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

















                                    ASSESSMENT
                                      OF THE
                                   PENNSYLVANIA
                         COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM










                               Performed Under The
                     Coastal Zone Enbancement Grants Program
                                   Section 309
                           Coastal Zone Management Act





                                 January 15, 1992






                                 hastal


                                              ME







                                   Prepared By
                           Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
                      Department of Environmental Resources
                       Bureau of Water Resources Management
                       Division of Coastal Zone Management
    GcJ021
      P4
     1992



















                           This Assessment of the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program was funded in part by a grant
                       from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                                              through the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.

















































                    LIBRARY
                    NOAA/CCEH
                    1990 H0BSON AVE.
                   CHAS. SC 29408-2623
 







                            SECTION 309 ENHANCEMENT AREAS





                                                               Page

              Overview                                            1

              Wetlands Assessment                                 5


              Coastal Hazards Assessment                        15


              Public Access Assessment                          22


              Marine Debris Assessment                          28

              Cumulative and Secondary Impacts Assessment       32

              Special Area Management Planning Assessment       36

              Energy and Government Facility
                Siting and Activity Assessment                  39

              Lake Erie Coastal Zone Map                        44

              Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Map                 45






                                          Over7iew




           This assessment of Pennsylvania's Coastal Zone Management Program
           (czx) was conducted in response to a new federal program. Section
           309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended in 1990,
           establishes a new voluntary Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants
           Program that encourages states to develop program changes in one
           or more of eight coastal zone enhancement areas:

                - coastal wetlands
                - coastal hazards
                - public access
                - marine debris
                - cumulative and secondary impacts
                - special area management planning
                - ocean resources
                - energy and government facility siting and activities

           Under the grant program, states that improve their programs to
           meet goals in one or more of the enhancement areas are eligible
           for additional federal funding.

           As required by the new program, CZX conducted an assessment of the
           eight enhancement areas in the Lake Erie and Delaware Estuary
           coastal zones. This assessment afforded CZM the opportunity to
           step back and reevaluate the program's management direction for
           the enhancement areas. Included in this document is the following
           information on those areas:

                - current status
                - current state, federal, and local efforts
                - existing and potential problems
                - CZX1s direction

           An important element of the assessment is public comment. CZM
           conducted two surveys of the coastal public, as well as state,
           federal and local government agencies. The surveys offered the
           public an opportunity to help identify the key enhancement areas
           and to indicate whether they agree with the assessment and CZM's
           direction. In additionf CZX held a public meeting in each coastal
           zone.

           Listed below is a summary of the assessment findings for seven of
           the enhancement areas. The ocean resources enhancement area does
           not apply to Pennsylvania and is not included in the assessment.

           Based on the assessments, CZM does not plan to make any program
           changes for the following two enhancement areas:

                    Marine Debris

                    Marine debris is controlled and reduced through existing
                    state, federal, and local legislation and efforts.





                However, CZX will continue its efforts to educate the
                public on the problem of marine debris.

                Ene=v and Government Facility Siting and Activities

                This enhancement area is being addressed by existing CZX
                policies and state coordination and review mechanisms.

        The following five enhancement areas have been identified as
        priority issues for Pennsylvania and will result in CZX program
         changes:

             -  Coastal Wetlands

                Wetland resources are lost to-development activities
                because of incomplete review procedures at the local and
                county levels. CZM's enforceable policy on wetlands may
                have to be revised and/or interagency agreements created to
                establish a mechanism for this additional review.


              - Coastal Hazards

                Major concerns in the Lake Erie Coastal Zone are
                unrestricted bluff development and improper structure
                siting. Options CZM may pursue include amending the Bluff
                Recession and Setback Act and improving bluff recession
                monitoring techniques.

              - Public Access

                CZM was providing public access opportunities with limited
                federal funding. However, the need for access is so great
                that CZXf as facilitator, must direct the program's limited
                funds to leverage greater state and local involvement.

                Cumulative and Secondary Impacts

                Wise land-use management is the key to minimizing
                cumulative and secondary impacts on coastal resources. In
                addition to providing funds for local planning and zoning
                updates, CZM will explore means to better ensure that
                critical areas are protected by local land-use decision
                making.

                Special Area Manaaement PlannInct

                CZM program changes may include a new policy on dredge
                disposal, new regulations governing development of
                marinas/pump-out stations in Presque Isle Bay, and
                regulations limiting the number of power boats in Presque
                Isle Bay.







                                          2





         Listed below is a general task schedule, by federal grant year,
         for the five priority enhancement areas. This schedule is based
         on a best guess of possible funding, consultant involvement and
         staff availability. These priority task bullets are generated
         from the "Direction" section under each enhancement area.


         GY1991

         GAPc study - Cumulative and Secondary Impacts (CSI)

         Identify areas subject to cumulative and secondary impacts and
         coastal development - CSI

         Inventory land uses on bluff face - Coastal Hazards  Unrestricted
         Bluff Development (UBD)

         GY1992

         Review Act 247 responsibilities (county and local)  Wetlands

         Review Chapter 102 responsibilities for county conservation
         districts and local governments - Wetlands

         Determine need for MOUs for coordination with CZX'implement
         program changes, and provide mapping, mylar, and other tools -
         Wetlands

         Research for acceptable ways to use bluff face areas - Coastal
         Hazards - UBD

         Improve mechanisms for oversight of the local administration of
         the Bluff Recession and Setback Act - Coastal Hazards - Improper
         Structure Siting (ISS)

         Inventory access opportunities (resources and mechanisms) that can
         be used to provide access in coastal zones - Public Access

         Conduct meetings to determine parameters (scope for RFP) for boat
         capacity/impact study for-Presque Isle Bay - SAMPS - Presque Isle
         (PI)

         Develop RFP to retain consultant to conduct boat capacity/impact
         study for Presque Isle Bay -.SAMPS - PI

         GY1993

         Develop educational programs and materials on proper bluff
         development techniques directed towards bluff property owners
         Coastal Hazards - UBD

         Monitor additional control points and amend the baEe report
         Erosion and Floodincr, -Erie County-, and possibly the Bluff
         Recession and Setback Act - Coastal Hazards - ISS






                                        3





        meet with inter/intra agencies (coordination) to determine what
        resources and mechanisms (opportunities) can be implemented -
        Public Access

        Identify means to have local governments protect areas from
        impacts (impacts from coastal development)- via land use management
        authorities (existing and new ones) - CSI

        Implement program changes - CSI
        Conduct Presque Isle Bay boat capacity/impact study - SAMPS - PI

        GY199

        Assess the effectiveness of the educational program and materials
        - Coastal Hazards - UBD

        Determine what options (opportunities) to pursue - Public Access

        Determine all possible dredge disposal sites.- SAMPS - DD

        Meet with pertinent property owners, regulatory agencies, etc.,
        SAMPS - DD

        Determine options for acquiring long-range solutions, i.e.,
        acquisition, easements, etc. - SAMPS - DD

        FY1995

        Amend coastal hazards policy (program change)   Coastal Hazards
        ISS

        Develop necessary actions/policies/duthorities to implement
        program changes - Public Access

        Implement selected options and make necessary program changes -
        SAMPS - DD

        Devise strategy and implement program changes for Presque Isle Bay
        boat capacity/impact study - SAMPS - PI

        Amend Bluff Recession and Setback Act - Coastal Hazards    UBD


















                                        4






                                Wetlands Assessment



       Legislative Objective

           5309(a)(1) Protectionf restoration, or enhancement of existing
           coastal wetland base or creation of new coastal wetlands.

       Assessment Characterization

           Characterize the status of coastal wetlands; their extent (by type
           e.g., tidal and nontidal), trends (rat'e of loss/gain), and threats
           (direct and indirect) to those wetlands..

                                    Introduction

       The Coastal Zone Management Program (CZM) takes the preservation and
       protection of wetlands within its coastal zone boundaries very
       seriously. CZM has taken innovative approaches, beyond the normal
       coordination/review processes, to ensure all coastal wetlands are
       identified, monitored, and vigorously protected or restored if damaged.
       This assessment gives CZM the opportunity to step back and examine the
       effectiveness of its wetlands protection program.

                        Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone (DECZ)

       The DECZ has 1,640 acres of wetlands. Most (82%) of the wetlands are
       palustrine wetlands (see Attachment A) which total 1,343 acres; the
       remaining wetlands are riverine tidal wetlands. Nine general types of
       palustrine wetlands are identified that can be classified into two
       broad groups by water regime modifiers: tidal and nontidal wetlands.
       Tw-o hundred and seventeen acres are tidal wetlands and 1,128 acres are
       nontidal wetlands. The largest number of palustrine wetlands are
       represented by nontidal emergent and nontidal unconsolidated bottom
       wetlands.

       Between the mid-1970s and 1986, a net loss of 184 acres of palustrine
       wetlands took place within the DECZ- During this period, there was no
       net change in riverine tidal wetlands.

       Palustrine nontidal emergent wetlands experienced the greatest net
       losses (129 acres), amounting to a 22 percent loss. The causes of this
       loss were varied, but most of the loss was attributed to sewage
       treatment plant facilities, dredged material disposal, and highway
       construction (see chart 1). other causes of emergent wetland loss were
       industrial and commercial development and unknown activities.

       A net loss of 36 acres of freshwater ponds (palustrine unconsolidated
       bottom) was also significant. This represents a seven percent loss.
       Industrial developmentsf dredged material disposal, sewage treatment
       plant facilities, highway construction, and commercial developments
       were major causes of pond loss.






                                        5




      The wetlands of the DECZ appear to be under constant and sometimes
      tntense development pressures. Open land is scarce and valuable for a
      myriad of development projects, both private and public. Most of DECZ
      is comprised of permanently altered or disturbed land. Many of the
      remaining wetland areas are small and isolated. A majority of these
      are degraded to a monoculture (lacking diversity) and near ecological
      collapse. The few undisturbed and more diverse wetlands are good
      examples of the types of wetlands that once existed in this area and
      are again needed in the coastal zone.

      Every existing wetland in the DECZ is accounted for in the coastal zone
      wetlands data base. The data base is a result of the wetland moni-
      toring project that was developed and is updated by CZM. The
      information in this assessment is taken from the 1986 monitoring
      project. From the 1989 monitoring project, limited information is
      available. CZM determined from the 1989 field investigations that
      approximately 50 percent of the detected wetland losses were from
      unpermitted activities. These were activities undertaken without state
      or federal permits.

      Persistent coordination with state and federal enforcement agencies,
      and recent joint wetland enforcement initiatives, have afforded the
      wetlands of the DECZ the highest management priority and level of
      protection of any group of wetlands in the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
      vania. This process will hopefully mean a no net loss status of
      wetlands in the DECZ. Furthermore, with restoration of illegally taken
      areas, and mitigation for permitted loss sites and human-made gains
      (pond construction/dams), future wetland acreage should increase in the
      DECZ.

                           Lake Erie Coastal Zone (LECZ)

      The LECZ has 9,974 acres of wetlands. Nearly two-thirds (6,295 acres)
      of this acreage is lacustrine wetland associated with the littoral zone
      (shallow water - less than 6.6 feet deep) of Lake Erie. Almost all
      (3,672 acres) of the remaining wetlands are palustrine wetlands.

      Palustrine wetlands, although less abundant than the lacustrine
      wetlands, are more diverse. Nine general types of palustrine wetlands
      are identified. Of these, forested wetlands are most abundant,
      accounting for 76 percent (2,792 acres) of the palustrine wetlands. If
      this type is combined with the mixed forested wetland types, all
      forested wetlands represent 80 percent (2,939 acres) of the inland
      wetlands. Palustrine wetlands occupy about nine percent (3,672 acres)
      of the 63-square mile land area of the LECZ.
      In general,'only minor net changes occurred in the number of LECZ
      wetlands during the period mid-1970s to 1986. Small net losses of
      three wetland types (i.e., palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, palustrine
      scrub-shrub/emergent wetlands, and lacustrine littoral unconsolidated
      bottom) have occurred in this period. In contrast, three types of
      palustrine wetlands experienced slight net gains, whereas, six other
      wetland types did not change.





                                        6





     fUrbanization, mostly housing developments, caused 53 percent of the
       wetland losses and little of the wetland gains or changes in type (see
       chart 1). Similarly, agricultural activities were responsible for
       about 47 percent of the wetland losses, 90 percent of the changes in
       wetland type, and about 93 percent of the wetland gains. Largely by
       abandoning farming of one large area of wet soils, the net effect of
       agriculture on wetlands in the LECZ was an increase of 22.2 acres since
       the mid-1970s.

       The wetlands of the LECZ do not appear to be subjected to intense
       pressures for development. In fact, based on current findings, if
       recent trends continue, CZX may expect increases in palustrine wetlands
       through pond construction in upland areas and abandoned farming of wet
        Us. This situation, coupled with strong enforcement of existing
       state and federal regulations, present a good outlook for the future of
       so'l

       LECZ wetlands. The overall quality of wetlands is good with very few
       disturbed areas. Generally, these areas exhibit a high diversity in
       the types of plant and animal species. The functional value of the
       majority of these wetland areas is high and, therefore, will receive
       premium protection status from state and federal enforcement agencies.

       For monitoring purposes, every existing wetland in the LECZ is
       accounted for in coastal zone wetlands data base as discussed
       previously.

       it should be noted that even though these wetlands are more numerous
       and of higher quality than those in the DECZ, it is important to
       properly manage these areas to reach the long-term goal of no
       unpermitted loss of wetland habitat. The LECZ will eventually
       experience the development pressures that the DECZ now experiences.
       Measures should be taken to ensure these high quality wetlands remain
       intact for future generations.

                               Programmatic Objectives

       I. Assess the protection and preservation of existing levels of
          wetlands as measured by acreage and functions from direct and
          indirect cumulative adverse impacts by developing or improving
          regulatory programs.

                                    State Authority

       The authority to protect and preserve wetlands in Pennsylvania's
       coastal zones is the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act of November 26,
       1978, and the implementing rules and regulations, PA Code, Title 25,
       Chapter 105.  The act and regulations provide for environmental
       evaluation of permit applications for obstructions and encroachments in
       the regulated waters of the Commonwealth. All permit applications go
       through an environmental assessment process to determine the potential
       for environmental harm. In reviewing permit applications, it is the
       policy of the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) to encourage
       development that protects the natural condition of the watercourse or
       body of water (including wetlands).




                                         7







                                   ACTIVITIES CAUSING LOSSES OF PALUSTRINE WETLAN

                                                     BETWEEN MID-1970'S AND 1986








                        DELAWARE ESTUARY COASTAL ZONE                                         LAKE ERIE COA





                                                Highway Construction




                                                       Dredging Material Disposal
                                                                                                       47%



                               50%
                                                 VA        Industrial Development

                                               9%
                                                                                                       53%
                                            60A             Unknown Activities


                                                   Commercial Development
                                                                                          e47
                                                                                                       53-A


                                         40/9



   Sewage Treatment Plant Construction
                                            Vegetative Succession


                                                                                    Includus I lousing, Commercial Dove





                         Amendments to the State Authority

      In an effort to improve wetlands protection provided by the act and
      regulations discussed previously, DER has recently adopted amendments
      to the regulations. The amendments do the following:

      Wetland Categories - DER believes that all wetlands are better
      protected through the division of all wetlands into two categories:
      exceptional value wetlands and all other wetlands. Although all
      wetlands are valuable and subject to the requirements of the new
      regulations, exceptional value wetlands are special wetlands having any
      one or more of the following functions or values:

           (1)   Wetlands which serve as habitat for fauna or flora listed as
                 "threatened" or "endangered" under the federal'Endangered
                 Species Act of 1973; the Wild Resource Conservation Act, Act
                 170 of 1982; the Fish and Boat Code, P.L. 9996 of 1980; or
                 the Game and Wildlife Code, P.L. 93 of 1987.

            (2)  Wetlands that are hydrologically connected to or located
                 within one-half mile of wetlands identified under Clause (1)
                 and that maintain ths habitat of the threatened or endangered
                 species within the wetland identified under Clause (1).

            (3)  Wetlands that are located in or along the floodplain of -the
                 reach of a wild trout stream or waters listed as exceptional
                 value under PA Code, Title 25, Chapter 93 (relating to water
                 quality standards), and the floodplain of all stream's
                 tributaries thereto, or wetlands within the corridor of a
                 water course or body of water that has been designated as a
                 natural wild or scenic river in accordance with the federal
                 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended; or designated
                 as wild-or scenic under the Pennsylvania Scenic Rivers Act,
                 Act 283 of 1972, as amended by Act 110, May 7, 1982.

            (4)  Wetlands located along an existing public or private drinking
                 water supply, including both surface water and groundwater
                 sources, that maintain the quality and quantity of the
                 drinking water supply.

            (5)  Wetlands located in areas designated by DER as "natural" or
                 "wild" areas within stato forests or park lands, wetlands
                 located in areas designated as federal wilderness areas under
                 the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Federal Eastern Wilderness
                 Act of 1975, or wetlands located in areas designated national
                 natural landmarks by the Secretary of the Interior under the
                 Historic Sites Act of 1935.

       Permitting of Structures and Activities in Wetlands - The new
       regulations set forth standards that must be met before DER will issue
       a PA code, Title 25, Chapter 105 permit for projects in, along, across,
       or projecting into, or otherwise affecting, both exceptional value
       wetlands or other wetlands. These standards include various combina-
       tions of impacts on the environment, water dependency, the review of
       practicable alternatives, reduction of harm, and replacement of
       unavoidable impacts.


                                        8





      @etlands Replacement - The new regulations require that any wetlands
      adversely impacted be replaced. Such replacement shall be determined
      in accordance with guidance provided in DER's manual "Design Criteria
      for wetland Replacement." DER maintains that the establishment of a
      minimum ratio allows the department the latitude to require higher
      ratios for resources that are less easily replaced, such as forested
      ,.'etlands. Howeverr for structures or activities constructed without a
      permit, wetland replacement will be required at a ratio of 1:1
      (replacement areas:affected areas) or greater.
      Additionally, CZX ensures that wetlands lost due to permitted
      activities from within the coastal zones will be replaced within the
      coastal zones. This is necessary because it became apparent that
      of f -site replacement of wetlands could occur outside CZX_. boundaries,
      and outside the protection of CZX. Wor   st case scenario would mean a
      progressive net loss of wetlands from within coastal boundaries to
      areas outside the coastal zones. The section of the amendments that
      addresses this issue reads:

           "Siting criteria - Replacement shall be located adjacent to the
           impacted wetland unless an alternative replacement site is
           approved by the Department. Alternative replacement sites will
           generally not be approved unless the replacement site is located
           within the same watershed as the wetland being replaced or within
           the designated boundaries of the Coastal Zone Xanagement area
           where the loss occurs.11

      Cumulative Impacts - The way DER evaluates the cumulative impacts will
      remain the same. The difference with the new regulations is when the
      analysis occurs. Instead of being somewhat vague in its application
      and often overlooked, cumulative impact analysis is now a required step
      in the review of permit applications for the construction or substan-
      tial modification of water obstructions or encroachments that may
      impact wetlands.  Wetlands Protection at the Local Level

      The state authority and new amendments, as outlined in the preceding
      section, adequately protect wetlands from a regulatory standpoint. The
      key to securing additional wetlands protection (nonregulatory) in
      Pennsylvania's coastal zones is at the local level. in many cases, an
      application for a local permit should trigger an application for a
      state permit. However, due to the deficiencies described below,
      wetland disturbances are occurring without the knowledge of the state.
      Taking certain steps at the local level could protect additional
      wetlands. By strengthening CZX's review role at the county and local
      level, permit activities affecting wetlands would be detected early and
      impacts to wetlands could be avoided. The following is a description
      of both the county and local government roles in reviewing permit
      activities that could impact wetlands.

      Delaware EstuaME Coastal Zone - The three planning commissions covering
      all the local governments in the DECZ are provided authority to review
      all applications for subdivision and land development activitiesr
      including activities affecting wetlands. Delaware and Bucks counties


                                         9





     tare provided authority by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning
     'Code, Act 247 of 1968, as amended by Act 170 of 1988, and Philadelphia
      County is provided authority by the 1951 Home Rule Charter. (Refer to
      the ,Cumulative and Secondary Impacts" section for a complete discus-
      sion on Act 247 and the 1951 Home Rule Charter). In Delaware and Bucks
      Counties all permits are issued at the local level and only minor
      permits are issued without the county's review. In Philadelphia
      County, all permits go through county review.

      In Delaware and Bucks counties, the county planning commissions have
      parallel review responsibilities with their respective local govern-
      ments. Wetland review at the local level is not consistently practiced
      in either county. However, wetlands review is practiced at the county
      level, but it is still influenced by periodic staffing shortages. The
      county conservation districts in each county provide an additional
      level of review. This additional review is not consistent, but may,
      with appropriate agreements with local governments, provide a good
      source for wetland review.   Major tools used to complete wetlands
      review are the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps and county soil
      survey reports. In Bucks County, when the proposed development is
      located in or near wetlands, a notification letter is sent to the local
      government and to the developer stating the concern of wetlands
      impacts. Several limitations are evident in the process:,

        cZM is not included in the notification process for any activity
        affecting wetlands within the boundaries of the coastal zones.

        The ability of the counties to effectively identify and monitor
        wetlands is limited by not having updated mapping and mylars (for
        reproduction) to accurately review activities that may affect
        wetlands.

      - Generally, the counties do not do on-site inspections for any
        proposed subdivision and land development activities.

      - Current practices by these counties do not require wetland
        delineations on final plans approved by local governments.

      In Philadelphia County, the city and the county governments are the
      same. The primary review authority to detect wetlands impacts from
      subdivision and land development activities is the Philadelphia
      Planning Commission's Environmental Review Unit. All subdivision and
      land development activities must pass through the unit where
      appropriate in-office and on-site review is conducted. If potential
      wetland impacts are detected, a notification letter is sent to the
      developer. "Again, the major tool in the office review of plans to
      detect potential wetland impacts is the NWI maps. The county does
      require wetland delineations on final plan submittal prior to plan
      approval. Several limitations are evident in this process:
      - czx is not included in the notification process for projects
        affecting wetlands within the coastal zone boundary.

      - The unit does not have updated NWI maps (and mylars).



                                        10




       Appropriate @ield personnel are not trained in wetlands
       identification.

       Lake Erie Coastal Zone - The Erie County Department of Planning (ECDP)
       is provided authority by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code,
       Act 247 of 1968, as amended by Act 170 of 1988 to review all
       applications made at the local level for subdivision plan approval.
       County review ensures that all regulated aspects are covered in the
       final plan proposal prior to plan approval. Minor permits (including
       building permits) are issued at the local level without county review.
       All local governments have municipal planning commissions which review
       subdivision plans to ensure consistency with local ordinances. At the
       same time, these plans are reviewed by the ECDP and the Erie County
       Department of Health (ECDH) (the latter only if an on-lot septic system
       is involved). The ECDP does wetlands review for all subdivision plans.
       The tool used in this review is NWI mapping. The ECDH will do site
       inspections for appropriate plans. Many wetlands will be detected at
       this phase due to "perking" limitations of hydric soils. Typically,
       hydric ,wet,, soils are not suitable for septic systems, and the land
       development permit will not be approved; therefore, the wetland will
       not be disturbed.

       If wetlands exist in or near the area of the proposed subdivision plan,
       notification letters will be sent by both the ECDP and the ECDH back to
       the local government (and the developer) to be used as part of the
       overall plan review. Several limitation are evident in this process:

       -Current practices do not require final development plans approved by
        the local governments to show wetlands delineation.

       -Sewage enforcement officers doing the inspections do not have
        adequate training in wetlands identification.

       -The-ECDP and the ECDH do not include CZM in the wetland notification
        process for any activities affecting wetlands within the boundaries
        of the LECZ.

       -Several local governments do not include wetlands review for proposed
        subdivision plans and individual building permits.

       -Only one local government does on-site inspections for all proposed
        developments prior to plan approval or pe rmit issuance.

       -Limited by legal authority, local governments cannot deny building
        permits on the basis of wetland impacts.

       -No local officials are trained in wetland identification.

                         Summary of Programmatic Objective

       In summary, the existing state authority adequately provides for the
       protection and preservation of existing wetlands in Pennsylvania's
       coastal zones from a regulatory standpoint. The amendments to the
       authority provide additional protection for coastal wetlands. Non-
       regulatory local programs are the key to securing additional wetland
       protection and preservation in Pennsylvania's coastal zones. The local


                                       11





     Tprograms, for the most part, take wetlands into consideration during
       their planning and permitting activities. Additional coordination/
       review activities (including review by county conservation districts),
       updated mapping, wetland identification training, and on-site
       inspections during the permit review process are areas where the local
       programs need to improve,.

       II. Assess efforts to increase wetlands acreage and functions within
          formerly existing or degraded wetlands.

       There is no state statute or local program in Pennsylvania that
       provides for the inventory of lost or degraded wetlands for increasing
       wetland acreage and functions. However, CZX has started recording
       historical wetlands data starting from the mid-1970s. All wetland
       information is stored in the coastal zone wetlands data base by
       location (latitude and longitude), size, and type. This information
       may be used to initiate restoration of lost/degraded wetland acreage,
       if CZM chooses to pursue this effort at a later date.

       III. Assess the utilization of nonregulatory and innovative techniques
            to provide for the protection and acquisition of coastal
            wetlands.

       Generally, there is no state or local program designed for the
       acquisition of coastal wetlands. As opportunities arise, CZX has and
       will continue to take advantage of certain federal programs providing
       for the acquisition of coastal wetlands. For example, in 1987 CZM
       submitted a list of wetlands to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
       (FWS) for acquisition through the Emergency Wetland Resource Act of
       1986, P.L. 99-645. The wetlands submitted by CZX were either
       threatened by development or supported endangered or threatened plant
       and animal species. As of this date none of these wetlands has been
       selected for acquisition.

       Currently, CZM is reviewing a grant program through the FWS that would
       provide funding for wetland conservation projects. Section 305 of the
       Coastal wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (Title III,
       P.L. 101-64) authorizes the director of the FWS to grant funds to
       coastal states to carry out coastal wetland conservation projects.
       Funding for this grant program is provided from a portion of the funds
       deposited in the Sport Fish Restoration Account. In FY 1992, an
       estimated $6 million will be available for grants to coastal states.
       Funds available under this state'grant program are available for the
       acquisition of coastal lands or waters, and for the restoration,
       management, or enhancement of coastal wetlands ecosystems on a
       competitive basis with all coastal states.

       iv. Assess Development and Improvement of Artificial Wetlands Creation
            Programs as the Lowest Priority.

       There is no state statute or local program to provide for the
       development and improvement of artificial wetlands creation programs.
       However, DER has developed a guidance manual for the replacement of
       adversely impacted wetlands (the creation of artificial wetlands)
       titled, "Design Criteria for Wetland Replacement.,, These guidelines
       were part of the new amendments to the Dam Safety and Waterway


                                        12




      Management Rules and Regulations (PA Code, Title 25, Chapter 105) but
      kere removed f rom the f inal draf t version. DER believes that wetlands
      replacement is an evolving science based on the latest technologies.
      The inclusion of these guidelines in the regulations would not allow
      DER to review and accept new and innovative designs, and utilization of
      best available technology. Accordingly,, the "Design Criteria for
      Wetland Replacement,' manual is only referenced in the regulations.

                              Public Survey Responses

      out of 84 returned surveys from CZMIs initial public response survey of
      the DECZ, 64 percent (54 respondents) thought this issue important
      enough to comment. Ninety-four percent (51 of the 54) thought this
      issue to be a high priority for future CZX funding. All but six
      respondents favored the protection, restoration, enhancement, and
      creation of coastal wetlands. The other six respondents favored
      protection, restoration, and enhancement; but objected to the creation
      of coastal wetlands.

      out of 108 returned surveys from CZXIs initial public response survey
      of the LECZ, 47 percent (51 out of 108 respondents) thought this issue
      important enough to comment. Eighty-nine percent (45 out of 51
      respondents) thought this issue to be a high priority for future CZM,
      funding. All but nine respondents favored the protection, restoration,
      enhancementf and creation of coastal wetlands. The other nine favored
      protection, restoration, and enhancement; but objected to the creation
      of coastal wetlands.

                                     Direction,

      Local, and to a lesser degree, county governments in Pennsylvania's
      coastal zones will be required or encouraged to adopt additional
      coordination measures to provide CZM with the opportunity to review
      plans for activities that may impact wetlands in the coastal zones.
      This review will assure no wetland resources are lost to development
      activities because of incomplete review procedures at the local and
      county levels. To accomplish this task, CZX's enforceable policy on
      wetlands may have to be revised and/or interagency agreements may be
      needed between CZX and each local and county government and possibly
      the county conservation districts to establish a mechanism for this
      additional review. The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act
      247; and Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Chapter 102 (erosion and
      sedimentation control) will be reviewed to determine the review and
      coordination responsibilities of the local and county level
      governments. CZX will also provide the necessary tools to carry out
      proper wetlands review, i.e., mapping, mylars, and training.










                                        13






                                                           Attachment A
                                WETLAND TMMINOLOGY



      PALUSTRINE - Freshwater habitat (e.g., marshes, bogs, swamps, and small
      shallow ponds)

           Tidal - Continuously submerged or frequently flooded by tides.

           Nontidal - Not influenced by tide waters.

           Emergent - Wetlands dominated by erect.' rooted, herbaceous
           vegetation.

           Unconsolidated Bottom - Generally, permanently flooded open water
           areas with bottom substrates consisting of at least 25% particles
           smaller than stones and less than 30% vegetation cover.

           Forested - Wetlands dominated by wood vegetation 20 feet (6m) or
           taller.

           scrub-shrub - Wetlands dominated by wood., vegetation less than 20
           feet (6m) tall.

      LACUSTRINE - Freshwater and deepwater habitats (e.g., lakes,
      reservoirs, and large ponds).

           Littoral - Wetlands extending from-the lake shore to a depth of
           6.6 feet below low water.

      RIVERINE - Freshwater and deepwater habitats (e.g., rivers and
      streams).

           Tidal -.Continuously submerged or frequently flooded by tides.




















                                        14





                           Coastal Hazards Assessment


       Legislative Objective
            5309(a)(2) Preventing or significantly reducing   tl@reats to life
            and destruction of property by eliminating develop-ment and
            redevelopment in high hazard areas, managing development in other
            hazard areas, and anticipating and managing the effects of
            potential sea and Great Lakes level rise.

       Assessment Characterization

            Characterize the extent to which the coastal zone is at risk rom
            the following coastal hazards: hurricanes, flooding, storm surge,
            episodic and chronic erosion, sea and Great Lakes level rise,
            subsidence, earthquakes, tsun is,  . and other significant coastal
            hazards.


                                   Introduction

       The coastal hazards addressed in the Delaware Estuary coastal zone will
       be flooding and sea level rise. The coastal hazards in the Lake Erie
       coastal zone will be fluctuating lake levels, shoreline erosion, and
       bluff recession.

                             Lake Erte Coastal Zone (LECZ)

       High lake levels  affect the entire Lake Erie shoreline. The result of
       high lake levels  is beach inundation, severe beach erosion, flooding of
       low lying areas,  and undercutting of bluff areas that do not havea
       bedrock exposure. High lake level periods are especially damaging when
       combined with lake storms. Without exposed beaches, wave action
       reaches the back beach and lower bluff areas (without the bedrock), and
       unconsolidated bluff material is easily eroded. Extended periods of
       bluff erosion will destabilize the bluff and result in bluff recession.

       Low lake levels pose no threat to shoreline/bluff stability, but may
       require lake access facilities to resort to or increase the frequency
       of dredging to maintain open access for lakebound watercraft.

       The entire Pennsylvania shoreline of Lake Erie is subject to shoreline
       erosion, but some portions are more susceptible than others. Due to
       the "harbor effect" of Presque Isle Peninsula, the shoreline inside
       Presque Isle Bay is not subject to much shoreline erosion. outside the
       bay, shoreline areas are susceptible to direct wave attack and,
       therefore, much more shoreline erosion. The shoreline with thick
       bedrock exposure (approximately one-quarter of the Pennsylvania
       shoreline) usually has no or little beach material. As wave action
       strikes the bedrock, wave energies are driven down into the loose sand
       material on the lake bottom. The sand is pushed away from the bedrock
       and moved offshore and downdrift in littoral currents. Shoreline
       erosion is an active and constant process in these areas. Due to
       erosion and high lake levels, beach material rarely has a chance to
       deposit and form a beach in front of areas with bedrock exposure.




                                          15





     'The areas with unconsolidated material at the base tend to support the
       deposition of beach material along the shoreline. Shoreline erosion is
       constant in these areas, but as material is removed by wave action,
       additional material is placed back on the beach from updrift beaches;
       this is called the littoral drift process. -As long as this process is
       not interrupted, beaches will be maintained naturally.

       Seiches (temporary wind-driven lake level rise), severe storms, and
       fluctuating lake levels (high lake levels) allow waves that normally
       break on the shoreline to reach the back beach and lower bluff area.
       The wave action erodes the beaches and removes substantial amounts of
       bluff material and eventually initiates bluff instability.

       All of the bluff areas overlooking Pennsylvania's portion of Lake Erie,
       except for those areas inside Presque Isle Bay, are receding. Bluff
       recession is not a factor inside the bay because of the lack of
       significant shoreline erosion - a major cause of bluff recession. Some
       areas are receding quicker than others, but they all exhibit signs of
       active bluff recession. Approximately 180 residential structures at or
       near the bluff crest are threatened with collapse into the lake from
       active bluff recession.

       There are several causes of bluff recession; the primary cause is wave
       damage at the base. Removal of bluff material at the base via the wave
       .damage causes the bluff face to shift downward which results in a net
       loss at the bluff crest. Other factors that accelerate bluff recession
       are heavy groundwater flows, wind and surface erosion, and poor land-
       management practices (i.e., devegetation of the bluff face,
       unrestricted development, and construction activities on the bluff
       face).

                        Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone (DECZ)

       Almost the entire DECZ, with exceptions around Neshaminy Creek and
       several small areas between Tullytown and Morrisville, Bucks County, is
       protected from flood waters by an elaborate system of bulkheads,
       levees, and other structures. Even the exception areas are riddled
       with a maze of artificial birms from old flood protection and dredge
       disposal activities. These structures have been built over many years
       in an effort to expand unusable land out into the river and to elevate
       the river shoreline above the limit of flood waters. At this time,
       flooding, except for local stream flooding, is not viewed as an active
       hazard.

       Shoreline erosion, as a result of flowing river water, is not
       considered a hazard in the DECZ. Some areas may experience periodic
       erosion, but overall, the majority of shoreline is either artificially
       stabilized or wooded to the water's edge.

       The sea level has-risen 30 cm (11) in the last century and as of 1986,
       the National Academy of Sciences and the Environmental Protection
       Agency suspect a rise of 60 to 150 cm (2-5') over the next century. A
       rise of 30 cm would impact coastal erosion, flooding, and salt water
       intrusion. The most likely of the three impacts would be salt water
       intrusion. Salt water intrusion will affect the public drinking water
       supplies of cities and municipalities in tidal areas. It will affect


                                        16




       recharge of acfuif ers in tidal areas and groundwater supplies would
     'become increasingly salty. During drought periods, it is feared the
       salt intrusions would reach the upper estuary. Even shipping and
       industry that use the river may experience operational and maintenance
       problems due to the salt water. Some ecological impacts would be
       expansion of the increased salinity zone that would allow predators and
       competitors to negatively effect native oyster beds. In the same
       light, increased salinity would promote an up estuary advance of marine
       and estuarine species and the retreat of freshwater species. Further-
       more, sea level rise would drown most of the wetlands along the estuary
       that are backed by bulkheads, levees, and other structures. Loss of
       these wetlands would increase pollution loading into the estuary.

       other nationally known hazards which do not pose a threat to either the
       LECZ or DECZ are hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. These hazards,
       therefore, will not be addressed in this characterizatio'n/assessment.

                              Programmatic Objectives

       At this time, the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZM) does not feel
       the coastal hazards associated with the DECZ pose either current or
       significant enough problems to warrant addressing in this assessment
       paper. Therefore, only the coastal hazards in the LECZ will be
       assessed.

       I. Assess directing future public and private development and
          redevelopment away from hazardous areas, including the high hazard
          areas delineated as FEMA V-zones and areas vulnerable to inundation
          from sea and Great Lake level rise.

                 State authority: Bluff Recession and Setback Act

       The primary management and enforcement authority to manage and restrict
       development in the bluff recession hazard areas along the bluff over-
       looking Lake Erie is the Bluff Recession and Setback Act of 1980
       (BRSA). The BRSA and implementing regulations (PA Code, Title 25,
       Chapter 85) require municipalities to develop, adopt, and administer
       bluff setback ordinances. These ordinances restrict new development
       from bluff areas and limit improvements of existing structures within
       the minimum bluff setback distance. However, the law only restricts
       development from the bluff crest landward. The Commonwealth has no
       authority to regulate structures placed lakeward of the bluff crest.

       Recession rates: Minimum bluff setback distances are determined by
       multiplying the rate of bluff recession (feet per year) by the
       appropriate life span of the structure (residential, commercial,
       industrial). The life span of structures is 50 years for residential
       homes, 75 years for commercial structures, and 100 years for industrial
       structures.

       The rate of bluff recession is determined for each municipality from
       measurements taken from control points located along the bluffs. The
       control points consist of established referenced features which are
       surveyed, recorded, and monitored on an approximate five-year




                                        17





      frequency. As control points are lost to bluff recession, new points
      are established in the same area. Currently, CZM monitors 146 control
      points which are set up on a one-half kilometer grid.

      Generally, the data generated from the control points reflect realistic
      recession rates. However, recent CZM involvement in the National Flood
      Insurance Program (NFIP), which involves moving residential structures
      landward of the bluff crest using bluff recession rate data to deter-
      mine a safe distance, has alerted CZM to possible inaccuracies in-the
      recession rate data. The cause of these possible inaccuracies is
      incomplete monitoring of bluff recession. Since the recession rate
      data is determined for each municipality by averaging the measurements
      from all the control points along their section of bluff, the number of
      control points and where they are located could greatly influence the
      average recession rate.

      EXAMPLE: If the majority of control points for a municipality happen
      to be located in stable or stabilizing sections of bluff, the average
      recession rate will be low, when actually the recession rate may be a
      lot higher. Incomplete monitoring of bluff recession due to a limited
      number of control points may cause inaccuracies in the recession rate
      data. Inaccurate recession rate data may affect how new residences are
      located via the BRSA and existing residences are relocated via the
      NFIP. With the limited number of control points in each municipality,
      this situation will occur in certain areas.

      This system provides a tool to manage development in municipalities
      experiencing coastal hazards. However, not enough resources are
      available to conduct more detailed erosion rate studies. Additional
      studies would enable fine tuning of the rate of bluff recession and
      subsequent municipal bluff setback ordinances. This fine tuning would
      allow for maximization of protection that could be afforded under the
      BRSA and implementing regulations.

      Technical assistance: CZM also provides guidance to municipalities on
      implementing their bluff setback ordinances. Many times this involves
      explaining complicated aspects of the BRSA and regulations in order to
      help them implement their ordinances. Written guidance is sometimes
      provided by CZM, but most guidance is done on site or by telephone.
      The effectiveness of the written or verbal guidance is usually short
      term.

      Legal counsel: The legal counsel advising CZM on legal aspects/issues
      of the BRSA has changed five tiiaes within the last ten years. Each
      attorney tends to interpret certain aspects of the BRSA and regulations
      differently. As the interpretation changes, so does the guidance to
      the municipality. This change in direction often gets confusing to the
      municipal official. CZM needs to consolidate these legal interpreta-
      tions into one file for easy reference. Without this source, the
      response time back to the municipalities from CZM is sometimes delayed.
      municipalities, out of frustration or misinformation, tend to interpret
      their ordinances in a way inconsistent with the BRSA regulations and
      their own ordinances or other setback ordinances of neighboring muni-
      cipalities. Furthermore, as municipal officials are replaced, the new
      officials must be educated on legal interpretations and the various
      complicated aspects of the BRSA/regulations and their own municipal


                                       18




       -ordinance. Several training sessions have proven helpful in the past
       rin informing and reinforcing technical aspects of the BRSA/regulations,
       locating the bluff line, measuring the bluff setback distance, and
       identification of erosional phenomena causing bluff recession.

                Problems Affecting the Management of Coastal Hazards

       The major problems affecting the management of coastal hazards in
       Pennsylvania's LECZ are unrestricted bluff development and improper
       structure siting.

       Unrestricted Bluff Development. As mentioned previously, the BRSA/
       regulations only regulate construction and improvement of existing
       structures landward of the bluff line. Any construction on the bluff
       face (area between the bluff crest and the lakeshore) is@. outside the
       regulatory authority of the BRSA. Unrd-gulated activities on the bluff
       face range from construction of residential dwellings, roads, and
       stairways to devegetation of forested areas. These activities have
       negative destabilizing effects on the bluff and can initiate or
       accelerate bluff recession. Even though these activities are not
       currently occurring at a high rate, CZM strongly feels, as the bluff
       areas become more populated, the unregulated bluff face will experience
       an increasing use by a population wanting access to the lake.

       improper Structure Siting. The major factors causing improper struc-
       ture 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.

                         Summary of Programmatic objective

       Overall, the BRSA is an effective tool in directing development and
       redevelopment away from receding bluff areas. Nevertheless, the scope
       of this authority does not extend to the adjacent areas (areas lakeward
       of the bluff crest). These areas are affected by bluff recession and
       should be covered by the BRSA (or a new statute). Furthermore,
       incomplete monitoring of bluff recession may result in inaccurate
       recession rate data and improper structure siting.

       II. Assess the preservation and restoration of the protecti ve
           functions of natural shoreline features such as beaches,. dunes,
           and wetlands.

       The majority of naturally accreted shoreline in the LECZ can be
       characterized as a narrow strip of sand mixed with gravel and flat
       shingle rocks. The beach slope is relatively steep and usually backed
       by high bluffs composed of unconsolidated material and covered with a
       thin veneer of vegetation to the bluff crest. These beaches do act as
       the first line of defense against wave damage. For various reasons,
       some beaches are more susceptible to wave dazaage than others. Where
       there are residential structures nearby, unstable beaches are protected
       with beach stabilization projects, i.e., groins and revetments. Groins


                                        19





      ,will trap sand to create a beach in front of the sectioz. needing
      protection. Revetments armor the base of the bluff aci.nst wave attack
      and generally do not facilitate the building of beaches.   Both of these
      types of shoreline stabilization structures are permittad  by the
      Department of Environmental Resources (DER) as acceptzhle  ways to
      stabilize the shoreline and lower bluff areas. A certLin   degree of
      shoreline erosion is associated with each structure t)q)e. However,
      where conditions make it necessary, human-made structures  can help to
      preserve and restore the natural shoreline.
      CZM does not, however, totally endorse the introduction of these
      structures, especially grcinst along a natural shoreline free of
      shoreline stabilization structures. A groin placed along a groin-free
      shoreline will likely causo adjacent downdrift proper-ry owners to place
      additional groins along the shoreline to counteract the negative
      erosive effects of the initial groin. Therefore, CZM understands and
      accepts both the positive and negative aspects of usiig shoreline
      stabilization structures. CZM attempts to limit its ise only to
      situations where no other feasible alternatives exist for preserving
      and restoring the protective functions of the natural shoreline.

      The only large expanse of wide beaches in the LECZ is Presque Isle
      State Park. This park combines the protective features of beaches,
      dunes, and wetlands (the latter not exposed to direct wave action).
      The beaches in this park have been seriously eroded over the years.
      The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the DER have replenished these
      beaches for many years. In an effort to end this cycle, COE and DER
      are building a series of 58 large offshore rubble mound breakwaters to
      stabilize the portion of Presque Isle State Park exposed to direct wave
      attack. Apparently when this project is complete, tha beaches of
      Presque Isle State Park will be stabilized and only minor replenishment
      and maintenance of the breakwaters will be required.

                         Summary of Programmatic Objective

      Until some other method is developed that does not have erosive side
      effects, CZM will continue to recommend the use of shoreline stabili-
      zation structures (when applicable) for preserving and restoring the
      protective functions of the natural shoreline.

      III. Assess the prevention orminimization of threats to existing
            population and property from both episodic and chronic coastal
            hazards.

      This objective is addressed in two ways. First, CZM provides technical
      assistance through the site analysir and recommendations (SAR) service
      to shoreline property owners experiencing the coastal hazards of bluff
      recession and shoreline erosion. This assistance program provides
      on-site meetings where up-to-date information is given to the property
      owners and recommendations are made on how to address erosional
      phenomena which includes both episodic and chronic coastal hazards.
      over 500 individual property owners have been visited since the
      inception of this technical assistance program in 1981. Second, CZM
      has been approved by FEMA as a certification agency for the NPIP. In
      order to file a claim under the NFIP for structures threatened with
      collapse into the lake from erosion caused by high lake levels, the


                                        20





      ptructures must be certified by CZM. Once certifiec.. the property
      owner can elect, if the claim is approved,'to either demolish the
      structure or move it landward to an area safe from recession caused by
      high lake levels. To date, CZX has certiiied (or assisted in
      certifying) eight residential structures since 1989.

                         SlIMMAry of Programmatic objective

      Through the NFIP Certification Process and the SMR ser-4--ce, CZM is
      preventing or minimizing threats from both episodic and chrc,nic coastal
      hazards.                Public Survey Responses

      Out of 108 returned surveys from CZM's-.initial public response survey
      of the LECZ, 83 percent (90 of the 108 respOndents) thought this issue
      important enough to comment. Ninety-eight lercent (88 of the 90
                                                 p
      respondents) thought this issue to be a high priority for future CZM
      funding. State initiated shoreline protection projects and low
      interest loans for shoreline/bluff stabilization projects were popular
      requests in these responses.

      out of 84 returned surveys from CZXIs initial public response survey of
      the DECZ, 65 percent (55 of the 84 respondents) thought this issue
      important enough to comment. Ninety-eight percent (54 of the 55
      respondents) thought this issue to be a high priority for future CZM
      funding. Twenty-two percent (12 of the 84 respondents) want all
      development to be restricted from floodprone And bluff recession prone
      areas. Since the issue of bluff recession is exclusive to the LECZ,
      this latter fact indicates that the inhabitants of the DECZ are
      interested in coastal issues beyond the boundari" of their coastal
      zone.


                                     Direction

      The major problems affecting the management of coastal hazards in the
      LECZ are unrestricted bluff development and improper structure siting.
      options CZM may pursue include amending the BRSA, creation of a new
      statute or "networking" an existing statute not currently used as a CZX
      authority, amending the coastal hazards policy of the approved CZM
      Program, establishing additional control points to monitor bluff
      recession, improving bluff recession monitoring techniques, updating
      technical assistance by conducting research into new techniques of
      controlling bluff recession, and creating a new education program to
      deliver information to the public.













                                        21






                             Public Access Assessment



      Legislative Oblective

           5309(a)(3) Attaining increased opportunities for public access,
           taking into account current and future public access needs to
           coastal areas of recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological,
           or cultural value.

      Assessment characterization

           Characterize the adequacy of existing public access sites, site
           improvements, and maintenance programs.

                                    Introduction

      The Commonwealth's coastal waters are diverse and unique (the only
      tidal and Great Lakes waters in the Commonwealth). Public access to
      these waters has been constrained by industrial development, private
      ownership, and natural barriers. when the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone
      Management Program (CZM) was approved in 1980, there was an over-
      whelming desire for public access in both coastal zones for fishing,
      swimming, boating, and sight-seeing.

                           Lake Erie Coastal Zone (LECZ)

      The LECZ provides a natural water area with vast recreational
      potential. The lake attracts a significant influx of visitors to the
      Erie coast to use the outdoor recreation facilities. Nine public
      access sites in the 63-mile LECZ currently provide opportunities for
      such activities as swimming, fishing, boating, passive recreation
      (sight-seeing), etc.

      Private land ownership is a major factor in limiting additional public
      access. Along the shores of Lake Erie, much of the land at the top of
      the bluffs suitable for passive recreation is controlled by private,
      residential owners. The few locations suitable for public access at
      the foot of the bluffs (usually at the mouth of tributary streams) are
      also privately owned and flat land is limited for developing the
      necessary facilities. Natural barriers such as bluffs further limit
      access to the lake. Additionally, certain areas have problems with
      water quality which limits wate.r'contact activities.

                        Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone (DECZ)

      Fifteen public access sites in the 57 miles of the DECZ currently
      provide active and passive types of recreational opportunities such as:
      swimming, fishing, boating, passive recreation (sight-Beeing), etc.
      Other sites exist; however, their potential for providing public access
      needs to be looked at more closely.

      Much of the waterfront land is occupied by public utilities, manufac-
      turing, warehousing and trucking, and rail or water transportation
      facilities. Since most of the waterfront is in private ownership..and
      use, public access to the river is available at only a few points.


                                       22




     ,,Even when access is available, potential conflicts between recrea-
       tional, commercial, or industrial uses are present. In addition, water
       quality problems along the river from point and nonpoint sources limits
       some water contact activities.

                               Programmatic Objectives

       I. Assess the improvement of public access through regulatory,
          statutory, and legal system -

       The provision of public access is addressed at both the state and local
       level. At the state level, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has
       statutory and legal mechanisms in place to provide public access.
       These mechanisms are primarily enabling legislation and memoranda   of
       understanding (MOU). The MOU's that are significant to.providing
       public access are interagency agreements between the Department of
       Environmental Resources (DER)/CZM and two other agencies: the
       Pennsylvania Fish Commission (PFC) and the Department of Community
       Affairs (DCA). There is no statutory authority which broadly mandates
       land acquisition or development for this purpose. However, there is
       statutory authority which address specifics concerning public right to
       access. These mechanisms are outlined below:

       open Space Lands, Act of January 19, 1968, P.L. (1967) 992, (32 P.S.
       Section 5001 et sea.)

            It is the purpose of this act to clarify and broaden the exis  ting
            methods by which the Commonwealth may preserve land in, or acquire
            land for open space in and near, urban areas to meet needs for
            recreation, amenity, and conservation of-natural resources.

       Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended
       (71 P.S. Sections.510-1 et secr.)

            This act provides authority  to acquire land through purchase,
            gift, lease, or condemnation.

       Fish Laws of 1959, Act of December 15, 1959, P.L. 1779, as amended, (30
       P.S. Section 1 et'sea.)

            This act is a comprehensive statute relating to fish and fishing
            in the Commonwealth. It provides the PFC with its authority to
            provide fishing and boating access.

       Dam Safety and Waterway Management, PA Code, Title 25 55105.21(a)(4),
       105.32, 105.34 (regulations)-

            Allows for public access for navigationt fishing, and improvement
            of streams between high and low tide (public servitude zone) of
            navigable waters of the Commonwealth.

       In addition to statutory and regulatory authority, DER also derives its
       authority from case law. According to case law, the public has no
       right or privilege for perpendicular access over privately held land to
       reach public trust lands or waters. However, the public is assured the
       right of lateral access along shorelines between the ordinary high and


                                         23







     "
       low water lines and can gain access to this zone from the water or by
       access across or through public lands.

       Although certain state agencies, such as DER and the PFC, have the
       authority to acquire land through condemnation for public access, this
       avenue is rarely used. Municipal governments also have the authority
       to condemn land for the public good such as health and safety and, in
       some instances, the provision of open space has been upheld as a
       legitimate use of this authority. However, because of likely court
       challenges, public ill will, and the requirement of providing
       compensation; this avenue is very rarely used by municipalities.
       Municipal governments can use zoning to require public access in future
       development, but cannot use it to require access in existing land uses.
       While Pennsylvania's Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
       (SCORP) provides the basic guidance for public access for all of
       Pennsylvania, this document serves only as a guide for recreation in
       Pennsylvania and has no teeth or enforcement element. In addition, the
       basis of the SCORP needs/demand analysis applies to a much larger area
       then just Pennsylvania's coastal zones. CZX, therefore, has never felt
       comfortable in applying this information to determine demand for public
       access in the coastal zones.

       At the local level, CZM has provided funds for local governments to
       update their zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans, and require
       that they look at public access as a component of the process.
       Although this has been somewhat successful in planning for public
       access in the coastal zone, the funds for public access implementation
       have been limited. Also, in many instances the local tax base relies
       on industrial or commercial revenues, thus diminishing the incentive
       for local governments to pursue public access opportunities.

       CZm is limited in the use of federal consistency to require additional
       public access. Since CZX does not have enforcement policies coveting
       public access.f it has only been able to.recommend or encourage that
       additional public access be provided via the federal consistency
       process.

       To date, these legal, contractual, and procedural mechanisms have
       enabled CZX to provide additional public access opportunities in the
       coastal zones. CZM has never been restricted from fulfilling its
       public access policy, as written, because of the lack of mandated state
       statutory authority or any other legislation or administrative
       authority.

       II. Assess the acquisition, improvement, and maintenance of public
            access sites to meet current and future demand through the use of
            innovative funding and acquisition techniques.

       Traditionally, governments in both coastal zones have relied almost
       entirely on fee-simple purchase to provide recreational access areas.
       This technique has been considered the easiest and most acceptable for
       providing recreational opportunity. However, thescarcity of funds for
       both acquisition and continuing maintenance has led to the need for
       other techniques.



                                        24




      A unique approach to providing public access has occurred in Erie
      k,ounty. The PFC has leased state-owned lands, at the North East Access
      (Safe Harbor Marina), to a private developer. The private developer
      received a 25-year lease and is developing this public access area
      which will include: a marina with dry storage, restaurant, adminis-
      tration buildingr bait and tackle shop, unlimited free public launch,
      parking, etc. This is one of the first public/private partnerships in
      the state.

      State agencies, as well as municipal governments, have utilized their
      authorities and resources to fulfill public access demand. CZM has
      used other state agencies' funds to augment DER-CZM funds for providing
      public access in both coastal zones. Some examples of these combined
      state and locally funded efforts that further exemplify innovative
      funding and acquisition methods are:

      Commodore Barry Bridge Access: This ma jar boating and fishing facility
      along the Delaware River, located in the city of Chester, Delaware
      Countyr was planned and constructed using funds from DER-CZM, PFC, DCA
      (Coastal Energy Impact Program, and Land and Water Conservation Fund),
      and local city monies. The land for this site was leased to the PFC by
      the Delaware River Port Authority under a long-term lease program. In
      turn, the City of Chester is responsible for the development and
      maintenance at the site.

      Elk Creek Land Acquisition: This partnership effort used funds from
      DER-CZMt PFC, and Erie County to acquire land and appurtenances on the
      east bank of Elk Creek for the purpose of developing the Elk Creek
      area, Girard Township, Erie County, into a major public access and
      recreational facility along Lake Erie.

      czm monies have been used to match DCA, PFC, and other DER and
      municipal funding (and vice versa) in the provision of coastal public
      access. Additionally, CZX has provided funds to municipalities to
      develop comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances which are geared to
      addressing the provision of public access.

      CZM has also provided local governments and project applicants with
      information on other funding sources pertinent to the provision of
      public access. These supplemental funding sources include other
      federal and state programs as well as private programs such as local
       rusts, foundations, etc. Also, in the future, CZX will look at
      less-than-fee-simple purchase (or easements) as a means of providing
      t

      additional public access opportunities. In addition to saving money,
      this concept offers an alternative to public ownership and maintenance.
      czm will continue in the pursuit of unique and innovative funding
      techniques.

      III. Assess the development or enhancement of a Coastal Public Access
            management Plan which takes into account the provision of public
            access to all users of coastal areas of recreational, historical,
            aesthetic, ecological, and cultural value.

      CZX has funded several studies (i.e., Erie Waterfront Comprehensive
      Plan; Upper and Lower Schuylkill Waterfront District Plans; South,
      Central, and North Delaware Waterfront District Plans; etc.) which


                                       25







       '
       identify/inventory coastal waterfront rel.ources. Many of these studies
       are now over ten years old and somewhat oucdated. They provide direc-
       tion to townships, municipalities, and bcr)ughs concerning their public
       access needs. However, a coordinated long-term approach to guide
       public access on a coastwide basis has never been developed. CZX has
       never taken a systematic look to determine if the demand for swimming,
       fishing, boating, and other types of public access are being met. CZM
       has relied on local steering committees and existing state programs
       (i.e., Bureau of State Parks, PFC, etc.) to direct the utilizations of
       CZX resources concerning public access within the constraints of the
       program's broad policies on access. Therefore, it is difficult to
       determine if the Commonwealth is using its funding resources
       effectively.

       IV. Assess the minimization of potential adverse impacti of public
           access on coastal resources and private property rights through
           appropriate protection measures.

       Adverse impacts to coastal resources is not a major problem in
       Pennsylvania's coastal zones. Many critical habitat areas are under
       federal (Tinicum marsh), state (Presque Isle), or local (Bristol Marsh
       Nature Preserve) protection and are regulated to prevent adverse
       impacts. Additionally, critical habitats such as wetlands are
       protected coastwide by state regulatory authority such as the Dam
       'Safety and EAcroachments Act of 1978. The one resource that has been
       identified as being subject to impact from public access (Presque Isle
       Bay) has been recommended as a Special Area Ma:iagement Plan (see
       "Special Area Management Planning Assessment).

       Private property owners denying public access t,   @:oastal areas has been
       a minor, but recurring problem. Lack of staff      7Durces in the Bureau
       of Dams and Waterway Management has prevented s@   :-- resolution when
       problems have arisen. Therefore, DER has not bc    i able to develop an
       effective response system to address this proble   . In the early years
       of CZM, staff explored protecting the rights of    zivate land owners who
       allowed public access. Due to shortage of staff    and other priorities,
       this issue has never been fully developed. This    issue will be further
       addressed in the Master Plan discussed below.

                                Public Survey Responses

       CZM contacted other state agencies, CZM's regional coordinators
       (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and Brie County
       Department of Planning), and the general public to solicit their views
       on the present state of public access in the coastal zones. Public
       response on this issue was very heavy. The response indicated that the
       public believes there is a need for more public access in the coastal
       zones. Comments were not specific, but alluded to the general need for
       more public access. Respondents stressed the need to have government
       ensure that public.access will be increased and pre3erved in the
       coastal zones. The necessity of maintaining public access sites and
       the problems of vandalism were frequently mentionel, The majority of
       the respondents favored more fishing and boating a.,,.,ess to Lake Erie.

       The comments clearly indicate that this is an important issue and that
       more public access is needed. However, CZX could not use this infor-


                                         26




      mation to determine how much demand exists for what ty     :pes of access and
      4
      in what areas. Additionally, comments did not generally address what
      actions could be taken to provide additional public access in the
      coastal zones.


                                        Direction

      In the past, CZM has focused on providing public access.opportunities
      in the coastal zones with limited federal fundina. It is apparen- from
      the input received that the need for access is so great -at CZM is
      facilitator, must d-'-rect the Program's limited resources to leve ge
      greater state and 1.)cal involvement. Such actions will entail
      developing more specific CZM access policies, developing and exr Ading
      state authorities, and developing agreements with state and lo,
      agencies. This further identifies the responsibilities of ott
      agencies with authorities to provide public access in the coc         i zone.
      Furthermore, this defines how CZM can assist these agencies
      fulfilling these responsibilities.

      Areas where we will be exploring the expansion of our coastal public
      access  program includes, but is not limited to the following:

          1.  Use of State Fish/Game Commission lands.
          2.  Explore the use of Public right-of-ways.
          3.  Coordination with federal, state, and local access providers.
          4.  Reevaluate existing GAPC designations; identify new ones,
              revise or eliminate old ones, etc.
          5.  Identify other sources of public and private funding that can
              be utilized for providing public   'access opportunities.
          6.  Explore the concept of limited liability (liability easements)
              to private property owners who allow public access on or through
              their property.

























                                          27






                             Marine Debris Assessment

      Legislative Objective

           5309(a)(4) Reducing marine debris entering the nation's coastal
           and ocean environment by managing uses and activities that
           contribute to the entry of such debris.

      Assessment characterization

           identify the impact of marine debris on the coastal zone and the
           primary sources responsible.

                                    Introduction

      Marine debris is trash and garbage either in coastal waters or washed
      up on the shore. Types of debris include plastic and Styrofoam items
      (fast-food containers, bags, utensils, six-pack rings, and tampon
      applicators), beer and soda cans, fishing lines, and floatables
      released through municipal storm water-sewage systems.

      Marine debris originates from two sources: ocean and land. Ocean-based
      debris comes from boats and ships (commercial and sport fishing,
      military, merchant, recreational, etc.), offshore oil and gas
      platforms, and illegal dumping. Land-based debris comes from industry,
      solid waste disposal sites, sewer systems, illegal dumping, and
      littering.

                     Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone (DECZ)

      There is little data available on marine debris in the DECZ. The
      Coastal Zone Management Program's (CZX) findings are based on
      interviews, research, personal experience, and expertise. Based on
      interviews with the relevant agencies, both the US Army Corps of
      Engineers (COE) and the US Coast Guard (USCG) do not feel that marine
      debris is a problem in the estuary.

      The Bucks County Department of Health, which enforces the county's
      water quality regulations, also indicated that marine debris is not a
      problem in the estuary because all county sewage plants have been
      upgraded and a major industry located along the estuary has closed.
      Furthermore, all of the small, inefficient sewage plants in
      Philadelphia and Delaware counties have been either upgraded or
      replaced with larger, more efficient plants.

      municipal officials in the DECZ agree that marine debris is more of a
      nuisance than a problem. Because of the tidal action of the estuary,
      marine debris such as cans and bottles, Styrofoam cups, tree branches,
      and paper become trapped by shoreline vegetation during ebb tide. The
      debris is eventually removed by the next high tide or heavy rain. At
      locations where marine debris borders on being a problem, controls are
      in place. For example, when debris is deposited on the beach at
      Neshaminy State Park due to tidal action, the nonswimmable beach is
      cleaned periodically by park staff and outside organizations such as
      the boy scouts. The shoreline of historic Pennsbury Manor, home of
      william Penn, is also a dumping ground because of the tide. The area


                                       28





      Is cleaned weekly by maintenance workers because of the many tourists
      @hat come to the site. The debris is mostly land-based: Styrofoam,
      cups, soda cans and bottles, paper, and tree branches.

      The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees
      New Jersey's section of the estuaryf has confirmed CZX's findings that
      marine debris is not a problem in the estuary.

                          Lake Erie coastal Zone (LECZ)
      Compared to the DECZ, more information exists on marine debris in the
      LECZ because of organized beach cleanups in the area. For over 30
      years, Presque Isle State Park has been conducting beach cleanups-in
      the spring and fall. Since 1988, the debris collected in the fall has
      been categorized and recorded for a national report published by the
      D.C.-based Center for marine Conservation. So farf Pennsylvania is the
      only Great Lakes state to participate in the report.

      most of the trash collected on Presque Isle's beaches is paper and
      plastic (drinking straws, beverage cups, and utensils) and appears to
      be land-based. During the fall cleanup three years ago, more than
      2,400 pounds of trash was picked up over the seven-mile beach area. In
      last year's cleanup, volunteers covered more than half of the beach
      area and collected only 742 pounds of trash. Park personnel credits
      the park's "adopt-a-beach" programf in which local organizations adopt
      a certain section of beach and clean it once a week or every other
      week, for the improvement.

      The Erie County Department of Health inspects the shoreline east and
      west of Presque Isle State Park. East of the park, however, most of
      the shoreline is inaccessible by foot because of steep cliffs with no
      beach areas. West of Presque Isle, the shoreline has a considerable
      amount of human-made debris brought by lake waters. In some cases,
      though, property owners clean the beaches adjacent to their land. Most
      of the debris is plastic: bottles, balloons, and tampon applicators.
      The presence of tampon applicators indicates raw sewage contamination.

      The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) and the
      City of Erie have entered into a consent decree that calls for the city
      to eliminate all sources of pollution to Presque Isle Bay that
      originate in the city's sewer and water systems. The department's and
      city's goal: a swimable bay in 20 years.

      The USCG's Erie station told CZX staff that marine debris is not a
      problem in the lake or harbor. Authorities

      The USCG is responsible for preventing and cleaning up marine debris
      and responding to oil and gas spills and chemical releases. The USCG
      also retrieves floating barrels and, if chemicals are involved,
      attempts to determine the source. In addition, the USCG administers
      and enforces Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention
      of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). MARPOL states that garbage must not
      be discharged from any ships (all marine craft, including privately-
      owned recreational vessels) into navigable waters of the United States


                                        29





      or within the 200-mile exclusive economIc zone. The COE, Philadelphia
      District, is involved with marine debris only as it affects the federal
      navigation channel. They remove sunken vessels and large debris items
      that are hazards to navigation and respond to emergency spills.

      The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted the "Municipal Waste Planning,
      Recycling and Waste Reduction Act" (Act 101) in July 1988. The goals
      of the act are to reduce the state's municipal waste generation,
      recycle at least 25 percent of waste generated, procure and use
      recycled and recyclable materials in state government agencies, and
      educate the public as to the benefits of recycling and waste reduction.

      Municipalities with populations of at least 10,000 had to implement
      urbside recycling programs by September 26, 1990. Municipalities with
      populations between 5,000 and 10,000--and more than 300 persons per
      c

      square mile--must have implemented curbside programs by September 26,
      1991. Grants are available to all municipalities to establish
      recycling programs. All disposal facilities provide recycling drop-off
      centers. Mandated municipalities collect at least three of the
      following materials: clear glass, colored glass, plastics, aluminum,
      steel and bimetalic cans,.high-grade office paper, corrugated paper,
      and newsprint.

      The Commonwealth's litter statutes are addressed in civil and, most
      recently, criminal laws. The state Vehicle Code calls for a summary
      offense with fines from $10 to $300 (no minimum fine) and also
      specifies penalties ranging from eight to 80 hours of litter pick-up.

      On May 31, 1990, Governor Casey signed House Bill 1068 which increases
      the penalties for litter and the scattering or dumping of trash.
      Specifics on littering under this criminal code law make it a summary
      offense with fines from $50 to $300 and/or imprisonment up to 90 days.
      Subsequent littering offenses are a third-degree misdemeanor with fines
      ranging from $300 to $1,000 and possible imprisonment and community
      service of up to one year. Under the "short-dumping" provisions of the
      law, for subsequent offenses, vehicles used to transport or dispose
      trash, garbage, or debris may be deemed contraband and forfeited.

      The Pennsylvania Fish Commission littering rule prohibits any person
      from discarding or allowing the discarding of trash or garbage in or
      along any waters or on any lands adjacent or contiguous to waters or in
      such manner that the debris flows into or is carried by wind into such
      waters or lands.

      The penalty for violating the Fish Commission rule ranges from a $25
      fine to a fine of $100 or imprisonment not exceeding 90 days. Also, an
      additional penalty of $10 for each item of trash may be imposed on the
      person who violates this rule.

      The Pennsylvania Game Commission fines litterers $50 plus $10 for each
      item. People who transport and dump garbage on game lands or private
      lands where hunting is allowed are fined $300 plus $10 for each item.






                                       30






      Neshaminy and Presque Isle State Park use the criminal and vehicle
      codes, state park rules and regulations, and fishing and boating laws
      to penalize litterers. The fines range from $10 to $300 plus court
      costs.

      As required by the 1990 reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management
      Act, CZM and DER's Bureau of Water Quality Management will develop a
      coastal nonpoint pollution program by November 1994. The new nonpoint
      program will identify land uses that threaten coastal waters and will
      also identify critical coastal areas that require additional management
      measures. Both state agencies will work closely with local governments
      and the public during implementation of the additional management
      measures*               Public Survey Responses

      Public comment on marine debris focused on littering-dumping laws and
      control of pollution entering coastal waters (inland, point and
      nonpoint, and sewage plants). State, federal and local mechanisms are
      in place to address these issues and have been referred to in this
      assessment. The broad definition of marine debris prompted several
      comments on cleaning up superfund sites and landfills. However,
      addressing those specific point sources of pollution is beyond the
      scope of the enhancement objective for ma ine debris.

      The public also suggested that CZK increase its public education and
      awareness efforts. This is addressed in the nDirection" section below.


                                      summary

      In the DECZ, marine debris is mostly land-based from sewer overflows
      and littering. The volume and types of debris do not pose a threat to
      marine life or the environment. In the LECZ, marine debris is also
      land-based from sewer overflows and littering. The amount of debris on
      the shore is kept in check by organized cleanups, as well as informal
      cleanups by property owners.

      Land-based debris is controlled and reduced through Pennsylvania's
      recycling and littering laws. The USCG and the COE control water-based
      debris. Sewage systems in the coastal communities have been or are
      being upgraded.

                                     Direction

      Based on this assessment, CZM does not anticipate making any program
      changes to address marine debris. However, C2X will continue its
      efforts to educate the public on the problem of marine debris. Those
      efforts shall includer but are not limited to, newsletter articles,
      promotional material and displays and working closely with other state
      and federal agencies to help control littering and dumping in coastal
      lands and waters.






                                       31






                   C=ulative-and Secondam Impacts Assessment

      Legislative Objective

          5309(a)(5) Development and adoption of procedures to assess,
          consider, and control cumulative and secondary impacts of coastal
          growth and development, including the collective ef-ect on various
          individual uses or activities on coastal resources, such as
          coastal wetlands and fishery resources.

      Assessment characterization

          Characterize the nature, type, and extent of secondary and
          cumulative impacts in the coastal zone.

                                   Introduction

      Pennsylvania has chosen to address this issue area as a tool rather
      than an issue. In Pennsylvania's coastal zones (as evidenced elsewhere
      in this assessment document), cumulative and secondary impacts from
      coastal growth and development on most coastal resources can be
      addressed by improving the administration of regulatory programs
      designed to protect these resources. It is realized, however, that as
      growth continues to occur in the coastal zones, cumulative and
      secondary impacts could become a more pervasive problem. The one area
      where cumulative and secondary impacts are currently having
      identifiable negative effects is water quality.

                       Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone (DECZ)

      The Delaware Estuary Program (DELEP), convened under the Nat.:nal
      Estuary Programr has identified nonpoint source pollutionas -;@ problem
      in the Delaware Estuary. The DELEP, in which the Pennsylvani--- Coastal
      zone management Program (CZM) is a major participant, is currsntly
      assessing the impacts of nonpoint source pollution on the estuary,
      identifying the sources of the pollution, and developing a program
      which includes controlling coastal growth and development to address
      the problems.

      czx will continue to participate actively in the DELEP and use its
      resources as appropriate to implement the DELEP nonpoint source control
      program in the Pennsylvania portion of the Delaware Estuary. This
      effort will be further-reinforced'under the Section 6217 requirements
      of the 1990 reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act which
      requires CZM and the state water quality program to develop a nonpoint
      source program for its coastal waters. This effort, which will be
      integrated with the DELEP effort in the Delaware Estuary, will ensure
      that cumulative and secondary impacts of coastal growth and development
      on coastal resources are adequately addressed.

                           Lake Erie Coastal Zone (LECZ)

      In the LECZ, nonpoint source pollution has not been identified as a
      major water quality problem. This was determined by a recent state
      Bureau of Water Quality Management assessment of Commonwealth watf-rs.
      Additionally, development of the 6217 program for the LECZ will


                                       32





                                                             not aware of at
       Id
       , entify and address any existing impacts that CZX is
       this time.

                                    Authorities

       most of Pennsylvania's key regulatory authorities address cumulative
       impacts in the assessment process. A good example of this is the
       state,s PA Code, Title 25, Chapter 105 regulations which consider
       cumulative impacts to wetlands (see wetlands Assessment). txisting/
       future harmful cumulative and secondary impacts to the CoL--inwealth's
       coastal resources are not/will not likely be from point/site specific
       activities that are addressed by regulations; '--ut rather from nonpoint
       source/land use activities that are not easily addressable via
       regulatory programs. Therefore, the biggest cumulative and secondary
       impacts, issues are really land-use management issues. The following
       is a discussion of land-use authorities.in the Commonwea:ith, which for
       the most part, reside at the local government level.

       in Pennsylvania, the Municipalities Planning Code (Act of 1968, P.L.
       805, No. 247, Reenacted and Amended December 21, 1988) provides the
       authority for most county and local planning in the coastal zones. The
       act empowers municipalitiest with the exception of Philadelphia in the
       DECZ, to individually or jointly plan their development and to govern
       the same by zoning, ordinances, and state comprehensive plans-subdivi-
       sion regulations. In Philadelphia, the Home Rule Charter of 1951
       defines the powers and duties of the Planning Commission concerning
       land development,and use. The Planning Commission acts in an advisory
       capacity to the City Council, the mayor, and the Zoning Hearing Board.

       Act 247 provides the powers necessary for county and local planning.
       The planning agency "shall at the request of the governing body have
       the power and shall be required to: prepare a comprehensive plan;
       maintain and keep on file records of its action; make recommendations
       for adoption or amendment of an official map; prepare ... a municipal
       zoning ordinance; prepare, recommend, and administer subdivision and
       land development, and planned residential development regulations;
       prepare ... a municipal building code and a housing code; ... make such
       studies as may be necessary to fulfill the duties and obligations
       imposed by this act; prepare and present ... an environmental study;
       submit ... a recommended capital improvements program, prepare ... a
       water survey; promote public interest in ... the comprehensive plan and
       planning."

       Act 247 also allows for public hearings, testimony, and municipal
       review of zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations to ensure
       consistency with the comprehensive plan. All of the local munici-
       palities in the coastal zone are incorporated and, under state law,
       provide comprehensive plansr zoning ordinances, and subdivision
       regulations. Local governments do not usually delegate their land-use
       decision making authority. Counties, therefore, generally serve an
       advisory role and are limited in the direct control of land-use
       decisions.

       The city of Philadelphia, both a municipality and a county, has a
       planning commission that is responsible for the orderly growth and
       development of the city. Under the 1951 Home Rule Charter, the powers


                                         33





       and duties of the commission include the preparation of: a compre-
       hensive plan and its modifications, the capital program and budget,
       proposed zoning ordinances and amendments, and regulations concerning
       the subdivision of land.

       The mechani-sms for local land-use control, such as planning commissions
       and zoning boards, are in place and the majority of coastal communities
       have comprehensive plans. Despite apparent environmental interest, the
       problems are:
        In many instances, economic, rather than environmental concerns, are
        the driving force behind land-use decision making,
       -Generally, environmental planning is not adequately integrated into
        all aspects of local planning, and

       -Local resources (staffing and technical expertise) are generally
        inadequate to consider regional environmental protection and resource
        management needs, i.e., the regional environmental ramifications of
        local land-use decisions.

       Generally, the planning process is influenced strongly by local
       decision makers responding to local interests. Although environmental
       and residents' interests are significant, these interests are generally
       not institutionalized into the land-use planning process. In many
       communities, developers, real estate interests, and industry are major
       players in the local decision-making process.
       Concerning the issue of local capabilities to manage regional
       resources, in addition to the lack of a regional perspective on the
       value of coastal resources, institutions are not in place and local
       tools are deficient (staffing and technical expertise). Local
       governments have the legal authority to address likely CZX objectives.
       However, many do not possess the expertise or resources.
       CZX has had 'success in addressing coastal issues by providing
       municipalities with money and/or technical assistance to develop new
       comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations.
       Depending on the results of the 309 Assessment of the various issue
       areas, this approach may again be useful. However, this approach,
       ,since it is voluntary, does not ensure that the proper plans,
       ordinances, and subdivisions will be developed and that implementation
       will occur.

                               Public Survey Responses

       Public comment on this objective did not identify specific actions to
       be taken. In general, the comments reflected a desire for good
       land-use management plans for the coastal zones. Respondents believe
       it is important to have land-use plans in effect that protect
       resources, provide for public areas, and promote responsible economic
       growth.






                                         34





                                    Direction

      Based on CZM's analysis and public comments received concerning this
      issue, it appears that wise land-use management is the key to
      minimizing cumulative and secondary impacts on coastal resources. The
      public.in both coastal zones identified the need to have land-use
      planning that provided for access and protects important resources.
      Additionally, land-use management has been targeted as a key element in
      addressing nonpoint source pollution in the Delaware Estuary. CZX will
      make any necessary program changes to facilitate implementation of the
      DELEP land-use management effort. CZX will also continue its effort to
      promote wise land-use management in the coastal zones by providing
      local governments with funds to update their comprehensive plans and
      zoning ordinances. To make this effort more meaningful, CZX will
      review all of its GAPCs, new GAPCs will be identified to,protect
      certain areas; i.e., important wetlands, critical habitats, potential
      access areas, etc., from cumulative and secondary impacts.
      Municipalities will be required to incorporate these GAPCs into their
      comp plans and zoning ordinances, and protect them from cumulative and
      secondary impacts from coastal developments. Since the only means we
      currently have to accomplish this is encouragement, i.e., the provision
      of CZM funds for planning and zoning updates, CZM will explore means to
      better insure that these critical areas (GAPCs) are protected by local
      land use decision making.



































                                       35






                    Special Area Management Planning Assessment


       Legislative Objective

           5309(a)(6) preparing and implementing special area management
           plans for important coastal areas.

       Assessment characterization

           Identify areas of the coastal zone subject to use conflicts that
           can be addressed through special area management planning.

                                    introduction

       In identifying Special Area Management Planning (SAMP), the Coastal
       Zone Management Program (CZX) reviewed all of its "overlap" Geographic
       Areas of Particular Concern (areas where the distinction between a
       natural area, a recreational area, and a development opportunity area
       are not easily defined), consulted with CZM's regional coordinators
       (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and Erie County
       Department of Planning), and sent questionnaires to the public.

       Two areas of the coastal zone are identified as potential SAMPs: (1)
       .siting dredge spoil disposal at Waste Management Incorporated-owned
       sites in the Delaware Estuary, and (2) determining the boating capacity
       at Erie's Presque isle Bay. The boating capacity issue is a problem
       that CZM has been aware of for several years. The dredge disposal
       issue was recently brought to CZX's attention by the Department of
       Environmental Resources, (DER) Bureau of Water Projects.

                            Dredge Spoil Disposal Sites

       DER is obligated to find dredge disposal sites for channel maintenance
       dredging performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 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 economic and
       environmental concerns, hydraulic dredging is the only prudent and
       feasible way to keep the channel open.

       Given the topographical and developmental constraints in the area, the
       only available sites for disposal are on lands currently owned or
       controlled by Waste Management Inc. (WMI). The majority of this area
       has been affected by past gravel extraction activities which have
       resulted in the creation of lakes. The lakes are used for private
       recreation and there are summer homes along some of them. There are
       several large active landfills in the area. In the past, dredge spoil
       disposal has been used as cover for the landfills; this could be a
       viable use for future spoil disposal as well.

       DER is presently negotiating with WMI to acquire a ten-year lease for
       disposal sites on Money Island, Biles Island, and the area around the
       boat slip near Pennsbury Manor. Potential additional sites exist
       inland on WMI's property such as Van Sciver Lake and Scott's Creek.



                                        36





       If this area is designated as a SAMP, it would be managed to ensure
       that the area would be available for dredge spoil disposal on a
       long-term basis, while ensuring that the environmental and development
       potential of the area is not adversely impacted. This could be
       accomplished through acquisition, a long term lease, or a mutually
       developed and agreed upon management plan for the area.

                                  Presque Isle Bay

       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.

       The City of Erie has voiced concern about boating capacity on the bay
       since the mid-1980s. The SAMP would determine the carrying capacity of
       the bay from environmental and social considerations i.e., how to limit
       the number of boats to that capacity, how to minimize environmental and
       social impacts caused by boating, and what other means exist for
       handling demand for boating in the area. Specific environmental
       considerations include impacts to water quality (sewage and gasoline
       from the boats), as well as impacts on wetlands and shorelines from
       wave action erosion.

       All pertinent federal, state, and local agencies; clubs; and
       organizations would be involved in the development of the SAMP. The
       development of the SAMP would be closely coordinated with the develop-
       ment of a Remedial Action Plan for the bay's water quality which is
       currently being developed under the authority of DER.

       Development of the SAMP would provide currently unknown information on
       the impact boating has on the bay's water quality which would be useful
       in the development of the Remedial Action Plan.

                              Public survey responses

       Public comments were overwhelmingly positive on this issue. The public
       recognizes the need to find a long-term solution for disposal of the
       dredged material. The public also is solidly behind the clean up of
       Presque Isle Bay. Although the remedial action plan will be the
       primary vehicle for accomplishing this, the capacity study will ensure
       that the impact of boating on the Say's water quality will be
       addressed. The public also recognizes the need to look at boating
       capacity from a social perspective, i.e., safety, and the impact of
       overcrowding on the enjoyment of boating on the bay.






                                        37






                                     D:Lrectlon

      czx will meet with all pertinent agencies and publics to determine the
      parameters that should be included in looking at boater capacity on the
      bay. Following this determination, a Request for Proposal on a
      capacity study will be developed. The results of the study will be
      used to determine what new authority, regulations, actions, etc., need
      to be developed/taken to regulate boating on the bay.

      czm will identify all potential dredge spoil disposal sites in the
      affected area and then meet with property owners and the pertinent
      agencies to determine what actions need to be taken to secure a
      long-term solution to the problem of finding a place to dispose of
      channel dredging spoils.

      The direction CZM takes will be determined by the results of the
      analysis that will determine the best management technique for the
      SAMPs. Regulatory/program changes developed to implement the SAMPs may
      include: new CZM policy on dredge disposal, new regulations governing
      development of marinas/pump-out stations in Presque Isle Bay, and
      regulations limiting the number of power boats in Presque Isle Bay.
































                                        38





                              Enercry and Government
                    Facility Siting and Activities Assessment


      Legislative Objective

          5309(a)(8) Adoption of procedures and enforceable policies to help
          facilitate the siting of energy facilities and government
          facilities and energy-related activities ;@!nd government activities
          which may be of greater than local signiiicance.

      Assessment Characterization

          Assess existing planning, regulatory procedures, and policic--
          which affect the siting of subject facilities and ac.tivitic.

                                    Introduction

      For the purpose of this assessment, energy facilities and activities of
      regional benefit (greater than local concern) are defined as the pro-
      duction, generation, transmission, distribution, or supply of natural
      or artificial gas, electricity, or steam for the production of light,
      heat, or power to or for the public for compensation. Also included is
      the transportation or conveyance of natural or artificial gas, crude
      oil, gasoline, petroleum products, materials for refrigeration, oxygen,
      nitrogen, or other fluid substance by pipeline or conduit to the public
      for compensation.
      Examples of government facility siting and activities of regional
      benefit include the Philadelphia and Erie International Airports, the
      Philadelphia Naval Base, and the U.S. Coast Guard stations.

                               Energy Facility Siting

      on the state and local levels, strong planning processes exist to
      address the siting needs of energy facilities. As required by Section
      305(b)(8) of the 1976 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act of
      1972, Pennsylvania has specifically included in its Coastal Zone
      Management Program (CZX) a planning process for energy facilities-
      likely to be located in or affecting the coastal zones. In fact, CZX,
      in conjunction with local governments, identified 16 Geographic Areas
      of Particular Concern (GAPC) that could be used as sites for future
      energy facilities. Each development opportunity GAPC has been selected
      because of the potential to "serve regional, state, or national
      economic interests."

      CZM has encouragement and enforceable policies which specifica   lly
      address energy facility siting and the planning process The
      enforceable policies are based on state permit programsi which are
      networked into CZM. This permit process involves the issuance of
      permits for damst hydropower projects, dredging, radiation, air


        1    Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 27; The Solid
        Waste management Act, Act of July 31, 1968f P.L. 788, as amended
        footnote continues next page


                                        39





     @'discharges, water discharges and withdrawals, solid waste disposal,
       shoreline erosion control, wetlands protection, and control of water
       obstructions and encroachments in the bed of Lake Erie and the Delaware
       River. These regulatory processes ensure that energy facilities are
       sited in such a manner that the coastal area ecosystems are not
       adversely affected. Numerous energy facility projects have been
       permitted thus far in the coastal zones. Examples include municipal
       and private trash-to-steam projects; natural gas to steam/electric;
       pier construction; maintenance for loading/unloading petroleum
       products; and underground pipelines for the conveyance of gas, oil, and
       other petroleum products.

       The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) can override arbitrary
       local exclusion of energy facilities through the issuance of a
       "certificate of public convenience.,, .These certificates are granted
       only after the PUC has determined that the energy facility is necessary
       for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public.
       The PUC reviews energy-related projects solely with state and/or
       regional interests in mind; not from a national interest standpoint.
       once issued, no local jurisdiction may exclude such facilities from
       locating within its juri5diction. The PUC certification process is
       also networked into CZX.

       it is important to note that a certificate of public convenience does
       not deprive the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) of any
       vested jurisdiction, powers, or duties which provide the department
        'th separate and coequal project review authority.

                              Goverrment Facility Siting

       Although CZM does not specifically include a planning process to
       address government facility siting needar sufficient state mechanisms
       networked into CZX already exist, or are being developed.

       The state permitting process mentioned above, has already permitted
       several projects involving the Erie and Philadelphia International
       Airports, the Erie and Philadelphia Coast Guard Stations, and the
       Philadelphia Naval Base.


         continued footnote
         (35 P.S. Section 6001 et.secr.); The Air Pollution Control Act, Act
         of January 8, 1960, P.L. (1959) 2119, as'amended (35 P.S. Sections
         4001 at sea.); The Clean Streams Law, Act of June 22, 1937, P.L.
         1987 (35 P.S. Sections 691.1,et sect.); The Dam Safety Act, Act of
         November 26, 1978, P.L. 1375,-as amended (32 P.S. Sections 693.1
         2t seq.); Soil Conservation Law, Act of May 15, 1945, P.L. 547, as
         amended (3 P.S. Sections 849 et secr.); The Administrative Code,
         Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended (71 P.S. Section
         510-20); Radiation Control, Act of January 28, 1966, P.L. (1965)
         1625 (73 P.S. Sections 1301 et sect.); Act of July 1, 1978, P.L.
         598 (66 PA C.S. Sections 1101 et secr.).


         2    Act of October 24, 1970, Public Utilities Code (P.L. 707, No.
         230), Pa. Consolidated Statutes, Title 66, Chapter 11.1 et secT.


                                         40





      CZX is establishing a direct contact review mechanism with pertinent
      federal agencies. It will replace the Commonwealth's Single Point of
      Contact (SPOC) clearinghouse, that was terminated by the Commonwealth
      in August of this year. Participation by federal agencies in the SPOC
      process was required by Presidential Executive Order 12372. CZX relied
      on the SPOC, which acted as a document distributor/comm nt collector
      for project reviewers and the federal agencies. In the future, CZM
      will receive from/respond directly to these federal agencies in the
      review of federal projects, including airport, Coast Guard, and defense
      facility projects. In addition, the Commonwealth has requested that
      these federal agencies establish direct contact review mechanisms with
      other state, regional, and local agencies.

      To date, other than the discontinuance of the SPOC, no problems have
      been encountered that would affect the-siting needs of government
      facilities of greater than local significance.

                          Project Review and Coordination

      The Commonwealth and CZX have several project review and coordination
      processes that minimize duplication and enhance communication between
      permitting authorities and those requesting permits. They are:

            A.  State permitting Rrocess. All applications for state permits
                are published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin to ensure ample
                public notice is provided to all concerned parties. In
                addition, the internal DER "Form 111 process ensures that when
                an application for one permit is submitted, the applicant is
                made aware of other state permit requirements. Intra-agency
                coordination and coordination with the applicant begin at this
                time.

            .B. The establishment of diregt contact review. This review and
                coordination mechanism mentioned above, will ensure that all
                federal development and assistance projects are coordinated
                with at the state, local, and regional levels.

             C. CZX Urban Waterfront Actign Grouip (UWAG). CZX has developed
                and funds this prepermit meeting process. This group,    -
                composed of federal, state, regional, and local permitting
                agencies; has already reviewed several energy and government
                facility-type projects. Also in the Lake Erie coastal zone,
                similar group meetings are held on an as-needed basis.

             D. CZX federal consistency review procedures. These procedures
                ensure that prior to determining consistency, the project is
                introduced into the state permitting process (see A above) and
                all state permits have been received.

       These project-review and permitting procedures are very effective in
       that the previously cited Coast Guard, airport, and energy facilities
       were all reviewed through these procedures with no problems
       encountered.





                                        41






                               Public Participation

      on the state level, the siting of energy and government facilities is
      open to all public and private interests. opportunities for involve-
      ment are made available by the PUC prior to, during, and after issuance
      of their certificate. The PUC holds public hearings and investiga-
      tions, and publishes public notices requesting protests or petitions to
      intervene. Additional opportunities are available during the review of
      state permit applications and after permit issuance through the
      Environmental Hearing Board appeals process.

      In addition to the mechanisms traditionally available to the public,
      (i.e., state permit review) CZM provides other avenues for participa-
      tion through the local Coastal Zone Steering Committees @CZSC) and the
      Coastal Zone Advisory Committee.

      Citizen and interest groups may make their views on issues known by
      attending local CZSC meetings, contacting their representatives on the
      steering committees, or contacting CZM directly.

                              Public Survey Responses

      CZM received very few comments (13 total) on this legislative
      objective. Of these respondents, five felt that CZM1s assessment
      adequately addressed this issue and agreed with the proposed direction.
      However, two respondents felt that CZM should adopt procedures and
      enforceable policies for this objective, citing the need for "future
      protection" and "because of air, land, and water effects beyond our
      borders."

      Two other respondents opined that enforcement is weak, and that federal
      agencies disregard state and local permitting requirements and fail to
      comply with state and local regulations. Two respondents felt that
      there should be no development along the Lake Erie shoreline. one
      suggested that "no development should occur within five miles of any
      shoreline" while the other felt that nuclear development should not be
      located anywhere near the Great Lakes.

                                      Summary

      Within Pennsylvania there exists more than adequate procedures and
      planning processes for considering the needs of energy related and
      government facilities and activities.

      CZM, in conjunction with local municipalities, has identified 16 sites
      which could be used in siting future energy facilities. In addition,
      CZX has several specific policies related to siting energy facilities,
      while the PUC's "certificate of public convenience,, can override
      arbitrary local exclusion of energy facilities.

      Although CZX does not specifically include a planning process or
      policies to address government facility siting needs, the state's
      permitting process, the direct review mechanism, CZM's federal
      consistency review procedures, and the CZM-funded UWAG prepermit forum
      provide for adequate siting consideration. These processes/procedures/
      forum are also used in siting energy facilities and activities.


                                       42





     Since CZX was approved in 1980, numerous energy and government
     facilities/Activities have been undertaken with no problems encoun-
     tered. This conclusion is supported in part by the limited response to
     cZX,s public opinion survey. Those few concerns raised are addressed
     via the existing permit/project review mechanisms in place.

                                   Direction

     Based on this assessment and limited public comments, CZX will not
     revise its policies concerning energy and government facility siting
     and activities. CZX believes that the concerns raised in the public
     survey are addressed by the existing CZX policies and existing state
     coordination and review mechanisms.



















































                                      43






            Lake Eirie Coastal Zone







                                COASTAL ZONE eQU40ARY






                                                                                                                                               E R HE


                                                                                                                                                                   iNARBORCOCEK TWP

                                          Tw,               (;IeAko   TWO
                                                                                                  (Wf


                                                                                                                                                           E, E TWP















                                                                                                                                           N.t*: 4".        .4, . WW, "Aw3 of th, U S
                                                                                                                                           fe ... d h0d                       by I.., wbwct,00
                                                                                                                                           i,de,dl g..v,,mww, -                       vedv.i
                                                                                                                                           -1h the .....






                  Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone











                                                                                                                   P H I L A DE                  L P H I A

                                                                                                                                                                                                       IIINSILE, T

                                                                                                                                                                                             P.





                                                                                                                                                                                                  0


                                                                                                                               CAMOEN


                                       COASIAL ZONE BOUNDARY                  co














                                                                                                                                                                                 ah  1976 1 uhngof the 0 S D,pam-,Il
                                                                                                                                                                   he i    .,I It wh.,h - I,        by 1-. s.bj,,l .I
                                                                                                                                                             'd,,.1 go-n-ni, - -cl.d.d ft.- the --1.1 -., Fed-1
                                                                                                                                                            with:he co:isimency provisions of the fed-I dd Whell dl 11,11IS On III







                                                                                                                      N
                                                                                                                       OAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                      3 6668 14114042 8