RESOURCES TO SUPPORT USES En tn 0 22 H 0 Ln IV" En tj 004 M En 1,4 P. L) P5 0 In H En A@ (n 1-4 w EJ 94 C3 F, @34 Pd P4 14 W P4 W w z P01 P01 94 0 0 OW cn 0 Z 0 r@ w H 44 FL4 N 00 F4 I -a M 0 U A.N 0 V. cn 14 H 0 0 En W W W C X04 05 04 02 106 RESIDENTIAL x X X .02 X CI Cl 04 '65 03 X X X 06 - V9 - C7 LAND TRANSPORTATION x x x x x C Cl X C5 C2 x X 06 06 03 1 05 1 X cl C7 AIR TRANSPORTATION x x x x X Cl CI X X C2 X 05 06 06 X04 05 04 X 06 MARINE TRANSPORTATION C3 x X C3,41C3,4 X Cl 04 X 03 X 05 06 06 03.4 04 05 04 cl 06 ENERGY REFINING 01 01 01 '3,4 C3,4 CI Cl 04 C5 03 x 05. 06 6 .4 04 05 x cl 06 ENERGY GENERATION 01 01 Ol C3 C3 Cl C1 04 CS 03 x 05 k,6 06 -10, 04X X cl 06 UTILITY AND COMMUNICATION x x x x X cl cl X 02 X X X 06 06 xx x x x x RIGHT OF WAY I I 3 X 41 o,l 0 MANUFACTURING Ol 01 X JC3 C3 C1 CI 04 C5 05 03,k 03 03 4 cl 06 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL x x x x X CI Cl C2 C51 C2 X X X I X X04 X K cl cl SEWAGE TREATMENT AND OIC3 0 C3 x x C)4 C5 03 X X X X 01 X X 04 cl C7 WATER SUPPLY IC3 X C3 [,AND TRANSFORMATION x x 01 )2c, 02 C3 CI Cl C2 C5 03C2 04 05 06 03 )1,3 04 x x cl 06 NATURAL RESOURCE x x X 03 02 02] 02 X 02 03,2 X x x x C6 C6 X x 02 C7 MANAGEMENT 02 02 02 0 x x O2,3o DEVELOPED WATERFRONT x x x C3 02 o2 04 C5 3 X 03 4 05 04 02 06 RECREATION I . WHOLESALE TRADE & x X o x 03 x 0@3 04 04 05 C4 cl f)6 STORAGE 3 X C1 Cl N C5 C2 03 03 6 COMMERCIAL AND COMMUNITY x X Cl C x 03 04 04 051 04 .1cl C7 SERVICE 1 04 C5 C2 "0" Indicates opportunity and "C" Indlca@es constraint. "X" indicates that the use b;ars no Ix I X X r.x @03 4 3] Lower case letters signify a minor constraint or significant relationship to the opportunity. The numbered subscripts refer to the resource. categories of impact. FIGURE VII-7 RESOURCES COMPRISING EACH AREA TYPE LAND AND WATER URBAN NON URBAN VACANT RESOURCES RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPABLE NATURAL Water for Mu- nicipal & Industrial Supply Water for Dis- posal of Waste Effluent Water for Trans- portation Water for Recreation Water for Fish & Wildlife Habitats Woodlands Wetlands Buildable Sites Flood Plains Shoreline Access Sand & Gravel SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES Trained Labor Force Production Capacity Energy Avail- ability Transport-Water Based Transoort-Land Basea Police & Fire Protection Water & Sewerage Infrastructure Historic Cultural Sites Tax Revenues Ratables FIGURE VII-8 MATRIX OF COMPATIBILITY OF POTENTIAL USES IN EACH AREA TYPE URBAN NON- URBAN VACANT RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NATURAL RESIDENTIAL c 0 - C LAND TRANS- PORTATION 0 0 0 c,_ AIR TRANSPOR- TATION 0 C C MARINE TRANS- PORTATION 0 c 0 C ENERGY REFINING 0 C c C ENERGY GENERA- TION 0 C c,_ C UTILITY/COMMU- NICATION R.O.W. 0 0 0 0,c,-@ MANUFACTURING 0 c 0 C SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL c C 'C'o C SEWAGE TREAT- MENT & WATER SUPPLY 0 C C LAND TRANSFOR- MATION c C C O,C NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT C 0 0,c 0 DEVELOPED WATER- FRONT RECREATION 0 0 0 o'c WHOLESALE TRADE' & STORAGE 0 C 0 C COMMERCIAL & COMMUNITY SER. 0 0 0 .the number of O's and C's and the relative balance between them, and .the number and balance of O's and Cfs in one area type compared to the other area types. Permissibility was evaluated in a flexible manner. Two kinds of comparisons were used when judging the permissibility of a use in an area type: "Encourage" or "discourage', designations were given when there appeared to be clear-cut evidence that a preponderance of impacts were either opportunities or constraints. Common !�ense judgments were used in some instances when one adverse impact appeared to overshadow a number of benefits and be more persuasive than other impacts. For this reason, an evaluation based on simple summation of O's and C's could be misleading. For example, industrial development of tidal marsh would provide a number of opportunities such as jobs and allow easy access to transportation; but loss of scarce natural resources appears unjustifiable in light of the abundance of vacant developable land available in the Coastal Zone.. The "conditionally permitted" evaluation was assigned when it was apparent that use of an area type may be appropriate under limited circumstances. For example, when location is particularly suitable,if buffering is provided between incompatible uses or technology is empl 'o,yed to ameliorate impacts then circumstances could justifiably permit that use. The permissibility matrix, presented previously (Figure vii-2) is the product of this evaluation of opportunities and constraints. The encourage, conditionally permitted and discourage ratings should be regarded as general recommendations. The information employed throughout the permissibility analysis is generalized. Because categories of resources, land and water use and impacts. are broad, more specific information needs to be applied when local governments implement a permissibility analysis for their particular communities and perhaps, later when specific proposed facilities are subject to review. LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION The permissibility recommendations presented in this chapter are designed as guidelines for local officials implementing the Coastal Zone Management Program. Findings made by local governments on permissible uses will be incorporated into management controls to influence new coastal development. It is expected,.that the thrust of a local permissibility analysis will be compatible with the one presented in this Chapter, but may not need to be as extensive. For example, local analysis should recognize the regionwide scarcity of significant natural areas and evaluate tidal wetlands as posing strong constraints. Municipalities choosing to perform their own permissibility analysis may use the information presented in this chapter. The resources available in different land !areas, especially large vacant areas, within the Coastal Zone are first inventoried. This inventory will ,help to define area type classes that better reflect the local 7-9 situation. Information on development impacts needs to be collected and evaluated, with special attention to those kinds of impacts of greatest concern to citizens. The final and most difficult step is to evaluate the full range of potential land and water uses for permissibility within area types of the municipality's coastal zone. Those responsible for preparing local controls will have to balance the anticipated opportunities or benefits with the expected constraints or negative impacts. The trade-offs that will have to be made are likely to largely reflect local goals for municipal development, however, regionwide needs must also be considered. This Chapter, and such key chapters as Policy Framework (Chapter 5) and Special Considerations (Chapter 9 provide guidelines as to regionwide needs and goals for coastal resource use. Once the permissibility analysis has been completed, local governments will be encouraged to develop, review or update their comprehensive plans and zoning 'ordinances to implement the concepts embodied in the analysis. Federal funds to support these activities will be "passed-through" to local governments as part of the,:Coastal Zone Management Program. Uses that are to be "encouraged" according to the locally prepared permissibility analysis, should be described (and possibly mapped) in the local comprehensive plan. once completed, this plan will be subject to a review for "consistency" with the goals of the Coastal Program by a Coastal Review Board, through a process described in Chapter 10. In addition, goals and policies for coastal management should be reflected in the "Statement of Community Development objectives" contained in most zoning ordinances.' Since local resources will be able to absorb the "encouraged uses", the community should allow these uses "by-right" in the appropriate zoning districts. Of course, uses to be "discouraged" should NOT be permitted "by-right" in the zoning ordinance. "Conditional" uses may be selectively accomodated through devices such as "Special Exceptions" or "Conditional Use" provisions, where specific standards and criteria have been established by the governing body. In order to be permitted, "conditional uses would have to demonstrate that adverse impacts (constraints) were modified by technology, site design considerations, or a combination of efforts. Some municipalities may prefer to use the "overlay district" concept to attach special provisions and conditions within the coastal zone. It is anticipated that the applicability of such devices will be further explored and reports or working papers will be made available to interested municipalities as part of the continuing Coastal Zone Management Program. FOOTNOTES 7-10 1. Act 93 of 1972 amended the Pa. Municipalities Planning Code to require a "Statement of Community Development objectives" as part of every zoning ordinance. (Article VI, Zoning, section 606) the Planning Code applies to all coastal. municipalities except Philadelphia. 7-11 SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS (DELAWARE ESTUARY) Residential Regional Science Research Institute. "Environmental Study of the Poquessing Watershed." (Philadelphia: RSRI for the Philadelphia City Planning Commis- sion, January 1976). This study investigated residents' perceptions of this Delaware tributary and made recommendations to protect the Creek from impacts of future growth. Tourbier, J. and Westmacott, R. Water Resource Protection Measures in Land De- velopment - A Handbook. (Newark, DE: Delaware University Water Resources Center, April 1974). This report gives an extensive review of techniques to ameliorate negative impacts of residential and other kinds of development. Real Estate Research Corporation. The Costs of Sprawl. (Washington, D.C.: RERC for the CEQ, HUD and EPA, April 1974). For different kinds of residential development patterns, this study gives typical impacts on water, air, energy, capital investment, and finances for the university. Land Transportation Leediy, D.L. Highway-Wildlife Relationships, PB 253421/FHWA-RD-76-4, (Washina- ton, D.C-- Urban Wildlife R6search Center, Inc. for the Federal Highway Administration, December 1975). r Although primarily addressing natural environments, this report details the impacts of highways on fish and wildlife through air and water quality and accidents. Federal Highway Administration (Region 3). L.R. 1073-Pulaski Highway, Draft EIS. 0 (Philadelphia: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra March 1976). 7his EIS exhaustively discusses the impacts of a proposed highway near the Delaware Estuary on transportation, socioeconomic character, air, noise, water, ecology, historical areas, and energy. Air 'fransportation Winfrey, Corradino, Schimpeler. "Developing an Environmental Assessment Report Z-7 for a Regional Airport-Industrial Complex," Air Travel and Aviation Facilities Planning. (Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board Record 524, 1917 Provides a detailed breakdown of impacts arising from construction and operation of large airport facilities. 7-12 Marine Transportation Tibbetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton. Port Development Plan for the Delaware River. (New York: TAMS for the Delaware River Port Authority and Philadelphia PoFt Corporation, June 1968). Althouah materials is dated and a new report on marine facility needs is being prepared, this report gives background information on the obsolescence of existing berths and piers and the role of containerized shipping in the port Cr economy. Energy Refining Factbook: Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Development. (Boston: New England River gasin Commission for the Resource and Land Inv tigations Programs, U.S. Geological Survey, November 1976). The Factbook, the best available source of accurate information, is an encyclo- pedia-r-e-re-rence for onshore facilities related to offshore oil and gas develop- ment. Most relevant for the Delaware Estuary are sections on gas processing oil marine terminals and refineries, Chapters 3, 5 and 6, respectively. Environmental Research and Technology. Environmental Report on the Proposed Modernization of the Paulsboro Refinery. (Paulsboro, New Nrsey: ERT To-r-M-e Mobil Oil Corporation, April 1974). This report discusses the impcts of proposed improvements and new refinery facilities on the Delaware Estuary water quality, air quality, groundwater quality, noise, river traffic and visual quality. EneLcgry Generation Master Siting Study - Major Electric Generating Projects, Delaware River Basin, 1975-1985. (Delaware Rlver Basin Electrig Utilities Group, a report to t Delaware River Basin Commission, June 1975). This report gives the consumptive water losses attributable to existina- and 0 0 planned generating facilities on the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. Back- gi-ound information on types of generation and cooling processes is presented. Philadelphia: Electric Company. Environmental Statement, Eddystone Generating Station, Units No. 3 and No. 4. (Philadelphia PECo, June 1971. The impact of additional generating units on air, water, noise and traffic are a included in this report. A special study of thermal impacts on the Delaware was prepared. 7-13 Utility and Communication R.O.W. Delaware River Basin Commission. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Interstate Energy* C6mpany PipeTi-ne, (Delaware County, -n-o-rth to Northampton County). (Trenton: DRBC -the Gulf Interstate and Penn- sylvania Power and Light Company, January 1974). Manufacturing Lund, Herbert F. (Ed.). Industrial Pollution Control Handbook. (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1971T_ For each major manufacturing category, this textbook discusses the generation 01 and control of air and water pollutants. Stevens, B.H., Brackett, C.A., Coughlin, R.E. An Investigation of Location Factors 0 Influencing the Economy of the Philadelp-h-i-a--Region. JPhiladelphia: Regional Science Research Institute, March 1997). This study analyzes the role of the Port, existing industries and labor resources in attracting future manufacturing growth in Philadelphia. Solid Waste Disposal U In %@hester-Betz Encrineers. "Landfill Non-Point Sources of Po ution, Background formation and Best Management Practices Approach, BMP No. 911 (Plymouth Meeting, PA: CBE for the DVRPC and Penn DER, May 13, 1977). . C2 r This report presents a general discussion of leachate and runoff contamination fi.-om landfills. Sewacre Treatment and Water Supply C3 Viright, James F. (ex. dir.). Water @Mana gement of the Delaware River Basin (Trenton: Delaware River 9-a-s-in-Com mission, April 1975). This report reviews water quality and water supply in the Delaware River, a-2dressina the issue of salinity control and depletive water uses in the Delaware Basin. Chester-Betz Engineers. Chapter VI and Chapter.VII, COWAMP, Lower Delaware and U@ Schuvlkill River Bas-ins, (Plymouth Meeting, PA: CBE for the DVRPC and P-enn I g DER, June 1975). These chapters include a thorough inventory of waste dischargers and water supply withdrawals within the Delaware Estuary. A profile of water quality in the Estuary is also provided. -7 14 Land Transformation Chester-Betz Engineers. "Hydrologic Modification Non-Point Sources of Pollution, 0 Best Management Practices Approaches, BMP No. 14, 11 (Plymouth Meeting, PA: CBE for the DVRPC and Penn DER, May 13, 1977). This report gives a fairly detailed (yet not specific for the Delaware Estuary) account of potential pollution and toxic effects associated with river dredging and with different methods of spoil disposal. U.S. Army Engineer District. Final Composite Environmental Impact Statement, Project Maintenance, Delaware River, etc. (Philadelphia, PA; U.S. Army En gineer District, 1975). This report gives a description of dredge operations on the Delaware Estuary and Schuylkill River, existing and planned sites for dredge spoil-disposal and the physical and socioeconomic impacts arising from channel maintenance activit- ies. Jack McCormick & Associates, Inc. "Interim Report on the Vegetation, Wildlife, a nd Water Quality of the Pennsbury Manor Study Area, Lower Bucks County, Pennsylvania." (Philadelphia: JMA for the Warner Realty Investment Company, January 1974). Gives some general information on the manner in which sand and gravel mining activities affect the ecology of the large m an-made lakes in the Bucks County Coastal Zone. Natural Resources Management Clark, John C. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management of the Coastal Zone. (Washingaton, D.C.: THe Conservation Foundation, MarcH This book provides general information on development constraints needed to protect marine ecosystems. Thurow, C., Toner, W., and Erley, D. Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands. (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, June 1975). This report discusses the importance of wetlands and streams and creeks (among other features) and methods of local control to protect natural processes. Developed Waterfront Recreation Roy Mann Associates. Recreational Boating on the Tidal Waters of Maryland. 0 (Cambridcre, Mass: KMA for the Maryland Energy and Coastal- Zone Admin-- 0 istration, 1976). This report provides an overview of conflicts between recreational boating and marine shipping and the possible impacts of recreation development on natural shorelands. 7-15 Wholesale Trade and Storage Toner, W. Mini-Warehouses. (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, (Report No. 324) F-e-Fr-uary 1977). Although primarily focussing on mini-warehouses, this report discusses the impacts of storage facilities on traffic, runoff, aesthetics, noise and public service requirements. Commercial and Service Muller, T. and Dawson, G. The Fiscal Impacts of Residential and Commerical De- velopment: A Case Study. (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute,-Ze-c-em-E-er 1972). This report balances the municipal service costs of commercial development against local tax revenues; it does not detail benefits derived from income and jobs created by development. The Urban Institute and International City Management Association. Measuring the Effectiveness of Basic Municipal Services. (Washington, D.C.: TICT-a-n-a-IRTINT-A, Februarv 19-7-47.- This report gives background information on measures of the adequacy of com- munity services and their role in serving urban needs. Included are recreation, library, crime, fire protection and citizen complaint services. 7-16 LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE INTRODUCTION Pennsylvania's coastline, like the air we breathe and the water we drink, is a vital resource. The amount of Commonwealth coastland is limited, but is important to our existence. Several significant differences are evident among air, water and land resources. Land in most cases is privately-owned while air and water are normally considered as resources shared by all. The quality of our air and water is carefully monitored and controlled for the common welfare of all citizens. The use of our most limited resource land, and more specifically coastland, continues to occur in many instances with only the owners welfare in mind. Often, the effects of'insensitive land use do not recognize or heed property boundaries. Historically, coastal land planning and regulation was ldkgely a matter of economic and cultural concern. Plans and regulations have been based primarily on the ability of land to accomodate man-made structures and uses. - This "approach" to coastal planning is no longer satisfactory or acceptable. A critical need exists to recognize the natural values of land, to encourage future development in suitable areas, and to coordinate local land use plans with neighboring communities so that conflicts will be minimized and uses benefiting several communities are not arbitrarily excluded. The Lake Erie Coastal Zone, unlike the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone, r confronts the coastal planner with use conflicts characteristic not only of an urbanized shorefront area, but also a rapidly developing and predomin-ately rural coastal area. Growth areas no longer coincide with urban centers. Instead, development is sprawling outward from urban concentrations to areas which just several years ago were considered very rural in nature. The objective of this chapter is to systematically determine coastal areas most capable of supporting the kinds of future development anticipated to occur within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. To accomplish this all land and water resources were inventoried, and then assessed for their capability and suitability to support various uses. This permissible use analysis will seek to optimize the balance between the development of economic opportunity areas and the preservation of areas of significant natural, historical, or aesthetic values. The analytical process to be discussed will be developed carefully and understandably to provide maximum utility to the most prevalent users-local planners and decision-makers. PERMISSIBILITY METHODOLOGY 7-17 In order to determine use permissibility, all- land and water uses which are presently supported by or planned for the Lake Erie Coastal zone were inventoried. coastal resources that were inventoried early in program development were used for this analysis. These coastal resources are commonly recognized as factors which contribute to economic activities, and support natural processes. The primary objective of this analysis will be to ascertain the direct and significant impacts of coastal uses upon the waters of Lake Erie, however, the following analysis will also assess all conceivable use impacts that may be exerted upon the inventoried coastal resources. As a first step in determining permissible uses, a very general method was used to assess the possible adverse impacts of uses upon resources for the entire Lake Erie Coastal zone. The general land and water use categories selected for analysis include: residential, commercial, industrial, agriculture, transportation, recreation, and extraction. In certain cases, uses having similar or closely related activities were combined to avoid unneccessary duplication of work. For example, uses involving some degree of land transformation.such as, residential, commerical, and agricultural uses were combi:n':ed for purposes of this analysis. Specific activities associated with these uses were identified and include: structures, fences, vehicles, roads and parking areas, clearing, drainage improvements, etc. Once the activity selection was accomplished, the impact assessment was completed by using an adopted version of the Sounsen Impact Matrix System. This method was used because it allows the resource planner to follow a clear step by step process from the general use category to a very specific effect on a particular resource. uses. Thouqh in this analysis it is used for general uses as applied to the entire coastal zone, it could also be applied to site specific uses. The following explanation of the development and use of impact .assessment networks will provide a detail understanding of this initial step in determining use permissibility. The Impact Assessment Network or matrix system, works as follows: First the major land use group containing the use in question is selected. Let us say for illustration purposes that the "industrial, transportational" use group is chosen. Next a simple matrix is established showing associated industrial and transportation USES down the vertical axis. Some these might be: highway transportation; manufacturing; and power plants. Then CAUSAL FACTORS are selected for the USE category and placed on the opposite or horizontal axis of the matrix. Causal factors are the individual components which comprise or support the various uses and which actually impact coastal resources. Some of these are: Roadways and parking areas; water and sewer systems; structures. The matrix now looks like this: USES & USES CAUSAL FACTORS 7-18 With this matrix established, the user can determine which causal factors relate to which uses. when the rest of the system is developed this initial matrix provides a convenient reference for relating a specific causal factor to a specific use category. The next step in the network development is to establish "Initial Conditions" which might occur in coastal waters should the causal factors become a reality. An example for this element might be: Introduction of sewage and industry liquors ,. The initial conditions are then set up in matrix form on an axis opposing the causal factors. In this manner each initial condition can be easily traced back to its causal factor. Using the same matrix axis as for initial conditions an impact, or effect, progression is developed for each initial condition. The progression, the initial condition; the consequent condition resultant from the initial, condition; and the possible effect of the consequent condition on lake waters. For example, some consequent conditions to the introduction of sewage and industry liquors (initial condition) might be: A) Unappealing water color and noxious odor; B) Introduction of human disease vectors or; C) Introduction of poisons,,toxins and inhibiting agents. The possible effects or impacts of such consequent conditions might be: A) Aesthetic displeasure; B) Contamination of water sources and; C) Mortality of biota and habitat destruction. The completed impact assessment networks can be examined on the following pages (figures vii-7 thru vii-12). These effects which have now been identified can then be evaluated as to whether or not their impacts are direct and significant to coastal waters. Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires each coastal state to develop a definition of what shall constitute a direct and significant impact upon coastal waters. Direct and significant impact was briefly discussed in Chapter 6, Boundaries. As a next step in the procedure to determine permissible uses, an operational definition of direct and significant impact was developed. In formulating this definition, various characteristics of coastal waters which may be subject to change primarily from land use impacts were examined. These water characteristics included: physical, chemical, biological, riparian, socio-economic and aesthetic conditions. For purposes of this analysis, an impact can be defined as the result of an action which causes a change to some element in the human or natural coastal environment. Further, an impact is considered DIRECT when a change in the ambient characteristics of coastal waters is the immediate or primary result of a particular action, activity, or use. The action, activity or use in question must have a direct link to the coastal waters of Lake Erie or Presque Isle Bay, and must change one or more of the above mentioned water characteristics. some examples of actions. which directly impact coastal waters include-direct discharge of chemical, biological,.or thermal wastes 7-19 into the waters of Lake Erie or Presque Isle Bay, physical barriers which impede the littoral drift, oil spills, or offshore extractive activities. An impact is SIGNIFICANT when it results from an action which changes the ambient characteristics of coastal waters to the degree or extent that such changes become: irreversible, reversible only by use of extraordinary means; create a lasting or prolonged effect; or are of a highly controversial nature. Such changes may, but need not be limited to the following: 1. Have both beneficial and detrimental effects if, in balance, the net effect is beneficial.' 2. Result'in degradation of the quality of the water environment. (for example: Eutrophication caused by excessive' addition of phosphates to lake waters.) 3."Curtail the range of beneficial uses of the coastal waters. (for example: continual and large industrial waste discharges into lake waters.) 4. Though of individually small impact, result cumulatively in a large impact. (for example: a concentration of 100 homes dumping untreated sewage into the lake.) 5. Be of such frequency or regularity that the change is sustained causing a significant impact. (For example:.A power plant which daily adds large volumes of water to Presque Isle Bay at temperatures which vary greatly rfrom ambient water temperatures.) 6. Be of a highly controversial nature. (For example: Offshore drilling for natural gas.) The determination of uses capable of exerting a direct and significant impact upon coastal waters provides the coastal planner with a tool to plan more sensitively for critical coastal resources. A working knowledge of general use impacts is important for the proper planning of any area at any governmental level. However, it is particularly critical for local resource planners to have available more specific information regarding use impacts and the areas in which they are most likely to occur. In order to develop this detailed information, a second, more site-specific impact analysis was undertaken. This localized dimension of permissibiiity analysis was accomplished through a three-part analysis that assessed: 1. The capability of coastal land and water resources to support both existing and planned uses or to absorb negative consequences of use. 2. The suitability of socio-economic coastal resources to support both existing and planned uses. 7-20 RFSTDMTXAL DEVELOPMENT- XTTZ CGMM=lAL SEMCF5 TiIXILT RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL RMCULUM 11TZXT_ r I T_ , ; ; ; C C VU:8 4"T- '' -@-- AGRICULTURAL T LC USES I, G. S. E T AL ARH E:LU P V L 0 G I I R A E T 0 E R 0 T T A 11 1 . I LC . . : A E .M T I W I G D N 6 C I E C W S R R I I I N I C E 9 L T S T A C I D C L AN to W 6 U T AN IVA IGG Ic T 9 A 6 E R 8 P G K A L Z E P 1 3 B 3 E I PT AA I OR AN S T 3 1 s a x a 0 Z C T I L T E I L V R 0 1 H C L A L P L NI aPUS POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS M C 11 A 0 D V T N R L 9 0 R : NI .: 0T W A K T ,1 4C 0 R I I ML II R D N N T: MA K S G G 9 R A E T S A: NTI N -AN SG LT I I II' II I 3NMAL 00M on ansagulum oomca:Tlam POSSIBLic AL I I I I ALA& I t I ALAIkAk - 1. Increased Runoff into ASismilate/Increame Bluff Erosion A. Imperil Cliff Structure '47 streass 2:1crossed Frog. a Intensity of Floods B. ftperil Flood Plain Development C. lZramse shmet a Gully Erosion C. Jater Benthi. Community 7 oc...d Fresh Water A. Decreased Flashing of Pollutants A. fteduce - t.1 ystes capability rm r into Lake a Say, to as.imil:ts pollutant supply s. Decreased Di.aolwd oxygen Hl. Morality a habitat destruction of high oxygan demand biata 32. Proliferation of law oxygen blot&. Reduction of. Productivity C0--trate sediment rnshore C. X.cre a evolution into dry lAnd. D: Decreased sediment available for D. Move "-disentation and shoaling l-gshorm transportation Yet- Pat-- 3. Increased Tw@bidlty A. Cut-off light to primary production Al. Reduce Biotic production, reduce 14 N Pq F Pht-ynta.i..- im and number of species A2. :duce dissolved oxygen D. Impair Feeding of eight-feeding fish B. ZmpaLr sport fish attraction to In= C. Favor spe-Les tolerant to high C. change specie. cospo.1tion turbidity D. Changed Color mad clarity of vat.. D. Amathatic, di.pl asure a impair skin diving and um&=r exploration E. Inemamed amounts of expanded E. Reduced desirability for body material "'t r. Increased Sedimentation 1. Substrate unammitable for vocolon- zation. Habitat destruction 1. Introduction of Sewage A. Umappe ling water Color and A. Aesthetic displeasure, noxion: odor B. Nutrient Stimulated Phytoplankton :1 Production of toxins fatal to blots blocas 2: Decreased light penetration B3. Haduceidiwalved xygoL@txCCti C. Increased oxygen demand - decreased :1. Mortal ty and habitat as dissolved oxygen of high oxygen dmand blot& .. productivity Proliferation of lo' oxygen demand towed or post level C3. A-rabic Condition noiom odo D. Introduction of human di-we D. Contamination of water Contact areas toZ R. Introduction of floatable material E. Befouling of shoreline a caCta t area F. Proliferation of swags tolerant P. Proliferation of populationzi to wed species or post levels G. Increased Turbi ity S.. Number 3 B. Precipitated bl=t of sludge ff. Mortality .habitat destruction of henthic, hints 1. 1 troduction of polaon. and 1. Mortality and habitat destruction of i2ibitLng agent. bLota 1. Animal effluvia into A. Introduction of Poisons and A. Contamination of water contact areas Coastal drainage inhibiting agents a. nutrient stimulated phytqplankton B. Aesthetic displeasure bi- 6. NutrLfLed ronoff g A. nutzLftcation of groundwater A. Ground"ater contamination Graund.at.. -...glCbLn..ia :. stimulation of phytoplankton blooms; B. See B of number 4 go effluents into Introduction of hunumn disease venture A. Cautamin :tion of water contact amam grourmlwator B. seepage of pol3uted gmundarat- Into B. A..tht dimpleam.- Coastal drainage Organic debris into A. Incream biochemical oxygen denuu,xil Al. Mortality a habitat doot ruc tion of Coastal drainage high oxygen demand hints. Reduce Productivity A2. Proliferation of low oxygen demand blot to wed or post lovel A3. Anam:Zc conditions noxious ad*= A h 9. Introduction of chlorLm- A. Concentration in biotic food chain Al. Reproductive failure of pelagic d hyd-'I-. birds, Crustaceans and fish Pesticides) Al. contamination of certain shellfish B. Depress photouynothsaLs and B. Reduce biotic productivity reproduction of plankton -10. Sheet and Gully Erosion A. Change bottom sediment composition A. Mortality of bicta mad pmaninq into =set drainage population. B. Moremsed turbidity B. FAdUC0 biotic production. Reduce elm mad umber of species 11 1 C. An larats evolution to mat and C. Mortality and habitat destruction ma=lands of submerged -iti.. ockage of Hand Ermian A. Decreased deposition of send to beaches Al. Imparil Cliff edge structures and and Transport ailiti. Al. Increased e-pam m to atom LT drainage .InLand flooding 12. Xnexesmad SedLeentation A. Sediment deposition faster than A. Abnormal increase in bottom deposits biotic *djmt-t B. Cheap compositicni. of bcLttom subs@rat@. 5. Substrate unnuitable for rocclonization. Habitat DoOttUrtloff C. shoaling of estuarine Water camossm, C. shoaling of berths, channels and harbors A,. -13. Stimulation of Landslides A. Shunt mad gully erosion into meet Al Alter nc community 5 -.suitable far ---Ionization H_ Highly visabl. areas of earth mad B. Aesthetic displeanum IT 11. Changed Whom 1-fLl. A. Ri4h . @4' -a-up and overtopping A. Island flooding 15. Reflection of on-shore A. Increased backwamh acoves share Al: Xnereased beach erosion me"m Al XaWalr Cliff edge tuct.rem and utilities Reflected waves Into waterways small boat navigation ha.ad 1.6. Interception of Longshore :'. Downdrift beach and share erosion Al. Removal of beaches. Undermining a drift calLap- of shoreline development. A2. :couring way of benthic habitats I Dredglnq or Zmavation A. Changed composition of substrate Al. ub.trat' -uitable for for Landfill madloniation A2 Habitat dent ion B. Increased turbidity BI: mad. bL.,1Ca,Ctd.,ion. al" and number of species R2. Reduce dissolved oxygen C. Collection and decomposition of C. Raleame of nosionS odors. olfactory organic material discasufort D. D.- - or -tion of light P.-t-t t:liin I - bottom photomynth-Lears D. Reduced prianary production. Decreased .,mm mad number of species Black androscous A. Block anadromanum fish migration A. Neduce send ations fish Migr ki T, 19. Prevent public accoon A. Concentrate public access to specific Al. Overose and deterioration of public to shoreline points .. and facilities A2. Cam"otion and overcrowding of pulaic access x"C' Al. Provoke trump ng mad vandalism "al 20. Physi I barrier along ANavigation hazard boating congestion A. Poor boating conditions B: Rough Jagged surfaces in water Contact B. Bodily injury am" 21. theightly Lntrvation A. increased desirability of unepoiW Al. Overuse of areas and debarLoratLon within Coastal - can - .-L. armas of -i. appeal A2. Dies".. motors, aesthetic dimplessum 22. upset a logy of AAlter natural vegetational pattern AAesthetic displeasure LndegZacus comommaLtime B: Decimation of endangered species B: Elimination of desirable specie@ UJAIRS TRANBF=_ RIMAT 73ANUM- I TT=TX TT RAIL TRARBPW TX11=1 TT I cow GRARD I T I TT I T I I I NARM MUR13K NAMAMMING IL PONER PLANTS $Mm mamarr ftmrs- AIR 72ANSPORMICH INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATIONAL USES 7171 1 1 t TTT T G 0 T U F'V R R I I B I V 8 V F 3 T 0 0 11 T 3 A 0 . 0.aA . A . . A , i A I : . IA I A I A 1 1. . . L I V I A I I L N I C I L D L D D D I I T I X 9 1 P 3 P P R a Z C W D G aR D X1 8 C G @ I K a 5 I X : 3 3 L R 7 A A L 0A I U T P I I I AI N B 3 D I I I I U N T : L A A A I L 5 R 3 B B G NA A 7 ; L a D 1 0 1 N I r 0 ' 9 ,7 P I T U I 1 0 n Z N I A 9 U 1 0 T . . . I : I . . D D. T 0 X I IL U 9 R L I A U $ D T L I T . 9 8 1.A C . 0 L 7 X 1 0 R D T 5 R 1 0 A C A D H A I L 8 R D 8 p R U I a B C R 1 5 N T W a A A A I R N T -0 A N U . a . . . I Ins I N C A N A D D A A I A POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS 8 L T 1 0 T 3 N U L r E R A INITIAL CONOITION ODIENM- 17DON POSSIBLE I.Or..... '_" __ "-.A. ."In 0, '___ cliff mr..' A. .pr"I I'. edge trucrumv. i,tc.LZ- led may And and utilities, frequency and i= of floods B. Ipperil coastal flood plain develo;Xt III TT I i IT III A. Peacetime, Of solved oxygo A. Rduu@ biotic -productivity 2. Heated effluent, B. Decreased species diversity R. I InJoillty of population and .=iti- C. P,clifetatims, of sucker vote, hints C. Froliferati- of p"ins into -ad or Pont --I D. Hmerim' tm Rigrati Of boat sensitive DI. Had.- rowman =-I rium- bdoem, of beat siti" bioca 03. stimulation Of Surface fog 1-4-3. 1,troductimmofsexag. A. unappealing water color and nomicem, A. houthatic displeasure, and Industry Liquors *11* mutrin I stimulated phytoplankton R1 MothtLc dimple sure blemem B2: Production of toxins fataL to bi- Emerson"d light penetration dissolved Oxygen C. Increaded oxygen dommad- Cl. mortality and habitat dentructic. dents"Od dissolved oxygme I high on,,v, demand blot.. H@dar. productivity C2. proliferation demand hints Xww= w"y'p*@ot 1-1 C3. 'rob . condftiom.. Homicas Were D. Introductionothuman, disease venture, 'L. =mication Of "to contact D2. COO-OLnatic, of noter mano,ce E. Introduction of flowlable matezials fall- man "t" EL. pooling := man dingle F. In,=..e of nownys toloromt species of pop. tion. to -d or pose '_' Precipitated blanket of sludge G. mottelity and bob tat destruction of hi'l' Introduction of poisons am iob,ibiting H. mortality and habitat destruction agents of bL_ 4. Ship Somage Caams As 3 ABOvK) (RAKE AS 3 ABOVE) S. Introduction, of con, A. Biotic concentration in food chain Al. Ri-e contaminated to homes bi.d.g..d.b1ba JhvA;y Law-. matels, Pcss) A2. A=:Iity or reproductive failar, .9 'co.t-tim, epoxies G. wakage from F cralaus, A. Accumulation ith Ispended materLal A. Concentrat on of toxic hydrocazb- Wading FacilMes and precipitation to bottom one on boti " b-thi. habitat t destruction -studio. have shown that B. Block iebc- oxygenation of .ter 31: Reduce biotic p@-Lvity the chance of oil being H2 Hattality and hwu4 .. ....racti- produced free offshore gh oxygen _W bin of hi *'y' -11. is extramely H3. In.- demand calikoly bit. :: Of I-or post level ad * muni- data and anaerobic con,41ft"" C. I ressed oxygen deconced-4 - - am ad. C.(ME, AS BI -34. AgOog) d2Z.Lead oxygen D. Ingestion and courestration Of oil 11. ILI am.-. "t.-t'af by bicta fi.tLh and Ilfi.h flesh 112. mortality of biata and habitat destruction B_ Floatable so= 81. comemains. "Imminq - ana he". a:: beaches 12. Anotheti, displeam,em, F_ -1 of pelagic birds and mortal -I'Vi. birds and _l!tY Of G. Fouling of fishing gear G. Impair fishing ape tion Application of dispersion chemical. H. H-emlity led habitat dentruILem and dtargant. of nowitiva hLots, 1. oil all.. froo, Hooker (mame Am 6. A.-H. AD" cshmm@ As a. A.-N. ABOVE) and RLIgi c1maning of " A. ..' oil .'ic'. A. (Shem Am 6. A.-H. AICNE) 9. Back., Foams and Dust a- increased particulotes Al. Inc-:ad = and fog fro ..y N 4 A2. Omc:- ad temper a-. ': "' , 3: An the-, di,,,@ cre C Hong formation By: irritation, lung irritation adA- :t' th " d"pl-- D. fallout onto land I commeal _r. is- human is W. Hertality or reproductive failure aT concentrating WT,, D3. Habitat destruction Of biota ah.& h. 10. Shost and Gully Rue,Lon A. Change bottom Sediment CCW=Iti= A. Altar benthic Community into Coast Drainage 5. silt -red biota and spanning gtomad, B. Nottality of bines and spawning pop'la Loan C: Increased =11ty C. Rod-. dissolved exyges. D secalexote lotion to out and DI. mortality and habitat denteuctLon, nor land. E submersed common ties D2. Wors. . -tat I.-I. I-md sedimentotice, A. Sediment deposition faster than A. Smother benthic, his" habitat biotic adj.. t dft.-tion @.o,m composition of bee:oes, do.-In 0. Babm@ rate -suitable for ,sca nineties C Shoaling of estuari- a-er course. C. Shooling of berth., channel, and harbo" D. ustramal depth W bottom 0. I=,-- vater 1-2. - - - - - - - 1h 12. :ti- atics, of Landslides A. Sheet and gally into Tat drainage A. (RANH AS la- A.-D. ABOYZ) as Jews x. Highly visable areas earth and B. Aesthetic dip1mancre, option 11. Into- of Wngh- A. OmenfirLft banch and hers rosion Al. pecumv" .1 beach .. undermining brift and co, lapme of =Iinm develop, most :2. maturing away of benthi, habitats ..Lemming of updrift beach and ' ': mouth b-thic habitat .heraline .2 InfiIII,q of h-bOre. lagoons mad bay- B3. Remove shoreline development from A. immed:Ix scomen to onts. 14. DredgIng A. mosevol of sub HIM ity of bito in wvbxt@atv B. Chemped of substrate a. Sumatra ves,itable fee re-In Laotian -C' Were sod turbidity Cl. Redeem bi i:tic Production C2. Hudson d solved may". or D. Relea: of tomins .. Habitat destruction trick A. Concentrate public acce.9 to specific Al. =use and deterioration of public pub i. Access to ft. points a and fmciliti- M .Congestion and-:Zrowding A3. Provoke t-sopme.1 and vandalism TT IT'TTI I I I I I.. =:-ssd Vsh color A. Vehicular funma and naive Al. Disruption of wildlife the Comet A2. Aesthetic dl-Plammorm 3. Inersomed traffic cam9eselon along B. Traffic central and ansident -at precaution prob I I I I T 1 17. Anchor Dragged Acros. A. Rupturing of pipeline or cable break Al. Spill ana on. cookendeation L,.liz c: Is. w1li.1- spillg. .9 (ME AS AM 6. ANCAS) A. (SM AS 3. AND 6. AD=) Pi,all. sod Cables A2.Ptomin ties .3. We. of se As. .. of ='--t.Lhip damage materials :1. Ravigat homers Cargo and Pool FlentabW 'a 11. Wu@l - Per.L.Isat A. Ed.ftion .1 ildlift Al. ft-d-t Of fending and Nei.. meeting grounds inhibit ftion LLX= 113= XXX= A2. anothe in dLopleaciuce sightly Intrusions, A. Increased desirability of -spoiled Al. Cbngm:im and aesthetic N i In tal 8- areas sYf area and ft"ric"tion Of pp-l H2.. slope A. marred natural landfoce, and vegetation Al Raw tic dlpl-- f D"t"b'd Cover roe." desir-1111ty of unspoiled -1 . ... 22. on-i-Le, compounds row A. Altar cbseinal -keep of noun. AL. Requi. Izeher processing ft, 'I, " " RZ: Inct", Lak. = atteds, mean. homes :.exception M. Endanger or kill biotic lite mom am- IL I I IIIx XXI IMSEENG SAM on SAILING a I I. x SCUBA AND VADING RECREATIONAL amp Eau SENBCOKKENG AM WIRM Sur cmlzcrnr_ T. AL I I I PICNICING An CODECUTS XI MIXI 71 1 1 1 1 PAMENG AS 012SHINTMUff XL X7 71 VnX= OWMATIM XT..X- M I HURTIN I Ix amnuft Rwm Ann BICICLING LXTT LAKININS DINING- SiORTMUG AND FEALS1112 DRUITING ITT. MISPING ME= T_ USES IC 1,U V111, TI T1111 1 11C a9 . . AT . Z .0T 3.A . f . a .1 . : 11 .9 0 L I W C G I A R R T 11 A I A A 1 0 L V C 9 1 A A T L L A I X 0 IL U I . . f A L 7 1 a.C C C . I C C T I CT 7 L 1. A Z A D T T A I A U I T I T p T L A A T A 0 A A I I I B A 7 N ,a 1 0 N 0 0 T A D I N C N R . 1. .A - - - - S - 11 - 0 - I C:C 9 . . I A . . . 9 a II H TR I T 1 6 A 0 0 T L I L 0a A 0 8 D 'S I 1, 7 R I L I A T LT z I P a p A a S 8 5 1 0 1 3 A K V 1, CC 11 1 . . II D N I A I L L 0 3 POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS L A 1 1 ]XITTAL CONNITIOff CONSEQUIRT CONDITION F=Xna Aspacm, 1. Istrosped B.OfE A. Brisulam - Icre- cliff .-.I- A. ravexil liff ads. .,-ct- and utilities B. Imemseed frequeacy and "M Of flwd4B. DVOIJI coastal flood plain d-lopsaw: C. lacraswed shoat and gaily .-Ion C. Altar boutble wasmalty 1111 1-17 111 1 2. Bustles Wake. AIc--d ubidity ACap ise sell craft 3: Backing of' Bull d-.v i.,-,ti- I A. Do. oaling enter lot and UOXLOW A. Aesthetic displeasure, Odom I. Nutrient Stimulated phytoplanktan, ": knotbatic displessure blame .2 Mduccuo Of toxim fatal to Iota 53: Do.-- light penotratiaq B4 Reduced 2.ol-d orygm C. Imereas. ozygm dessad - decreased Cl. Martell and habitat descruation dissolved oxygen, of bilftc!.yg- doused blot. C2. T..-. at law new&- deased blot& In wed or past level C3. Anaerobic coaditiono.-a..L.- ad.- D. ltrad..cfes, of hassw disease .... 91. :saination of water Instant S2. -Mtsmination of fish E. introduction of floatable vatsvial X. BeEcalins of mhoralies, and suM, castact 1. 1.cmawa of sawam tolerant species F. Znc as. of populations to IawL or ;.I 'a-, 0. Ptscipitated blanket of sledge, G. Mortality and habitat destruction .of beachi blot. H. introduction oftri- and a. Wrtaily and habitat destruction inhibiting am of blot. 4. Beary..d Effluenke A. introduction of pol.- and/- A. Mortality of blota and habitat I.h icing a&-. dstracocia. Contntration at h",y attain by fish B. Contastratim of fish '1fIJL of Bluely degradable all. C. Retooling of shoreline and boom Concentration of has" astals and A. Mortal ty of biata and 5. xsaching of Toxia. It- :. I Antifolling coatings toxIns by bifta d-g-'al 6. Collection of Floatble Al. Aesthetic dipl.. D.bris and Rick Spill. At. Beftlins of boat, bun, and prop A3. Canada Is bint. I ILI II I T T 7 7. Open Time ACharred romfus A. JsUlthtiC displeasure 'do- B. Physi. C: lZaltion oil dril.d al ..mile. Cl. It= .:1.ring If shoreline a-ti" C2. Dosage of hateli- buffer trip .at and Cally Iro.- A. increased turbidity In littaral A. Decrease buffer stability Into Coast Drainage ITT IF I Q 1 111 1. lammeltion, .1 A. Deandfift beach and here .-I- Al. Repave' of beaches, undlrodning Lona.l.re Drift and lisp- .9 d._l.p_.t AL scourin way of beathdc habitat A. Sub 10. Dredging A. Changed composition of substrate botra unsmitable for retain, 's I ination. Sabi- destruction 3. Increased turbidity 1. Care off light to prinary, photasynth.simm C. Uncovered ludp or couts"nated C. Release of coal" as to 31. Pits Eocand balm bottas laval D. Collection and d-spositlen of organic debris. Releasing noxlau@ Odom 3. Baccomed light penetration to E. Hadvat Weary Production. butcon, photanytheadence fterease I= and nunber of species p. Paostratl:oaf froMamts, mlelft, F. Contautnationa;.r.7.ap. of di-tI around.."" 0. Subsidence a buttas, at-.. -p " of Offshore supports U. Littat left an Beath A,. Attract im If 1-cm, Sells and A. physical annumuca. disease t soathatic d"plowerve B. Broken glue. sharp objects, rusty B. Bodily injury d.b.i. C. Intrwis public disregard for area increased li to.. vand.11.., .I.. D. C: t-fort 11neightly "cussalationa, noxious Olfactory dis Odom -thti. @Lvvl Clean-up -...at, Taxpay.. zpawn, codes 1. 1-loard Disposal Of AFlowtobla vatarl&L Al: Accusal line an hamllao, Befune At Navigation basard B. Dabrin accuoulation an bettan Bl.. Physical bmard 1, eace, contact B2 So g a' fishing Door B3: Aoa`t=' tin displeasure to and-ster, .,arm 13. Trawpli'S of Beach and A. Mortality or testing of vegetation Al. Does bluvrout. Wind erosion of sh-l@ Ylplatlra horolvant, At. Send drives Inland to -tal AL zzpass ahocalim dovelopoont to at- desage, B. Starting of@ natural velptation a. Disrupt ustax.1 pattern L 14. Traspling or Clearing A. lacrassed recession If bluff edge #- Lass Of bluff property. lisp.. Bluff,;tRi. Or Slope B. Show, and gaily amino, into coastal B. Change bottas andleset: composition, V.S.t ion d1alangs :11t Zwmd blots and cpassInS C. Mortality of Kate and pavalas populations D. Increased turbidity D. Dac@cawsw light to prisery Photosynthesize. 33. Can -collection If A. tdo. .. destroy bcoll- bbitaU A. Sad-S.. If - pa.i.. shozine species c-iti" B. I.- of uncollected competitor S. Abandowwat of fowling and -tias ground. In forage species Dead C. Bass an C Aboes Pop as glatim dependent an D. andenpr survival at depapdaw: ponles cap M. Disturbance of Wildlife A. Abandowenot :f fasullag; and conting Al. Endanger ramtral of vare species Banned.. Jobibit reproduction A2. Increas. If forage to post level. Reduce Population for p.rt 'S. Deduced assuh.ti. P. cial .11,111f. b- - - 17. Physical S.Irl-r to A. N-Igtiao, haw.rd bastion A. 3..@S _11"- F Alongshore Beach and B. Bough. Jagged .-fame, In I-. S. Bodily injury Sam. keene. C. =tact an castrate public dae within a C1 lb co, at= In of vegetation United a.. cz: =ty-urvivaltafa- Was C3. Alter or destroy she line habitats and cossusel= C4. 0.-p:tion, and c.clar- atim :i p-ubli areas and facillttw I-de t-spasaing and vasdalim A hAk A""- -.A. Age of _gaterion Al. Does blumat.. glad rcutloa as 18. Focus Public A-an to A. Mortality or stuat sp..ific Point. h.-frout good drieva Island anto cosetal ,sw,Ip-t A3. gap at= shoreline, dvalopoest to deney. B. 0 - - an l1actloo, of hcaliva, Pa.". 31. Sedan species a I A"-i-l of rare p .2. 11. r destroy horelits, habitat and Jan C. increase people traffic Cl. Ouareas and d-ci-tion If public am. and facilities C2. and overcreenllng; 19. Insufficient Space to A. Dostreat or shoulder packing Al. L'asufficient parking for creassurcial A--. Pa*ft$ and madden isl- Dozend -.. .11. =.ciaak AL Concentrate public depend to easily somes A4. lop.I.T"bUck I- free road to .b_ AS. increased danger at highway at dents 20 Land "Afar paral.tent; A. Disruption of wildlife A. Abandcassat of fsdlS and seating Not- S- d. B. Aesthetic displeasure B. Public ..W. quiet - age 21. u-ightly ratmiow@ A. Blacks vim of natural vista Al. Public aseU clear slat" -..I S"` 0ling of B. Aesthetic displeasure S. Base as Al and At Above IT 771 IT -C A. =taad set froweents Into Al Bodily Injury 22. Davellat Bulls and Junked Pans .1 a..- Al: vartaity of blot. and habitat dow, -tiae. S. WasiBatics, hasard B. Ba:z callialues, C. Unsightly i1trustion, lithlu, C. physical asnoyance coastal Aaeb.U. diap2aaa- SWU ou An GAS M" DMMXN I T sw= xmm mD quAnyma DIMING USES C F R a Z R I L U f Z P I A R 3 0 A k 8 . . . P N A T T T R 7 N N L A 0 A A A 49 1 1 1 a R A 8 7 C N I I 11 0 N a a I IK D 1 0 N 0 S D D A a EXTRACTIVE F A I I A L I L L I A I R A D A L I I . . 3 T I T D I s P 7 .1 "A i ci 1. R E T POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS INTEXAL COMM= CWBQMM commmom POESME 1. luccommed Turbidity A. Cut Off light "' primary, production Al. Fedure biotic prodectime, reduce six. photoormtheaUsce :d member f p.Ciss. dome dims 12 -1.- A3. Hart'lity and habitat detradtion of high Cyg- demand hints. Bedurs Productivity U. I- of low oxygen demand blots to weed 11 Past 1-1 AS. Ames"Obia -wit""' maximum odors B: lpi, famding of eight feeding fish B. repair sport fish attraotion to lure c: Faccur species tolarmat to high turbidity C. Change "as. composition D. Color and clarity or more. D. aesthetic filoplexcure .= d -to of -Opended materials 3Hadroad desirability of bodily mantent .d Clarity and undrsator Inguir kin diving and 'underenter, Eilit, .plazirtilon areased edisentatiou Bob trato comoitz1als ft. reculami-tino. Habitat destruction 2. Loathing of Train. Frou A. @cwzutratioa of honey Octal. and A. mortality of hints and degeneration of BDamage, boat, hall and prop .: saccharin displeasure 3. Boatyrd Effleact. A. Xotooductich or .is- War imbSb- A. mortality of hint, and habitat I ITI T IT Anti-Fouling c3oatings tmdm. by hints mbitat icing agents dontract B. Concentration of heavy =tale by B. Contamination of shellfish beds .MllfL.h C. Glick of -lusly dmqxodb@ ails C. Damage of shoreline and boatz, 4. Blos-out Oil Spills A. Floculation, situ .-Pa.&& material A. Can- an .9 toxic hydrocarbons and precipitation W hectare an bottam.i Mechlin habitac: dearrountion mt. . haso shumn 0. Block &izbo=. oxygenation of water B. anduon biotic Poodo-LAC7. ammused that likLihod of i =d.acubmar, or pecia. ty oil being produce from, C. racramed Oxygen al. F and hap C asetrantLon Of offshore malle in xxtramoly dimmolvad oxygen high Oxygen dommund micro. Reduce -likely. productLwity mcccams of low oxygen demand hints to sued or Past local C3. Cbnditi-. U.". -d"' D. Emdons light penetration to bicta. Dl. Haduce, biotic PinductivitY. recommend Bi Bad Bon_ of species r= . funding If eight 21ding fish 2. Fluectablo a- 21. Conanduato mairec., _ 92. Exxzzqz@ hunts, itartidel exposure, and beach- .3. Odor of he link con, Olfactory, aesthetic displeasure P. Oil roaming If P-1.9in birds and muctlity of "login = and -1. mod"W, .9 species falling of fihi. 9.. C. ,W, fishing operations Application If dispersion Chemical. a. mortality habit destruction of bLata and detergents -ItIve dispmments IA&'& I I IA& I I I ML 5. leakage Evon Oil Transfer A. introduction of highly toxic fuel CUB &Wide spread Brutality oLf, b to and pm-tions 1-9 Cars destruction Ihabitats a- a- as A.- B. Bome Is A - A Above 17TILT L T of .@Cazz Amortality Of k;iOta in 21btraft changed ampoeitian of -batosto B: Bubqt umundtabl. far recoloniation. ambitat dentruserion 7-ty C1. L4.p Off ligst-te,-0many prammeation ph'tonyoth.simeaca C2. Impai, feeding of sight funding fish 0.- am'", tolement to high tubiditi C'. of vator Cl: Increased -ft If .-pdd material. sedrand 'Ity Cl" and undervater, visability C7. Increased ..d.1mantatich 7. Uh-d Sludge Or A. xncrammad oxyges, don-d-dauzzma.d M. mortmaity - habitat destruction If high cootandmated Mdi-. dissolved oxygen oxygen demand. moduce pinduativity A2. rearems. of los oxygen demand bicta to ..,d or Pont losel. M. anaerobic -oditican. Nosions aderm B. moleass of toncin. mortality a' hints, and habitat destruction S. Pits romand holes A. CollecIri and decomposition of A. Ml.- If noicions odarm, Olfactory Buttwom invol organic :bi. dL U I I - - - - - 9. loccommod. t. sort- A. Do,comand or elimination of light Al. moduced prim" production, dw6samad posestraiian tc, bottan pbotmaythesiazza L. me,1 lumbe, If species, vegetation W. From, ration of Fresh set.. coutanduatlan or anceps of groundwater, Destruction If ..b-r"d lards Aquifer Sediment Cover apply 11. xnterception Of lor's-b-cm, A, Downdrift inianh mid share erosion Al. mana-1 of beacham, undermining an Drift = of &.mail- developments A2 ." of beathic babitadca 0. Ballooning of apdrift beach and 31: another, becuthi habitat .havelifis 32 refilling and sho.3.ig of hexbove a a" bay. 23. Rommuse, man lion deselegract, from, to mater 13. Map .1 of Dredging A. Deposition an bottack faster than A. another ban le hints. Habitat q q brathic biotic adjustment dust B. Charge, compositims, of mb.trets B. Bubs U mommitable far racclanizatiqn. Habitat dostractice, C. spoils dumped abuse Waterline C. Noxciove odors. olfactory dis M FlIlint of wjtlmn& and sdxm6rged 0. =t:r'z&dmzz. tidal and/= amok lood' B. 1hersamed turbidity E. cuts Off light to photomytheminezo and might foodi. fish 13. Oveaboard" al of Refuse A. Floatobl. material Al. _.atL- F A2. Bruiser- Al. phyeicel hazard in at.. Contact Ban B. cabri. ac time Bi. Youling of fishing goor B2. sextbatic dip aware ft andommater, exploration B3. Bodily injury to shallow mater, Common 14 asexual of Hidencial From A. Razoeal Of Store exam, di.MIP&t A. Mormses, Wozurq to starma dUkAge, shoreline 1.1and El-adin a. mining .., pits and .. da Bi. Righly sleable logo. of distzhed, atly intrusions v In comortal Overvas and deterioration of camic appeal C. 10knot and vally erosion into coast Cl. "amp bottomm sediment composition droi.ag. Q. Silt covered hint and apossics, grounda C3. rocramused turbidL4 M. moral. exclation to ext and D Amanno wand supply W beach@ h, succurage bluff a ional procommo x: exposs baxe ground to wind N. Band, dust blawn =d or' loDg.horm Introduction flactio A. 1%commuse of mannA, Marine ith a Al. Int-ductiou Jumarmaxame On, wood or species reduction of indigenous apmaias dection is Bi- .9 'Aagemance; populations. Reduced _Lty stebility A3. Inars, oaCzyZ If asafti* beyond hbititz Capacity h - - - - - - - -- of population reduced tm bolus laval al. Bi mintion of localized population. of wt&Lmd yield Id/or' -Part. fishery, .. Manager th localized arrixal of a. meders, spacing dependent an population --All, . far fares. C. Me-. of Collected fares. C1. Increase beyond habitat carrying Capacity C2. poccummuse habit , F,= product1w Capacity t habitat C3. andan"m Wviwl of-come, species, D. Increase, If uncallected Compatice. D. grome an C . species h 17. Collection Or Spactrieft A. pecroww'd portfinh forms. supply Al. =mand of bortflob and I-im Forage Populations E VIP-lation A2. Incromme, If :Ulltod go-" A3. forromme@ of wDecto=... species, M. @Czzzzsd speftfish bait, apply is. structures is rishing, A. WevigatLas hazard A. Collisions, Aceso and Shipping lance, shagging If @.,Ung A. Rupturs If piplLnm or Cable Al Bon leaka, Ge Al: Less :ft P-1. T1 ij..Li AL Loom anch- ZEE= XZ I 1,11ILL 29. Uzzightlj Intrealraw A. Xuarsamed desirability of anspoiled Al. Overnme of aceam end datarloration sizzle, Coastal a- .-In of Ionic appon. A2. "'B""ins and ovxC-dinq A3. 'dv' =-' of bi*z` in affected 3. The compatibility Of future uses with existing uses and conditions throughout the coastal area. The major purpose of this analysis is not to totally exclude future development from occurring within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone, but instead, to guide this development so that use conflicts and impacts upon coastal waters may be minimized. If population growth and related development follows projected levels, future planning and zoning must reflect wise and sensitive rescource management. For example, life and property can be best protected by restricting development within coastal hazard areas such as rapidly eroding lakefront areas and the floodplains of Lake Erie tributaries. Significant natural, cultural, and aesthetic coastal features should be preserved and or restored for future generations to experience and enjoy. it is essential to the economic vitality of the coastal zone to properly manage natural and exploitable natural re'so''urces such as natural gas and prime farmland. The screen-out process used in completing this analysis systematically identifies areas of deve-lopment opportunity. It is within these areas that economic activities can be promoted in the most environmentally compatible manner. I The capability of coastal resources to support varying degrees of development was determined through use of a map-overlay technique. That is, physical conditions or parameters which restrict development were mapped separately for the entire Lake Erie Coastal Zone. An overlay was prepared for each.of the following coastal parameters- steep slopes (greater than 15%), the 100-year floodplain, beaches, wetlands adjacent to water bodies, prime and unique farmland, unique plant/animal habitat areas, areas with a permanent high water table, areas with poor soils for structural r itically eroding support, cri shorefront areas, aquifer recharge areas, nursery waters for spawning fish species, mineral deposits and unique geological features. The degree to which development should be limited in specific area can be simply determined by the number of above mentioned parameters found to be coincident when overlain one on top of another. It is very apparent that development activities such as industrial, commercial, and residential use should not be located in those coastal areas with two or more development restrictions. These uses should be only ) conditonally permitted, and in some cases unconditionally restricted, within critical hazard areas such as eroding shorefront areas, floodplains, and steep slope areas. Development activities may be found, through the subsequent suitability and compatibility analyses, to be acceptable within areas covered by only one development restriction. Agricultural use can occur practically anywhere excepting areas of excessive slope and poorly drained, infertile soil conditions. Also land and water recreational use which does not involve land transformation activities can occur within all areas of the coastal zone. The conservation and preservation use restrictions are recommended for areas with a number of development limitations, such as a steep- banked stream corridor where steep slopes, unique geologic features, nursery waters for spawning fish species, and poor soils for 7-21 structural support may all be present. This restriction is recommended also for very hazardous areas such as steep lakefront bluffs, and for very unique and fragile coastal systems such as exist on Presque Isle Peninsula and the Crooked Creek watershed in the western Study Area. When the physical constraints for development have been fully realized through examination of coastal resource capabilities, the socioeconomic opportunities afforded development in certain coastal areas can-be determined through suitability analysis. To accomplish this, map overlays were prepared for socio-economic parameters which exist and support development within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. An overlay was prepared for each of the following parameters-lake access; transportation service; public utility service; land ownership, historical, cultural, and aesthetic amenities; proximity to compatible uses, availability of communities services (police and fire protection). By overlaying this series of suitability parameters, the local planner can easily determine areas best suited for varying degrees of development. The purpose of examining the socioeconomic suitability of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone development opportuni-Ey areas was to determine the most economically feasible sites for future development. An area covered by two or more of the aforementioned overlain parameters will be recommended as a highly desirable site for development. This analysis also serves to emphasize the importance of encouraging development near established centers of similar use. With the placement of residential development near existing residential neighborhoods the cost to local governments for expanded community services and public utilities is greatly reduced. Also the siting of future industrial facilities near areas supporting similar uses that are currently served by transportation systems, existing water sources, and waste disposal systems, reduces the need for new or expanded systems and also concentrates associated impacts where effects will be least harmful and noticeable. This analysis can be used to further refine or "screen-out" development opportunity areas identified through capability analysis. more specifically, if two areas are equally capable of supporting a particular use, the area closest to required infrastructure and similar uses would offer the greater opportunity for development. The final phase of this detailed impact analysis involves the determination of use compatibility. That is, the conformance between environmental conditions desirable for a particular land use and existing uses and conditions which characterize a particular area. Traffic, noise, air quality, existing uses, pre-emption of land, and coastal dependency of use are factors to be considered in compatibility analysis. This analysis by the very nature of parameters involved, has been subjectively accomplished using results obtained from the aforementioned analyses of resource capability (development constraints) and area suitability (development opportunity). 7-22 upon completion of the three-part analysis, a comparison was made between the resultant Coastal Zone Management use recommendations and the existing zoning maps and comprehensive plans of coastal municipalities. In order to identify anticipated land and water use conflicts, several planning research steps were integrated. First, all existing comprehensive development plans within- the Lake Erie Coastal Zone were reviewed to see where future development is planned. Next, all existing zoning maps were reviewed to see whether the uses anticipated in the comprehensive plans are, in fact, allowed under existing zoning. Then by using the resource overlays prepared for locating current conflicts, comparisons were made between the anticipated uses and existing resources. In this way potential conflicts can be pointed out with reference to resource uses. Resultant overlays were prepared which show geographic areas where potential uses can be expected to conflict. For example: residential development in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone was found to be highly competitive with agricultural uses. Residential and agricultural uses also compete for potential recreational sites except where steep slopes and flood plains are a factor. Agriculture and residential development are also in competition with the mineral extraction industry where sand and gravel deposits are found. These conflict areas have been identified on Figure vii-13. Conflicts are closely related to the capability and suitability of a particular area. If the area is capable of supporting different uses based upon-its resources, there are bound to be conflicts. The suitability of each area for a particular use determines which of the conflicting uses will be given the highest planning priority. r PERMISSIBILITY OF USES Important considerations in determining permissible uses are the land and water uses themselves, the area of land or water where such uses are proposed, the resources affected by the uses, the capability and suitability of the resources to support the proposed use, and whether or not the use will have both a direct and significant impact upon coastal waters. With the results of the aforementioned analyses, three -levels of permissibility are assigned to coastal uses examined. They are uses to be actively encouraged, uses to be conditionally permitted (subject to special considerations), and uses to be discouraged. In assessing use attributes of specific coastal resources, potential benefits are weighed against probable adverse impacts to arrive at a judgement of overall acceptability of impacts upon coastal resources. For purposes of this analysis, criteria were formulated to facilitate judgement of permissibility level assignments. Uses that are to be encouraged have benefits strongly outweighing negative impacts and are defined as permissible. Uses to be discouraged would seriously 7-23 disrupt or degrade coastal resources without compensating benefits, and are generally defined as non-permissible. Uses that are conditionally permitted have a number of potential adverse impacts but are also beneficial in some respects. These uses should only be permitted if the adverse impacts can be ameliorated through site design practices or additional technological advances. In general, permissible use determinations are derived from the results of previous coastal resource capability and suitability analyses. These determinations are well founded and can be easily justified using the available resource and resource use'information. It is hoped that these permissibility findings will simply serve to reinforce a common sense approach to local resource planning within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. "Permissible uses are those land and water uses which can be reasonably and safely supported by the resource, which are compatible with surrounding resource utilization and which will have a tolerable impact on the coastal environment." This definition adopted from CFR 920.12 of the Federal Rules and Regulations for this Program is the baseline from which permissible uses are determined. It must be noted, however, that only uses exerting or with the potential to exert both direct and significant impacts on the coastal waters are subject to the management program and only they shall be deemed as permissible or non-permissible uses. Thus, any use not meeting these criteria will be excluded from the Coastal Zone Management framework until such time as the use impact becomes direct and significant. The direct ax@d significant impact exerted by a use depends not only on the type of use, but also on its relative location to the coast, its frequency of occurrence and duration, as well as any cumulative effect that may result from a combination.of use'impacts. In considering use acceptability for the Lake Erie Coastal Zone it was felt that a combination of approaches would be best. In cases where laws or regulations, such as air and water quality standards exist, only actions or uses which comply with these regulations are considered permissible. In combination with such specific standards and in order to give flexibility of use within the Coastal Zone it was felt that use priorities should be assigned at least to coastal areas of particular concern. In theory then all uses subject to management under the CZM Program would be permissible in any area as long as they met specific standards covered by appropriate air and water quality regulations or they occurred in areas capable of absorbing significant negative impacts. Except for those uses covered directly by existing regulations, the determination of acceptability will be subjectively based.on existing information and methodologies. some of this information includes: an inventory of significant natural and man-made coastal resources; a comprehensive "impact assessment network"; a capabilit y-suitability 7-24 and compatibility analysis; and an assessment of present and anticipated use conflicts. LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION The permissibility determinations presented in this chapter are designed as guidelines for local planners and officials implementing the Coastal Zone Management Program. The methods for determining use permissibility were developed specifically for utilization by local resource planners. All.informatibn used in completing this exercise, can be easily obtained and accurately applied to site-specific planning requirements. The adoption of, permissible use determinations will represent a first step toward uniform comprehensive planning on a coastwide basis. To effectively implement the permissible use determinationsf local governments must develop, review or update their comprehensiv'e Plans and zoning ordinances where in conflict with these determinations. Federal funds to support these activities will be provided to local governments as part of the Coastal Zone Management Program. In addition, goals and policies for wise coastal management should be reflected in the "Statement of Community Development objectives" contained in most zoning ordinances. Since local resources will be able to absorb the "encouraged uses," the municipality should allow these uses "by right" in the appropriate zoning districts. On the other hand, uses to be "discouraged" should NOT be permitted "by right" in the zoning ordinance. "Conditional" uses may be selectively accomodated through devices such as "Special Exceptions's or "Conditional Usell provisions, where specific standards and criteria have been established by the governing body. In order to be ?ermitted, "conditional" uses would have to demonstrate that adverse impacts (constraints) were modified by technology, site design considerations, or a combination of efforts. FOOTNOTES 1. Act 93 of 1972 amended the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code to require a ','Statement of Community Development Objectives" as part of every zoning ordinance. (Article VI, Zoning, section 606) the Planning Code applies to all Coastal municipalities except Philadelphia. 7-25 I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I - ft IGEOGRAPHIC A EAS '.- I OF PARTICULARI'4' ''. I CONCERN 8 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN INTRODUCTION TO CONCEPT Geographic areas of particular concern (GAPC's) have been identified in both the Lake Erie and Delaware Estuary coastal zones. These are critical areas where the need for special management procedures is indicated in order to deal with land use issues which are of "regional benefit" or greater than local concern. There are four types of GAPC's identified for the Lake Erie and Delaware Estuary Coastal Zones: "areas of significant natural value". "development opportunity areas", "areas of significant recreational, historic, or cultural value", and "overlap areas". Although they are considered under the same general heading (GAPC), these areas exhibit different characteristics, represent different concerns, and will be subject to different kinds of land use conflicts. Development opportunity areas predominate the listing of GAPC's within the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone. In comparison, seventeen of the twenty Lake Erie Coastal GAPCIS are classified as either areas of natural or recreational significance. Most of the Lake Erie natural/recreational areas do overlap to some extent or have t4 e potential for dual utility in the future. CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF GAPCts Areas of significant natural value were determined according to the concentration of natural characteristics that were either valuable as amenities, unique as related to the coastal environment or vulnerable to developed uses. These land-based characteristics included woodlands, wetlands, wildlife, habitats, prime agricultural and erodible soils, and flood plains. Each characteristic was mapped, for the entire Coastal Zone. Transparent sheets were then registered on one another to reveal "overlaps" of characteristics. Locations ' with heavy concentrations or combinations of these natural characteristics were designated as areas of particular concern. once designated these areas were discussed and modified by the Coastal Zone Steering Committees and interested citizens in both coastal areas. The cumulative value of the natural amenities and complexities of management in these areas suggest the need for a stronger State role in the preservation, protection, or enhancement of these GAPC's. Development opportunity areas are those especially suited to more intensive use through development or redevelopment. The purpose for designating these areas is to stimulate the economic use of the river or lake and related waterfront properties. In particular, some of these opportunity areas could be considered 8-1 as potential locations for riverfront or lakefront facilities serving the regional, -State or national economic interests. These uses may include port facilities, energy generating plants, or other commercial and industrial activities. Currently vacant or underutilized sites have been identified through the investigation of site characteristics and the proximity of infrastructure and compatible land uses. These areas have been discussed with local and county planners and industrial representatives familiar with their-development suitability and economic potential. Policies for these areas will seek to encourage the location of significant economic developments consistent with the overall objectives of the program. Areas of significant recreational, historic or cultural value are areas where reclamation, restoration, public access and other remedial actions may be needed. Because of the wide range of activities and uses included in this group, criteria establishing them was flexible and responsive to individual conditions. They include the following types of areas: Areas of reclamation or restoration include those which have experienced serious detrimental modification, but which possess potential for recovery or reuse. Areas of existing open space have identified whe re recreational needs can be served, and public access to the water's edge exists. Other areas, that are not in their natural state, but which seem appropriate for future public access have also been identified. Unique situations-Overlap Areas: In some cases the distinction between a natural area, a recreational area, and a development opportunity area is not as simply defined. For example, many undeveloped sites in the lower Bucks County portion of the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone and in the Western Study Area of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone, are characterized by a significant .combination of natural amenities and recreational potentials. Yet, given economic trends and the current ownership patterns, these same sites are subject to development pressures as well. These areas represent the most intensive conflict of use and have been termed "overlap areas." The Van Sciver Lake area, and Biles Island in Falls Township, Delaware Estuary, are prime examples of such areas. ' These areas have been the subject of more detailed study. A strategy for dealing with such areas is outlined in Chapter 9. The Penn's Landing area in Philadelphia and the Presque Isle Bay Area and waterfront district in Erie represent another kind of overlap area-with potential for both recreational and economic development. PURPOSE OF DESIGNATION 8-2 Priorities for future use will be recommended for each designated GAPC. Future use priorities will be presented as a range from the most desirable to least desirable from the perspective of the entire Coastal Zone. Future use priorities and the method for assessing them are described in Chapter 9. Municipal officials having authority over local planning and development must consider these priorities in making decisions regarding the future uses for these areas. The State will review major development decisions which affect land use within GAPCIs for consistency with the uses recommended and with overall program goals and objectives. Special state interest and concern will be focused on GAPC's where more attention to State land use policies are necessary. Certain GAPCIs have been identified as Areas for Preservation or Restoration (APR) when: they contain features, resources, or potentialities of extraordinary significance or uniqueness to the region qr State and when those resources are especially vulnerable to irreversible detrimental change due to development pressures. APR's have been identified and will be discussed in detail in Chapter 9. 8-3 DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL-ZONE DELAWARE COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Identification Natural. Value Areas Size (acres NV-1 Little Tinicum Island Nv-2 Tinicum Marsh (Delaware County) Development Opportunity Areas DO-1 Chester Terminal Area DO-2 Chester Waterfront DO-3 Baldwin Industrial Park DO-4 Eddystone Waterfront DO-5 Airport Area Recreational,-Cultural, Historic Value Areas R-1 McClure Park R-2. Commodore Barry Bridge Area R-3 Chester Creek Mouth R-4 Essington Waterfront R-5 Folcroft Landfill 8-4 DELAWARE COUNTY AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE NV-1 Little Tinicum Island Tinicum Township Little Tinicum Island is located in the Delaware River across from Tinicum Township (Essington) in Delaware County. The 11,400 foot island lies southwest of the Philadelphia International Airport and is in a line with existing landing patterns. The history of the island dates back to the Swedish settlement of 1640 led by Johan Printz when it was used for agricultural purposes. Current investigations of the island indicate a wide variety of vegetation which supports a large population of waterfowl and land birds, with small populations of mammals. Proposals for filling sections of Little Tinicum Island and using selected sites for spoils deposition have been made. This has the potential for seriously increasing the existing sedimentation in the back channel, an important fish habitat. In . addition to Little Tinicum Island's significance environmentally, the island acts as a visual barrier to the intensive industrial development along the New Jersey Coastline. The island was the focus of a special ecological study, published separately! and summarized in Appendix C. NV-2 Tinicum Marsh Tinicum, Ridley, Darby Townships, Prospect Park, Norwood, Folcroft Boroughs Tinicum Marsh occupies the lowlands along the channel of Darby Creek in Delaware and Philadelphia counties.. The modern Marsh extends from a point above the junction of Darby Creek with the Delaware River,.upstream approximately 5 channel miles almost to the northern boundary Tinicum National Environmental Center in the City of Philadelphia. The Marsh is bounded on the north and west by natural high ground and artificially filled areas. on the south and east the boundaries are natural high ground, filled areas and dikes formed by the Industrial Highway and Interstate Route 95. The total area of the region is 1,400 acres, most of which is filled and presently undeveloped, only a small portion remains subject to tidal influence. The marsh itself is located on the primary Atlantic flyway. As such, it is heavily used as a resting place by migratory birds of 8-5 many species. The ma rsh contains a wide variety of vegetative species including wild rice, spatterdock and cattails. In addition, it plays a significant role in improving the water quality of Darby Creek. Studies of the marsh show that wildlife in the marsh has been "severely injured" by organic pollutiont and that the size of the marsh has been significantly reduced by dredging, fill and development. Nevertheless, the remaining marsh represents a unique natural resource of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Most of the Delaware County portion of the marsh remains in private ownership. However, recognizing its potential as an outdoor environmental laboratory within close proximity to a major urban center on the East coast, the Department of Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) has proposed expanding.the existing Tinicum National Environmental Center (TNEC). According to the CZM Act Amendmen.t of 1976 recently passed by the Congress and signed by the President which authorizes federal acquisition and restoration in order to protect the unique habitat areas while providing recreational opportunities for the region' s residents. Local governments adjacent to the marsh have not yet enacted sufficient planning and zoning controls to protect the wetlands and buffer areas. A special study 2 has been completed which examines the ecology of Tinicum Marsh and the impacts of development upon wetlands. This report is summarized in Appendix C. 8-6 DELAWARE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS DO-1 Chester Terminal Area Chester City The Chester Tidewater Terminal is an independent cargo terminal in Chester City. At one time the site was proposed for the location of a containerized marine terminal in Delaware County. Currently the terminal is marginally utilized for bulk cargo storage. The property, consisting of 50 acres, is adequately served by rail, highways, and utilities. A 25 acre parcel of vacant land owned by the Philadelphia Electric Company, which is now used as a solid waste disposal site, lies to the east of the terminal. The new Western Regional DELCORA Water Pollution Control Plant now under construction is located west of the site. A proposal has recently been received for reuse of a portion of the Chester Terminal. This area and the vacant land next to it is important to the economic health of the Delaware County region because of its potential for significant water-related use. DO-2 Chester Waterfront Chester City The City of Chester has proposed a major restructuring and redevelopment of the downtown waterfront area to provide for the expansion of industrial uses in concert with the development of an improved Rte. 291 (Industrial Highway). The redevelopment area encompasses a broad area from Ridley Creek to Flower Street and.from the Delaware River to the Conrail right-of-way. Due to its regional location, availability of utilities, and large labor force, this area represents the primary waterfront location for new industrial activity in Delaware County. The proposed redevelopment plan recommends that the entire area between the river and the proposed alignment of new Route.291 be industrially developed. The resulting industrial park will occupy approximately 55 acres, which presently includes major utilities and industrial firms in Delaware County along the waterfrontf and inland commercial activities, many of which are in disrepair. The realization of the proposed waterfront industrial park for expanded industrial use requires a coordinated public as well as private effort. The potential of this area for expanded employment opportunity is of critical importance to the,entire region. 8-7 Eddystone Borough Marginally used buildings occupy a large inland industrial park in Eddystone with direct highway and railroad access. This area formerly housed the Baldwin-Lime-Hamilton Corporation. only one building is presently used while a number of the warehouse buildings are unoccupied. The area consists of 60 acres and adjoins Crum Creek. The area directly to the east of the Conrail Tracks is owned by the Industrial Park Development Company. Approximately one-third of this area is currently available for use. Because of the area's strategic location with respect to existing infrastructure, on a major rail route, it represents a unique industrial park opportunity in close proximity to the riverfront. DO-4 Eddystone Waterfront Eddystone Borough Approximately one mile of Eddystone waterfront is presently underutilized or available for development-. owned by two large Delaware County firms, including a- major shipyard along the Delaware River, the vacant portion of the area is apparently being held for planned future expansion. This is particularly true of the Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Docks property, which, on its active site in Chester City, contains floating dry docks, derricks, wet docks and pier side facilities. Additional parcels, including 1000 feet of river frontage south of Crum Creek with industrial buildings, are available. Recent proposals have been made for use of a portion of the area. The Eddystone Waterfront adjoins the proposed Chester City Waterfront Industrial Park. It is well-served by rail and highway facilities. Future use of this area is dependent on the economic health of existing business as well as' improvements on Rte. 291 (Industrial Highway) and the implementation of redevelopment plans in nearby Chester City. C'Z DO-5 Airport Area Tinicum Township Two large parcels adjacent to Philadelphia International Airport in Tinicum Township provide significant opportunity for industrial or airport-oriented development. At one time this area was, part of the tidal marshes of Tinicum, however the land is presently available for development as a result of filling activities. Some additional improvements and site preparation may be required before development can proceed. The parcel located opposite Little Tinicum Island and owned by the Westinghouse Corporation has development restrictions due to noise impacts from planes arriving and departing the airport. This area is well served by rail and highway .(Tinicum island Road); however water access is limited by the shallow depth of the back channel of the Delaware River. The back channel is used by private marine and pleasure craft harbored at nearby marinas and is a valuable fish habitat. The Westinghouse parcel is used for minor cargo purposes. The other parcel is located between Cargo City (Airport) and industrial plants in Tinicum. Although the parcel is well suited for industrial or commercial uses related to the airport some land may have to be held in reserve for the planned extension of a runway. DELAWARE COUNTY AREAS OF RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL AND-HISTORIC VALUE R-1 McClure Park Marcus Hook Borough McClure Park, located at the foot of Market Street in Marcus Hook Borough, is so small that it might not appear to be of greater than local concern. It occupies approximately 1.2 acres and is municipally maintained. The outstanding feature of this park is its vantage point for viewing river activity. From here one can see many international vessels sailing to upstream points as well as observe the vessel loading and unloading operations occurring adjacent to the park. The area has been landscaped and benches and swings have been provided.. 8-9 Marcus Hook is the only municipality in the study area that lacks both a zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the park include residential use surrounded by heavy industrial use. Although residential uses are decreasing in the immediate area, the park does provide one of the very few public access points to the River in Delaware County. @VAR-2 Commodore Barry Bridge A .rea Chester City Immediately adjacent to the Pennsylvania side of the Commodore Barry Bridge lies four acres of undeveloped waterfront property. it is well maintained, partially paved with concrete and otherwise grass-covered. The area is owned by the Delaware River Port Authority. The view of the river from this location is striking. it provides for the viewer the dramatic contrast of urban and natural environmental features. The bridge itself, an imposing structure, is of central interest in the vista. The area is planned and zoned for industrial development, but has been suggested for consideration as a future recreational site. R-3 Chester Creek Mouth Chester City The mouth of the Chester Creek, because of its critical location with respect to the river and the proposed Chester City Waterfront Industrial Park, possesses unique recreational potential. The existing use of this parcel is an auto salvage yard. The site is partially isolated from the Chester City central business district by a railroad tressel spanning the Creek and by a sewage treatment facility. This site exhibits potential for commercially provided access to the river within easy walking distance of the Chester business district. R-4 Essington Waterfront Tinicum-Township The Delaware River waterfront in the town of Essington (Tinicum Township) is an area with great potential for water-related recreation. Governor Printz Park, located at the foot of Wanamaker Avenue, is a 5-acre public park operated by the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission. The park is landscaped for passive recreation. Its significance can be 8-10 attributed to its unique historic and archaeological interest and opportunity it affords for public access to the river. Located at a bend of the river, the park provides a rare scenic vista in both directions, which is enhanced by the presence of Little Tinicum Island. The island serves as a visual buffer of the industries on the opposite shore. Although the site is planned for open space, it is currently zoned for heavy industrial use. In addition to the park, there are eleven private marinas, and a seaplane base located along the Essington waterfront. The dock facilities presently operate at partial capacity due to reduced interest in recreational boating on the Delaware. Accumulation of silt in the back channel has impaired navigation by pleasure boats and consequently usage to boats having a draft of four feet or less. The back channel and Essington waterfront might again be an important recreation resource within the Coastal Zone if the depth of the channel were artificially maintained. R-5 Folcroft Landfill Folcroft Township This area once used for the depos it of municipal trash now represents a unique recreation opportunity. The mound of high ground resulting from years of disposal activity now provides an excellent view across the Tinicum Marsh and is easily accessible by car or by foot. Access is also possible by boat or canoe from the marsh. obviously the recreational significance of the former landfill depends on the preservation of the marsh itself and public site improvements. The landfill has recently been included in Federal plans for the expansion of the Tinicum National Environmental Center. Federal proposals suggest the complete restoration of the marsh and landfill area as a habitat reserve and recreation educational center for residents of, the Philadelphia area. 8-11 PHILADELPHIA COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULARCONCERN identification Size (acres).- Natural Value Areas Nv-3 Tinicum Marsh (Philadelphia) NV-4 Pennypack Creek Nv-5 Poquessing Creek Development opportunity Areas bo-6 Fort Mifflin Res./Penrose Avenue Area DO-7 Mustin Field DO-8 Walt Whitman Bridge Area DO-9 Washing ton Avenue Area DO-10 North Center City Area DO-11 Port Richmond DO-12 Frankford Arsenal DO-13 Cottman Avenue Area Recreational,_Cultural, Historic Value Areas R-6 Fort Mifflin R-7 Schuylkill River Park R-8 Penn Treaty Park Overlap Areas OV-1 Penn's Landing B-12 PHILADELPHIA COUNTY AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE V-Z NV-3 Tinicum Marsh Philadelphia County The Tinicum National Environmental Center (TNEC) is located on the borderline of Philadelphia and Delaware County, north of the' Philadelphia International Airport. A parcel of 183 acres is diked and not subject to the tidal fluctuations which affect other areas of the Marsh in Delaware County. In 1974, the City of Philadelphia turned this land over to the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to found the TNEC. The area is environmentally significant becaus"ia it is a habitat area with known concentrations of wildlife, especially birds. Tinicum is considered to be of "greater than local concern" because it is a federally administered wildlife sanctuary with benefits extending far,beyond the Delaware Estuary boundary. Tinicum is planned as an open space, although there are areas adjacent to the marsh which are currently.used for industrial purposes. The zoning is consistent with both the open space and industrial uses. However, should the federal government acquire the balance of the marsh it is -possible that development pressure would increase on lands adjacent to the marsh. The value of this area, as well as its history are discussed in detail in a miscellaneous technical report entitled "Four Environmentally significant Areas". as noted in appendix C. @/NI-4 Pennypack Creek Philadelphia County The mouth of the Pennypack Creek is located along the northern stretch of Philadelphia's Delaware River shore. Most of the lands along the creek are characterized by a variety of natural resources. Wooded areas, wetlands, and wildlife habitats are located in close proximity. Much of the creek corridor is permanently protected by Pennypack Park, under the Fairmount Park Commission. The cityls natural resources are greatly enhanced by preserving the creek's banks from disruptive development. The mouth of the Pennypack from the Delaware to the west side of State Road is not currently protected although the area is characterized by significant wetlands vegetation. This is one of the most valuable natural resources found in the entire study area. Open spacef high density residential, industrial and institutional use are all proposed for this area by the City of Philadelphia's Comprehensive Plan. Zoning is consistent with portions of the plan but heavy industrial categories are also indicated for a large area. Recent proposals specific to the 8-13 mouth of the Pennypack included'a marine terminal for the loading and unloading of foreign cars' and a Bicentennial exhibition grounds. The. area is presently being. used to dispose of incinerator residue. The future of this prime site requires. additional consideration. / NV-5 Poguessing Creek Philadelphia County The Poquessing Creek forms the border between Philadelphia and Bucks County, and is a tributary to the 'Delaware River. The natural characteristics of the mouth include areas of scenic potential. The presence of water and mature vegetation provide an amenity unique to this stretch of the River and serve to qualify it as an area of significant natural value. The area is presently zoned (R5) for residential use. The planned use by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission includes an open space corridor lining the creek, approximately one- quarter mile wide. Behind this corridor a high density housing development is proposed. Across the bank in Bensalem, Bucks County, there currently exists a high density "low rise" housing development which adds significantly to the development pressure on the Philadelphia area. The market to be served by this housing type would appear an attractive target for future .development although considerations of the natural features must receive priority attention. PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS DO-6 Fort Mifflin Reservation - Penrose Avenue Area Philadelphia County A prime development opportunity area lies at the confluence of the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers. Consisting of a number of large parcels in separate public ownership, the area is utilized for a variety of marginal and unrelated functions. The Corps of Engineers currently uses the most economically valuable portion (420 acres) for the disposal of dredge spoil. Alternative sites or methods for disposal must be developed before this area can be reclaimed for industrial or commercial use. Recent agreements between the City of Philadelphia and the Corps have restricted the height and suspended disposal activity in the northwestern sector. This was done to expedite the ultimate reclamation process. A second parcel of the area (100 acres) is used for storage of sludge from the Philadelphia Water Department's Southwest Sewage Treatment Plant. If alternative methods of sludge disposal could be found, more productive use of this land can be realized. 8-14 The Philadelphia Po lice Department currently owns an abandoned auto facility adjacent to the Penrose Avenue Bridge. Again, an alternative site for this operation needs to be found if this valuable land is to be used more intensively. The area also contains land owned by the Philadelphia Industrial Development commission that is, planned for industrial park development. Together these parcels form a unique opportunity for attracting water and non-water related uses. Because of its proximity to downtown Philadelphia, the potential for future connections with interstate (1-95) and interstate freight railroads, and its location at the mouth of the Schuylkill River, the Ft. Mifflin/Penrose Avenue area is commonly agreed to be a prime development opportunity area within Philadelphia County. '__@7 Mustin Field - Naval Base Philadelphia County Although Federally owned and therefore not subject to the CommonwealthIs Management Program, a portion of Philadelphia's Naval Base, Mustin Field,.has been identified as a development opportunity area due to its economically strategic location on the Delaware River and its proximity to the Greenwich Rail Yard. A portion of the 175 acre air field is presently being developed for housing for Naval personnel. Approximately 350 dwelling units are being constructed at the southern extremity of the field. Another 350-400 units have been proposed for a large portion of the interior of the air field adjacent to the rail yard. Ball fields and related facilities have recently been located nearby. A smaller portion of the field, yet to be determined, may eventually become available for public use. In the future, maximum effort should be devoted to ensuring that this valuable area is used to its fullest potential. The Navy should carefully consider the priorities of use identified in Chapter 9, and att empt to implement them whenever possible. DO-8 Walt Whitman Bridge Area Philadelphia County A large area (approximately 350 acre.) including water related port facilities and inland industrial property is immediately available for reuse. This area, located south and west of the Packer Avenue Marine Terminal, is prime for development for the .Major portions of the ConRail owned rail yards whi,h are now vacant may be abandoned. Nearby industries have indicated a willingness to buy the rail yards for expansion purposes. 8-15 .Improvements to Delaware Avenue in this area (Catherine Street to Oregon Avenue) have been programmed by PennDOT and the City of Philadelphia. .Philadelphia Port Corporation land (Pier 98 Annex) is now vacant and available for reuse. This area is well served by existing rail facilities. Moreover truck access would be improved from the south by the contemplated connection of Delaware Avenue with Pattison Avenue. Currently active, public owned, finger piers are located adjacent to this area. Experts consider this type of facility to have *a limited life span for general cargo handling-purposes.3 Study should be directed to determine the most appropriate long-term, economic uses of these finger piers. Because of the significant changes that are likely to occur in this area in the future and its location on the Philadelphia waterfront this area is considered to be a development opportunity area. DO-9 Washington Avenue Area "@Rs Philadelphia County Located north and south of Washington Avenue are various parcels in marginal use and piers which are either vacant or have limited active life. In addition Conrail owned rail yards which may be abandoned are located at the terminus of Washington Avenue at Delaware Avenue. This area at one time formed the heart of the South Philadelphia waterfront; however the area in recent years has become inactive. Principal exceptions to this condition are two major industries, one with active pier utilization, and two public piers which have been joined with full providing additional storage space. Philadelphia City Planning Commission studies indicate the immediate availability of these parcels for sale and reuse. A recent reuse of one finger pier for an indoor tennis facility is of particular interest. The northern portion (north of Washington St.) of this area adjoins the Queens Village residential area undergoing private rehabilitation. Penns Landing, a City-sponsored waterfront redevelopment project immediately north, is now being developed. Furthermore, Delaware Avenue improvements will provide added stimulus to redevelopment of this area. Together these factors suggest a reconsideration of the future use of this portion of Philadelphia's waterfront. 8-16 @@DO-10 North Center City Area Philadelphia County Vacant, marginal, and active piers line the waterfront from Penns Landing in Center City to Shackamaxon St. In addition, several inland lots and one pier adjacent to land cleared for 1-95 serve as parking lots. Active uses include the city incinerator at the base of Spring Garden St. on Delaware Avenue. A riverfront dinner theatre occupies an old finger-.pier. This area adjoins the Callowhill Urban Renewal Area. The project, planned for industrial reuse, is the largest of its kind in the Philadelphia area. The overall marginal use of facilities and land in this area and its relationship to the Callowhill Urban Renewal area and private rehabilitation efforts in Old City suggest significant reuse potential for this area. Proposals have been made for reuse of isolated parcels, but no overall plan has been devised for the reuse of this area which relates it to adjoining interior land areas. DO-11 Port Richmond Philadelphia County The Port Richmond area contains a major rail yard presently used for shipping grain and general cargo and a large site held by the Philadelphia Industrial Development Commission. This site, created by filling, is vacant and immediately available for industrial development. The future of the rail yard and its related port facilities is dependent on decisions by Conrail. If it is determined that this yard is no longer required and no competing use (Chessie System) acquires it, Port Richmond would be available for redevelopment. (One of the largest development opportunities in the Philadelphia Study Area.) Pier facilities on the northern portion of the Port are obsolete. This site has.been.suggested as a possible location for a third containerized cargo terminal in Philadelphia. coal piers to the south are presently active, although their future use is in doubt. In summary, the future reuse of this area is dependent on major decisions by Conrail which would have far-reaching implications for the surrounding area. DO-12 Frankford Arsenal Philadelphia County Military use of the Frankford Arsenal will be phased out in the near future. The arsenal is located on 110 acres and contains a dense development of 209 buildings, a majo:.^ity of which are in 8-17 good repair. At one time the Frankford Arsenal employed as many as 22,000 people. The arsenal. adjoins a strong residential community, a number of'major industries and a dredged channel leading to -the Delaware River. It is served by an extensive utility system. A special study should be undertaken to determine the most appropriate public or private reuse of the facility which takes maximum advantage of existing structurally sound buildings and provides continuing employment to residents of the area. Since this area is Federally owned it is not subject to the priorities outlined in Chapter 9. However, it would be very desirable if the Federal government considered these priorities carefully when contemplating future uses. \"@DO-13 Cottman Avenue Area' Philadelphia County several major industrial waterfront parcels north of Cottman Avenue are either vacant, marginally used, or soon to become available for reuse. These areas form the northmost point'of intensive commercial port and shipping related activity in Philadelphia'. The area is well served by rail and highway access from 1-95. Immediately north of the area are large institutional uses and the major city water intake at Torresdale, as well as the mouth of the Pennypack Creek. The Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation has considered buying the least developed of these parcels. PHILADELPHIA COUNTY AREAS OF RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL, & HISTORIC VALUE /Z-6 Ft. Mifflin Philadelphia County Fort Mifflin, located on the riverfront at the edge of Philadelphia's International Airport,, is an 'historic site of regional significance. Designated a National Historic Site in 1970, Fort Mifflin has architectural as well as historic interest. Potential exists for its expansion and improvement. It is owned by the City of Philadelphia and is being restored by the Shackamaxon Society, a non-profit organization. 8-18 A 42-acre strip of Center City land presently occupied by marginal uses and an active rail line exists along the Schuylkill River. This strip, extending from South St., to the Art Museum, is of principle interest as a recreational resource in an area which lacks open space and areas for public access to the riverfront. Currently the University of Pennsylvania utilizes land across the Schuylkill River for active recreation. The Schuylkill Expressway also is located on the opposite bank. Since there is no public access to the Schuylkill on the Center city side below Fairmont Park, this area represents a scarce resource. The City has programmed $8.9 million for acquisition of the land, bulkheading of the entire length, filling and development. I At Taney and Spruce Streets, the south end of the future park, an area which presently has tennis courts will be expanded to include baseball,'basketball and street hockey facilities. A playground near'the Benjamin Franklin Parkway will provide active recreation as well. The rest of the park will be.landscaped, with bicycle paths, promenades and benches for passive recreation. The project will proceed in four stages, and is expected to be completed in 1980. Ir-8- Penn Treaty Park Philadelphia County This 1.8 acre park, operated by the Fairmount Park Commission commemorates William Penn's signing of a treaty with Indians. Largely developed for passive recreation, it is the only public access point between Penn's Landing and Pleasant Hill Park at Linder Street in northeast Philadelphia. It is an isolated parcel surrounded by intensely developed industrial uses. Improvements to the park itself (including fencing, parking and other security facilities) have been programmed by the City of Philadelphia and access will be improved by a traffic light at Delaware Avenue. PHILADELPHIA COUNTY OVERLAP AREAS OV-1 Penn's Landing Philadelphia County The Penn's Landing project on the Philadelphia riverfront represents a unique type of overlap area. The plans for the site include opportunities for both commercial development and recreation. Penn's Landing is a joint project of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia. it will be a commercial and cultural center including a mixture of apartments, restaurants, offices, shops, a hotel, museum, public open space and a boat basin. The basin will host riverfront 8-19 attractions such as old ships, a seaplane service, river tours, and an annual boat show. It is not intended to be a marina facility for private vessels. ware Expressway, there will be a direct connection between Pen n's Following completion of the,landscaped cover over the Dela Landing, the Society Hill renaissance area and the historical Independence Hall area. Stage I of'the project is presently being developed. It extends from Lombard to Market Street, and covers 37.7 acres, 22.5 of which are new landfill. Plans for Stages II.and III have not been finalized, but would extend Stage I to the north and south. 8-20 BUCKS COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Identification Size (Acres) Natural Value Areas Development Opportunity Areas DO-14 Neshaminy Industrial Park 110 DO-15 Burlington-Bristol Bridge Area 320 DO-16 Turkey Hill-Van Sciver Area 2,098 DO-17 Fairless Works Area 498 Recreation, Historic, Cultural Value Areas R-9 Biddle Andalusia 70 R-10 Bucks County Delaware River 8 Access Area R-11 Neshaminy State Park 220 R-12 Creek Road-South 31 R-13 Radcliffe Street - R-14 Pennsylvania Canal R-15 Bordentown Road Causeway R-16 Pennsbury Manor State Park 40 R-17 Falls Township Delaware River 14 Access Area Overlap Areas OV-2 Linton Avenue - River Road 108 OV-3 Martins CLeek - Van Sciver 117 OV-4 Money Island 600 OV-5 Fordmill Road 74 ov-6 Biles Island 529 8-21 BUCKS COUNTY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS DO-14 NeshaminV Industrial Park Bensalem Township The principal development opportunity area on Bensalem's waterfront is the Neshaminy Industrial Park. It is located at Street Road and State Road. Approximately 75 acres are available for use at this time. The park is well served by rail, highways and utilities. In addition, the potential exists for shipment of cargo by water. The Industrial Park is adjacent to several large established industrial plants and warehousing activities and is an important potential tax ratable for the community. The area is presently planned and zoned for industrial use. DO-05 Burlington - Bristol Bridge Area Bristol Township A portion of Bristol Township's waterfront is now vacant and may be available for industrial use. Extending approximately three quarters of a mile north and south of the Burlington-Bristol Bridge is an area owned by the chemical firm of Rohm and Haas. The site presently acts as a buffer and provides land for private recreational use. However, because of its strategic location on the river and its relationship to existing industrial activity, this area has been considered a development opportunity area. While the site is currently unavailable for development, it may at some future date become a prime location for productive multiple use. The area is well served by utilities and public services. 8-22 Proposals have been made for the development of oil storage facilities on the northern parcel at otter Creek; however, because of potential environmental impacts on the water these have been withdrawn. The site is planned for open space along the riverfront and industrial use inland. Existing zoning permits industrial use throughout this area except for a small area, Maple Beach, which is zoned residential. DO-16 Turkey Hill - Van Sciver Area Falls Township An area of approximately 2,000 acres between Van Sciver Lake and the Fairless works of the U.S. Steel Corporation represents one of the largest and most significant development opportunity areas in Lower Bucks County. The area is subdivided into numerous parcels and is principally owned by the Warner Company, a cement and real estate firm. Falls Industrial Park, immediately west of the Fairless Works, has been developed by U.S. Steel. A small portion of that park is included in this development opportunity area, At presento extensive mining operations and farming activity occur on the site. Privately constructed rail spurs from the branch of the Conrail system linking the Fairless Plant with the northeast serve this area. A privately constructed road system (Old Tyburn Road, Bordentown Road, and Lower Morrisville Road) provides access to U.S. Route 1 and Route 13. Extractive materials (e.g., sand and gravel) are shipped on the Delaware River opposite Newbold Island. The significance of this particular area lies in the long-term potential of the land for productive, multiple use rather than its extractive resource capabilities. This has been anticipated by the owner who has been developing plans for the future use of the area. These plans should be evaluated recognizing the significance of this area to the coastal region. DO-17 Fairless works Area Falls Township The land between Fairless Works and the Delaware River, owned 'by the U.S. Steel Corporation provides extensive opportunity for plant expansion or for other developments making use of the 8-23 river. Although partially covered with natural vegetation and harboring some wildlife, the area has lost-some of its natural value due to man-made intrusions and the nearby activity of the steel.plant. . The Falls Township plan proposes future industrial use for this area retaining an open space buffer along the riverfront. Existing zoning permits industrial use. BUCKS COUNTY AREAS OF RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL, HISTORIC VALUE R-9 Biddle - Andalusia Bensalem Township The Biddle Estate at Andalusia is a privately owned estate of- approximately 70 acres located on State Road, Bensalem Township. The property has been identified as one of the areas of significant natural value along the Delaware riverfront in Bucks County.. It contains extensive stands of deciduous trees, and (serves as a general wildlife habitat area. The property affords '/@girect access to the 'waterfront, but has not undergone intensive pressure for development. The principal structure on the estate is an historic house built in the late 18th century. In fact, the surrounding community of Andalusia derived its name from the house. The estate is continuous with a low density residential neighborhood, a school and undeveloped parcels. The proposed land use and zoning are for low density residential development. Bensalem Township Bucks County has recently developed an eight acre multi-purpose park, with direct access to the Delaware River. It is located at the base of State Road and station Road in Bensalem Township. This park contains attractive facilities for boat landing, picnicking and fishing. The facility is planned for multiple use and is u.nique within the Coastal Zone. The park itself represents a scarce opportunity for public enjoyment of the river from the Lower Bucks County-Northeast Philadelphia area. The park is close to several arterial routes including Woodhaven Road, Bristol Pike (Route-13) and 1-95. /R-11 Neshaminy State Park Bensalem Township - Bristol Township B-24 At the confluence of Neshaminy Creek and the.Delaware River the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources has recently developed a regional park. The State p4rk, located on both banks of the Neshaminy Creek consists of 220 acres. The north bank provides marina and boat launching facilities. The south bank contains facilities for picnicking and two large swimming pools. The park provides a striking view downstream of the center city Philadelphia skyline. Extensive parking facilities have been developed to accomodate visitors. _-,RM12 Creek Road South Bensalem Township This area between Newportville Road and Creek Road in- the vicinity of Flushing is the site of a small redevelopment project. The amount of land involved is approximately 30 acres situated in the floodplain of the Neshaminy Creek. The project entails the acquisition of homes which were flooded in June, 1972, and conversion of the land to public open space. The park will provide opportunities for passive recreation and hiking along the south bank of the creek. 3 Radcliffe Street Bristol Borough Bristol Borough was laid out as a river port about 1700. It is Pennsylvania's third oldest borough. Radcliffe Street, located on the Bristol waterfront, is bordered by a number of buildings and homes which date from the revolutionary and post- revolutionary era. They include the Runyan House, Delaware House, qundy House, Farmers Bank and Keystone Hotel. Together they form a cluster of historic buildings in a scenic waterfront 'setting unique to the Delaware Estuary. The new Borough library has been designed to respect the scenic and historic qualities of the area, and to take maximum advantage of its riverfront location. R-14 Pennsylvania Canal Morrisville Borough to Bristol Borough 'Stretching approximately ten miles from Morrisville to Bristol is a portion of the historic Pennsylvania Canal. The canal originally opened in 1830 and was operated from Bristol to Easton for coal transport. The route of the canal parallels present day major arterials including Route 13 and passes through dense urban development. The canal is not a dominant form on the urban landscape because in most places, it occurs behind private property. In some locations, the canal has been filled to accomodate new development. Yet, the canal provides the potential for an attractive linear pedestrian system of use to hikers, fishermen, and children in this portion of Lower Bucks County. 8-25 The Department of 'Environmental Resources maintains the canal. Maintenance has included recent dredging and improvements -through dike construction. Possible improvements to the system would include provision for pedestrian access to portions of the canal which are covered and direct connection with Theodore Roosevelt State Park, the State managed canal which p arallels the Delaware River north of Morrisville. 7 R-15 Bordentown Road Causeway Falls Township The principal access road across Van Sciver Lake in Falls Township is also a recreational and scenic resource. Located on land remaining from the excavation of Van Sciver Lake, Bordentown Road provides a connection between Route 13 in Tullytown, the Warner Company mining operations and the Fairless works of U.S. Steel, in Falls Township. In addition, the construction of a new bridge over the Conrail tracks within Tullytown to improve traffic flow from Route 13 to Bordentown Road is now being considered by the Bucks County and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Along the roadway, grass areas have been preserved for picnicking and enjoyment of the scenic qualities of the man-made lake, The causeway provides a unique visual opportunity in the Coastal Zone. R-16 Pennsbury Manor 'State Park Bucks County Located on the Delaware River at the foot of Pennsbury Road, /Pennsbury Manor State Park provides the setting for an authentic reproduction of William Penn's 17th century home. The 40 acre estate contains woods and landscaped areas and offers a good vista of the river. Picnic and parking facilities have been provided on site for visitors. The park is managed by the Historical and Museum Commission. This area is one of the most significant historic sites on the Delaware River. R-17 Falls Township Delaware River Access Area Falls Township At the base of Lauderback Road, Falls Township has recently acquired a natural area with immediate access to the river. The area is adjacent to the Fairless Works and the barge loading operation of the Warner Company. The land donated by.+-hese two companies consists of approximately 30 acres and is heavily wooded. The Township is considering the development of this site for recreation. The park has potential for picnicking, fishing and 8-26 boat access. Possible improvements to the area would include better access and signing to acquaint residents of Lower Bucks County with the park. BUCKS COUNTY OVERLAP AREAS OV-2 Linton Avenue - River Road Bristol Township A 108 acre tract along River Road, Bristol Township has conflicting potentials. This area is large wooded and is a general wildlife habitat area. Moreover, it is located on a major urban arterial and is flat and has the potential for development compatible with surrounding residential, commercial and industrial uses. Future development of this tract should respect the natural features of significance to the area. Possible multiple public and private use may be appropriate. The area is presently planned for industrial use. It is zoned for industrial and residential use. It is presently owned privately by a chemical firm, Rohm and Haas, who consider the area as a buffer between the residential areas and intense industrial activity on the river. ,-OV-3 Martins Creek-Van Sciver Falls Township This area, adjoining Van Sciver Lake and the Pennsylvania Canal in Falls Townshipt has been identified as an overlap area. Martins Creek runs through this tract which consists of a number of parcels. The area is partially wooded, supports diverse wildlife and contains prime agricultural land. However, it has potentials for development due to its rail line location and the presence of Route 13. It is also adjacent to commercial and mining activities along this transportation corridor. Proposed land-use for the interior of the tract is industrial; the area adjacent to the lake is planned for open space. Existing zoning permits-industrial uses. \QV-4 Money Island Tullytown Borough and Falls Township Money Island is a large land mass of approximately 600 acres across the Delaware'River from Florence, N.J. within Tullytown Borough and Falls Township. Various parts of Money Island are suitable for recreation or development and contain significant 8-27 natural amenit -ies. The entire area (not a true island) is considered an overlap area. The southern part of the island (about 200 acres), presently being used for deposition of dredged material and low-intensity agriculture, has potential for large-scale industrial development. The area could, with major costly improvements (sewer, utilities, road or rail access) serve a wide variety of productive uses. The bulk of the area is planned and zoned for industrial use. In addition, present plans recommend a narrow, open space buffer for areas fronting the Delaware River. Local officials in Tullytown have recently considered a proposal for the development of a fifteen acre site for water-related industrial use. Money Island has frontage on both the@ Delaware River and Manor Lake. Woodlands, aquatic vegetation, grasslands and wildlife habitat areas combine to constitute an area of natural value that is of exceptional value within the Coastal Zone. The outstanding forests grow predominantly on the northern half of the "island." Due, to its access to coastal waters and scenic qualities this area. has significant recreation potential. The immediate lakeshore frontage -on Manor Lake has been utilized by the privately operated Penn Warner Club for camping, boating fishing and picnicking. The lake itself, periodically recharged by pumping from the Delaware River, is stocked with game fish by the Penn Warner Club. Because of the unique natural resources of the area, the potential for environmental degradation and the conflicting long- term potentials of this area, a special study was undertaken to examine the ecological system of the area and its relationship to the water. This study is summarized in Appendix C. I/OV-'5 Fordmill Road Falls Township A narrow strip of land located along Fordmill Road, Falls Township, has been identified as an overlap area. This area is wooded and contains erodible 'and agricultural soils. It is also naturally distinct from the surrounding area which has had vegetative cover removed. Because of its location on an existing rail spur, its direct link to Tyburn Road and the existing pattern of use, the area has potential for development as well as preservation. The area is planned and zoned for industrial use. It is owned by the Warner Company. ov-6 Biles Island Falls Township 8-28 Located above the Fairless Works on the Delaware River, Biles. island is a large undeveloped land mass of approximately 500 acres. The area is heavily wooded and contains a variety of wildlife cover. The island is almost completely separated from land by the narrow Biles creek, which runs parallel to the river. Access to the island is difficult. Biles Island has natural value which is increased by its isolated condition. However, the island has potenti al for development due to the presence of a branch of the ConRail system leading to the Fairless works. Shipping potential exists along the Delaware River, which is dredged to 25 feet. The area is owned by U.S. Steel Corporation. Township plans propose industrial use for this island with a narrow open.space buffer. Existing zoning permits industrial use. The ecology of Biles Island was the subject of a detailed study, summarized in Appendix C. 1. Four Environmentally Significant Areas, Working papere Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Management Program, Novemb er, 1976. 2. Four Environmentally Significant Areas 3. Finger piers, prevalent along the Philadelphia waterfront, are often thought to be obsolete for the following reasons: they are often too short*for modern bulk carriers, contain insufficient space for temporary storage, lack apron space for loading and unloading and have. limited direct truck access, 8-29 ,qn,t 1W ,Ww 4-,w WA kO . ......... .4.,4 .. . .......... ...... . ... 1.4 Aj .......... . . ... . ......... . .............. qw-@, ...... . ....... ....... . ......... .... ... ...... .... ...... ... . .... . . .. .......... ........... ..... ....... ... ... .. .... ... ..... .. . . ...... .... . . ........ .24 5@ WN 1 INCH 1/2 MILE DETAILED SECTOR MAP L .25 10 1- KEY MAP =-25 10 L- T DELAWARE CO. KS CO. 1 INCH =0.8 KILOMETERS PHI I A 6 160 ACRES 2 25 HA. DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE . .... ..... .. .......... . ........ .. . ............ . ..... W7. .......... All* z: kQ l:iiii:lp Ie t'r ........ .. . ......... 3i . .. ....... 4@@ ....... . lqo 44-' A.A ..... .... . LEGEND NV-1 AREA OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY- AREA 0 FSIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL, HISTORIC,OR CULTQR.AL @ALUE AREA OF OVERLAP COMBINATION OF TWO OF THE ABOVE xi FEDERAL PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM MANAGEMENT PRELIMINARY STUDY BOUNDARY FINAL COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY /* . . ... ............... Az 41 . . ...... ..... Al. WN ... . ....... . ......... . ... . ..... . -47, v Ms 4k, 'I a, 1W Ft il6 70 @;,Iimtlz Fv W ... .. .. ... -v- ip s ........ ... .... ... ... 4. 0 14 10 %x, ... ..... .. i@_jiy Ix ........ . Z': u I Q k I's '4A X & z INCH= 1/2 MILE DETAILED SECTOR MAP 1.25 .5 KEY MAP =.25 10 b I il .5 DELAWARE CO. ELUCKS CO. 1 INCH =0-8 KILOMETERS PHI 6 160 ACRES 2 57H A. DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE t 4 LA E't RF Af P'. 4 @w Tilt, IVI 01 @P i M V., --w' Mo. '47 '[email protected]_ CW 4 Z Se ...... Rif ME, 4,z u.6,_ .15 11 WW' Xi @Zi A, N ;N_ T, @V, LEGEND AREA OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE . ...... ... AREA-OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREA OF SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL. HISTORIC.OR CULTURAL VALUE AREA OF OVERLAP COMBINATION OF TWO OF THE ABOVE FEDERAL PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM MANAGEMENT Vr PRELIMINARY STUDY BOUNDARY FINAL COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY ol; le ol 14 7;v" . ..... 44 .... ... ...... ........... t. 7 ........................ . . ......... ....... . ... ............ pm . . . . . . .................... .. .... ... ... f , \ ,,, .. . .......... .................... . .............. ......... ....... ------ ................................. .. . . . ................................... .......... ............. ........................................... ol ... .......... . . .. ........ ........... ..... . . ..... ............ A !4: A@4 41 41 Al .. ........ ...... X-V .... . ....... WE ... ... ... ... 7 75@@' ....... .. . A 4 lVA; . ......... .. . ..... .... .... I INCH 1/2 MILE DETAILED SECTOR MAP 10 1 .5 KEY MAP 2 5 LICKS CO. 1 INCH=0.8 KILOMETERS DELAWARE CO. I A 6 160 ACRES 25 HA. DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE I "... -111-. , .- .... ... .. ,.. --.."@." I; ,---,14-1. 1. ". 1. --"'...,.,.@ , -.... :-'. ,. ..'. ..., .:. ,. @@ '111F@ . .:*i @- , . , , ,"'!@"' "@-'-,-" .@' - - N"...: @',4".. .1.- @' . .!.@.. I-.,@ , '.--.' '- "'....<@'_ , , @"'."'@.',.-.'. .2' ", ' ." , '@ , ,-I, @": r ,11 , ,: , ...". "@. @@I- @'@@''..'; , , "J".@ I V, -'�@-..n,v , -, -;v 0@1@". I., -I ,@. ". .;"., @.....' "@'- ..I.I@ -l", I ,[email protected]. .' @@ -." 7`@ :"l@@'-': ',e, " ,.,.',`-"(0.@I -.-,-'. . -,,'@.,"I I @' 1*4@- @----,. "'-' '@`@" , @ ,@@ , o- .1 I- -%"'@@'@' .,;,.. '. -4,om!@@@- .. ,,,I .-'.' 11...,@...",,,@,, @. 1., .::@' :,.,.:,: ... --':' @:.,,"..l. @@.." .. ',"@ - I. @.' ? -, @.,'-, ".., I "@ n@ I -.... w "@ '@ I-,';." - -?-,, -.- - .11 1@ @ ,.I.,,@ < I.@... i@ . - .. .:....: - I.. ",@.@ - @@ .C@ "',* '@ h -1 @ '@.-@;"'t"'.@' W, , ,'@ I- .-'@;@.-."'.. 1.1-1.I,1. @ Z _-''@ -, - %4 I'@- I I I @'@.@' \ .@' -X ..1 , .@-, :' ;,@ @ ,.;.-- ...-...@. ,*". @l ?- ,ll@ .@ ."' ".@ , .. I.. . @,;. - f"@@. '/ @-'. "@.@z''-" .1 1, . .1. @@ '.@' '. * --.. -..;1-@'- @ -".II",..@.... '@*' '17 ` - I,. ... @4 7 ,@;"/I" ," @' @I-I @@4 -'F @.'@ ..-I-1, .- ..- --@'@@. ,.:@... ..... ,.". @@ . . -- .@11,'.I: . -.@;@",: .@. @v;'@--' .. ,@,@'-.-1.. .I., ,...." --- . -@',- ""' -'@,' @' - ,r-,,@, -'@ @'@' 11 II"IwIj.I-, -1 I -.-'& '@ ---l". @. '@' ...;....'.I1@1@ r* I'I- ' ":@.@::: '.1.1.I,." ::-,Y'@" @@@'.':U'*@@k @...,., ,,"$@ '@' '- 'Z@ '@"- 1@ 1,@ ." .. ......@;.. .@... P... ...'@-@' , <@' ... ... .:.... .4, ", , .' @:,..I.1 ". ......- :I.II -@,,f..-, @-'l*;'ll,Ir' ..I... .1 , @@ ,"@ -. .'..'.'I.'. I, , ,@ @'.-. @:@ -." . --V -_;@ .-1".I." . ,," -.'@' 4: ". @@:.'. @-@-.,'. .... - @' ' *-'I - "'. '@ zl.....!@@',-<'@,; j@:.-I . @6."'.@'@ @-,.,.-I... ...@. ,.,, ,.. ..@*," ,@' .. @b' :..II.I," .,>@.@. @.' @' ,".r -@@@,'. , , .. .@ . .... ..; @@'*W'I' I....I'e '.@.. .." ..-I.t'@@--,,, 'I' .". ,,, .* 3.@'"I1@ @.:i1, @. @"."'...'%,;@@ -1@1@@,". .-'k '@' .1 '. @:. t -@- ., ,'v , .'@'@,-" 1.,'-'-'@" ..'@@ ...... .@. '; ..@. .. I.,..1 ,. ..' ', "! @ @,."),@. .' @@ " ,", .',1,.@, ,'- I ";...-.-.@@,' @'-- 4 *'.'@11' 'k@" :". g, @@...,. ,@:@@ @ @lo@",'@ ;-'. ". @ "'y'-@;' .1@ @-.'.' 1. ..@`@-ff -&'.....'-"@' @' ,,'' '."'; - ". @' '@ "I @, -;. @'I@-@... .....@ .1,"@ @@.@--'-.'. @* 14..'@: ' @I M'I ,.,- @:...' '@.....%.,.1,@,...I .,@ ..1. @@@ - .' @' '-"."@,-,i.. 'I', -.1,. I IA'@" @'@@ ,k'4@.'.,'", " @,@ I41-Al ,@. 1. ".". ., ."@,,- @"I.I'll- ' ,4...".., ,.".-.. @ @,' .,". .--,-,, *" @'@'@,,@ ,0*.,," ,.. @,I.. @ , I @31, :@ -.';."'@"'j'@*@'@.:- -, -,@"@, e.- . 1; i, @@ @'@,1, ,,,,.'.'." "'.' '@@. '-@_ @.-- @.., -, @.-.N,@' ---, , ,11 @@@'@4.I.". I I"'.,@ .1@1 ,"@ ,'. ,' .''..-.: [email protected] @@'--.' @. .. -, , t..-..": -4 1-11, %, @. :...', @y ll`@@ "-'Z','. -I "@' " ,,, 7,. @-.1 .1 " y"',.,I, , "@ 1. .1@- @'. -. " "I1.11 . ,II@' " I @': .... , .@Il @@'. @. I@ I.. .@ ."' .@@ @7@@- @@' @ @j'@'"','.,,. 11 ".--@"'- ,@'.@I... z@:"..I., .. I-'@.I..-.;@..':@-..: '. , " ".. ... .,k" . .." '. @. , .,. '@ @@':'; , k@ .. @@.. I-.@@,-'.@I...' - @` @ -" .1 . .@.." Z' @"'. wll IM ",@' . - I-'!@@', . @@n.-.. "-@.@: @@"@.@N. f'@- ,-"-,@.T" A, .@ , , A." ; - '@:' @.*.' @:'a --. ",. @',, '^@@ "'@' @@' ll@'@" .. , ", . @ @-. _.."...-I ;@...-II'cl '@@' .--@'C. I.,:: , .",F@ . -11 .. -e :. X41::'.' %@.,@ -.. R, , '&'@ ,-;@...,*�@Wl.. I., @',..'n ". @ -@-;::' - @ 11, .. ,@@ " -,-@@" @ 1". k@ @,'.,'@@'f. - - @I@I@@'..;:-':@"-* .' @."""r@@@.. -@ -. .. @@ :' @- -', %.."@ -- "@.%' '@..':@ 1 @'@,'- *'@.." ,,,III..' , ,'@ ;@'.@ @@..,.:;, @w '@'I..'@.'.@. ..' .1 @@@ @. , @... @' @.."" @'-.'@ Y@<.@.. -',@'.-.'.: @.'. _'@@'.-,-- @I,.I@.@,-@- - ..,-.-.-,K,,", ,@'> -'.@..@",wq..,.. Ih, '. 1'$ @K' -@@ '44 1-1 @"I, V:....1 ....-d-...@'@,.." @"-,'@ P@@'.'I.''k-.11,,. ,., **.../; -k,'* ""* *,@.I-I@ , ,": j..@""-":'@ @.:`:.-:.'.@@v'..@@ ,:' '@@I-1,/ ' @.@,,a@x 1@ 11II1@ 61"@,- -..-@@'-,"I,, 1I* '@ " ", ,,, , .Y@*@' , @ " ,, ,,.'@@ @/- "@ IY@,,, ,?;@ "'." -'- 1-1 : ,... . ... [email protected]@....1 --::' -'@@- ". '--'*'----.1 - 0: @@',"" , '. " @I, -, @" 'III, i. .@ ..-. ," r@ @.@-:--- 1@1. . "@,.I,I &>"M-.@.@--@'@:.-.:. -, . @' *". "@@ " I,,"I, ". @@ , .ie@'.Il@**@@:,_::::!_. -:@ @ '@@ "."...i-1 , :.1'.,@. "', '...;.@, - @@. @--_" @''@1* ,, - - " @' A"@:rr&'I: ,".4,,, @.. @@@" ". ,.I -1- ---.1.1, -, '@-" @'. @@.@@.@.@1, .A",:,:I@@ '; @ @' " -.' .:.*.- @, .@, @p 141. ., @ '@ ".. @ ". ". @ , '/@-@@mg:-'-, ,I.. ,..", , @1,1W,@"..-@. . @. @q'.: @'@'@'.;..'-...:, @ :;... [email protected] ';@@"@' ' @' ., -.i,'. ._:..*I.. 1. ... I.-.,... .,@ ,,. '." ' ',p.'."I,II ..-.'-@ ...@,. @' !,:@ft, @@ ' , @@. 1- '0@11 I" @' 'A K"n @@ ':,,@@ '@I-@'.",,-I...I.-@ .:-@,I l" , lo I"," - ,@@ ..@,.-.. J'-.: @.;' :..; .:@:. I- ,"".'@' . fR,'@'@'@'@ ', @.,.AI ,:@ "'@ '..-::@@"@@ . .. "-I.... @--',,,". @@ %. ';@,@,.".'. M-, Y.",, ,, I,-:@ .@*? ,,,.:, @ ,'@" ,, @11 @@'.Ilil@'. I'."../I I.1. @. ,4. @' @. @- .;@- '4- ;.' ".. '@" " @*' Is, -.'@ .. '. .. 1.I.. --.-'.'. @'>.. .11.,.,@.,.:;.,.I,- , '.".','@''I,,I I'-..Wl. "I -1 ;0 - @?, @ '@' '@@ -\1 n'. ...@11 -ll@- .@4 ....... I., 11 - :: @:`.'-,,. @.1,I'.@' k'. @". @- -@@,-,.,* @@ :@ ..' I, ,."-@.:.@ @: ..'..'--@. ,-.. .;. -@' h@k @ @'%@".@":@.. ;. -, "@'.Y, . I I @"@ @' ':'I" ..,''-.@I-,II@@% @ "1, "'". i@ 11, ",@.... .... I -_ ... '-..' ..... .. ...- 1@Q-" @ 4,,..1@:f@--*' "'n'... . ''..II.,,. @.,V -.1 .: '.@ -;,r". '11@;:- ----.--4@k.@- @..' '1. ,&'%@,...,.1@ .- @@ - ,-,,. .... '@" ".,.- . ,@..8,','-'@.-,'..- '.,-.. 'L.-,*...";"., @, @ " @., @11, - -%@ . -. I I ,@@'.I,.. , i @'.II'. ,I.,@@" - @ :..' . -- " ".- ,'--@- ,I@ '. @"@..,@.-::. . @@i.. I",,,-@ ,", ","-@k- ,@ -@@'.. @' "', , @'2@. ".@ @.I' .@ @,,0, - .'. " @,I4.1,1. .. -.%..,'..I@:", .@@ .-.@"-1, ,, .@.:@:-.i .,@ .,@ I , @@,@ @@Il C@ . -. ":': @ ,@@- so @.@;;:@ @@, k@ '@",-@',I.: IN . @-'@@.----@, ,' i.11 -. -I ". ;'@.. @'@ -..,.- : -" -'-:@'. --g4l: .v- ...-.1.,,[email protected] I..:,. ..-'..- :...:_.. @' '@. @,I .."I., I.. ,I -I.' ", @. ,,, ;''@11.1.I.Iv . A, ,- @.-: .-@ -..I.,... ..' ;@.. .I,/ I.1 ::@ ,. ':*.@. '-., @@[email protected]'-'..; '-.,.I.,.. , .'@':;. 4@ ",..,I I,*I.,' ': -I.:, @."-. . ......,-...I,@1'1 @'.;"'.' ': ," "t, - -""4 - -"'. ','@ , @.I- .,I ... '@,.:. I,-@@"@'.,@, ,.::.,.-@'@'@.' @"@,.,, ". ..".''- -' ki:Pq@ v. ,%... @' .. '. I , ",IIJ,"" . ... @- - , "..".-@ @@--I*"II .1 "I@C,,./@@'. I .@',,@" , :.@-,,@"@-'@@'P :,.--,-,x.-I..'I",- ;'@'/- I Poe 1* 4 V'.: ,@ .1 ........@''@'' ., ... '@',-,,@. I - I. -:"I.,,.@@. @ - '*@, .. ,,, 1. 1,@, ,'. I,": @'.II., " ,, , ,--'. I ,@@' , @, ;f @6,@ , - ,@ ."llI.. "' I., @'.."' @' @;. ."-,-./ '.. ..,@@' ".KA .I. ..... :.. @'...:., ,,...@...'"I'll- ,... ,@'.f",@@, -. I ..@@'. ..-*@ ,.... .-II I.::,,. @,@ -,/, .%@ /':',I @@@ --.. "l- . ......-.. .... @',I... :. "\ .@. 1%. '.@[email protected]* I.., VI, '@'I1@ ""., -@' , , `Z ,"I" ..... .%@'; @@ ............. I.-..11 ...'.I,.',-'. '@'-'.... ;'@ . "-,' -:@1, @' "I. -........... . , - @-'@?- :@.'@ - @5@@ "'@,,'; -- -, '@:@' @t " ,. .. @..""@.-.1 @e@, m. @--@'.- 1.@-il'; @" "@@ @,'@: \ -'. , "- I @@.'.N -"- '.'... ,.'@.',11/@.. 'M . ,@..'@ .t., ., I .... : I.- . [email protected]@@ . I," @.' @'@* 11 .1. - I -1.1"'... ...'. .. ". :..' @:';'@@'@" , "@... "'.:@".::.;.. , - 1, - . ...."','..' -"@" :@@-.@-'@''. I-"", , ,'4' .' - @'-' .1. '& , "; - .'::@.. 1. "@@"' h.im@'.-. :.'. @ ./ /-'k'@' P..'@'@@1." ..I.:.- ll*@.;:i@ .1-rZi.@l-,::7., i@,,IF, k' @'.-,:.",@I "I I.."-I- llf@@, -@ , '. @ ".-,./,,T,-@ I ',-,,'@':""' "@' -,, @,,. 1. . .,'.@@ I- I ,.. - @I ..@@ @& @4;:@,' '." O ,@Z ....@@ @.-, I@-.@I ..,,- A.,I, "@.' -I -, :.... , @".. 11;1' :'. @"@.. -...' '::'*@-..-v-.- 5, @ @-_ -C " @'. JL @ -t@ '@...: , ,.@" . 1, 1.-I.: I @,I'... , -@--; , "'..' ,". '@- .::,.,,*. ..... .@@ .4@, V, 'k@'@'N I I -1@@@.': .@' ',';.@'@. ..' @., @... ".. @' '. ;' .-':@ -.1 ,"I I ;' , @@' I.-, -@'.'-','@' ......-."---,...".,.@,.I@I, 1,.O.i, " "@. .-@@'_ ,..,I'. @ " ",,, V, Iv.11 1* ..A,- -:@ , @-@. ' @i @@.",'' -,.* '@'. \,." .. .1 '..:7."I".. ,-. "'S@>'@':V,"." @, " @'.-.-. ,I'".. .. _ _",-.'...-";:;! ......... -, '#:...@"' ' '''.,,,11 . ..., .- @. -, m- -1---," -'......' .:...pkII ', .1 @- @@.I. .. .. ... -@.@i@"..I'@'.' "@' "...-,'I*'@' .1 ",. ... ,; z.. " *@@[email protected] ..,".@..@ @:' ./l,.- '.1k,- ; ". (' ;.,"... ,., ". . I , ".'. @. ..I '.. -... . .... @' ...-........ .... -.1 ." ,.. I'llIV., @ -I'e .....-.I"I @ 11 @.,I'g,. .1 :: @:'.:o '.. ...@ :'@,!I':-,..,*.. - ".'.11 @'---'-..- .. @n:-:-4 \. *. .. - 1. @ -11 ""'. @;@ [email protected]... @;. .. zk,@" @"."%.',,. '.. .,-'. -.1 ....,@'. , , ", @@5@@"' @-,I .I", @--.... @,7 - @-1. [email protected] I..., --.. .... I.- - '-1-1... ",II,,,, .,.,-'@@.,,"., ',.I.,;.- .,I@ -.- ...-- : @:I, "."-@",I. ''..",, -'@'.' .....,. .- "-1:'... @@.:@@ ." @. I. ., '."-1 ....... ..... .@,,' ,,, ..I'11,.-el'_@ ..',I. .. . ... _., _ @''@' 1,.. @@- ,----. ....... 'I.-I'-1 , ,,, '@ ''I u- *I.",,' .' - @@@"'\. .."... - -.. I..... '..I'@- .1 - - '@@'@../,IfI..I,, ,, @"!,-I I, I@, ,,' -. . .. ---.--- ......"'@r-:. '.:,. --,.. "@"II,I I@m'@.,.I -:.al .'@'@--- @-,. :@',-1, @., ...' - @ - I.. '.' 1'1@ ,* ** -'W...'-""@,,, , % % ,'@ , ". -- I...@.'' ,'. '. - -.. - ".@, ,,... .@ :, 1.I11I @". -",-'--i-, @:'Tt@%'@@'-@,...I-11 - -.. -"@ - @"' J@. @@'- :@-'@ I ---@@ .. ... ... . ..... .,.1 11 .,@!@j-..@@@,",:II .1-IV 1w, -I-IIY-@.@' I.,@.,. @ ... '.,, "'.3 ... .- -- - -@-@"- .@.. .. @', --1 g,.."./. , ... , im V* ,I " I.......I-. :@@:.,._-'Y..: ,..-....1; ,:,."..1, ,;.@ . @,,.... .1,".@. @@". @.. .... % @".' ...... '...I... 11 '.. 1.''.1". @."@@M@ 11 . I@' , II-- . ,. ..:. ..'@' .@' -*' @"'. "' A .1. -'' ...- I.-I I ''.'.', @< " ." 7 .@: .'@.1@ - .;@;,@-...,;,,@'@' @ .....". ..". ".z,""@ @w-.. ... '@*-.d.'. , ,. , ,, - -1-1 .. .... - I -'.'@@ :@!'l .. .. ......-... .. .."''.'@@ ", .'. .",-''''' "'"@ I @ @-,...:. ..@@' :'. -,.11 . - -@- "-... , -@,'.':@'..'-.--' .@ . ;' .. -.-.. 111.,,@II-0."i-, ,- ,.. ..... I-... '@%..": ......Zi- ...-.1 .-",@:'-I -IN @ q@.'.. '. .- -. I. .k.- @% ,,, @@ ,,,,". 11-.-1, .-,- , "I ;@......."@ :. ., , -@- @.?l ' ", ..@.@;. . @. `@. @'@-,k,.. '% @:, .'-@ :@... .... 11, .... . .. ...:: I1: -.1-"... @;.:- ' I -.A" @/'@..@ . ,, 1, 'vM ". - @@ -@@%-.@- .... -I.t@_ :.. 1, @::. .....@.,'I @- -----t@E:i:@@'@."3@:i@"-':'- @. ...@,,,, .-@- I. [email protected]....@@@@ -. :-:*%!@'@ '@ '@," g. @' "ji:, .,.". -". @ ,@ I-" - .'@. "@.,.'-,@ I %- ".,.'-; '@@' @T'.4,-.-, @ " @t '@ . .:.".m- '...-l'@.'- -\.,@.- @ '@@ .@"11 ,@'II_1-@'.@'_, -'i @'-" 4'0';@ ... @ @@l . - .. .., - ' "'@ -'-.'@-@ `@ @'-.;@ - .@i:,,. @@ .':'-'-.@@il I." ...'.' ';@ "^" , '-,@,' "' -, ", ..@..@;..,...:%.,-l'-f " ;,"-'."@@",'. '@--' ., --, @.@!' . ,.@.,.It,@' @@ rl: '-@ ", ".I:. 1-1 .;".@-'i,' -..-::@@:,-@i.'--@' -".-. -"..'-,'. .�'. "., .I., @':::@@..@: :@,@ .. @.'i'--" ""@',@@' -, ", e.,- "@-;[email protected], ...I.,@@'@ .1 "..I@@ 3@;. v , . All @@ ,. @ ,@' @',-., I@%' .. .1@,;.@: - @ : @.","..'s'-@' .',., 11 " .- w.., I...""--: -@-@@. ,I.: .' ...,';'@.-...@.'I..@...... ... @ -;I'. 11 ";,.1 . I...-, @. i:. ...... @. --- @';. @ @tN@' - @ @'.. ,@I. @.. .... ".,,@-.1 , 1.. ;-@@.@.... --'@@-@ , :I1.,1.,'Ix- /'@@ :.:@. -, @..'.-'. .@@'"@l:'. .ll-@ I",I @.. '. .. ..;@1,,'W * ... * ,.....1.11 11I":. .'.'@I '! %% , "@ ; i.. @';@.,@.1 "@. .. ...-@ ,,W, N' @@'@: "- Z@@' "'.-'@'*@" ;'@@' @'. I--, .':@ @.."I'l 1:@:@ 6.Hn@::..'.',:@'-' @@- '11:"' '. .'. '. .I@-'@,.':, @.@"' @"'..' 'r; - "' "I-'"II-@@."..'.'@@@ .. '@@.@@".: ;@.@' xw .,@ @@ v,"-ll:.@'.". I- '@@. -l-, 1, @.. I..y.@,.. '... _:i@@'o-W ;:i' '. @U'--,,@'. '711.'. : . . .,11 ,./ , -. " ' ;j '@" ':"'@ @@IIY .::e@@: I..@ , @'y 7, '-@ -,..@ @. %.1 '. .I. .. '@*' @'W.. ,., .l. :.,.: .. .' . .s I @, %.:@1. .IIvRTV"'@ - -, '@I--'...,z.-.- -.. -,',, - ....-@'@,.@ ,@: I..@@t, .- '.. -,-. @.@ @k::' -.@ "'. '@@,.'. 1@@_ . @.T@' ---, @.:: , " -@...,. -."-,., :. ' ".@@-"_ '@.'@., , ...!..A .,'@ .. .......,, " -@" "@--. ,.@@ . ..-'.-" ,@@I,f,@.@' @@ @ .@ -@'@@' .. I.. @:@',@?@".@'@ @'t"[email protected].'. , @@".@ . u, ... . .. .... ... i@ I,,@ .-@, .-..@, @@,.jo'@"@@.':' k'[email protected].'@@-, _.- ... .. .... @' , -. w:i@:: @ --.1 "'.@ v @' %4@@'.. &" @'@w, @"@ ,@";'@@ .. , .- X@g /A,.'..., "," ;: , @. 1-1.@' I': ., ,";'T.'. ,@' , ,: ".. e, '. - . ,.e,!,.@"- 1@' 'e @,@. @@".@ @ i; '.... ...;@....-@-..."-:@@'--' I- -... .... "...' *'@'.' -@"" e @i ii '.@.;. 'pi @.,,", ,. @,, w'.:@..Io".), "'/ via '@" -1 ll'-'@"" , '.'. ,- @.' ". @ . I..'..',%@X@'-" " , :.' -lc,. .."'I"@ @@"I. @ '@ "" " -@,Ll@'-'."@. ;'@@"f@.'^o , "'@. @, ,--,,", , ' -- .@ .. k ..... :. @. .* *v . @...1 @.@--"@"' ..- ...I .. 1. ---''...l.. -,w'r.-'@.' - - ."',,Irl @,.@." I.b,.....' . @':'-..;'.'1.@@'.@.::d.".".'.- /)4@'.@'.@fi':@';@'-" @,,--'@'. , ,..,,,. ".@ ...@@,..,.",:!,.. -'. -4. @;%.. .. . .......'I,,:. ': . @@'-@' vn-".II I-- . '.:'..--.'.@. I ;@_ ...... . .. "j, .,.,... @, -'@ .77777=1. " @:...:,,- *@ 4i, @ .l@.. @.' -:.-W: .:. '@.-' .!@@ - .4 ., wo @.-'.!.@@ ...... [email protected], "'. . .' &"^@'r-@". ',.&, ';".'@ ". @@., -. @' I...... - ", ...... .-. -5!@@ .1 ", '... [email protected] - ..".-, .. - -,...-.: ,.... .@-@.... ':;:@' ..' I'. , -..'@_'.' ,.,., '.,.' .'-.,." '. .I .... .. -I U:--..&l"..-.....;..:.. :@,@- ". . '. i, i. - @' " ..' @!-'.@ .w..". . @ -I@J.,.. I .:. " -...""", .- ;..,. @. -.;'@., "@' @ i : ,:i @ :@ i . " @@:@ - , @.. '. @.' .. ,., -A @tlft f.*..'I @- .@'@. - @ 11 Z:- ... I- i':;..... .. ....'@".-'...... ..;..'.- ,. .1,I ".. ..1. .i@@ @..: .": ,.,,-: I . ...Z.@,' 7- ^@, .',@""I 1. '..@ ;"a@'. ..--.@ .'. .@...; :,71*@ : ...-@;"-* I... :;;.'..@',,1. 1,@11 @ t" '."..@". @ @., , .-,,, .:" @'. "'@'-@' !@ 1@ .... @ i:, ," ,,[email protected] '.I-."..--N@@I ....;-,@; . .t 4, ., '; I ..111@@ 'f .. . .." --r- "r,-, '. 1 @':;'.-@'..:@. r'.,,.;@' .....A.'i -, x- '.-. 'N.".@@ - - @@ '. , , --@.@m%@" , ."'.' "' I....-- ,:'@'@ -'.. ;. .. ': '.,..- '.'.,-:%. o@. @'@,'. ,..-1 "'. .I., ,,, IN, I -'-.'@ @@'*: . .. ....@ .,":."'. ,::,.@.;:::@::W@@ iw: *:@ !@'."P'.:@,,,,@ .@@' ";... ,.'..@@,,I- k'; @. -..@' -1.,. .,*@ .y; ..... .,. @,-@@.-.@.. , , 'Z'..' ... :- %. , I.--,.,.," .. .. ... -.. .. .... - @... r: :.... ..i..@ 110.1. @..@ ..... :...'ex.- ;,,@@,, -, I-%'.. @..-@. -,- * el -..,"- @@'; ,.:;,,",. @-.,-@ ', '. @ .@.,, @'@ %. .'. ;:-, @::.,',.:, .@' ... -..:..@;'l-". ,... ..' .@'i@'. ..:n .. .... ... .' '@' h,'e @@' '. "', @@' 1,,,@"..@"".'.'@@ @..'..:..;:. -...I.-;'?, I -1.'@ .@ @'.. -...",-, ,. ".. .. '< , .@I'll. @f' "I . -,:."-..*@-`,"-:@ .@. ";4.,.".: .. I -@ -,,,@I1. &o,-.@@ \', '.@ ,. . ..:..';@' --l", ..' .1. .1 @k'-.'@@'@,@'. ,-:.,:. '@" @, .. . ... @i..@%. ;....... @' @.-.". ".. -,- @"@'@@.@, _'.'.--'@--:@@'.!-- @:'. @. ".., @ .:. ., -@,.:@. :' :@;.:-..'.-," ,01 . ` .lk @ @!@"-' , ,'@ .. .... @@."il @4 ..".`:;.: .. ;. - @.Ili 'W- ") 1. ...I -.' "l":. . "'U" - ,,@I I. @@'. - I.- ..' . @@.. I.I.I....': @.' ....- @q','@@"-:';'..,P,-:.-,......I, .. @.. i@ :. '@ ". @ @.'- I-` *:V.' ''.-...... .. '@ '@' , .1 . @.'.- @' -.- .@. -i ^.'....-i:.-@.' Z40 :.. -I @. , '-@' -J,-- <-@ ,- ,,.,:. .; .'@e.@ *@@ "@.'-" @. .'.,.v:@@'..: ; @.;- . , -."l..i:V ,--'t ,@ ... i @@'@.".;.@. .; ..@'7'. -4'. .,.,N, ." .-- I. .@ :;, ` ,.-:.I,II.''. [email protected] .@ .@. @' :@ . ..' - '; .:.....I';..:.-..; .. %... - .'S.:@ i":.@ .- @.. 1@ I -, @..' @n "jk.'@ - .@ 'K, @- -", ,-- @.',:.. ,;: .@@,:-..'. .-.I.1 , W'.I.@.:@ *' ..": , .'.... 1:. '@: . .:- --."'.* @ ..'-:, , ..... .1 .. . ..@.@' ,': --," - ."...,-.,@. w.:..@@; @@.:' ...- .F,%'@nu ';' ;@.@11; @'IX@I..@' '.@@ -.,.. @@_@-%:,. ,, .@ @1,1" ."1:1. @-' '@-- ...:.. . @:@:@ ,. @.. .," @.. .. ,I...., @ ."; -@.," ..t.. ..... .@,::. 1, 1:-.@'@,,"@' '..'.'@' @;;'@ '@'. @@'.:@@:@ ;; . --* ,-4- ,.5,,@.11,-,"'-", I., ... -, :...' i@".. ,;@@%. ... :' ;., . - --, ...,,.'@-'... ';il -@,".t@.@@', ,;. ,1,,`., @@'. ;:. .1. ,-'... , .--*.I- , @@@ @@ -@, - @@.".@ i., . @. @<"" , .., @, @' .1 .1 '@.@@- , . "': -.-..4..'.. .. - @ *@- . .1 ..;... :@'."II,'I :@.-'.- @-- ". -.'. . ..' '.... .. @.. . :'. '.' " .@...':.:' -'@'. ..,:'..@' , , - I. .:', '.; :@' _'@@ :vw _ @@,'- ll@@.'.-I-.- -- -1 @ I. ;,.:. '! .. @@ .:,11 ' ".1,'.@ -i .1 "@ ,@@'@ . .., .... ...@[email protected] -...; '@@-.. ,@.. @. '@ @-""'@'-. .." IR I *-I '@'-'. '.; ...... .. f?4,i, ,. ,. @.',@@ 11 '@@ . ,@:%: I' :@'-- -.. .. ;. . --. . .... 1..-,I..-.-, '@" @@ .'.. . - @ @'. .-,..,,.-.,..'e.:.:,.@@@' .@ .." ,. @@ '. '@'@''.,,@"' ."... . @'. qi!I.- @.I-1 I.. . - @. . I., . I ' @:"@ *., -.'i' '.4 - - @- @'-@,.'14.,-,. ,1. @.' :. .@ .1-, I.- @ ., n ' .,.. , ,--- @@ :@@;,-!" - . !@-".".-@ @w- @' '@.. @ @[email protected]@@`@ " @': @ @.'.. .,-' .: :.:, -' @. '..e, '.1", '@@-'@@ , d.. @ "I !@.@. -,@.z: , ,'. .".;%.-.".. ...' "I "" ", ,." -@-@,.Ift"., ",.,"@-I .*; '.-..@ R., ;',11 @... I., .-. ,IQ ... 7.:'.@..'- ':"""; @- ,--:.. .@'@..@ ;1.11-6. ..'@- 1. I. :;-.- ,:. @%. , .....,@ ........ ...@.. @:-... :, @ ... ,,, ,'@@' - * - ,'.-:. :@-: @@.' @' :; . "@' - - "II-'@'@ t,'@ .,..1" "'I. '%.: IV I..... .....- .... "..@,@-. ..'.. - 1. i, @' - @@ . @.-@,t"-1, ,@.I. .I. '@". @z ." .v ,-.':':' - ........' .. .1 '. I.. ...' -.@',@:' ./'M'. ;,,.'. r@" - '@' -' -"- ":@@r ."I,," - '. . 1@ -K- 11@"-:'@..,' - -- .@-@. . f, , '@- ;, @@' ,'. -:l*,.... @@'...*:..- , @. . .-.- @. -- I,,. .-.1 @...'.' @- .." I-J,-,' .',A."4o' - , 1, I " ;' -@ , , @,-.I 1. :";... @@ - @4.- '@;"'@. ,.* -.. .... :@' `@ .. . @-. - '- * @ -."@ t:.;: , '.1 "@'@ , i-- ...'..'-',". .'@@.. @"' " -, @'. ".. -j@% '@; ,,, , .,.. :','I,. " ". "'/,':@ '11'@",- .' '@'"I .... -....'; 'i@, - IS,. @'.@'.I. -@ .... '. N'@I'@ .1,11,;.. :@.@; '@@. @""'@@ . ... ..... ." :'.@@.. @ ..,I.... @.- '-.-1, 1,'.@ .@@. '. @,. '@' '@"" ..' '% . 4. li @.. I.----@.'@%@@'@ '. '@ ...-:. ... ;@@. ...@1. @',@@-' ,". 1,'z,.@ :' '. @ @ @' @-,1-*"k,"'. --, 'm@. .--,.1 ;.;. , @-.-.. '....'. "', @,..@-. -**...., , '.-"; "... '. ,'----'@.'*'@. , - Q. ,'@ @"..; -... ::..,. rsw . ,,@'I@, ,, ,,,, I ,'. @.@.!.@@-@--,., ';@,,.. :,@' e'@ ": @@;'.@.. ..... @--.'@..--@ ...... .,-'@' ** ", .11.1 z@I. - I-- ..'@ @. "';-.%*@. '. @. - -.:--, ..,.@,@..@ 1@ ' 1@ ." ". , "@ ' '.'''@"' ,,,*'@- ,. v" @......@-%.. .. .. - .-...-'.@ .... .. I @ .I..." - .,. " :. ... "- "I . F I 1. 0@ "'-' :. C- W@:: @@.' @@'. @ @11111@1@@ @@,:;. :@ --.@'@@ @' -@'@* "@@ . .. ...' @-- @, .,. ,'.,.. .,".1,,,I, -,-.@'@",',,- ..,.@'@' @@:.""'-.'@@'; ".. ....'.,..@.@@ .--".;,.@'. @@". ... , ,- '. I @- ol.l. " .@ :@:... -..--'@" @. . .."@;,@ql-'I". ",." @ ... '...1"..,1. I ,@ I",,,. 1 `@7,I ,.- , ,", "' @' @,, @-@ @.....'[email protected]"'; -.... 11"... ;: @'. *. @@-' @@.. 1:11 .1 -.. .. ,.." , @- .'...".- @@ . ... . .. W."".-,I.";. , 11II... ".@ 'I .'. ,,,, , ,"'. 0, -* ': .1, I1, .. .': .'@'. -.,,,.-,,@@'C. I@: @-@' @ 1.. @... ;@ . ..'...... I.". 1..,,@,, .l.'. .' ,. . .. ..@ ..' . ,..:.. , ;@' @' .... ". '.@ 1, :@,::... "@. @';.:.111,1ke '@;,.. @., -,@ I,@.. @';.; @'a.11--I. :'. -@- @:,. %;@ .... .... k7& .... .... .... '. - I@ @ e. .: ,-:@@',-@@l .- ,. ,..".@: ;.@ ei@: .,..*'* @. .. ...@. ...... @ ;: I'e,....':.4,@I..,@. 11 -.1.. .:.... -.:,'..@,@. ..'4..:. '.'?"@,n "I ll".X.4 .I',,@.' - , -.. .',i, @I [email protected] -- @"I I"'@', " "-, ,- '@'e4 ,@@--,...-... .,.'x". 1@ ':'.-:'@::@@'!' @',';. @. ., @' ,. @. ..' '. ,@ ", @,. *,*,, :-y @,',"'.@le,', '; @-,.. [email protected] "... ;...@@ ... .... '.,.....',-.;@-.M....- ...: .1@. ,,@ @ "". , 'W @'@'..@@. I 10q,. I., -,v,". ".@ '-, @,- ""i"'.@'..- .*@.1 - --.,.. .. A,,-. -o @@' k--1@ - @'-I'@"@.' @' @@. @5'.. ,.*'. ..--';':..'j.%:.;....-I @ @' , : @ '@' ": @,@"'"" " -,I,'--, - ,. - - .@I.:, !W:: I., .. @ .,- @'@' ;-,@@70' '@t' _-- .-I.:"..*[email protected] @.. '. . ;-- , -.. -111--.-..I.. -,X,'@'% ', .@ - ,,, -v.@q& II., -'..' ,-;.@'W*. .@ M?. '-'... ".. '-*'@'@."",@j@.'-la@'@@ --. ,'..'. " '%'@' ", @' , @' "@'-@ ,"@ '@ . @ ,,, ..".::..@'...:@. ".,., @-..@',,I '.. @U.'.:..:"' , W- 'I @@-';'@ ,--:@.. @.'... ...-,-- . : .- .'..le": @@';@ @ _- @" -@';@@'.". ':. @.. @. .", "/. @ .;,,,.'-@.. , .@"@'-. ., @'.... ", .. .' :'::@.' " @ @' '@ @@'e '-@, "I-.,. ",@%@`. 4-@@.@" C.. - ".'.",' ."C , "@ % '@, --...',-- -, .. 1@ I @ 11 @ A ., .-.. ...::@;,.... .-.@ @,@..;; .: -.'@ @'.--':.-ft@@;,@@.@@.' ,.. @@. , ..*:..--.....I. .@z .7' - " ,k.@@'*' , '@ '@"' -b" '.,: -:d@'.. @',.@ - @- -@. -@-r' "'-' ....'...': . :...:.;,-.,'.-1 '.I.I..' -@ @-:. ,: @. -111.;;:..., ..'@@ "-I" *" I , ""@' @':' "4-1:,", @ .11 I:: ,:@.'. - , '.' @ :,@ .,,'.. ;"@ ` M, ,- .-"..'.@':.', .1, -';... '..""..", -. I.". -1.11' .v 1. ...:[email protected].,'. 4-,"I'll A'*@'--@'., ' .@': '.@.@ - "1;1:4, -:::@:. .@J:[email protected] .@ . @'... .. 1. 1". .. , .,. ..'-.- '. . @--' I -"@ @-.,-'@:'. '- " "'p, - I ,I "@.. "... ..;@@ -.; .. ..... 1'1@-@@'@@-.- 7.....Ik@@...,i$ @ -4.,@- ,@@,.",I'-@@ , "O - '@@'*'I ...;:: j", .@., ",.@'@"' ....,.: ......... ;i i.. -'. -.i 0. I @"'@.e' .' @11.1, "' --;:f: 1."-.., I@@ @ -..' .. .. .. 1@ ., :.. , Z'@.: ,:::...,, . . 7.':@ @,- ' ., :.'@':'@.ft' ,,, @@'-@ . 'Y' @. ':@ @@. -.- @ " - @@ "'e. - , "- ,,,. ';'.@',@:@@' .' . . ....-@ - -I .-:.. ...@: ... ".,I..',.,,.@ ., @ -@@ @'.'::. @.... lk" :. "@ @ ,,,,,..-;'@.@'"O. . .A . ..l. ,' @k :@i-. ....'. ., ", '-- i-.@,@' , ,,., :W @ n'@ ", . "A' ..."''.-.llI .t. .. ..... @. .@... . ..... ;' " @ r" 4@@ '@.,-....' .- . .. 11.1. 1. @ -'.-'I. I. . .@ ...." @' . "."., .. .'@- ......... '.':.-@. @0 .'@.... @. ... . .-@@ -" .. .,;l :;Iki.. @... l-,.- ."..o @'. :- ..-- W..-...... 1. ,..%.. ..".. O'...- '.' ','@:@ r, '@4'@@z @' - - @- @U---'- I........@. " . . I 1. ':41, ll@@ @1. ". .@.@ .- ...."....". -14,;,..l.';- .1..I.,@. .@..'.-,@.@t@ @ ..,-I f.:', @. 1@.:@@ @. @' :. .: @l .-,.@-.. @"".-;.:%:,: *,@c':.. -":..@-" .,-, , w:.,;, .- .. '. 'i , ,"-@@n@ ", '.- ., , ',"- ,'. , ,. @@@- ; ". @l ....... !:. @. , '."';@@, , "e" 11 . ""-I -I, .I .@.: @.....; ... :.:-.gi,, '@.@' i.5;. .1 @: , " @@"',@ ,.- I "... @' '@' @"'@"' C@' , " @'. , I'.@@@' " ,**, '@":-..Il @' '. .'.....'. '@.%- ;" " " @ ,:--:-1, .' @-"@' *I@lk @'..1 -@." ""k".1, @J'*"'@- .i., @@ ,., . '@ '@ , ., , ''4 1. .@:@.@ ii,.,q", ". "'@@@,., @,.1,..; . '@,'.",'. '."@1, - Z@'.@,'.,@@ . @@"' , .'. - 'e. .. - ,..; '.@ :@@'..'@.,.@@'A .,, @..' "1@11"@". I .-'. '."I. **.@ @: .@, :. ;-....... ... @; "@-@'-,@'@' , " ".,," ". @" I., @' -* -@--- 1. " @ @@.' " @'; , .. .: - @.- ;-:i-:. i. -.- 4 ...-.,. '@' 1'1;@.@ @ - @.' 1. , @' N, .. " ,' ,.", @.J-@@@.* .1. ;. . @. ,-1 [email protected]' , ""@ [email protected] , -x. @. ';" V. ".. ...il. @11: ':@@'. ,. -,-I-, -,..@',,@.:.-.. ... . @. @.-." - -@4'a@'.@@..' ,@ -11 '@ .. *.. .@-.'@..Il -..... - @:...,....", @. [email protected] t.-- .. .. ... IP@'.': @@".@" '. ." '- @'", @, , .&,".rx.1,,I@'; , ,, - ". , 'A'. @ ,,, ...-*"ll @Z;@@@@-.@14" -. -I @ " ", '[email protected]@@i @ I-@e ......... ll@'i-.:., 11 ... .. .z ...,-"; ;-1 @ @"@ " @g -11. , " @@r,;. I.A. I., .1. '.. .,. 11 - 11"; ..-'@"-.'@ , @:@@ -" " "'. . ., .@n- ,. - I.,I 1 --:- @.. ....:-15V .@ I 1-11 I. ...-@ @.'.-i.-"' @" ; "-@W` @@i I.@ "''ol .", ,-,"" , , " .. ,'. I.....:...,.,..@@qp I "" ..',., @'@. . 1. .I.. ....@" 11 " , *. ..@ @.11 -- -11 @@'4..'..' "n'.:' '^ " @' , ", .@ . " @ -@.. .,.. 4@-."..''..... @A.".'@ .'.' , -@ I.",I., I.. ' ,,, ."':I I-K-1 "'.: 1, ,-, @@' ... --.I @I.- .@ - 1. "@ '., -.."';@...--.I .l. ", , Im - .11, - I . ...' -'@ *&"@ @ @.--' ;"@ @V.- ..' , ,@@..* *'`,V I"@ @'. ".@@- , '. '.. W'@'@ 4A., - ,"I" --l',...' . ".. .", .: .. @i'..' ..l. -:'@.',@.-w :11.) :.@--.... .. -, - -. .'@, ... I., 11 i@@@'@... .@'"'.." @".,'@@ @- . '. ', ., n., -@. I ,. @W.. @'.-.@:' I.. ..'.. '@@..". I- "I @ @@ ", ... .. I--- -11, ".. z.-@@' :. -...;;...-.;' 'w,, '@" "@O y ,'.@..',...'@@"@'@ @ ", .' 11 '@ ;@.' ".." "". mww"I Iz @@ @.,.@' I @,@' @ @@._.' .,. .I.F, ,.., .1.@':..., '@....-,*;-@.@@.'X,el.'@" ;. ...:..,.@"," @-.io" 1*,'@'@ , @, @'@ @' " , U'i@'@@""X .1. '..;,,,,,@@ @@ ,".@,..@ . .., b:., ;'*' .@.@".","'. , .." .',@ @@'.-' .;.- A "'k I.-I.-'w@ .; 4 .,@@l... ".,:.... @@"[email protected] " f@W@",."@@' P, ,."". I. .-!`'[email protected] '. @*': @' '.",v@ w '@@ .. - -,'*@@W, 1*1 I'Al- L "..-@. ",. ,@-,-"" "@ - f ," ," -.1;- --l-' .'...;.; . ..... @'@' '.. @ .-,.@"..-,," ,:.@ @ '. , , --tiA '@@ @ Ik" 'r -.'-%@@',@':@ , --I.F.,." ,,'@"@r'*"_'_"/@.<','9.@, "" It P., .'; 1k,'@ L- , !@1@@ @'[email protected]", , "'.. Z , : ."fo 1: ,."../@@." @@' ,". ,.. -,.,I,...-@ ,. " .. 1. , @@..:- l%%,-:':@.-I,,11* ,@@'@, '.. L '.-..-I I", -1 @11@ , .@, @@", " @.. -@': , -.....,,....,. i@.`..,1--: !@.'.. .. ..' @ @',"e""t.O .@ @ .'-@ .. ."*"@- @l -@@'.',, @.' @@'" ,:' , @' @*@ "I" , ,@' l."": .', ,.@ @'.@@'? % .'. -.,. .. ..-,@. -.@@"., - .. , "I 4" -11-...I111. . I... " @, .'@?. -14 .'$ . @. .@"--'@'." .' !@x -@ @@@1,,I"@- -, @@ .'., @-'.'I'll .,@". .. .1 ..I11 -I r I .,.I... I.;;;J.-I.@ I ". I, .""' ", ;'.',1. ,@". gv'g 1 11 -1 , 1. -1-1 -.:@ @@.', . .II 11 *@""@,", , @@;-@@-'-- "I.::.',.,,' lz-'@". x , @ "...' 1. - - - .. -:@"-"'@ '.' @'@' " '@ ' ", I , : , @;@ :*...:"@-@@.'.@.,R I [email protected] -1 1, " - -1, .: ..@.@" '@. -11 @-":'@.'-' , I,".I.-I - -,., -@.'. "'@ '. lq -I :@@.1@ '-"@ " @ "@ @; . -.;. @ f:..:.@ .1, ,-@.'. ,,, w..' , . @.It'. .1': *-",'. .@'@ , -, I II@@ a7.,.- , @,,. .,.. ,..I ., , ;. "--@@J"" '*' .. "'. . @ "--@ -I.." . , -;@'@ '."""'.4;,",@ @' ", A ,-'- " - .-O @' ,."." 1. '. ",'-`@..@@., ,..,,", ".,I '@'@.' -.@'F-'--l*. I -' - I ---@,,, ,'@' '@,.. @" - ''@' . -- ."',"@' , ". '.- -- '...171* '@@'@ @,.1. @'.1.I.,, " @.,".- @ . ..@'@@O..'.-,@;@@: .*. ,,, , @ @.@@%l:"'--"@I@ III..- ," ', ,,, e' l-,7@"'-@, '@ , .I--".. ".1.11 1. @'. ', , @ @'. @" @'@' 11, ..*;@'@- '@@..'.I li@l-11@1@' 11I'- ' , -@ 1. ,4'K@ .@@,-.,. Y,-,-'. , -.. @6 I'll.". @ @'. -'@.'41'@ @-' , 1,I..'k, - ':.'. i R, @@'Nk ". , 4 , - , -A",'I."@'. ,1@1111I- -.1 -f I" I,.. '@' ;" @ ,,, ,I- @,'p-M*"; -'V@"', '@-" ", '. , ,. @'. k1lo. . @O-e.@17%-'.@, .%, i t.@",, ,, @, . @ @,@i' . ,-I @ I @' @@"'?@@PF 1 .1 , 11 -, ". , '.,@' -1. '," '@@v.1 1, ', @@@ , .,,,,I,**, , @"@ ,,"" ..@-@'-,.,@ .'.-11 . II% , .1 '. @'4.I *. '-'.... @;; .. " " .1 1, .1..,. ..," "I-,.. , .'..," ..@ ',,'- ,-@ 1. ...'@ "I" 1-1 ',,,I' @ 11 ..@- '._ --I-@'.'. ", ",:: I.,@ -@' .1-'..' .> '.'k', 4",': ' I'. ":@. @' , ., @ X1. I".,@.: @@ ,:% -- ,"@'@ ... @@i'5'@-'@@'@Y- ---', ,,, @ @-7' -'@,-I'.,,.. @-- -.@:'.@@"" :' i. -'el'ft'l ''-:@ , @ -@ .,,,,.; ...' ". , , 'm-, -1@ '%. ' p @@,.@.'\'.1@ '. ,'.i '. , ",, ,@@ ;. ,..'@c @'@ @ @..-"'@"" ,-' 11@,, ,'@.@. "'. "''"-,@,.. . . .,"@'@ " " @"' .-. ".. .'....-..,11 '@ I -,[email protected] '@- '. @' @ ,-<,,,....@,'@ ,C @@ I ,@'@"'.I ".@ ..,-,.-' , @` n'@@-,,o I..-. ,-@,' x@'@. ;--1@ 1@1 4@1."@ 1 , @ @ ,. .1 . " .,,,, '* '@' .,;. .. . .. k@ ,@'@."'.k@@.@., - ....Y91 @ 1, 1@ -@."lk. '; '@'' -, "":".." 1-1 I@ @@ ..,-@@ , , -@,'@51 @ ". ,-J" I. I -I@vp_I: ,@@' '11'1@`.-..'. - , .. I-@-,@, -- ' '.,.5 , @'@' '@ A,, .@ "i "- I- I'" "'. '@@' @' @." @. .1 ;@'. "",' '- , '.@' . '@ -'- @".."' *' ".@' ", @ '. @@ I ..-. @ @ 5.1 -11 4"* @: @@" .'-",I'll- '@" -@; .-..' , 'v@@ @ .@ ,;4,. '. .t " --, @@' ,@ @.,.. . .1 .... ,* 14 [email protected] @',, -." ., ....'@' @@'"' -;x '@'@@' ,'M@' - - @. ," 4@1 11@-,)... Y@11"@@'@.,- Illl,@,@,, -'4' . " -@- "., @,'4: -"""'. _......,", --@ ,,,, ..' .IN---t,, @'i' ".' @:' " , @ "@11,4"@*,' I11-11--.. '. @, . @ @:@'.. .@'II"'@' ":@t,-, " - I, 1,.-'@- .... . .11 .' @@ . @...I.-'..n. I I ,@. '. " ,@-"..,..' 1. . II ,. -@,."%, l-l.-I,.1 c" ,*t 11 @'I..@ @.' '@ ."@,'@@ '!@' ,- - A,-.1. ,.I., ..' '. te :. k.,@, . .@- ,1@ @ @'@..' . -@' '*"@- I @,, ,,,. "-"I .'@' I @@ @'. "-@ , I ""t@@: @@ "I'll .@; " '. .1-'. ":-,I'.1, .1,11 4.': @ I/'@I@ @ 4.'. ,@,.I"$.,,,-. 11 I ", ;. ,".I,;,, ,W' 4."- 1 "..11 "'.1 ". I" '.. "@'%,.'@' I.,.. @.. @ @,p - -'.@@ I - I..,." @-'@@ , ,@' - @ @ @' "@;-@@')@. @@':- '. . I" @.I @.";..@:@ "I. '.A'. ." li '. ".,-11.I @@ @' "..,, ,....`@'A?4@' @'.. -@% @@'... I @'@.@ - - "'@. Z.. , .-'@ I,- , , @.,- @. -- @ I.-", " -,-I,I'll,-., @ '@@Y- @- 1,"f@@-'- ...@Iy'@.@k -.' 17 '.,-, @. , ,@ .'. - ll@... I .1 ,@ "@ "% ';"" '@'@@-- .'9.1--'qS'w '@ .. "'@@ '. V".-,I.@ '@ ..' ,""@-I'14, % , , "- ';-k. , ,-'@'@. . ' , @. -.."-@@.I, -"'@@' - " @@;"@ @-. "@. - -. .z' - ;.1 '.@ * I@ 1,@111-4 .. .I @@ -@."@ 'I - "'-@;@ @ r-'. 4- - - , - ", Z14. @@, @@@, , @@"@P' ,*,2 g@,- , ';@;@ .. @',_ T , ",,.,"I.,--, @ @ A ..11.1 - @, ".' ;". ---, , -I- - T-;@.' @, ;-.' ll@ 1. @'. " I-, @:-" .. @@@ @ . . @'0@..@q @@', @@ @- ,-,mI-" "'@' '," @'-@@".'. 1@1, I--, ;@ 4. .. ".", @,, ,"-@@-'-@, ".-,".. .. @ 'n '@ e @, ,, t - @ ,,, 7, fI-. :,, @I." ..A_@ ,. ,..' '....@ ., 1. .@ J@l ll@ .1I'..". ";'@'@,.'. "". L*,. ,, .' ,,,, ., @@'. ."I..,@ 0i: ,',.@'-Z@@.. , @,1.,@@'@..'" , .-I I.. I I.,I,,,, ,k2il 11 I -1 . -'@@.,'.. A@ @@ , ,,. @. ,,,,'.' "@ ... .... .. ,@,.. ", 3, -,@".. . ",5@ .1",". ", .. :1 ..' @,. .-@., -@ @; '. .:,.. ,,. @@-,, ,@, ."1, I",@- -- -,.-@'. :.I k,@,@", "',..,. -". -:@-:'.' '--A- ",,- ,@'' ' @%:"y t'. ",', I.11-1@. ,>.-".::.,.,.',.@@,@..,@ , "..,@.,.1,I,z,:, -", 1.@ . @ @1, '@'@',"',;. . ;@@,, ,;; ."' '@'@ "." "j@@.' -, ". ,, @e. 1. .. @.. - -.', , 11,."'., @,@,-"*.-11 ... .@"@ -@;,. ,,,-.. ., .', 0,',..' .'_,'%'n' , @" , '4 '-f,,-,>' , ,,-..' ,_' ". -, @,'..@.,"'-@", , ,- @.....@,.;,: , , , , " . 1-1, i@'@ II1..- @@@'@ @,,".- @:'.".,.@ ,@ .5, -,,,,* I..' ,1, - "'-"@.@'!@' I '_ , , ,I, ""'. ' ""'." 7,, @'- ".",... . 11 '.I..' 1, '@- .' ... - @., -w",@. .',,, .',., ....'. .. .11 "' I" ".@. I 1, @'@,@--'@". -@t- 1, I.. " 1".,@ @@..,.., .,, @': @' @@ ,,." @'. *' * ' @" - 1;4." , ' .' ,'. -n'.,,@@It-t@@ ", @< ,...-- 141- *..,-, 1;@ " - ,, "I '- @''. -I i. I,.-@I.,"I'@"@ "..' X-0.1 - "." , ;@'. ,.. I'. .' , @'-""..@ ,11 '@.., ', ,.1@, @I ,,, "@. "I" .'.. '. "..'- " . ,._@ .1 1:@; ,,, ..... -!@. ' ' . ,., .@@'. '. '.. ,,.,,. I- - @@ ., "1. , x.. -@,"@'-@-. ,11.1 I AI@*: , 1@ ' . , v @@ ,"..'. .' -C 'r * -.""' z' . -I , .' I.' ',.@'..- ,II'll . ,@@ @': @ . "` -@.'''* , , - - @ -,.,.i' -@ .. ,,t'."'. @'. @. , -@@k- @@^ -'.@',..':@',@"" @.Illl .-@O.@'..""" ""@@.' llk@' --,,'.,-@. @@' , @. @ ., ,':'Wi-,.11,,I @I ,'- @' @ , I''@' -1 III@'@@ -, , - '@'@.' @, @-" "@@-@'",., '.. -," 11 .7 .1, ..... -, '. . '.." @-Il -I@.,11,'. "I ..I" 4@ @'I., @@,@.@@ A@-1@':'@@@.v." ' ', @'[email protected] @. .,@@," @ @I.0- ", . '.,,'@ @" @. 1 "'"..$-..' 1. I @3@'--.@. I- "I @111. 1@ .@ , - -4 ,,, I @. @@ 7@_ . ,11, @' @@ I.' 1". - Ii..@' ` '11'-@' I-.".' .. , " .. @ @@'.- , @I@@ '.. ... , I-"%,7,N . ^,"I ,@-,z I.; .. . --'. - -, @ , "", "'. @,'Ir' -"*&@ '. -"'f"@. 71.,.', I .I-'@@ ". @ ,@@' ". .- I'.@' 'T.' @'..: - "-.'. '@ @' m--'-'.l'.'-'.-., @" @I :- -- , "' Iv ,-!-,,', @-"...,." , I ",,.@ ,, - ,. .@ @ ,'. -44". .@.. ,: I I'f',@-I,,..... ,. ' -:1 @>.I/- II I.:',@-..-,I .- @@ t@'.-:@.;- 1-1 ... ;.;. -11-1..- - @[email protected]. , ". , @.-." . .-@'"@ @, @.I. 1. 1. '@.'.. i . I'@@.- ..I ...I [email protected] .'.@ ", .-@ @i .. ..@'@@'.." @' "" ,-....'."'. - .' @I @.", ,@@I"Ix... @@' @@ - @'@@-'@n.'!. @..@"@ ....... , @. ..@' .:, - - 'I'd '.' @@ ., ., .1. -,.,@'.". '- .... I,. @. ..... 11.I@'.; -:-t. '. - - = N'.'"@"/ '@,;' - "--' ...'Z "@ ... @.. L@'-,'.-":@ ." @.:. -'.--W-"@O--@iww m's@@'o- w @@ @."-" @ @ T,,.-.... ..@": '@@.,11,,,/.; -1, .i,@' 11 - **@- ' :.-@-@ --@@ @.` @ @@. . @' @@ 1. @@' ., .@ ,'._:@:.'. .@@ @'.'*"@" @@. ,,';@ -4--,' m-4- ,'.- lql ..-'-. -@.... '.- @. @' ,,,, - I -@ :-, " i@."'. .. '@-'.." --',-". I -..;-@ ,11 @..,,@ ,1@1@.'@,;:-@ :-:..II I v"'--- _:@ -I ..,-1--'. '@ -'@-' IV,"'-'@ " , @ @.,,; .'@" @ - ,..I,, '..'@@ .@ ,. @, .'o@ :;,.,.:".,"0. .,-.6-....,... @...@@'.'@@"@. .v.-V --@, @@ ,, ." ,.."i@..:@@ '; . ":.I., ' @- '@' - ,1. , ,7 '@@@, .-.... @' ........ .--.....@II., , @,@ @, *' ..' --@@' @. ,'@t..:: - .@-- -@'-. -@ ... @- - -.... ; -@ ..A@@'.:....@- ...-"" A@. .0t, @ @@':@"@$i: , 1@ "@ @" @' '@"@,"I"':"','@'@,,-@-A @. , ,, ". , , '- -- *iL, , - "..' @Y.'@'.@-II"-<@ *-'@I.r." ,. 1, @.?' ". 1.-@.:.:.'i-';@f '-@'k"@@" @"@" -.. ' .@ ,@ @1@ 1. @@ .7 A,,4. . o..I, .. ., '; , ,@...',@@ 11,,..., @ "@w , ...@-,. @-,.@11. "....@- W.. "'.@- ,.. @ m 4@ ';@ ,, @"'' i,@,, @@I. .. . @:. .. 4. "@" , ,,-%'.".,"'" .".-.,.@.'..,"I ,;-- .@ ,. . ,@.@" I..'e @, , @'. I r4' @ , -'-;."I..'..@.*..- , ",01 '...I,'@"-..@. @'.,.@ -- @ /T.i , ."@'A@ ,.@' ,,@ ,.11,1@ I., :I'I@. : ,t@- '. , ' ,I. : ".,.@ -@@@ .@" @',e,@.' "@@'!-. lk".''. .- I:I .,. , -@.. " "...'-.' , .;"..' " @ @ -I , ."r , *.@@[email protected] ' I-- , .. ,.' '@ .'.,.,,.. "e.4 @@i @' .,. . @@ @@@' @'! .@ "'.-, ... .' -,f @ ''::@'.@"@". @'@ 1, I..@"",,.I . "I@, ,@ I-, @. - , ". @14'@ Z' @ @,@' @" 'q "".l. .' -@" I-@:@:@ ,,,, .' ,,,e@`." / --. ,@' zee - , , ,,-7@::::: (" -*'11, @-ft,'e@;@,.-@-":v II.- 11 .@3,,-h @ "@ @ , - @@" >'. "11 I'o:' , @'.. '@e,,41. t'..",,",,,... '..' @.@@ 'I ;'@ ,'@.-->1 @' "'v" '@@ - - r@.'I@,.". I@'. I- I-, '@"."I .;'.. , I,@lv 4'.- 1. @.'@ 1,.I"I.." .!@. , @' ,'." '@ , " " . I.' .,'; ., @ ..' . -..'@ @'...@,@@,,11 @@' @"@'1.'@. Z- 0@ @.' ", -z At 4.1 fl.4 - - ,,' @. '. @I 7. . . . . . .@- @ " , @.. 'P,'@ .' .'': I/ ; @, .. .@ z'.-@@W..,. -. 'f, ,.'p; .. ". ...-@.:"%@ ;10; .' ' ,@;@ @-@' , "ik-.._:@@ 1@ 'v 't @ @." , ..@'.,I'@ I,. .,:,@11 I @ -.1 @I I , . ,,' ", '. I" ",'.'-,-,@' @"' . @,@ ,: I., '..-.-., el,," ., @* " @' -.@ .. .1IIP/l .@....' ..'.-,,""'@ ,'4'@., @' . ", @ '@ @ ",.,". @' .'..@@'*.11 11 ' ,-" I "@; ,I ,$'.,,'. ., @'.."- ... ...@.... ..... ;..,.'@ 11 .-- .. P '.@. @ . ",,"-a @' . -, -'. - ,,,, 11 '..."O', '@@I,- - ',@@' ' , -; .@@' /-1. ,@ ...."a,-@@. '- e- @ ,, @@, ,@.. . @@ @. ,"'@@ `-"@ ",@ @' , "@ @' .'@_ -i,,,..y .. W' . ': ,@'-- ,J, .. , @@".'@@ @, - @" @"^ @, -I- ..", @@.@4"@ ... '@ " @'."(' '-w . ........ n...:i.w-.-, .. "'@....,I,@ -, ".' , ". @ ul " , @ @.' -,@ -'@@ ""'.' .., '. '. @ " ".-q,- " .'."@'/'.,'. @' @. ....... @.. .... .@ .,.@..,,t@ . -..@I I'U* I ,.I. . .I. .I I"@ , ".@ - .''@,....'* .v @I111. '@I@-,, , ,, , '> @ '@`',@""- "@. ,@ k: .'@'@@'." X. @ .- ".@@.'. ;'. k".. ,'i -..- '. @@ '. -@' ..@@A.- I 11, @'@I - I"'. .1,... @: "@-@ .IV@@ '." " " I ,@,", @.@@ .. , @@" " ";@:"- @1.I11 I-Iul@@., '..- ..@'. . -jl@ ." I ,-',, "@' @ , "I.I ,-@ F,'.'e.--. "@@"V':".^'-',@@'@' @ "'@"',1.I,II- @.'.""I, . '- @' @" .. ,. '4@."*' -'..',V. , @' 't@ ,, .,--@i@ ..' I@V:RI'1411 I 11 :.- @. / '.' -:' @.@@ ;,.,,@'. .-@ , ,," @' '.. -@' -- @"' ;'@' , - ,@ ',@ @".,'@'@- ", ,.@ @'@-.. , ,,. ,@,@@;'? -, @@",, - -@ '@ @. `@.'@@'." "" --,,')@ .@ '. , @@,-- @' '.I1@ I.-.I@ '.' "@.@','zA@ " ': " @ lz@ ,,,-W @.,@'. @-* ,,,,,,,, '.. @ ..x ,, .I @@'@ ,,-, @@...I ,,.. : ".. Z' '.,,.@@,,....' '."l @ , ,,I 1@-.@ - " -@@".''-.""I,I'@'. '"'w.q@@ I"' .1"-,-,I1.II ..."..' .@,.:@.. @.." , "'@," ,'. t"@@",; "@".. O I- 11 "-@.@,'. ; @',,,, .@@." @ -1.11. ... 1@ -I,@ @ @@@; -44 , @I , "@-' A, .@:@'-A"V-,".-.- "'." '@ V., -1 , @@ - @ '@-;';' '.%@ -'*@ "'@@-@ .'k '. @.-@i '. ..@'. - ,,, @;. @" ""@ I@@ ,, .' , ",. .','@"'@',- '.@, --@Z'-- @-.: , e'i 1. ,@ *I-@- ,.. @'. I 11 'e", ..'.'I. .., , ,, @.@' - ,,@--@.", .ll@ 'w I @'-. . @, ,, @'--.: , ., i. :@@:@' @ I - .'. @,' , - , '."" @ -_'"-@ - '' '' , ,. @'@ @-' .,-..' ,.' '.-1@1@1- I :"@' `- -@ '- @@ ,.. I 1. .. e ,, ,.'_,@, F .".,I -11 "I 1. -;:@@ I.,., * '4'-,'@.-,".'@ -,t. @@". ,,, @ ,-x *'- @ - .,. I'.@ @' 1. 11 .1 .A, -@@'@ @ "', @ , "-,,@-"'--"; '"',@'@" "I @' @:@% ":@,"4'e-,",@A-,",", I1@ " 1. '.@ ' ': .:.I,. '.P'.' i,,,@.,. .. -@ I. -- ", --I'. @' l.'.....'..I @@11 '@`@'@'. 1.,@@,.., '@"- ',,z'x @ '@ @' 'l-.,"',.I, -,','.. --,- @ :-, '..,."@ "...... [email protected].. ,- '...- ,@"@....": @*@ .",@ ,,,- - @' I I - "-,..'@.'@ @''II -.. -* F@' 1..I1,. [email protected]@ -.1Z @'@;1.1;: I @.@ @"> @'-j""', ", @ "'. , .....'I" @.. I@f'..': ": @i ',; @:--_ , .' *1, @, ,,, @ , "@. , .: - >@@'*- . , @'- , @,-.I ,.@z @., @: ,V, @ '.III@ *,-@,@' -, ..@. 0 @@' , -.,-:-'. ;@' .1 @, ,-@11 @ @ @ ,,-@ . - "'..-, '* -, @'@@"',".! @: 1. @' @'. , .I,.,,, '.'. "* ,@.. ,. @' @@@@ - ." @@"@"-@" , '*'@ .@. @': @ '@ , ,@,11 @@"-.1. "',..' %% : @ I..- .@@ I ". @ J,''-@"'".,,.. @:',@..@"; @. , @". *I I.-@ '@.". , , @,.... 1. .1 , , '@ .1I@.'., "..'@ @@' II I1.11, I, @ @-'@".'i"@:.II @@'@@ -, "I',I.- -. -.il ' ;'@@ @ - @, 11 @. "-,-@@' 1* , 1; , ,,,,"",.v,. .. It-.,@ '`-I'.1,I." ,,"@- -'@:.,'1@1' @ @' @- " .. .-". @ @ ,,, .." -, @ 1, " *@" 'I,.'. @... @' @ - @, @ "- '.--,."- 1. "'. "'J.- - "., @'. .1 .@@ 4f" ..' .'.@ @.'.'.-", @'@ , @,.@i.,@ @' @.,, @ @i @" @' , '-, f @,,-@" .' , ".'@' ., "., ..' ...I,p tZe-, I.. @."', . ...1 ., '..., 1. '. ,. .@. ;'-'@ ,'.. 1, @@%@@". '. .:','. "..' 11 , ,," -. @@"'. ' -@'- '@..';.. @., .. ,.@I"'. - " - % ':. '@.-"'@'.. -.",@'1-1 ...---,,, -1A, @@' I '@ II- -.".,@ ,",, @'@"@..-I-,@'@ , @-@@ ,, ,,, ,"@.'.@-'@"' '.--'. . I- @ J'@.' @ ., '... @@..% 11.@, ,@Z'.- .@'@' . ,K.,@t ' 11 .. ,- I ".'., .%-@.' @ %. .1 "@ I."., 1. "I ...-,-@ "@/' ""I '."- .':'@".@.", - ,.@. " . @'o -'@'@*'.-- @:,-- _' @@- '@@ , ';.,'.-* @:. ,,,,.,.@',@@]'."v .' @' .@@. .11 @@4,. ,, ,...,,.,,'. ".@,-@' ' '@'@. " I11.'il.'@@'. . ..- -@@"' , '..'d@..@ '' * , -",;Z. '@ '. @.@ '...... @@@.,, .@', @' ,.:: ", @;.' ,!'@j'. @.,@'. "@'.. Z I...''I ,,,,,. ,% '@,@'@''1 .. -, "":@'i --@. ....@ .' ,@ .. . .. ..@1, @@- liI1@ .:,- -@'@ 11 "",.,,,' ': '....I ...' @ ll*@@-- -., ". , "" @@' @ ,@.,., ,.,V' "' -' @,. @..@,-, "., @. @@-' ..' ., "'... ^@` , I - @"@' @@..@'@@ -@%' -'-.,: : "- ,,,,, ..' I, -;. @... 11 -I'@. 1* .. I -@@ . ." '. '; , ..,- I.: ;-,@-@@j' 1:,.,.., ?@r @' A; I I@" -.@I I-.. xlz-"@:. @'..',..'@.,,,4 '- ,,,, I ,,, - @@:. "'@;.',@",,.,,[email protected],, @'@...'. .. ..,..'--".: @' , @@' : .N 1,o,@ " @@',"I.,.,. .. - @@ .'-',..,.,I. ,I, . @:- @..'@I.. ,.. .'@ ,'@. @ " ....'II I I-I*11,@"', ... .. - -,-,:I,.*,. @..- ..@... - 11 I .. .1 -, -'v @@I., ,'@@"';@'-"1, -;* I11 -.. @4, , "@@'@'. I ". ' ,1 e'..4 ", 1, '@@ e'4 , .1,.."@--, @-." .'% .@ I,@,,,,, - :' - e'. , 'N-@*' 11 ' "I 5I. @@ @- .q., 1, " @ ,*,. " , -I ,@@ ll@ '@A ;,,.."'. @4"-"'. .i.@@--- @- , @. ,'.-@S'-. <@4.I ,, ,I-.I.,!'-@;' @-.. '...., ..' @"-"Ill',I@@. @, , ,': ,'@:: 1,@@: ,,,..":::Z.: @'- ,.@' @-'..,"7 @.'.@ -@";. -' .i..'... -- .." .;@ '@ A, @ - - @c. @' , @@",@.@..".'.1 @1..@'-' J@ --, ---.. .. @. 1'r. @@ -.@'@',-j.. i@..." .,I.'4@ ,'@ , 1. .. ., ...., @.. .", @%:' @@"' '-f @-,@,",_,.<":I.'":'::l...I,:. " @1, @@'@ I..@'"...... .. @,:@.A'. @'".. .. .*.@@-.. @@'. ll@,@;:""., ."':,@ ,-I .:.,@-@ "..,@ 11 ...@Z@ '@ @,,, @'... -@.. . @II .: : ,@- @"@@1.@I'.'..11 -'@,@ I- @ -,..,.I,.-, @:,@@.'.' '......, ., 1,,@'.'.',-"'@., i @@ .@. ,.@' . , ,-eI,. -: @.'-:.'. .11 _@q ,.. '@' , "' @'.: ,@'@@ @-. I- .1 ,@@ .. "@ @;.,'' ,11 @'-,1@ *--'@ I,.\.,.. ..,'@ , I, ,,, ., , '@ .." ,@." , @ I.1,::: @ -@.@r @: "'oI-, ., ""@@' @ S-I,"'@. ' .@, @ ,@t @@@, 1. ..:. ,@:Il l: :1 .. .. ,% - @ @":: @ ''-. :1 -.-:......I., .... I .@ .I. 'A" LEGEND AREA OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY bb RV-1 AREA OF SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL, HISTORIC.OR CULTURAL VALUE AREA OF OVERLAP COMBINATION OF TWO OF THE ABOVE FEDERAL PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM MANAGEMENT PRELIMINARY STUDY BOUNDARY FINAL COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY 7 7-7T :X 1A 'J' 4r-k x Fn 'W@; 44" 41 4 nw, A"", g "45, ......... .. 2Z 4 1@ IF To, X'Gl' ........ . . 4 A wN, N'o lv" .,.? 4w '9 kl Irk �r -wI DETAILED SECTOR MAP 1 INCH= 1/2 MILE 10 .25 KEY MAP @@.25 lu 1 .5 DELAWARE CO. 5-u-C K S C 0. 1 INCH =0.8 KILOMETERS T PH 160 ACRES DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE* Nw@ AV 41@ Ml- 311 4V A@o A @j VIA f I. ...... ..... . 4m to I DETAILED SECTOR MAP I INCH= 1/2 MILE 10 .5 KEY MAP 2 5 1 1 10 1 1.5 DELAWARE CO. UCKS CO. 1 -INCH=0.8 KILOMETERS PHI IA UCKS C .'0. P @Hl I A ,a-,- 160 ACRES DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE' I U. .4e 41 c WF LEGEND AREA OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY T@ RL 1 AREA OF SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL. HISTORIC,OR CUL RAL )A L U 'AREA OF OVERLAP COMBINATION 0 F' TWO OF THE ABOVE FEDERAL PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM MANAGEMENT PRELIMINARY STUDY BOUNDARY FINAL COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY E t0l, Oil Q0 "4= ta <0" jw IV 4- 4 WN k@ .12 :,DETAILED SECTOR MAP 1 INCH= 1/2 MILE -71 10 1 .5 KEY MAP 2 5 10 .5 -11.5 P,UCKS CO. 1 INCH=0.8 KILOMETERS DELAWARE CO. PHI IA 160 ACRES 25 HA. DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE' -41 Al ov. 211@ LEGEND NV-1 AREA OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE D AREA OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTU NITY RV-1 AR )3 V U EA OF SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL. HISTORIC,OR CULTU AL E AREA'OF OVERLAP COMBINATION OF TWO OF THE ABOVE FEDERAL PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM MANAGEMENT PRELIMINARY STUDY BOUNDARY FINAL COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE WESTERN STUDY AREA GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Identification Size (acres) Natural Value Areas NV-1 Lake Erie Bluff Nv-2 Crooked Creek Stream Corridor 275 Nv-3 Girard and Fairview Township 1,400 Prime Agricultural Lands NV-4 Trout Run Stream Corridor 90 Development Opportunity Areas DO-1 United States Steel Site 2,100 DO-2 Pennsylvania Electric Site 550 Recreational, Cultural and Historic Value Areas R-1 Raccoon Creek Stream Corridor 300 R-2 Elk Creek Estuary Site 320 R-3 Lake Erie Community Park R-4 Walnut Creek Access Area 40 8-30 AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE -1 Lak e Erie Bluff Springfield, Girard and Fairview Townships, Lake City Borough Approximately fifteen l1near miles or over 85 percent of the Erie County western study'region's coastline consist of bluffs which reach heights of up to 120 feet above the average water level of Lake Erie. Virtually the only points of easy access to the Lake in the western study region are those areas which have been leveled by the erosive action of streams and creeks which enter the Lake. The lake bluffs-are environmentally significant as habitat areas for many species of wildlife and. vegetation, and serve aesthetically as open space areas. These bluffs are also fragile environmental zones. Erosion is constantly occurring and is even more prevalent in the western study region than along the remainder of the coastal zone area due to the lack of a exposed shale base to protect the bluff face.from wave action. The clearing of the-vegetation-from the bluff face and crest has significantly increased erosion rates in many areas. Thus far the bluffs in the western portion of Erie County have not undergone severe developmental pressures. Most are essentially untouched. There is, however, the likelihood of rapid urbanization of the coastal lands should 'industrial development occur in the Conneaut, Ohio -@ Springfield, Pennsylvania vicinity. Even without the construction of an industrial complex development encroachment is likely to occur, but at a greatly reduced rate. Problems associated with the preservation of the lake bluffs will not necessarily be eliminated by attempts to halt developmental trends in these environmentally sensitive areas, as erosion is a continuing natural process. Such attempts, however, will dramatically reduce the rate of erosion as native vegetation will be retained, thus stabilizing or at least retarding erosion of the bluffs. Residential and other urban development will in turn be protected from hazards associated with bluff deterioration. V/ NV-2 Crooked-Creek Stream Corridor Springfield Township The Crooked-Creek stream corridor is approximately 275 acres in size and is probably the most unique natural area in the entire Erie County coastal zone. Sampling has revealed that Crooked Creek exceeds all water quality standards and as a result has been designated as a state conservation stream, which enables'the use of this stream as prime nursery waters for fish propagation. B-31 Crooked Creek is one of only three streams in the Lake Erie coastal area which meets all water quality standards. Also within this area are escarpments which are predominantly located on the east side of Crooked Creek, and.flood prone lands which follow the creek from its mouth to beyond the coastal zone boundary designation at the ConRail right-of-way. The mouth of Crooked Creek is one of relatively few areas in the western'study region where topography does not restrict access to Lake Erie. This fact is evidenced by the numerous cottages which are located in this vicinity. The lands east of Crooked Creek through which this GAPC extends are owned 'by the Youngstown, Ohio YMCA (Camp Fitch) and the Washington Trail Council of the Boy Scouts of America (Camp Sequoyah). The mouth of Crooked Creek and all lands west of this creek are under private ownership. of local historical interest are two dwellings in excellent repair located on the fringes of the Crooked Creek area on Holliday Road. The original house, a New England style, "Salt Box"s, was built by Captain Samuel Holliday in 1806, reportedly the first settler of Springfield Township. A second house, also built by the Holliday family in 1832, has a natural gas well, 700 feet deep, which has provided gas for the house since it was drilled near the turn of the century. Decendants of the Holliday's still live in both homes. NV-3 Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands Girard and Fairview Townships Approximately 1r400 acres in the western study region have been designated as a GAPC having natural value as an agriculturally significant area. The area east of the Elk Creek GAPC is currently being used primarily for grape, fruit and vegetable production. Its unique climatic relationship with the Lake provides growers with a moderate climate ideal for such crops. Much of the area west of Elk Creek is cultivated as a nursery for evergreens. These lands are part of a larger region which extend below the coastal boundary designation and primarily consists of prime agricultural soils which follow an east-west pattern along the beach ridges of the Lake Erie plain. These prime agricultural soils, however, are also ideal for various types or urban development. The lake plain between the Lake city torough-Girard Borough vicinity and the Erie Metropolitan area has been developing at a steady rate and has the potential of rapid growth should any major industrial expansion occur within the region. Thus, foresight and proper management is required to retain this essential resource as a unique agricultural area. 8-32 .NV-4 Trout Run Stream Corridor Fairview Township This 90 acre natural area is entirely located within the coastal zone final boundary designation and is a wooded stream valley which is likely to require sensible management efforts to protect it as an environmental corridor within' an area experiencing increased residential development. The Trout Run corridor is an excellent example of development occurring along points of immediate access to the shore'zone. A small beach at the mouth of this creek offers public access for local swimming and fishing enthusiasts but theremainder of this forested stream valley has developed to serve the recreational interests of a few local land owners. The area has expanded from seasonal residential use to a community of permanent residents. The stream ecology of Trout Run is of ex@-reme importance, particularly to the Pennsylvania Fish Commission which has constructed a catchment device near the mouth of this creek as part of the Coho Salmon propogation program. Monitoring of the creek reveals dramatic increases of polluted materials as the stream approaches the lake. This is probably due to wastewater discharges. Strict enforcement is required to prevent degeneration of the environmental quality of this stream. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS DO-1 United States Steel Site Springfield Township The United States Steel site is a prime area for the location of an industrial complex. The U.S. Steel Corporation currently owns or has control of approximately 4,000 acres in western Springfield Township and close to 2,500 acres east of Conneaut, Ohio. Of the total U.S. Steel property in Pennsylvania, about 2,100 acres is within the coastal zone final boundary designation. About 3.5 miles of coastline are owned by the Corporation and nearly two miles of this is within Springfield Township. The land within the coastal zone was at one time used for agricultural purposes but now is all but completely abandoned. A few homes and cottages remain in this area and only 8-33 the cottages located between Old Lake Road and the lake bluffs are occupied, and only during the summer months. Future development of the area should be planned in a.compatible manner with the existing environment. Along with the vast amount of undeveloped land,, there are several other reasons for industrial development opportunity in this area. First, water is available in sufficient quantity and quality for potential use in the steel-makin g process. Secondly, numerous transport facilities are available. The Ports of Conneaut and Erie are capable of handling all water-bound shipping needs. Numerous rail lines including the Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad, a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S. Steel, and the Conrail and Norfolk.and Western Railroads pass through this area. The area is well serviced by numerous highway arterials, specifically, Interstates 90 and 79, U.S. Routes 20 and 6N, Pennsylvania Route 5 and Ohio Route 7. Finally, the Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec) owns lakefront property about five (5) miles east of the U.S. Steel site which is proposed for power M plant construction by the late 1980's and will be able to handle a large portion if not all of U.S. Steel's power needs, if the corporation does not construct an independent source of its own. a - IDO-2 Pennsylvania Electric Company Sit Girard and Springfield Townships The Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec) owns approximately 550 acres within the coastal zone boundary which includes about one and one-half linear miles of shoreline. This property has been selected for the construction of a major fossil fuel power plant in the early 1980's and such a facility could have a 8-34 significant economic and environmental impact on the entire region. Penelec has reportedly offered Girard Township a portion of their lands for use as a park. The Township has thus far refused the offer for lack of funds to develop such a facility and the concomitant tax base decrease. A desirable proposal for this site could focus on granting public access to the lake bluff. The placement of a scenic access easement around,the Penelec plant, which would roughly follow the Elk Creek, Lake Erie and Duck Run bluffs and then extehd back out to Route 5, would be highly advantageous to the public. Access to the Lake would be impossible except, perhaps, as pedestrian traffic due to the bluff excarpments which are approximately 100 feet in height and have a minimum slope of 30 percent. These bluffs, however, are aesthetically significant and acquisition or easement for public use is recommended. AREAS OF RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL VALUE R-1 Raccoon Creek Stream corridor Springfield Township The Raccoon Creek stream corridor, has been designated of particular concern as a recreational area. This ecologically 'significant recreational site, approximately 300 acres in size, consists of a stream valley, lake bluff escarpments, and wetalnds. The core of this area is Raccoon Creek County Park, a 195 acre land tract which is primarily undeveloped and densely wooded. Only about twenty acres of this park near the mouth of Raccoon Creek are actually developed for recreation, with such facilities as picnic shelters, children's play apparatus, a boat ramp, and a bath house. Swimming is available at a small beach lakeward of these facilities. The remainder of the park, being predominantly undeveloped, is utilized for primitive camping and hiking trails. Portions of the park have extremely scenic natural features and future development' should respect these amenities. Also of significance, but not within the bounds of Raccoon Creek Park, is a wetland area immediately adjacent to the park's southeast corner, This wetland is environmentally significant as a wildlife habitat and consequently the protection of this area is a concern of the coastal management program. The Raccoon Creek stream corridor offers the sp4ingfield area an opportunity to establish a buffer zone between a proposed industrial complex to the west and the area to the east of this corridor which in all likelihood will develop as a permanent and/or summer residential district. With the probable development of the U.S. Steel Corporation and Penelec industrial 8-35 complexes, an area su ch as this will serve to lessen the impact upon neighboring residential areas and at the same time will protect this ecologically significant recreational area.. R-r2 Elk Creek Estuary Site Girard Township The mouth of Elk Creek has long been considered as a potential site for recreational development. This site consists of 320 ij - except for a 13.5 acre parcel immediatelv south of Route 5. Two principle land uses are located north of Route 5; summer residences,(cottages) and agriculture. The land south of Route 5 is owned and managed by the Lake City Municipal Sewer Authority and is the location of the Lake City Borough sewage treatment plant. The west bank of the Elk Creek mouth is -owned by the [email protected] Eiecr-ric Cumpany. To the south and ea6z of the vall-v is Pn area curr,@rtlv eleveloping as a residentipl- 14 qtrict. The most appropriate use of this stream valley should focus upon its recreation potential. The estuarine nature of the mouth of Elk Creek provides excellent opportunities for fishing and swimming, and serves as a shelter for samll boats. During peak fishing periods the flat valley floor is extensively utilized by fishermen as a boat launching and camping site, though no organized camping facilities are present. This area is capable of supporting publicly owned camp sites and possibly numerous other recreational facilities as well. The forested bluffs which completely surround this stream valley serve as a natural and scenic backdrop to the area. Protection of these bluffs from any degrading influences which potentially may accompany development should be a primary goal of the CZM Program. R-3 Lake Erie Community Park Girard Township Lake Erie Community Park is approximately 111 acres in size and is owned by Girard Township. Within this park are recreational facilities including a general purpose field, children's play apparatus, picnic shelters, and a small beach for swimming along the lake shore. Access to the lake, however, is limited to pedestrians only. This is due to the steep lake bluffs which are among the highest in the coastal zone. A deep ravine formed by a small stream that dissects the park provides additional natural and aesthetic areas. Both the lake and stream bluffs should remain 'densely forested lands in order to reduce the risk of increased bluff recession and to maintain the natural character of the area. 8-36 R-4 Walnut Creek Access Area Fairview Township .The Pennsylvania Fish Commission currently manages this forty acre site at the mouth of Walnut Creek. This area, also known as Manchester Beach, offers prime recreational access to both Lake Erie and Walnut Creek for fishing and boating purposes. A boat launch already exists at this site and a marina has recently been constructed as a temporary harbor of refuge for boaters in the event of bad weather conditions on Lake Erie. It is unlikely that recreational facilities will be expanded beyond this Point. Further up the Walnut Creek Valley there are available lands which potentially could be acquired and developed for summer camping, picnicking, etc., however, existing facilities basically meet most current recreational requirements of area residents. 8-37 CENTRAL STUDY AREA GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Identification Size (acres) Natural Value Areas NV-1 Lake Erie - Presque Isle Bay Bluff Recreation, Cultural and Historic Value Areas R-5 Scott Park., Sommerheim Park 108 R-6 Presque Isle State Park 3,250 Overlap Area OV-1 Presque Isle Bay 400 OV-2 Port of Erie and Wa terfront Area 825. 8-38 AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE NV-1 lake Erie Presque Isle Bay Bluff City of Erie, Millcreek and Lawrence Park Townships The lake bluffs in the central study region follow virtually the entire Lake Erie-Presque Isle Bay coastline. These bluffs extend approximately ten linear miles and reach heights of up to 100 feet above the Lake Erie water level. Access to the@waterfront is available at many points in this area, most notably to Presque Isle State Park and to the bayfront, but in many of the remaining areas, the bluffs restrict access to pedestrian traffic only. As with the bluffs in the remainder of the coastal zone, the central area bluffs act as an environmental buffer zone which supports many species of wildlife and vegetation. However, urban development pressures within the central study region, especially within an area between Cascade Creek and the City of Erie- Lawrence Park boundary, have eliminated much of the ecologic significance of these bluffs. In Millcreek and Lawrence Park Townships, residential development continuously reduces the vegetation at the top of the bluffs, a factor which accelerates erosion problems. Ownership of the bluffs in the central study region is predominantly by private individuals and organizations with the major exceptions of the port and waterfront area of the City of Erie. More than half of this area is owned by both municipal and semi-public firms and agencies. The only other large land holding where bluffs are publicly owned is located at the west end of Presque Isle Bay in Scott County Park. Public and semi-public ownership of the bluffs will not necessarily preserve them as natural areas. Proper management of these lands is required to insure their protection as unique geological features. The development of proper bluff management procedures. will also protect developed areas from hazards caused by bluff recession. -----The Lake Erie Bluffs include one site of historic significance. The Land Lighthouse, which is located at the foot of Lighthouse Street in the City of Erie, overlooks the channel entrance to the Erie Harbor and stands about 130 feet above the lake level. it was first erected in 1818, rebuilt in 1858 and again in 1866, but was not used as a lighthouse after 1885. The structure is owned by the City of Erie. 8-39 AREAS OF RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL VALUE R-5 Scott Park, Sommerheim Park Millcreek Township This area has the potential 'for development as a recreational ite without the disturbance of the majority of its natural setting. Most of this property is an area now called Scott Park,, aS 108 acre former estate which was donated to Erie County in 1974. Sommerheim Park, southeast of Scott Park, is a ten acre parcel owned and operated by the Millcreek Township School District. Scott Park is currently a completely undeveloped wooded area. There are many tentative proposals for this park which include the clearing of land for recreational facilities such as ballfields, picnic areas, hiking trails, bikeways' and tennis courts. These facilities, as well as an administrative building, supporting utilities, and parking lots are scheduled for completion by the mid-1980's. Additional facilities may be added after that date. Not all of the park is to be developed. The northern and eastern portions are strikingly scenic sites and from the lakebluff the entire neck of Presque Isle can be seen jutting into Lake Erie. The only proposed development this part of the park will be the addition of hiking trails. Any further development must be compatible with the natural features of this area. Facilities at Sommerheim Park are limited to three ballfields and a parking area. The parameter of this park currently consists of woodlands which adjoin what will be part of the natural area of Scott Park. R-6 Presque Isle State Park Millcreek Township Presque Isle State Park, 3,250 acres in size, is one of the most unique natural features in Pennsylvania and along the shore of Lake Erie.. Its value as an ecological and recreationaIresource is second to-none in the State. A diversity of recreational facilities is available for public use. Much of the interior of the park serves as habitat for numerous vegetative and wildlife species, and as protective areas and nesting sites for migratory waterfowl. The Peninsula would not be intensely affected by any additional management program as it already is protected as a state park. In any event Presque Isle's lands and waters now used for recreational purposes or maintained as natural areas should not be significantly altered. Any future recreational development B-40 which does occur should respect all significant ecologic resources within this park. ' . I Presque Isle State Park also has historic significance. A monument erected at the entrance to Misery Bay by the Commonwealth.of Pennsylvania in 1926 commemorates Oliver Hazard Perry's victory of the Battle of Lake Erie. It was here that Perry harbored his fleet before the famous Battle. A second historic site, one of local significance, is the Presque Isle lighthouse. This structure is located on the Lake side of Presque Isle, immediately southwest of Beach 9. The lighthouse has been in continuous operation since 1872. OVERLAP AREAS OV-1 Presque Isle Bay Millcreek Township Presque Isle Bay is of significance not only as a natural system but also as a socio-economic resource. There is year-round use of the Bay as a recreational area and as Pennsylvania's only Great Lakes harbor. The Bay is approximately 400 acres in size and its depth ranges from several feet near the shore of Presque Isle and the waterfront area, to a dredged depth of 29 feet at the channel entrance and the harbor area. The shelter afforded by the Presque Isle peninsula virtually eliminates circulation within the Bay. Thus water quality of the Bay is an important environmental issue. The primary contributor to environmental degradation of the Bay is storm sewer overflow which occurs during heavy rainfall periods. The additional storm sewer runoff which normally is processed at the sewage disposal plan near the mouth of Mill Creek cannot be accommodated due to-the tremendous additional burden on this facility. Runoff overflow is dumped directly into the Bay with no sanitary processing whatsoever. Thus, additional efforts are required to maintain the water quality of the Bay for the recreational and. environmental benefits that it brings. ov-2 Port of Erie and Waterfront Area City of Erie The port and waterfront district in Erie is approximately 825 acres in size with uwnership divided among five groups. Private ownership in the form of corporate interests accounts for 46% of the land and water holdings in this area. A few waterlots located at the mouth of Cascade Creek do belong to individuals. The Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority owns about 33% of the waterfront district. The largest and most significant of B-41 -Ehese holdings are the Port of Erief the East and West Canal Basinst. and the ore docks, the latter of which were recently purchased from the trustees- of the Penn Central Railroad. Approximately 13% of the waterfront district is owned by the City of Erie. These holdings include the sewage treatment plant, a coal storage pier, a grain dock, and a water treatment and pumping plant. The fourth largest land and water holdings, the Cascade Docks, still remain under the ownership of the trustees of the defunct Penn Central Railroad. These holdings which amount to slightly over 5% of the. waterfront district, are scheduled for sale in the near future. Conrail has acquired the railroad rights-of-way which run in an east-west direction following Front Street and both the Bessemer and Lake Erie and the Norfolk and Western Railroads are permitted use -of these tracks. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania owns the remaining acreage which amounts to less than 1% of the waterfront district. On this property is the historic replica of the U.S.S. Niagara, Oliver Hazard Perryls flagship during the Battle of Lake Erie in 1813. - T41e_PQr_t-_d,s currently not utilized to capacity. A comparison with neighj3@3:ng Lake--Ekie Ports indicates t@at the Port of Erie ships only a small fraction of the tonnage of these individual ports. Additional facilities such as a 300 ton capacity crane have improved the shipping outlook, however, and with the occurrence of this and other developments, the port has the opportunity to increase its competitive standing. The waterfront district is not only a development opportunity area, Recreational activities such as boating and fishing have long been enjoyed here. within the waterfront area are several small yacht clubs and five commercial marinas with a total capacity of 389 boat slips. Two additional marinas with planned capacities of 350 additional slips are proposed for the immediate waterfront area. There are also one private and three public boat ramps. Fishing is another popular recreational activity along most of the docks and especially along the channel entrance to the harbor. Also worth noting are three sites of historic significance. The' ' U.S.S. Niagra, mentioned previously, is located on lower State street adjacent to the west Canal Basin. This replica is one of only three Erie County landmarks which have been placed on the Federal Register of Historic Sites. Perry's shipyards, a second historic waterfront site, were located at the mouth of Cascade Creek. Perry's two flagships the Lawrence and the Niagara, were built in the spring of 1813 because the plans for these two brigs. indicated that they would be too large to be constructed at Garrison Run (foot of Peach Street) where the rcmainder of the fleet was being constructed. Factors such as a beach, many oak trees and a small cascade made this site an opportune place for the location of a shipyard. A third historic site within the waterfront district was the Erie Extension Canal. This Canal ran from the West Canal Basin at the foot of State Street west to 8-42 Girard-Borough and then south to Crawford County. A horse-drawn boat which took this route would eventually reach Pittsburgh. The canal sy:�tem was completed in 1844 and remained in use until. 1871., by which time'the railroads superceded it. 8-43 EASTERN STUDY AREA GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Identification Size (acres) Natural Value Areas NV-1 Lake Erie Bluff - NV-5 Harborcreek and North East Township 21,000 Prime and Unique Agricultural Land Recreation, Cultural and Historic Value Areas R-7 Sixmile Access Area 75 R-8 Shades Beach County Park 50 R-9 Twentymile Creek Access Area 75 8-44 AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE NV-1 Lake Erie Bluff Harborcreek and North East Townships The lake bluffs of the eastern study area extend along about ten of the fifteen linear miles of shoreline in this area. it is within the Eastern Study Area that the lake bluffs reach heights greater than any other bluff areas along Lake Erie. In North East Township, between Twelvemile and Sixteenmile Creeks, the bluffs exceed heights of 170 feet above lake level. Principal access points to Lake Erie are found along the shoreline where the bluffs have been cut by stream runoff. These points include the Sixmile - Sevenmile access area, Shades Beach (Eightmile Creek), the mouth of Twelvemile and Sixteenmile Creeks and several points east of Sixteenmile Creek where the bluffs average only thirty to forty feet in height. Publicly owned points of access are limited to Shades Beach, Orchard Beach and Dalrymple Beach areas. The remainder of the eastern study area bluffs are semi-publicly and privately owned. Development along these lake bluffs is predominantly limited to residential land uses, however, some agricultural lands still exist north of Route 5 in North East Township. Lakefront areas will continue to attract residential development and the resulting impact on the fragile lake bluffs will increase the need for the protection of'these coastal lands. Unlike much of the Erie County coastline, the eastern bluffs are protected from wave-induced erosion by an exposed shale base. The erosion rate is rapidly accelerated by man's actions in this critical zone. Habitat areas for wildlife are also harmed or destroyed as a result. Thus the.degree of development must correspond with practical bluff conservation methods. Nv-5 Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands Harborcreek and North E ast Townships The largest of the coastal zone areas of particular concern is the prime agricultural areas of the eastern study region, a 21,000 acre tract which is favorably influenced by the moderating climatic effects of Lake Erie. Vineyard and orchard produce are the principal crops of this area and a unique combination of. climatic and soil factors make Harborcreek and North East 8-45 Townships among the best producing regions in the' nation for Concord grapes. Development trends in this productive district indicate a growing threat to the agricultural industry here. Prime farmland is important because it is the base from which our present and future supply of food will come. Such land is in limited supply however and cannot be replaced if once disturbed by insensitive development. The Erie Metropolitan area for instance, is expanding into the Harborcreek farm belt, and North East Borough, in the heart of this agricultural district, is experiencing a similar growth pattern in its immediate vicinity. Thus far the high cost of productive land has limited this development trend. Urban pressures are continuing in this area, however, and are not likely to decline. This situation mandates the need for a policy that will ensure the continued agricultural utilization of these valuable lands. AREAS OF RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL VALUE R-7 Sixmile Creek Access Area Harborcreek Township The beach at the mouth of Sixmile Creek is a potential public access and recr.:ational site. This area of particular concern is about 75 acres in size and is currently used as a privately-owned summer residential district. The eastern study area is limited to only three publicly owned beach access areas and only one of these, Shades Beach, is located in Harborcreek Township. As residential neighborhoods in this area of Harborcreek Township 8-46 continue to expand, so will the demand for public recreational facilities along Lake Erie. The acquisition of the Sixmile Creek access area would alleviate some of that demand. R-8 Shades Beach County Park Harborcreek Township That part of Shades Beach County Park within the final coastal zone boundary designation is approximately fifty acres in size and has been owned by the County of Erie since its purchase in 1965. Since that time much of this acreage has been developed and now includes facilities such as picnic shelters, children's play apparatus, open areas for field sports, and a boat ramp. Swimming is also available at a small beach just west of the mouth of Eightmile Creek. These recreational facilities are all located on the west portion of Shades Beach Park north of Route 5. The remainder of the park north of this arterial is a natural stream corridor which is completely undeveloped at this time. This small natural area is isolated by topography which reaches heights of about fifty feet on either side of the stream. Most of this area is likely to remain undeveloped except, perhaps, for a proposed perimeter hiking trail which would follow Eightmile Creek. R-9 Twentymile Creek Access Area North East Township This area of particular concern at the mouth of Twentymile Creek is approximately 75 acres in size and is privately owned. There are approximately three dozen residential units in this area and the majority of these are summer cottages located near the lakefront on either side of the Creek. The insufficient amount of existinq.public access in the eastern study region makes this area a prime target for development as a recreational site which potentially could include a small boat shelter and launch ramp. 8-47 . ................ ......... .. ...... ... .. ............ . . .. ........ . . . . ......... ....... ..... ... . ........ .. ... ....... ...... ..... ... .. .... . ........ ... . ......... .. .... ..... ... 71@ ............ 17 rk . ... ... .... & 1 INCH 1/2 MILE DETAILED SECTOR MAP 10 1 .5 KEY MAP 2 5 I U r ------- 1 INCH-0.8 KILOMETERS E STE N 2 4 5 WESTERN 160 ACRES 25 HA. 'LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE ................ .. . ..... ........ ... ....... ..... .... ...... ........ . ... ............ .... . ...... ... ....... ........... . ......... ...... ... ..... ........... ........... ... . ....... .... ............ . ... . .... . ........... ....... ..... . . . ................ . ... ... ...... ..... ........... ... ... ...... ........ ........ ........ ... ................ .... ... .... ..... .... .... ........... .. .. .... . .................... ........ . ....... ...................... ............ . @00 @i7 x: wzu ................ .. rk .. ...... .. LEGEND AREA OF SIGNIFICANT.NATURAL VALUE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUN ITY AREA OF SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL, HISTORIC,013 CULTURA,@VALUE AREA OF OVERLAP ( COMBINATION OF Twb OF THE ABOVE FEDERAL PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM MANAGEMENT FINAL COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY ... .... ... 0 AV ......... ...... .... .. . ....... ext ......... . 4@- -V" ......... ...... . ..... ...... ...... .... .................... ..... ....... _orwollo ........... .. .. ...... . .. . .... . 4 1.01 IT ....... ........... .. 4N @3 1 INCH 1/2 MILE SECTOR MAP 1 .25 771 10 1 1,5 KEY MAP =25 1.5 I U 1 INCH-0.8 KILOMETERS 3 E STE N 5 ENTRA 4 4+ WIES@TERN@ 160 ACRES 'I AKF= F=Plf= r.O,&.qTAI 7r)t\l= . .......... ... .. ....... o4" ",Zz. . ...... . ... . ..... ... .... . ..... ........... 10 41 .. . ...... . bow ci j.K. - . .. ........ . . .............. . . . ............ ... ........ ...... ------ . .......... . ..... . ............. ....... .. . ... . ........ . ........... ........ . ... LEGEND AREA OF SIGNIFICANT. NATURAL VALUE Y AREA OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNIT AREA OF SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL, HISTORIC,OR CULTU RALWA LUE OV-1 AREA OF OVERLAP ( COMBINATION OF Twb OF THE ABOVE FEDERAL PROPERTIES ( EXEMPT FROM MANAGEMENT FINAL COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY .. . . ... .......... . ..... .............. . .......... . ...... ..... ..... ... .. .... ... ............ . .. . .......... ... . . .. ...... ...... --.-: . ...... . ......... . ....... . .. . ...... .......... . .......... . .. ... ... .. . ... .... . .......... .......... 77 ..... . .. .. c . ....... .. . ZZ-Z-74 Is -7 -41 Al . .......... .......... ... ........... ... ...... . . ..... ..... ..... ..... . .... ......... .. ... ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . IX .............. ............ ... . .... . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ....... ...... .... .... F . . ....... . .......... ..............a ........... ........... ..... - - - - - - - - - 1 INCH 1/2 MILE DETAILED SECTOR MAP 2 5 KEY MAP 25 lu 1 15 1.5 1 INCH=0.8 KILOMETERS E STE N 5 4 c:NTRA WESTERN 160 ACRES 25 HA. LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE 4. .......... '*', . . .. ...... . ......... ............. .. ......... ... . ....... . .. .... . ....... ggw,@, V1. :Q ..... ..... . ... .. .. ... Vp ...... .. .. .. . . ........ ...... . .... . .......... . ......... ... .. ........ . 77 e . .... ...... . ...... .. 44 . ..... . 41, ......... 10 ........... .. . ..... . .... . .... ... . .. 4Z J7 ... .... ... ......... ..... -.4 .......... . . ..... ............ ... . ......... . ... ........... .. .. LEGEND AREA OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE (6i'&L:*J) . . ........ AREA OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY (66c AREA OF SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL. HISTORIC,OR CULTURAL VALUE: AREA OF OVERLAP COMBINATION OF TWO OF THE ABOVE gul) FEDERAL PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM MANAGEMENT FINAL COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY ............. .. ... ...... .......... . ... .......... . ......... . .. .. ....... .......... ........... @@ .. .. . .... .... ... ....... ...... . .. ... . ...... ...... . ...... . ....... .......... .............. V mom -.4; ..... .... ......... ... .... ... .... . ....... . . ........... .......... .......... .............. . ...... ....... .... .... .. ...... . ... .. !_7 . . . ...... . V .......... . ............. A qq 7 -@k ...... . ..... ...... .... . . . ..... ... ... ... .... J,;x ..... . .... I INCH 1/2 MILE DETAILED SECTOR MAP [email protected] 10 L5 KEY MAP 2 5 JU b 1 1.5 H-0.8 KILOMETERS 1 INC 5 ENTRAL@ WESTERN 160 ACRES 25 HA. 'LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE ....... . .. ... ... ... . ......... .... .. ........... .. ......... . .. ....... .. . ............. . ............ ........ .. ... . . . ........ .. .. ...... .... ........ . .......... .......... wm .. . . ...... .... . ... ....... 77 LEGEND AREA OF SIGNIFICANT.NATURAL VALUE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREA OF SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL. HISTORIC,OR CULTU,RAL VALUE AREA OF OVERLAP COMBINATION OF TWO OF THE ABOVE FEDERAL PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM MA'NAGEMENT FINAL COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY 1- e "41 ...... .. .. .31 NA -5! b z gi@ .... ..... . J., . . ......... On -eR . .... .. .. 'A ........... ... . ...... ...... ... . .- 10 Z. 16. .. ......... . . . . ..... ...... ... J." v@ ... . ...... 0.4 'IJ ....... ...... .......... 4 61' .... ...... -J. AU a 410 WN 41; "on. E _r" 0 .................... .... ........... ...... ..... ................ ... .... ... ..... ... ............ - . ... .. .. .... .. .... ... . .... .. .......... . ... .......... .... ... ... . . ........ 'MM& INCH 1/2 MILE D 2 5 ETAILE 1 .5 25 KEY MAP 1 INCH -0.8 KILOMETERS 7T E 3 2 ENTRA @WESTFERN 1 160 ACRES 25 HA. 'LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE jr @ @:. , -X3.. ......... ... . ........ ... ....... . ... . . . 15 ol . . . ........ . ......... . .... . ............ @41 .... . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... .. .. ......... . ........ .... . ... ..... .. ...... ... .... ... ..... M?v 1 wl, LEGEND AREA OF SIGNIFICANT.NATURAL VALUE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREA OF SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL. HISTORIC.OR CULTURAL VALUE AREA OF OVERLAP COMBINATION OF TWO OF THE A13OVE ov of FEDERAL PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM MANAGEMENT) FINAL COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY .... . .... wb ............ ..... .... .......... ..................... ............. ....... ........ -414 .............. -rf.: ...... ..... . ..... .. ... .. .. .. . ism PRIORITY OF USES I NTHE E' COASTAL ZON DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE 3 INTRODUCTION 6 Chapter 9, "Priority of Uses in the Coastal Zone," is an 8 important Chapter in the Coastal Zone Management Program. In 9 this Chapter, recommendations are made for the priorities given 9 to the use of resources within the coastal zone. The,se 10 recommendations represent the culmination of previous Chapters 10 including, the Inventory (1), 1he Identification of Problems and 11 issues (2), Projection of Future Land and Water Requirements (3), 11 the Delineation of Coastal Zone Boundary (6), and critical areas 12 called Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (8). 12 Section 305(b)(5) requires that the management program contain 14 "broad guidelines on priorities of uses in particular areas 15 including specifically those uses of lowest priority." In 16 implementing this requirement, two sets of priority ratings will 16 be introduced in this Chapter. The first set, a general list of 17 coastal-wide priorities for land and water uses, is notable for 17 its consideration of uses of "regional benefit" and facilities of 18 "national interest." The second, more specific set of priorities 19 relate to four kinds of Geographic Areas of Par-ticular Concern 19 (GAPC's), which are those land areas where the most critical land 20 use decisions will have to be made in the future. 20 This Chapter is important for two reasons. 22 Priority recommendations give a clear indication to 24 state and local officials of statewide objectives for 25 the use of coastal resources. 25 Since several uses will generally be identified as high 27 priority the chapter will encourage flexibility in the 28 development of GAPC9s. 28 The purpose of this Chapter is to clearly state the guiding 30 policies behind priority recommendations. Whereas in 31 Permissibility Analysis, Chapter 7, the balance between 31 beneficial and adverse impacts of iesource use determined the 32 acceptability of uses along the coast, this Chapter defines the 32 preferences for different uses. Uses to be discrouraged, defined 33 in Chapter 7, will rank as low priority, while those that were 33 judged previously as "uses to be encouraged" or "uses to be 34 conditionally permitted" will now be reevaluated in greater 34 detail, and for more specific locations. This reevaluation will 35 define the reqional priorities that should be promoted within the 35 Coastal Zone. 35 BROAD PRIORITIES FOR RESOURCE USE 37 overview - The priority analysis proceeds in tw6 steps - first 39 for the entire coastal zone and then for the particular areas 39 identified in Chapter 8 as GAPC's. The first part of priority 41 analysis described in this section of the Chapter primarily 41 outlines broad, coastal-wide policies for the use of coastal 42 resources* 42 Three considerations influence coastal-wide priorities.. 44 1. The demand for uses of greater-than-local concern 46 (including uses of regional benefit and faciltities of 47 national interest) is an important consideration in 47 establishing priorities. 47 2. In addition, water-dependent uses are given priority 49 either water enhanced or non-water related uses. 50 3. The third factor is the nature of impacts associated 52 with each use, an extension of the impact analysis 53 already used in Chapter 6 and 7. Uses with benign or 54 beneficial impacts are given higher priority than those 54 with mostly adverse impacts on physical or socioeconomic 55 resources. 55 Demand for uses of Greater-Than-Local Concern - Much of the 57 development whicb will take place in the Coastal Zone will be of 57 strictly local concern. Small residential developments and the 59 "neighborhood" commerical areas which serve them will not 59 significantly affect coastal resources and, therefore, will not 60 be subject to any new requirements as part of the Coastal 60 Management Program. However, some developments are of 61 greater-than-local concern because they serve a larger 61 constituency and/or have impacts that "spillover" to neighboring 62 communities. The federal guidelines for the Coastal Zone 63 Management Act require that each -state's management* program 63 address development projects that ha ve a side influence. More 65 specifically, the management program must consider "uses -'Of 65 regional benefit" and "facilities of national interest," assuring 66 that such uses are not arbitrarily excluded from the Coastal Zone 66 nor neglected when planning the use of coastal resources. To 68 assure adequate consideration of uses of regional benefit or 68 national interest, one major factor in establishing coastal- wide 69 priorities is the demand in the Coastal zone for uses of 69 greater-than-local concern. 69 The Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone, as one of the major seaports 71 in the nation, is a major center for activities of regional and 72 national significance. Most of the types of land and water use 73 N that can be considered "greater-than-local concern" are already 73 represented in the coastal zone, including: 74 An international airport 76 Four major petroleum refineries 78 Related petrochemical industries 80 A naval base 82 A large ship building facility 84 Two modern marine terminals 86 One of the largest steel mills in the country 88 six electric generating stations 90 Numerous sewage treatment facilities 92 Sand and gravel extraction operations 94 Channel dredging and spoil disposal 96 Several State Parks and other "region-serving" 98 recreational facilities 98 The Coastal Zone Management Program must recognize that these 100 facilities are crucial, and provisions must be made to plan for 101 their continued existence and vitality. 101 This Chapter will not attempt to differentiate Letween those uses 103 which are of "regional benefit" and facilities that are of 104 "national interest". Many uses of regional benefit are also of 105 national interest. Instead of attempting to make this 106 distinction it is important to recognize that: 106 Both kinds of uses are extremely significant 108 That the Coastal Zone may very well provide the ideal ill location for these activities, and 112 That uses of regional benefit and facilities of national 1-14 interest are almost always of greater-than-local 115 concern, with major impacts, affecting more than one 116 community. 116 For these reasons, if conditions indicate that these facilities 118 r of qreater-than-local concern are reaching capacity 2r will be 119. inadequate to serve future demand, they should be given high 119 priority in the Coastal Management Program. 119 In previous Chapters of this report, there has been considerable 121 discussion of major problems and issues, future demands on 122 resources, and goals and policies for coastal management. These 123 discussions have set the foundation for identifying the "demand" 123 for uses of regional bendfit and for facilities of national 124 interest. Figure ix-1 shows those uses for which a demand has 125 been identified, followed by a reference to the section of this 125 document where the demand was discussed. 126 Figure Ix-l Demand for Uses of Greater-Than Local Concern (Regional Benefit and National Interest) Relevant Chapter of Section of Coastal Zone Uses j4anagement Report Establishing Demand HICH DEMAND 1. New industries (to stabilize the Chapter 11; Chapter 111, port viability; city's job market). Chapter V, Economic Health and Revitalization. 2. Preservation of Tinicum Marsh and Chapter 11; Chapter V, Problem #3 In Land Use other areas of high ecological value. Resources, Environment. 3. Public-recreational facilities as Chapter 11; Chapter 111, Recreation Demand; exclusive uses or in combination Chapter V, problem #8 In Land Use. Resources, with other uses and facilties. Environment. MODERATE DEMAND 1. Upgrade port facilities and land Chapter 11; Chapter 111, Future Port Viability; transportation linkages. Chapter V, Economic Health and Revitalization. 2. Improve water quality through up- Chapter 1, Water Uses and Resources; Chapter 11; graded waste treatment. (This Chapter 111, Water Resources; Chapter V, Land problem Is c"rrently being addressed Use, Resources and Environment. by other program). 3. Dredge Spoil Disposal Sites. Chapter It, Chapter V, Problem #I,In Land Use Resources and Environment. L014 DEMAND 1. Deepwater Port/Pipeline and Expanded Chapter 111, External decisions. Refineries. 2. Expansion of Power Generation. Chapter 111, Water Resources and external de- cislons (adequate sites already available). water-Dependenc of Uses - The second factor influencing 128 coastal-wide priorities is the dependency of land-use activities 129 On the river. Three categories of dependency.are defined below, 130 and examples of uses fitting each category are given. 130 Water-dependent uses - require direct access to large 132 volumes of water or to the marine channel. Uses defined 134 as water-dependent include: 134 'l. marine terminals and other pier or dock faciliti4is 136 2. electric power generating facilities 138 3. sewaqe treatment and water supply facilities 140 4.. shipbuilding manufacturers 142 143 5. natural aquatic processes, such as fish breeding 145 and wildlife habitat. 146 Water-enhanced and "por -related" uses - derive benefits 148 from access to the River or marine facilities but could, 149 if necessary, locate elsewhere. Water-enhanced uses 151 include: 151 1. sand and gravel processing 153 2. land transportation (rail, highways) 155 3. bulk storage and truck terminal facilities. serving 158 the port 158 4. industries needing cooling or process water, such 160 as petroleum refineries, chemical and primary metal 161 industries 162 6. labor-intensive manufacturing attracted to port 164 facilities 164 Non-water related uses - have no direct link to river 166 water or the port economy (although aesthetic benefits 167 may be obtained). Such uses include: 168 1. residential 170 2. community service 172 3. wholesale and commercial trade 174 4. agriculture 176 5. most warehousing and storage 178 6. solid waste disposal 180 Assessment of Impact - The third factor influencing coastal-wide 182 priorities Is the nature and balance of the anticipated impacts 183 on coastal resources. The impacts associated with the use of 184 physical and socioeconomic resources have been previously 184 described in Chapter 7, using .2apability and suitability 185 analysis. 185 while it might appear desirable to simply encourage uses with 187 positive impacts and discourage uses with negative impacts, this 187 procedure will not produce satisfactory results. Because uses 189 with negative environmental impacts often have significant 189 positive economic impacts, priorities must consider the "balance" 190 between positive and neqative impacts. Uses which combine the 191 greatest positive benefits with the fewest neqative impacts (i.e. 191 those that have net positive impacts) should should be assigned 192 the hiqhest "scores". In terms of the language of Chapter 7, 193 those land and water uses which combine the greatest number of 193 O's (for opportunity) with the fewest C's (for constraints) 194 should be actively encouraged through the establishment of 194 priorities in GAPC9s. 194 The process of setting broad priorities for the entire Coastal 196 Zone includes analysis of demand for uses of greater-than-local 196 con concern and degree of water dependency as well as impact 197 assessment. The addition of the first two distinguishes this 198 process from the Permissibility Analysis, described in Chapter 7. 198 Ranking Coastal-Wide Priorities - The three parameters discussed 200 above - coastal-wide demand, water dependency and impacts - were 201 combined to give an overall priority ranking to uses within the 201 coastal zone. Uses were assigned to one of three priority 202 classes - hiqh, medium, or low priority based on ratings received 202 in each of the three categories. The results.are arrayed in 204 Table ix-2. 204 PRIORITIES FOR USES IN GAPC's 206 Introduction - Chapter 8 introduced four kinds of Geoqraphic 208 Areas of Particular Concern - Areas of Significant Natural Value, 209 Areas of significant Recreational, Historic or Cultural Value, 209 Development Opportunity Areas, and Overlap Areas. In this 210 section of chapter 9, priorities for uses within these four kinds 210 Of GAPC's will be developed. 210 GAPC's are those portions of the coastal zone where the most 212 significant land-use decisions will be made in the future. 212 GAPC's are also the areas in which uses of high, coastal-wide 213 priority may be best located. Much of the future development 214 activity is likely to take place in Development Opportunity 214 Areas. The best opportunities to acquire or protect new parkland 215 ix-2 BROAD PRIORITIES FOR THE COASTAL ZONE High Priority Demand Water Depe@dency Net Impact Overall Ranking 1. Developed Waterfront High Water Dependent Positive High Recreation (marinas, boat ramps, etc.) 2. Preservation of Wet- High Water Dependent Positive High land and Natural Areas 3. Modern Marine Currently Water Dependent Positive Socio- High Terminals under study econ.;Env. im- pacts could be negative 4. Manufacturing High Demand Water and port Positive Socio- High in Region, enhances econ. impacts; declining in labor intensive Coastal Zone 5. Multiple-Use Proj- Few examples Water Enhanced Positive High jects currently available Medium Priority Demand 'dater Dependency Net Impact Overall Ranking 1. Expansion of Immediate Water Dependent Positive Medium Energy Generating demand Regional im- Facilities Necessary pacts. Pos- sites are sible negative available env. impacts 2. Petroleum Refinery Moderate De- Water enhanced; Negative Env. Medium mand depend- requires water Impacts. Few ing on OCS - for processing jobs, capital developments, and shipping intensive Regional Bene- fit/Nat'l Int. 3. Up-grade railroad, Moderate, bet- These uses Overall im- Medium highway and air ter utiliza- support port pact positive transportation tion of exis- facilities with neg. im- ting facili- pacts at site ties specifications 4. Sand and Gravel Moderate Water enhanced; Very Variable Medium 'Mining shipping is more economical by water.Activity restricted by location of de- posits Low Priority Demand Water Dependency Net Impact Overall Ranking 1. Agricultural Low, land is Not water de- Env. impact Low Activities too valuable pendent varies by crop for alt.use & management practice. Aesthetic im- pacts are some- t -raimp"ttive. 2. Development Ac- Medium;Tra- Many are not Potential neg. Low tivities without ditionally water depen- impact as access provision for multiple use dent is blocked by multiple use & and public development public access access are not encour- aged 3. Solid Waste Low demand Not water Potential Low in Coastal dependent neg. env. Zone - land impacts values are unless great too high care is ex- ercised. and wildlife habitat areas or to improve existing ones, are 215 within Areas of Significant Natural Value and Areas of 216 Significant Recreational, Historic or cultural Value. 216 Methodolog - The objective of this analysis is to identify the 218 activities which are most appropriate in each of the four kinds 219 of GAPC's considering the distribution of available resources. 219 Activities of high, medium or low priority will be recommended 220 for the four GAPC classes drawing upon the Impact Analysis 220 _(described in Chapter 7) and the coastal-wide priorities 221- presented in the preceding section. 221 An important step in identifyirg appropriate activities for 223 different types of GAPC's was accomplished at the time the areas 224 were first identified. The identification process required the 225 inventory and analysis of physical and socioeconomic resources of 225 potential sites. The classificaticn of these sites into one of 226 four classes strongly indicates the priority of uses appropriate 226 to each GAPC. Lands with the greatest potential for open spacef 227 recreation, resource management and wildlife habitats were chosen 227 as Areas of Significant Natural Value. Lands being actively 229 promoted for development by private and public agencies and those 229 best able to support growth were selected as Development 230 Opportunity Areas. Lands in the "Overlap" category present 231 conflicts between alternative uses with high priority. 231 The recommendations made below set out general policies for use 233 of GAPC's and then give examples of the kinds of activities 233 consistent with the*policies. Coastal-wide priorities were used 235 as a reference to assure that high priority uses were allocated 235 to the appropriate GAPC. 235 Although recommendations for land use activities have been made 237 only for the four classes of GAPC's specific comments h-ave been 238 included, where appropriate, on the need for "immediate action". 238 Those GAPC's requiring improved management, or planning studies 239 to identify an appropriate management strategy, have been 239 identified for high priority attention. in each of the following 241 sections there will be a discussion of the criteria used to 241 determine GAPCI's requiring immediate action. 242 Priorities for Uses in Areas of Significant Natural Value - The 244 wildlife and vegetation communities within these GAPC*s are 245 particularly scarce in the Coastal Zone because much of the 245 riverfront has been disturbed by past development activity. an 246 important goal of the Management Program is to protect and to 246 enhance the natural functions of these few remaining natural 246 areas. 246 High Priority Activities 248 l.. Uses that protect, maintain or enhance natural 250 resource functions. The protection of these areas 251 as open space, passive recreation and wildlife 252 preserves, and the removal of trash and restoration 252 of natural plant communities are examples of high 253 priority activities. 253 2. Uses, such as bird-watching, hiking, and scientific 255 or educational study, that take advantage of the 256 natural amenities withput destroying them... 257 Medium Priority Activities 259 1. Uses that cause rinimal disturbance of ecosystems 261 but which are supported by natural settings, for 262 example, parks with picnic areas, ponds, trails, 263 and limited parking. 263 2. Limited development activity, such as boat launches 265 and other recreation facilities in cases where the 266 developed portions are on those margins of the 267 natural area most suited to development. 267 3. Utility and communication rights-of-way are 269 acceptable only in cases where restoration of land 270 to natural conditions can be successfully carried 271 out, or where riqhts-of-way incorporate active 271 recreation activities such as trails. 271 Low Priority Activities 273 Any intensive development activity w .hich will cause 275 widespread, irreversible destruction ' of natural 276 ecosystems. 276 Areas Requiring immediate Action 278 All lands in this catgory have environmental importance, 280 but not all sites are equally protected from future 281 intensive development. Areas requiring immediate action 283 include: 283 NV-1 Little Tinicum Island - privately owned and 286 zoned for industrial devel opment. While no 288 development has been proposed recently, the 288 area was once considered as a location for the 288 disposal of dredged spoil. 289 NV-2 - Tinicum Marsh - privately owned and slated 291 for acquisition by the Department of Interior 292 to expand the National Environmental Center. 293 Plan for development of a shopping center have 294 been proposed within this GAPC 294 Other areas identified in Chapter 8 as areas of 297 Significant Natural Value are not in immediate. jeopardy 298 but must be considered and incorporated into local 299 plans, and zoning ordinances. 299 Priority of Uses in Develooment opportunity Areas - Buildable 301 lands, fully served with urban infrastructure, can be used to 302 satisfy many essential purposes - development of new 302 manufacturing plants, siting facilities of regional benefit and 303 national interest, and providing public access to the-river. The 304 goal is to attract uses to these areas that create jobs and 304 enlarge the tax base, while at the same time improving the visual 305 character of the shoreline by upgrading vacant and under-utilized 305 lands. Preference should be given to those uses requiring large 306 volumes of water or access to the marine channel. 306 High Priority Activities 308 1. Development of new manufacturing facilities, 310 preferably designed in such a way as to offer 311 "multiple-use" recreaticnal access to the river. 312 The recreational use of industrial areas could be 313 during non-working hours. 313 2. Such high impact uses as petroleum refining and 315 dredge spoil disposal may be located in those 316 particular GAPCIs contiguous with existing 317 refineries or disposal sites. Special care should 318 be exercised to insure that spoil disposal areas 318 can be reclaimed and used' for necessary, 318 river-related activities. While these spoil 320 disposal areas are often developed for recreational 320 purposes,' Development opportunity Areas may be too 320 valuable to be devoted solely to recreational 321 reuse. 321 3. Development or expansion of marine. -.terminal 323 facilities to serve anticipated expansion in demand 324 for containerized shippinq. 324 4. Activities that upgrade the efficiency of highways 326 and railroads that are conduits for goods delivered 327 to the port. 328 5. Expanded government services to those manufacturers 330 already located within these Development 331 Opportunity Areas, thereby helping to forestall 332 relocations outside the coastal zone. 332 Medium Priority Activities 334 1. Development of commercial, warehousing, and 336 wholesale activities, preferably designed to offer 337 recreational access to the river an weekends. 338 2. Residential or "mixed-use" developments at the 340 riverfront especially when public access is 341 provided. 341 3. Development of marinas, boat launches and fishing 343 piers. in many cases, it will be difficult to 344 design attractive, pleasant recreational facilities 345 in Development opportunity Areas. Instead of 346 investing large sums to make these areas suitable 346 for recreation, it would be more appropriate to 347 take advantage of areas designated as GAPC's of 347 Significant Natural Value, or of Recreational, 347 Historic, and Cultural Value. 348 Low Priority Activities 350 1. Natural resource management is not feasible in 352 these areas because there are no natural ecosystems 353 of any consequence. 353 2. Solid waste disposal on public and non-industrial 355 private lands is low priority. Such disposal is 357 acceptable on idustrial lands when strict 357 environmental safeguards are used. 357 3. Any development which jeopardizes the quality of 359 life in adjacent conmunities by increasing noise, 360 traffic, and odor would have 'to be carefully 361 scrutinized and be acceptable to the neighboring 361 municipalities. No development that exceeded state 362 and federal environmental standards would be 362 permitted, even in Development Opportunity areas. 362 Areas Requiring immediate Action 364 Of the seventeen Development opportunity Areas that have 366 been identified as GAPCIs in Chapter 8, the following 367 appear to be the most critical at this time. 368 DO-6 Fort Mifflin/Penrose - Much of this GAPC is 371 Federally 2wned and, therefore, not 372 technically subject to Coastal Management. A 374 proposal by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 374 to add 15 to 20 feet of additional hydraulic 374 fill to this area conflicts with 374 Philadelphia's -plans for industrial 375 development. This key piece of land at the 376 confluence of the Schuylkill with the Delaware 376 is currently the object of a special 376 demonstration study by the Corps which will 377 examine strategies for the eventual reuse of 377 this area. The area is especially important 378 to Coastal Management because of its large 378 size and strategic location. 378 DO-7 Mustin Field - This GAPC is also Federally 380 owned and as such is not subject to Coastal 381 Management. Some of the area has been devoted 382 to housing which appears to be a low priority 383 use for this key piece of waterfront land. 383 Future use of the area should be more closely 384 aligned with Coastal goals for resource use. 384 DO-12-Frankford Arsenal - is currently Federally 386 owned, but may eventually be declared surplus 387 property since the facility Ilas been disbanded 388 and relocated. At various points in the past, 389 this facility employed thousands of the 389 region's residents and efforts must be made to 389 identify and promote an appropriate reuse for 390 this site. As a Development Opportunity Area, 391 first priority should be given to uses of 391 regional benefit or national interest 391 identified previously, especially if the use 392 requires access to the river. 392 DO-15-Turkey Hill/Van Sciver Area - this 2000 acre 394 GAPC is the largest Development Opportunity 395 Area identified in Chapter 8. Zoning changes 397 have already been granted for the first phase 397 a new, mixed-use development. Adjacent 398 communities will be affected by this large 398 development which may event'ually house new 398 residents. care must be exercised to see that 399 future development respects and makes maximum 399 use of the sensitive lakes in the vicinity. 399 Other Development Opportunity Areas are 401 important because of their ability to provide 402 a suitable locaticn for new industry-and its 403 associated job. If suitable locations are to 404 be found in the Coastal Zone for Uses .,.of 404 Regional Ben efit and National Interest, these 404 GAPC's will be required. 405 to Priority of uses in Areas of Significant Recreational, Historic 407 or cultural value - These areas have significant social value to 408 citizens as a resource for recreational and cultural activities 408 t associated with the river and port. The goal of the coastal 409 program should be to protect, maintain, or restore these areas, 409 which include several existing state, .2ounty and local parks. 410 High Priority Activities 412 1. Activities that maintian or increase the resource 414 value of these GAPC's such as better access and 415 walkways, increased '2arking, improved security, new 416 park equipment, public boat launches, landscaping, 416 etc. 416 2. Activities which provide financial support; e.g. 418 subsidies, public acquisition, fund raising. 419 3. For lands in private ownership, acquisition of 421 easements that permit access to the shoreline 422 should be encouraged. 423 Moderate Priority Activities 425 1. Commercial activities of limited extent supporting 428 recreational activities. 429 2. Residential development which helps to upgrade the 432 character of these GAPC's and which furnishes 432 recreational opportunities otherwise not provided 433 r to residents in adjacent neighborhoods. 433 Low Priority Activities 435 1 . Development, public or private, which fails to 437 contribute to the cultural, recreational or 438 historic activities in the area. 439 Areas Requiring Immediate Action 441 Of the twenty-two GAPC's identified in Chapter 8 as 443 areas of Significant Recreational, Historical, or 444 Cultural Value the following appear to'require the most 445 immediate attention. 445 R-7 Schuylkill River Park - Development of this park is 447 just _qettinq underway although the project has been 448 discussed for several years. It would form an 450 ideal extension of the park south of -the 450 @hiladelphia Art Museum. 450 R-8 Penn's Treaty Park - Has a good. central city 452 location but has fallen into a state of serious 453 disrepair. Improvements and revitalization would 454 emphasize the benefits of riverfront access, 455 without the expenditure 6f large sums of money. 455 R-9 Mouth of the Pennypack - Reportedl' discussed as a 457 y potential park addition for many years. This area 459 is currently used for the disposal of incinerator 459 residue. It's already publicly owned and could be 460 readily developed to relieve pressure on the nearby 460 Pleasant Hill Park, where demand for boat launching 461 taxes available facilities. 461 R-15 Neshaminy State Park - Requires maintenance, better 463 signing and more launching Kamps with additional 464 parking for cars and trailers. 464 R-22 Falls Township Access Area - This'area was donated 466 to the Township for public use but has not yet been U67 developed. If designed as a waterfront recreation 468 area serving a Variety 2f functions, this park 469 could draw attention to improved water qulaity in 469 the Delaware and the benefits of Coastal Zone 469 Management. 469 Priority of Uses in Overlap Areas - overlap Areas contain 471 resources of value both for development-activities as well as f,or 471 recreation and natural resource management. Each area has a wide 473 range of alternative uses which, while not mutually exclusive, 473 may pose problems for wise use and sensitive manaqement. 474 However, with careful site planning, development may be made 475 -compatible with the natural resources within the overlap Area. 475 Because the distribution of resources is unique (for each area, 476 the priority of uses for the six Overlap Areas are discussed 477 separetely below. 477 OV-1 Penn*s* Landing - The development plans for 479 Philadelphia's Penn's Landing are well established. 480 The site is being developed to accomodate a mix of 481 uses - commercial, recreational, cultural and 482 residential uses. Except for minor changes in the 483 master plan, options for alternative sets of uses 483 have been resolved. This area represents a major 484 focal point of the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone, 484 but the tremendous expense ' involved makes 484 revlication of this concept extremely difficult. 485 OV-2 Linton Avenue-River Road - This 80 acres of wooded 487 land owned by Rohm and Haas is surrounded by a 488 mixture of uses. A public school and a residential 489 neighborhood border on the north, and across River 490 Road to the south, Rohm and Haas and a second 490 chemical company have industrial facilities and 491 waste disposal lagoons. Between the wooded area 492 and River Road, Philadelphia Electric Company 492 (PEC.) has a transmission corridor for overhead 492 lines. This undeveloped parcel is covered with 493 about 2/3 mature woodland crossed with samll 493 streams, and with about 1/3 shrubby cover, through 494 which children have formed paths'that lead to the 494 school grounds. 494 Because of the close proximity of homes and school, 496 this Overlap Area is most suited for residential 497 development and recreation facilities. An 498 alternative scheme might be a small-scale 498 industrial facility just north of the PECo 498 right-of-way, with access to River Road, but 499 well-buffered with woodlands from the school and 499 residential areas. However, since the power lines 500 and River Road provide a clear boundary between 500 residential and non-residential a6tivities in this 501 stretch of the coastal zone, the non-industrial 501 alternative appears preferable. 501 OV-3 Martin Creek-Van Sciver - This 85 acre overlap 503 Area, while containing important natural resource 504 features, is surrounded by intensive kinds of land 504 use, e.g.,, gravel extraction, apartment 505 developments and residential and ccmmercial areas. 505 The site has both wooded areas and.open, vaca.,nt 506 lands and is surrounded on three sides by man-made 506 lakes. Because over 90% of the land is owned by 507 companies involved with gravel extraction, the 507 short term use of this site will continue to be 508 qravel production. However, because of its 509 strategic location gravel extraction is not a hiqh 509 priority use. Because the site is bordered by a 510 large apartment complex and because the school 510 authority owns a vacant parcel in this GAPC, the 511 wooded areas are a hiqh priority for recreational 511 activity and wildlife protection. The open, 512 recently farmed land and the marshy areas on each 512 side of Route 13 would be candidates for 512 residential (most likely apartments or town houses) 513 or industrial development. 513 515 OV-4 money island - Money Island, a 'large land area owned by the Warner Company, has a wide variety of land 516 conditions with varying potential for future 517 development. Although a large portion of this area is 518 zoned for' industrial use, the abundance of natural 518 resources and amenities at the shoreline of van Sciver 519 and Manor Lakes and at the Delaware River offer many 519 opportunities for recreational and wildlife.protection 520 activities. These more passive uses are compatible with 521 the present use of part of this overlap Area by the Penn 521 Warner Club. Between 1/2 and 1/3 of this area presently 522 has a scrub cover; this area should be a higher priority 522 than the shoreline or forested areas for residential or 523 mixed-use. In addition, the old dredge spoil disposal 524 areas along the River could be profitably reclaimed or 524 restored with industrial or other intensive uses 525 requiring river access, leaving wooded stretches of 525 shoreline free from disturbance. 525 OV-5 Fordmill Road - This narrow land bordering van 527 Sciver Lake, covered with woodland scrub vegetation 528 and crossed by dirt roadways, offers interesting 529 views of Van Sciver Lake and provides wildlife 530 habitat. This natural area is in sharp contrast to 531 the mined surface of adjacent "Turkey Hill". 531 Although sand and gravel could he conveniently 532 extracted from the margin of this area, the 532 preservation and restoration oi this site for 533 recreation and wildlife protection should be given 533 higher priority. In the future the nearby stripped 534 land could be developed for residential or 534 industrial uses, thus utilizing the natural areas 535 as amenities for residents or workers. 535 OV-6 Biles Island - Biles Island has a variety of 537 surface conditions - forests, fields, and dredge 538 spoil disposal areas. For each of these areas 539 different uses will be appropriate. within 540 forested areas, at the narrow northern part of the 540 island and in the southern portion alonq the river, 540 open space and wildlife preservation should be of 541 high priority. The abandoned fields in the 542 interior of the island and the dredge spoil sites 542 offer a high priority location for future 542 industrial development, including expansion of the 543 steel mill or related activities. 543 Relating GAPC Priorities to Coastal-Wide Priorities - To clearly 545 demonstrate that priorities for land-use activities in GAPC*s are 546 consistent with coastal-wide priorities, Figure ix-3 has been 546 developed. In most cases there is an appropriate GAPC for each 547 priority activity. 547 Figure ix-3 RELATING COASTAL-WIDE PRIORITIES TO GAPC's Coastal-Wide Priorities GAPC's appropriate for accomodation of Priority Uses Recreational Natural Development Historical Overlap Value Opportunity Cultural Areas High Priority Activities 1. Developed Waterfront Recreation 2. Preserved Wetlands, etc. 3. Efficient Marine Terminals 4. Manufacturing 5. Improved Sewage Treatment (achieved on site of existing facilities) Medium Priority Activities 1. Expansion of Energy Generation (achieved on site of existing facilities) 2. Energy Refining (expansion) 0 3. Dredge Spoil Disposal 0 (limited) 4. Upgraded Transportation Links 0 5. Development with River Access 6. Sand and Gravel Mining short term Appropriate GAPC's Possible, secondary locations The Development OpportunityAreas, because they stand out as' 549 achieving the largest number of coastal-wide priorities, may well 949 be the most significant GAPC's for Coastal Management. 550 However, achieving adequate protection of natural areas, is not 552 only a more difficult priority to achieve than the other ones, 552 but there are many fewer sites available for preservation and 553 resource management. 553 AREAS FOR PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION 555 The Coastal Zone Management Act requires that procedures be 557 devised to designate specific areas "for the purpose of 557 preserving or restoring them for their conservation, 558 recreational, ecological or esthetic values" (Section 306(c)(a)). 558 The Management Program must establish criteria for designating 559 these "Areas for Preservation or Restoration", so that as the 560 program is implemented "special attention" can be focused on 560 these areas. 560 Fo r the most part, the process of nominating and selecting 562 GAPC's, and the subsequent development of priorities for them, 562 provides a satisfactory starting point for protecting natural 563 resource areas along the River. Areas of Si4nificant Natural 564 Value have the highest ecological value, and in this Chapter 564 conservation uses have been recommended as the highest priority 565 for these areas. Areas of significant Recreational, Historic or 566 Cultural Value include numerous sites vith a potential for being 566 restored as important recreational, ecological or esthetic lands. 567 Portions of the overlap Areas also contain significant natural 568 resources and, hopefully, future development will sensitively 569. respect these sites so that natural areas are employed as 569 community amenities. 569 Areas for Preservation or Restoration (APR's) are those GAPCIs 571 that should receive special consideration because cf their 571 particularly important natural resource value. To qualify as an 573 APR, three conditions must be met. 573 1 The site must be a GAPC. Proposed APR's which have not 576 been formerly identified as GAPCIs must be designated as 577 a GAPC prior to consideration for APR disignation. 577 2. The site must be currently available or capable of being 579 made available for public use, recognizing that use 580 restrictions or requlations may be necesssary to preserve 581, the natural character of the site. Private lands 583 without public access cannot be designated as APR's. 583 3. The site must have value, or potential value when 585 restored, as a natural resource area supporting viable 586 plant and animal communities. Parklands devoted to 587 active recreation or open grassy fields may not satisfy 588 this criterion. APR's are intended to serve primarily 589 as wildlife preserves, as waterfowl nesting and breeding 589 grounds and for such passive recreation as hiking, 590 bird-watchinq and scientific study- 590 Examples of areas along the Delaware Estuary which satisfy th4@@se 592 three criteria for APR designation include Tinicum Marsh JNV-2), 593 Tinicum Island (NV-1) and the mouth of the Pennypack Creek (R-9). 593 Should an effort be made to secure conservation easement for the 594 wooded -shoreline of Biles Isalnd, this area, too, might qualify 594 as an APR. 595 Three of these four potential APR9s are described in a working 597 pa pe r entitled, 11 Fo ur Environmentally Significant Areas", 597 published by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission in 598 November 1976. 598 The degree of special attention that can he devoted to Areas for 600 -Preservation and Restoration will depend in part on the amount of 601 financial support that Pennsylvania receives from the U.S. 601 Department of Commerce during the implementation phase of the 601 Coastal Zone Management Program. other funding agencies should 603 consider adjusting priorities and capital improvement programs to 603 assist in the support of the areas identified as APR's. 604 LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE Introduction The definition of permissible coastal land and water uses developed in Chapter 7 establishes the basis for.assigning priorities of use within specific coastal areas. It becomes important to rank the use permissibility determinations, at least within geographic areas of particular concern so that local planners and decision makers will be better able to recognize which uses should most appropriately occur in specific coastal areas, and the trade-offs involved when lower priority uses are permitted to occur. CFR 920.15 of the. Federal Rules and Regulations for program development states that broad guidelines on priorities of uses must be developed within geographic areas of particular concern (GAPC's), including guidelines regarding those uses of lowest priority. To accomplish this requirement within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone, permissible uses were prioritized on three different levels of geographic detail. More specifically, this process was applied to the entire Lake Erie Coastal Zone, to area types within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone and to the designated GAPC's discussed in Chapter 8. A broad priority ranking system was devised for application to the entire Lake Erie Coastal Zone. According to this system, land and water uses are ranked with regard to degreecof coastal dependency, demand, scale of significance, and permissibility of use impact. For example, uses which are dependent on coastal waters received the highest priority. Those uses enhanced by the coast but not dependent on a coastal location attained secondary priority and those uses unrelated to a coastal environment were assumed the lowest position on the priority scale. Since proper treatment of uses of national interest is essential to Federal acceptance of the Commonwealth's Coastal Zone Management Plan, it was given full consideration in this analysis. Such uses include: offshore drilling, the siting of power plants and military installations. In order to establish priorities within the coastal dependency scheme, permissible uses of national interest which are coastal dependent were assigned the highest priority permissible use. The same holds true for uses of national concern under the "enhanced" and the "unrelated" to coastal waters category. The logical progression of this idea was to include uses of State concern which are coastal dependent as the second highest priority. This then follows from uses,of State concern on down through regional to those uses of local concern. Use priorities were next established within specific geographic areas of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. Use priority assignments within specific coastal area types represent the intermediate step in the three step process of prioritizing permissible coastal 'uses. A different set of use priorities was established for each of seven area types. Each coastal area within an area type reflects similar land or water use development. All coastal lands within a given area type respond in a similar manner when subjected to a development activity. The Lake Erie Coastal area types include: (1) urban, built-up areas, (2) strip or cluster settlementst (3) planned conversion-open space, (4) natural-hazard areas, (5) agricultural lands, (6) park and recreation-lands, and (7) offshore areas. The final step in the procedure for assigning use priorities applies to only those areas designated of particular concern within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. Although quite similar to the prioritization of uses within coastal area types, this step requires slightly more detailed analysis. Each geographic area of particular concern was examined as a unique area with unique coastal resources only capable of supporting a limited spectrum of uses. The information developed through coastal resource capability, suitability and compatibility analyses along with the results of a general impact analysis were used in completing this program element. Because each coastal area of particular concern is of greater than local significance, much time and careful study was focused upon this third and most specific step of prioritizing permissible coastal uses. Consequently, the greatest portion of this Chapter will be devoted to the designation of use priorities within designated coastal areas of greater than local concern. This portion of Chapter 9 will be developed so that maximum utility will be gained by local coastal resource planners. It is also important to note that many of the conclusions drawn in this section are based upon information already develo@ed in Chapters 7 (Permissible Uses) and 8 (Geographic Areas of Particular Concern). Zone-wide Priorities for Resource Uses As the initial step in priority analysis, a coastal-wide ranking scheme of permissible uses was undertaken. The results of, this analysis were used as a framework in developing broad policies for the sensitive use of coastal resources. The criteria used in assigning priorities to coastal uses are by necessity very broad and applicable to any area within'the coastal zone. These criteria are quite similar to the determining conditions used in assigning use priorities within the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone. Those determinants of relative coastal-wide use priorities include; the demand for uses of greater than local concern, the coastal dependency of shore zone uses, and finally the permissibility of coastal uses. Thus, uses which are dependent on coastal waters would receive the highest priority. Those uses enhanced by coastal, conditions but not dependent upon them would be assigned secondary or moderate priority and those uses unrelated to coastal conditions would be assigned a low priority. Much of the development activity which occurs within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone is of relatively small scale and impacts or affects only a single municipality. of prime concern in this analysis are the large scale uses which for purposes of this report are termed uses of greater than local concern. It is these uses which impact more than one municipality that are also of high priority when applied to the suggested ranking system. It is essential that uses of greater than local concern be carefully planned for and properly managed. The federal rules and regulations for this Program state that facilities of national interest or uses of regional benefit must not be arbitrarily excluded.from occurring with the coastal zone. Uses of greater than local concern are defined as all development activities or resource uses capable of exerting either beneficial or adverse impacts which affect more than one municipality. Since current zoning practices do not-Anvolve coordination between adjacent municipalities, the uniformity in planning and zoning practices gained through recognition or adoption of the CZM program ensures that uses of greater than local significance will be properly addressed and not arbitrarily excluded. The Lake Erie Coastal Zone already contains both existing and proposed uses of greater than local concern. The port associated activities within the Central Study Area and the agricultural activities that currently exist in the Eastern Study Area are better considered to be uses of greater than local concern. Several uses are planned for the Western Study Area which could potentially change the rual character of the area. The construction of an integrated steel mill and a medium size electric generating plant at different locations within the western portion of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone represent uses of greater than local concern for which only a small amount of coordinated local planning has been accomplished. The areas where these uses are proposed have been designated as geographic areas of particular concern. Consequently, industrial-use will receive a high priority ranking in each of these areas because of high demand, determined permissibility, and the greater than local significance of each proposed use. Although the scale of significance of coastal uses is important to the designation of coastal-wide use priorities, the coastal dependency of particular uses is the primary determinant in prioritizing uses in this analysis. Subsequently, coastal dependent uses of greater than local concern would receive the highest priority designation. For purposes of this analysis, three specific levels of coastal dependency have been recognized and applied to Lake Erie Coastal uses. More specifically, uses occurring within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone have been categoriz;d as coastal dependent uses, uses which are not related to the coastal environment. Accordingly, coastal dependent uses are highest priority uses and uses which are unrelated to the coastal environment are of lowest priority. The information derived through the analysis of coastal use impacts (Chapter 7) was used in this broad prioritization of uses. The nature of various use impacts represents yet another parameter in the determination of coastal-wide use priorities. It may seem obvious, but worth mentioning, that permissible uses were ranked higher within the priority scheme than uses found to exert one or more adverse impacts upon the coastal environment. Figure ix-2 depicts high, medium, and low priority uses. The uses have been ranked undermajor levels of coastal dependency., Within these major priority levels, uses of national, state, regional and local concern and the permissibility of various uses has been reflected. Some examples of coastal dependent uses which are-of the highest priority include: National concern: Harbor facilities; Coast Guard Facilities, unique coastal agriculture. State concern: Port of Erie development; Presque Isle State Park; offshore drilling in Lake Erie; proposed development of a major power and generating facility; maintenance of State water recreation and access areas; coastal dependent commercial business; Local concern: Water recreation and access areas; (municipal) coastal related commercial business; Uses which are enhanced by but are not dependent on a coastal location follow: National concern: Major industrial complexes; interstate rail transportation system within the Coastal Zone; preservation of major historical sites; State concern: Major industrial facilities; preservation of historical sites of State significance. Regional concern: industrial development; preservation at historical sites of regional significance; public and private camps; Local concern: residential and seasonal cottage development; Uses which are not related to the coastal environment, and are of the lowest priority follow: National concern: Most military bases; State concern: Most air transportation facilities; most land transportation facilities; Regional concern: Manufacturing; housing; commercial uses; other land uses; Local concern: Land use; i.e. manufacturing; housing; commercial; transportation; community service; Area Type Priorities for Resource Use Although first level use priorities provide a basic framework within which to logically plan for uses best suited and of greatest significance to the Lake Erie Coastal Zone, it is. important to develop use priorities in greater detail. To accomplish this, the entire coastal zone, was broken into specific area types with similar physiographic conditions and development patterns. It is readily apparent that uses found.to be permissible within the City,of Erie may not be permissible within the* agricultural area of Northeast Township or within the Crooked Creek watershed. The Lake Erie Coastal Zone is characterized by development patterns and open space opportunities quite unlike those of the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone. Consequently, the area types within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone chosen for this analysis differ from the four area types used to determine use permissibility (Chapter 7) within,the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone. These areas of relative use uniformity include the following categories: r 1. Urban, Built-up Areas Land and water uses in this area type are common to any urban area. The factors which distinguish this area from others within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone are the intensity and extent of development. Thus, the Urban, Built-up area would include any area within the inland boundary where development has reached medium to high density levels. Examples include: all of the City of Erie, Millcreek and Lawrence Park Townships, the western portion of Harborcreek Township and North East Borough. The uses of highest priority within two urban built-up area types include development related activities. Residential uses, all modes of transportation, commercial and both light and heavy industrial uses are of high priority. Lower priority uses include uses which endanger public safety such as energy refining facilities and those uses which require large land areas such as air transportation (i.e. airports). Open space uses such as agriculture and passive recreation are low priority uses. 2. Strip or Cluster Settlement Strip and cluster settlement is typical of'most of the rest of the development within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. Strip development occurs along roads and highways in the form of residential homes, scattered commercial and other uses commonly found adjacent to roadways. Some typical examples of this kind of development is found along most of PA Route 5 from Millcreek Township to Lake City Borough in the Western Area; and along most of PA Route 5 in the Eastern Area between Sixmile to Twelvemile Creeks in Harborcreek Township. Cluster development includes such uses as individual subdivisions, mobile home parks, small villages, small plazas, and commercial developments usually found at road intersections. Some examples are: the Village of North Springfield; Whitehall Village Subdivision, Fairview Township; Cowell's Beach, Harborcreek and the 1-90 Route 20 interchange-in North East Township. Uses of highest priority within strip and.cluster settlements include residential and commercial use, community services, and all forms of land transportation. Recreation and other open space uses receive a somewhat lower priority rank within the area type. Development activities planned for this area type where available infrastructure is inadequate to support them receive a low priority ranking. 3. Planned Conversion-Open Space This area type includes areas of 'open land or land areas where a conversion has been planned from one use to another. open areas are easy to spot on a land use map, but areas of planned conversion are not so easily distinguished. Areas of planned conversion can only be seem on maps showing municipal comprehensive plans or private development plans. Some examples of this'area type include: the large tract of land owned by U4S. Steel Corp. within Springfield Township and the tract of land owned by the Pennsylvania Electric Co. within Girard Township. Within the planned conversion, open space area type, the most desirable and thus highest priority uses are open space uses (recreation, agriculture) and development activities (i.e. residential use, manufacturing) that are capable and suitable of being supported on a site by site basis. Land transformation activities which adversely impact coastal waters, which are found incompatible with adjacent uses, or which are.unable to be supported by existing infrastructure are considered low priority uses within this area type. 4. Natural-Hazard Areas This are type comprises all the natural and hazard areas within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. It includes stream corridors, beaches, wetlands, lake bluffs, and all unique and fragile natural coastal areas. Both natural areas and coastal hazard areas were inventoried in 10 and analyzed interim investigations conducted by the Edinboi. Foundation. Some specific examples are: All flood0prone areas adjacent to Lake Erie tributaries Kelso Beach in Millcreek Township, the uniquely natural Twelvemile Creek and Crooked Creek watersheds, Orchard Beach in North East Township, and the high bluffs which front Lake Erie along almost the entire reach of Pennsylvania shoreline. The natural hazard area type represents the only such category where all development activities are deemed of lowest priority. Even- uses previously designated as open space uses, although of 'higher priority, are not encouraged.' The highest priority use -within this area type has been designated as passive recreational use. Uses of lower priority, yet still acceptable, include the carefully controlled construction of access roads and utility right-of-ways. 5. Agricultural Lands This area type includes all agricultural lands within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. Agricultural land includes those coastal areas supporting prime and unique soils and particularly those prime farmland areas coincident with concentrated agricultural activity. Agriculture typical of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone includes: vineyards and orchards, mostly in the-Eastern Study Area; fruit and vegetable farming, in the Western Study Area; and some dairy farming in the Western Area. There is no agricultural land to speak of in the Central Area. The most economically significant and highest priority use to be recommended for this area type is agricultural use. This activity represents the major land use in the-Eastern and Western Study Areas. Consequently, it provides the major source of income within each of these areas without the need to trade-off open space and environmental quality. Prime and unique agriculture land exists as one of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone's most important vanishing resources. Development activities (i.e. construction related uses) are recommended as low priority uses within prime and unique soil areas where development does not already exist and farming is the predominant use. Other open space uses, such as recreational use, which does not involve cut and fill activities is recommended as a moderate priority use. Activities such as land transportation and utility right-of-ways are also moderate priority uses. 6. Park and Recreational Lands This area type includes all existing or potentially significant recreational areas. Some examples of existing recreational areas are: Eagley Township Park, Springfield Township, Church camps, Boy Scout &Lmps, and YMCA camps on the Eastern and Western shores; as well as Freeport Park and Orchard Beach adjacent to each other to the north of North East Borough. Examples of potentially significant lands for recreational use include the lower Elk Creek and Twentymile Creek valleys. Recreational use represents the use of highest priority within this area type. Recreation support activities such as waste disposal, boat mooring and launching facilities and local maintenance activities, are also high priority uses. Seasonal residential development and recreation related commercial development are moderate priority uses. Development activities which disregard the recreational and aesthetic opportunities of a potential recreational site are low priority use recommendations. However, similar development activities which accomodate the recreational attributes of a recreational site within design criteria are medium priority uses. 7. offshore Areas This area type includes all the waters of Lake Erie and the land under them from Ohio to New York and north to the International Boundary with Canada. This large water body provides the Lake Erie Coastal Zone with unique water related opportunities...Uses found to be of highest priority within this are type include commercial navigation, public water use, and water related recreation. Commercial fishing offshore mineral extraction represent moderate priority uses. Uses of lowest priority within this area type.,,include manufacturing and municipal waste disposal and dredge spoil disposal. To assign priorities of use within the aforementioned area typle categories, a great deal of professional judgement was exercised and where possible supported by information generated through the capability, suitability, and compatibility analysis outlined in Chapter 7. The overlay technique utilized in these analyses serve a two-fold purpose. Not only can the map overlays depicting both physical and socioeconomic parameters be used to determine use permissibility in specific areas, but further, by simply interpreting coincident parameters overlain in specific, area types a ranking scheme of permissible uses can be derived. A particularly significant product of this exercise is the determination of least acceptable or lowest priority uses found to be permissible within an area type. Following careful analysis of the land and water resource and socioeconomic resource overlays prepared for capability and suitability analysis, uses already found to be permissible within each designated area type could be ranked. The area types identified in this analysis include all areas of "use uniformity" within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. The third and final step of this analysis will involve use priority assignements only within areas of greater than local concern, geographic areas of particular concern. Priorities for Uses in GAPC's The third and final step in the process of assigning priorities to permissible coastal zone uses involves the Lake Erie Coastal Areas of particular concern designated in Chapter 8. This step follows very closely the procedure used in defining second level priorities of use, or uses within coastal area types. That is, all GAPC's designated within Chapter 8 are located within a specific Lake Erie Coastal area type. It is therefore conceivable that uses found to be of lowest priority within a specific area type will similarly be found to be of low priority within any GAPC in that area type. These areas of greater than *local significance have already been categorized according to the opportunities afforded by them. That is, Lake Erie coastal areas of particular concern have been divided into four categories: areas of development opportunity; areas of significant natural value; areas of historic, cultural, and recreational value; and overlap areas offering a combination of two or more aforementioned opportunities. The objective of this analysis is to determine the uses of high, medium, and low priority within each category of areas of particular concern, To accomplish this, information derived through this completion'of previous program elements was utilized. The capability analysis performed to determine the ability of coastal resources to pport certain activities was helpful in the designation of areas of significant natural value. In addition, the suitability analysis su completed in (Chapter 7) to determine the availability of cultural or man-made resources.in coastal areas to support certain activities was useful in substantiating both development opportunity areas and areas of recreational, historic and cultural value. The overlay techniques so effectively utilized in determining prime areas for future development as well as unique fragile areas for protection against transforming uses proved just as useful in the determination of areas which provide both d6velopment and either natural, recreational, historical, and cultural opportunities. An example of a coastal area of particular concern designated as an "overlay area" in Chapter 8 because of both development and recreational opportunities is Presque Isle Bay. Although "overlay areas" provide unique combinations of coastal use opportunities, the resource planner must be extremely careful in prioritizing use attributes in these areas. That is, the priority ranking system must be such that high priority development activities do not exclude or conflict with high priority recreational uses or natural processes. A comprehensive review of areas found, by aforementioned analysis to be of particular concern was conducted to strengthen area designations. This review provided the essential local input needed to accurize any planning effort. Local officials, planners, and citizens were not the only participants in this review; however, both regional and state agency comments and input was incorporate , where appropriate, within the preliminary list of areas designated for special consideration in future planning and management. The completion of GAPC designations which is discussed in much greater detail in Chapter 8, establishes the framework for the assignment use priorities within the most significant Lake Erie Coastal areas. The recommended use priorities for the four categories of GAPC's which will follow represent policies for use of each GAPC category. Activities that are consistent with these policies will also be defined. The broadly defined use priority designations for the entire coastal zone and coastal area types as developed previously in this analysis will be reflected in the specific use priority assignments for GAPC's. Recommendations for land use activities have been prioritized for the four categories of Lake Erie coastal areas of particular concern. Using a procedure similar to that by which uses were prioritized within Delaware Estuary coastal areas of particular concern. In addition, specific comments regarding development pressure, greater than local significance, and priority for action relating to.each individual GAPC were incorporated within charts developed for each GAPC category. Even though- the highest priority uses are already occurring or have been encouraged through local planning and zoning in some GAPCIs, the opportunities of other GAPC's are not.being fully realized because of the existence of or planning for low priority uses. In the following sections, high, medium and low priority use recommendations will be made for each GAPC category. In additionr the criteria used to identify the GAPC's with the highest priority for action will be outlined and discussed. Priorities for Uses in Areas of Significant Natural Value The prioritization scheme which follows recommends the restriction of development activities within the unique and fragile Lake Erie coastal areas of significant natural-value. Although only two areas have been designated coastal areas of greater than local concern because of their unique natural characteristics, many other "pocket-type" natural coastal ecosystems exist within the Lake Erie coastal area which are considered on only local significance. Nevertheless, most of these smaller "locally significant" coastal areas of natural value are found within the GAPC category, areas of recreational, historical and cultural value. In addition, the entire lakefront bluff system has been identified as a unique geological feature and as a hazardous zone within which future development activities must be carefully controlled. Areas supporting concentrations of prime and unique agricultural soils were also identified within this category. Only those uses which are compatible with the natural processes supported by GAPC's of natural value will be recommended 'of high and medium priority. It is of utmost concern to protect and where possible to enhance the amenities and significant attributes within these areas which have been determined of greater than local concern. 14igh Priority Activities 1. uses that protect, maintain, or enhance natural resource preservation or restoration of native plant communities are functions. Use of these areas for wildlife preserves and the recommended as high priority uses. 2. Passive recreation, such as birdwatching, hiking, non-power boating, and scientific or educational study, which uses the unique resources of these areas without degrading or destroying them. 3. Agricultural activities which occur within prime and unique soil areas Second or Moderate Priority Activities 1. Uses of moderate priority include only activities which exert a minimal or insignificant impact upon the area. 2. Moderate priority uses may involve very limited land' transformation activities. These activities could include construction of-hiking trails, primitive access roads and boat launches which are located on or planned for the "fringe" or transitional zone of the natural area so that natural processes which maintain unique amenities are not disrupted. 3. Utility right-of-ways which do not interrupt natural processes and which maintain the natural amenities within these-areas. 4. Agricultural activities which occur in areas not characterized by prime and unique soils. Low Priority Activities 1. Any development activity which causes irreversible destruction of unique natural ecosystems. This includes any development activity which involves the removal or alteration of wildlife habitat and terrain, the draining or filling of wetland areas, and the deterioration of stream or coastal water quality. Character and "priority for action" of Areas of Significant Natural Value - All ake Erie coastal areas of signiTIcant natural value equally deserve the proper planning applications described in previous paragraphs. The largest and most valuable Lake Erie coastal natural area is Presque Isle Peninsula. This area, unlike many other .gnificant natural areas, is already publicly owned and maintained. Each of the designated GAPC's of significant natural value are ranked si according to a derived priority for action which is based upon the ownership of the area, development suitability, and compatibility of existing local planning and zoning. The determinations of priorities for action can be found on Figure ix-4. Priorities for Uses in Development Opportunity Areas - These are-as have been fou-nd tR-rough-bo-th capability and suitability analysis to be the most desirable areas for supporting development activities. The areas designated either represent already productive economically significant coastal areas, or areas where a combination of land ownership, the absence of development hazards or constraints, and the availability of infrastructure combine to provide highly desirable areas for future economic development. The overlying objective of Figure ix-4 CHARACTER AND PRIORITY FOR ACTION OF AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT NATUW@ VALUE Compatibility of Existing Planning Development National Interest Priority for Name of Area Ownership Present Use of Area and Zoning Capabllfty Regional Benefit Action Lake Erie Bluff Private or Vacant or occasional Incompatible Low High High Zone Semi-private clusters of residential development Crooked Creek Semi-public Organizational. Camps Compatible Low Moderate Moderate Stream Corridor Western Study Area Private Agriculture and Incompatible High Moderate High Prime Agricultural scattered strip Lands development Trout Run Private Scattered residential Incompatible Low Moderate Moderate Stream Corridor development Eastern Study Area Private Agriculture and Largely Prime Agri-cultural scattered residential Compatible Ulgh 11tgh High Lands development Figure ix-5 CHARACTER AND PRIORITY FOR ACTION OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS Attractiveness for Degree of Effort Suitability for Uses of Regional Name of Area Development to Promote Benefit and National Interest Priority for Action United States High High High - manufacturing High Steel Site Pennsylvania Electric High Moderate 111gh - Electric Power Generation High Site M, low, low "W's this analysis is to effectively plan for the'siting of facilities of national regional significance, to encourage the future siting of economic uses in the most suitable coastal areas, to encourage the multiple use concept in existing and planned economic developments, and to minimize the stabilization or restoration of degraded economic areas at the expense of environmental quality. gLqh Priority Activities 1. The development of new manufacturing facilities which permit access to Lake Erie, where physically possible, at least during non-working hours. 2. Revitalization of port facilities by promoting coastal dependent activities and improved.land transportation systems to and from port facilities. 3. The development of new facilities which contribute tax revenues and increase employment opportunities,, particularly when *sited in close proximity to uses existing similar impacts and to essential support services. 4. Development activities which occur a safe distance back from critically eroding shorefront areas. Moderate Priority Activities 1. The development commercial and manufacturing support activities which afford public access to Lake Erie during non-w6rking hours where possible. 2. Residential development which maintains the aesthetic attributes of the coastline where other more economically significant uses are unsuitable. 3. The construction of-boat launches, marina and other water related recreation facilities such as commercial resort facilities. Low Priority Activities 1. Natural resource management is defined as a low priority use within most development opportunity areas. This activity may however, receive a higher priority where unique natural areas are found within large tracts of agricultural land or undeveloped economic opportunity areas. 2. solid waste disposal on public and non-industrial private land is a low priority activity. 3. Construction of shorefront facilities within erosion hazard areas, Character and "Priority for Action" for Development Opportunity Areas - In the following profile of Development Opportunity Areas, determinations are made regarding the attractiveness of each particular site for development, the degree of effort to promote the siting of a desirable activity upon each site, the suitability each site to support uses of national interest and regional benefi- of and finally, the priority -for action. The priority for action determinator reflects local sentiment for site development or restoration, the capability and suitability of the site to support the proposed use, the need for site restoration, both existing and proposed use compatibility with neighboring development patterns and ownership. The determination of priorities for action within development opportunity areas are shown on Figure ix-5. Priorities for Uses in Areas of Recreational Historic or Cultural Value - The objective of this analysis is to fully recognize and promote the unique recreational and cultural opportunities afforded Lake Erie Coastal residents and visitors to the area. The developed priority scheme of uses within the areas will reflect the need to protect, enhance, and restore these areas. High Priori Activ ities 1. Public access tothe Lake in areas so designated, regardless of present ownership patterns. Where private ownership presently precludes this use, acquisition,.easement, or base arrangements are high priorities for action. 2. The preservation and/or restoration of historical sites and structures of greater than local concern. 3. The development of coastal related recreational facilities (i.e. boat launches mooring sites, marinas) in these areas when constructed in a manner compatible with the existing environment. 4. The enhancement or restoration of cultural opportunities of greater than local concern. Moderate Priority Activities 1. Recreational support activities (i.e. commercial services) when conducted in a manner compatible with the existing environment. 2. Seasonal residential development which does not degrade the aesthetic appeal of the coastline, and which does not preclude recreation access to the Lake waters. Low Priority Activities 1. Existing or proposed public or private uses for these areas which fail to recognize their si4nificant recreational, historic, or cultural values. Character and "Priority for Action" of Significant Recreational, Historic, aiTd-Cultural Area-s--:' In the following profile of areas of significant recreational, historic and cultural value, the resource value of each area, the ownership of each area, the degree and effectiveness of present use and management, the compatibility of existing planning and zoning, and the potential conflict with development were all important determinants of the priority for action. The determination of priority for action will prove quite useful in identifying areas in greatest need of recommended planning and management procedures. This information is developed in Figure ix-6. Priorities for Uses in overlap Areas - The two overlap areas identified within e take Erie Coastal Zone are unique in that they offer both development as well as recreational opportunities. In other areas of the.Lake Erie Coastal Zone, similar areas of. only, local concern exist where both development and natural resource management opportunities are afforded coastal residents. Care must be exercised in prioritizing uses within these areas so that high priority development activiti 'es do not exclude high priority recreational opportunities. A detailed description of the designated overlap areas of particular concern within the Lake Erie Coastal Zone, Presque Isle Bay and the Port of Erie and Waterfront Area, will be developed in subsequent sections. Priority of Uses within the Presque Isle Bay overlap Area - The Presque Isle Bay is an extremely valuable socioeconomic resource of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. The Bay, sheltered from Lake Erie storms by Presque Isle Peninsula, doubles as a prime area for all water related recreational uses, and as Pennsylvan@als only harbor on the Great Lakes System. Recreational water uses are of highest priority on the north side of the Bay. Industrial activities and commercial navigation of highest priority occur with minimal or no interference with recreation uses on the south side of the Bay. Although marina facilities for recreational vessels exist on the south side of the Bay, the poor water quality along the south shore of the Bay preclude most water contact activities. The availability of recreation support services on Presque Isle Peninsula further supports the assignment of a high priority upon recreational use of the north Bay area. Priority of Uses within the Port of Erie and.Waterfront Area - The Port of Erie and waterfront area supports a mix of industrial, commercial, recreation, and related support activities. All land and water lots in both the east and central zones of the Erie Waterfront Area are zoning either for industrial use or commercial activities. The Western waterfront district is currently zoned for residential use on top of the lake bluff and recreational use along the immediate shoreline area. Current zoning of the Erie Port and'waterfront area reflects, the highest priority uses for this area. Restoration of abandoned waterfront facilities within both the east and central waterfront zones is also a high priority use. Industrial or commercial- activities which are not water related or dependent upon a Figure ix-6 CHARACTER AND PRIORITY FOR ACTION OF AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT RECREATIONAL, HISTORIC, AND CULTURAL AREAS Resource Value Degree of Present Compatibility of Existing Potential Conflict Name of Area Ownership of GAPC Management Use Planning & Zoning With Development Priority for Action Raccoon Creek Public High Low Compatible High High Stream Corridor Elk Creek Estuary Private High Moderate Incompatible High High Lake Erie Community Public Moderate Moderate Compatible Low Low Park Walnut Creek Access Public High High Compatible Low High Area Scott Park Publ Ic High Low Incompatible High High Presque Isle State Public High High Compatible LOW Low Park Sixmtle Creek Private Moderate Low Incompatible High Moderate Access Area Shades Beach Public High Moderate Incompatible Moderate Moderate County Park Twentymile Private High Low Incompatible High High Creek Access or i sm awl coastal location would be designed as lower priority uses for this area. Relationship of Coastal Resource Use Priorities to the Formulation of Coastal Use Policies In order to develop use priorities within Lake Erie Coastal areas of particular concern, priority determinations were first made for the entire coastal area and areas of use uniformity or area types within the coastal zone. Although priorities for use of the entire coastal zone were very broad in nature, these priorities served as the basis upon which more specific priority determinations were made in GAPC1s. The sequential priority determinations for resource use on each geographic level provided the information essential' to the formulation of the coastal zone policies and recommendations (Chapter 5). Using the results of this analysis, solutions to identified problems and the courses of action necessary to. accomplish specific objectives as outlined in the coastal zone policy framework can be more easily understood. Q1 2 AREAS FOR PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION 3 3 introduction 3.5 Geoqraphic areas of particular concern (GAPC's) have been defined 3.7 as critical areas where there is a need for special management 3.8 procedures in order to deal with land use.issues which are of 3.8 "regional benefit" or are of "greater than local concern". 3.9 Within GAPC's there may well be "special areas" which are 3.10 valuable enough to require specially designed management 3.10 techniques in order to protect or enhance their significance as 3.11 natural or economic resources. These special areas are 3.12 categorized as areas for preservation and restoration (APRts) and 3.12 have particular significance with regard to their conservation, 3.13 recreation, ecologic or aesthetic values. 3.13 Each GAPC is likely to be at least partially comprised of areas 3.15 where preservation or restoration efforts are required. It thus. 3.16 becomes essential to analyze each GAPC to find the necessary 3.16- criteria needed to determine these critically sensitive lands 3.17 which require special management techniques. 3.17 several sources were used as references for' determining such 3.19 criteria and through the use of these documents, five APR .3.19 classifications have been categorized and special management 3.20 techniques have been devised for each classi 'fication. Areas to 3.21 be preserved and/or restored have been categorized to include: 3.21 11) areas of significant natural value, 12) recreation lands and 3.22 lake access areas, (3) prime and unique farmland, (4) historic 3.22 sites, and (5) derelict or abandoned areas. 3.22 Preservation Areas 3.24 The first four of the five categories mentioned above are areas 3.26 which require special management techniques @to preserve the 3.26 unique environmental or social features which may be threatened 3.27 by and vulnerable to urban development pressures. Such features 3.28 may be irreversibly altered by urban-related change and 3.28 consequently may lose their original uniqueness as natural areas, 3.29 recreational opportunity areas, etc. 3.29 The first category, areas of significant natural value, have been 3.31 defined and illustrated in a document entitled Areas of Natural 3.32 Value, Erie County coastal Zone. Within this report areas which 3.33 have been designated as "preservation" and nconservation" include 3.33 such natural features as lake bluffs, stream valley escarpments, 3.34 A flood plains, marsh lands, wildlife habitats; and forest lands. 3.34 Areas of significant natural value*such as these can be found in 3.35 all geographic areas of particular concern and concentrated 3.36 efforts should be made to protect such areas. 3.36. A second preservation category includes recreation lands and lake 3.38 access areas, Such areas have been illustrated in the above 3.39 mentioned report and are usually considered to be areas.available 3.39 for "active" recreation. Such areas would permit facilities for 3.41 boating, swimming, camping, sports, etc. Many facilities such,.as 3.42 these already exist in recreation are as along the Lake Erie 3.42 coastline but demand for such facilities will continue to 3.43 increase, and access points to Lake Erie waters are limited in 3.43 supply. Should lake access areas be privately developed as has 3.44 already occurred in some areas., the increased demand for 3.44 recreational facilities may not be fulfilled. 3.45 A third land use classification requiring preservation efforts is 3.47 agriculture. Not all farmlands along the lakefront should 3.48 necessarily be preserved for agricultural purposes, but certain 3.48 agricultural areas, upon which significant cash crops are 3.49 concentrated, require some form of protective management. Such 3.50 lands are in limited supply and will ultimately be transformed 3.50- due to their ability to easily accomodate residential and other 3.51 urban-related development. 3.51 4WR A final land use classification which requires preservation 3.53 efforts includes historical or cultural sites of significance. 3.53 Several State and city owned historic landmarks exist in the 3.54 coastal zone and such landmarks require special management 3.54 techniques in order to maintain the unique heritage of sites 3.55 having historic significance. 3.55 Restoration Areas 3.57 The Erie County coastal zone is largely an undeveloped or 3.59 minimally developed region, a concept that becomes evident after 3.59 reading Chapter 1 of this study. The need for special management 3.61 techniques can thus become difficult to comprehend. Management 3.62 efforts in Erie County will predomi nantly consist of preventative 3.62 measures for those lands designated as preservation areas. Lands 3.64 and waters do exist, however, that are (1) environmentally 3.64 damaged or (2) economically dysfunctional. Such derelict or 3.65 abandoned areas are not a very common occurrence in the Erie 3.65 County coastal zone but those that exist require special 3.66 management techniques to restore ecologic damage or to rejuvenate 3.66- economically lax areas. 3.66 APR Classifications 3.68 The five land use classifications designated above are areas 3.70. which require special preservation and restoration management 3.70 efforts. These areas of the Erie County coastal zone are 3.72 especially sensitive to environmental transition by urban-related 3.72 development. Each geographic area of particular concern (GAPC) 3.73 will have an area requiring preservation or restoration (APR) 3.73 within its bounds. The following write-up lists each APR 3.75 acc ording to the GAPC in which it is located. 3.75 1. Lake Erie Bluff (west): This Lake'Erie bluff system extends 3.77 the entire distance from the Ohio boundary to the Mill creek 3.78 Township line and is an area which should be( preserved and in 3.79 some instances restored. In the western study area most of 3.80 the lake bluffs are as yet relatively undisturbed. 3.80 yegetation acts to "hold" the bluff from erosive forces, 3.81 although the bluffs are continuously being worm away. When 3.82 this veqetation is disturbed for the sake of a "good view", 3.82 erosion is accelerated, often damaging or destroy inq homes 3.82 which at one time were thought to be safe. Thus, a certain 3.84 amount of restoration in the form of reforestation on and 3.84 above the bluffs is essential. management techniques for 3.85 this area will be those which apply for APR's classified as 3.85 Areas of Significant Natural Value. 3.85 2- Crooked Creek Stream Corridor: The entire Crooked Creek 3.87 stream valley north of Route 5 has been designated as on APR. 3.88 yery little development has occurred in this area as most of 3.89 this stream valley is;currently owned by semi-public groups 3.90 for recreational use as campgrounds. However, as development 3.91 of the Springfield area expands, the likelihood of 3.91 residential or other development will increase, with 3.91 resultant damage to this sensitive natural area. Management 3.93 techniques for-this area will be those which apply for APR's 3.93 classified as Areas of Significant Natural Value. 3.93 3. Girard and Fairview Prime Agricultural Lands: Within this 3.95 GAPC, areas designated for preservation are limited to: .11) 3.96 existing vineyard and orchard croplands and (2) undeveloped 3.96 prime and unique agricultural soils. Existinq vineyard and 3.97 orchard croplands have been mapped by making use of aerial 3.97 photos. Prime agricultural soils may be defined as land used 3.98 for production of food and fiber, or available for these 3.98 uses* It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture 3.99 supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops 3.99 economically when treated and managed according to modern 3.100 farm methods. Unique farmland may be defined as land other 3.101 than prime farmland that is used for the production of 3.101 specific high value food and fiber crops. Fruits and 3.103 vegetables are examples of such crops grown in the Erie 3.103 County coastal zone. Management techniques for this area 3.104 will be those which apply for APR's classified as Prime and 3.104 Unique Farmland. 3.104 4. Trout Run Stream Corridor: This GAPC is currently an 3.106 undeveloped stream valley under private ownership. Should 3.107 this area be developed as a low density residential district, 3.107 many of the sensitive natural aspects of this stream valley 3.108 could be seriously altered. Management techniques.fo r this 3.109 area will be those which apply for APR;s classified as Areas 3.109 of significant Natural Value. 3.109 5. United States Steel Site: No part of, this GAPC has been 3.112 designated as an area for preservation or restoration 3.113 requiring special management techniques. 3.113 6. PennsVlvania Electric Site: No part of this GAPC has been 3.115 designated as an area for preservation or restoration requiring .2pecial management techniques. 3.117 7. Raccoon Creek Stream Corridor: Raccoon Creek County Park and 3.119 the marshlands to the southeast of this Park have been 3.120 designated as two APR classifications. The stream 3.121 valley-wetland system is an entirely undeveloped and 3.121 sensitive natural area. This portion of the Raccoon Creek 3.122-- GAPC has been designated as an APR having significance as an 3.1221@, Area of Significant Natural Value. Manaqement techniques for 3.124 this area will be those which apply under this category. 3.124 Remaining portions of the park which are,not located within 3.125 the stream valley have been designated as an APR having 3.125 significance as Recreation Lands and Lake Access Areas. The 3.127 area at the mouth of Raccoon Creek is already extensively 3.127 developed as a recreational site and as such has also been 3'0127 designated as a Recreation APR. 3.128 8. Elk Creek Estuary 2j2:f: Within the Elk Creek stream valley 3.130 there are two APR classifications. The sand bar system at 3.131 the mouth of Elk Creek and the escarpments which bcrder this 3.131 stream valley have been designated as Areas of Significant 3.132 Natural Value. The flood plain and lowlands of the Elk Creek 3.133 GAPC have been designated as an APR having significance as a 3.133 Recreation. Land and Lake Access Area. Management techniques 3.135 for these areas will be those which apply under the 3.135 appropriate APR classification. 3.135 9. Lake Erie Communit Park: Within this GAPC the stream valley 3.137 which bisects this park and the bluffs fronting Lake Erie 3.138 have been designated as an APR having Significant Natural 3.138 Value. All remaining portions of this park fall under the 3.1-39 MW APR classification entitled Recreation Lands and Lake Access 3.139 Areas. management techniques will be those which apply under 3.140 qW the appropriate APR classification. 3.140 10. Walnut Creek Access Area: The entire Walnut Creek Access Area 3.142 has been designated as an APR having Eignificance as a 3.143 Recreation Land and Lake Access Area. Mavagement techniques 3.144 will be those which apply under this classification. 3.144 11. Lake Erie - Presque isle Bay Bluff: The entire bluff system 3.146 within the central study area has been designated as an APR 3.147 having Significant Natural Value. Management Techniques will 3.148 ANN be those which apply under this APR classification. At the 3.149 top of this lake-bay bluff are two historical and cultural 3.149 sites of significance. The Wayne Blockhouse is a replica of 3.150 the origiinal northwest blockhouse of the American Fort 3.150 Presque Isle in which General "Mad" Anthony Wayne died in 3.151 1796. The fort was constructed in 1795 to protect incoming 3.152 settlers from the Indians., The present blockhouse was built 3.153-1 by the Commonwealth in 1880 as d memorial to General Wayne. 3.153 The Land Lighthouse was erected on the site of the first 3.154-1 lighthouse constructed on the Great Lakes by the United 3.154 States Government. It is a circular structure, about 18 feet 3.156 in diameter at its base. Built cf gray cut stone, it stands 3.157 about 127 feet above the lake level and overlooks the channel 3.157 entrance to the Erie harbor. The oriqi nal lighthouse was 3.158 constructed in 1818 and was rebui lt in 1858 and again in 3.158 1866. it was last used in 1885. Management techniques for 3.160 these sites will be those which apply within the Historic and 3.160 Cultural Sites APR. 3.160 12. Presque Isle Bay: This GAPC has been designated as an Area of 3.162 Significant Natural Value, as a Recreation and Lake Access 3.163 Area, and as a Derelict or Abandoned A-tea. The first two 3.164 classifications require preservation management techniques. 3.164 The last category is a restoration classification. 3.165 management techniques will be those which apply under these 3.166 three APR categories. 3.166 13. Scott Park, Sommerbeim Park: These parks have been designated 3.168 as Areas of Significant Natural Value. Management techniques 3.169 will be those which apply under this category. 3.169 14. Presqu Isle State Park: This GAPC has been designated as 3.171 Area of Significant Natural Value and as Recreation Lands and 3.172 Lake Access Areas. Management techniques will be those which 3.173 apply under these categories. ' Two 'Historic and Cultural 3.174 APR's are located on the Presque Isle Peninsula. The Perry 3.175 Monument was erected by the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania in 3.175 1926 in honor of Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, commander of 3.176 the American fleet on Lake Erie during the war of 1812. A 3.177 second site, the Presque Isle Lighthouse is operated by the 3.177 United states Department of Commerce, Bureau of Lighthouses. 3.177 The end portion and the square light tower were constructed 3.178 in 1872. The lighthouse is fully operational except for two 3.179 months during the winter,season. Management techniques will 3.18.0- be those which apply under the APR entitled Historic and 3.180 Cultural Sites. 3.180 15. Port of Erie and Waterfront Area: Four APR categories are 3.182 located within the Port of Erie and Waterfront Area GAPC. In 3.183 much of this GAPC, there are numerous publicly and privately 3.183 owned lands which have remained vacant or are in need of 3.183, I:ejuvenation. These areas have been designated as Derelict 3.185 or Abandoned APR's and require management techniques 3.185 involving restoration. Restoration efforts, while taking 3.186 into consideration any natural features which might exist, 3.186 would be a positive step toward encouraging water dependent 3.187 industry and commercial uses. Two other APR's which exist.,,in 3.188 the port and waterfront area are Areas of Significant Natural 3.188 value and Recreation and Lake Access Areas. There is the 3.190 possibility , that portions of the Port Authority lands 3.190 adjacent to the Marine Terminal ad well as other waterfront 3.190 could be established as recreational areas. Recreational 3.192 facilities for boating and fishing enthusiaits are already in 3.192 demand and every indication is that additional facilities 3.192 would be used to capacity. 2:he Bay is a unique environmental 3.194 and economic asset. Tt is also extremely vulnerable to waste 3.195 accumulation because of insufficient circulation into and out 3.195 of the Bay through the small ship channel. Good water 3.197 quality would benefit all forms of water-related recreational 3.197 activities within the Bay area. Improved water quality would 3.19-8 also improve the waterfront area's standing as a unique 3.198 recreational attraction. The fourth and last APR is the 3.199 U.S.S. Niagara, a historic site located at the foot of State 3.199 Street within the Port of Erie and Waterfront Area GAPC. The 3.201 flagship Niagara, Oliver Hazard Perry'4 victory brig, was 3.201 sunk in Misery Bay after the Battle of Lake Erie in 1812. 3.201 The vessel was raised from the waters in 1913.for the Battle 3.202 of Lake Erie Centennial, restored and placed at its present 3.202 location. Management techniques are those which apply within 3.204 the Historic and Cultural APR classification. 3.204 16..Lake Erie Bluff (east): The entire Lake Erie-bluff syst em in 3.206 Harborcreek and North East Townships has been designated as 3.207 an APR having significance as an Area of Natural Value. 3.207 Management techniques are those which apply within this APR 3.208 classification. 3.208 17. Harborcreek and-North East Townshi Prime Agricultural Lands: 3.210 Within this GAPC,. areas designated for preservation are 3.211 limited to: ji) existing vineyard and orct@ard croplands and 3.211 (2) undeveloped prime and unique agricultural soils. 3.212 Existing vineyard and orchard croplands have been mapped 3.213 through the utilization of aerial phctos. Prime agricultural 3.214 soils may have been defined as land used for production of 3.214 food and fiber, or available for these uses. It has the soil 3.215 quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to 3.215 produce sustained high yields of crops economically when 3.216 treated and managed according to modern farm methods. Unique 3.217 farmland may be defined as land other than prime farmland 3.217 that is used for the production of specific high value food 3.217 and fiber crops. Fruits and vegetables are examples of such 3.219 crops grown in the Erie County coastal 'zone. Management 3.220 techniques for this area are those which apply for APR's 3.220 classified as Prime and Unique Farmlands. 18. Sixmile 3.221 Access Area: This geographic area of particular concern has 3.221 been designated as an APR having significance as a Recreation 3.222 and Lake Access Area. Management techniques are those which 3.223 apply under this category. 3.223 19. Shades Beach Count Park (north of Route 5): This geographic 3.225 area of particular concern has been designated as an APR 3.226 'having significance as a Natural Value Area! Management 3.227 techniques are those which apply under this classification. 3.227 20. Twentymile Creek Access Area: The 'mouth of Twentymile Creek 3.229 and the Twentymile Creek flood plain north of Route 5 have 3.230 been desiqnated as an APR having significan@ Natural Value. 3.230 Management techniques are those applicable to thiS APR 3.231 classification. 3.231 special management Techniques 3.233 Lands and waters within the Erie County coastal zone that have 3.235 been designated for preservation and restoration are ecoloqical,ly 3.235,_ sensitive areas that are going to require special management 3.236 techniques if a serious effort is to be initia@ed to protect them 3.236 from environmental degradation. An objective such as this, which 3.238 has no immediately visible benefits, is often difficult to 3.238 comprehend and even more difficult to initiate. Erie Countians 3.240 are fortunate enough, however, to be able to salvage many of 3.240 their most sensitive areas before unplanned development can 3.241 occur, thus saving the time and expense of restoring these lands 3.241 in the future, if restoration would, in fact, be,possible. 3.242 it is not the intention of this write-up to recommend.any 3.244 additional Federal or State regulations. Current municipal 3.245 comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances give the individual at 3.245 the local level the power to enforce the protection of sensitive 3.246 areas. Many existing municipal ordinances, however, have 3.247 insufficient standards for protection of APR#s. 3.247 The following are special environmental management techniques, as 3.249 listed by APR classification. All of these techniques are 3.250 practical methods of enforcing the protection of vital 3.250 environmental resources at the local level. 3.251 Areas of Significant Natural Value - Areas of significant natural 3.253 value include lake bluffs, flood plains and steep slopes within 3.254 stream corridors, marshlands, heavily forested areas, and 3.254 beaches. These lands and waters are particularly vulnerable to 3.255 development. In the Erie County coastal zone most natural value 3.256 I areas are under private ownership, however, there are numerous 3.256 environmentally sensitive areas that are owned or regulated under 3.257 the auspices of State, county or local level governments. 3.257 on publicly-owned lands such as parks or gamelands government has 3.259 the opportunity to restrict development of the most sensitive 3.2159 lands and waters. Usually such lands will be utilized for 3.261 passive recr eational purposes or will remain undeveloped., thereby 3.262 enforcing the conservation of such lands. Restrictions or 3.263 privately owned lands include local zoning ordinances and 3.263 State-wide regulations involving water runoff. In the Erie 3.264 County coastal zone State-wide pollution standards are regularly 3.264 enforced. Howeverf most comprehensive plans and zoning 3.265 ordinances within this region do n ot reflect the need for 3.265 preservation of the natural areas listed above. 3.266 r zoning ordinances should be altered to include management techniques that utilize conservation zoning as the foremost 3.268 method of protecting areas of natural value. Examples of 3.270 conservation zoning include the following: 3.270 1) Developmental setbacks are necessary along bluffs facing Lake 3.272 - Erie and bluffs within stream valley corridors. Setbacks may 3.274 Z vary according to location but should take into consideration 3.274 the extent of erosion that occurs per year and the number of 3.275 years a newly constructed building is likely to remain 3.275.- standing. Setback regulations also should be written to 3.276F6 I restrict any vegetative clearance a set humber of feet back 3.276 from the bluffs highest point. Such regulations will act to 3.278 check erosion caused by clearing vegetation from these 3.278 vulnerable areas while at the same time will limit structural 3.279 damages caused by bluff erosion. 3.279 (2) Expanded lot size re gulations would act to reduce 3.281 developmental densities, thus reducing the chances for 3.281 environmental damage. A lot size of ten acres is currently 3.283 required by the Pennsylvania Department of Resources.for 3.283 on-lot septic systems which do not meet with wastewater 3.284 requirements. within vulnerable natural areas this figure 3.285 could serve as a minimum acreage requirement. Bluff setback 3.286 requirements would be incorporated into these expanded lot 3.286 size regulations. 3.286 .13) Performance standards are a third alternative of conservation 3.288 zoning. This method of zoning is unlike traditional zoning 3.289 practices. These standards need not be tied to specific 3.290 zones or districts. They utilize two basic criteria, runoff 3.291 and erosion. Since runoff and erosion are common to all land 3.292 (although they varyfrom site to site), the regulations can 3.292 apply to all development within a municipality's 3.293 jurisdiction. Thus, environmental land controls are made 3.294 distinct from the questions of districtinig or zoning and are 3.294 MW administered as parallel or supplementary requlations to the 3.295 basic zoning controls. The critical factor in determining 3.296 the feasiility of performance standards fot natural processes 3.296 is the technological feasibility of setting precise numerical 3.297 measurements on the process. Substantial research and data 3.298 accumulation are available for runoff and, to a lesser 3.298 degree, for erosion.. Agencies such as the Soil Conservation 3.299 Service and the Erie County Health Department already utilize 3.299 performance standards for runoff and erosion to a limitee 3.300 extent. Performance standards can be utilized. at the 3.301 municipal level, however, it would entail the hiring of an 3.301 environmental specialist to regularly inspect urb,an 3.302 developments and enforce pollution standards. Whereas urban 3.303 municipalities within the Erie County coastal zone might be 3.303 able to accomodate the added expense of having such a 3.304 specialist, the more rural and developing municipalities, 3.304 those areas that could benefit-the most by utilizing such a 3.304 service, would probably be the- least able to afford the cost. 3.305 _J4) Acquisition by governmental agencies is the fourth and last 3.307 alternative. This method has certain drawbacks such as 3.308 reduced tax revenue, but on the plus side offers the most 3.308 control over the ultimate use of the natural area. Decisions 3.310 on public acquisition must be based not only on the natural 3.310 significance of an area, but also on factors such as 3.31-0 recreational needs and aesthetic benefits. Stream.corridors, 3.312 .lake bluffs, marshlands, and forested areas can offer 3.312 opportunities for expanded recreational developments while 3.312 also providing aesthetically pleasing greenbelts throughout a 3.313 community, which can act to protect a community from 3.313 undesirable encroachments. 3.314 Recreation Lands and Lake Access Areas - Numerous recreational 3.316 lands and lake access areas exist along the Erie County 3.316 coastline. Many publicly owned parks already are located in the 3.318 coastal zone, providing facilities for local and-- regional 3.318 recreation enthusiasts. The topographic composition of the Erie 3.320 County coastline, however, is a limiting factor upon -the 3.320 availability of recreation lands for many individuals, 3.321 particularly those living in the east and west portions of the 3.321 coastal zone. Lake bluffs are the rule rather than the 3.322 exceptions along the shoreline and in many areas of the Erie 3.322 3.323 county coastline access is limited to those areas where the 3.324 erosive action of streams has@ leveled these bluffs. Many of 3.325 these stream valley access areas are privately owned. As the 3.326 coastal zone becomes further populated, developmental pressures 3.326 also increase within. these access are s. The attraction of 3.327 having a home or cottage near the lake tends to multiply the 3.327 urban-related developmental pressures in these "choice" areas, 3.328 eliminating or at least reducing the possibility of public 3.328 recreation. 3.328 management techniques which would act to preserve these areas for 3.330 public recreational purposes include the following: 3.330 jl) Comprehensive Plans should indicate all existing and proposed 3.332 recreational lands, especially those which are privately 3.333 owned and predominantly undeveloped. 3.333 J2) Conservation Zonin should be utilized to limit development. 3.335 Minimum lot size requirements of ten acres or more would 3.336 serve to slow residential and cottage developments, 3.336 maintaining much of the natural value of a site and. reducing 3.337 the chances of environmental damage. 3.337 _J3) Acquisition by governmental agencies is a third alternative. 3.339 As with any governmental acquisition, tax revenues are 3.340 immediately reduced'but other benefits such as money from 3.340 tourism and preservation of areas to meet future recreational 3.341 requirements must also be considered. 3.341.1 prime and Unique Farmlands - Efficient food and fiber production 3.343 1 is largely dependent upon the availability of high quality soils. 3.344 Not all soils are well suited for agriculture. Stoniness, steep 3.346 slopes, shallow soil and high water tables are restrictions upon 3.346 agricultural productivity. Soils which have the highest 3.347 potential for productivity are usually known as prime 3.34.7 agricultural soils. Such soils are typically deep, fertile, well 3.348 to moderately well drained and are found on slopes which usually 3.348 measure less than ten percent. 3.349, Unique farmlands are lands upon which are grown specific cash 3.351 crops such as fruits and vegetables. Such lands do not have the 3.352 quality of soils that occur within prime agricultural areas but 3.35@ nonetheless are productive lands. 3.352 Agricultural soils play important environmental roles in many 3.354 areas. Being found on relatively flat terrain, prime 3.355 agricultural soils are often very important ground waterrecharge 3.355 areas. Geologic formations associated with particular prime 3.356 soils can recharge aquifers even during dry periods. The 3.357 presence of biologically valuable bacteria, soil organisms, and 3.357 fungi in prime agricultural soils provides for the decomposition 3.358 of organic matter thereby enriching and building the soil. The 3.359 ability of soil environments to h reak down organic matter 3.359 enhances their potential value for wastewater renovation. 3.359 3.360 .I@y respecting the assimilative capacities of the soil, the 3.361 application of wastewater on agricultural soils can, in turn, 3.361 renovate the wastewater, potentially increase soil productivity, 3.362 and recharge local groundwater tables. 3.362 Agricultural lands have been going out of production at alarming 3.364 rates over the past 25 years. In Erie County, there were 4,054 3.365 commercial farms in 1950 which employed 4,100 persons and in 1975 3.365 these totals had dropped to 1,048 commercial farms employing less 3.366 than 1,900 full time workers. The average size of an Erie County 3.367 farm has substantially risen in acreage; where in 1950 the 3.367 average farm size was 80,acres, ..Ioday it ha.@ almost doubled. 3.368 Thus, in 25 years Erie County's agricultural significance has 3.369 been halved. 3.369 Two general land uses account for most of this conversion; urban 3.371 development and woodland. Although woodland acreage has been 3.372 increasing on a national average at a rate of one percent 3.372 annually in recent years, c onversion of agricultural. lands to 3.373 woodland does not destroy the productive potential and other 3.373 environmental values associated with prime agricultural soi.1s. 3.374 Urban development, however, preempts the productive potential of 3.375 the soil and destroys the ecologic and aesthetic values of prime 3.376 agricultural soils. since prime agricultural soils have few 3.377 natural limitations for urban activities, these lands are quickly 3.377 acquired by developers. Urbanization has been a major factor 3.378 contributing to the conversion cf nearly one-half of 3.378 Pennsylvania's original prime agricultural soils to 3.379 non-agricultural uses. 3.379 Protecting the environmental values of Erie County's remaining 3.381 prime aqricultural soils through agricultural use will be 3.381 extremely difficult if farming does not remain a viable economic 3.382 activity. against mounting production costs, and shifting @.38-3 consumer food preferences, farmers often have a difficult time 3.383 staying in business. in this kind of atmosphere additional 3.384 economic burdens in the form of higher property taxes can often 3.384 eliminate the profitability 2f farming. Prime agricultural soils 3.386 cannot remain in production in the preserice of a changing 3.386 economic climate which does not support agricultural activities. 3.387 Conversion of agricultural soils to urban land uses has also been 3.389 accelerated by public service availability and changing land use 3.390 patterns. Sewers, water mains, and highways have served to guide 3.391 the location of growth and development in metropolitan areas. 3.391 municipal authorities frequently extend sewer lines into prime 3.392 agricultural soils in advance of actual demand. New and improved 3.393 highways permit urbanization to rapidly expand into outlying 3.393 areas. where public services are available, speculation and 3.394 higher tax assessments often follow. Faced with increased costs, 3.395 higher tax assessments, rural-urban land use conflicts, and the 3.395 loss of necessary services, farmers' frequently find it more 3.396 convenient to sell their lands for development. 3.396 In addition to the location of public facilities, existing 3.398 regulatory programs to control environmental pollution may 3.398 inadvertently create pressures for the conversion of prime 3.399 agricultural soils to uses which preempt the productive use of 3.399 the soil. Unless limited by seasonal high water tables, prime 3.401 agricultural soils normally pass percolation tests of on-site 3.401 sewage disposal systems. In areas not serviced by sewers, this 3.403 characteristic of prime agricultural soils creates pressures for, 3.403 conversion especially in metropolitan areas where development 3.404 pressures are likely to be severe. 3.404 Existing state tax policies also pose a potential threat to the 3.406 protection of prime agricultural soils. Local governments-have 3.407 traditionally relied on property taxes for the bulk of local 3.407 revenues. in order to provide new or maintain existing municipal 3.408 services, more intensive use of land yeilding high property taxes 3.408 is desired. This results in productive soils being converted to 3.410 industrial parks, shopping centers, high rise apartment 3.410 complexes, and new residential development. Due to the large 3.412 number of local governments in Erie County, municipalities are in 3.412 constant competition for more extensive land uses which serves.,to 3.413 increase the threat of urbanization and conversion of farmland to 3.413 other uses. This threat is aggravated by conflicting procedures 3.414 for assessing fair market values of land which may not consider 3.414 soil productivity ratings. (Assessments on the extension of 3.416 public facilities including water and sewer lines through 3.416 farmlands used to be another cost to the farmer, however, 3.417 Pennsylvania Act 71 of May, 1976 has provided that owners of 3.417 agricultural land may not be assessed for water and sewer lines 3.418 as they do not (1) use the services, or (2) use their land for 3.418 non-agricultural purposes. The only farmland that may be 3.419 assessed is that portion which is actually being used for 3.419 residential use, i.e. the farmhouse. Assessment can be collected 3.420 by the municipality if the agricultural land is sold for 3.420 development purposes, as under the new law the municipality 3.421 places a lien on the farm property. 3.421 P rime agri ' cultural soils are becoming an increasingly significant 3.423 resource. Thus it should be policy to protect and preserve the 3.424 productive capability, resource potential, ecologic significance 3.424 and open space values of prime agricultural soils. Management 3.426 techniques for preserving such soils and farmlands include the 3.426 following: 3.426 _11) Comprehensive Plans should indicate the location of all prime 3.428 and unique agricultural soils. After such policy has been 3.429 established, utilities and public facilities which promote 3.430 development can be directed elsewhere. 3.430 _(2) Agricultural Zoning as currently practiced in Erie County 3.432 does not discourage residential development of prime 3.432 agricultural soils. where agricultural zoning occurs, a 3.434 minimum lot size of 10 acres or more s@hodld be encouraged. 3.434 Even if such lots come to be utilized by residential 3.435 structures the land would be preserved for possible 3.435 utilization at some later date. The optimal zoning practice, 3.437 of course, would prohibit all non-farm related development. 3.437 _J3) Preferential Tax Assessments should he encouraged to promote 3.439 agricultural utilization of prime and unique agricultural lands. 3.440 Two State laws have recently been passed by the Pennsylvania 3.441 General Assembly which act to reduce tax pressure upon farmers. 3.441 The first law, Pennsylvania Act 71 of May, 1976, was mentioned 3.442 above. A second law, the Farmland and Forest Land Assessment Act 3.443 of 1974, states that lands currently used for agricultural 3.443 2urposes and lands devoted to agricultural and forest reserve are 3.444 elibible for preferential tax assessment. The law stipulates 3.445 that land devoted to agricultural use must satisfy one of the 3.445 following: (1) the land is now devoted to 3.445 agricultural use and has been fcr the preceding three years, 3.446 and the land is not less than ten contiguous acres, or _(2) 3.447 the land is now devoted to agricultural use and has.been for 3.447 the preceding three years and the owner is able to 3.447 demonstrate to the assesso. r how the land will be used.,to 3.448 generate a $2,000 gross income, Land devoted to agricultural 3.449 reserve must satisfy all of the following criteria: (1) the 3.449 land is not less than ten contiguous acres in area, (2) the 3.450 use of the land must be non-commerical, (3) the land must be 3.450 open to the public and used for outdoor recreation or for the 3.451 enjoyment of scenic or natural beauty, (4) there can be no 3.451 charge or fee.for the use of the land, and (5) there,can be 3.452 no discrimination against persons using the land. Land 3.453 devoted to forest reserve must satisfy all of the following 3.453 criteria: (1) the land is stocked by forest trees of any size 3.453 and is capable of producing timber or other wood products, 3.454 and (2) the land is not less than ten contiguous acres. 3.454 Historic and Cultural Sites - A community develops through time. 3.456 Considered as a whole, its physical features are constantly 3.457-1 changing. At the same time, smaller areas,within a community, 3.458 once developed, are usually stable and relativ@ly permanent. The 3.459 physical forms of urban neighborhoods, i.e. street and road 3.459 patterns, architectural design and relationships, extent and 3.459 character of landscaping, etc., represent the'development ideas, 3.460 and perhaps ideals, of their period of construction. The history 3.461 of a community is reflected in its development pattern. 3.461 Most communities have some buildings, sites or-neigh.bqrhoods of 3.463 particular interest or significance. Some may be the locations 3.464 of historic events of national, state or local importance. Spme 3.465 may be associated with notable persons or groups, whether 3.465 historic or contemporary. Some may be distinctive in 3.466 architectural design, landscape treatment, or other artistic 3.466 features. some may have unique c haracteristics or may be 3.467 interesting simply as curiosities. Such buildings and areas 3.468 contribute to the variety and vitality of the urban scene by 3.468 enriching the daily experiences of both resident and visitor. 3.469 They form an important part of a community's historic and 3.470 cultural heritage, which, if lost, cannot be replaced. 3.470 This does not mean that any building must be saved simply because 3.472 it is old nor that any site must be developed.as a special park 3.472 because it was once vaguely associated with some historic event. 3.47.3 It does mean that a municipality, preferably as part of its 3.474 comprehensive planning program, should make a thorough inventory 3.474 of its resources and take the necessary steps to preserve those 3.475 buildings, sites and areas that are foUnd to contribute 3.475 significantly to its physical and cultural heritage. 3.476 Within the Erie County coastal zone, five publicly owned sites 3.478 have been designated to have historic and cultural significance. 3.478 Each of these sites have previously been identified and the 3.479 significance of each,noted. This, of course, does not imply that 3.480 additional sites, privately owned, do not exist within the 3.480 coastal zone. Management techniques must be available to 3.481 preserve both known historic and cultural sites, as well.,,as 3.481 potential sites of significance not already mentioned. The 3.483 following are examples of such management techniques: 3.483 _11) Comprehensive Plans should 'locate and identify the 3.485 merits of each historic and cultural site. Methods for 3.486 preserving existing sites should be 3"-ndicated. Also, 3.487 potential historic and cultural sites should be 3.487 identified in the comprehensive plan, thus making it 3.48'7 public that official policy is promoting the eventual 3.488 preservation or restoration of specific sites or 3.488 neighborhoods. 3.488 J2) Historic District Zonin2 is a manaqement technique 3.490 whereby historic districts*are identified and a Board of 3.491 Historical Architectural Review is appointed and 3.491 authorized to review and make recommendations before any 3.491 3.492 building erection, alteration or demolition wi@Ehin a designated 3.493 historic district can occur. To enact an historic district 3.494 ordinance the governing body must first define appro priate areas 3.494 as historic districts. These designated historic districts must 3.495 then be presented to the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum 3.495 Commission for certification of their historic significance. 3.496 Upon receipt of this certification from the Pennsylvania Historic 3.497 and Museum commission, the governing body then appoints.. a Board 3.497 of Historical Architectural Review. This Board must be composed 3.499 of at least five members of which one must be a registered 3.499 architect, one a real estate borker, and one a building 3.500 inspector. The remaining members must be persons with knowledge 3.501 or interest in the preservation of historic districts. upon 3.502 enactment of the historic district ordinance the governing body 3.502 is empowered to issue Certificates of Appropriateness for any 3.503 building construction, alteration or demoliiion within the 3.503 district. No building permit is to be issued for any project 3.504 within the district until a Certificate of Appropriateness is 3.504 issued. The major duty of the Board of Historical Architectural 3.505 Review is to give counsel to the governing body regarding the 3.505 advisability of issuing @Certificates of Appropriateness. The 3.507 purpose of enacting historic district ordinances is to protect 3.507 the historically significant areas of the municipalities of 3.508 Pennsylvania. This is accomplished by ensuring that the 3.509 historical significance and character of the historic areas are 3.509 considered by the municipal governing body, the building 3.510 inspector, and the property owner or developer on any proposed 3.510 .building project within the districts. 3.511 _13) Special Commissions are another device for exerting 3.513 architectural controls over historic structures and 3.513 places. Functions of such commissions are similar to 3.514 those of the Board of Historical Architectural Review, 3.514 mentioned in the previous section, and are not. limited 3.515 only to an historic zoning district, but instead include 3.515 all districts within a community. The commission will 3.517 prepare and maintain an approved list of historically 3.517 and architecturally important structures and sites 3.517 throughout the-community, and no demoli tion, removal,.or 3.518 substantial alteration of any structure on the list 3.518 could occur without the commission's approval, or at 3.519 least, review. The special commis4ion approach is 3.520 concerned primarily with architectural integrity of 3.520 important structures. Regulations concerning any 3.521 alteration such as painting or renovation of a 3.521 building's facade would first be examined by such a 3.522 commission. A major function of the commission would 3.523 therefore be to find economically fe asible reuses of 3.523 structures in which no drastic alteration of a structure 3.524 would occur causing the architectural significance to be 3.524 damaged or destroyed. 3.524 The Scenic Easement is a tool for public control of the 3.526 architectural integrity of certain historic structures. 3.526 It is a device that allows preservation of the public 3.527 interest in the appearance of the building without 3.527 substantially Iffecting the use of the property. The 3.529 purpose is to prevent exterior alterations detrimental 3.529 to the original architectural design. The approach is 3.530 for a public body to acquire, through purchase, 3.530 condemnation, or perhaps donation, a negative easement 3.530 over the facade of the building which does not allow the 3.531 owner to alter the exterior appearance of the building 3.531 without approval of a designated public agency. 3.532 Urban Renewal offers a commun'ity a fifth alternative for 3. 53'@' protecting historic sites. Most historically important 3.535 structures are found in the older central portions of 3.535 cities, areas that have become subject to deterioration 3.536 and possible urban renewal treatment. Thrcuqh proper 3.537 coordination with overall comprehensive planning and 3.537 preservation program approaches, urban renewal can 3.537 greatly aid the objectives of historic preservation. A 3.539 major contribution is the provision of improved settings 3.539 for historic structures. Through urban renewal, 3.54-0 blighting conditions in the vicinity can be removed. 3.540 with various public improvements,a restored environment 3.541 can be provided for historic structures. New uses can 3.542 be returned to old areas, and new construction can be 3.542 related to the old through appr6priate aesthetic 3.542 controls within renewal project areas. Restoration of 3.544 important structures can be aided either by acquistion 3.544 and resale to private interesfs for restoration or by 3.544 acquisition and restoration by the local public agency 3.545 for later resale, with deed restrictions appropriate to 3.545 protect the architectural integrity of the structure and 3.546 the public investment in the restoration. in. addition, 3.547 as part of an urban renewal project, historic buildings 3.547 can be moved to new sites either inside or- outside the 3.547 project. In all instances, renewal planning needs to be 3.548 closely coordinated with planning for the comprehensive 3.548 preservation program. 3.548 _(6) Tax incentives are a possible device to encourage 3.550 rehabilitation and preservation. Such incentives could 3.551 take numerous forms -- assessment or rate reduction, 3.551 assessment or rate freeze, temporary Exemption, refund 3.552 and so on. The basic idea is to encourage the owner to 3.553 restore and preserve the building by offsetting some of 3.553 his improvement expenses with some type of tax relief. 3.554 The feasibility of any such proposal, of course, must be 3.555 evaluated thoroughly, in terms of both State and local 3.55-5 laws. Any tax incentive proposal must be realistic and 3.556 linked to a strong case that it is clearly in the public 3.556 interest to insure the preservation and proper 3.557 maintenance of particular significant structures. 3.557 &ppropriate safeguards must be included. 3.558 A22uisition is an option available to both public and 3.560 private preservation groups. Public acquisition to 3.561 preserve select buildings and sites, either by purchase 3.561 or condemnation should be considered when a significant 3.562 structure becomes available in a location appropriate to 3.562 the performance of a particular public function or when 3.563 this is the only chance remaining to save a truly 3.563 outstanding building. Not all publicly owned historic 3.564 structures need to become period museums. Other public 3.565 uses should also be considered. Depending on location, 3.566 other possible uses for significant old houses might 3.566 include a branch library, office space for growing city 3.566 agencies, an art school annex or rental gallery 3.567 affiliated with the local art museum, a neighborhood 3.567 center for the provision of various city services, or an 3.568 information center. Decisions on public acquisition 3.569 must be based not only on the architectural and historic 3.569 merits of the structure but also on the potention for 3.57( productive use by public agencies. 3.57t Revolving Funds are a technique which applies private 3.57 funds to the redevelopment and conservation of historic 3.5-1 areas. A private organization raises funds to purchase 3.5- and restore historic structures. These are then rented 3.5' or resold usually with deed restrictions to protect the 3.574 exterior appearance of the structures), with the 3.574 proceeds returning to the fund to be applied to othe-r 3.575 structures. In some cases structures are resold to 3.576 other parties committed to carry out the restoration 3.576 work.. 3.576 Occasionally, Restrictive Covenants have teen_ used to 3.578 preserve certain features of the character of an area, 3.578 usually a small prestige address area. A covenant runs 3.580 with the land and binds owners and their successors to 3.580 particular practices with respect to their property. 3.580 Private covenenats depend on the consent of All owners 3.581 in the area in question, a consensus that will probably 3.581 be difficult to -achieve, esFecially in larger areas. 3.582 While restrictive covenants may provide effective 3.583 controls, they may be virtually impossible to create in 3.583 historic areas with many property cwners. Though such 3.585 covenant agreements among owners may be rare, the 3.585 restrictive covenant may still be a useful tool when an 3.585 individual owner or foundation purchases and restores 3.586 numerous old structures. In some cases effective 3.587 covenants can become conditions of the resale of the 3.583 proper-ties. 3.587 Derelict or Abandoned Areas - As has been indicated previouslys, 3.589 most portions of the Erie County coastal zone remain undeveloped 3.590 or minimally developed. The preventative measures listed above 3.591 will act to preserve the most sensitive natural and socioeconcmic 3.591 areas of the coastal zone. Unfortunately, however, portions of 3.592 the coastal zone have been environmentally damaged or are 3.592 economically dysfunctional. Three such areas have been 3.593 identified as requiring restoration management techniques. These 3.594 areas are (1) the lake bluffs which have been cleared of 3.594 vegetation, (2) the waters of Lake Erie and Presque Isle Bay 3.594 which have been environmentally damaged due to 3.595 pollutant-drainaqe, and (3) the port and waterfront area of the 3.595 City of Erie. 3.595 Preservation management techniques for the protection of the lake 3.597 bluffs have already been suggested in the section entitled Areas 3.598 of significant Natural Value. Through conservation zoning 3.599 practices such as developmental setbacks and expanded lot size 3.599 requlations, efforts to restore the vegetation which acts to slow 3.600 the erosion rate of the bluffs could essentially restore most of 3.600 the bluffs, at least to their former rate of erosion before 3.601 development took place. A campaign to inform lake bluff owners 3.602 of the hazards involved with clearing vegetation from the bluffs 3.602 would round out all required restoraticn management techniques. 3.603 A second "environmentally derelict" phenomena is the quality of 3.605 water which enters Lake Erie and Presque Isle Bay from sources in 3.606 Erie County. Management techniques already exist through the 3.607 enforcement of regulations by the Federal Environmental 3.607 Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of 3.608 Environmental Resources. At the local level, however, policies 3.609 for the preservation of natural areas, recreation sites and prime 3.609 and unique agricultural farmland can have a great effect upon 3.610 water quality management, greatly reducing the need for 3.610 enforcement by Federal and State agencies. 3.611 Portions of the port of Erie and waterfront area are the only 3.613 areas that qualify as being "economically abandoned". Erie's 3.614 potential significance as an international port-of-call has been 3.614 highly underemphasiz ed. Developments which could renew an 3.615 interest in this area as an attractive site for import-export 3.615 business, water related industry, and recreation are listed as 3.61.6 follows: 3.616 _(1) Comqletion of the Bayfront Road and its interconnection 3.618 with Interstate 79 will be instrumental in opening the 3.619 Port of Erie to vitally needed truck transportation. 3.619 The current proposal is for a 2-lane controlled access 3.620 highway to provide access for traffic to the bay front 3.620" and is to extend from 12th Street in the area of 1-79 to 3.621 East Avenue and East Lake Road. Engineering is being 3.622 - initiated at this time, however, the project is number 3.62216, 20 on the priority listing of the Erie County 12 Year 3.623 Program. Construction is scheduled' for fiscal year 3.624 1985-1986 at a cost of over $25 million dollars. 3.624 J2) Expansion of existin port facilities to accomodate 3.626 additional vessels and material storage would assist in 3.626 the development of the port. Planned improvements for 3.628 the Marine Terminal include an administration building, 3.628 additional bulkheads for berthing areas on both the 3.629 northwest and west-face of the East Bay Area, addi tional 3.629 bulk storage areas, and expansion of the existing 3.629 transit shed. 3.630 _(3) Construction of a marina, a four-lane launching ramp and 3.632 parking in the East Bay area would serve to increase 3.632 recreational opportunities in the port and waterfront 3.633 area. The Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority 3.634 proposes to construct such a facility immediately south 3.634 of the proposed diked dredge material disposal facility 3.635 south of the channel entrance on Lake Erie. There are 3.636 several advantages of a small boat launching and 3.636 berthing facility in this area. Such a facility would 3.637 prove to be beneficial to Erie's East Side where there 3.637 presently is a virtual absence of launching and berthing 3.638 facilities. Secondly, it would provide a harbor of 3.639 refuge on the lake side of the sometimes treacherous 3.639 Presque Isle Bay channel entrance. It would also 3.640 provide a partial relief to the intense demand for small 3.640 boat launching and berthing facilities that presently 3.640 exists in the Erie area. 3.641 Three levels of development have been considered for 3.643 this site. The lowest level would have 50 slips,' a' 3.644 four-land launching ramp, parking for 114 cars and 152 3.644 cars with trailers, a travel hoist and basin, a jib 3.645 crane and a small marina building for a total cost of 3.645 $2,469,920. A medium level of development woul d add 3.647 more piers and docks and accomodate 204 boats, and.,an 3.647 increase of 100 parking spaces for cars. The total cost 3.649 would be $2,971,220. The ultimate plan for a marina at 3.650 this site would enclose slips for 518 boats, four 3.650 additional launching ramp lanes, 620 parking @ipaces for 3.651 cars, 300 parking spaces for cars with trailers, a dry 3.651 storage facility for 120 boats, and possibly even a 3.652 restaurant and sales building. The total cost would be 3.653 $8,292,150. 3.653 _14) Reactivation of the Grain Dock would be an enterprise 3.655 that would assist in the restoration of a viable port. 3.655 This would probably entail building a new west pier 3.656 face, extending the pier to the U.S. Harbor line and 3.65,6 removing the eastern 100 feet of the State Street 3.657 Extension Pier. Alternatively, if it proves impossible 3.658 to attract a tenant who could use the grain elevator, 3.658 then it might be prudent to demolish that structure with 3.659 all its ancillary installations and restore the grain 3.659 dock as a general purpose berthing facility. 3.659 _15) Construction of East Bay rrive would assist in the 3.661 restoration of the port area by improving access from 3.661 East Avenue to Wayne Street and the Port Access Road. 3.662 This is a high priority project on the Erie County 12 3.663 Year Program and construction is scheduled to begin by 3.663 1981 with an estimated total cost of $350,000. 3.664 _J6) Reclamation of the underwater area between Poplar and 3.666 Myrtle Streets could enhance the waterfront area as a 3.666 recreational..site. This micrht best be accomplished with 3.668 the cooperation of the U.S. Xrmy Corps of Engineers if 3.668 they would aqree to deposit their dredge spoil in this 3.669 area. In that event, it is estimated that 45 acres 3.670 could be reclaimed in five years. 3.670 1. Areas of Natural Value, Erie Count Coastal Zone, Paul D. 3.673 Knuth and Dennis De Figio (consultants), January, 1976. 3.674 2. Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands, ASPO Planning 3.676 Advisory �ervice, June, 1975. 3.67.7 34 Erie County Historical. and Architectural Preservation Plan, 3.679 Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, June, 1976. 3.680 4. Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Resources Analysis for Lake Erie, 3.682 Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, September, 'T-975. 3.683 .5. Port of Erie Waterfront Development' Plan, Parsons, 3 685 Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc. (consultant engineers 3:686 for the Port Commission), April, 1968. 3.686 6. Feasibility Study, East Side Boat Launching Ramp, Parking and 3 688 Marina, D'Appolonia (consulting engineer for the Erie-Western 3:689 Pennsylvania Port-Authority), October, 1976. 3.690 14 14 IN 14 I Id j j Id 14 PROGRAM, IMPLEMENTATION go 10 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSED MEANS FOR PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION The Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act specifically requires that the state, acting through its chosen agencies and governing bodies, possess the necessary authorities to implement the management program and be organized to do so. Such organization and authority must include power to:.(l) administer land and water use regulations; (2) control development to ensure compliance with the management program; (3) resolve conflicts among competing uses; (4) acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in lands, waters and other property through condemnation or other means when necessary to achieve conformance with the management program; and (5) assure that local land and water use regulations within the-coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude uses of regional benefit. A single agency must be designated to receive and administer grants for the purpose of implementing an approved management program. Before a program may be approved, the Secretary of Commerce must find that it provides for one or a combination of techniques for control of land and water uses. These techniques of control include direct state planning and regulation;state establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation subject to adridnistrative raview and enforcement of compliance; and state administrative review for consistency with the management program of all projects, variances, land and water use regulations. To the extent that Pennsylvania has adequate existing authority and organization, based upon direct state planning and regulation, it will be used to implement the management program. Examples of such authority, discussed.in Chapter 4, include regulation of air and water quality and supply, sewage treatment operations, dredging and extraction of minerals, and conservation of natural resources for fishing and recreation. Economic incentives for the development of commerce and industry can be provided by the Commonwealth, and current programs for public information and comment will supplement the CZM program efforts to assure citizen education and involvement. However, all of Pennsylvania's authorities relevant to the implementation of the management program will not provide the degree of control necessary to meet the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act, because critical powers to control land and water uses in the coastal zones have been delegated by the General Assembly solely to local governments. Since these local governments have largely unrestricted and exclusive authority to make land use decisions, the state is unable to control development to ensure compliance with its management program, or to resolve conflicts among competing uses as required by the federal legislation. Neither does it have the power to assure that local regulations do not exclude or unreasonably restrict uses of regional benefit. Pennsylvania must, therefore, seek additional legislative authority if it is to implement its coastal zone management program in accordance with the mandates of the Coastal Zone Management Act. 10-1 The legislation which will be sought will rely upon state establishment of criteria and standards for implementation by local governments as its technique of control. The implementation of the program through land use regulation by local governments with an overview by a state coastal zone management agency is an approach grounded in intergovernmental cooperation. This, mechanism would retain the strong tradition of local land use control and allow maximum sensitivity to and accountability for local concerns. But, at the same time, it will ensure that local decisions will safeguard statewide interests in the wise use and development of Pennsylvania's coastal resources. A general description of the legislation which will be proposed follows. The General Assembly will adopt the state coastal zone management plan, create state commissions with defined duties in implementing the plan, and assign additional responsibilities ..to local governments. The coastal commissions will promulgate standards and criteria relative to the implementation of the management program by local governments., Those local governments would be responsible for amending their comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances so that they are consistent with the standards promulgated by the coastal commissions and in accordance with the policies and goals of the state management plan. If a local government fails to amend its plans* and ordinances 'or fails to administer them in a manner consistent with the coastal zone management program.. these commissions would have the power. to step in and develop and, if necessary, administer the plans and ordinances so that they are consistent with the state criteria and standards. The coastal commissions would then certify whether a local government's plans and ordinances are consistent with the state man4gement plan and the standards and criteria promulgated.. If a local government fails to amend or update its plans and ordinances, the commissions would have the authority to step in and do so for the local government. In order to assure that actions taken by the local government with regard to development plans and projects, variances, and exceptions are in accordance with its certified plans and ordinances, the coastal commissions would have the power to intervene in any proceedings before the local government involving plans, projects, variances, and exceptions in the coastal area. If a local government exhibits a continual disregard for administering land and water use controls in a manner consistent with its certified plans and ordinances, the coastal commissions would have the authority to step in and administer the plans and ordinances in the coastal area. The coastal commissions would also sit as dispute settling tribunals where no resolution has occurred at the local government level. State agencies would be required to conduct all their activities affecting the coastal zone in a manner consistent with the statewide coastal zone management plan and the certified local plans and ordinances. Two implementation strategies utilizing this approach are set forth and summarized in chart form in Figures x-1 and -2. 10-2 M =Dom M Figure x-1 IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVE I DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COASTAL AREA REVIEW BOARD (CARB) RESOURCES 1. Receive and administer 1. Promulgate standards and criteria for: federal grants a. geographic areas of particular concern b. uses of regional benefit C. federal consistency d. state consistency 2. Exercise acquisition powers to assure com- plicance with the management plan 3. Intervene in proceedings before the regional commissions and local governments DELAWARE AND ERIE COASTAL COMMISSIONS 1. Recommend standards and criteria for adoption by the CARB 2. Review and certify local plans and ordinances 3. Amend plans and 'Ordinances where local governments fail to do so 4. Act as a dispute settling forum LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 1. Amend plans and ordinances so that they are consistent with the CARB, standards and the management plan 2. Administer certified plans and ordinances 3. Exercise eminent domain to achieve conformance 4. Report land use decisions to the regional commissions 5. Sit as dispute steeling forums Figure x-2 IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVE II DELAWARE AND ERIE AREA COASTAL COMMISSIONS DEPARTMENT OF 1. Promulgate standards and criteria for ENVIRONMENTAL a. geographic areas of particular concern RESOURCES b. uses of regional benefit C. federal consistency 1. Receive and d. state consistency administer 2. Exercise acquisition powers to achieve conformance federal grant with the plan money 3. Review and certify local plans and ordinances 4. Intervene in 1@cal proceedings 5. Act as dispute settling forums 6. Amend and adminigter local plans and ordinances where local governments fail to do so LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 1. Amend plans and ordinafices so that they are consistent with the management plan and adopted standards and criteria 2. Administer certified plans and ordinances 3. Exercise eminent domain to achieve conformance 4. Report land use decisions to the regional commissions 5. Settle disputes The first alternative is based on an independent state Coastal Area Review Board (CARB) and two regional Coastal Commissions, one for Lake Erie and one for the Delaware region. The CARB, composed of representatives from both regional Commissions, would promulgate standards and criteria for geographic areas of particular concern, uses of regional benefit, and consistency of state and federal projects with the CZM program. The Board would intervene in proceedings before local governments and regional commissions to assure compliance with the state plan, and would exercise the power of eminent domain, or other means of acquisition, as a last resort compliance measure. Federal grants would be administered by the Department of Environmental Resources. Under the first alternative, the,regional Commissions would recommend standards and criteria for adoption by the CARB, and review local plans and ordinances for compliance with the CZM program and the criteria and standards promulgated. The Commissions would develop plans and ordinances for local governments which failed to submit or revise them, and would administer these controls if necessary. Regional commissions would also serve as forums for*'dispute settlement,-in the event local dispute settling mechanisms fail. The second alternative implementation mechanism is based upon the exercise of legislative as well as executive functions by the regional Commissions. They would sit separately to develop and promulgate criteria and standards for local implementation in each region, as well as to review 16cal plans and ordinances for compliance with the CZM program. Each regional Commission would intervene in local government proceedings in its respective region to assure compliance, and would make acquisitions, when necessary, to assure compliance. As in the first alteknative, the regional Commissions would develop or enforce plans and ordinances for local governements which failed to submit or revise conforming measures of control. The regional commissions would sit jointly to develop and implement federal consistency procedures and state regulations for consistency with the CZM program. The lead agency for the receipt and administration of federal grants would be the Department of Environmental Resources. Under both alternatives, local governments would adopt and administer plans and ordinances subject to regional Commission approval, report land use decisions to these Commissions, and exercise the power of eminent domain to achieve compliance with the program and sit as dispute settling tribunals. The nature of the organizational mechanism, as well as its functions and composition, will be ultimately dictated by the final version of the proposed legislation enacted by the General Assembly. 10-3 PLEMENTATION PROPOSED ORGANIZATION NETWORK FOR PROGRAM IM Roles and Responsibilities of the Implementing Agencies A Coastal Area Review Board (CARB) and/or two regional Coastal Commissions will administer the Pennsylvania CZM program. The allocation of functions among these agencies will depend on which of the implementation strategies outlined in the Introduction is selected by the Legislature. In the discussion which follows, therefore, 11CARB11 should be read as referring to the joint management efforts of both the state and regional agencies created to implement the program. It should be noted that most executive functions under either alternative will be exercised by the regional Commissions. Major functions of the management agencies are as follows: 1. Guidelines - establish standards and criteria to: assist local governments in adopting or revising their comprehensive land use plans and zoning ordinances to comply with the state CZM program. The local coastal governments will then submit their plans and ordinances to CARB for certification. State and federal consistency guidelines will be promulgated to assure that state and. federal agencies' actions affecting the coastal zones will be sonsistent with the state management programs. 2. certification - assisted by the appropriate county planning staffs, administer the certification of the land use plans and ordinances of local governments. This function includes technical and financial assistance, review for compliance, and funding for the administration of certified plans and ordinances. If a municipality fails to revise or submit its plans and ordinances for review, CARB would have the authority to develop and, if necessary, administer conforming the plans and ordinances. 3. Plans and Projects Review - conduct a periodic administ-rative- review of local plans and decisions for compliance with the goals and objectives of the Pennsylvania CZM program. Information regarding certain key projects of greater than local concern, as defined in the statute, will be sent to-CARB for automatic review and comment. 4. Coastal Zone Policies - integrate coastal resource protectio;@-and development policy making by State agencies and refine the existing Coastal Zone policy framework as needed. 5. Local Planning Assistance - provide and coordinate Ti-n-ancial, technical and administrative assistance to local CZM efforts in accordance with adopted program guidelines. CARB will have the authority to recommend that federal 10-4 acquisition and demonstration grants be directed to special coastal locations identified by program,planning. 6. Staff Assistance - use the planning staffs of Bucks, 5e-laware, Erie and Philadelphia Counties for the preliminary review of local plans and ordinances for certification, and of local projects and decisions for administrative compliance. A small central staff in DER will provide administrative and coordinative assistance for CARB at the state level. 7. Budget - review and suggest modifications to the annual CZM budget prepared by DER. 8. Coastal Advocacy - establish and maintain effective forums for public involvement and intergovernmental coordination throughout program implementation. The promotion of public awareness and education will be a critical element in implementing an effective CZM program in Pennsylvania. 9. Coordination - coordinate major elements of the state CZM program with the planning and conflict resolution activities of certified' coastal municipalities. The DER coastal zone staff will handle coordination for CARB at the state, interstate and federal levels, while the county planning staffs will perform a similar function at the local level. By relying on the strength of such cooperative efforts, the program will seek to address the views and concerns of all governmental levels in the coastal zone. 10. Program Review - As new economic, social and environmental problems ' needs, demands and changes appear, conduct a periodic review and update of the CZM program to accomodate modifications in the data base, standards and criteria, and analytical methodology. In order to adequately perform these functions,this joint state and local implementation- mechanism must include a balanced membership drawn from, among State agencies, local governments and coastal citizens. The composition and selection of the proposed Board is summarized in figure x-3. Local governments and citizen representatives would participate in decisions involving land and water uses in their own Coastal Zone !i.e. Lake Erie representatives would not participate in decisions involving the Delaware Estuary and vice versa). All Board representatives would review coastal matters of statewide significance, including policy changes and promulgation of state and federal consistency guidelines. When it becomes necessary to vote on a key coastal issue, all board members would have an equal vote, and a 2/3 majority would be required to carry a certain decision. It is anticipated that most issues and conflicts would be resolved through informal dispute settlement procedures. More persistent disagreements could be handled through arbitration. The CARB will 10-5 Figure x-3 Proposed Coastal Zone Management Board Agency Entity Represented Number Method of Selection 1. Delaware Coastal City of Philadelphia 2 Mayor Commission Bucks County 1 County Commissioners Delaware County 1 County Commissioners Delaware Estuary Citizens 2 Governor* Dept. of Envir. Resources 1 Secretary or designee Dept. of Comm. Affairs 1 Secretary or designee Dept. of Commerce 1 Secretary or designee Office of State Planning and Development 1 Director or designee 2. Erie Coastal Erie County 4 County Commissipners Commission Lake Erie Citizens 2 Governor* Dept. of Envir. Resources 1 Secretary or designee Dept. of Comm. Affairs 1 Secretary or designee Dept. of Commerce 1 Secretary or designee Office of State Planning and Development 1 Director or designee 3. Coastal Area Delaware Coastal Comm. 6 See #1 above Review Board (local government & citizen members) See #2 above Erie Coastal Comm. 6 (local government & citizen members) Dept. of Envir. Resources 1 See #2 above Dept. of Comm. Affairs 1 it Dept. of Commerce 1 if Office of State Planning 1 and Development The Governor's selection of two concerned citizens from each coastal zone would be based upon the recommendations of the respective Coastal Zone Steering Committees. meet on a quarterly basis to conduct general administrative business and program review. Special meetings may be called as needed to review and, where necessaryr adjudicate disputes involving significant projects of greater than local concern. Local Governments certified local governments will have initial responsibility for the planning, management and regulation. of coastal land uses and for resolving conflicts in their Coastal Zones. In order to gain required certification and to perform these tasks, the state CZM program will provide the municipality with technical and financial assistance, funded through the federal CZM implementation grants. The major functions of the local' government-s are ..summarized as follows: 1. Certification - bring the land use plans, and/or ordinances into conformity with the state CZM program, based.,upon the policies and guidelines established by the management program and the standards and criteria.promulgated by the CARB. If a municipality fails to become fully certified within two years after the effective date of CZM legislation the CARB will prepare the plans and administer them if necessary. 2. Regulation - regulate certain classes of coastal development subject to the administrative review of CARB. Coastal municipalities will retain their traditional prerogatives with regard to land use regulation in(the coastal zone, so long as that regulation is consistent with the certified plans and ordinances. 3. Coordination - coordinate fully with adjacent local governments, individually or through the existing steering committees and CARB, for the purpose of resolving conflicts in the coastal zone and to ensure that activities by other municipalities are consistent with its coastal zone plan. Individual coastal municipalities will have standing to request participation in meetings of CARB or special hearings to voice their particular concerns on significant issues of controversy. Likewise, the CARB will have standing to participate in local hearings 'involving coastal related decisions for the purpose*of ensuring that variances or special use permits inconsistent with a municipality's certified coastal zone plan are not deliberately or unintentionally issued. 4. Consistency - review proposed federal actions within the coastal zone for consistency with its coastal plans as described in the federal Consistency section of this document. The coastal municipalities will be given every opportunity to review and comment upon all state projects, grants or permit decisions which may conflict with the local 10-6 coastal plans or ordinances. Local governments should forward their recommendations to CARB. 5. Appeals - appeal to the appropriate administrative or judicial tribunals in cases where the local governments and their constituents desire relief from an unfavorable land use decision by a municipality or CARB. 6. Program Review - recommend amendments to the CZM program based upon new economic, social and environmental problems, needs, demands and changes. 7. Planning - use available CZM funds to carry out special research studies and training efforts to support the coastal zone effort at the local level. 8. Acquisition - acquire fee simple and other interests in property when necessary to achieve compliance with the CZM program. Existing powers of eminent domain may be used by the municipality, and powers of acquisition vested in other governmental units may be coordinated through the organizational network to make necessary acquisitions and transfers. Department of Environmental'Resources it is recommended that DER retain a small staff in order to provide administrative and coordinative assistance to the Coastal Area Review Board at the state ' level. DER will proyide the state matching portion of the annual federal CZM grants 'through the associated salary and overhead costs of maintaining such a staff. The major functions of this staff are summarized as follows: 1. Federal Grants - designated as the lead agency to solicit, receive and administer federal funds for the CZM program. The staff will be responsible for federal program requirements, such as program monitoring and preparing reports. 2. Coordination - ensure cooperation with all state and federal agencies operating within the boundaries of the coastal zone, The staff will represent the CZM program at meetings of the Great Lakes Basin Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and. any meetings of the Middle Atlantic states on matters of interstate importance. 3. Interagency Agreements - to ensure coordination and consistency, prepare agreements with the various state agencies involved in implementing various aspects of the CZM program through their existing statutory responsibilities. All state agencies would be statutorily bound to comply with and implement the adopted policies and guidelines of the state CZM program. The staff would review -state projects 10-7 (under the A-95 clearinghouse process) within the coastal zone for their consistency with the state CZM program. 4. federal Consistency - ensure that Federal programs,' plans, activities and projects within the coastal zone are consistent with the adopted coastal policies and guidelines. The mechanism for ensuring this review is outlined below. 5. Permits - develop a shoreline permit procedural manual for public and private applicants, which will specify deadlines and other required information. It is hoped that such an innovative effort will streamline the permit process for construction along the shoreline. Through consultation and agreement with applicable state and federal agencies, the CZM program 'will strive to ensure, the, ..comprehensive, consistent and timely review of permits for proposed construction activities. 6.- Acquisition - use the Department's existing authoTity to acquire lands and easements within the statels.coastal zone by purchase, lease or gift# either alone or together with other governmental entities,-whenever deemed appropriate to implement certain preservation or access objectives of the CZM program. coastal Zone Steering Committees The existing Coastal Zone Steering Committees (CZSC) for-the Delaware Estuary and Lake Erie will be continued in,order to deal with the numerous agencies and groups within the coastal zone which may be affected by the management plan. While the existing membership (i.e. county planners, local officials, governmental agencies, special interest groups) would remain intact, efforts will be made to encourage additional representatives, especially citizens, to attend the meetings. These advisory committees should seek to enlist voluntary assistance whenever possible. Such efforts could be supplemented by appropriations from local governments, as well as support from the DER in the form of technical and administrative services, information, temporary assignments of personnel, and other coordinative activities. The main functions of the CZSC are summarized as follows: 1. Advisory - provide the CARB with timely and responsive advice ob the transformation of planning guidelines into operating procedures, and serve as an informal liaison between the CARB and local governments. The Committees will provide an initial forum for the expression of local concerns and conflicts. 2. Public participation and education - ensure effective [email protected] involvement by developing and recommending programs for public participation in and education about coastal 10-8 planning. The CZSC will co-sponsor necessary workshops, seminars and other efforts. 3. Coordination - coordinate the various views, interests and concerns of local governments and citizens with the activities of the CARB in the administration of the CZM program. Interagency Relationships The central coastal zone staff of DER will retain responsibility for coordinating the attivities of state agencies with program or planning responsibilities within the Commonwealth's coastal zones. DER will assist CARB by continuing all CZM subcommittee efforts to ensure that the CZM Program considers the views of affected state agencies throughout program implementation. As previously discussed, federal and local interrelationships with the CZM program will be handled through the Federal Consistency and Steering Committee mechanisms, respectively. Agency Responsibilities A listing of state agencies with CZM responsibilities and their involvement during program implementation is as follows: 1. office of Environmental Protection (DER) - responsible for the administration and enforcement of water and air quality standards under Pennsylvanials Clean Streams Law and Air Pollution Control Act. As previously discussed in the section on Existing Authorities, the CZM program will use the regulations issued under the state water and air pollution control authorities. In general, this office will be responsible for achieving the water quality objectives of the *State's CZM program (i.e., guidelines, permits, surveillance, monitoring), recommending solutions for water and pollution problems in each coastal zone, and coordinating air quality implementation plans and the Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan with the CZM program. Other existing permit programs relating to water supply facilities, water obstructions, solid waste management, and sewage facilities would be administered by this office in support of the objectives of coastal zone management. 2. office of Planning and Research (DER) - responsible for the development of an Environmental Master Plan for the Commonwealth. This plan includes policy recommendations for critical environmental areas withiln the coastal zone and evaluation of geologic, geographic and groundwater resources. The technical environmental expertise of this 10-9 office will be utilized to. coordinate continuing environmental analyses in both coa@tal zones, the policies and potential implementation of the Environmental Master Plan, and special studies of geologic and mineral elements. 3. office of Enforcement and General Counsel (DER) - Te-sponsiElle providi-ng legal advice and services to the Department of Environmental Resources. As part of the central DER coastal zone staff, this office will assist CARB in reviewing the administrative mechanisms of the CZM program. The office will also act as the legal support staff of the CARB in any, required hearings or legal proceedings. 4. office of Resources Management (DER) - responsible for management and leasing of state parks and forest lands, as well as sand, gravel or other minerals in or under the waters of the Commonwealth. Should oil and natural gas operations be commenced on Lake Erie, this office would administer the leasing of such resources. 5. Division of Comprehensive Resources Programming (DER) - responsible for the development of the State Water Resources Plan and for monitoring both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of water in the coastal zone. Coordination with this plan will be helpful in coastal zone planning related to the amount of water needed to support industrial, municipal and private users, as well as in the identification of critical areas of overconsumption.. C 6. office of State Planning and Development - responsible for 7Ehe development of the State's Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, State Land Use Plan and the Economic Investment Plan. This office will coordinate the development of policies and information of the plans with the CZM program. This office could assist in local coordination. 7. Department of Community Affairs - responsible for coordinating regional, county and municipal planning activities for housing and land use within the coastal zone. Because the DCA possesses a wealth of experience in dealing with local governments, it may be called upon for advice in certifying coastal municipalities and coordinating local regulatory practices. 8. Department of Commerce.- responsible for the promotion of industrial and commercial development within the state's coastal zones. This agency will be called upon to provide expertise in determining the best sites for industrial location after weighing economic benefits and costs. The Department of commerce will encourage the development of coastal-dependent industry within recommended areas of development opportunity. Technical assistance will be 10-10 provided in evaluating industrial' impacts, commercial navigation and the commercial fishing industry. Several other state agencies will have only periodic involvement in the implementation of the CZM program. Coordination of related technical activities whenever deemed essential to sound and responsible program management will be required with the Department of Transportation (highway, rail, water and air facilities), the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation of DER (coastal land and water conservation treatment and preservation), the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (historical, cultural and archaeological preservation), the Pennsylvania Fish Commission (recreational and commercial fishing regulations and facilities), the Pennsylvania Game Commission (wildlife management and sanctuaries) and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (facility siting of utilities). Coordinative Techniques In order to achieve the desired administrative coordination with various State agencies, the Department of Environmental Resources as the central staff of CARB will use interagency agreements, the State Water Resources Coordinating Committee, and the Project Notification Review System of the Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse. The state's Water Resources Coordinating Committee, composed of representatives from the various agencies, will continue to provide forum for coordination, technical evaluation and policy proposals at the State level. The coastal zone staff will work with the Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse to identify coastal projects and programs and effectuate a comprehensive and expeditious review of such activities. The proposed legislation will mandate that all state agencies with coastal zone management functions shall administer projects and programs consistent with the adopted policies and guidelines of the CZM program. A means of achieving this desired coordination would be to incorporate this final program document into the legislation as a statement of legislative intent and a policy framework for implementation of the program. Continuing Program Review Process As a result of the previously described planning processes, technical conclusions, and implementation strategy, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will have a firm base from which to pursue And achieve the necessary administrative and legislative tools to implement its CZM program. Once implemented however, the CZM program cannot abandon its coordinative commitments, regardless of how comprehensive and innovative the nature of the program may be.. The management process must be subject to continuing self-evaluation in order to refine its operation and update its data base on new issues, changing conditions, and public needs. 10-11 The following discussion establishes certain guidelines that must be followed in developing a functional and timely review process. This continuing review process addresses two primary levels: (1) intergovernmental and public coordination, and (2) technical monitoring procedures. A third level, an information management system for efficient storage and distribution utilization'of data throughout program implementation, is proposed in the final section of this chapter. This program review process will be refined and put into final form during the period before implementation, and become effective immediately upon federal approval and state implementa tion. Intergovernmental and Public Coordination The coastal zone staff of DER and the.county and regional planning staffs will provide CARB with the necessary staff assistance to achieve the objective of continuing coordination with other governmental agencies, current and future plans, and the public. During program implementation, it will be essential to refine the procedures for dealing with Federal consistency, to improve interagency coordination at the state level, and to maintain strong state and local interrelationships. To facilitate state and federal cooperation and understanding during program administration, special agreements on particular issues of mutual concern will be developed and,the proposed federal consistency procedures will be implemented. Every effort will be.made to use existing federal and interstate- coordinative organizations (i.e. Federal Regional Council, Delaware River Basin Commission, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Managers), as well as informal contacts. The central coastal zone staff of DER will prepare required materials and attend meetings, whenever necessary, to focus on common problems, joint technical applications, and program consistency, requirements. In the case of state agencies, another set of procedures will be employed to ensure the coordinated application of all relevant state efforts in the coastal zone. All appropriate state agency activities and programs within the coastal zone will be reviewed by the central coastal zone staff through the existing Project Notification and Review System. The existing multi-agency Water Resources Coordinating Committee will be used to conduct reviews of specialized coastal facilities and new programs, (i.e., recreational facilities, power plants) along with a periodic review of the objectives, policies and planning proposals of the CZM program. There will be a continuing need to reexamine components of the coastal zone legal network for gaps and overlaps in authorities. Also, interagency agreements between affected state agencies will be reevaluated in order' to clarify and strengthen their stated functions, and ad hoc advisory committees will be formed as needed to deal with interagency concerns over coastal zone activities. In order to improve and fortify the CZM program at the local level, where the management program will actually be implemented, the M5 T 1 10-12 interests of local governments and the public will be considered through use of several existing public participation mechanisms. The county and/or regional planning staffs will provide the necessary staff assistance. Local coordination will be primarily through the existing Coastal Zone Steering Committees, which will be composed of county planners, municipal officials, and various interest groups. The committees will provide CARB with advice on current and future issues and suggest program refinements based upon changing needs and conditions. Local planning grants will be made available to revise and integrate new program components into municipal plans and-ordinances as needed. Similarly, existing or new local and regional planning efforts will be taken into account during program reevaluations at the State and local levels. Emphasis will be placed on@ multi-jurisdictional approaches to program implementation so that coastal resources shared by more than one local government can be dealt with by all concerned. The public will be given opportunities to participate in the continuing program review process through scheduled workshops and seminars in order to enhance program awareness and to discuss problems and issues. CARB, assisted by the central coastal zone staff, should function so as to prevent duplication of effort, ensure comprehensive review procedures, and improve the general responsiveness of the CZM lead agency. Specific activities which will be undertaken to meet this coordinative objective include the review of federal and state projects and programs affecting the coastal zone, response to federal consistency matters, use of the existing A-95 review procedures, and implementation of an effective system of interagency information exchange. Technical assistance to applicants for federal permits or licenses will be provided as an aid to meeting certification requirements. The CZM program will also attempt to expedite permit reviews among the state agencies. other administrative mechanisms to facilitate continuing review include providing notice and documentation for CZM actions requiring public hearings, administering pass-through grants to local governments, and developing administrative regulations for program implementation. CARB will also ensure that necessary site visitation, consultation, correspondence and project negotiations occur so that all alternatives are fully considered prior to making final land and water use decisions. Technical monitoring Procedures CARB, through its central and local CZM staffs, will institute a policy of continual technical monitoring to accommodate modifications in the data base, standards and criteria, and analytical methodology in response to new economic, social and environmental problems, needs, demands and changes. These activities will identify problems, periodically report on their status, and develop recommendations and policies for their solution. 10-13 It is hoped that the following procedures will initiate a expeditious and comprehensive review of technical coastal zone planning, which will be the basis for most critical land and water use decisions. One of the key policies of the CZM program will be to continually monitor and evaluate its effectiveness, especially that of the previous technical analysis and recommendations (i.e., boundaries, permissible uses, use priorities, managerial network) in order to guide future land and water use decisions. Such detailed evaluations will be carried out with input from other affected local, state and federal agencies, and the public. It will be essential to expand and improve the collection, processing and dissemination of data to ensure that future coastal zone decisions are made on a consistent basis. Efforts will be made to develop a detailed and reliable data management system capable of assisting local-governments in making complex decisions affecting the coastal zone. Because of the comprehensive nature of the CZM concept and the need to consider the coastal zone as a whole, the program staff will work with other agencies to ensure that the state's interests in certain technical issues of greater than local concern are recognized through well developed data, technical analysis, and specific policies. Examples of issues where the CZM program must monitor and play a key role include development of OCS resources, promoting maritime commerce, energy facilities siting, location of utility corridors, planning regional recreation facilities, developing major transportation modes and linkages, and allocating surface use of waters. The CZM program will continue to assess GAPC's of significant naturalf recreational, historical and cultural importance: development opportunities and areas for preservation and restoration will also be investigated. Existing areas will be monitored and reevaluated for special management of problems and proposals for permissible uses, and the designation process will be updated when necessary to identify new GAPC's and APR's for special consideration. Moreover, efforts will be made to identify and examine potential sites for acquisition through the utilization of federal grants for the preservation of estuarine sanctuaries and coastal access areas under sec. 315 of the CZMA. Special reports covering the technical studies, reevaluations, and recommendations will be issued to guide coastal problem solving decisions and to amend the program as necessary. Technical workshops and seminars will be sponsored to gain a diverse input from professionals and special interest organizations involved in coastal zone affairs. Revised CZM Program 10-14 The CARB, in consultation with local, state and federal agencies and the -affected coastal public, will issue an annual CZM program report to identify and analyze new issues, problems and conditions, and to recommend new policies and solutions to problems'. It 'will also be necessary to periodically analyze Pennsylvania's coastal zone legislation to identify deficiencies. Existing legislation would be examined to identify overlapping authorities, and modifications would be considered to improve the various components of the managerial network.- Since the CZM program is a complex and innovative approach to land and- water resource management, the problems associated with multi-level governmental actions to achieve a common purpose and resolve conflicts are many faceted, requiring a responsive practice of continuing assessment. These review procedures will attempt to keep the program on a reasonable course toward full realization of the coastal zone policy framework. Additional procedures will be investigated for their usefulness and suitability to carry out these objectives. Information Management System The coastal zone is a complex system,composed of socioecono mic and environmental considerations as well as multi-level governmental institutions. The coastal zone manager must consider all aspects of the coastal zone in order to make perceptive decisions on land and water uses. The key to intelligent decision making is a continuous, up to date data base. This data must be of @igh quality and easily accessible to the program implementors. Most data is generally available from secondary sources; therefore, the Coastal Zone Information Management system must manipulate this data so that is is kept up to date and easily transferred when necessary. The data base approach is recommended for the information management system. The data is broken down into general categories or modules. Each module is generally comprised of several different data types. A possible breakdown of these modules is shown with the data types and its functions on Figure X-4. This system must also be capable of data comparison, combination, manipulation, retrieval and analysis relating to project planning and review.. Additionally,, the system should be capable of developing models to explore the complex relationships to better evaluate and resolve competing land and water use conflicts. in order to effectively monitor the changes in land and water uses as they relate-to siting of facilities and demographic characteristics, graphic and mapping capabilities should be part of the system. Continuous investigation, verification and reporting is necessary to insure that all changes are incorporated into the system as they occur. 10-15 =1 =P limp sw w M w fm M M Figure x-4 Data Modules, Data Types, and Functions Module Data Types Functions Social Owuershlp Patterns, Demographic Characteristics Evaluates Impacts of projects on these patterns and characteristics. Economic Income, Employment, Output, Input, Technology, Evaluates economic contributions of projects to Competitiveness the areas economy Land Ilse Land Use Inventory, CrltIcal Areas, Waste Disposal Evaluates Impact of projects on current land use patterns and examine future implications Water Use Water Use Inventory, Surface Water Withdrawal and Evaluates Impact of projects on current water use Discharge, Waste Disposal, Groundwater Features patterns and examines future implications Resource Utilization ClAmate, Minerals, Estuaries, Wetlands, Flood Plains, Fvaloates Impacts of projects on utilization of Woodland Areas, Beaches, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, natural. resources and predicts future environ- Transitional Areas mental conseqtiences Cost/Beneftt Finaticial Costs, Physical Costs, Environmental. Costs, Evaluates the extent of project reliance on Social and Economic Costs natural. resources and computes the C/B of projects Compliance Zoning Regulations, CZM Plan Standards and Criteria, Evaluates projects for compliance with the required Permissible Land and Water Use standards and criteria as set forth In local regulations, CZM Plan and Federal requirements Report Ceneration Output from Different Modules Prepares Routine and Special Purpose Reports for users of Coastal. Zone information, and aids in a more Informed decision maklng process The Information Management system should be' centrally located with remote terminals in both coastal areas. This will provide efficient operation for rapid and low cost random access for either specific, routine transactions or unique summarizations. The cost effectively designed configurations such as high speed printers, plotters and connections to other information systems may be directly accessible for routine reports in either coastal zone through the remote terminals. unique reports may be generated at the central location and mailed to the users in either coastal zone. A diagram of potential users is found on figure x-5. The Information Management system is necessary to provide the potential program managers with up to date information in order to effectively manage, analyze, formulate and administer the CZM Program. Until the final implementation mechanisms..are developed, the decision structure, information flows and user requirements are difficult to determine exactly. In any case, the local governments are the primary targets for the system; therefore, the responsibility for the design and development of an information system lies.with the local planners who must determine the exact needs of their respective units of government. FEDERAL CONSISTENCY Introduction Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act,' as amended, requires federal agencies which conduct or support activities directly affecting the coastal zone or which undertake development projects in the coastal zone to do so in a manner that is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with an approved state coastal zone management program. Deviations will only be justified if, because of unforeseen circumstances arising after the approval of a management program, adherence to the program would impose an unreasonable burden on the federal agency in light of the effect of deviation from the management program. Section 307 further dictates that applicants for federal licenses and permits must certify that the proposed activity is consistent with the approved state management program. The state agency which is charged with administering the management program must communicate with the federal licensing agency and indicate whether it concurs or objects to the applicant's certification. If the state objects to the permit or license, the federal agency cannot issue it unless the Secretary of Commerce determines that the activity is consistent with the objectives of the Act or is necessary for national security reasons., In the case of applications for federal assistance, the applicant must indicate the opinion of the appropriate management agency as to the relationship of the activity for which assistance is sought to 10-16 Figure x-5 POTENTIAL USERS OF COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION STATE/ FEDERAL LOCAL AGENCIES COASTAL ZONE GOVERNMENTS & COMMISSION AUTHORITIES STAFF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION -4 SYSTEM COUNTY EMPD/ GOVERNMENTS DVRPC PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS & ORGANIZATIONS the management program. If the proposed project is inconsistent with the state's management program, the federal agency cannot approve the application unless the Secretary of Commerce finds that it is consistent with the Act or in the interest of national security. The consistency requirements embody the Congressional finding in sec 302(h) of the Act that the key to "effective protection and' use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone" is in the state's exercise of full authority over the resources of the coastal zone and the establishment of effective intergovernmental cooperation. The following procedures for implementing federal consistency in Pennsylvania's coastal zones involve the identification of federal actions in or directly affecting the coastal areas, the delineation of criteria for assessing whether federal actions are Ponsistent with the state management program, and the establishment of review processes for assuring consistency. These procedures have been developed using NOAA rules, regulations, and guidelines as a foundation and will utilize existing state and local review pFocesses in order to simplify the procedural requirements for review. The existing review procedures include the A-95 process for review of proposed federal assistance programs; the administrative agreement between the Department of Environmental Resources and the Delaware 4- River Basin Commission for review of projects significantly impacting the water resources of the Delaware River; federal-state -review procedures under secs. 401, 402,. and 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and state and local permitting programs. Pennsylvania recognizes that refinement of, these procedures will occur as a result of review by federal agencies. This review and refinement will occur during the interim period between program submission and actual implementation and -will assure that an effective consistency mechanism will be functioning at the onset of the implementation phase of the program. Federal Actions Affecting the Coastal Zone The following federal actions will be subject to consistency procedures when they occur in, or directly affect Pennsylvania's coastal zones., 1. Federal Activities, Including Development Projects: These federal actions generally include any activity directly affecting the coastal zone which is undertaken, by or on behalf of the federal government or any of its agencies. Development projects involve the erection of buildings or other structures or the alteration of terrain or bodies of water. The acquisition, use, and disposal of real. property (including leasing) by the federal government are also considered to be development projects. Non-development activities include plans, policies, and regulations which, although general in 10-17 nature, will have a direct impact on the land'and water uses of the coastal zone when implemented through existing programs (e.g. effluent guidelines and limitations). 2. Federal Licenses and Permits: These include all licenses or permits which any federal agency is authorized to-issue to conduct any activity affecting land or water uses in the coastal zone. Examples are dredge and fill permits pursuant to sec. 404 of the FWPCA; nuclear power plant licenses issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to 42 U.S.C. secs. 2131-2140; and permits for @ridge construction in the navigable waters of the United States issued by the Coast Guard pursuant to 33 U.S.C. sec. 401. 3. Federal Assistance Programs: Assistance programs include grants, contractual arrangements, loans, guarantees, or insurance under federal programs other than those authorized' in the Act received by state or local government units for the purpose of conducting an activity affecting the coastal zone. The assistance may be used for such diverse activities as housing projects, flood control works,stream channelization projects, purchase of recreation and natural areas, business loans, and transportation facilities. 4. Outer Continental shelf Activities: Within this category of federal actions are any plans for the exploration or development of, or production from submerged lands leased by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. Federal agencies whose actions are likely to directly affect the land and water uses of Pennsylvania's coastal z9nes and, therefore, be subject to consistency requirements, include: 1. Air Force - development activities 2. Army Corps of Engineers - development activities, licenses and permits, assistance programs 3. Coast Guard - development activities, licenses and permits 4. Commerce (Economic Development Administration, 'Maritime Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service) - assistance programs, licenses and permits 5. Energy Research and Development Administration - assistance -programs 6. Environmental Protection Agency licenses and permits, assistance programs 7. Federal Energy Administration - assistance programs 8. Federal Power Commission - licenses and permits 9. General Services Administration - development activities 10-18 10. Health, Education and Welfare - assistance programs 11. Housing and Urban Development (Federal Insurance Administration) development activities, assistance programs 12. Interior (National Park Service, United 'States Geologic Survey, Bureau. of Land Management, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Fish and Wildlife service, Bureau of Mines) - I development activities, licenses and permits, assistance programs 13. Navy - development activities 14. Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses and permits 15. Soil Conservation service development activities, assistance programs 16. Transportation - development activities, assistance.-prog'rams A detailed enumeration of actions requiring federal consistency may be found in Appendix A (Federal Consultation). Because federal agencies may engage in a variety of other actions which could indirectly impact the land and water uses of the coastal zone, the Pennsylvania coastal zone management.proqram will review such actions by means of the A-95 process and will request that federal agencies notify it if they are considering actions, such as technical assistance to local governments, -for which A-95 review is not required.. By reviewing federal.actions whichrmay affect-the coastal zone directly and indirectly, comprehensive and coordinated planning and decision-making by all levels of government in the coastal zone will be reinforced. Criteria for Ass.essing Consistency The following criteria will be employed to determine the consistency of federal actions within or directly affecting the Pennsylvania coastal zon e. Federal Activities, Including Development Projects: Any proposed land and water use, including necessary acquisition, in the designated coastal area of a certified municipality must conform to the permissible use and priority of use criteria delineated in the local zoning ordinances. Development projects must also fall within the permissible uses and priorities for a given segment of a certified municipality's coastal zone. Rules and regulations promulgated by federal agencies for coastal-oriented programs must be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Pennsylvania program. Rules and regulations which are general must be implemented in the Pennsylvania 10-19 coastal area in a manner that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the state program. Federal Licenses and Permits: If a federal agency determines that a license or permit application is of significance in light of the state coastal zone program, 'or requires consistency with the Pennsylvania program, the application and supporting materials must be forwarded to the state and the certified coastal municipality for their review of the applicant's determination of consistency. If the @tate or local government object to the proposal because of its inconsistency with the management program, the application must be denied. Federal Assistance Programs: Projects within or directly affecting the coastal zone for which federal assistance is requested must conform to the adopted use permissibility and priority.criteria of the certified coastal municipality. Planning grants should be conditioned on the recipients' considering the goals and objectives of the state management program. ..I. Outer Continental Shelf Activities: Although Pennsylvania will experience no direct impacts from outer continental shelf exploration or development, it is likely that the state will experience'in direct or secondary impacts as a result of production from the leased areas. Consequently, production plans involving uses of lands and waters in certified coastal municipalities must conform to the permissible uses and use priorities for the affected segment of the certified coastal municipality. r Review Process for Assuring Consistency The Pennsylvania coastal zone management program will utilize the following process to review federal actions within or directly affecting the coastal zone. It will be the responsibility of the Department of Environmental Resources, the lead agency- in Pennsylvania's program, to develop criteria for assessing consistency and to provide other government agencies (local, state, interstate, and federal), and affected applicants with the requisite information which will be employed to judge consistency. Pennsylvania recognizes that its consistency process may require revision if, after consultation with affected federal agencies, identified deficiencies or conflicts arise, or if the federal consistency regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce mandate changes. Federal Activities, Including Development Prolects: The Department of Environmental Resources will assist the above enumerated federal agencies in developing criteria for judging the consistency of their activities and in developing agreements with the agencies which delineate the activities which will require consistency review. The federal agencies will utilize these criteria to evaluate whether activities requiring review are consistent with * the approved 10-20 management program. The federal agency will communicate its evaluation through the office of Management and Budget's A-95 circular process and by direct communication. The Department of Environmental Resources, through its Coastal Zone Management Coordinator, will assist the federal agency if it encounters any difficulty in making its.consistency determination. -Upon receipt of the consistency determination and other required information (15 C.F.R. sec. 921.5 (c)), the Department of Environmental Resources, in cooperation with other appropriate state agencies and affected certified coastal municipalities, will review the consistency evaluation and respond to the federal agency within the time period and in the manner prescribed by 15 C.F.R sec. 921.5(d). Should the Department of Environmental Resources disagree with the federal agency's consistency evaluation and fail to resolve its differences with the federal agency, the Department will request mediation by the Secretary of Commerce and wilfrepresent Pennsylvania in the dispute settlement process established by 15 C.R.F. sec. 921.5(d)-(p). The federal agency will, after the mediation process, proceed with its activities or revise them to comply with the Pennsylvania.program. Should Pennsylvania be dissatisfied with the outcome of the dispute mediation process, it may elect to pursue its remedies in the federal courts. Federal Licenses and Permits: It will be the responsibility of 1--he Department of Environmental Resources, with the assistance of the above described federal agencies,,to develop a list of all federal licenses and permits which require state review to determine whether the activity for which the license or permit is requested will be consistent with Pennsylvania's program. The Department of Environmental Resources will periodically review and modify the list and will also be responsible for transmitting such information to the appropriate federal agencies, the office of Coastal Zone Management, and the public. Any applicant for a federal license or permit for an activity affecting land or water uses in the coastal zone should consult with the Department of Environmental Resources to assure that the proposed activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the coastal zone management program. Applicants for licenses or permits designated by the state as requiring consistency'review or determined by the federal agency to require review because of effect on land or water uses in the coastal zone shall submit a copy of the license or permit application, as well as a signed certification statement indicating that the proposed activity will comply with and be conducted in a manner consistent with the management program. Upon receipt of the application, certification, and any additional necessary information, the Department of Environmental Resources will provide public notice, including requests for hearings and/or comments, as required by 15 C.F.R. sec. 921.6(d). In the case of an application for a federal permit or license for an activity not determined by Pennsylvania to require state review, the Department of Environmental Resources must reply to the federal 10-21 agency, indicating its concurrence or objection to the certification or requesting additional review, within 30 days of receipt of the certification statement from the applicant , or state concurrence is presumed. In the case of an application for a permit or license determined to require state consistency review, the Department of Environmental Resources should make its decision within 90 days of receipt of the certification. If it hasn't replied within 180 days of receipt of the certification materials, 'concurrence will be presumed. The consistency determination will, in either case, be communicated to both the applicant and the federal agency. If the Department of Environmental Resources concurs with the certification, the federal agency may proceed with normal processing of the application. If the Department of Environmental Resources objects to the certification statement, the federal agency may not issue the permit or license. The applicant or the.federal.agency may disagree with the state determination and request the Secretary of Commerce to overrule the decision through the appeal and negotiation process established by 15 C.F.R. sec. 921.6 Ji) to (p). Otherwise, the applicant must reapply if he chooses to pursue the activity. Where appropri'ate, existing permit review procedures at the state and local levels will be utilized to determine consistency. However, it is recognized that not all activities requiring federal permits will require state or local permits because of the doctrine of federal preemption. Federal Assistance Programs: The state coastal zone management program will have the opportunity to review all federal assistance applications for activities within or affecting the coastal zone through the existing A-95 review process; @he state will learn of proposals through the Pennsylvania clearing house. Before final federal action 'on the assistance application, the applicant must obtain a certification from the state indicating whether the activity for which assistance is requested complies with and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the management program. In the case of planning and development assistance applications, the Department of Environmental Resources will forward the application and supporting material to the certified coastal municipality and it will have 30 days to review the application and make its consistency determination. The state will then have 30 days to make its own consistency determination. The state will prepare a consistency statement and send copies to the appropriate clearing house and the applicant. If the Department of Environmental Resources does not object, the federal agency may proceed with processing the application. if, however, the Department of Environmental Resources objects to the application, the federal agency may not approve it. Should disagreement as to te consistency determination arise, negotiations between the federal agency and the Department of Environmental Resources pursuant to the process established by 15 C.F.R. sec. 10-22 921.8(b) to (g) may occur. If the process 'does not resolve the conflict, the Secretary of Commerce may enter as mediator. Outer Continental Shelf Activities: Any applicant submitting any @-lan for the exploration-or development of or production from any area leased under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act shall consult with the Department of Environmental Resources regarding the means for assuring that such activities will be consistent with the Pennsylvania management program. In addition, any applicant for such activities must submit to the Department of Environmental Resources a copy of the plan and a signed certification statement which indicates that each activity identified in the plan as affecting land or water uses in the Pennsylvania coastal zone complies with and will be carried out in a manner consistent-with the management program. Upon receipt of the plan, certification statement, and necessary additional information the Department of Environmental, Resources shall provide public notice (including requests for comments and public hearing if advisable) as required by 15 C.F.R. sec.921.7 (a). The Department of Environmental Resources will review the Plan and certification statement and notify the applicant, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce of its decision within 90 days after receipt of the certification statement. In the event the Department of Environmental Resources does not respond within 180 days of receipt of the certification statement, concurrence will be presumed. If the state concurs with the certification statement, or i f concurrence is presumed, then the processing of the application may continue. If the Department of Environmental Resources objects to the certification statement, then no federal oificial or agency shall grant any license or permit for any such activity unless the decision is overruled by the Secretary of Commerce. The Department of Environmental Resources is responsible for representing the Commonwealth and participating in the appeal and negotiation process established by 15 C.F.R. sec. 921.7 (d) to (g). Excluded Federal Lands Section 304(l) of the Act provides.that lands the use of which is subject solely to the discretion of the federal government or which are held in trust by the federal government are excluded from the coastal zone. The Department of Justice has interpreted this to include all lands owned by the United States. Even though federal lands are excluded from the coastal zone, the uses of those lands are subject to be consistency requirements of the Act where their use impacts the coastal zone. Absent such an interpretation, the consistency requirement of the Act would be rendered meaningless. Consequently, the federal.consistency mechanisms described above will apply to all activities occurring on federally owned lands. Existing legislation which allows state control of certain activities on 10-23 federal lands, such as the FWPCA, will also be utilized as part of Pennsylvania's consistency procedure. 10-24 I a I I I I I I I I a I I I I I I APPENDIX JAB I 'V I @@w 13 4. A FEDERAL CONSULTATION Introduction A major part of preparing and implementing the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Manage- ment Plan involves the development of processes and mechanisms to facilitate coordination among the various Federal Agencies and the Pennsylvania Program, The major objective of such a process is to provide an opportunity for the appropriate Federal Agencies to coordinate their plans and activities for consistency with the Pennsylvania Plan. This consultation mechanism can avoid overlaps and resolve con- flicts between various programs, projects, and plans. The Pennsylvania Program for Federal involvement began in April 1975, when the initial request was sent to various agencies requesting maps of Federally owned coastal lands as well as the agencies'current procedures and plans. A second letter was sent during August 1975 after Pennsylvania received NOAA's official listing of Federal Regional contacts. This letter requested verification of co- ordination and the name of the official contact person. On October 1975, a request was sent to the Federal agencies for their review of "Goals and Objectives of the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program". In January 1976 an invitation was sent to the various agencies inviting them to participate in a Department of En- vironmental Resources sponsored Federal consistency meeting in Harrisburg during February 1971. The discussions at the meeting concentrated on the Program update, the final review of goals and objectives, and the future plans for Program devel- opment and implementation. In November 1976, requests were sent to the Federal Agencies for the review of the applicable sections of the final document. This appendix is a condensed documentation of the Federal consultation process. The CZM staff's interpretation of each agencies national interest, coastal facil- itics, and those activities which require state review during implementation, is presented in chart form. Also included on each agencies'chart are brief synopsis of the interactions which occurred. The inclusions in this appendix are informal and brief discussions and are not to be taken as the complete nor official view of the Department or the Federal Agencies them elves. This section contains copies of the letters and theagenda for the consistency meeting (Harrisburg 2/24/76) sent to the agencies. A list of the Federal agencies and their official contact is included also. A-2 In reply refer to RM-R W 69:18F April 11, 1975 The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources is currently developing a program aimed at managing the land and water resources of the State's coastal areas located along Lake Erie and the tidal reach of the Delaware River. In compliance with the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, we are contacting all Federal agencies with program responsibilities within the coastal areas, and which are likely to be affected by, or have a direct interest in, the development and implementa- tion of a Coastal Zone Management program for Pennsylvania. We extend to you the full opportunity to coordinate your program, projects, or plans with our Coastal Zone Management program. In addition, we will seek guidance from you concerning the siting of facilities meeting requirements (i.e., energy, transportation, recreation, national defense, etc.) which are of greater than local concern, and indicating a clear national interest. At this stage of our program, we are interested in receiving maps of Federal lands that your agency controls within the coastal areas as well as copies of current operational procedures and plans that affect them. We are enclosing a schematic of our interim coastal zone planning boundaries for your region indicating our range of interest. Please respond at your earliest convenience with your office's designated contact man in the program, including telephone number. Should you have any questions, please contact W. N. Frazier of our staff at the above address or by telephone: Area Code 717 787-5008 or 4053. Sincerely yours, C. H. McConnell, Deputy Secretary Encl. Resources Management A-3 In reply refer to RM-R W 69:18 F August 22, 1975 Dear Mr. In compliance with Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, our office has contacted many Federal agencies with program or other responsibilities within the Commonwealth's coastal areas. A memorandum released on August 4 by NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment contained an official listing of Federal regional contacts. Prior to receiving this memorandum, our office transmitted a letter dated April 11, 1975, to you in an effort to gain this desired coordination. We again wish to extend to you the full opportunity to coordi- nate your programs and plans with our Coastal Zone Management Program. Please respond at your earliest convenience to confirm your interest in this endeavor. Should you have any questions, please contact W. N. Frazier of our staff at the above address or by telephone at (717) 787-5008 or 4053. Sincerely yours, C. H. McConnell, Deputy Secretary Resources Management Encl. A-4 In reply refer to RM-R W 69:18 F October 5, 1975 A document entitled, "Goals and Objectives of the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program," is enclosed for your review and comment. Please transmit any comments or questions you may have to George E. Fogg (telephone 717 - 787-6674) by October 31, 1975. We urge you to respond by this date so that your comments and suggestions may be considered. If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you agree with the goals and objectives as stated. In addition, I have enclosed a brochure prepared by NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management. The brochure entitled, "It's Your Coast ... Get Involved," presents an overview of coastal zone manage- ment. Your cooperation is essential to the successful development of this program. Sincerely yours, C. H. McConnell, Deputy Secretary Resources Management Enclosures (2) A-5 In reply refer to RM-R W 69: 18 F January 9, 1976 We cordially invite you to attend a meeting regarding Federal consistency in the development of Pennsylvania's Coastal Zone Manage- ment Program. The meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. on February 24, 1976, in Room 224 of the Evangelical Press Building, Third and Reily Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Participation by all Federal agen- cies with planning and other responsibilities in either of Pennsyl- vania's two coastal areas is being solicited. A tentative meeting agenda is enclosed for your review. We will welcome any maps, reports, plans or other input you feel necessary to the satisfactory treatment of your interests or concerns in the development of our program. If You would like to make any changes or additions to the agenda or if you are unable to attend the meeting, please contact George E. Fogg, Coastal Zone Management Program Coordinator, at the above address or at (717) 787-6674. Sincerely yours, C. H. McConnell, Deputy Secretary Resources Management Enclosure A-6 AGENDA FEDERAL CONSISTENCY IN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ROOM 224, EVANGELICAL PRESS BUILDI14G THIRD AND REILY STREETS HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA FEBRUARY 24, 1976 10:00 A.M.- 1 - Opening Remarks 2 - Introduction 3- Approve Agenda 4- Final review and approval of the Goals and Objectives of Pennsylvania's Coastal Zone Management Program 5- Progress update of Pennsylvania's CZM Program 6- Future plans for the development and implementation of Pennsylvania's CZM Program 7- Group discussion of Pennsylvania's coastal areas of Federal interest in the siting of facilities 8- Final Remarks 9- Adjournment A-7 In reply refer to RM-R W69:18F November 5, 1976 Dear Mr. The Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management staff has initiated work on the final program report. In compliance with the provisions of the original Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, we are continuing our coordination with all Federal agencies with program responsibilities within the coastal areas, and which have a direct interest in the imple- mentation of the CZM program in Pennsylvania. At this time, we are interested in having your agency review the applicable sections of the completed document. We are enclosing information of the final CZM boundaries and the procedure for their de- lineation, as well as a description of the geographic areas of particular concern in the coastal zone and the rationale for their selection. Also enclosed are the draft CZM policy framework and the final CZM document outline. We would appreciate your comments on the enclosed material at your earliest convenience. In addition, please let us know which sec- tion(s) of our draft CZM document (see enclosed outline) you would like to review. If you have any questions, please contact George Fogg, CZM Coordinator, of our staff at the above address or by telephone at (717) 787-6674 or 6816. Sincerely yours, C. H. McConnell, Deputy Secretary Resources Management Encls. (4) Lake Erie Coastal Zone Information Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Information Draft CZM Policy Framework Final CZM Product Outline A 0 In reply refer to RM-R W 69:18F May 2, 1977 We wish to continue our Coastal Zone Management Program coordination with your agency by enclosing several draft chapters of our final program document for your review and comment. We have enclosed Chapter I (Inventory of Coastal Resources and Uses), Chapter II (Current and Past Problems and Issues), the National Interest Section of Chapter IX (Special Considerations in GAPC's), and the Federal Consistency Section of Chapter X (Program Implementation). We would appreciate your comments on the enclosed material at your earliest convenience. A mailing of the remaining portion of our final program document will be forthcoming in June, 1977. If you have any questions, please contact George Fogg, CZM Coordinator, of our staff at the above address or by telephone at (717) 787-6674 or 6816. Sincerely yours, C. H. McConnell, Deputy Secretary Encl. (4) Resources Management A-9 FEDERAL CONTACT AGENCIES REVISED 2/4/77 Mr. Rex VanGorden Mr. Robert L. Lippson Federal Energy Administration Oxford Biological Laboratory Region III Environmental Assessment Division 1421 Cherry Street National Marine Fisheries Service Philadelphia, Pa. 19102 Oxford, Maryland 21654 Sal Bucolo, Chief John Curran, Chief Coastal and Special Studies Section Planning Division Department of Army U. S. Dept. of Commerce Philadelphia District - Corps of Engineers Economic Development Administration Custom House Atlantic Regional Office Second & Chestnut Streets 600 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 Mr. James E. McShane Joseph Yarbrough, Regional Environment Port Development Officer Officer U. S. Department of Commerce Department of Health, Education and Maritime Administration Welfare Eastern Region Region III 26 Federal Plaza 3535 Market St. New York, N.Y. 10007 Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Mr. Robert L. Bond, State Resource Conservationist Nicholas M. Ruha, Chief Federal Building & Courthouse EIS and Wetlands Review Section Box 985 Federal Square Station Environmental Protection Agency Harrisburg, Pa. 17108 Region III Sixth and Walnut Streets Mr. Arthur D. Foley Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 Department of Housing & Urban Development Region III Charles R. Corbett, Chief Curtis Building Marine Environmental Protection Branch Sixth & Walnut Streets U. S. Coast Guard Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 Ninth Coast Guard District 1240 East Ninth Street A. M. Monaco, Regional Engineer Cleveland, Ohio 44199 Federal Power Commission 26 Federal Plaza Fred E. Greene, Chief New York, N.Y. 10007 General Services Administration Delaware - Pennsylvania Branch Space Mr. Frank Finch Management Division Department of the Army Room 9400 Buffalo District - Corps of Engineers William J. Green, Jr., Federal Bldg. 1776 Niagara Street 600 Arch St. Buffalo, N.Y. 14207 Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 Mr. Walter Belter Mr. Thomas Norris, Jr. Energy Research and Development Assateague Island National Seashore Administration National Park Service Room E-269 R-oute 2, P. 0. Box 294 Biomedical and Environmental Research Berlin, Md. 21811 Germantown, Md. 20767 A-10 -2- Charles Day, Secretarial Representative Ms. Lillian M. Banahan _U. S. Dept. of Commerce U. S. Energy Research and Development Federal Region III Administration Wm. J. Green Federal Bldg. Chicago Operations Office 600 Arch Street - Room 10424 9800 South Cass Avenue Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 Argonne, Illinois 60439 Richard A. Davino Mr. Al Ames Office of Secretarial Representative Great Lakes MarAd U.S. Department of Transportation 666 Euclid Avenue - 434 Walnut St. Room 1000 Room 600 Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 Cleveland, OH 44114 Charles R. Smith, Regional Civil Engineer William Kebblish Eastern Region (HQ USAF) U. S. Bureau of Mines 526 Title Building P. 0. Box 733 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Harrisburg, Pa. 17108 Ralph Andrews William Overstreet Fish and Wildlife Service U. S. Geological Survey 1 Gateway Center National Center Suite 700 Mail Stop 109 Newton Corner, Mass. 02158 Reston, Va. 22092 Robert Gift Abigail Miller Bureau of Outdoor Recreation New York OCS Office Federal Office Building Bureau of Land Management 600 Arch Street 6 World Trade Center Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 Suite 600-D New York, N.Y. 10048 Mr. Herman Rubenstein District Civil Engineer Staff Richard Wilderman, Commander Department of Navy Marine Environmental Protection Branch Office of the Commandant Third U. S. Coast Guard District Fourth Naval District Governors Island Philadelphia, Pa. 19112 New York, N.Y. 10004 Charles Kulp David Keifer, Planner U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 112 West Foster St. Room 2115, Federal Bldg. State College, Pa. 16801 North and New Streets Dover, Delaware 19901 A-11 I I I I This section contains a brief documentation I of the Federal Consultation according to agency. I I I I I I a I I a I I I - A-12 I @m as M114"M M@488* **=a seen men meow INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES REQUIRING REQUEST@ / @DATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY A broad and general Tinicum Marsh 4/75-Maps of agency 4/75-(GS) No agency Tinicum Marsh Plan U.S. xpression of policy witl Wildlife owned lands and controlled lands, sent DEPARTMENT regards to the Depart- Center operational plans and list of activities and OF ments National Interests procedures contact man appointed. Outdoor recreation INTERIOR in these seven major acquisition and resource responsibility (BOR) not a land manage- development areas: Independence 8/75-Follow-up request- ment agency but avail- 1. National Park Mall Historical ing coordination and able for technical 1. Natural, cultural, -Park official contact offi- assistance. Appointment State outdoor Service (NPS) historical and cer of contact man. recreation planning 2. Fish & Wildlife archeological values. Service (FWS) 6/75-(BOM) list of state 2. Fish and wildlife 10/75-Review of final liaison officers, no Historic preserva- 3. Bureau of Land resources goals and objectives. agency controlled lands, tion Management technical assistance (BLM) 3. Energy and mineral contact men. resources 1/76-Invitation to 4. Bureau of Mines attend Federal (BOM) Recreational Consistency Meeting. 10/75 DOI guidelines & resources procedures to assist in 5. Bureau of CZM development. Outdoor 5. Water resources 11/76-Agency review of Recreation applicable sections of 1/76 Statement of Nation- (BOR) 5. Food and fiber the final document. al Interest in the Coastal Zone. (DOI) 6. Geological 7. Trust responsibilities Survey (GS) 5/77-Review and Comment 2/76 Attended Federal on draft chapters of Consistency meeting in -the final document. Harrisburg. (DOI,BOM, GS) * * * * 10/76 (BOM) Statement of National Interest. 12/76 (BOR) No comments and list of applicable sections BOR desires to review. A 13 ------------- L so some, ew '00, so as so, as 'M M, 'M :M '80 M as AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES REQUIRING REWEST@ @DATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY U. S. 1/77 (BLM) General DEPARTMENT comments on GAPC's in OF the Delaware Estuary. INTERIOR 2/77 (FWS) Corrections (cont.) regarding GAPC's in Delaware CZ. 2/77 (BOM) Comments on GAPC's,draft policy framework,and offshore gas drilling in Lake Erie. 6/77 (BLM) Comments on National Interest section 14 M man m M INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES REQUIRING REQUEST@ / @DATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY 1. The essential role Air Force 2/76 Invitation to 4/76 Statement of Policy NONE DEPARTMENT OF of the Air Force in Station at attend Federal Consis- on CZM plans. the National Defense. the Phila. tency meeting in International Harrisburg. AIR FORCE Airport. (Delaware 5/76 Air Force facili- The potential to Estuary) ties in the Coastal expand defense require- 11/76 Agency review of Zone. ments on land, in the preliminary sections aj.r, on and under the of the final CZM water in the coastal documents. zone. Thereby making 11/76 Request additional it a high priority use data on exclusion of of coastal resources. 5/77 Review and comment Federal lands and Fed- on draft chapters of i eral agency Consistency, the final document. also identify Air Na- tional Guard Station. 5/77 Agree with the content of the draft chapters. Reserve approval of Federal Consistency until new regs. are published. A-15 AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES INTEWTIONS ACTIVITIES REQUIRING REQUE0 / 1.DATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY To achieve,and assure 4/75 Maps of agency 8/75 List of concerns, Natural Gas Act an abundant supply of owned lands and current and official agency Permits for con- FEDERAL electrical energy NONE operational plans and contact. struction and POWER throughout the United procedures. operation of inter- COMMISSION States with the great- 2/76 Attended Federal state gas pipelines est possible economy 8/75 Follow-up requestkC Consistency meeting in and storage and with regard to the official agency status Harrisburg. facilities. proper utilization of on coordination and natural resources and contact person. comparable responsibil- ities under the 10/75 Request for natural gas act. comments and input on program goals and objectives. 1/76 Invitation to attend Federal Consis- tency meeting in Harrisburg. 11/76 Agency review of applicable sections of the final CZM document. 5/77 Review and comment on draft chapters of the final document. -18 M M @''We M Mae M @ M M M M M M INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES REQUIRING REQUES6 DATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY U. S. ARMY No statement of Nationa1C.O.E. dredge 4/75 Maps of agency 4/75 (B) No lands under Dredge and fill CORPS Interest was received. maintenance owned lands and agency control. permits. OF station Phila current operational Technical assistance ENGINEERS Pa. (Delaware plans and procedures. offered and contact Estuary) man. Beach erosion 8/75 Follow-up request 5/75 (P) Maps of control projects. Philadelphia for coordination and agency owned lands. District (P) official contact person. /76 (B) Attended 10/75 Review of final Federal Consistency Buffalo goals and objectives meeting in Harrisburg. District (B) 1/76 Invitation to L2176 (B) No comments, attend Federal Consis- and specified sections tency meeting in Hbg. of final document. 11/76 Agency review of applicable sections of the final CZM document. 5/77 Review and comment of draft chapters of the final document. A-17 M M, 00, ''66, M W an- M 'am, M, 'M 'a& W W M as AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES REQUIRING REQUEST@ / @DATE RUILY / DATE CONSISTENCY ENVIRONMENTAL No statement of NONE 4/75 Maps of agency 5/75 No Federal land Federal Water PROTECTION National interest was owned lands and current under agency control. Pollution Control AGENCY received. operational plans and Designated program Act. procedures. coordinator. 10/75 Request for 2/76 Attended Federal Clean Air Act review of program goals Consistency meeting in and objectives. Harrisburg. Construction grants 1/76 Invitation to for wastewater attend Federal treatment works. consistency meeting in Harrisburg. Water pollution 11/76 Agency review of control area wide applicable sections of waste treatment the final CZM doucment. management program grants. 5/77 Review and comment on draft chapters of the final document. Water Pollution Control State and interstate program grants. Air quality main- tenance planning. A-20 AGENCY NATIONAL IMEREST FACILITIES INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES REQUIRING REUJEST@ / @i,.DATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY ENERGY RESEARCH No statement of Natiaial NONE 4/75 Naps of agency 11/76 No comments NONE AND interest was received. owned lands and curient presently, but would DEVELOPMENT operational plans and like to review the ADMINISTRATION procedures. complete document. 10/75 Follow-up request-6/77 No comments but ing official agency would like to review status in coordination the complete document. and contact person. 10/75 Request for review of program goalE and objectives. 1/76 Invitation to attend Federal Consis- tency meeting in Harrisburg. 11/76 Agency review of applicable sections of the final CZM document. 5/77 Review and comment of draft chapters of the final document. A-19 ACTIVITIES AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES INTERACTIONS REQUIRING REQUEST/DATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY Consistency of NONE 4/75 Agency owned lands 9/75 Appointment of '701 Planning" DEPARTMENT OF planning activities and current operational official agency contract. open space and HOUSING AND between CZM and other plans and procedures. housing. URBAN plans. 11/76 Insure adequate DEVELOPMENT 8/75 Follow-up reques- level of detail in Lake Housing and commun- ting official agency Erie Section and ity development status on coordination review of complete act. and contact person. document. Public housing- 10/75 Request for review acquisition and of program goals and construction. objectives. Mortgage Insurance 1/76 Invitation to attend Federal Consis- tency meeting in Harrisburg. 11/76 Agency review of applicable sections of the Final CZM docuMent. 5/77 Review and comment of draft chapters of the document. US 00 ON solid= SO M NO As NO 00 Us Us 001 SWIM Us WE W AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES I REQUIRING REWEST@ / @DATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY No statement of National NONE 4/75 Maps of agency 5/75 No agency owned or NONE GENERAL interest has been owned lands and currert controlled lands. SERVICES received. operational plans and Appointment of control procedures. officer. ADMINISTRATION 10/75 Request for review of Program goals and objectives. 1/76 Invitation to attend Federal Consis- tency meeting in Harrisburg. 11/76 Agency review of applicable sections of the final CZM document. 5/77 Review and comment on draft chapters of the final document. A 21 INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES. REQUIRING REQUEST@_/'@IDATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY U.S. The development of a NONE 4/75 Maps of agency 4/75-(FHA) Transporta- Airport develop- DEPARTMENT balanced National Trans- owned lands and current tion facilities under nent aid program. OF portation system, operational plans and state and local control, (FAA) TRANSPORTATION including will articu- procedures. appointment of contact Airport planning lated and integrated * * * * person. grant program. surface, air, water and 8/75 Follow-up request Federal Highway subsurface modes. for official agency. 4/75-(FRA) No agency (FAA) involvement. Administration status for coordination Highway research (FHA) 5/75-(FAA) No agency planning and con- 10/75 Request for rev:1ew responsibility or ' in- struction. (FHA) of program goals and volvement. Appointment Federal objectives. of contact men. Railroad Administration 1/76 Invitation to 9/75 Clarification of (FRA) attend Federal Consis- DOT coordination. tency meeting in Hbg. 10/75 Requested addition Federal Aviation 11/76 Agency review of of transportation Administration applicable sections of oriented goal. (FAA) the final CZM document. 12/76 (DOT) Comments 5/77 Review and comment concerning GAPC and on draft chapters of Coast Guard respons'ib- the final document. ities, review of com- plete document. 6/77 (DOT) Comments are being compiled and will be sent. 4 M MM M M M M = INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES AGENCY NATIUL INTEREST FACILITIES REQUIRING REQUEST /,DATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY The overriding concern NONE 4/75 Agency owned lands 9/75 Official agency NONE of the FEA is that the and current operationa1 contact man FEDERAL siting of energy plans and procedures. appointed. ENERGY facilities is not ADMINISTRATION excluded or unreason- 8/75 Follow-up request- 11/76 Review the com- ably restricted. ing official status of plete final document coordination and with main interest in contact person. specific criteria and regulations for siting 10/75 Request for faciltities of Regional- review of program benefit. goals and objectives. 1/76 Invitation to attend Federal Consis- tency meeting in Harrisburg. 11/76 Agency review of applicable sections of the f inal CZM document 5/77 Review and comment on draft chapters of the final document. A 2 3 INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES REQUIRING REQUEST@ /'@;.DATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY Consider the Great Weather recor- 4/75 Maps of agency 4/75 (MARAD) No Federal Port development Lakes and the Delaware ding sub- owned lands and lands under agency and promotion and U. S. Estuary as a prime stations in current operational control and appointment intermodal planning DEPARTMENT resource providing both Coastal plans and procedures. of designated officer. grants. OF essential transportatiot Zones. 5/75 (NMFS) No Federal - COMMERCE for both domestic and 10/75 Request for revieu lands under agency con- Port expansion international commerce. of programs goals and trol, appointment of planning assistance Development program objectives. contact officer. for new terminals Maritime of the maritime * * * * and harbors. Administration industry should be 1/76 Invitation to 5/75 (NWS) List of (MARAD) given prime consider- attend Federal Consis- weather stations in the ation as they relate tency meeting in Hbg. coastal zones and Grants and loans to the economic benefit contact man appointed. for public works & Economic of the coastal commun- 11/76 Agency review of 8/75 (EDA) Desired levelopment facili- Development ities and the inland applicable sections of coordination with CZM ties. Administration industrial and urban the final CZM document. program. (EDA) centers which coastal Planning and Tech- port facilities serve. 5/77 Review and comment nical Assistance. National (MARAD) of draft chapters of 10/75 (NMFS) Concurred Marine Fisheries the final document. with program goals and Service (NMFS) Preserve or enhance the emphasize preservation Public' works impact remaining ecologically of ecologically sensi- program. National sensitive areas. tive areas. Oceanographic & (NMFS) Atmospheric 2/76 (MARAD, NMFS, NOAA) Administration attended Federal Con- (NOAA) sistency meeting in 11bg. National 11/76 (MARAD) Considera- Weather tion should be given to Service (NWS) four major maritime related areas. 11/76 (NMFS) Close coordination between states is important and preserve unique wetlands. A-26 INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES REQUIRING REQUEST@ / 'MATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY Same as the U. S. Presque Isle 4/75 Maps of agency 5/75 Maps of agency Water Safety Zone epartment of Transpor- Coast Guard owned lands and current controlled lands sent. U.S. ation. Station (Lake operations plans and Appointment of contact COAST Erie) procedures man. Port and Waterway GUARD * * ; * safety and fishing Presque Isle 10/75 Request for 1/76 No comments on Pro- zones. Light Station. review of program goals gram goals and objectiWA 9th District and objectives. Cleveland, Ohio 11/76 Clarification of Anchorage grounds 1/76 Invitation to CZM lakeward boundary attend Federal Consis- description. tency meeting in Hbg. Hazardous sub- 5/77 Clarification of stances and 11/76 Agency review of points in National materials applicable sections of Interest Section. the final CZM document. Permits for the 5/77 Review and comment construction and of draft chapters of modification of the final document. bridges, causeways, dams or dikes in navigable waters of the U.S. A 25 AGENCY NATIONAL INTBEST FACILITIES INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES REQUIRING REQUEST@ tATE RE11LY / DATE CONSISTENCY 4/75 Maps of agency 4/75 (FS) No Federal Watershed protection No statement of natiorvil NONE owned lands and current lands under agency con- and flood preventLon interest has been operational plans and trol and designated U. S. received. procedures. contact man. SCS soil and water DEPARTMENT 8/75 Request official (SCS) No Federal conservation. OF AGRICULTURE agency status for lands under agency coordination and control and appointment Resources conserva- contact person. of contact man. tion and develop- Soil ment. Conservation 10/75 Request for re- 8/75 (SCS) Appointment Service veiw of program goals of agency contact. (SCS) and objective. 2/76 (SCS) Attended 1/76 Invitation to Federal Consistency Forest attend Federal Consis- meeting in Hbg. Service (FS) tency in Hbg. /77 (SCS) General 11/76 Agency review of omments on boundaries, APC's and final pro- applicable sections of uct outline. the final CZM document. 5/77 Review and comment of draft chapters of the final document. 7 -28 mmm INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES REQUIRING REQUEST;1 DATE REPLY / DATE CONSISTENCY W77 (EDA) Review and U. S. general approval of DEPARTMENT preliminary materials. OF COMMERCE A 27t_ mm =11M = = = = = = M = = = = = M = AGENCY NATIONAL INTEREST FACILITIES INTERACTIONS ACTIVITIES REQUIRING CONSISTENCY REQUESTVI)ATE REPLY / DATE U. S. No statement of Parcels of 4/75 Agency owned lands 8/75 No current land DEPARTMENT National interest has land and current operational maps, some parcels of OF been received. plans and procedures. land, appointment of HEALTH, contact person. EDUCATION AND 8/75 Follow-up request WELFARE for official status on agency coordination and contact person. 10/75 Review of Program goals and objectives. 1/76 Invitation to Federal Consistency meeting in Hbg. 11/76 Agency review of applicable sections of the final CZM document. 5/77 Review and comment of draft chapters of thE final document. F-29 B INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES Introduction According to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, public participation is required in the development and implementation of the coastal zone program. Effective citizens participation is an integral part of the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program. There are five essential parts to the participation-coordination mechanism. The first level is the citizens advisory committee, the next level is the steering committee, the third level is the State CZM Subcommittee, the fourth level is the consultants, and the fifth level is the Department of Environmental Resources. Three citizens advisory committees (CAC) were organized in each coastal area to pro- vide a formal forum for public input as well as to advise the State on key issues and problems. The members on the CAC are nominated by the steering committee and usually consist of representatives from public agencies, public and private interests including environmental, business, industrial and citizens groups. The CAC reports directly to the Coastal Zone Steering Committee In the Lake Erie coastal zone, there is a steering committee for each of the three planning areas; the Eastern, Central, and Western study areas. In the Delaware Estuary, there is one steering committee for the three county coastal area. The steering committee voting membership includes a representative of each local govern- ment including counties, townships, and boroughs, whose jurisdiction is adjacent to the shoreline. The purpose of the CZSC is to advise the Department and assist in the coordination between the Department, the local governments, and the regional agencies. The steering committee will also provide assistance and direction to the Department in the planning processes and interim products so as to receive the maximum utility to participating agencies and governments. The CZSC also assists in ensuring that the duplication of efforts and studies are avoided by reviewing the work progr and mechanisms designed by the Department and the consultant. The next level is the State CZM Subcommittee. This committee provides the oppor- tunity to consult with and consider the views of the affected local, State, and Federal agencies in the formulation of the management program as well as involve- ment in the program implementation. The Subcommittee was used to develop a process and structure to resolve conflicts among competing coastal zone uses due to existing or proposed agency policies or program . Voting membership on the Subcommittee is open to any member of the Water Resources Coordinating Committee with relevent in- terest in the coastal zone and program implementation. Non-voting technical advi- sory memberships are open to any consultants involved in coastal zone studies. The consultants for public participation in the coastal zone program.'are the Erie Metropolitan Planning Deparrment in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission in the Delaware Estuary. These consultants are responsible for maintaining the operation of steering committees to represent local governments and to advise the State Subcommittee. The Department has employed various devices to make it an effective public partic- ipation program. Slide presentations have been given to various citizens,business and environmental groups emphasizing problem areas, assets and recommended changes in the coastal zone. A brochure was published for the purpose of outlining the goals, objectives, issues and general description of the States two coastal areas. Localized quarterly newsletters and a public participation report were published by the consul- tants for widespread distribution to,intensify general public awareness. The De- partment also took advantage of the news media for staff interviews and meeting coverage. The Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Program has worked closely with neighboring coastal states to provide a more cohesive interstate coastal plan. The interstate coordi- mmi native mechanism for Lake Erie is the Great k4i-s Basin Co ssion Standing Committee on Coastal Zone Management. In the Delaware Estuary Coastal Area, the Department participates in the Middle Atlantic Coastal States meetings. In addition to the formal meetings, informal discussions and correspondence have been made with New York, Ohio, Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland. B-3 CZM CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATING MECHANISMS Department of Environmental Resources Regional Federal/ Planning State Interstate Agencies Subcommittee Coordination DVRPC (State EMPD Agencies) (Consultants Steering Committee(s) (1 in Delaware Estuary) 0 in Lake Erie) Citizen Advisory Direct Influence Committees Feedback (3 ineach area) This section documents the intergovernmental coordinative and public involvement mechanisms for the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone. 4 COASTAL ZONE STEERING COMMITTEE (DELAWARE ESTUARY): Voting David Froehlich'(Chm.) - Bucks County Planning Commission Gretchen Leahy - Bucks County Municipal Governments (Coastal) Peter Allen - Philadelphia City Planning Commission H. Edward Miles Delaware County Planning Commission Charles T. Boles Delaware County Municipal Governments (Coastal) Steve Merriken - Chester City Planning Department Delaware River Basin Commission Advisory Delaware River Port Authority (Willard Cooper) Water Resources Association (Paul Felton) League of Women Voters (Margot Hunt) Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce Academy of Natural Sciences Army Corps of Engineers (Sal Rucolo) Environmental Protection Agency (Barbara D'Angelo) Pa. Dept. of Community Affairs (Phila. Office) (Gretchen Hoekenga) Warner Co. (Charles Walters) Sun Oil Co. (R. H. Nichols) Philadelphia Electric Co. (G. J. Beck) Old City Civic Association (Woody Stange) Greater Philadelphia Partnership (Paul Berger) Representatives from 3 county citizen advisory committees, B-5 DATE MEFING WW T H M17ING and Location JUNE lst Delaware Estuary Discussion of grant application to NOAA 5 Ad Hoc 1974 Steering Committee DVRPC support Discussion.of program basics OCTOBER 2nd Delaware Estuary Overview of CZM Act 9 Ad Hoc 1974 Steering Committee First year work elements and program Discussion of program basics JANUARY 3rd Delaware Estuary Steering committee membership and roles 30 Steering Committee established 1975 Two step process for boundary delineation Discussion of FEBRUARY 4th Delaware Estuary 28 Steering Committee Initial inland boundary 1975 Citizen participation Local government participation MARCH Delaware County Election of local representative to steering 26 Citizens Meeting committee 1975 APRIL Bucks County Discussion on election of local representative 3 Citizens Meeting to steering committee no representative 1975 elected. B-6 DATE MEL71NG 90M OF 7E. MEETING and Location MAY 5th Delaware Estuary Work program introduced 2 Steering Committee 1975 Citizen participation meetings discussed Defined direct and significant impacts MAY Bucks County Election of local representative to the 22 Citizens meeting steering committee 1975 JUNE Delaware County Discussion of 17 Citizens meeting 1975 . Nature of program . Objectives and policies . Slide show JUNE Bucks County Discussion of 24 Citizens meeting 1975 Nature of program Objectives and policies Slide show JUNE Philadelphia County Discussion of 26 Citizens meeting 1975 Nature of program Objectives and policies Slide show JULY Marine Advisory Services Evaluate Coastal Zone 1975 Management Program B-7 DATE nFING MAN OF H nFIWG and Location JULY 6th Delaware Estuary Steering committee chairman elected 17 Steering Committee Goals and objectives discussed 1975 Review and evaluate Citizen Questionnaire AUGUST 7th Delaware Estuary Review of second year contrac t 28 Steering Committee Review of MAS evaluation 1975 Discussion on papers on problem and issues and direct and significant impacts SEPTEMBER 8th Delaware Estuary Discussion on Citizen participation program 25 Steering Committee revision 1975 Discussion of paper on interrelationships of CZ program with other planning program OCTOBER 9th Delaware Estuary Discussion of 22 Steering Committee 1975 . Transportation systems paper . Direct and significant impact methodology . Marine Advisory Service recommendations NOVEMBER Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program brochure is published 1975 NOVEMBER Delaware County Meeting held jointly with Delaware County 18 Citizens Meeting Planning Commission 1975 Overview concept of CZM Citizen participation information CZM boundary discussion B-8 DATE MEUING S11M OF T@E MITM and Location November Bucks County Citizens Problems and issues within and affecting the 24 Meeting Coastal Zone 1975 Public access to river December Philadelphia County Overview concept of CZM 2 Citizens Meeting 1975 Citizen participation information CZM boundary discussion December 10th Delaware Estuary Discussion on: 17 Steering Committee 1975 Geographic areas of particular concern (GAPC) Areas of natural value Alternatives for economic aualysis January "TIDINGS" 1976 Volume 1 #1 (Delaware Coastal Zone Newsletter) JANUARY Philadelphia County GAPC's discussion 21 Citizens Meeting 1975 CZM boundary discussion JANUARY Bucks County GAPCs -,iii@us-s--i-ofi`-- 26 Citizens Meeting 1975 CZM boundary discussion FB- 9 DATE MEFING MM a: a MIME and Location JANUARY Delaware County Problems and issues within and affecting the 29 Citizens Meeting Coastal Zone 1976 GAPC discussion FEBRUARY llth Delaware Estuary GAPC's discussion of development opportunity areas 4 Steering Committee 1976 Discussions on final CZM documents to be produced MARCH "TIDINGS" 1976 Volume 1 #2 Published MARCH 12th Delaware Estuary Final Product outline 4 Steering Committee 1976 Discussions of legal aspects of State and County Agenda for Citizen Meetings MARCH Bucks County Citizens Discussion on impact assessment methodology 25 Meeting 1976 Discussion of possible implementation schemes GAPC's discussed MARCH Delaware County Discussion of 29 Citizens Meeting Working methodology 1976 Policy framework Possible implementation schemes GAPC"s B-10 DATE THING WfM U: THE MOING and Location Philadelphia County Discussion of MARCH Citizens Meetings 31 with . working methodology 1976 "208" Water Quality . program.elements Study . possible implementation schemes APRIL Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management and State planning efforts 8 Intergovernmental 1976 Committee on Land Use APRIL 13th Delaware Estuary Means of implementation 22 Steering Committee 1976 Discussion on areas for preservation and restoration (APR's) Impact analysis for direct and significant and permissible uses MAY 14th Delaware Estuary Means of program implementation 20 Steering Committee 1976 GAPC's and APR's discussion Resource types for coastal activities JUNE "TIDINGS" 1976 Volume 1 #3 Published JUNE Philadelphia County Discussion on 3 Citizens Meeting Final management boundary 1976 Ongoing impact analysis Implementation advantages Final designation of Philadelphia GAPC's B-11 DATE "FING OW OF THE MEETING and Location Discussion of JUNE Bucks County . Ongoing development of policies, objectives, 10 Citizens Meeting program authorities and results 1976 .Final Management boundary JUNE Delaware County Discussion of 15 Citizens Meetings Final Management boundary 1976 Ongoing development of policies, objectives, program authorities and results Review of CZM steering committee role JUNE 15th Delaware Estuary Draft CZM policy framework 17 Steering Committee Means of program implementation 1976 Impact analysis and determination of permissible uses for final boundary Discussion of impact assessment network (IAN) JULY 16th Delaware Estuary List of coastal resources for impact analysis 30 Steering Committee presented 1976 Discussion of tentative inland boundary in Delaware County SEPTEMBER 17th Delaware Estuary Discussion of IAN 16 Steering Committee 1976 Discussion of Philadelphia Inland Boundary SEPTE24BER DVRPC sponsored boat Explanation of CZM program 30 tour of the Delaware 1976 Estuary Reconnaissance of Philadelphia shoreline from the Delaware River E--J12 DATE MEFING SUWY OF H NYING and Location OCTOBER Bucks Audubon Slide show on problems in Bucks County 5 Society Lecture 1975 OCTOBER 18th Delaware Estuary State-A-uthorities needed to implement CZM 22 Steering Committee program 1976 Report on study of "Four Environmentally Sensitive Areas" DECEMBER 19th Delaware Estuary Means of implementation 3 Steering Committee Policy priorities for legal analysis 1976 Discussion on approach to permissible analysis Schedule of products through March 1977 JANUARY 20th Delaware Estuary Various implementation alternatives 27 Steering Committee Procedures for delineation and layout of final 1977 boundary (Bucks Co.) Description of these step permissibility analysis JANUARY Bucks County Discussion on policy framework 31 Citizen Meeting Legislative alternatives for implementation 1977 Procedure for delineation and physical layout of final Bucks Co. CZM boundary FEBRUARY Philadelphia County Discussion on three major implementation 7 Citizen Meeting alternatives 1977 Status report on OCS impact study Discussion on draft policy framework Procedure for delineating and physical location of final Philadelphia Co. CZM boundary B-13 DATE MEETING WfM OF THE METING and Location Summary of CZM program FEBRUARY Delaware County 9 Citizen Meeting Discussion of three major implementation 1977 alternatives Review of finalized CZ policy framework FEBRUARY 21st Delaware Estuary Discussion on various aspects of implementation 18 Steering Committee Comments on working paper and final document 1977 draft chapters Discussion of new legislation Discussion on Draft Chapters MARCH 22nd Delaware Estuary 18 Steering Committee Outline of final permissibility analysis work 1977 Outline of current NOAA shoreline access funding APRIL 23rd Delaware Estuary Discussion on Draft Chapters 20 Steering Committee Explanation of use-priorities 1977 Discussion of fourth year work tasks "TIDINGS" APRIL 1977 VOLUME 2 #1 PUBLISHED Discussions on roles of LOW and DCPD Presentation on overview of current and future MAY Delaware County status of the CZM Program 2 Citizens Meeting Presentation on specific problems, issues, goals, 1977 and objectives General CZM discussions B-14 DATE MEETING aMY OF H MEFING and Location MAY CZSC Workshop Review of-Recreation section 1.9 Comments on Chapter 5 1.977 Comments on Chapter 6 Discussion and Comments on Draft JUNE CZSC Workshop 10 Chapter 4 1977 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 B-15 This section documents the intergovernmental coordinative and public involvement mechanisms for the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. URBAN AREA STEERING COMMITTEE (LAKE ERIE): Voting John E. Horan (Chm.) - City of Erie Mario S. Bagnoni - Erie City Council Terrence Reagan, Jr. - Erie City Planning Commission Theodore E. Mohnkern - Lawrence Park Twp. (Sup.) Raymond M. DePlatchett - Lawrence Park Twp. (Sup.) Gerald S. Salsburg - Millcreek Twp. (Sup.) Paul J. Martin - Millcreek Twp. (Sup.) Arthur F. Detisch - Millcreek Twp. Planning Commission Robert Zawadski - Erie/N.W. Pa. Port Authority Norman Stone - Wesleyville Borough AdvisoEy Representatives from urban area citizen advisory committee WEST COUNTY STEERING COMMITTEE (LAKE ERIE): Voting Fred Park - Girard Twp. (Sup.) Korb Bryant - Girard Twp. (Sup.) - Chm. Blaine Lehman - Girard Twp. Planning Commission Thomas K. Hanninen - Girard Borough (Councilman) R. M. Holliday - Girard Borough (Councilman) Walter Nielsen - Girard Borough Planning Commission Ray Babbitt Platea Borough (Councilwin) B-16 inkle. Fairview Borough (@qouncilman) Ronald H. Fred Wellman - Fairview Borough (Councilman) Richard J. Petrone Fairview Borough Planning Commission Richard Walbridge Springfield Twp. (Sup.) Cecil Mullen - Springfield Twp. (Sup.) William Johnson - East Springfield Borough*(Councilman) Roland E. Evans - East Springfield Borough (Councilman) George N. Gilbert - Lake City Borough (Councilman) Walter R. Blank Lake City Borough (Councilman) Steven D. Dusza Lake City Borough Planning Commission John Klier - Fairview Twp. (Sup.) Advisory Representatives from west county citizen advisory committee EAST COUNTY STEERING COMMITTEE (LAKE ERIE): Voting George N. Burton Northeast Borough (Councilman) - Chm. John Cunningham Northeast Borough (Councilman) Dr. George Moylan - Northeast Borough Planning Commission L. M. Davis - Northeast Twp. Planning Commission C. Maurice Youngs - Northeast Twp. (Sup.) Roy Thomson - No@theast Twp. (Sup.) Gerald R. Blanchfield - Harborcreek Twp. (Sup.) James E. Whitry Harborcreek Twp. (Sup.) J. T. Hallgren Harborcreek Twp. Planning Commission Advisory Representatives from east county citizen advisory committee B-17 DATE EAST STLDY AREA CENTPOL STLJI)Y AREA WEST STLMY AREA STEERING CUIMITTEE STEERING -CUIMITTEE STEERING COMITTEE MARCH Program work objectives 5 and specific elements 1975 established. Purpose of and membership on the Steering Committee. MARCH Citizen Advisory Com- 19 mittee established - Steering Committee members appointed, election of steering committee chairman. MAY Program work objectives 6 and specific elements 1975 established. Purpose of and membership on the steering committee. MAY Steering committee 14 members appointed and 1975 chairman elected. MAY Program work objectives 21 and specific elements 1975 established. Purpose of and membership on the steering committee. JUNE 26 - 27 NEWSPAPER ARTICLES CALLING FOi PUBIC 1975 PARTICIPATION IN THE COASTAL ZONE EMENT PROGRAM L DATE EAST STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA WEST STUDY AREA STEERING MIME STEERING -CUIMITrE STEERING WYMIlM JULY 1975 MARINE ADVISORY SERVICES EVALUATE PENNSYLVANIA PROGRAM JULY - AUGUST CZM STAFF TELEVISION I TERVIEW 1975 WICU (July 14) WSEE (August 21) AUGUST Election of steering 26 committee chairman. 1975 SEPTEMBER CZM background informa- 16 tion. Public opinion 1975 survey. Bluff recession and shoreline presentation. OCTOBER Erie Coastal Resource 21 Analysis distributed. 1975 Public Opinion Survey. Discussions on various coastal zone topics. OCTOBER Draft copy of Pennsylvani, 22 goals and objectives 1975 distributed. Bluff recession and shoreline erosion presentation. Public opinion survey. B- 9 DATE EAST STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA WEST STUDY AREA STEERING CCFMITTEE STEERING .01MITTEE STEERING CCVMIITEE NOVEMBER Presentation by Pennsyl- 17 vania Fish Commission and 1975 discussion on "Salmon in Lake Erie. " Public opinior survey. NOVEMBER 1975 "PUBLIC PARTICIPATION" INTERIM REPORT - - ERIE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL AONE MANAGEMENT BROCHURE JANUARY PUBLIC VALUES AN D PREFERENCES STUDY 1976 FOR THE LAXE ERIE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FEBRUARY Discussions on legal prob- 10 lems in the coastal zone. 1976 Goals and objectives approved. FEBRUARY Discussions on legal 18 problems in the coastal 1976 zone, Goals and objec- tives approved. APRIL Discussions on statewide 14 and specific local goals. 1976 Discussions on GAPC's and tentative CZM boundary. FB 20 DATE EAST STLDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA WEST STUDY AREA STEERING CHITTEE STEERING -COMITTEE STEERING CMITTEE APRIL Discussions on statewide and specific local goals. 20 1976 Discussion on GAPC's and tentative CZM boundary. APRIL Discussion on statewide 21 and specific local goals. 1976 Discussion on the GAPC's and tentative CZM bound- arY. JUNE Final CZM boundary ap- 15 proved. Discussions on 1976 GAPC's. Presentation on Great Lakes' Lake levels. JUNE Final CZM boundary ap- 16 proved. Discussion on 1976 GAPC's. Presentation on Great Lakes' Lake levels. JUNE Final CZM boundary approw-d 17 1976 Presentation on Great Lakes' Lake levels. SEPTEMBER Joint Meeting with Municipal Officizls 27,28,29 1976 DISCUSSIONS JN FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND FUNDING B-21 DATE EAST STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA WEST STUDY AREA STEERING CUIMITrE S1 ING -COMITHE STEERING CUIMITTEE OCTOBER Fairview Township 21 Municipal officials 1976 meeting. NOVEMBER Northeast Township Springfield Township 1976 supervisors meeting(11/8) supervisors meeting(Ll/l) Harborcreek Twp. super- Girard T-ownship, super- visors meeting (11/10) visors meeting (11/9) NOVEMBER COMPLETION OF FILM ON THE LAKE ERIE 15 1976 COA;TAL ZONE (EMPD) MARCH CITIZENS COUCERNED WITH COASTAL ZONE 8 MANAG@XMT IN ERIE COUNTY 1977 MARCH Discussion on legisla-- 14 tive alternatives. 1976 MARCH Discussion on legislative 16 alternatives. 1977 B-22 DATE EAST STUDY AREA CENTRAL STUDY AREA WEST STUDY AREA STEERING CCPMITTEE STEERING -CMITTE STEERING CUIMITTEE MARCH Discussion on legislative 21 alternatives. 1977 B-23 This section documents the State inter-agency coordinative mechanism. Members of Coastal Zone Management State Subcommittee. Kenneth A. Bartal Bureau of Water Quality (DER) Vernon M. Beard, Chairman Bureau of Resources Programming (DER) David Berman Historical and Museum Commission David Blair Office of Planning and Research (DER) Christopher Capotis Erie Metropolitan Planning Department Raj Chadha Office of State Planning and Development John T. Fedko Bureau of Systems Management (DER) Bruce Hearn Department of Community Affairs Fred W. Johnson Pennsylvania Fish Commission Afton W. Schadel Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation (DER) Frank Schrey Department of Commerce Arthur A. Socolow Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey (DER) Nicholas I. Vukovich Pennsylvania Game Commission Alec J. Wisch Governor's Energy Council Maxine T. Woelfling Office of Enforcement and General Counsel (DER) Michael A. Wolf Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission B-24 DATE MOING aMY OF H MENG and Location -JANUARY CZM Introduction to CZM Act 10 Subcommittee Role of CZM subcommittee 1975 Discussion on ecological analysis Designation of special task force JANUARY CZM Discussion of CZM program goals and objectives 20 Roles and responsibilities of Task Force Members 1975 Task Force Task Force Work Assignments FEBRUARY CZM Recommendations of interim CZM boundaries 14 Discussion of State role in program development 1975 Task Force and implementation Discussion of CZM "critical path" for three year work program Discussion of Environmental.element master'list FEBRUARY CZM Role of local citizen advisory committees 21 Presentation of task force recommendations 1975 Subcommittee Advisory membership extended to public planning agencies Discussions by NOAA representatives MARCH CZM Discussions on program responsibilities 12 DVRPC scope of work presentation 1975 Task Force Local steering committee status MARCH CZM Task Force report 20 1975 Subcommittee Revised CZM subcommittee role Task Force disbanded B-25 DATE MEFING MARY OF H nEING and Location APRIL CZM Discussion on th ree year planning process 17 1975 Subcommittee Discussion of draft second year grant application JUNE CZM DVRPC review of first year work on the program 3 1975 Subcommittee Presentation of slides on the Delaware Estuary JULY CZM EMPD presentation of first.year work completed 16 1975 Subcommittee Slide presentation and narration describing the organization of public participation mechanisms in the Erie Coastal Zone AUGUST CZM Status report on second year activity 28 1975 Subcommittee Discussion on DVRPC draft copy of "Direct and Significant impact of land use on coastal water". OCTOBER CZM Outlined the revised critical path diagram 9 1975 Subcommittee Work activity status report Discussion on DVRPC paper on "Interrelationships between the CZM program and other planning efforts." NOVEMBER CZM Results of DVRPC Transportation Study 19 1975 Subcommittee Program coordination with all other ongoing State and Federal programs B-26 DATE MEETING WM OF H MYING and Location JANUARY CZM Status at second year work activities 15 Revised program goals and objectives discussed 1976 Subcommittee Discussion on final product, Federal requirement and threshold papers MARCH CZM Presentation on "Inventory and analysis of Lake 11 Erie ecologically sensitive coastal areas 1976 Subcommittee Update on inventory and analysis of Delaware GAPC Discussions on means and organizational structure for CZM program implementation MAY CZM GAPC's for Delaware Estuary and Lake Erie 12 presented 1976 Subcommittee Discussions on CZM program implementation JUNE CZM Presentation of conceptual framework for developing 18 coastal zone management policies 1976 Subcommittee Policy framework format accepted AUGUST CZM Coastal Zone policy framework revised 18 1976 Subcommittee Discussion on State level policy making committee OCTOBER CZM Status report on third year work activities 28 1976 Subcommittee EMPD and DVAPC delineation of final CZ boundaries Report by Governor's Energy Council on OCS impact study rB-27 DATE MOING S-MY OF T@E @EFING and Location NOVEMBER Erie legislative Briefing on CZK program 1976 delegation briefing Discussion on legislative alternatives DECEMBER CzM Status report on third years activities 14 1976 Subcommittee Discussion on implementation Discussion on priorities FEBRUARY CzM Status report on third year activities 10 1977 Subcommittee Discussion on legislative alternatives Discussion of implementation Comments on Delaware Estuary difili-efi-involvement meetings FEBRUARY Erie Legislative Background to CZM Program 1977 Delegation Lake Erie film presentation C2M briefing Legislative alternatives Future CZM funding MARCH Philadelphia Background to CZM Program 1 Legislative Delegation Delaware Estuary slide presentation 19" CZM briefing Legislative alternatives Future funding for CZM MARCH Bucks and Delaware Background to CZM Program 21 Delegation 1977 Delaware Estuary slide presentation CZM briefing Legislative alternatives Future funding for CZM B-2S DATE MEFING SPM T H TUING and Location APRIL CzM Status Report on third year work activities 19 Subcommittee Discussion on potential implementation 1977 alternatives Discussion draft chapters Status Report on third year work activities JUNE CzM Discussion on local coordinative efforts 16 Subcommittee Review of document conflicts 1977 Discussion of 4th work activities -29 This section documents the interstate coordination that Pennsylvania has participated in for the Coastal Zone Management Program. B-30 DATE MEFING aMY OF H RITING and Location APRIL Great Lakes Basin Organizational meeting 9 Commission (GLBC) 1974 Boundary determinations Standing Committee on Czx Determination of permissible land and water uses Chicago, Illinois 2 MAY GLBC Discussion on CZM grant application 21 Standing Committee on 1974 CZM CZM committee structure Schiller Park, Illinois JULY GLBC Report on mapping activities in the Great Lakes 12 Standing Committee on 1974 CZM Discussions on various Lake activities Detroit, Michigan SEPTEMBER GLBC Discussions of committees, State programs 20 Standing Committee on 1974 CZM Planning and design manuals Romulus, Michigan 5 DECEMBER GLBC Recession rate workshop 5 Standing Committee on 1974 CZM Discussion on Strategy alternatives National interests Committee work plans Romulus, Michigan 6 FEBRUARY GLBC CZM boundary and segmentation workshop 20 Standing Committee on 1975 CZM Discussion on Out of State travel problems Nuclear power siting Detroit, Michigan -31 DATE MEE-TING OM (F 'RE MEETING and Location JUNE MIDATLANTIC COASTAL State Planning programs discussed 20 STATES (MAS) 1975 Program development requirements Administrative issues Annapolis, Maryland 7 OCTOBER GLBC Review of Federal regulations. 1 Standing Committee 1975 on Committee future activities CzM Chicago@ Illinois OCTOBER MIDATLANTIC COASTAL OCS Development 10 STATES 1975 Program approval by NOAA Sandy Hook, New Jersey DECEMBER GLBC Discussion on 9 Standing Committee 1975 on Federal Insurance Administration CzM Madison, Wisconsin Erosion Hazara guidelines JANUARY MIDATLANTIC COASTAL Discussion of threshold papers 23 STATES 1976 New York, New York 9 FEBRUARY GLBC Discussion of potential areas of planning conflict 4 Standing Committee on with CZM, 208 and 701 programs. 1976 CzM Cleveland, Ohio -j [B-32 DATE MEETING SITM OF THE MEE@ING and Location 10 MAY GLBC Discussion on: 5 Standing Committee on Status reports 1976 CZM Shore erosion �tate-Federal consultation & Federal consistency Uses of regional benefit Organization of State CZM programs to implement Detroit, Michigan the plan JUNE GLBC Detailed breakdown of the work elements 3 Standing Committee on 1976 CZM Energy Steering Committee Romulus, Michigan 11 JULY GLBC Development of the Great Lakes 14 Standing Committee on 1976 CZM Regional public awareness program Duluth, Minnesota JULY MIDATLANTIC Introduction to the latest CZM amendments 28 COASTAL 1976 STATES State submission schedule Tour of various projects at the College of Marine Studies Lewes, Delaware AUGUST MIDATLANTIC Discussions on 30 COASTAL 1976 STATES CZM Act amendments C2M boundaries Permissible uses Annapolis, Maryland SEPTEMBER GLBC Project overview 13 - 14 Energy Steering Committee Unit reports Assignment of work projects Romulus, Michigan DATE MEETING WWY OF H MOING and Location 12 SEPTEMBER GLBC Public involvement workshop 29 - 30 Standing Committee on 1976 CzM Buffalo, New York OCTOBER GLBC Progress reports by project managers 13 CZM Energy Steering 1976 Committee Romulus, Michigan OCTOBER MIDATLANTIC Discussions on 15 COASTAL 1976 STATES GAPC's Interstate coordination Federal level interest Cape Charles, Virginia DECEMBER GLBC 13 Vegetation workshop 1-2 Standing Committee on Discussions on 1976 CzM . Fisheries Management . Federal Consistency . Great Lakes shoreline damage Chicago, Illinois . Energy Facilities siting 14 FEBRUARY GLBC Discussion on Federai Insurance Administration 2 Standing Committee on plans for Great Lakes Region 1977 CzM Discussion on vegetation publication Detroit, Michigan Discussion on Budget 'A B ---J3 4 DATE MEETING aMY OF H MITIN3 and Location 16 Discussion on FIA/CZM Committee findings JUNE GLBC Discussion on: 7 Standing Committee on Hazardous materials transportation 1177 CZM Vegetation publication Damage Survey Winter navigation programming Detroit, Michigan Federal Consistency discussion AM __JB-35 C TECHNICAL SUPPORT INFORMATION INTRODUCTION The coastal zone is a complex ecosystem made up of many smaller processes functioning as a unit . In order to understand the coastal zone, it is necessary to break the large unit into smaller, more easily studied systems. As the preliminary step in developing the coastal zone management program, extensive technical baseline studies were conducted by the program staff and consultants. These studies involved the physical as well as the socioeconomic characteristics of both the Pennsylvania coastal zones. The baseline studies enabled the Coastal Zone Staff to thoroughly understand the complex system and from there, to make perceptive decisions and recommendations on the wise use of our coastal zone and its resources. This appendix is a compilation and synopsis of those basic technical support studies that are not directly included in Pennsylvania's final document. This information includes reports, maps, brochures, newsletters and other items. Most information is only applicable to one coastal zone or the other; however, some information is combined on both coastal zones and is noted in the text as such. DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE This first section contains a listing and brief description of those working papers developed for the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone. These papers are listed chronologically according to chapter breakdown, and are only applicable to the Delaware Estuary except as noted for both areas. These support documents are available on a limited basis, to those interested, from the offices of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission or the Department of Environmental Resources, Coastal Zone Management Program. CHAPTER I - INVENTORY OF COASTAL RESOURCES AND USES ATLAS DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE DELAWARE RIVER ESTUARY: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. August 1975 - 37 Pages. This is a summary of the description, significance and source for each of the maps developed in the inventory phase of the Coastal Zone Management Program. These maps include environmental, ecological, demographic, and economic parameters within the Delaware Estuary. There are 35 maps described, and they are prepared at a scale of I" = 20001. SOCIOECONOMIC DATA FOR COASTAL ZONE PLANNING IN THE DELAWARE RIVER ESTUARY: :alaware Valley Regional Planning commission. August 1975 - 27 Pages. This report summarizes various demographic and socioeconomic characteristics within the coastal zone. The parameters studied include total population, black population, employment, median C-1 income, families with poverty level income, and housing tenure. This baseline study is useful in describing the residents and background characteristics of the Delaware River Estuary. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS IN THE COASTAL ZONE: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. October 1975 - 35 Pages. This paper studies transportation systems which help to shape the patterns of urban life and the spatial structure of a community. The study considers the general problems of transportation systems and includes a cursory examination of highways, public transportation, highway network, freight rail facilities, airport facilities, and port facilities. WORKING PAPER ON ALTERNATIVES FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. December 1975 - 6 Pages. This paper discusses two general methodologies to analyze direct and indirect economic impacts. The first analytical method involves the matrix or checklist approach. The second method requires mathematical modeling or simulation. CHAPTER II - CURRENT AND PAST PROBLEMS AND ISSUES PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITHIN AND AFFECTING THE COASTAL ZONE: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. September 1975 - 58 Pages., This paper discusses the problems which face coastal zone management. It represents the first element in the development of a policy framework by identifying problems and initiating agency involvement in the Coastal Zone Management Program. CHAPTER III - FUTURE DEMANDS AND DECISIONS COASTAL RECREATIONAL ANALYSIS: Department of Environmental Resources, CZM Staff. October 1976 - 30 Pages (Both Areas). This analysis includes an examination of the coastal zone recreation issues, an analysis of regional data to formulate trends in coastal recreation. The paper also identifies the coastal recreation resources and the selection of sites to meet future recreational demands. CHAPTER IV - EXISTING MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY LEGAL ANALYSIS OF EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES: Pennsylvania State office of Enforcement and General Counsel. September 1976 - 53 Pages (Both Areas). This report identifies and analyzes the current legal constraints and prohibitions in determining the sufficiency of current State or local authorities for a management plan. The paper also takes the initial steps in the development of legal techniques, implementation authorities, an administrative procedures needed C-2 for program implementation. An investigation of the need for new State legislation is also discussed. CHAPTER V - COASTAL ZONE POLICY FRAMEWORK PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR DELAWARE ESTUARY: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. June 1975 - 9 Pages. This paper is a preliminary set of seven goals with objectives. These goals and objectives were drafted in response to problems identified in the Delaware Estuary Study Area. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: Department of Environmental Resources CZM Staff. February 1976 - 5 Pages. CHAPTER VI - COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT BOUNDARY DISCUSSION OF TECHNIQUES FOR DETERMING INITIAL INLAND BOUNDARY OF THE COASTAL ZONE STUDY AREA: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. January 1975 - 2 Pages. This is a brief paper describing the pros and cons of six techniques for determining initial inland boundary. CHAPTER VII - PERMISSIBLE LAND AND WATER USES WORKING PAPER ON THE DEFINITION OF DIRECT AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACT: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission May 1975 - 9 Pages. This paper discusses the legislative requirements and problems associated with defining direct and significant. Four alternative methods are discussed and recommendations are included. DIRECT AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF LAND USE ON COASTAL WATER: Delaware Valley Regional Planning commission. August 1975 - 18 Pages. The basic purpose of this early paper was to suggest a list of resources and goals with which the Coastal Zone Management Plan is concerned. Included in this paper is a matrix to display affect, and additional comments on impacts are also included. DETERMINING PERMISSIBLE USES IN THE COASTAL ZONE OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. November 1976 - 13 Pages. The objective of this report is to determine those land uses which are appropriate for different areas of the coastal zone. The permissibility of uses is based on the ability of coastal wo, resources to support land use and to absorb those impacts 4 C-3 resulting from the land use. Three major steps are used to determine permissible uses. The first is an inventory, the second is impact analysis, and the third is the actual determiniation of permissibility. CHAPTER VIII - GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN (GAPC): Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. April 1976 - 52 Pages. This paper identifies those critical areas where some form of State interest is required in order to deal with land use issues of greater than local concern. Four types of GAPC are identified for the Delaware Estuary: "areas of significant natural value", "development opportunity areas". "areas of significant recreational, historic, or cultural value" and "overlap areas". FOUR ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. November 1976 - 58 Pages. The purpose of this study is to determine the significance of four environmentally sensitive areas by studying the relationships of the living organisms and their physical environment. The four areas which were determined to be of significant natural value during the initial study include, Tinicum Marsh, Little Tinicum, Island, Warner Lakes, and Biles Island. CHAPTER X - PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION OUTLINE OF POTENTIAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION: Pennsylvania office of Enforcement and General Counsel. January 1977 - 12 Pages (both areas). This is an initial working paper of generalized legislative outlines that present possible implementation alternatives. The three major legislative alternatives investigated include direct State planning and regulation of GAPC's and projects of greater than local concern; State legislation with State guidelines and local enforcement; and networking of current statutes with some type of legislation to allow State intervention in and override of local decisions. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION DISCUSSIONS ON MEMBERSHIP AND ROLE OF THE COASTAL ZONE STEERING COMMITTEE: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. January 1975 - 3 Pages. This paper discusses the make-up and responsibilities of the Steering Committee in li3ht of Federal requirements. Also included are recommendations for voting and non voting members. This paper was followed by a compromise paper in February. c-4 WORKING PAPER ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. February 1975 - 5 Pages. This paper discusses reasons for and problems involving citizen participation mechanisms. This paper also includes analysis of alternative approaches and recommendations. INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS IMPACTING THE COASTAL ZONE: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. September 1975 - 27 Pages. This report summarizes fourteen key planning efforts in the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone by various State, Federal, interstate and regional agencies. The summary of each plan includes the title, the purpose, the source of funding and the role of Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission in the Program. Discussion of the relationship to the Coastal Zone Program and conflicts which might arise are discussed also. LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE This section contains those working documents developed for the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. The documents are listed and briefly described in chronological order according to the chapter breakdown. These documents are available on a limited basis to interested persons, from the offices of the Erie metropolitan Planning Department and the Department of Environmental Resources Coastal Zone Management Program. CHAPTER I - INVENTORY OF COASTAL RESOURCES AND USES PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES ANALYSIS FOR LAKE ERIE: Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. September 1975 - 340 Pages. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the condition of the physical, social, and economic resources as they presently exist and to project their cumulative effect by the year 2000 in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. These effects will be used to determine which uses will exert a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters of Lake Erie. Also included in this report is a general description of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone Environment, and a summary of the issues and problems confronting the coastal zone. CHAPTER VII - PERMISSIBLE LAND AND WATER USES SHORELINE EROSION AND FLOODING: Great Lakes Research Institute. June 1975 - 160 Pages. c-5 This study identifies and classifies erosion and bluff recession hazard areas along approximately 48 miles of Erie County Lakeshore and five miles of bayshore. The rates of bluff recession have increased significantly along with the shoreline erosion rate in recent years. The higher than normal lake levels have been the major cause of these severe problems. There are 109 sites classified as either critical (44), moderate (51), or limited (10) hazard areas. PROPOSED DEFINITIONS OF DIRECT AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE ERIE COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. October 1975 - 5 Pages. This paper discusses the working definitions of impact, direct impact and significant impact as applied to coastal zone permissible uses. This was then used to establish a list of resources and goals with which the CZM plan concerns itself. DESIRED CATAGORIES OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (BENEFICIAL IMPACTS): Erie Metropolitan Planning Department October 1975 - 1 Page. . I This brief working paper establishes those significant impacts which are to be considered beneficial on seven problem areas. DESIRED COASTAL WATER CHARACTERISTICS AS PROPOSED FOR THE ERIE COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. October 1975 - 2 Pages. This cursory paper discusses those water quality characteristics of the Lake Erie Coastal waters and the minimum water quality criteria which should be met. A BRIEF IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR THE LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE OF PENNSYLVANIA: Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. May 1976 - 1 Page. This very brief paper discusses the methodology for assessment of impacts in the coastal zone. The impacts were assessed to determine priorities of uses and whether those uses exert a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. LAKE ERIE OFFSHORE ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION: Marine Science Consortium. June 1976 - 488 Pages. This investigation represents a baseline study of offshore and nearshore areas. Included in this study are the analysis of nearshore sediment transport processes and the analysis of the environmental implications of offshore gas drilling. The report also examines existing water quality conditions and any trends which might have a direct and significant impact on aquatic organisms found in Lake Erie. The study also identifies areas where water quality is severely affected by onshore land use activities and the factors which cause the adverse conditions. C-6 PROCEDURE USED TO DEFINE PERMISSIBLE USES: Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. July 1976 - 11 Pages. This report determines which land uses are appropriate for different areas of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. The permissibility is based on the ability of coastal resources to support a land use and to absorb the impacts resulting from that land use. A three tier approach was used to determine permissible uses. CAPABILITY AND SUITABILITY OF LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE TO MEET STATE NEEDS: Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. October 1976 - 7 Pages. This report addresses each general category of State needs and determines whether or not the Lake Erie Coast is capable and suitable of meeting the needs. ANALYSIS OF STATE NEEDS WHICH WILL BE MOST EFFECTIVELY MET THROUGH COASTAL LAND AND WATER USES: Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. October 1976 - 3 Pages. This brief working paper analyzes the Pennsylvania needs which can best be met through coastal land and water uses in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. CHAPTER VIII GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN: AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT NATURAL VALUE WITHIN THE PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE OF LAKE ERIE: Edinboro Foundation. February 1976 - 200 Pages. This report considers 20 major sites of natural significance. Streams, wetlands, forests, beaches and steep slopes are used as the parameters. A comparative secondary analysis is made of each selected site to determine uniqueness. A matrix type evaluation is used to evaluate the impact of natural processes. Each of the 20 areas is then designated as either a preservation area, a conservation area or a recreation area with recommendations on the maintenance of these areas included in the report. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN (GAPC): Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. April 1976 - 5 Pages and 5 Pages on revision. This paper identifies those critical areas where some form of State interest is required in order to deal with issues of greater than local concern. Three types of GAPC have been identified. The first are "areas of economic opportunity", the second are "areas of significant natural value,, and the last are "areas of significant recreational, historic or cultural value." c-7 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING PAPERS FOR LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE INTERRELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS IMPACTING THE COASTAL ZONE: Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. September 1975 - 22 Pages. This report summarizes all of the planning efforts in the Lake Erie coastal zone by various agencies. The summary of each plan includes the title, the purpose and a description of the funding. The paper also describes the role of Erie Metropolitan Planning Department within the program, the relationship of the program to the coastal zone study and any conflicts which might occur. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INTERIM REPORT (ERIE COUNTY): Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. November 1975 - 45 Pages This report describes the public participation processes in the Lake Erie coastal zone. The description of the committees, their functions, and their memberships are included in this report. PUBLIC VALUES AND PREFERENCES SURVEY FOR THE ERIE COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: Erie Metropolitan Planning Department. October 1975 - 22 Pages. This is a compilation of the results from the public survey questionnaire. The questionnaire was used to gather citizens input from Erie County. The values and preferences are important to formulate an acceptable Coastal Zone Management Plan. MISCELLANEOUS WORKING PAPERS FOR.THE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DESIGN FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT: Department of Environmental Resources, CZM Staff. November 1974 - 14 Pages. This early working paper set up the three phase program design. The first phase is policy development and problem identification, the second phase is the technical plan and management program and the third phase is the program resolution and adoption. The paper describes the purpose of each phase and its scope. THREE YEAR PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: Department of Environmental Resources, CZM Staff. March 1975 - 9 Pages. This paper is the three year program development outline. it identifies major work tasks with the needed completion time. The chart uses the "critical path" format. ROLE OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT SU13COMMITTEE: Department of ErLvironmental Resources, CZM Staff. April 1975 - 4 Pages. This paper describes the responsibilities of the State Agencies as applied to the Coastal Zone subcommittee. Each of the c-8 cooperating state agencies is listed with its coastal zone program responsibilities. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GENERAL PROJECT OVERVIEW: Department of Environmental Resources, CZM Staff. November 1974 - 10 Pages. This paper briefly describes the necessity and purposes of the program, the goals and objectives, the resources inventory, the boundaries, the permissible uses, the standards and implementation possibilities. Also included is a flow chart of the coastal zone management act. PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDANCE OF PENNSYLVANIAIS COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: Department of Environmental Resources CZM Staff. January 1975 - 2 Pages. This is a brief paper listing those principles which give overall direction to the Program. All subsequent actions are evaluated for consisting with these three principles. C-9 This section contains a list and description of the Delaware River Estuary Inventory Maps. The maps are hand colored mylar (non- reproducible) and are prepared at a scale of 111 20001 (1:24000). C-10 TlTff- MIRCf MP TKRIPTION Pa. Fish Commission Indication of areas that are suitable for wildlife habitats. Six WILDLIFE Birds of Delaware Valley classes are used; Wildlife sanctuaries, areas, of known concentration, HABITATS Guide to Bird Finding warm water fishing, undeveloped areas, permanent open space areas and DVRPC Natural Inventory general habitat areas. This map shows the mean average summer chloride concentration for 1972 CHLORIDE Philadelphia Water Department (June through August). This study was done during the low flow because CONCENTRATION Sample Records 1972 the chloride concentrations are the highest. Philadelphia Water Department This shows the mean dissolved oxygen concentrations of weekly daytime DISSOLVED Sample Records 1972 samples for June through August, 1972. OXYGEN USCS 7.5' Quadrangles. DER Water Identification of different types of water areas. Various areas WATER Resource Bulletin. Dams, Reservoirs include tidal, intertidal or tidal flat and tributaries to the Delaware TYPES and Natural Lakes - USACOE River which are under tidal influence. Also identified are reservoirs and Flood Reports other man-made impoundments. Location of areas used for the disposal of spoil material dredged from DREDGE Delaware River Dredging the navigable stretches of the Delaware. DISPOSAL U. S. Army COE. AREAS MUNICIPAL AND Delaware River Basin Commission This map shows the maximum allowable amount of biochemical oxygen Reports. demand (BOD) that may be discharged by each discharger. This amount has INDUSTRIAL been determined by the DRBC. DISCHARGERS: DRBC BOD ALLOCATIONS Delaware River Estuary Marsh Display of areas with emergent vegetation along the Delaware River WETLANDS Survey. and its tributaries. Communities differ in their composition of---, Philadelphia Academy of Natural vegetative species and these various communities have beer Sciences (1975). man, M M: TITLE ORCE M-P TSCRIPTION SOIL Bucks Co. Interim Soil Survey Report By applying the universal soil loss equation to those non-urban soil EROSION (1970). Soil Survey of Chester & areas, erosion hazard potential is determined and displayed on this map. HAZARD Delaware Counties (1959). SCS, USDA. The areas shown were undeveloped at the time of the field survey. Land Treatment Alternatives Techni- cal Guide, Penna. 7/71. PRIME Soil Surveys of Bucks (1970 Interim), Land is classified by the Soil Conservation Service according to its AGRICULTURAL Chester (1959) and Delaware (1959) capability to support agricultural activity. There are eight agricultur- LAND Counties. SCS, USDA. al capability land classes. Land in classes I and II is considered prime agricultural land. SOIL LIMITATION Soil Survey of Bucks (1970 Interim The capacity of soils to accept effluent from home septic systems is FOR ON-SITE Report). Chester (1959) and Dela- restricted by various factors. Soil is classified in five degrees of SEPTIC SYSTEMS ware (1959) Counties. SCS, USDA. suitability; severe, slight, moderate, variable, sewered (usually urban). SEWAGE DISPOSAL Bucks County, Penna. Indicates where failure of onlot septic systems have occurred. PROBLEM AREAS Sewerage Facilities Plan 6/70 Approximately 20% or more of the septic systems in these areas are malfunctioning. CRITICAL COWAMP This map shows the zones which recharge is critical to supply the GROUNDWATER Resources Inventory large amounts of groundwater demanded by residential, commercial and RECHARGE AREAS COWAMP Chapter IV industrial users. Preliminary Draft AREAS OF COWAMP Displays areas which the users of groundwater may be extracting the GROUNDWATER Resources Inventory groundwater at a rate in excess of that which is being replaced by the OVERPUMPING COWAMP Chapter IV aquifer. Preliminary Draft DVRPC This map shows the areas vegetated with several kinds of forest cover. WOODED Interpretation of High Altitude Coniferous, deciduous, combined, recent forest growth (secondary AREAS Aerial Photography. successional), and orchards and indicated. C 2 TIU- W KE MAP TSCRIPTION DVRPC 1970 This map depicts 13 categories of land use within the Coastal Zone: EXISTING Land Use File 1) Residential single family detached, 2) Residential multiple units, LAND 3) Manufacturing, 4) Transportation, 5) Communication, 6) Commerical, USE 7) Community service, 8) Recreational and cultural, 10) Agricultural, 11) Mining, 12) Forests and undeveloped land, 13) Water areas. Land Use Plans of Local A Composite of recent land use plans for each municipality. The PROPOSED LAND Municipalities categories have been organized into ten uniform classes. Five show various USE CATEGORIES densities of residential development. The others are commercial, indus- trial, institutional, open space, transportation and utility. DVRPC Inventory of Historic Sites Location of over 300 sites of historical and cultural interest. Shows 1969. Updated by Pa. Historical & historic districts comprised of concentrated multiple sites in a compact HISTORICAL Museum Commission 1975. area. SITES U. S. Bureau of the Census 1970 The 1970 Census tracts and boundaries and identifying numbers for the CENSUS Delaware Coastal Zone. TRACTS Zoning Ordinances of Municipalities Compilation of the most recent zoning maps of municipalities using a GENERALIZED uniform set of categories. Shows eight classes of density related ZONING residential activity, as well as commercial, industrial, institutional and open space. DVRPC Employment File 1970 This map shows the number of people employed in each census tract. There are five general categories: 1) Agriculture & Mining, 2) Construc- EMPLOYMENT tion & Manufacturing, 3) Transportation & Communication, 4) Wholesale & Retail, 5) Finance, Government & Military. TOTAL U. S. Bureau of Census Tracts The total population of each census tract is given on this map. POPULATION 1970. C-131_ @m M mm M@ MM M M M M" MM TIRf SUCE W TSCRIPTION U. S. Bureau of Census 1970. Shows the percentage of the total population that is Spanish speaking SPANISH as one of five cagegories: 1) less than .5%, 2) .5-.9%, 3) 1-4.9%, SPEAKING 4) 5-14.9%, 5) more than 15.0%. POPULATION PERSONS 65 YEARS U- S. Bureau of Census 1970. Illustrates the percentage of persons 65 years and older in the total AND OLDER population as one of five categories: 1) less that 5.0%, 2) 5-9.9%, 3) 10-14.9%, 4) 15-19.9%, 5) more than 20%. FAMILIES WITH U. S. Bureau of Census 1970. This map shows the percentage of families in the total population FEMALE HEADS that are headed by females as a percentage category. 1) less than 2.5%, 2) 2.5-4.9%, 3) 5-9.9%, 4) 10-29.9%, 5) more than 30%. MEDIAN SCHOOL U. S. Bureau of Census 1970. The average number of school years completed by adults in each census YEARS COMPLETED tract as one of the following five categories: 1) less than 8 years, 2) 8-9.9 years, 3) 10.0-11.9 years, 4) 12.0-13.9 years, 5) 2-14 years. MEDIAN INCOME U. S. Bureau of Census 1970. The median income of families within each census tract is shown as one of the following five categories: 1) less than $7,000, 2) $7,000-9,499, 3) $9,500-11,999, 4) $12,000-13,999, 5) more than $14,000. The percentage of families with income below the poverty level -FAMILIES WITH U. S. Bureau of Census 1970. ($3,743 for a family of four in 1969). 1) less than 3.0%, 2) 3.0-7.9%, INCOME BELOW 3) 8.0-15.9%, 4) 16.0-24.9%, 5) more than 25%. POVERTY LEVEL MAJOR POWER DRBC This map shows electrical power generating stations that are presently GENERATING Master Siting Study 12/71 located along the Delaware River. Plants which are planning expansions FACILITIES are shown. No new facilities are (shown) being planned. FC-1 4 TlTff- M IRCE MP DECRIKION --- I I STRUCTURES BUILT U. S. Census Bureau 1970. The percentage of all structures built before 1939 is shown in one of PRIOR TO 1939 five categories for each census tract: 1) less than 10%, 2) 10-29.9%, 3) 30-59.9%, 4) 60-89.9%, 5) more than 90%. The median rent paid by tenants in each tract is shown in one of five MEDIAN CONTRACT U. S. Census Bureau 1970. categories: 1) less than $60, 2) $60-79, 3) $80-109, 4) $110-139, RENT MONTHLY 5) more than $140. The percentage of the population living in group quarters for each PERSONS IN U. S. Census Bureau 1970. census tract is shown in one of five categories 1) less than 0.5%, GROUP QUARTERS 2) .5-.9%, 3) 1.0-9.9%, 4) 10-39.9%, 5) more than 40%. BLACK U. S. Bureau of Census 1970. This map shows the percentage of the total population that is Black. POPULATION There are five categories: 1) less than 3.0%, 2) 3-14%, 3) 15-39%, 4)40-74%, 5) more than 74%. Shows the total number of owner and renter occupied housing units for TENURE U. S. Bureau of Census 1970. each census tract. (OWNER, RENTER) MEDIAN VALUE U. S. Bureau of Census 1970. The median value of owner occupied housing units is shown as one of OF five categories: 1) less than $7,000, 2) $7,000-9,999, 3) $10,000- OWNER OCCUPIED 14,999, 4) $15,000-19,999, 5) more than 20,000. HOUSING- Any currently operating sand and gravel pits located in the Coastal EXTRACTIVE USCS 7.51 Quadrangle Zone are shown on this map. RESOURCES DVRPC Aerial Photo C-11 This section contains a list and description of the Lake Erie Coastal Zone Inventory Maps. The scale of these maps is generally 111 = 1 mile but the scale may vary from map to map. C-16 TITLE S(Ijwf W DECRIPTION USGS 7.5' Quadrangle. (Base) These maps show the location of private, municipal, industrial and WASTEWATER Dept. of Env. Resources, Bureau WOM electrical generating wastewater disposal sites. DISPOSAL COWAMP, Erie County Health Dept. 3 STUDY AREAS CLIMATE FEATURES U. S. Weather Service These charts and maps show the various meteorological aspects of the ERIE COUNTY Erie Coastal Zone. Characteristics shown include; Average depth of snow, avg. air temperature, precipitation (maximum, ave., minimum), and wind direction and velocity. MINERAL USGS 7.5' Quadrangle. (Base) and These maps show the extraction resources in the Erie Coastal Zone. EXTRACTION information These include active and closed gas wells, gravel pits and salt brine 3 STUDY AREAS Pa. DER - Bureau of Geology wells. LAND AND WATER U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, This map shows the land and water forms which exist on the Presque FORMS ON THE Buffalo District Isle peninsula. The forms are of two general kinds; dunes or bays PRESQUE ISLE and ponds. PENINSULA SUCCESSION Mich,,.el Baker Jr., Inc. This cross sectional diagram show the land formations which occur STAGES ON on Presque Isle as well as their accompanying vegetation. PRESQUE ISLE PRESQUE ISLE Presque Isle State Park Master Plan This map illustrates the everchanging shore line of the Presque STATE PARK SHORE Pa. Dept. of Env. Resources Isle Peninsula from 1819 through 1969. LINE CHANCES BEACHES INTENSE EMPD from Aerial Photo. This map shows the beach areas along the Erie Coast in Pennsylvania. STUDY AREA C -11 TIU- OWE MP DFSCRIff ION REGIONAL Erie Metropolitan Planning Dept. Shows the location of the Erie Coastal Zone in Pennsylvania in LOCATION COASTAL (EMPD) relation to the Great Lakes and the Middle Atlantic Seaboard. ZONE, ERIE CO., PA. ERIE COUNTY EMPD Illustrates Erie County (Pa.), the three study areas, the Erie COASTAL ZONE Basin boundary, and the townships and boroughs in the County. INTENSE STUDY AREA ERIE COUNTY USGS 7.5' Quadrangle (Base) These maps show the watersheds within the Erie Coastal Zone MAJOR WATERSHEDS EMPD Information intense study area. 3 STUDY AREAS EXISTING LAND USCS 7.5' Quadrangle (Base) These maps show the present land use in the intense study area. Land USE EMPD Information uses fall into one of fourteen classes. 3 STUDY AREAS COMMERCIAL NAVI- USGS 7.5' Quadrangle (Base). Pa. This map shows those areas in the Erie City Port which are used as GATION & FISHING Fish Commission Port Development facilities for navigation (oil, grain, etc.) and fishing. FACILITIES Plan 1968. Erie Port Authority (CENTRAL AREA) SURFACE WATER USCS 7.5' Quadrangle. Dept. of This map shows the location of water intakes in the Lake for the WITHDRAWAL SITES Env. Resources. COWAMP. County municipal water supply. (CENTRAL AREA) Water Authority RECREATIONAL USGS 7.5 Quadrangle. (Base) These maps show the shore and near-shore recreational water uses. WATER USES EMPD Information. These uses are divided into two general categories; swimming and 3 STUDY ARE-AS general fishing and boating. FC TIU- M JRCE MP TSCRIPTION I I USCS 7.5' Quadrangle (Base). These maps show the native fish in the Coastal Zone and tributary FISH & WILDLIFE Pa. Fish Commission streams. Also shown are any unusually high wildlife concentrations or HABITATS EMPD sanctuaries. 3 STUDY AREAS STREAMS, USGS 7.5' Quadrangle (Base).and These maps show the streams, wetlands, small bodies of water and areas WETLANDS & FLOOD information. prone to flooding in the Erie Coastal Study Area. PRONE AREAS U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 3 STUDY AREAS SLOPES AND SOILS USGS 7.5' Quadrangle These maps show the slopes on the Lake Erie Coastal Zone. Erie County Soil Survey - SCS 3 STUDY AREAS 12/60 GENERAL SOIL USGS 7.5' Quadrangle These maps show the general types of soil which occur in the study MAP Erie County Soil Survey - SCS area. 12/60 3 STUDY AREAS GENERAL GROUND USGS 7.5' Quadrangle (Base). These maps show the areas which may produce reliable supplies of WATER EMPD groundwater as well as those areas of unreliable supply and those areas AVAILABILITY with public qupplies. 3 STUDY AREAS NATURAL & SCENIC USGS 7.5 Quadrangle (Base). These maps show those areas of greater than local interest. These HISTORICAL & Erie County Historical Society. areas are natural or historical. ARCHAEOLOGICAL 'EMPD 3 STUDY AREAS USGS 7.5' Quadrangle (Base). These maps show the ownership patterns for the Coastal Zone. The OWNERSHIP County Tax Assessment Maps. ownership is divided into four categories; public, semi-public, private, PATTERNS and roads. L3 STUDY AREAS C-19L___ TITff- 10)[TE M-P TSCRIPTION ZONING USGS 7.5' Quadrangle (Base) Illustration of the zoning districts of each municipality along DISTRICTS-BY Municipal Zoning Maps the Coastal Zone. MUNICIPALITY 3 STUDY AREAS MUTLIMODAL USCS 7.5' Quadrangle (Base) These maps show the transportation systems within the Coastal Zone TRANSPORTATION PennDOT including; highways, railroads, airports, and ferry boats. SYSTEMS EMPD 3 STUDY AREAS HIGHWAY USGS 7.5' Quadrangle (Base) These maps show planned improvements to the highway system and their IMPROVEMENTS PennDOT priority for completi.on. CENTRAL & EAST Erie Area Transportation Study AREAS ERIE EMPD Base This map shows the existing ownership of the property on the Erie WATERFRONT Port Development Plan City Waterfront. OWNERSHIP ERIE NOAA Base Map This is a general map of the Erie waterfront showing the three WATERFRONT Port Development Plan main zones. DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRESENT EMPD Base Map This map illustrates the existing facilities for handling shipping FACILITIES Port Development Plan commerce in the East Bay Area of the Erie waterfront. EAST BAY AREA PLANNED EMPD Base Map This map illustrates the planned improvements for expanding the FACILITIES Port Development Plan East Bay Area marine terminal facilities. EAST BAY AREA rC-20 kL t I I 1 4 M MP DFSCRIPTION EXISTING AND --- NOAA Base Map -EMPD This map shows the recreational boating facilities in Erie Harbor. PROPOSED MARINAS Presque Isle Master Plan This includes existing and proposed marinas as well as public and AND BOAT Port Development Plan private boat launching ramps. IAUNCHING FACILITIES ERIE WATERFRONT, EMPD Base Map The map shows the planned improvements to the whole Erie waterfront. DEVELOPMENT PLAN Port Development Plan PROPOSED WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENTS C-2@1 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION BROCHURES PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 11/75. The purpose of this brochure was to increase public .awareness of the program so as to increase and improve participation in the coastal zone program. NEWSLETTERS "TIDINGS". Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Volume one; #1 (1/76), #2 (3/76), #3 (6/76) Volume two; #1 (4/77) Passes CZM information to the residents of the Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone. "NEWS". Erie County Metropolitan Planning Commission. This newsletter, published quarterly, is financed by HUD and FILMS passed important CZM information to the readers. "LAKE ERIE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM". Erie Metropolitan Planning Department, 11/77. C-22 F111011111111M 1 3 6668 14101 3815