Strategy of the Pennsylvania coastal zone management program performed under the coastal zone enhancement grants program, section 309, coastal zone management act

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

CSTRATEGY
OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Performed Under the
Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants Program
Section 309
Coastal Zone Management Act

March 26, 1992

Zan

Prepared by
commonwealth of Pennsylvania
GC Department of Environmental Resources
1021 Bureau of Water Resources Management
I

P4 Division of Coastal Zone Management
-1992

I --@-i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Of I
NOAA Coastil Services Ckmtw
Library I
I

This Assessment of the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Progr= was funded in part by a grant
from the Office of Ocean arid Coastal Resource Management. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
through the Coasta I Zone Management Act -of 1972. as amanded.

n o A n

PENNSYLVANIA

PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

SECTION 309 STRATEGY

PAGE

Introduction 1

Coastal Hazards 2

Cumulative and Secondary Impacts 17

Public Access 34

Wetlands 41

Cost Summary 46

Lake Erie Coastal Zone Map 48

Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Map 49

Introduction

This document contains the Section 309 final strategy for the
Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program (CZM). The strategy
focuses on four priority enhancement areas: coastal hazards (CH),
cumulative and secondary impacts (CSI), public access (PA), and
wetlands. The following information is provided for each enhancement
area: summary of the problem, program change, justification for the
monies.
change, cost, work schedule, and likelihood for success.`

After a thorough review by CZM and NOAA, the draft strategy was
significantly altered for the final version. Specifically, the changes
involve special area management planning (SAMP), geographic areas of
particular concern (GAPC) and wetlands.

In the draft strategy, SAMP was a priority enhancement area. Our
proposal was to address the Bucks County disposal sitesand the Presque
Isle Bay issues under SAMP. NOAA's review, however, pointed out that
although both were important projects, they did not qualify strongly as
SAMPs because they lacked multi-issue and collaborative processes. we
agreed with this finding, and after discussion with and concurrence
from NOAA staff, decided to address these issues under cumulative and
secondary impacts.

Use of the GAPC designation process for several of the enhancement
areas was also changed. We agreed with NOAA's assertion that using
GAPCs was weak because, in general, they cannot be made "enforceable."
Therefore, in concurrence with NOAA staff, we have downplayed the
importance of GAPC usage except to complement more enforceable tools
when addressing the priority enhancement areas.

The wetlands enhancement area was also changed from the original
version. our initial approach was to develop new interagency agree-
ments for additional coordination with local and county governments and
county conservation districts. These new agreements, which would be
enforced by the creation of a new wetlands policy, would provide the
necessary review by CZM or local/county officials to protect wetlands
from locally permitted development projects. After consultation with
NOAA, we agreed that these changes could best be handled with 306 monies.

The "new" program change for wetlands is actually an extension of
an original change from the draft strategy. CZM will explore the
expansion of the coastal boundaries to include all wetlands that are
hydrologically connected to coastal wetlands. This change will provide
better protection from land and water resources outside the coastal
boundaries that impact coastal wetlands. The other priority
enhancement areas -- CH, PA, and CSI -- have slight modifications,
specifically in the work schedules. Certain work tasks will be
Implemented earlier in the 5-year work plan than originally proposed.

The final strategy also contains specific task descriptions for
the areas scheduled for work in 1992. These descriptions reiterate
what is stated in the strategy, while offering a more detailed view of
the work to be performed.

PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 309 STRATEGY
COASTAL HAZARDS

1A. Problem Summary

The major problems affecting the management of coastal hazards in
Pennsylvania's coastal zones are improper structure siting (ISS) and
unrestricted bluff development (UBD). Both of these problems are
associated with the Lake Erie coastal zone. As discussed in the final
assessment, the coastal hazards in the Delaware Estuary coastal zone
are not current (or significant enough) problems and, therefore, will
not be addressed through the strategy.

The major factors causing ISS along the bluffs of Lake Erie are
incomplete monitoring of bluff recession (which may result in
inaccurate erosion rate data), inconsistent local official decision
making, and lack of a single file source of all legal interpretations
of the Bluff Recession and Setback Act (BRSA) for both CZM and
municipal reference. These factors can cause structures regulated by
the BRSA to be placed within the bluff recession hazard area in a way
that is inconsistent with the act.

UBD on the unregulated bluff face ranges from construction of
structures, roads, and stairways to devegetation of forested areas.
These activities, which often destabilize the bluff, can initiate or
accelerate bluff recession. Even though these activities are not
currently occurring at a high rate, Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
strongly feels, as the bluff areas become more populated, the
unregulated bluff face will experience increased use by a population
wanting access to the lake.

1B. Program Change

Each program change will fall under either of the major management
problems of ISS or UBD.

Amend "Shoreline Erosion and Floodincr - Erie County" and Coastal Hazard
Area Policy I-A-1 to Incorporate New or Updated Methods of Monitoring
and Calculating the Rate of Bluff Recession (ISS)

This task will improve the accuracy of bluff recession rates. These
more accurate recession rates will assure that new structures are
placed safely within the Bluff Recession Hazard Area (BRHA) and
improvements to*threatened structures are limited.

Research will be conducted into new or better ways of measuring,
calculating, and monitoring the rate of bluff recession. CZM staff
will do extensive library searches and will contact state and federal
agencies for current information on lake bluff monitoring (i.e., Ohio's
new bluff setback regulations and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's new study of Illinois bluff recession). It is not known how
the current process will change. It may be as complex as using remote
sensing to as simple as increasing the density of monitoring control
points. As a result of this research, the document Shoreline Erosion
and Flooding - Erie County will be amended or rewritten. This document

is the primary support document for the BRSA and provides the basis for
designating BRHAs and determining the rate of bluff recession for each
township. If fundamental changes occur to the document, the
BRSA/regulations may be amended. At a minimum, changing this document
to address how bluff recession rates are obtained will require amending
the Coastal Hazard Area Policy I-A-1. Briefly, this policy is the
enforceable policy that requires coastal municipalities with BRHA to
enact setback ordinances.

Using newer and updated methods of obtaining rates of bluff recession
will result in more accurate predictions. These new rates will be
incorporated into the local bluff setback ordinances. With better
accuracy, it is likely that the bluff recession rates will increase.
If this occurs, it will expand the BRHA and the minimum setbacks for
residential, commercial, and industrial structures. Overall, new
structures placed in the BRHA will provide better protection from the
hazards of bluff recession. Also, CZX will use the new rates to
accurately and safely relocate structures via the NFIP (which is a
long-term savings for the federal goverrment because of less repeat
insurance claims from improperly relocated structures).

1C. Appropriateness of Tools

1D. Costs

1992 - $15,000 staff cost (weighted formula)/$35,000 consultant cost
(weighted formula)

1993 - $10,000 staff cost (weighted formula)

1994 - $22,000 staff cost (weighted formula)

Total Cost: $82,000

1E. Schedule

1992 - Research into new techniques of measuring, calculating, and
monitoring the rate of bluff recession. If possible, this grant
year, determine new rates of bluff recession. (These new rates
will be used to help support Program Change 3B.)

1993 - Amend Shoreline Erosion and Flooding - Erie County to
incorporate new bluff recession rate tec'hniques. Also, if not
accomplished in 1992, develop new recession rates.

1994 - Amend local bluff setback ordinances to incorporate new bluff
recession rates and amend the BRSA/regulations if fundamental
changes occur to these regulatory documents.

1F. Likelihood of Success

The department already supports the concept of bluff setbacks by
adopting the BRSA in 1980. By improving the accuracy of designating
structure setbacks, this task is consistent with the intent of the
BRSA. The likelihood that the department will support this task is
very high. CZM foresees no opposition to this program change.

FY92 Work (weighted formula)

Research will be conducted into new techniques Of measuring,
calculating, and monitoring the rate of -bluff recession. ..Library.
searches and surveys of coastal states and appropriate Canadian
provinces will be completed to find the techniques to update the
current erosion rate mechanisms.

First Quarter (Oct-Dec) Selection of a contractor to complete this
first year grant task. A complete library search for techniques of
measuring, calculating, and monitoring the rate of bluff recession will
be completed this quarter.

Second Quarter (Jan-Mar) Federal agencies, coastal states, and
appropriate Canadian provinces will be contacted and surveyed to gather
information on optional ways of determining rates of bluff recession.

Third Quarter (Apr-June) Information gathered from library searches and
surveys on techniques to amend how bluff recession rates are measured,
calculated, and monitored will be analyzed to determine appropriateness
to Pennsylvania's coastal situation.

Fourth Quarter (July-Sep) Review Shoreline Erosion and Flooding - Erie
County and make recommendations on how the document can be changed to
incorporate the selected mechanism from the Third Quarter work.

OUTYEAR TASKS

1993

Amend Shoreline Erosion and Flooding - Erie County - Incorporate the
new techniques for determining the rates of bluff recession from the
research and analysis completed in the 1992 grant year.

Benchmarks:

a. Draft changes to the document. Circulate for comments (including
public involvement).

b. Amend document with approved changes.

C. Measure and calculate new recession rates.

1994

Amend Local Ordinances, the BRSA, and Regulations - Determine new
recession rates (if not already completed in 1993 grant year) and meet
with and guide each municipality to amend their bluff setback

ordinances to incorporate the changed recession rates. If fundamental
changes occur to the BRSA/Regulations, then these documents will also
be amended.

Benchmarks:

a. Remeasure or establish additional control points (or whatever
techniques are chosen) and calculate new recession rates.

b. Work with municipalities to adopt new recession rates and BRHA
designation.

c. Start the amending process for the BRSA/Regulations (if
necessary).

2B. Program Change

Amend Coastal Hazard Area Policy I-A.1 to Include Guidance on Legal
Interpretations to the BRSA (ISS)

The Coastal Hazards Policy I-A.1 will be amended to include official
written guidance to local municipalities on legal interpretations and
CZM field implementation policies concerning important aspects of the
BRSA regulations. A compilation of interpretations and field policy
decisions are important for consistent oversight and implementation of
the BRSA. This information will be put into a document format that can
be amended or superseded as new interpretation and field policy
decisions are made. This document will be given to each municipality
with the primary document and amending capability located in the CZM
office. The document will go through extensive legal, CZM, and
municipal review before it is finalized. As part of this process, Czm
will also ask legal to interpret sections of the BRSA/regulations that
are not clear and will need legal guidance in the near future (i.e.,
aspects of the variance and substantial improvement language relating
to restoring fire damaged structures currently located inside the
minimum bluff setback distance). CZM will seek public input into the
existing and proposed legal interpretations and field operations,
decisions. There will likely be many new interpretations and decisions
in this document. The final document will-be adopted by the department
as official "guidelines" to guide CZM and municipal implementation of
the BRSA. These guidelines are deemed crucial and timely and will be
used to pilot municipal building permit programs in order to properly
regulate home construction and improvements within hazardous areas.

This task is considered a program change because it represents the
creation of new guidelines to provide specific interpretations of an
snforceable policy (for local government use). Furthermore, these
guidelines will result in meaningful improvements in coastal resource
management. As stated in the final assessment, "The major factors
causing improper structure siting along the bluffs of Lake Erie are ...
lack of a single file source of all legal interpretations of the BRSA
(regulations) for both CZM and municipal reference." This task will
provide a single file source as guidelines for CZM and local
. plementation of the BRSA and, therefore, improve how new structures
are located, and improvements to existing structures are monitored.
"m

2C. Appropriateness of Tools

This program change will provide the means for legal interpretations
and internal field implementation policy decisions to be put in the
hands of those needing them. This information is necessary for the
proper implementation of the municipal bluff setback ordinances. By
creating a compilation of existing and proposed legal interpretations
of the BRSA and field implementation decisions into a guidelines
document for CZM and municipal use, proper implementation of the BRSA,
regulations, and local ordinances will be improved. Also, as the
regulations are interpreted in the future, the interpretations will be
reviewed with the municipalities and incorporated into the guidelines
document to be sent to the municipalities for their future reference.-
Written guidance in an expandable format is the best way to provide the
necessary information to the coastal municipalities to assure proper
imvlementation of their bluff setback ordinances. Therefore, this
program change is the best way to provide new guidelines for specific
interpretations of a major enforceable policy of the CZM Program.

2D. Costs

1992 - $5,000 staff cost (weighted formula)

1993 - $6,500 staff cost (weighted formula)

Total Cost: $11,500

2E. Schedule

1992 - Compile legal interpretations of the BRSA and implementing rules
and regulations into a guidelines document. See FY92 work for
more details.

1993 - Amend Coastal Hazard Area Policy I-A.1 to include BRSA
guidelines.

2F. Likelihood of Success

The department is committed to regulating development in the BRHA along
Pennsylvania's portion of Lake Erie. The department adopted the BRSA/
regulations in 1980 and has since-committed substantial time and money
to regulating development in the identified hazard areas. Providing
additional tools for CZM and municipal use to help manage these areas
more efficiently to prevent loss of property and threats to human
health and safety are a high priority for the department. Furthermore,
the guidelines will add clarity to the direction the department is
providing regarding the municipal bluff setback ordinances to ulti-
mately promote proper structure siting. Overall, this task has a very
high likelihood of support by the department.

FY92 Work (weighted formula)

CZM will compile past legal interpretations to the BRSA, and Rules and
Regulations (PA Chapter 85) and field implementation policy decisions
into a draft guidelines document. CZM will: meet with the coastal
municipalities to discuss the interpretations to determine appropriate-

ness of the interpretations and adjustments to be made (incorporate
public involvement at this point); meet with department legal staff to
also review proposed interpretations and recommended adjustments; and
create a system to amend the guidelines document as new interpretations
occur. Also, CZM will incorporate current and proposed field implemen-
tation policy decisions. These are decisions made by field operations
staff on specific situations that occur during BRSA monitoring and
technical assistance activities. These policies will be reviewed by
the municipalities, department legal staff, and the public. czm will
finalize these guidelines as an official document, approved by the
department. Work involved in completing this task will"include
extensive coordination with all coastal municipalities, department
legal staff and the regulated public. Public involvement aspects of
this task will include surveys, workshops, and information seminars.

Staff orientation and new project startup are time-intensive functions
and will be part of the task work schedule.

First Quarter (Oct-Dec) Review CZM files to locate past legal interpre-
tations and field implementation policy decisions. Also, complete list
of areas that need legal interpretation and/or field policy decisions.
Start meetings with coastal municipalities, department legal staff, and
community groups to discuss all items.

Second Quarter (Jan-Mar) Complete meetings, prepare draft document, and
incorporate comments.

Third Quarter (Apr-Jun) Conduct public workshops and seminars to
generate additional comments and public understanding and acceptance.

Fourth Quarter (Jul-Sep) Incorporate final comments. Complete an
additional legal review, finalize the guidelines document, have the
document deemed "official," and distribute to the.Erie County
municipalities with bluff setback ordinances.

OUTYEAR TASKS

1993

Amend CHA Policy I-A-1 - Amend this enforceable policy to include the
guidelines on legal interpretations on the BRSA/regulations, and field
implementation policy decisions.

Benchmarks:

a. Circulate draft policy change for formal review and comment.

b. Amend CHA Policy I-A.1 to include the guidelines.

3B. Program Chancre

Amend the BRSA/Requlations and CZM Policy to Restrict-Bluff Face Use
(UBD).

Following the format of the BRSA/regulations, theprotection of the
bluf f area will be extended lakeward of the bluff crest to the ordinary

high water mark (OHWM) at the base of the bluff. This will require an
amendment to the BRSA and subsequent change to the coastal hazard area
policy I-A.l. This amendment will regulate new structures and substan-
tial improvements of these structures located between the OHWM and the
bluff crest (an area known as the bluff face), and other uses which
affect the stability of the bluff face.

This amendment will address two scenarios. First, for structures and
other uses to be built on the bluff face, which are part of a lot
subdivided after the adoption of this amendment, CZM will explore
prohibiting construction of such structures and prohibit/restrict other
uses based on the results of the research and testing. Second,
structures and other uses to be built on the bluff face, which are part
of a lot subdivided prior to the adoption of this amendment, will be '
restricted via variances based on criteria developed as a result of the
research and testing.

Research and testing of uses of the bluff face (structures, stairways,
roads, and devegetation) will lessen many negative influences on bluff
stability. This will be accomplished by providing timely and accurate
information and assistance to eliminate many poorly designed
construction and man-induced impacts to the bluff. This effort will
direct research into better and safer techniques of traversing and
using the bluff face, i.e., stairway construction that will remain
stable and will not cause bluff recession, road and new structures that
will incorporate proper erosion and sedimentation controls and bluff
stabilizing techniques, and the proper management of forested areas to
maintain bluff stability. Proper methods/techniques to traverse/use
the bluff face will provide safe and lasting structures on the bluff
face that will not initiate or accelerate bluff recession.

This amendment is consistent with the intent of the BRSA to restrict
development from the eroding bluffs along Pennsylvania's Lake Erie
shoreline.

3C. Appropriateness of Tool

This task is the best way to restrict new structures and other uses on
the bluff face. Restricting these activities will require more than an
encouragement policy and technical assistance. In hazard areas such as
the bluff face, these activities-can have serious consequences.
Therefore, restricting these activities via regulations is warranted.
As stated in the final assessment "these areas (bluff face) are
affected by bluff recession and should be covered by the BRSA (or a new
statute)." A new statute will only be explored if the BRSA is not able
to be amended.

Also, an additional benefit ofthis task will be a long-term savings to
the federal government. By restricting uses on the bluff face (new
home construction and other uses that may cause or accelerate bluff
recession) fewer homes will be threatened by bluff recession and fewer
claims will be filed under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Research and testing are also the appropriate means to provide better
and safer uses of the bluff face. By doing research into new methods
of traversing and using the bluff face, new information can be given to

property owners to help them make better decisions on activities that
effect their bluff properties. This new information, as a regulatory
restriction and supplemented with a technical assistance delivery, is
the best way to get this information to the public and to have them use
it. This information can also be used to complement other areas of the
strategy. As an example, new stairway design, researched and demon-
strated as part of this task, can be used in public easement areas
along Lake Erie. Public access through these easement areas is
addressed in the public access strategy. Properly designed stairways
will provide safe and lasting access that will not threaten bluff
stability.

In the Lake Erie coastal zone there are approximately 900 property
sites that have access to Lake Erie. The majority of these sites are
either forested or partially forested and have potential for stairway,
road, and development of structures. With the type of information
provided via this task, many future construction activities will be
properly designed and will not cause or accelerate bluff recession,
thereby decreasing the overall threat and costs of coastal hazards.

3D. Costs

1993 - $46,000 staff cost (weighted formula)

1994 - $48,000 staff cost (weighted formula),,

1995 - $28,000 staff cost (weighted formula)

Total cost: $122,,000

3E. Schedule

1993 - Review of the statute amending process and the BRSA to determine
how and where to amend to restrict development on the bluff
face. Use workshops and seminars to gather comments and public
acceptance/support.

- Amend the BRSA to include bluff face restrictions.

- Using research from the 1991 grant year on an inventory of
bluff face uses, CZM will conduct research into innovative ways
to traverse and use the bluff face. Use workshops and seminars
to get new information to the public. Create a new coastal
hazard area policy.

1994 - Amend the PA Chapter 85, Bluff Setback Regulations to restrict
development on the bluff face.

- Incorporate BRSA/regulation changes into all the local
ordinances.

- Initiate bluff face construction/use demonstration projects.

1995 - Monitor/evaluate demonstration projects.

- Create technical assistance package. Use slide shows,
brochures, and fact sheets to get this information to the
public.

3F. Likelihood of Success

The department has already committed resources to the problem of bluff
recession by adopting the BRSA and implementing rules and regulations.
There is a high possibility that the department will agree to expand
the BRHA lakeward once shown the need for such actions. In addition,
the Lake Erie legislative delegation has been very supportive of the
BRSA and what the CZX Program has accomplished with the local
municipalities in enforcing the regulation. Because of CZM's working
relationship with many of the legislatures and the local municipali-
ties, there is high probability that amending the BRSA and regulation
will be successful.

Since all the mechanisms are in place for implementing the BRSA, there
will be little, if any, additional commitment needed to carry out this
task.

Through past CZM grants, the department has committed much time and
money into providing technical assistance on how to maintain bluff face
stability. To increase the effectiveness.,of this type of technical
assistance, the department will support the development of new informa-
tion on how to traverse and use the bluff face in a safe and lasting
way. Therefore, there is a very high possibility that the department
supports the technical assistance aspects of this task.

FY 92 Work

There is no work task this year. CZM will use the information from
Program Change 1B (amend "Shoreline Erosion and Flooding - Erie
County" ... ), being conducted in 1992, as baseline data for future year
work under this program change.

OUTYF.AR TASKS

1993

BRSA Amendment - CZM will conduct a thorough review of the statute
amending process to determine the necessary steps and time schedule
needed to properly amend the BRSA. Also, CZM will examine the BRSA to
determine where the statute should be amended. A draft amendment
package will be drafted for internal review and comment which will
include a legal review to determine the validity of the change
proposed. After state, federal, and public comment requirements are
met, the BRSA amendment package will be finalized and submitted for
adoption to the Environmental Quality Board.

In Grant Year 1991, CZM will inventory current uses of the bluff face.
The inventory will be used to determine how many types of uses exist,
how they are designed, and what affects they have on the bluff face.
This information will be used in Grant Year 1993 to guide research into

new and innovative ways of traversing and using the bluff face, i.e.,
stairway, road and home construction, and management of forested areas.

Benchmarks:

a. Conduct thorough review of statute amending process. In
Pennsylvania, the program staff is responsible for completing the
amendment package. The legal staff will give guidance, but will
not undertake the amending process. Therefore, CZX staff must
commit substantial time to this process.

b. Examine the BRSA to determine where it needs amended.

c. Draft amendment package for CZM and legal review.

d. Present proposed amendment to CZSCs, CZAC, and other federal,
state, and local agencies to get comments. Public involvement is
an essential part of this task. Finalize amendment package.

e. Formal review and comments on final amendment package.

f. Review and approval by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB).

g. Analyze information from the 1991 Grant Year inventory of bluff
face uses and select the types of uses to focus Program efforts.

h. Conduct library searches to gather information on successful
construction types and bluff face uses.

i. Conduct surveys of federal and state agencies and all coastal
states to determine preferred construction types and uses of the
bluff face or areas similar to Pennsylvania c oastal bluffs.

3 Conduct surveys of consultants and specialty construction companies
to determine construction types that apply to Pennsylvania's
coastal bluffs.

1994

Bluff Recession and Setback Re4ulation Amendment - Update Local
ordinances - Construction/Use Demonstration Prolects - CZM will amend
the regulations to restrict construction on the bluff face. This task
will include all coordination and review procedures required by the
state of Pennsylvania to amend a statute. CZM will also direct the
construction of demonstration structures on areas of the bluffs
experiencing various bluff conditions from stable to rapidly receding.
These structures will be evaluated on their performances. Also, various
forest management techniques will be studied on bluff face areas
ranging from completely forested to partially devoid of vegetation and
receding.

Benchmarks:

a. Draft an amendment package and present to CZSCs, CZAC, and other
federal, state, and local agencies for comments. Finalize
amendment package.

b. Formal review and comment on final amendment package.

C. Review and approval by the Environmental Quality Board.

d. Meet with each township to explain the changes and advise them on
how to change their bluff setback ordinances to reflect the intent
of the amendments.

e. Compliance check to make sure townships amend their bluff setback
ordinances correctly and in'a timely manner.

f. Develop MOUs with agencies of publi c lands to allow construction
of the demonstration projects and for forested areas to be
studied.

9- Select the types of structures and contractors to do the work.
This work includes contractors to operate the forested bluff
projects.

h. Supervise, observe, and document the progress of the projects.

i. Assure projects are complete and approve final invoices.

1995

Monitoring/Evaluation - Technical Assistance Package - CZM will monitor
the construction and the forested bluff projects. CZM will evaluate
the results of the monitoring to determine success of the projects.
Recommendations will.be made on which construction types should be used
and the changes to make them successful. This also applies to the
forested bluff project(s). The task could take more than one year to
complete. Depending on the structure/activity type, some projects may
produce tangible results within one year, while others may take more
time to produce results that are usable. Taking the information from
the demonstration projects, a technical assistance package will be put
together. This will include: brochures, fact sheets, and slide shows.
This information will be made available to the public via general
mailings, the SAR service, and CZM sponsored workshops/seminars.

Benchmarks:

a. Establish monitoring techniques and schedules.

b. Evaluate the monitoring results.

C. Select successful structure/activities types and make
recommendations for improvements.

d. Develop brochures, fact sheets, and slide shows.

e. Distribute the information and set up workshops/seminars.

TASK DESCRIPTION

No. 92-EG.01 Title: Bluff Recession and Setback Act (BRSA)
Guidelines

Federal: $ 5,000(309) Non-Federal: $ 0 Total: $ 5,000
-------- - ---------- ------------ - ------ -
:Start Date: October 1, 1992
Work being done by: :Completion Date: September 30, 1993

Grantee: X #Person Days: 20 :
:Section 309 Enhancement Area:
Others: Coastal Hazards

GAPC Involvement:
NV-1 (Lake Erie Bluffs)
------------------------------
Location:--Lake-Erie-Coastal-Zone,-Erie-County, Pennsylvania.

Background: The major factors causing improper structure siting along
the bluffs of Lake Erie are incomplete monitoring of bluff recession
(which may result in inaccurate erosion rate data), inconsistent local
official decision making, and lack of a single file source of all legal
interpretations of the BRSA for both CZM and municipal reference.
These factors can cause structures regulated by the BRSA to be placed
within the bluff recession hazard area in a way that is generally
inconsistent with the intention of the act.

This project is the result of the Section 309 Strategy to address major
program enhancement objectives for coastal hazards. This project,
which will ultimately result in amending the CZM Programs Coastal
Hazard Policy I-A.1, will provide the means for legal interpretations
and internal field implementation policy decisions to be put in the
hands of those needing them. This information is necessary for proper
implementation of municipal bluff setback ordinances. By creating a
compilation of existing and proposed legal interpretations of the BRSA
and field implementation decisions into a guidelines document, proper
implementation of the BRSA regulations and local ordinances will be
improved. Furthermore, as regulations are interpreted in the f uture,
they will be reviewed with the local municipalities and incorporated
into the guidelines document.

These "guidelines" are deemed crucial and timely and will be used to
pilot municipal building permit programs in order to properly regulate
home construction and improvements within hazardous areas. This effort
will result in meaningful improvements in coastal resource management.
As stated in CZM's Section 309 Final Assessment, "The major factors
causing improper structure siting along the bluffs of Lake Erie are ...
lack of a single file source of all legal interpretations of the BRSA
regulations for both CZM and municipal reference." This task will
result in a single file source (guidelines) for CZM and local municipal
implementation of the BRSA; and therefore, improve how new structures
are located, and improvements to existing structures are monitored.

Proiect Description: For this effort CZM will compile past legal
interpretations to the BRSA, Rules and Regulations (PA Chapter 85), and
field implementation policy decisions into a "guidelines" document.
that can be amended or superseded as new interpretation and field
policy decisions are made. Copies of this document will be given to
each municipality with the original document and amending capability
located in the CZM office. The document will go through extensive
legal, CZM, and municipal review before it is finalized. As part of
this process, CZM will ask legal to interpret sections of the BRSA
regulations that are not clear and require legal guidance (i.e.,
aspects of the variance and substantial improvement language relating
to restoring fire damaged structures currently located inside the
minimum bluff setback distance). CZM will also seek public input into
the existing and proposed legal interpretations and field operations,
decisions. The final document will be adopted by the department as
official "guidelines" to guide implementation of the BRSA. All work
under this task will be completed by CZM staff..

Work involved in completing this task will include extensive
coordination with all coastal municipalities, department legal staff
and the public as appropriate. Public involvement aspects of this task
will include surveys, workshops, and information seminars.

Estimated Project Budget

Salaries and wages $ 3,300
Fringe benefits 1,300
Overhead 100
Travel 200
Materials & supplies 100
Equipment 0
Consultant/contractor 0
Total $ 5,000

Expected Products and Timetable: The product of this effort will be
final "guidelines" which will be a single file source of all legal
interpretations of the BRSA regulations. Information regarding the
status of this effort will be submitted to OCRM as part of DER-DCZM's
quarterly performance report. The anticipated timetable for completing
this effort is as follows:

12-31-92 Review CZM files to locate past legal interpretations and
field implementation policy decisions. Complete list of
areas that need legal interpretation and/or field policy
decisions. Initiate meetings with coastal municipalities,
department legal staff, and community groups.

03-31-93 Complete meetings, prepare draft "guidelines" document and
incorporate comments.

06-30-93 Conduct public workshops and seminars to generate additional
comments and public understanding and acceptance.

09-30-93 Finalize and adopt the official "guidelines" document and
distribution to the Erie County municipalities with bluff
setback ordinances.

TASK DESCRIPTION

No. 92-EG.02 Title: New Techniques of Measuring, Calculating,
and Monitoring the Rate of Bluff Recession

Federal: $ 15,000(309) Non-Federal: $ 0 Total: $ 15,000
----------------------------------------- 7 -----------------------------
:Start Date: October 1, 1992
Work being done by: :Completion Date: September-30, 1993

Grantee: X #Person Days: 60 :
:Section 309 Enhancement Area:
Others: Coastal Hazards

GAPC Involvement:
NV-1 (Lake Erie Bluffs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Location: Lake Erie Coastal Zone, Erie County, Pennsylvania.

Background: This project is the result of the Section 309 Strategy to
address major program enhancement objectives for coastal hazards. The
major factors causing improper structure siting along the bluffs of
Lake Erie are incomplete monitoring of bluff recession (which may
result in inaccurate erosion rate data-), inconsistent local official
decision making, and lack of a single file source of all legal
Interpretations of the Bluff Recession and Setback Act (BRSA) for both
CZM and municipal reference. These factors can cause structures
regulated by the BRSA to be placed within the bluff recession hazard
area in a way that is generally inconsistent with the intention of the
act.

This task is the appropriate means of updating the methods used to
calculate recession rates. Research will be necessary into new ways of
measuring, calculating, and monitoring the rate of bluff recession in
order to revamp the current method used in Shoreline Erosion and
Flooding - Erie County. This task will improve the accuracy of bluff
recession rates. These more accurate recession rates will assure that
new homes are placed safely within Bluff Recession Hazard Area's (BRHA)
and improvements to threatened homes are limited.

CZM1s Coastal Hazard Area Policy I-A.1 is an enforceable policy that
requires coastal municipalities with BRHA to enact setback ordinances.
Tsing newer and updated methods of obtaining rates of bluff recession
will result in a more accurate prediction of how bluffs recede. These
new rates will be incorporated into the local bluff setback ordinances.
with better accuracy, it is likely that the bluff recession rates will
increase. If this occurs, it will expand the BRHA and the minimum
setbacks for residential, commercial, and industrial structures.
overall, new structures placed in the BRHA will be provided better
protection from the hazards of bluff recession. Also, CZM will use the
new rates to accurately and safely relocate structures via the NFIP
(which is a long-term savings for the federal government because of
less repeat insurance claims from improperly relocated structures).

Proiect Description: Research will be conducted into new or better
ways of measuring, calculating, and monitoring the rate of bluff
recession. CZX staff will do extensive library searches and will
contact state and federal agencies for current information on lake
bluff monitoring (i.e., Ohio's new bluff setback regulations and FEMA's
new study of Illinois bluff recession). It is not known exactly how
the current process will change. It may be as complex as using remote
sensing to as simple as increasing the density of monitoring control
points.

As a result of this research, the document Shoreline Erosion and
Flooding - Erie County will be amended or rewritten. This-document is
the primary support document for the Bluff Recession and Setback Act
(BRSA) and provides the basis for designating BRHAs and determining the
rate of bluff recession for each township. If changes occur to the
document, the BRSA regulations will be amended. At a minimum, changing
this document to address how bluff recession rates are obtained will
require amending the Coastal Hazard Area Policy I-A.l.

Estimated Prolect Budget

Salaries and wages $ 9,800
Fringe benefits 3,800
Overhead 700
Travel 500
Materials & supplies 200
Equipment 0
Consultant/contractor 0
Total $ 15,000

Expected Products and Timetable: The product of this effort will be
the establishment of a new bluff recession rate technique developed
through research into new methods of measuring, calculating and
monitoring the rate of bluff recession. Information regarding the
status of this effort will be submitted to OCRM as part of DER-DCZM1s
quarterly performance report. The anticipated timetable for completing
this effort is as follows:

12-31-92 Selection of a contractor to complete this task which
includes a complete library search for techniques of
measuring, calculating, and monitoring the rate of bluff
rec ession.

03-30-93 Federal agencies, coastal states, and appropriate Canadian
provinces will be contacted and surveyed to gather
information on optional ways of determining rates of bluff
recession.

06-30-93 Information gathered from library searches and surveys on
techniques to amend how bluff recession rates are measured,
calculated, and monitored will be analyzed to determine
appropriateness to Pennsylvania's coastal situation.

09-30-93 Review Shoreline Erosion and Flooding - Erie County and make
recommendations on how the document can be changed to
incorporate the selected mechanism as identified above.

PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SECTION 309 STRATEGY
CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS

1A. Problem Summary

The assessment identified three issues which will be addressed
under Cumulative and Secondary Impacts (CSI) associated with coastal
growth and development. The issues are: finding dredge spoils
disposal sites in Bucks County, impacts to Presque Isle Bay from
increasing boater use, and nonpoint source pollution impacts on water
quality.

Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is
responsible for providing disposal sites for all channel maintenance
dredging performed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) on the
Navigational Channel of the Delaware River from Allegheny Avenue in
Philadelphia north to the Trenton Marine Terminal. Dredging is
necessary in this area to maintain adequate channel depth for commerce
on the river. Based on economics and environmental concerns, hydraulic
dredging is the only prudent and feasible way to keep the channel open.
The former USX site in this area has the potential to once again be a
major economic factor. Maintaining shipping access in the area could
play a vital role in future economic revitalization activities.

Because of growth and development that has taken place in this
part of the coastal zone, there are few remaining areas where the
dredge spoil can be placed. In the remaining undeveloped areas,
wetlands, open waters, and fishery concerns further limit where dredge
spoils can be placed. Furthermore, some previously used sites have
been eliminated because, as a result of the disposal, wetlands have
been created, or the spoils were contaminated. Therefore, these areas
cannot be "cleaned out" and reused as spoils disposal areas. The
Department may be faced with either not allowing the dredging to take
place, thereby, severely restricting commerce in this area of the
coastal zone, or else having to resort to bucket dredging which is
environmentally damaging and more expensive.

All potential existing sites for spoil disposal are owned or
controlled by Waste Management Incorporated. Because of the limited
space, a system whereby the spoils can be periodically removed and the
sites reused, must be devised to insure there will be future capacity.
It is imperative that the Department secures disposal sites on a
long-term basis and sets up a process that insures that their
utilization will not negatively impact wetland and fisheries resources
and that the areas can be "reused" to insure adequate future capacity.

After several years, the water drains out of the spoils and the
resulting material can be used if it is not contaminated. Waste
Management Inc., which runs a large landfill, is interested in using
this material as cover layers for their landfill. Therefore, when
selecting sites we will check to see if trucks, loaders, etc., could
readily access the disposal sites, without harming adjacent wetlands,
etc. otherwise, even if there was a use for' the material it might not

be feasible to recover it, therefore, this space would not be available
for future disposal activities.

As mentioned earlier, one problem that has prevented the recovery
of spoils disposal for reuse is that sometimes the disposal areas
become wetlands. Therefore, these areas cannot be used again and new
areas have to be found. The Bureau of Dams and Waterways Management
has expressed a willingness to develop an agreement for specific future
disposal sites targeted for "reuse." These specific sites would be
targeted for recovery and; therefore, even if they exhibited wetland
characteristics, they could still be allowed to be recovered. We
believe such actions are environmentally sound and preferable to
constantly placing spoils in new areas.

1B. Program Changes

New Designated GAPC, New MOU Covering Spoils Created wetlands and.New
Department Policies Concerning the Placement and Future Use of Dredge
spoils.

Concerning the Bucks County Dredge Disposal Sites, a strategy will
be developed. The strategy will assess all potential dredge sites in
the area and rank them with regard to desirability. Desirability will
be determined by proximity to the river, likelihood of impacts to
wetlands and fisheries, capacity, and ability of the site to be reused.

The strategy will also explore means for the Department to secure
the selected sites on a long-term basis, i.e., long-term lease or
purchase. Also identified will be ways to reuse/dispose of the spoils
on a periodic basis so that the sites can be reused. The strategy will
also identify what action the Department should take to secure these
sites.

Program changes resulting from the strategy are as follows. The
area will be identified as a designated GAPC- A management plan will
be developed for the GAPC which precludes any actions that affect the.
ability of this area to be used as a dredge spoils disposal site. An
MOU will be developed with the Bureau of Dams and Waterway Management
(BDWM) working out an agreement whereby these sites could be reused
even if they developed wetland characteristics. Procedures for
utilizing the clean spoils and disposing of'contaminated spoils at
upland sites will be developed and incorporated into Department policy.
Any necessary inter/intra agency agreements needed to implement those
procedures will also be developed.

Securing sites and developing a dredge disposal plan that is
environmentally responsible will accomplish two major goals of the CZM
Program. It will ensure that commerce can be maintained in this
portion of the coastal zone; thereby, improving its chances for
maintaining economic viability. It will also ensure that actions will
not be taken that could compromise the environmental integrity of this
area in an effort to keep the channel dredged if sites are no longer
available where hydraulically dredge spoils could be disposed of in an
environmentally responsible manner.

This project has transference implications because as coastal
development increases, other states will be forced with fewer options
for disposing of dredge materials and the concept of "recycling" these
sites may prove very useful.

1C. Appropriateness of Tools

The proposed program changes concerning the Sucks County disposal
sites are appropriate and address the concerns of the assessment. The
assessment clearly showed the need to secure dredge disposal sites in
this area that ensure the channel can'be maintained, and thus the
economic vitality of the area, without compromising the environment.
The tools that CZM will use/develop are appropriate for the task.
Securing sites either through purchase or long-term lease is critical.
If these sites are not secured, coastal growth and development could
eliminate all potential hydraulic disposal sites thus severely
compromising the Department's ability to maintain commerce in this area
without adverse environmental affects. Developing agreements, setting
up guidelines as to how the spoils can be disposed and covering how
they can be reused or, if contaminated, ultimately disposed of at an
inland site is also necessary. If this area is to be utilized on-a
long-term basis, "recycling" will need to occur.

1D. Costs

1992 - $7,500 staff cost (weighted formula)/$50,000 consultant cost
(Project of Special Merit)

1993 - $7,500 staff cost (weighted formula)

1994 - $10,000 staff cost (weighted formula).

Total Cost: $75,000

1E. Schedule

1992 - Develop scope of work for dredging spoil disposal study which
involves analyzing and ranking sites, determining how to serve
sites on long-term basis, identifying agreements that need to be
developed to be able to "recycle" sites, let contract, manage
contract.

1993 - Analyze results of study and begin implementing recommendations.
Develop purchase agreement, lease, etc. Develop MOUs and other
agreements identified in study.

1994 - Finalize 1993 activities, secure the sites, and execute and
implement the agreements.

1F. Likelihood of Success

The Department is responsible for securing dredge disposal sites
and fully supports this effort. The Department is cognizant of the
ramifications to commerce in this area and possibly the environment if
environmentally responsible means for depositing of dredge disposals 4Ln
the future is not assured.

FY92 Work (weighted formula and project of special merit)

A study will be undertaken which will identify sites that need to
be secured by the DER to insure that dredging spoils can be disposed of
in an environmentally safe and responsible manner on a long-term basis.
The study will also recommend how these sites can be secured and will
identify all inter/intra agency agreements that will need to be
developed to insure that all actions concerning the deposition of the
spoils and its eventual "reuse" will be accomplished in an
environmentally responsible manner.

OUTYEAR TASKS

1993

Develop Agreement to Service Sites, Develop MoUs, Agreements, and New
Department Spoils Disposal Policy

Benchmarks:

a. Lease agreement will be developed on contract negotiations for
purchase of the sites will be initiated.

b. MOU with BDWM concerning wetland occurrence on dredge disposal
sites will be developed and executed.

C. Department policy concerning environmental parameters to be
observed when "recycling" dredge spoils disposal will be
developed.

1994 Execute Agreement Adopt Policies

Benchmarks:

a. Lease agreement for contract will be executed.

b. New Department policies concerning dredge spoils "recycling", will
be adopted and implemented.

2A. Problem Summary

Presque Isle Bay is a popular boating and recreational area. The
3,200-acre bay is surrounded by five miles of shoreline. A large part
of that shoreline is associated with Presque Isle State Park which
receives 4.5 to 5 million visitors annually. Presque Isle shelters the
bay which is not subject to as many rough water episodes as the
surrounding open lake waters. This is one of the reasons why the bay
is so attractive to boaters.

In the past decades, the number of marinas has increased
significantly. The bay currently has approximately 2,500 public and
private slips, and demand still exists. Additionally, many boats are
launched in the bay from trailers and car tops.

The Department is currently developing a Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) for Presque Isle Bay. The RAP is designed to address the Bay,s
water quality. The focus of the RAP is on land based sewage and
contaminated sediment. The RAP will not be looking at the impact of
recreational boating on the Bay's water quality. Therefore, a Boating
Impacts study will complement the RAP and provide a missing link in
addressing Bay water quality issues. As water quality improves, it
will lead to increased boating demand and increased fishing pressure
which could lead to conflicts between boaters and fishermen.

Presque Isle Bay is being subjected to increased r'ecreational
usage as a result of coastal growth and development. Boating pressure
has increased significantly in the past decade and additional marina
capacity is planned for the Bay. The City of Erie has recognized the
need to do a study to determine what impacts recreational boating is
having on the Bay for several years. Also they have recognized the
need to develop a management plan to address existing impacts and
prevent future impacts from uncontrolled boating pressure. Impacts
from boating are both environmental and social.

Environmental impacts include: water quality (sewage and gasoline
from the boats), as well as impacts from waves generated by the boats.
Sewage from boats is a concern in all waters of the Commonwealth, but
especially in enclosed bodies such as the Bay. There are currently no
state regulations requiring marinas to have pump out stations for
sanitary facilities on boats, or covering the usage of those pump out
stations by boats having sanitary facilities. There is little doubt
that sewage from boats is being pumped/dumped into the Bay. With such
a concentration of boats fugitive escapes of gasoline and oils into the
bay from boats and marina filling stations is occurring. The escapes
could currently be adversely affecting the bayi water quality and the
severity is likely to increase as boating usage increases. Waves from
boating causes shoreline erosion which can harm wetlands. The
increased sediments and wave action can also harm fish spawning.
Boating disturbance may also be resuspending contaminated sediments
which are known to exist in the Bay.

overuse by boating also has social impacts. Safety is a major
concern as boating capacity for a given body of water is reached and
ultimately exceeded. The Bay is an attractive site for power boaters,
sailing craft, and small fishing boats. Overuse by boaters can also
lead to a diminished recreational experience for all concerned, not
only among the boaters. As the Bay's waters are cleaned up, there will
be increasing demands placed on it by shore fishermen because of its
proximity to a large urban population. The potential exists for in-
creased conflicts among boaters and between boaters and shore fisherman.

2B. Proctram Chancres

New State Authorities/Regulations Concerning Marina Pump Out Station
Placement and Usage, and BMPs for Boat Fueling Activities. New MOUs
with Erie City, PFBC, and Coast Guard Concerning Restrictions on
Presque Isle Bay.

A management plan will be designed for Presque Isle Bay to ensure
that boating activity does not degrade its environmental resources, and

prevent conflicts among boaters and between boaters and other
recreational users of the Bay. A compendium of tools will be developed
to implement the management plan.

New state authorities wil 1 be developed covering requirements
dealing with placement of sanitary pump out stations at marinas and the
usage of these stations by boat owners. These regulations will be
designed to prevent the discharge of sewage from boats into the Bay.
New regulations will be developed covering the implementation of BMPs
for marina filling stations and boat fueling procedures in general to
prevent the escape of gas and oil into the Bay. We will work with the
City of Erie to limit new marina and boat launching development through
the use of zoning ordinances. A new CZM policy concerning
considerations of the waterbodies boating capacity will be developed to
guide the program's review of new marina permits. CZM will work with
the PFBC and local sportsman groups such as the S.O.N.S. of Erie to
restrict boating activities around areas set aside for shore fishermen.
CZM will also develop agreements with the PFBC and the Coast Guard to
restrict boating in areas of sensitive habitats and areas where prop
wash could be resuspending toxic sediments.

The changes will lead to improved water quality in the Bay. This
effort will complement and provide a missing piece to the RAP which is
currently being developed for the Bay. It will provide protection for
wetlands and fishing from cumulative and secondary impacts from which
they currently have no protection. The changes will eliminate present
and future conflicts between Bay recreations users and will provide for
a more enjoyable experience for all involved. Another major aspect of
this action is that it will increase the Program's visibility in the
Department and will help establish CZM as a proactive program that
takes the lead on addressing coastal issues and problems.

This project has transference implications because other coastal
states are/will be faced with problems associated with over use of
water bodies by recreational boating.

2C. Appropriateness of Tools

The proposed Program changes for the Presque Isle Bay Boating
Impact Analysis addresses all the issues raised in the assessment. New
regulations are needed to address pump out station placement and usage
and prevent sewage from entering the Bay from boats. New regulations
covering the usage of various BMP designed to prevent gasoline and oils
from boating activities contaminating the Bay are also needed. Both of
these activities will not only help the Bay, but will lead to water
quality improvement; both coastwide and statewide. A new CZM policy
covering how the Program will revise future marina permit applications
with regard to capacity, pump out stations and gasoline BMPs will
provide assurances that the new activities will be properly implemented
in the coastal zone in general and the Bay in specific. Agreements
with the City of Erie, PFBC, and the Coast Guard are the proper way to
limit boater capacity and restrict boating in a manner that addresses
wetlands, fisheries, and water quality and boater safety issues as well
as preventing conflicts between Bay recreational users.

2D. Costs

1992 - $7,500 staff cost (weighted formula)/$100,000 consultant cost
(Project of Special Merit)

1993 - $7,500 staff cost (weighted formula)

.1994 - $10,000 staff cost (weighted formula)

Total Cost: $125,000

2E. Schedule

1992 - Convene a task force to develop scope of Presque Isle Bay Study.
Based on task force input, develop RFP, let contract, finalize
scope of work, manage study/contract.

1993 - Review study recommendations and begin implementing them.
Develop new pump out station regulations, agreements with City
of Erie, Fish Commission and Coast Guard concerning fuel BMPs,
marina restrictions, slow wake zones, no boating zones, etc.

1994 - Continue with 93 work. Finalize development of regulations,
agreements, etc., and begin implementing.

2F. Likelihood of Success

The Department supports the clean up of Presque Isle Bay which
this study will control so they will support this effort. The City of
Erie has requested CZM funds in the past to conduct such a study and is
very supportive of such an endeavor. The local sportsmen, boaters, and
environmental groups will support this effort because they all want to
see the water quality of the Bay and its resources improved and they
want to see user conflicts avoided.

FY92 Work (weighted formula and project of special merit)

A study will be taken to document present and future environmental
and social impacts that recreational boating is having on Presque Isle
Bay. The study will also determine what capacity usage the Bay can
support, a determination of what restrictions need to be placed on
boating, how these restrictions should be applied, and who should be
responsible for placing and enforcing those restrictions. The study
'll also determine where and how boating should be restricted to
protect the environment and avoid user conflicts.
wi

OUTYEAR TASKS

1993

Begin Implement Report Recommendations - Implement the recommendations
of the report concerning what actions to take to manage boating in
Presque Isle Bay in a way that minimizes environmental and social
conflicts.

Benchmarks:

a. Develop marina pump out station and usage regulations.

b. Develop BMPs concerning marine fueling activities.

C. Develop MOU agreements concerning boating restrictions in Presque
1994 Isle Bay.

Finalize Implementation of Report Recommendations - Finalize the
recommendations.

Benchmarks:

a. Implement marina pump out station regulations.

b. Implement BMPs concerning marine fueling activities.

C. Implement MOUs concerning boating restrictions in Presque Isle
Bay.

3A. Program Summary

The assessment showed that there is a general consensus that
coastal water quality is suffering as a result of nonpoint source
pollution (NPS) and that the threat will increase, from cumulative and
secondary impacts associated with growth and development, as projected
coastal growth occurs. Unfortunately, nobody has a good handle on what
NPS pollutants are causing the most problems, i.e., toxins, BODSr heavy
metals, etc. The Department and the Delaware River Basin Commission
have some pertinent data but it has never been analyzed with respect to
trying to determine how much of the pollution is attributable to NPS.

The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP) will
require the Commonwealth to identify what NPS pollutants are impacting
coastal waters and also identify critical coastal areas. The following
is excerpted from CNPCP Draft Guidance "The establishment of critical
coastal areas must focus on those areas with.the greatest potential for
causing or contributing to the impairment of or threat to coastal water
quality from nonpoint source pollution." The implementation of
additional management measures in these areas is required by the
statute in order to protect against any increased contributions of
pollutants which may result from any new or substantial expansion of
existing land uses.

The statute specifically requires that the critical coastal areas
be adjacent to the waterbodies to be protected. Selecting these
adjacent areas for implementation of additional management measures can
have a significant effect in preventing water quality problems and
protecting designated uses of the coastal waterbodies.11

Since the Commonwealth does not have a lot of resources to devote
to CNPCP and since federal funds available for CNPCP development is
limited, it is imperative that additional sources of funds be found to

enable Pennsylvania to develop a program that adequately addresses NPS
pollution in coastal waters.

The aspect of the CNPCP that has the most relevance for CZM is the
identification of critical coastal areas. This aspect of the CNPCP
focus on addressing the land component of the problem via land use
measures. CZM was designed to manage the land portions of the coastal
areas. The CZM Program provides the best vehicle for implementing the
critical coastal areas portion of the CNPCP.' Therefore, CZM will
undertake a study to identify geographic areas that possess the
greatest potential for causing or contributing to the impairment of or
threat to coastal water quality from NPS pollution.

CZM will contract to have these areas identified in both the Lake
Erie and Delaware Estuary coastal zones. The following criteria will
be used to identify critical coastal areas under this initiative.

- The nature of the coastal water quality problem(s) caused by
nonpoint sources.

- The extent to which the nonpoint sources are located adj acent to
the waterbodies vs. farther inland.

- The biophysical characteristics of the adjacent lands that
will affect the extent to which'uses of these lands will cause
nonpoint source pollution problems. These include
topography/slope, soil characteristics (erodibility, etc.);
shoreline erosion characteristics; hydrology, in particular
groundwater linkages to coastal waters and high water tables;
and forest, wetlands, and other natural areas that may provide
natural buffers or nutrient sinks

- Important biological features that should be included as a whole
in critical coastal areas.

- The type(s), density, and characteristics of the new or expanded
land uses that are anticipated and their effect(s) on water
quality.

- The extent to which the above effects can be prevented or
reduced by implementation of (g) management measures and/or the
additional management measures for land uses.

- The need for an understandable and mappable area.

3B. Proctram Chancre

New Authorities Concerning Land Use Management and Regulatory
Activities Associated With NPS Pollution Control, Development of New
Designated GAPCS.

This project will provide the basis for determining what action
needs to be taken to address land use issues that are contributing to
NPS pollution problems in coastal waters. This will lead to
significant program changes based on the development of new state
authorities to address the identified land use issues. All the

identified areas will become designated GAPCs for NPS critical areas.
Management plans will be developed for each of the GAPCs detailing how
they will be managed to prevent NPS pollution impacts to coastal
waters. Furthermore, a program enforceable policy will be developed,
based on the new state authorities created, that will describe how
Pennsylvania will address NPS critical coastal areas. Since the NPS
problems and the land use issues creating those problems have not been
identified yet, it would be extremely speculative to hazard a guess as
to what specific new authorities will be developed.

This project will lead to program changes that will improve
coastal water quality through controlling land use impacts.. The new
authorities that will be developed will give the program the ability to
control land use impacts in the coastal zones. This will be critical
not only to NPS water quality issues, but to other issues as well.
Controlling land use activities/impacts will be critical to address
other forms of Cumulative and Secondary Impacts that the resources of
the coastal zone will be subjected to from future growth and
development.

This project will have transference implications because all
coastal states will eventually be faced with this task as they
implement the CNPCP.

3C. Appropriateness of Tools

The proposed changes concerning identifying critical coastal areas
and developing land use controls are appropriate. This process will
address the concerns expressed in the assessment regarding the problems
associated with NPS pollution. Additionally, it is appropriate to take
this action under 309 because with the scarcity of resources available
for the CNPCP this is one way to insure this aspect of it will be
accomplished. It will further demonstrate the importance of the CZM
Program and further its role as a leader on coastal issues.

3D. Cost

1992 - $15,000 staff cost (weighted formula)/$275,000 consultant cost
(Project of Special Merit)

1993 - $7,500 staff cost (weighted formula)

1994 - $10,00-0 staff cost (weighted formula)

Total Cost: $307,500

3E. Schedule

1992 - Develop sccne of work and let contract for identifying critical
coastal areas in both coastal zones. Develop RFP, let contract,
finalize scope of work, manage study and contract.

1993 - Work with CNPCP to develop authorities/tools to address land use
general NPS problem identified in 1992 study.

1994 - Continue working on 1993 tasks, developing tools/authorities,
etc.

3F. Likelihood of Success

The Department is required to accomplish the task as part of the
CNPCP. If it does not, it will incur penalties as its federal funding
for its 319 nonpoint source and CZM Programs. Resources to devote to
this issue are scarce and this. would provide the Department an oppor-
tunity to accomplish CNPCP requirements and avoid future penalties.
The Department, therefore, strongly supports this effort because it
provides an opportunity to fulfill a federal requirement that it may
not be able to do otherwise.

FY92 work (weighted formula and project of special merit)

The study will analyze existing water quality data, collect new
data if necessary, and analyze existing land use data to identify
critical coastal areas with regard to NPS pollution. Once these areas
are identified the source(s) of NPS pollution will be identified.
Recommendations will then be made as to what new regulations,
authorities, tools, BMPs, agreements, etc., need to be developed to
address the NPS pollution problem in these critical coastal areas.

OUTYEAR TASKS

1993

Initiate Development of Authorities and BMPs As a result of the study
recommendation new authorities and BMPs will have to be developed to
address NPS pollution in critical coastal areas.

Benchmarks:

a. Draft BMPs need to address NPS pollution in critical coastal areas
will be developed.

b. Authorities needed to implement the BMPs will be developed.

1994

Finalize BMPs and authorities.

Benchmarks:

a. BMPs will be.finalized.

b. Authorities will be implemented as appropriate.

TASK DESCRIPTION

No* 92-EG.04 Title: Bucks County Dredge Disposal Study

Federal: $ 57,500(309) Non-Federal: $ 0 Total: $ 57,500
---------------------------------- :-Start-Date:-October-l,-1992 --------
Work being done by: Completion Date:.Set)tember-30, 1993

Grantee: X #Person Days: 30 :
: Section 309 Enhancement Area:
Others: X Cumulative & Secondary Impacts
1. Consultant
GAPC Involvement:
All as Appropriate (Bucks Co.)

Location: Delaware Estuary coastal zones, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

Background: Pennsylvania's DER is responsible for providing disposal
sites for all channel maintenance dredging performed by the US Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) on the Navigational Channel of the Delaware
River from Allegheny Avenue in Philadelphia north to the Trenton Marine
Terminal. Dredging is necessary in this area to maintain adequate
channel depth for commerce on the river. Based on economics and
environmental concerns, hydraulic dredging is the only prudent and
feasible way to keep the channel open. The former USX site in this
area has the potential to once again be a major economic factor and
maintaining shipping access in this area could play a vital role in
future economic revitalization activities.

Because of growth and development that has taken place in this part of
the coastal zone, there are few remaining areas where the dredge spoil
can be placed. In the remaining undeveloped areas,'wetlands, open
waters, and fishery concerns further limit where dredge spoils can be
placed. Furthermore, some previously used sites have been eliminated
because, as a result of the disposal, wetlands have been created, or
the spoils were contaminated. Therefore, these areas cannot be
"cleaned out" and reused as spoils-disposal areas. The DER may be
faced with either not allowing the dredging to take place, thereby,
severely restricting commerce in this area of the coastal zone, or else
having to resort to bucket dredging which is environmentally damaging
and more expensive.

All potential existing sites for spoil disposal are owned or controlled
by Waste Management.Incorporated. Because of the limited space, a
system whereby the spoils can be periodically removed and the sites
reused, must be devised to insure there will be future capacity. It is
imperative that the DER secures disposal sites on a long-term basis and
sets up a process that insures that their utilization will not
negatively impact wetland and fisheries resources and that the areas
can be "reused" to insure adequate future capacity.

This project continues CZM1s effort regarding dredge disposal in
Pennsylvania's coastal zones which was initiated under FY 1991 Section
309, Cumulative and Secondary Impactsf (Grant Task No. 91-EG.01).

Proiect Description: The proposed study will identify sites that need
to be secured by the DER to insure that dredging spoils can be disposed
of in an environmentally safe and responsible manner on a long term
basis. The study will also recommend how these sites can be secured
and will identify all inter/intra agency agreements that will need to
be developed.

Estimated Project Budget

Salaries and wages $ 4f9OO
Fringe benefits 1,900
Overhead 400
Travel 200
Materials & supplies 100
Equipment 0
Consultant/contractor $ 50, 00
Total $ 57,500

Expected Products and Timetable: The results of this effort will be a
final report which identifies potential disposal sites the DER could
secure and how these sites can be secured. Information regarding the
status of this effort will be submitted to OCRM as part of DER-DCZM1s
quarterly performance report. The anticipated timetable for completing
this effort is as. follows:
12-31-92 Execute contract with consultant based on Scope of Work and
RFP developed under FY 1991 Section 309 (Grant Task No.
91-EG.01).

03-31-93 Consultant will identify potential dredge disposal sites and
make recommendation to the DER on securing these sites (i.e.,
outright purchase, lease, etc.)

06-30-93 Consultant will identify all environmental parameters and
outline inter/intra agency agreements the DER needs to
develop.

08-31-93 Draft report submitted to the DER-DCZM for review and
comment.

09-30-93 Final report which incorporates all comments will be
submitted to DER-DCZM.

TASK DESCRIPTION

No. 92-EG.05@ Title: Prescrue Isle Bay Boating Impact Analysis

Federal: $ 107,500(3091 Non-Federal: $ 0 To--.al: $ 107,500
---------------------------------- :-Start-Date:-October-l,-1992 ---------
Work being done by: Completidn Date: SeMember 30, 1993

Grantee: X #Person Days: 30 :
:Section 309 Enhancement Area:
Others: X Cumulative & Secondary Impacts
1. Consultant
GAPC Involvement:
OV-1 (Prescrue Isle Bay)
---- 7 ------------------
Location: Presque Isle Bay, Erie County, Pennsylvania.

Background: Presque Isle Bay is a popular boating and recreational
area. The 3,200-acre bay is surrounded by five miles of shoreline. A
large part of that shoreline is associated with Presque Isle State Park
which receives 4.5 to 5 million visitors annually. Presque Isle
shelters the bay; which is not subject to as many rough water episodes
as the surrounding open lake waters (one-reason why the bay is so
attractive to boaters). However, the Bay is being subjected to
increased recreational usage as a result of coastal growth and
development. In the past decades, the number of marinas has increased
significantly. Additionally, many boats are launched in the bay from
trailers and car tops. The bay has approximately 2,500 public and
private slips, and demand still exists. The City of Erie has
recognized the need to study the impacts recreational boating is having
on the Bay and develop a management plan to address them.

Environmental impacts include water quality (sewage and gasoline from
the boats) as well as impacts from waves generated by the boats.
Sewage from boats is a concern in all waters of the Commonwealth, but
especially in enclosed bodies such as the Bay. There are currently no
state regulations requiring marinas to have pump out stations for
sanitary facilities on boats, or covering the usage of those pump out
stations by boats having sanitary facilities. There is little doubt
that sewage from boats is being pumped/dumped into the Bay. With such
a concentration of boats fugitive escapes of gasoline and oils into the
bay from boats and marina fiiling stations is occurring. The escapes
could currently be adversely affecting the bays water quality and the
severity is likely to increase as boating usage increases. Waves from
boating causes shoreline erosion which can harm wetlands. The
increased sediments and wave action can also harm fish spawning.
Boating disturbance may also be resuspending contaminated sediments
which are known to exist in the Bay.

overuse by boating also has social impacts. Safety is a major concern
as boating capacity limits are reached and ultimately exceeded. The
Bay is an attractive site for power boaters, sailing craft, and small
fishing boats. Overuse by boaters can also lead to a diminished

recreational experience for all concerned, not only among the boaters.
As the Bay's waters are cleaned up, there will be increasing demands
placed on it by shore fishermen because of its proximity to a large
urban population. The potential exists for increased conflicts among
boaters and between boaters and shore fishermen.

This project continues CZM1s effort regarding boating capacity and
boating impacts in Presque Isle Bay initiated under FY 1991 Section
309, Cumulative and Secondary Impacts, (Grant Task No. 91-EG.02).

Proiect Description: The study will-document present and future
environmental and social impacts that recreational boating is having on
Presque Isle Bay. Also, the study will determine what boat capacity
usage the Bay can support, a determination of what restrictions need to
be placed on boating, how these restrictions should be applied, and who
should be responsible for placing and enforcing those restrictions.
The study will also determine where and how boating should be
restricted to protect the environment and avoid user conflicts.

Estimated Prolect Budget

Salaries and wages $ 4,900
Fringe benefits 1,900
overhead 400
Travel 200
Materials & supplies 100
Equipment 0
Consultant/contractor $100,000
Total $107,500

Expected Products and Timetable: The results of this effort will be a
final report identifying the impacts boating is having on Presque Isle
Bay. This includes information regarding boat capacity, restrictions
on boating, and who, how, and where these restrictions should be
applied to protect the environment and avoid user conflicts.
Information regarding the status of this effort will be submitted to
OCRM as part of DER-DCZM's quarterly performance report. The
anticipated timetable for completing this effort is as follows:

12-31-92 Execute contract with consultant based on Scope of Work and
RFP developed under FY 1991 Section 309 (Grant Task No.
91-EG.02).

06-30-93 Consultant will identify present and future environmental a-nd
social impacts that recreational boating is having on Presque
Isle Bay. Also, what restrictions are needed to protect the
Bay environment and avoid user conflicts. This information
will be reviewed and coordinated through the Presque Isle Say
Task Force.

08-31-93 Draft report submitted to the Presque Isle Bay Task Force and
DER-DCZM for review and comment.

09-30-93 Final report which incorporates all comments will be
submitted to DER-DCZM.

TASK DESCRIPTION

No. 92-EG-06 Title: Nonpoint Source Critical Coastal Area
Identification

Federal: $ 290,000(309) Non-Federal: $ 0 Total: $ 290,000

: Start Date: October 1, 1992
---------------------------------- :-C-o ----------------------------------
Work being done by: mpletion Date: Selptember 30, 1993

Grantee: X #Person Days: 60 :
: Section 309 Enhancement Area:
Others: X Cumulative & Secondary Impacts
1. Consultant
GAPC Involvement:
All as Appropriate

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Location: Both Delaware Estuary and Lake Erie coastal zones.

Background: Coastal water quality is suffering as a result of nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution. This threat will increase from cumulative and
secondary impacts associated with growth and development as projected
coastal growth occurs. Unfortunately, nobody has.a good handle on what
NPS pollutants are causing the most problems (i.e., toxins, BODS, heavy
metals, etc.). The DER and the Delaware River Basin Commission have
some pertinent data but it has never been analyzed with respect to
trying to determine how much of the pollution is attributable to NPS.

The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP) will require the
Commonwealth to identify what NPS pollutants are impacting coastal
waters and also identify critical coastal areas adjacent to the
waterbodies to be protected. Including these adjacent areas for
implementation of additional management measures can have a significant
effect in preventing water quality problems and protecting designated
uses of the coastal waterbodies.

Since the Commonwealth does not have a lot of resources to devote to
CNPCP and since federal funds for CNPCP development are limited, it is
imperative that additional sources of funds be found for Pennsylvania
to develop a program that addresses NPS pollution in coastal waters.
Therefore, cZM will use Section 309 monies to hire a consultant to
identify these critical areas in both coastal zones. The following
criteria will be used to identify critical coastal areas under this
initiative.

* The nature of coastal water quality problem(s) caused by NPS
pollution.

* The extent to which NPS pollution is located adjacent to the
waterbodies vs. inland.

* The biophysical characteristics of the adjacent lands that will
affect the extent to which uses of these lands will cause NPS
pollution problems. These include topography/slope, soil
characteristics (erodibility, etc.); shoreline erosion

characteristics; hydrology, in particular groundwater linkages to
coastal waters and high water tables; and forest, wetlands, and other
natural areas that may provide natural buffers or nutrient sinks

* Important biological features that should be included as a whole in
critical coastal areas.

* The type(s), density, and characteristics of the new or expanded land
uses that are anticipated and their effect(s) on water quality.

* The extent to which the above effects can be prevented or reduced by
implementation of management measures for land uses.

* The need for an understandable and mappable area.

Project Description: The proposed study will analyze existing water
quality data, collect new data if necessary, and analyze existing land
use data to identify critical areas with regards to NPS pollution.
Once these areas are identified the source(s) of NPS pollution will
also be identified. Recommendations will be made as to what
regulations, authorities, tools, best management practices (Bmps),
agreements, etc. need to be developed to address the NPS pollution
problem in these critical coastal areas.

Estimated Project Budget

Salaries and wages $ 9,800
Fringe benefits 3,800
Overhead 700
Travel 500
materials & supplies 200
Equipment 0
Consultant/contractor $275,000.
Total $290,000

Expected Products and Timetable: The product, a final report will
identify critical coastal areas with regards to NPS pollution and the
source(s) responsible for the pollution. Also, recommendations
regarding how to address the NPS problem will result. Information
regarding the status of this effort will be submitted to OCRM as part
of DER-DCZM's quarterly performance report. The anticipated timetable
for completing this effort is as follows:

12-31-92 Scope of Work and RFP developed. Consultant selected.

04-30-93 Consultant will collect data for review and analysis in
determining and identifying critical coastal areas.

06-30-93 Consultant will identify and make recommendations for
addressing the NPS problem (authorities, regulations, etc.).

08-31-93 Draft report submitted to the DER-DCZM as well as other
appropriate agencies/programs for review and comment.

09-30-93 Final report which incorporates all comments will be
submitted to DER-DCZM.

PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGENIENT
SECTION 309 STRATEGY
PUBLIC ACCESS

IA. Problem Summary

The need for increased public access in both the Delaware Estuary and
Lake Erie coastal zones remains high. The approach the Coastal Zone
Management Program (CZM) has used, directing 306/306A funds toward this
issue, has not proven adequate to meet the needs/demand for public
access. Additionally, the coastal zones.,do not always receive the
attention from other state public access providers because of their
statewide responsibilities to provide public recreation. The coastal
zones are small geographic areas with respect to the whole state.
Therefore, the Program needs to take a more active role as a public
access facilitator and focus state, federal, local, and private
resources to provide more public access opportunities in both coastal
zones.

1B.,Prociram Change(s)

The following Program Changes are proposed in addressing Public Acce'-%s
in Pennsylvania.

Program Change 1 - Development of Public Access Management Plan (PAMP)

Program Change 2 - Development of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)
or letters of agreement

These program changes, further described within this strategy, will
enable CZM to better focus its limited resources, help identify and
clarify responsibilities of other entities who provide public access,
and help define how CZM can act as a facilitator in fulfilling public
access needs in both coastal zones. Additionally, this approach will
consolidate all CZM and non-CZM resources (i.e., staff, money, etc.),
thus providing a broader spectrum of opportunities for providing public
access. This will enable CZM to address public access through a more
unified approach by creating a better working relationship among all
public access providers (i.e., those who build, fund or coordinate
public access development) as well as focus limited resources on public
access priorities in the coastal zones.

Initially in 1993, CZM is proposing a public access policy change. CZM
will develop a new public access policy and present it to federal, .
state, and local agencies responsible for providing public access, for
review, input, and ultimate adoption. This new policy is an important
step in the entire process. Based on the Governor's Executive Order,
to the maximum extent pex3nitted by law,, all administrative departments,
independent administrative boards and co=lssions, and other state
agencies shall enforce and act consistently with the goals, policies,
and objectives of the CZX Program. By developing a formal policy
statement it brings the public access issue to a higher level of
visibility within the Commonwealth. Although not enforceable per se,
once formulated it will provide the basis for discussions and action by
those agencies with authorities to provide public access. The policy

will more clearly articulate responsibility as well as provide leverage
in pursuing, managing, and directing other state and local resources
toward this issue.

As part of this process, CZX will meet with these public access
agencies/providers to discuss, negotiate, and coordinate the new policy
concept and explain CZM1s role as a coastal public access facilitator.
Additionally, CZM will begin to investigate and analyze existing
authorities, mechanisms, and tools these agencies/providers use to
provide public access opportunities in Pennsylvania. This information
will be further developed and incorporated as part of tfie PAMP which is
discussed below.

In subsequent years (1994-1995), CZX will create a Public Access Task
Force to assist in establishing public access priorities and guide the
development of the PAMP. Furthermore, CZM will look at developing
stronger links between appropriate public access providers through MoUs
or letters of agreement to ensure these public access agencies adopt
the new public access policy and PAMP.

Program Change 1 - Development of a PAMP

CZX will undertake the development of a PAMP. As part of this effort.,
CZX will create a Public Access Task Force, composed of representatives
of federal, state, and local public access agencies/providers (possibly
a subcommittee of the CZAC or local CZSC) to assist in establishing
public access priorities and guide the development of the PAMP.

The PAMP (to be partially completed by a consultant) will include an
inventory and analysis of existing access areas and use patterns
(including legal property/ownership rights). In addition, CZX will
meet with state and local public access agencies/providers (i.e., those
who build, fund or coordinate public access development) and
Commonwealth legal counsel to research and analyze the existing legal
and regulatory authorities, mechanisms, and tools the Program can use
to help improve and increase public access opportunities in
Pennsylvania's coastal zones. This information is an integral part of
the PAMP and will be useful in developing and identifying priority
public access efforts.
The following are some of the mechanisms/tools Pennsylvania may have
available in providing public access opportunities. CZM realizes that
all of these may not be applicable to the Program; however, we
anticipate that some could result or lead to program changes.
Therefore, exploring all potential options is a necessary step in the
overall process. Once completed, CZM will know what mechanism/tools
the Program can use and the agencies that can help us in this endeavor.
Furthermore, if other potential program changes are identified, CZM
will amend the strategy to reflect them.

Use of state owned lands or public right-of-ways for providing
increased active and passive public access opportunities.

Fee simple and less than fee simple acquisition options other than
outright purchase.

Partial gift property donation (donor retains unrestricted title to
portion of property).

Easements (limited right owner grants for use of property).

Leasing property with option for purchase.

Working with local authorities toward adopting public access
provisions as a component of their comprehensive plans and zoning
ordinances. Local communities have the power to create special
zones dedicated to specific uses while prohibiting other uses.
These include waterfront districts, overlay districts (regulated
development activities), incentive zoning (provide certain
concessions to developers in exchange for public benefit), zoning of
storm or flood damaged property for non-residential, recreational
use, and adopting an ordinance that requires developers to provide
public access or a fee in lieu of, to be placed in special fund
designated for acquisition.or development of public access areas
and/or opportunities.

Limited liability for private property owners who open land to
public recreational use.

Resolving how to overcome existing environmental barriers and
conditions (i.e., bluffs, highways, etc.) to provide additional
public access opportunities. For example, CZM will undertake a
demonstration project in the Lake Erie coastal zone. An accessway
will be installed through the bluff face to the water to determine
what technique and materials are best and if a stabilized method of
traversing the bluffs and providing increased access is possible.
once we establish a proven method, CZM can then proceed to use this
approach in identifying and providing increased public access
opportunities with local and state entities.

Tax incentives for property owners who donate or sell property at
reduced prices to local governments, nonprofit land trusts, etc.

Donations of property (donor receives public recognition and avoids
capital gain tax).

Reduced price/installment sale (phased acquisition parcel by
parcel).

Flood damage property (difference between what HUD would normally
pay to compensate for damages and the outright purchase price).

Prescriptions (if you use a piece of property long enough without
the owner's permission, you acquire the right to continue using it.

Dedications (land owner dedicates land or the use of land to public
with local government accepting on behalf of public).

Explore the use of access opportunities with commercial and/or
industrial property owners in the coastal zones (potential to use
facilities during weekends and off-work days).

Explore the creation or establishment of a revenue source (local or
state level) to increase and improve public access opportunities in
Pennsylvania's coastal zones. These funds could be generated
through a special tax or fee and would be used strictly for
development, acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of
specific access sites.

Also as part of the PAMP, Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPC)
will be incorporated into this'process. CZM will assess its existing
GAPC process and develop new or revised GAPCs for recreation (public
access) which will identify specific allowable uses for*each. CZM will
negotiate with each coastal municipality, public access provider and/or
public land administrator to set priority uses in each public access
GAPC. CZM will expand its requirements so that No CZM funding will be
available to state or local government agencies for public access
activities (planning, construction or acquisition) unless located in a
recreation (public access) GAPC. Further, the MOUs/agreements (as
discussed below) will include language to also preclude the use of any
state funding for public access activities unless it is located in a
designated public access GAPC. Periodically the Public Access Task
Force will meet to discuss public access (update or revise existing
GAPCs, discuss additional mechanisms to improve or provide more access,
etc.). This process will force close coordination regarding public
access and will also increase the focus and commitment of all affected
parties to only provide public access opportunities identified by the
GAPCs in the PAMP.

Program Change 2 - MoUs or letters of agreement

CZM will look at developing stronger links between appropriate public
access providers through MOUs or letters of agreement. This is the
enforceable mechanism CZM will use to ensure these agencies adopt the
new public access policy and PAMP. MOUs are program agreements between
the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) and other state
agencies and/or commissions which details the manner in which they will
use their authorities in the furtherance of the Program's policies.
These MOUs will more closely link our agencies' involvement, provide an
avenue to better coordinate and address the provision of public access,
and direct limited resources (staff and money) toward providing public
access opportunities, both active and passive, in Pennsylvania's
coastal zones. Additionally, they improve the Program staff management
capabilities by making CZM more aware of pertinent activities in the
coastal zones.

CZM will develop new or revise existing MOUs and agreements with the
Department of Community Affairs, DER Bureaus of State Parks and Dams
and Waterway Management, PA Game Commission, PA Fish and Boat
Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service.

CZM will revise the existing MOU with the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) to better focus their efforts in providing greater
funding opportunities for providing public access in the coastal
zones. DCA has many programs that provide assistance both technical
and financial that could augment and/or supplement CZM funding (i.e.,
Land & water Conservation Fund (LWCF), Heritage Parks Program,
Recreation Improvement & Rehabilitation Act (RIRA), etc.).

CZM will develop an MOU with the DER Bureau of State Parks to better
direct and coordinate our agencies efforts in identifying and
providing both passive and active access opportunities in the coastal
zones (i.e., Presque Isle State Park and Neshaminy State Park).
Additionally, this MOU will tie CZM more closely into the statewide
comprehensive outdoor recreation planning process (SCORP). Because
of the varied and diverse recreational needs, demands, and
opportunities exclusive to Pennsylvania's coastal zones, CZM will
pursue development of a more detailed coastal zone section for the
next SCORP. This will help CZM to continually identify and update
the focus of what the public demand is and what facili-ty types to
provide.

CZM will develop an MOU with DER's Bureau of Dams and Waterway
Management to better focus our agencies efforts regarding assessing,
monitoring, and enforcing public access rights in the coastal zones.
As part of this, we will explore and analyze riparian rights under
Chapter 105 regulations and the Public Trust Doctrine to determine
additional means for public access.

Developing an MOU with the PA Game Commission will better focus their
efforts in providing multiple-use public access opportunities on
state game lands within the coastal zone.

Revising the existing MOU with the PA Fish and Boat Commission
(formally PA Fish Commission) will better focus their efforts in
providing new fishing, boating and passive recreational opportunities
as well as rehabilitating existing access sites in both coastal
zones. CZM will become more aware and involved in coastal land
acquisition efforts and opportunities.

Development of an MOU/agreement with the National Park Service (NPS)
will better focus their staff and financial support regarding public
access opportunities in the coastal zones. The-NPS has many programs
that provide assistance both technical and financial to augment CZM
funding (i.e., Historic Preservation Fund Grants-In-Kind, Rivers and
Trails Conservation Programs, etc.).

Development of an MOU/agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will better focus their staff and financial support in
providing new fishing and boating opportunities as well as
rehabilitate existing access sites in both coastal zones. CZM will
become more aware and involved in coastal land acquisition efforts
and opportunities.

1C. Apiprooriateness of Tools

CZM has always had the mandate to address public access needs in the
coastal zones; however, our approach has not proven adequate to meet
the demand/needs. The new public access policy will more clearly
articulate responsibility as well as provide leverage in pursuing,
managing, and directing other state and local resources toward this
issue. Proposed program changes (PAMP, MOUs, etc.) are necessary tools
to implement the new policy. The end result will be greater substance
and predictability to CZM's efforts to provide increased public access

opportunities in Pennsylvania's coastal zones. It will also ensure
that CZM1s limited program resources will be used in consort with other
available resources to maximize public access efforts and impacts.

1D. Costs

1993 - $20,000 staff cost (weighted formula)

1994 - $15,000 staff cost (weighted formula)

1995 - $37,000 staff cost/$50,000 consultant cost (weighted formula)

Total cost: $122,000

1E. Schedule

1993 - New public access policy development, meet and coordinate with
affected agencies, and adoption of new policy.

1994 - Create Public Access Task Force to assist in establishing public
access priorities and guide the development of a Scope Of Work
(SOW) and Request For Proposals (RFP) for the PAMP.

1995 - Conduct and complete PAMP. Development MOUs/agreements with
appropriate agencies. Develop additional policies, legal or
regulatory mechanisms, etc. if appropriate. Revise and update
CZM documents to reflect new direction and coordinate changes
with affec ted entities.

1F. Likelihood of Success

CZM feels that the new public access policy and program change(s),
(PAMP, MOUs, etc.) will be looked upon very favorably. We have the
support from DER and the local municipalities in pursuing increased
public access and the backing to implement the necessary changes to the
program. Additionally CZM feels it has the acceptability of the other
agencies identified in the strategy. Many of the identified agencies
participate as members of CZM's Coastal Zone Advisory Committee or
locally at the Steering Committee level. These groups had numerous
opportunities to comment on the Assessment and CZM's direction with
regards to Section 309. We received no negative input or comments. In
fact, all of the access agencies/providers were supportive of the
effort and optimistic of the potential to collectively address the
problems of providing public access (i.e., scattered funding and
limited financial and staff resources, etc.) to accomplish
Pennsylvania's goals for coastal public access.

This is a high visibility issue. People want more public access
opportunities (passive and active). To maintain the support for the
intended program change(s), CZM will direct money and staff efforts in
pursuing the above identified mechanisms (PAMP, MOUs, etc.) and toward
providing improved and increased public access opportunities in
Pennsylvania's coastal zones.

OUTYEAR TASKS

1993 - Public access policy development, coordination with affected
agencies, and adoption of new policy.
12-31-93 Draft new public access policy.

03-31-94 Distribute policy and meet with appropriate federal, state,
local, and private agencies for review/input.
06-30-94 Coordinate with affected agencies as to responsibilities
under new policy and analyze legal and regulatory
authorities, mechanisms, and tools available to help improve
and increase public access in Pennsylvania's coastal zones.

09-30-94 Finalize and adopt policy.

Work Product: * New public access policy
� Meet and coordinate with public access providers to
identify, analyze, and develop tools
� Adoption of new policy

1994 - Create Public Access Task Force and develop Scope of Work and
RFP for PAMP.

03-31-95 Create Public Access Task Force.

09-30-95 Scope of Work and RFP for the PAMP '(to be partially completed
by a consultant) will be finalized.

Work Product: * Creation of Public Access Task Force
* PAMP Scope of Work and RFP

1995 - Conduct and complete PAMP. Develop MOUs/agreements with
appropriate agencies. Develop additional policies, legal or
regulatory mechanisms, etc., if appropriate. Revise and update
CZM documents to reflect new direction and coordinate changes
with affected entities.

12-31-95 Consultant selected and PAMP initiated.

03-31-96 Develop MOUs/agreements with appropriate agencies.

08-31-96 Complete PAMP, and if appropriate, develop additional
policies or mechanisms for providing public access
opportunities.

09-31-96 Revise existing procedures for soliciting projects i.e.,
application guidelines, selection criteria; coordinate
changes with both local steering committees and advisory
committee; and update FEIS and program document to reflect
changes.

Work Product: * PAMP
* MOUs/agreements
* Updated program document and FEIS reflecting new
public access direction

PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SECTION 309 STRATEGY
WETLANDS

IA. Problem Sunmary

Current regulations and Coastal Zone Management (CZM) monitoring
activities adequately protect and preserve Pennsylvania's coastal
wetlands within the CZM coastal boundaries. However, direct and
significant impacts to coastal wetlands result from activities which
occur in hydrologically connected waters/wetlands and surrounding
uplands located beyond the current boundaries.

1B. Program Change

Expand the Pennsylvania.CZM Boundaries to Include Significant
Hydrologically Connected wetlands

This task will result in a change to Pennsylvania CZM boundaries.
CZM1s wetland enhancement objective is to protect, restore, or enhance
existing coastal wetlands. By expanding the CZM boundary to include
hydrologically connected wetlands, it is estimated that CZM will
increase the number of wetlands they currently protect by tenfold. CZM
will expand the coastal boundaries in Erie, Delaware, Philadelphia, and
Bucks counties to include wetlands that are hydrologically connected,to
coastal wetlands. A boundary change may not be explored in .
Philadelphia County if it is determined that there are too few wetlands
within this highly urbanized portion of the coastal zone. Those
wetlands that do exist may be so degraded it is doubtful they have any
existing wetland value.

As stated in the final assessment, Chapter 105 Regulations require
that mitigation for impacted wetlands within CZM boundaries must occur
within those same boundaries. By expanding the boundaries, this
additional protection can be extended to hydrologically connected
wetlands.

In the Lake Erie coastal zoner the CZM boundary will be analyzed
to the limits of the Lake Erie' Primarv watershed. All the streams
within these limits (except those in Springfield Township) will flow
into Lake Erie through Pennsylvania land. In Springfield Township, the
majority of streams within the primary watershed flow west into Ohio
and then into Lake Erie. The largest of these is Conneaut Creek.
Turkey Creek, a smaller tributary closer to the Lake Erie shoreline and
partially within CZX boundaries, also flows into Ohio. The existing
CZM boundary will be analyzed south approximately two miles beyond the
existing boundaries to take in all of Turkey Creek watershed drainage.
The largest expansion analyzed will be approximately ten miles from the
existing boundary line. The average planned expansion to be analyzed
is approximately eight miles.

The expansion analysis of the CZM boundary in the Delaware Estuary
coastal zone is much more complex than that of Lake Erie. The primary
and secondary watersheds are too large for expansion purposes. A
thorough field examination will analyze the limits and process of

expansion. For purposes of this strategy, average limits will be
approximately three to five miles. This distance was determined by
measuring smaller (some unnamed) tributaries and the upper limits of
free flow (dams/reservoirs) of larger streams. The purpose of this
task would be to analyze all available information and determine a
process to expand the CZM boundary limits. There is a possibility that
the Delaware Estuary coastal zone boundary may not be expandable or
only expandable in special areas subject to special criteria such as
unique wetlands, rare and endangered species, etc.

This program change will involve close public involvement and
coordination with federal, state, county, and local agencies.

1C. Appropriateness of Tools

Current regulations and monitoring activities adequately protect
wetlands within the CZM boundaries. The only feasible way to address
impacts from hydrologically connected impacts to coastal wetlands is to
exDand the CZM boundaries to include upland drainage areas/watersheds.

1D. Costs

1992 - $3C,000 staff cost (weighted formula)

1993 - $10,000 staff cost (weighted formula)

Total Cost: $40,000

1E. Schedule

1992 - Evaluate existing boundaries and collect information to
determine the appropriate expansion process and limits.
Draft/finalize boundary change proposal.

1993 - Develop amendment package to distribute for public review and
comments. Hold public hearings to receive testimony. Complete
final documents and submit to NOAA/OCRM for approval.

1F. Likelihood of Success

There is no perceived negative impacts to having Pennsylvania's
CZM Program boundaries expanded. There will be adequate federal,
state, and local support for this action. The department will provide
additional support for this effort through additional staff to handle
the wetland protection/monitoring/coordination work. This task has a
high likelihood of success.
FY92 Work Program.(Proiect of Special Merit!

CZM will complete a thorough analysis of boundary, hydrologic,
topographic, geologic, and political boundary maps. Other resource
documents will be analyzed along with conducting field work in the
affected areas. This will be done to determine how far the boundaries
must extend in order to include all or as many wetlands hydrologically
connected to coastal wetlands.

First Quarter (Oct-Dec) - Analyze all existing data, maps, and reports
that may have relevance to how hydrologically connected wetlands can be
included within CZM boundaries. Draft a boundary change proposal for
both.

Second and Third Quarter (Jan-Jun) - Public involvement and
coordination meeting with federal, state, and local agencies on
proposed boundary changes.

Fourth Quarter (Jul-Sep) - Finalize boundary change proposal.

OUTYRAR TASKS

1993

Develop amendment package of boundary changes and submit to NOAA/OCRM
for approval.

Benchmarks:

a. Develop amendment package to distribute for public review and
comment.

b. Hold public hearings to receive testimony on boundary changes.

C. Compile final documents and submit to NOAA/OCRM for amendment
approval.

TASK DESCRIPTION

No. 92-EG.03 Title: CZM Boundary Change

Federal: $ 15,000(309) Non-Federal: $ 0 Total: $ 15,000
---------------------------------- :-Start-Date:-October-l,-1992 --------
Work being done by: Completion Date: September 30, 19T3

Grantee: X #Person Days: 60 :
: Section 309 Enhancement Area:
Others: Wetlands

GAPC Involvement:
All as Appropriate
Location:--Both-Delaware-Estuary-and- Lake- Erie-coastal-zones -----------

Background: CZM1s wetland enhancement objective is to protect,
restore, or enhance existing coastal wetlands. By expanding the CZM
boundary to include hydrologically connected wetlands, it is estimated
the CZM will increase the number of wetlands they currently protect by
tenfold. CZM will expand the coastal boundaries in Erie, Delaware,
Philadelphia, and Bucks counties to include wetlands that are
hydrologically connected to coastal wetlands. A boundary change may'
not be explored in Philadelphia County if it is determined that there
are too few wetlands within this highly urbanized portion of the
coastal zone. Those wetlands that do exist may be so degraded it is
doubtful they have any existing wetland value.

As stated in the final assessment, Chapter 105 regulations require that
mitigation for impacted wetlands within CZM boundaries must occur
within those same boundaries. By expanding the boundaries, this
additional protection can be extended to hydrologically connected
wetlands. Other benefits derived will include a more realistic
fulfillment of the needs and desires of the coastal residents,
businesses, industries, and interest groups that were expressed during
the formulation of the Pennsylvania CZM Program, and to address wetland
preservation - a national priority.

Proiect Description: The purpose of this task is to analyze all
available information and determine a process to expand the CZM
boundary limits. CZM will complete a thorough analysis of boundary,
hydrologic, topographic, geologic, and political boundary maps. other
resource documents will be analyzed along with conducting field work in
the affected areas to determine how far the boundaries must extend in
order to include all or as many wetlands hydrologically connected to
coastal wetlands.

Following the analysis of existing data (maps, reports, etc.), draft
boundary change proposals for both coastal zones will be developed.
They will be subject to review by federal, state and local agencies and
the public prior to finalizing the boundary change proposals.

Estimated Proiect Budget

Salaries and wages $ 9,800
Fringe benefits 3,800
Overhead 700
Travel 500
Materials & supplies 200
Equipment 0
Consultant/contractor $ 0
Total $ 151000

Expected Products and Timetable: The product of this effort will be a
final determination on how far the CZM'boundaries need to be extended
in order to include wetlands hydrologically connected to coastal
wetlands (boundary change proposal). Information regarding the status
of this effort will be submitted to OCRM as part of DER-DCZM1s
quarterly performance report. The anticipated timetable for completing
this effort is as follows:

12-31-92 Analyze all existing data, maps, and reports that may have
relevance to how hydrologically connected wetlands can be
included within CZM boundaries. Draft a boundary change
proposal for both coastal zones.

06-30-93 Public involvement and coordination meeting with federal,
state, and local agencies on proposed boundary changes.

09-30-93 Finalize boundary change proposal.

COST SUMMARY

PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SECTION 309 STRATEGY SCHEDULE AND COST

Projects
of
Weighted Special
MAXIMUM PER YEAR WEIGHTED FORMULA: $114,800 Program Formula Merit
Change 309 309
Areas Funding Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t
992

H - Bluff points/Measures/Monitor 1B $ 50,000
- Compile legal interpretation changes; BRSA 2B 5,000
IL -Inventory boundary changes 'and develop proposal 1B 30,000
&SI -Develop Bucks Co. dredge disposal study 1B 7,500 $ 50,000
-PIBay - convene study, develop RFP, execute 2B 7,500 100,000
consultant contract
-NPS - let contract for identifying critical 31B 15,000 275,000
coastal areas -------- - --------
$115,000 $425,000
1993

f'H -Amend Shoreline Erosion and Flooding, Erie Co. 1B $ 10,000
-Amend CH policy IA.1 to include BRSA guidelines 2B 6,500
Pre BRSA Amendment work 3B 10,000
-Amend Act; BRSA 3B 18,000
-Research new bluff traverse/use possibilities 3B 18,000

v)L -Develop amendment package for OCRM approval 1B 10,000
I
-Analyze dredge study, implement recommendations, 1B 7,500
develop purchase/lease agreements, and
MOU/agreements
-PlBay - Review study recommendations, implement them 2B 7,500
-NPS - develop authorities/tools to address land 3B 7,500
use NPS problems

PA -Develop new public access policy, meet and coordinate 1B 20,000
with analyze tools and mechanisms, and adopt policy ---------
$115,000

1994

CH -Amend Regs, local ord. for recession rate changes 1B $ 22,000
Amend Regs, local ord. for bluff face restrictions 3B 26,000
-Demonstration projects on traversing/using bluff face 3B 22,000

C&SI -Finalize activities, secure sites, execute/implement 1B 10,000
agreements
-PIBay - finalize regulations, agreements and implement 2B 10,000
-NPS continue developing tools/authorities 3B 10,000

PA -Create public access task force and develop PAMP SOW 1B 15,000
and RFP ---------
$115,000

1995

CH - Monitor and evaluate bluff face use demo projects 3B $ 13,000
-Develop technical assistance package 3B 15,000

PA -Develop public access management plan 1B 62,000
-Develop MOUs and agreements 1B 10,000
-Develop additional public access policies if 1B 10,000
necessary
-Revise existing project selection criteria and IB 5,000
procedures and inform CZSCs and CZACs ---------
and update (RPI) HIS program document $115,000

Lake Erie Coastal Zone

COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY

E R I E

-ARBORCREEK WP
SPRINGFIELD T WIP GIR.RD T WP TWP L
MiLL CREEK TWP
GREENE' TWP GR
McKEAN I p summit T.P
I
-1NF A. I I P

N.t- Inacc "I I @ 197(-Ii,yof III, S 1),I-1-ni of
I
1-1. 1 1"d h:,I, b@ I.w. ub)-i .I,

.01, F1 A III, fld'-1,11 II I, I.), ".I III,
........ te-1 1111-11o
c

01
'F

Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone

P H I L A DE L P H I A

NI@L
TER

81,11. NI'M

(1-DE N

COASIAL ZONE BOUNDARY

N.W U
I beld "b" 1, .... .. .. ...... ..... by I-,
11 .. ...... I"I " '-@ I 'd
'fl'111'1111 ILI 111.11L

; JOU COASTAL SIRVICES CTR LIBRARY - -
. *
3 6668 14111123 9 '