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






                                                                 Presque Isle Bay
                                            Recreational Boating Study


                                                                                     MARCH 1994





                                                                     Ooashl


                                                           PWR OF                 ZonE







                    . . . . . . . . . .
                                                      Presque Isle Bay













                                                                           CU
                                                         OFF






























                     Prepared by.
                     Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
                     9001 Edmonston Road                                   Greenbelt, Maryland 20770














                                              PRESQUE ISLE BAY RECREATIONAL BOATING STUDY



                                                                         Prepared by
                                                             Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
                                                                  9001 Edmonston Road
                                                             Greenbelt, Maryland 20770

                                                                               and

                                                          Pennsylvania          State University



                           A REPORT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
                           TO THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION PURSUANT TO
                           NOAA AWARD NO. NA270ZO335-01




                                                    DER GRANT/CONTRACT NO. - CZ1:92.01PE
                                                                 GRANT TASK NO. - CZ1:92-EG.04
                                                                              ME.NO. - 92269

                     This project was financed in part through a federal Coastal Zone Management
                     Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, with
                     funds provided by NOAA.                       The views expressed herein are those of the
                     author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its
                     subagencies.









                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
            Sectio                                                                    Page

            LIST OF FMIBITS                                                           iii
            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                         v


            1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION                               1-1

                  1.1  Purpose of the Study                                           1-1
                  1.2  Historical Setting of Presque Isle   Bay                       1-1
                         and the Port of Erie
                  1.3  Environmental Setting of Presque Isle Bay                      1-3
                       1.3.1 Geological Setting                                       1-5
                       1.3.2 Soils                                                    1-7
                       1.3.3 Terrestrial Resources                                    1-8
                       1.3.4 Aquatic Resources                                        1-10

            2.0   INVENTORY OF RECREATIONAL BOATING  AND PORT FACILITIES              2-1

                  2.1  Existing Recreational Boating Facilities                       2-1
                  2*2  Proposed Recreational Boating Facilities                       2-6
                  2.3  Potential Recreational Boating Facilities                      2-9
                  2.4  Commercial Port Facilities Inventory                           2-12
                       2.4.1 Waterfront Industrial Facility Descriptions              2-13
                       2.4.2 Port Facilities Summary                                  2-14

            3.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT                         3-1

                  3.1  Water Resources Background                                     3-2
                       3.1.1 Review of the Remedial Action Plan                       3-2
                  3.2  Impact of Recreational Boating Activity                        3-3
                         Based on Literature Review
                       3.2.1 Sanitary Waste Discharges                                3-3
                       3.2.2 Boat Painting and Boat Cleaning                          3-4
                       3.2.3 Engine Releases                                          3-4
                  3.3  Sampling Study                                                 3-5
                       3.3.1 Methodology                                              3-5
                       3.3.2 Additional Data   Sources                                3-6
                       3.3.3 Sampling Results                                         3-7
                  3.4  Pollutant Loads Related to Recreational Boating Activity       3-10
                       3.4.1 Copper                                                   3-10
                       3.4.2 Hydrocarbons                                             3-11
                       3.4.3 Fecal Coliform Concentration                             3-13
                  3.5  Summary of Water Quality Impacts Related to Recreational       3-15
                         Boating in Presque Isle Bay
                  3.6  Boat Wake Impact Study                                         3-15

            4.0   FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS                                        4-1


                  4.1 Assumptions for Projecting Future Impacts                       4-1
                  4.2 Future Water Quality Conditions                                 4-2
                  4.3 Projected Shoreline Impacts Associated                          4-5
                         with Future Boating Activities


                                                      i









                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
            Section                                                                   Page


            5.0 CARRYING CAPACITY CONCEPTS                                            5-1

                 5.1   Review of-Carrying Capacity Concepts                           5-1
                       5.1.1 Resource Carrying Capacity                               5-1
                       5.1.2 Impacts to the Recreation Experience                     5-3
                       5.1.3 Use/Impact Relationships                                 5-5
                 5.2   Evolving Frameworks for Management                             5-6


            6.0  BOATER SURVEY RESULTS                                                6-1


                 6.1   Methodology                                                    6-1
                       6.1.1  Sampling Design                                         6-1
                       6.1.2  Parking Lot Counts                                      6-1
                       6.1.3  Boat Channel Counts                                     6-3
                       6.1.4  Aerial Photography                                      6-3
                       6.1.5  Personal Interviews                                     6-5
                 6.2   Survey Results                                                 6-5
                       6.2.1  Boat Use Patterns                                       6-5
                       6.2.2  Descriptive Profile of Presque Isle Bay Boaters         6-16
                       6.2.3  Perceptions of Quality in the Boating Experience        6-20
                       6.2.4  Effects of Boat Density on Boating Quality              6-24

            7.0  CARRYING CAPACITY ANALYSIS                                           7-1


                 7.1 Evaluation of Existing Conditions                                7-1
                 7.2 Evaluation of Future Conditions                                  7-2


            8.0  REVIEV OF LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITIES            8-1


            9.0  RECREATIONAL BOATING MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS                      9-1


                 9.1 Presque Isle Bay Recreational Boating                            9-1
                         Management Recommendations
                 9.2 Recommendations for Future Monitoring                            9-6

            10.0 REFERENCES                                                           10-1


            APPENDIX A     Water Quality Sampling Data                                A-1

            APPENDIX B     Boater Survey Results                                      B-1

            APPENDIX C     Boater Comments about Recreational Boating                 C-1
                             on Presque Isle Bay





             Exhibit        Title           LIST OF EXHIBITS                            Page

               1-1          Study_Area                                                  1-4
               1-2          Geologic Cross-Section                                      1-6

               2-1          Inventory of Existing Boating Facilities -
                               Marinas                                                  2-2
               2-2          Inventory  of Existing Boating Facilities -
                               Boat Ramps                                               2-3
               2-3          Existing Marinas and Boat Ramps                             2-4
               2-4          Proposed and Potential Boating Facilities                   2-8

               3-1          Climate Data                                                3-7
               3-2          Comparison of Water Quality Sampling Results
                               to State Water Quality Standards and Criteria            3-8
               3-3          Estimated Annual Loads and Concentrations for
                               Pollutants Associated with Recreational Boating          3-12

               4-1          Future High Peak Day Usage Calculation                      4-3
               4-2          Estimated Annual Loads and Concentrations
                               for Existing and Future Conditions                       4-4

               5-1          Ecological Impacts of Recreation and
                               Social Impacts of Increasing Recreational Use            5-2
               5-2          Visitor Impact Management/Planning Process                  5-7

               6-1          Summary of Boater Survey Sample                             6-2
               6-2          Aerial Photointerpretation Boat Counts in
                               Presque Isle Bay                                         6-4
               6-3          Summary of Peak Parking Lot Counts                          6-6
               6-4          Daily Parking Lot Counts - June 12, 1993                    6-8
               6-5          Daily Parking Lot Counts - July 4, 1993                     6-9
               6-6          Parking Lot Counts - Lampe Area Ramp and     Marina         6-10
               6-7          Parking Lot Counts - Presque Isle State Park Ramp           6-11
               6-8          Summary of Daily Boat Counts - Main Channel                 6-12
               6-9          Boat Counts at Presque Isle Bay Main Channel -
                               July 3, 1993                                             6-13
               6-10         Boat Counts at  Presque Isle Bay Main Channel -
                               July 4, 1993                                             6-14
               6-11         Summary of Use  Level Indicators                            6-15
               6-12         Correlations Between Use Level Density Measures             6-17
               6-13         Descriptive Profile of Presque Isle Bay Boaters,
                               Boats, and Characteristics of Sampled Trips by
                               User Group                                               6-18
               6-14         Destination of Presque Isle Bay Boaters                     6-19
               6-15         Activity Participation                                      6-21
               6-16         Values for Selected Impact Indices and Their
                               Component Items by Where Visitors Boated                 6-22
               6-17         Comparison of Boating Impact Measures on Presque
                               Isle Bay and Nearby Water Resources                      6-23
               6-18         Values for Selected Impact Indices and Component
                               Items by Primary Activity Group                          6-25

                                                      iii





            Exhibit        Title            LIST OF EXHIBITS                          P ff.&e

              6-19         Values for Selected Impact Indices and Their
                             Component Items by Level of Use                          6-26
              6-20         Values for Selected Impact Indices and Their
                             Component Items by Level of Satisfaction                 6-27
              6-21         Descriptive Profile of Presque Isle Bay Boaters,
                             Boats, and Characteristics of Sampled Trips
                             by User Satisfaction Rating                              6-29
              6-22         Values for Selected Impact Indices and Their
                             Component Items by Influence of Others on
                             the Boating Experience                                   6-30
              6-23         Descriptive Profile of Presque Isle Bay Boaters,
                             Boats, and Characteristics of Sampled Trips by
                             the Reported Influence of Others on the Boating
                             Experience                                               6-31

              8-1          City of Erie Waterfront Zoning                             8-6

              9-1          Recreational Boating Constraints and opportunities         9-3




































                                                      iv









             EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

                 Presque Isle Bay is an approximately 3,700 acre embayment sheltered
             from Lake Erie by a six-mile long peninsula.       This peninsula, which is
             known as Presque Isle State Park, is managed by    the State of Pennsylvania
             for recreational and conservation purposes. Over    the years, as a result of
             coastal growth and development, Presque Isle Bay has become a popular
             boating and recreational area.    With the anticipated increase in boating
             pressure and proposed marina expansions, it is important at this time to
             ascertain what impact recreational boating is having on the Bay and may
             have on the Bay in the future if recreational boating pressures increase.
             After assessing the current situation, projections of future recreational
             boating impacts were made.      Management recommendations are proposed to
             address both existing environmental and social impacts and future impacts
             from recreational boating pressures.

                  This study documents the current and potential future environmental
             and social impacts of recreational and commercial boating on Presque Isle
             Bay. It evaluates carrying capacity issues related to the sustainable uses
             which the Bay can support and what restrictions, if any, need to be placed
             on boating in order to protect the environment and avoid user conflicts.
             The study evaluates regulatory authorities at the local, State and Federal
             levels relating to recreational boating activities and recommends manage-
             ment approaches appropriate to the various regulatory authorities.

                  The report has been organized to present the background, historical
             and physical setting of the Bay in Section 1.0.        Existing recreational
             boating and port facilities, as well as proposed new or expanded
             facilities, and potential facilities are presented in Section 2.0. Results
             of the water quality assessment are included in Section 3.0. A discussion
             of potential future impacts related to recreational boating and port
             activities is included in Section 4.0. Carrying capacity concepts as they
             relate  to   recreational boating and the        development of management
             recommendations, are examined in Section 5.0.      The results of the boater
             surveys are discussed in Section 6.0, and an analysis of carrying capacity
             related to existing and future conditions is presented in Section 7.0. The
             regulatory authority of various local, state and federal agencies is
             described in Section 8.0.       Management recommendations are offered in
             Section 9.0, and references are included in Section 10.0.       More detailed
             information regarding the boater surveys and water quality sampling data is
             included in the appendices.

                  Study findings revealed relatively weak relationships between use
             levels and the quality of the boating experience on Presque Isle Bay.       The
             most noticeable impact of higher boating densities was a higher degree of
             perceived crowding.    Crowding in turn seemed to influence other impact
             measures, including displacement, safety, and conflict. All of these types
             of impacts, however, occurred relatively infrequently and few boaters
             reported that the number of boats encountered negatively affected their
             experience, even under the highest congestion conditions. Thus it appears
             boating levels on Presque Isle Bay have not yet approached capacity limits
             based on evaluation of the quality of the boater experience.



                                                     v








                  The results of the sampling study and the estimates of annual loads
            (and concentrations) due to recreational boating suggests that recreational
            boating may impact water quality in Presque Isle Bay. The potential impacts
            include the following:

                  a    Total petroleum hydrocarbon and PAH loads from engine releases.
                  0    Copper from anti-fouling boat paints.

                  This study has also assessed the concepts of recreational and resource
            carrying capacity. Evaluating the capacity of a given area for recreation
            involves  a wide range of variables that may influence the quality of the
            outdoor recreation experience.      One of the major conclusions that can be
            derived from previous relevant research is that there is no single
            predictable response of visitors to varying use levels.        Rather, visitors
            are affected by a series of interrelated impacts which result from
            recreational use of a given area. Recreational use leads most directly to
            tangible outcomes like contacts between visitors and impacts on the natural
            environment.   These social and environmental impacts in turn can lead to a
            variety of perceptual and behavioral responses by visitors.         In sum, the
            relationships between use levels and various impacts to the experience are
            neither simple nor uniform.        Yet understanding these relationships is
            fundamental for managing the recreation experience.

                  Resource carrying capacity as it relates to the recreation experience
            has been defined as "The capability of natural resources to withstand use
            for a desired quality of recreation experience" (Gold 1980).        In a broader
            definition, resource carrying capacity is the level of use a resource can
            sustain without irreversible degradation. Some of the natural       resources in
            the Presque Isle Bay area, particularly in the State Park, are      sensitive to
            the potential impact of the user.        Therefore, even though     the resource
            manager must consider both goals, it is expected that the resource capacity
            will be the most constraining to use.

                  Resource capacity is a function of the ecological character of the
            resource, whether a site or a larger system like the Bay.        When trying to
            determine resource capacity, the interrelations among systems which make up
            the natural environment must be reflected.           Given the complexity of
            environmental systems, environmental effects (which determine capacity)
            tend to occur in complex webs. Sometimes several effects can result from a
            single disturbance, in other instances, a number of separate activities may
            result in a single effect.       The complexity of this web is the greatest
            limitation to determining a resource capacity (MD DNR 1977).

                  While this study has considered the potential impacts of recreational
            boating on Presque Isle Bay, there are numerous other contributors that
            were not studied. What is known is that the recreational (social) carrying
            capacity of the Bay has not been reached.       For some pollutants it appears
            that boating is a notable contributor to        the Bay, however, overall the
            relative impact of recreational boating on the Bay is minor.           There are
            also numerous other activities which have an impact on the resource
            capacity, such as land development, port operations (eg. maintenance
            dredging), road construction,      sewer outfalls, and industrial operations.
            These activities, and there relative impact to the resources of the Presque


                                                      vi








            Isle Bay area are unknown, and would require extensive testing to be
            determined.


                  The resource carrying capacity issue is complex and may be most
            approximately viewed as a management concept or tool, a means toward the
            end of providing a certain type or quality of experience. The concern with
            "finding the carrying capacity" is being replaced with an emphasis on
            identifying and maintaining the conditions that will produce the desired
            outcome.    Current management frameworks like the Limits of Acceptable
            Change (Stankey et al. 1985) and Visitor Impact Management (Graefe et al.
            1990) (which is the overall framework for this study) address the concerns
            that originated in the carrying capacity concept, yet barely mention the
            term, carrying capacity.

                  Part of the recreational boating study effort involved identifying
            proposed marina expansion projects,       those projects anticipated to be
            constructed in the near future.        These proposed marinas, described in
            Section 2.2, are all redevelopment projects to be located along the
            industrial waterfront of the Part of Erie.         Although the final marina
            design for each of these expansion projects have not yet been developed or
            approved by permitting agencies, an estimate of the total number of
            proposed marina slips is approximately 900 new boat slips.

                  The findings of   this study effort (both the boating survey and the
            water quality study) indicate that the Bay can support increases in
            recreational boating   activity and infrastructure.      This belief is based
            upon the fact that the current level of boating activity has not negatively
            impacted the boating experience and that the relative contribution of
            pollutants by boating activities and infrastructure is minor.

                  Therefore,  accepting the limitations of determining a definitive
            numerical recreational boating carrying capacity for presque Isle Bay,
            based on the information co-Ilected through the boater questionnaires and
            the water quality sampling, and based upon the level of analysis conducted
            for this study, we feel 900 additional boat slips along the existing Erie
            waterfront would not have an irreversible detrimental effect on Presque
            Isle Bay.     Therefore, 3200 boat slips could be viewed as the present
            capacity of the Bay.      This assumes that all new marina facilities are
            located, designed, and constructed using appropriate water facility
            guidelines which are available in the literature, a portion of which are
            discussed elsewhere in this report.     This capacity also assumes all other
            parameters are held constant. This would include the number of boat launch
            ramps and the number of boaters using them, which is typically managed
            through the number of parking spaces available, and that the number of
            transient boaters remains constant.       It also assumes no improvement or
            degradation in the contribution of pollutants through point and non-point
            sources.


                  Once the expansion of recreational boating facilities approaches the
            addition of 900 new boat slips (which will total 3178 boat slips in the
            study area), the study team recommends that the question of carrying
            capacity be revisited to determine if additional capacity can be provided
            at that time.    A detailed water quality assessment should be conducted to
            evaluate whether additional       recreational boating pressures would be

                                                    vii







             detrimental    to   the   Bay-     The   progress    made   in   implementing     the
             recommendations of the Remedial Action Plan regarding the land-side
             contribution of point and non-point source pollutants can be incorporated
             into the evaluation of pollutant loadings from future recreational boating
             activities in the Bay.      Also, the recreational carrying capacity analysis
             developed in this- study effort provides an excellent foundation for
             reevaluating recreational boating concerns.

                   This is an opportune time, from a planning perspective, to address
             recreational boating issues on Presque Isle Bay. There is the opportunity
             to be proactive instead of responding to crisis situations.              Recommenda-
             tions have been proposed to preserve the natural resources of           the Bay and
             to address areas of concern regarding the contribution of pollutant
             loadings from recreational boating before significant adverse impacts are
             detected. The findings do not suggest that there is a preservation versus
             utilization issue present.        Current levels and incremental increases in
             recreational boating on Presque Isle Bay can coexist with a management
             approach that has the protection of the natural resources as its primary
             objective.

                   The recommendations in this report address both the current situation
             and future conditions as boating pressure on the Bay increases.                   The
             recommendations need to be tailored to the appropriate management or
             regulatory authority that can most effectively address the issue. Some of
             the recommendations can be implemented by resource managers and by local
             jurisdictions; others suggest actions that can be taken by the boating
             industry or by government at the state and national level. An increase in
             public education, as well as suggestions for future monitoring are also
             included.


                   Summary of Management Recommendations

                   0    When expansion of recreational facilities approaches 900 new boat
                        slips,   a detailed assessment should be conducted to address
                        availability of additional capacity, water quality, and carrying
                        capacity.

                   0    There does not appear to be a need to restrict or limit public
                        access to Presque Isle Bay currently or in the near future.
                        Monitoring of the boating conditions should be conducted over
                        time as use levels increase (see Section 9.1).

                   a    Resource managers should consider a balanced approach to
                        maximizing the uses of the Bay and preserving environmental
                        quality.

                   0    One-fifth of the boaters sampled reported that other boats had
                        come too close to them while boating. Such incidents were one of
                        the greatest safety concerns among Presque Isle Bay boaters. All
                        pertinent organizations should consider methods of strengthening
                        their educational efforts to create more boating safety awareness
                        on the Bay.




                                                       viii







                  0    While it appears that crowding is not an existing problem on
                       Presque Isle Bay,    areas that were identified as having the
                       potential for congestion should be closely monitored by resource
                       management personnel to identify safety concerns or environmental
                       factors before they become problems in the future.

                  0    A "no wake" zone should be considered for the area depicted on
                       Exhibit 9-1 as the Head of Bay Resource Management Area.          The
                       restricted area should fall within the area where water depth is
                       6' or less. Natural resource managers should conduct additional
                       investigations   of   all   ramifications    associated   with    the
                       establishment of such an area. Criteria should be developed for
                       monitoring this and other environmentally sensitive areas in
                       Presque Isle Bay.

                  a    Educational displays should be developed and placed at key
                       locations to educate users about the sensitivity of the Bay's
                       resources and ways to minimize potential use conflicts.

                  0    The  inventory   of existing recreational boating facilities
                       indicates that four marina pump-out facilities are located within
                       the Study Area.   A Clean Vessels Act survey of Presque Isle Bay
                       should be conducted to determine the adequacy of marina pump-out
                       facilities. If found adequate, a petition should be forwarded to
                       the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the use of
                       Flow Through Type I and II Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs) in
                       Presque Isle Bay.

                  0    The EPA, with the support of and in coordination with the boating
                       industry,  should promote the development of        technologies to
                       reduce   total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)        from two-stroke
                       outboard marine engines.    The development of an efficient four-
                       stroke outboard marine engine would significantly reduce both TPH
                       and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) from entering aquatic
                       systems.

                  0    EPA should support increased research funding to determine a
                       viable alternative to the use of copper-based anti-fouling paint.
                       State resource managers should closely monitor the fate of copper
                       released into Presque Isle Bay from wood, steel, and fiberglass
                       boats painted with copper-based paints.

                  0    Millcreek Township should consider a Lake Bluff and Shoreline
                       Land Preservation Program utilizing zoning amendments together
                       with land preservation techniques such as donation, acquisition
                       of easements, and voluntary conservation agreements, to preserve
                       the unique natural resources present along the shoreline.
                       Marinas, which are currently permitted in the zoning district
                       fronting the Head of the Bay, should be prohibited due to the
                       environmental sensitivity of the area.

                  0    The   Pennsylvania    Department    of   Environmental     Resources,
                       especially through the consistency review process, together with
                       other State reviewing agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of

                                                     ix








                      Engineers, should carefully review joint permit applications for
                      waterfront development in areas outside the proposed and
                      potential marina sites identified in this study.

                 ï¿½    Almost eight years have passed since the Erie Waterfront
                      Comprehensive Plan was prepared.   Some of the proposed projects
                      have changed, such as the marina development planned near the
                      Erie International Marine Terminal, east of the Turning Basin.
                      The Comprehensive Plan assumed wrongly that the drydock facility
                      was not a viable option and the success of Erie Marine Enterprise
                      is welcomed.   However, many of the recommendations prepared at
                      that time are still valid today.    The City of Erie and the Erie
                      Western Pennsylvania Port Authority should continue        to be
                      proactive in encouraging public/private sector initiatives to
                      take advantage of the waterfront opportunities for redevelopment.

                 ï¿½    The City of Erie, or the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port
                      Authority, should consider providing slips for transient boats
                      along the Presque Isle Bay waterfront.    There is a known demand
                      for such facilities and the City could benefit economically by
                      encouraging more visitation from recreational boaters cruising
                      Lake Erie. The area near Dobbins Landing appears to be a viable
                      location.












































                                                   x









            1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

                  This section of the report describes the purpose of the study effort,
            provides the historical setting of Presque Isle Bay and the Port of Erie,
            and describes the importance of the landforms and geologic processes in
            shaping the terrestrial and aquatic resources present in the Study Area.

            1.1 Purpose of the Study

                  Presque Isle Bay is an approximately 3,700 acre embayment sheltered
            from Lake Erie by a six-mile long peninsula.         This peninsula, which is
            known as Presque Isle State Park, is managed by      the State of Pennsylvania
            for recreational and conservation purposes. over     the years, as a result of
            coastal growth and development, Presque Isle Bay has become a popular
            boating and recreational area.     With the anticipated increase in boating
            pressure and proposed marina expansions, it is important at this time to
            ascertain what impact recreational boating is having on the Bay and may
            have on the Bay in the future if recreational boating pressures increase.
            After assessing the current situation, projections of future recreational
            boating impacts were made.       Management recommendations are proposed to
            address both existing environmental and social impacts and future impacts
            from recreational boating pressures.

                  This study documents the current and future environmental and social
            impacts of recreational and commercial boating on Presque Isle Bay.            it
            evaluates carrying capacity issues related to the sustainable uses which
            the Bay can support and what restrictions, if any, need to be placed on
            boating in order to protect the environment and avoid user conflicts. The
            study evaluates regulatory authorities at the local, State and Federal
            levels   relating   to recreational boating activities         and    recommends
            management approaches appropriate to the various regulatory authorities.

            1.2 Historical Setting of Presque Isle Bay and the Port of Erie

                  Presque Isle Bay is the oldest U.S. harbor on the Great Lakes.          The
            history of Erie is intimately connected to its industries which grew up
            along the waterfront and established it as an important link between Lake
            Erie and the inland transportation systems.        This natural port is well
            sheltered by the Presque Isle peninsula, making this area an ideal spot for
            settlement.     The development of the      port, canal, and rail and road
            transportation corridors encouraged the    growth of a strong industrial base
            for the City during the 19th century.        The importance of the historical
            aspect of the waterfront is reinforced by the recent decision of local
            officials to-locate the Niagara Maritime    Museum and Erie County Library at
            the waterfront.


                  The first Europeans to arrive in the   area were the French, who arrived
            in 1753 and built a fort on the bank of      Mill Creek (Land Design/Research
            1986).   Their arrival in northwestern Pennsylvania was not for the purpose
            of settlement, but to establish a series of military outposts to resist the
            encroachment of the English.      To the French, the peninsula had strategic
            value as it afforded natural protection for the harbor and against attack
            from the water. They were later defeated by the British in 1758, who built


                                                   1-1








            Fort Presque Isle in the late 1760s.      Indian rebellions in the late 18th
            century slowed settlement of this region.

                  Americans began to settle in Erie in 1795 along the mouth of Mill
            Creek in order to have access to the water.       The area developed and grew
            westward towards a -ravine which demarcated the extent of the town for many
            years.   Use of the waterway for trade purposes was hampered by a sand bar
            which extended towards the eastern tip of the peninsula which allowed only
            shallow-draft boats    access to the harbor.     Often, the cargo of sailing
            vessels was off-loaded to a lighter vessel at the mouth of the harbor.

                  Before the waterfront could be further developed, the War of 1812
            intervened.    Presque Isle harbored a naval base during the War of 1812.
            Commodore Perry built his ships and trained his men for the coming battle
            which culminated in his naval victory on September 10, 1813. Perry's fleet
            returned to Presque Isle Bay and they suffered during the cold winter that
            followed.   Misery Bay, where his ships were sheltered, received its name
            for the hardships his men endured.

                  The residents of Erie, supported by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
            were able to convince Congress in 1824 to provide funds to develop adequate
            harbor facilities.    The improvements consisted of a series of dikes and
            piers, designed to eliminate the sand bars and deepen the harbor.            The
            stage was now set for a major increase in commerce and a number of
            shipbuilding yards were constructed along the waterfront.

                  The economic development of the City progressed after 1812 with port-
            related commerce dominating the growing local economy.      Steamships serving
            the Great Lakes used Erie as their home port and began daily steamship
            service between Erie and other Great Lakes ports.         The construction and
            opening of a canal linking Lake Erie and the Ohio River provided a more
            direct route for raw materials and finished goods from the Great Lakes to
            the south.    This gave a tremendous boost and importance to Erie, as it
            became one of the liveliest ports along the Lake.

                  The importance of the Erie Canal was short-lived, flourishing for
            approximately twenty-five years, until the first railroad was introduced in
            1852 and passenger traffic was diverted from the canal.       The transport of
            cargo by rail came later and reinforced the importance of the Port of Erie
            as a transportation and industrial center.       Ore shipments from the Upper
            Michigan Peninsula were shipped to Erie for use in the expanding foundries
            or transshipment by rail to Pittsburgh. Return shipments took coal to the
            Upper Great Lakes ports.

                  Although Erie was developing as a railroad and shipping port, other
            ports such as Buffalo had superior facilities or a more strategic location
            and they increased in importance. Erie began to industrialize around 1860
            (Wellejus 1980) with metalworking the leading manufacturing sector.         Erie
            manufactured freight cars,      steam engines, and boilers.          Paper and
            chemicals were also important industrial sectors. The 1880s and the 1890s
            were the most spectacular decades of industrial growth in Erie.        With the
            rapid expansion of the industrial economy, construction flourished and the
            brick industry also became important.      The business district expanded and
            urban areas began expanding into areas which were once considered rural.

                                                  1-2








            With the increase in manufacturing, trade in and out of Erie increased and
            waterfront industrial facilities were greatly expanded.

                With the introduction of steamships, the railroads, and improvements
            in fishing methods, commercial fishing grew into a flourishing industry.
            In 1882 there was only one sizable processing plant; however, by 1906 six
            large plants were needed to process the catch.        "By 1913 the capital
            invested in fishery had increased to a million dollars with 110 boats and
            600 men engaged.   The annual harvest included 10 million pounds of lake
            herring, eight million pounds of pike and perch and 600,000 pounds of white
            fish" (Land Design/Research 1986). Erie's commercial fishery flourished so
            well that for a while it was the largest commercial fishing port in the
            world. Sport fishing also became popular with pleasure boating becoming a
            favorite pastime of well-to-do residents.        The Erie Yacht Club was
            organized and the club house was built in 1895.

                The early 1900s marked the height of Erie's success and importance as
            a port. The City of Erie became noted for the diversity of its
            manufacturing base  and its industrial enterprises flourished.          Steam
            engines and boilers became the mainstay of Erie's biggest industry and
            foundries played a  large role in the economy (G&O 1993).       Markets for
            products manufactured in Erie had grown nationwide, based largely on a
            highly efficient transportation network both on land and on the lakes. By
            1938, activity on the Lake was brisk and often numerous freighters would
            have to wait to unload their heavy cargo, which included lumber, coal,
            petroleum, iron ore, grain and fish (G&O 1993). On a normal work day, over
            2,000 rail cars were moved through the Port, carrying ore from the Mesabi
            Range in Upper Michigan.        Other important exports included cars,
            locomotives, and stoves.     World War II changed the direction of the
            manufacturing industry to focus on munitions and other items for the war
            effort.


                Following the War, many companies returned to manufacturing of
            consumer goods and other industrial endeavors,      However, not all of the
            former manufacturers were successful and some redirected their operations
            in new directions.   The City retains a sizable portion of its industrial
            base owing to its well-established transportation routes, work force, and
            diversity of products.    However, economic dislocations in the 1970s and
            1980s have had an effect on the regional economy.     Port-related commerce
            has been severely curtailed in the second half of this century.           The
            strategic position of the port has been eroded by major changes to the U.S.
            economy and more cost-effective freight transportation corridors.

            1.3 Environmental Setting of Presque Isle Bay

                 This Section provides a brief discussion of the environmental setting
            of the Presque Isle Bay Study Area. The Study Area includes 3,200 acres of
            Presque Isle State Park, the shoreline of the City of Erie, and the portion
            of Millcreek Township's shoreline from the neck of Presque Isle to the City
            of Erie's western boundary (Exhibit 1-1).    The water portion of the study
            area includes the surface area of Presque Isle Bay (3,718 acres) and a
            portion of Lake Erie along the Eastern side of Presque Isle.



                                                1-3















                                                                                                                                                                 'e is      I O.W
                                                                                                                                                                  Park


                                                                                                                                                                                                   Tho
                                                                                                                                                                                                          mpson
                             Lake Erie                                                                                                                                                                   Bay             I

                                                                                                                                                                          Misery
                                                                                                                                                                             Bay




                                                                                                                                                                                                            South
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Shore







                                                                                                 PRESCILIE                ISLE            BAY








                                                                                                                                                 ity of         Erie
                                                                    Head of Bay





                                                    Millcreek             Township                                                         Note:
                                                                                                                                           The Study Area Includes The Shaded Land Area
                                                                                                                                           and Water Area Enclosed by Dashed Line




                        Not To Scale


                     Presque Isle Bay Recreational Boating Study



                                            INGWEIRS - ARCMITIC75 - MANNFRS . SCIENUSIS . &MVEMS . MINA.U.11MISTS
                                                   GREENHORNE & O'MARA, INC.                                                                                                           Study Area
                                             9DO1 EDMONSTON ROAD. GREENBELT. MARYLAND 20rM                                                                                                                          EXHIBIT 1-1

                  Source: Mariners Atlas, 1990                                                                             1-4








                 Presque Isle visually dominates the Study Area.           Named by French
             explorers in -the 1720s, the translation of Presque Isle is "almost an
             island" which is certainly appropriate for this peninsula.        Approximately
             six miles in length, Presque Isle is a hook-shaped sandspit with the
             eastern point curved inward toward the Erie shoreline.       Width at the neck
             is less than a thousand feet while towards the easternmost (distal) end,
             the width exceeds one mile.       The sandspit forms a shallow embayment,
             resque Isle Bay, with a channel maintained at the eastern end of the bay
             by dredging to permit ship access to the harbor.
             P


                  1.3.1 Geological Setting

                 Presque Isle's existence is related to the presence of a ridge of
             sediments, known as a moraine, that crosses Lake Erie. Moraines consist of
             clay, sand and gravel that are deposited at the boundaries of a retreating
             glacier. The glacier which created this moraine was a minor advance of the
             last  major   ice   sheet   that  covered much of      northern Pennsylvania
             approximately 13,000 to 14,000 years ago.            Today this moraine is
             approximately 30 to 50 feet below the level of the lake.         Following the
             retreat of the glacier, lake elevations were lower and the moraine was a
             ridge of dry land. A channel, offshore of Presque Isle, was cut through the
             ridge by stream erosion creating a shelf or platform along the southern
             edge of the lake.    As the lake level rose over the last 12,000 years, the
             shoreline migrated across this platform.       Waves and currents shaped the
             loose sand deposits into sand bars and beaches.       As the lake level rose,
             eroding bluffs along the shore contributed additional materials that led to
             the creation of the Presque Isle sandspit (Pennsylvania Geological Survey
             1991).


                  Under the thin veneer (approximately 100 feet) of sand and other
             glacially derived sediments which make up Presque Isle, there is almost
             6,000 feet of sedimentary rock.        The sediments comprising these rock
             formations were deposited from 600 to 350 million years ago when this area
             was below sea level.     The rock formations are nearly horizontal (slight
             southerly downdipl layers of shale, limestone, dolostone, claystone,
             sandstone, and salt (Pennsylvania DER, Bureau of State Parks 1993).          The
             uppermost bedrock formation is the Northeast Shale, of Devonian age, and is
             often exposed along the shoreline bluffs in Erie County. This bedrock unit
             is a gray silty shale with thin layers of fine-grained sandstone and
             calcareous layers or lenses. Underlying the layers of sedimentary rock are
             older metamorphic rocks (PBSP 1993).

                  A schematic geologic cross-section of the Study Area running from the
             Erie waterfront to the northwest through Presque Isle shows the arrangement
             of beach, dune, and mud/organic deposits (found in swamps, lagoons, and the
             bottom sediments of the bay) over the glacial deposits and shale bedrock in
             the Study Area, from the bluffs along the Erie shoreline through the
             shallow bay and deeper dredged ship channel to the dune ridges and inter-
             dune ponds and marshes of Presque Isle (Exhibit 1-2). Where not altered by
             urbanization, the bluffs along the Erie waterfront range from 30 to 70 feet
             in elevation.    The mean depth of Presque Isle Bay is 13.1 feet with a
             maximum depth in the dredged channel of 31.2 feet (Pennsylvania Department
             of Environmental Resources RADER) 1992).



                                                   1-5








                                                                                                         A









                                                                                          LAKE
                                                                                          ERIE











                                                                                              PRESQUE ISLE
                                                                                                      BAY

                                                                                                                 City of Erie        B



                                Scale
                                                                                             -Major Dune Ridge




                                             A                                                                                                                              B


                                             NORTHWEST                                                                                                           SOUTHEAST
                                       FEET                                                                                                                    CITY OF          FEET
                                       80                                                                                                                        ERIE             80
                                       60-                                PRESQUE ISLE                                                                                            60
                                       40-                                                                                  Dredged ship channel                                  40
                                       '.20-     Lakr Erie                                                  Bov         Prrjqrje IsIrIBI,                                         20
                                       -E1
                                       -20
                                                                                                                                                                                  -20
                                       -40--                                                                                                       - - - - - - - --- -            40
                                                                                   0 0   ....... 0.                                     - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                                                                             '.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                          60
                                       -60-
                                                                                  00000,760
                                                                               0      0! .
                                       -go   i                                           4                                                                                        -80
                                               0        '00b
                                                                                             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---                                  1 0
                                       120-                               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --                                          120
                                             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                                                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                                        140



                                               0 TO 5,000 YEARS OLD                                12,000 TO 15,000 YEARS OLD                         370 MILLION YEARS OLD
                                               PONDS, SWAMPS, AND LA-                   F.7-71     GLACIAL LAKE DEPOSITS-                              BEDROCK-shalfe
                                               GOONS-mud and peat                                  Silt and sand

                                               BEACHES AND DLINES-                                 13,000 TO 20,000 YEARS OLD
                                               sand and gravel                                     GLACIAL DEPOSITS-c/ay,
                                                                                                   silt, sand, cobbles, and
                                                                                                   boulders
                                  Scale

                     0                 0.5            Iml

                     0         0.5           1     1.5KM



                    Presque                  Isle Bay Recreational Boating Study
                                                                                                                                                           Geologic

                                       iNGMEAS - AREWICTS - PIANMRS - SCON11STS - SURVITORS - ft(010GRAmMl1MStS
                                             GREENHORNE & O'MARA, INC.                                                             Cross-Section
                                       9001 EDMOlYSTON ROAD. GREENBELT. MARYLAND 207M                                                                                 EXHIBIT 1-2

                 Source: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 1991                                                           1-6








                 Exhibit 1-2 also illustrates the dynamic nature of Presque Isle in the
            pattern of dune ridges and the ponds and lagoons that commonly occupy the
            low areas between them. New ridges form parallel to the shoreline and the
            older ridges show the locations of earlier shorelines.         Littoral drift
            (also known as longshore sediment transport) predominates in the changing
            landforms of Presque Isle. Littoral drift is a current that operates along
            the shore, carrying sediments from actively eroding areas and depositing
            sediments in zones of slack water.       At Presque Isle the littoral drift
            system generally operates in a southwest to northeast direction, reflecting
            the prevailing winds in the region. The leading edge of the migrating spit
            is spilling sand carried along the length of the spit. Gull Point, at the
            leading edge, has grown appreciably in this century.

                 It appears that the entire peninsula has been migrating eastward over
            time (Zagorski and Sampson 1982).        Although Presque Isle is a recent
            landform, in geomorphic terms, it can be considered "old" in the sense that
            the original sources of sediment have significantly diminished.       The fact
            that the sandspit is migrating with a net annual loss of sediments is an
            indication of advancing age (PBSP 1993). Since 1828, Presque Isle has been
            breached at the neck of the peninsula by severe storms at least four times
            (Zagorski and Sampson 1982).       The State and Federal governments have
            attempted many different ways to control erosion at Presque Isle and to
            stabilize the beaches.     Groins, seawalls, and detached breakwaters have
            been constructed and an extensive beach nourishment program has been
            implemented to slow the erosional process of the exposed western shoreline
            of Presque Isle.


                 1.3.2 Soils


                 The soils found within the Study Area are part of the Rimer-Wauseon-
            Berrien Soils Association and can be characterized as             sandy soils
            associated with the lake plain. The soils have formed in deep, sandy lake
            sediments.   The soils in the Study Area are all of recent origin and are
            currently in the process of erosion, formation, and change.          The most
            extensive soil type is Beach Sand, Stabilized. This type consists of deep,
            sandy beach material that has been stabilized by vegetative cover.          The
            material has not been in place long enough for a true soil profile to form.
            Other soil types most commonly found on Presque Isle include Beach, Dune
            Sand and Fresh Water Marsh. The latter consists of six to twelve inches of
            partly decomposed organic material that is underlain by deep lacustrine
            sand and gravel (Soil Conservation Service 1991).

                 The bluff areas along the shoreline are identified in the Soil Survey
            as either Escarpment, characterized by steeply eroding slopes, or as one of
            the Ottawa soil series, characterized by acidic, well-drained sandy soils
            with a gray, calcareous layer between four and eight feet in depth.         The
            calcareous layer, locally called quicksand, is very hard when dry but flows
            when saturated with water.       This characteristic can be a significant
            development   constraint   presenting   unstable   conditions   for    building
            foundations.   The majority of the soils along the City of Erie waterfront
            are classified as Made Land.      Much of this type is f illed land and may
            include disturbed soils or rubble/debris as fill material (SCS 1991).




                                                  1-7









                1.3.3 Terrestrial Resources

                The Presque Isle Bay Study Area encompasses a portion of Erie County
            and the State of Pennsylvania that has a high diversity of vegetative
            communities. This is due, in large part, to the diverse physiography found
            in the Study Area-.     Bluffs, slumps, beaches, dunes, sandplains, and
            interdune depressions provide varied habitats for the establishment of a
            number of vegetational communities.     The dynamic processes shaping the
            landscape along Lake Erie's shoreline have created many transitional
            communities which often have unique, rare, or threatened and endangered
            species present.

                 South of the Lake Erie shoreline, the original vegetation was
            primarily forest.  The climax forest is thought to have been sugar maple-
            beech forest; however, essentially all the forests in Erie County have been
            logged at least once and the species composition has changed dramatically
            (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 1993). The second growth forests in the
            County are dominated by either red or sugar maple.     Secondary members of
            the forest community include cherry, ash, yellow poplar, and sometimes
            northern red oak. Beech is now a minor component of the forest canopy (WPC
            1993).

                 The portion of the Study Area along the City of Erie shoreline has
            been significantly altered by the waterfront commercial, industrial, and
            residential development.    Other than in some restricted or unsuitable
            sites, the forest cover has been cleared and       the remaining shrub and
            woodland habitat has low value.


                 The Erie County Natural Heritage Inventory    describes the Lake Shore
            Land Conservation Area (LCA) which includes the entire Presque Isle Bay
            Study Area and in fact extends along the entire    shoreline in Erie County
            (WPC 1993). The LCA focuses on the importance of the lake bluff system
            which has been recognized by County, State and Federal agencies (U.S.
            Department of Commerce 1980).   The lake bluff system includes such unique
            habitat types as lake bluffs, lake sediment slumps, sandspits, beaches,
            dunes, and sand plains. Natural shoreline erosion and bluff recession make
            the bluff habitat a dynamic landform.   Vegetative communities represent a
            continuum of ecological successional states, ranging from unvegetated
            substrate on recently undercut slopes, to mature forest.      Lake sediment
            slumps are a unique shoreline habitat,  formed when bluff sediments become
            over-saturated and move down the bluff  slope. These areas provide habitat
            for several plant species of special state concern.

                 The Erie County Natural Heritage Inventory identifies a community/
            ecosystem conservation area along a 3ection of the bluff in the Study Area
            contiguous to the neck of Presque Isle (WPC 1993).        This, area which
            includes approximately 1,900 feet of the bay shoreline, is characterized as
            a mesic central forest community (NCO01) and includes a 14 acre mature
            forest on the bluff slope and toe and is bordered on the bluff crest by 50
            acres of a younger, relatively undisturbed woodland.     The mature forest
            community is dominated by beech and sugar maple.     This community is the
            only area of naturally vegetated bay shoreline lake bluff in the County
            that retains its ecological integrity.      The Natural Heritage Inventory
            recommends that the 64 acre forest, bluff, and shoreline area be preserved

                                                1-8








             because it represents a natural community considered to be imperiled in the
             State (WPC 1993).

                  In 1985, the forest types on Presque Isle State Park were mapped by
             the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry and the Bureau of State Parks (PBSP
             1993). Four major forest types encompassing approximately 1,400 acres were
             identified:     mixed oak,     northern hardwoods,      pine plantation, and
             cottonwood.   The northern hardwood type is dominated by black cherry and
             red maple in the overstory.      The major forest type is eastern cottonwood
             covering approximately 690 acres.      Cottonwood, together with willows, is
             important in creating and stabilizing dunes. This short-lived species has
             the remarkable attribute of generating additional roots above the original
             root zone as sand accumulates (PBSP 1993).

                  The sand dunes and marshes of Presque Isle State Park are recognized
             as a unique ecosystem complex and the park is registered as a National
             Natural Landmark.     The process of plant community succession on ponds,
             dunes, and sand plains can be studied in ecosystems ranging from one year
             to several hundred years old, all within the State Park boundaries.
             Presque Isle is classified as a Biological Diversity Area (BDA) by the
             Natural Heritage Inventory.      BDA's support special species habitats and
             relatively large numbers and kinds of species.       Presque Isle BDA contains
             ecological resources that are unique within the State, rare within the
             Great Lakes Basin, and uncommon on the North American continent.

                  Only a brief description of the terrestrial plant communities and
             ecological resources of Presque Isle can be included in this report.- Any
             extensive discussion of these resources would unnecessarily encumber this
             report and is not crucial to addressing recreational boating issues in
             Presque Isle Bay.    The Presque Isle State Park Management Plan, the Erie
             County Natural Heritage Inventory (both cited above), and the primary
             resources used in these documents, should be reviewed if more detailed
             information is sought by the'reader.

                  Palustrine natural communities an Presque Isle include: sandspit pond
             and bay community (NCO02), Great Lakes palustrine sandplain (NCO03),
             robust/graminoid emergent marsh (NCO04), and circumneutral shrub swamp
             (NCO05).   The Eastern Great Lakes beach-dune (NCO06) and dry-mesic Great
             Lakes sandplain are the terrestrial communities (WPC 1993).            Over 130
             species of special concern have been confirmed on Presque Isle, including
             63 species of vascular plant species.        Many of the natural communities
             within the BDA provide habitat for migratory shorebirds and raptors, making
             Presque Isle a critical staging area for migratory birds.         One shorebird
             and two raptors which have historically inhabited Presque Isle are
             Federally endangered species (WPC 1993).         The portion of Presque Isle
             closest to the mainland was built-up around      1956-1957 by the placement of
             dredged material from the Bay.           With   this exception, the natural
             communities on Presque Isle are progressively older towards the bay side
             and on the western end of the sandspit.          The result of the geomorphic
             processes is a mosaic of habitats that support a diverse assemblage of
             flora representing a continuum of successional stages, tending from
             palustrine ponds and bays to terrestrial climatic climax communities.



                                                    1-9








                 Presque   Isle   State   Park, the most frequented State park in
            Pennsylvania, is vital to the tourist industry in Erie.       Its four million
            annual visitors use the seven miles of sandy beaches for public bathing,
            hike on its extensive trail system, and utilize its marina and boat ramps
            for access to Presque Isle Bay and Lake Erie (The Brandow Company 1992).
            As an important recreational resource, conflicts arise between the need for
            resource protection and substantial visitor use.       Stewardship of Presque
            Isle State Park is necessary considering the uniqueness of the natural
            resource and its contribution to the quality of the recreational
            experience. The mission statement, prepared by the Pennsylvania Bureau of
            State Parks, for the management of state parklands, addresses this issue:

                 ...  to provide opportunities for enjoying healthful outdoor
                 recreation and to serve as outdoor classrooms for environmental
                 education.    In meeting these purposes, the conservation of the
                 natural science, aesthetic, and historical values of the parks
                 should    be    given     first    consideration.          Stewardship
                 responsibilities should be carried out in a way that protects the
                 natural outdoor experience for the enjoyment of current and
                 future generations (PBSP 1993).

            These goals and objectives are also relevant when addressing the aquatic
            resources present in Presque Isle Bay.

                 1.3.4 Aquatic Resources

                 The aquatic resources in Presque Isle Bay are greatly affected by the
            overall water quality of the bay and watershed which drains to the bay.
            The overall water quality of the bay, pollutant loading, and impairment of
            beneficial uses are discussed in the Presque Isle Remedial Action Plan
            RADER 1992). Recreational boating impacts to water quality are discussed
            in Section 3.0 of this report.

                 Presque Isle Bay is considered an important part of the Presque Isle
            Biological Diversity Area and is classified as imperiled in the State due
            to its rarity (WPC 1993). The bay contains several aquatic resources that
            have ecological significance because of exceptional aquatic biotic
            assemblages, partially intact shoreline habitats, and special species
            habitats.     The littoral zone of the bay contains extensive beds of
            floating, submerged, and emergent vegetation.

                 The  western end of Presque Isle Bay, locally known as the Head of the
            Bay, has  been identified as having an extensive and diverse littoral zone
            (WPC 1993). ' The Head of the Bay contains several large stands of emergent
            vegetation including cattail and bur-reed. Big duckweed, water milfoil, a
            pondweed (Potamogeton crisRus), a leafy pondweed (P. epihydrus var.
            ramosa), and bullhead-lily (Nuphar variegatum) were identified in aquatic
            beds in this area.     Along the shoreline is an emergent zone dominated by
            arrowhead,   a bur-reed     (SRarganium eurycarpum),    and softstem bulrush
            (ScirT)us validus). Five special plant species occur within this community
            including one species classified as critically imperiled in the State, two
            imperiled in the State, one rare or uncommon species, and one plant species
            of special concern (WPC 1993).



                                                  1-10







                  Significant aquatic habitats in Presque Isle Bay that are considered
             environmentally sensitive have been identified during a recent study of
             Presque Isle and the surrounding waters (PADER 1989).                This study
             identified environmentally sensitive areas on the basis of eight criteria.
             The aquatic species in the bay and ponds or lagoons on Presque Isle that
             were identified as environmentally sensitive include:

                  0     Eastern Sand Darter (review candidate for listing as a Federally
                        endangered species)

                        Juvenile Lake Sturgeon (State level significance)

                        Iowa Darter (Park level significance)

                  0     Spotted Gar, or Bowfin (Park level significance)

                  0     Fragile paper-shell, eastern pond, pink heel-splitter, and maple-
                        leaf   mussel    (Four    mollusk    species    considered    to     be
                        rare/endangered at the State level)

                  'I    Blandings Turtle (State level significance)

                  The habitats for many of these aquatic species are located in ponds or
             other water bodies within the park.           The significant habitat areas
             identified on Presque Isle Bay include: navigation channel south of the
             Coast Guard Station (habitat for Lake Sturgeon); along the west shore of
             the central portion of Misery Bay (habitat for rare/endangered mollusks);
             along the south shore of Crystal Point ending at the Perry monument
             (habitat for rare/endangered mollusks).

                  Presque Isle Bay provides important aquatic habitat for both sport
             fish species and for the forage fish species which support the sport
             fisheries.   The shallow-water habitat provides spawning and nursery areas
             for 16 species of fish (PADER 1992).          Creel surveys (interviews with
             fishermen), fish netting, and electroshocking have been conducted by the
             Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PAFBC) over the past ten years to
             assess the quality and vitality of the sport fisheries resources of Presque
             Isle Bay. Fishery assessments were conducted in 1981-1982, 1986-1987, and
             another assessment is currently underway.       A 1987 survey reported over 40
             different fish species taken from the bay (PAFBC 1988). Of these species,
             over 20 are being caught by anglers (PADER 1992, Murray, Pers. Comm. 1993).
             They include:

                        yellow perch              black crappie
                        white bass                smallmouth bass
                        bluegill                  largemouth bass
                        rock bass                 salmon
                        rainbow trout             white crappie
                        northern pike             channel catfish
                        bullhead catfish          muskellunge
                        white perch               walleye
                        brown trout               bovfin
                        sunfish                   sheepshead








                  These surveys revealed that Presque Isle Bay is an exceptional and
            very diverse fishery which sustains a high level of fishing pressure (PAFBC
            1983).    For example, the 1981 creel census reported 625,000 hours of
            fishing consisting of about equal amounts of shore and boat fishing and
            more limited ice fishing.        The total recreational fishing catch was
            estimated at close -to a million fish (PADER 1992).       The major warm water
            species sought by anglers are yellow perch, northern pike, muskellunge,
            largemouth and smallmouth bass.      The cold water (salmonid) species sought
            include chinook salmon and trout.


                  PFBC has managed the sport fishery in Presque Isle Bay by establishing
            creel limits, size limits, and seasonal restrictions for many years.          The
            Commission has also supported the      sport fishery by stocking sport fish.
            Over 2.7 million game or sport fish were stocked in the eleven-year period
            from 1971 to 1981 (PADER 1992).          The major success of this stocking
            activity was the establishment of      a significant coho fishery, indicating
            that the bay has in the past, and      may in the future, provide habitat for
            coho salmon production. However, despite significant walleye stocking, it
            appears that the bay is not an optimal habitat for a walleye fishery (PADER
            1992).


                  The 1988 fishery assessment examined the status of the walleye fishery
            and evaluated the fishery management practices in place between the 1983
            and 1988 reports.     The assessment found that the bay continues to be an
            exceptional fishery for both panfish and game species.        It found that the
            salmonid fishery had become more significant since the initiation of direct
            stocking of steelhead smolts into the bay.             The report also noted
            occurrences of "redspot" (a bacterial skin disorder) on northern pike, and
            skin lesions on bass and brown bullheads (PADER 1992).


































                                                   1-12









             2.0 INVENTORY OF RECREATIONAL BOATING AND PORT FACILITIES

                  An examination of the existing, proposed, and potential recreational
             boating facilities in Presque Isle Bay is essential to evaluate current and
             projected   environmental   and   social   impacts   associated   with    boating
             activities. The assessment of future water quality and boat congestion was
             prepared from the inventory of existing facilities and projections of new
             or expanded facilities.      The future of Erie's port facilities is also
             important in determining opportunities for redevelopment and potential
             conflict with recreational boating in Presque Isle Bay.

                  2.1 Existing Recreational Boating Facilities

                  An inventory of the existing boating facilities, including marinas,
             yacht clubs, and boat ramps, was conducted.      After examining the needs of
             the study, the project team devised an approach to define those aspects of
             boat use which most directly relate to its impact on Presque Isle Bay.
             Phone interviews and mailed surveys were used to quantify the information
             needed to describe the existing conditions. A summary of the inventory of
             existing boating facilities is provided in Exhibit 2-1.

                  The most important objective of the existing facilities inventory was
             to obtain the most accurate count of the number of boat slips in the Study
             Area.  However, many other factors such as the frequency of boat use, the
             extent of boat repair done, parking availability, and marina support
             services such as gas docks and pump-out facilities, were important
             components of the inventory.        In order to provide the most accurate
             inventory,  the project team decided to contact each of the boating
             facilities directly.    Greenhorne and O'Mara worked with the Erie County
             Department of Planning to develop a questionnaire for the facility
             operators that would address these areas of concern.        Phone surveys were
             completed with 11 of the facilities and the remainder were mailed
             questionnaires with stamped addressed return envelopes. Not all of the 20
             recreational boating facilities responded to the phone or mailed survey
             quest ions .

                  The most unambiguous information gathered was that confirming the
             number of slips and presence or absence of support facilities such as boat
             ramps, fuel docks, or sewage pumpout facilities.          In the case of fuel
             docks, however, there is one marina which has a fully functional fuel dock
             but did not operate it during the 1993 boating season. Since it is capable
             of selling fuel at any time, this marina is shown in      the matrix as having
             fuel available.


                  Boat ramps are also considered a very important component of the
             inventory since they are the primary means of access to the bay for many of
             the smaller boats and jet skis (Exhibit 2-2).           Exhibit 2-3 shows the
             locations of the existing marina and boat launch facilities.

                  A previous inventory of facilities, prepared in 1992 by Erie County,
             the Chamber of Commerce, and Port Authority, supported by PADER and the
             State Coastal lone Management Program, provided a starting point for the
             study's more extensive inventory. The pamphlet entitled "Lake Erie Boating
             Facilities and Related Services, Erie County, Pennsylvania," documented

                                                   2-1



    m m m m m m m m = m m m m m m



          4@ W NJ -
         z                           (n                                                a                           n n
                                     C:                                                (D         0     "
                                                                                                                   0
                                          (D    CD   -i
                                          U)    w                                                       F5.  <     9
                                                                                                                              cn
                                                                                                                                    =     z
                                                                            ;0;0       n          >     >    =     9    :@    =-
                                                                                                  a     =    i@    0    cn    0
            fj                            (D    (D   r-                                      r)
                                                                            00         Z                                Xt
                                                                            m          i@:   r-t  0                0                0
         'It's  ZA ;4l         (D
                                     -1   (D    (D   CL    cf)                                                                            m
                               (D
                                                           3:   0
                                          U)                          co    W    W           a    n
                                     3:
                                     W
                                                                 p7"






                                                                                                  PIZ"

         kA
         c%                                                                                       R:

                                                                                                                     tQ



                                                                 NJ                          --4             C>    w                      NUMBER OF SLIPS AV,
                         00                                                                                        @-n

                                                                                                                   0    0           0        EDOMINANT BOAT
                                                                                                                                          PR
          r,13

                                                                      Irk                                                                 BOAT RAMP PRESENT


                                          Irk        Irk   Irk        lr-@                                         Irl                    FUEL AVAILABLE


                                          Irk        Ir.,                                                                                 SEWAGE PUMP OUT
                                              I "k I '@,                                                                'c-   11c,  Irk   REPAIRS ARE DONE C
                               Irk        Irk @, 1c,       1c, 11c,                    1@1   Irk                   11c, Irk               TRANSIENT SLIP AVAI



                               -                00                                     rQ
                                                                                 C>                                Z                G     PARKING SPACES AVAI
                                                                                                                        C@






                                                                Exhibit 2-2
                                            Inventory of Existing Boating Facilities
                                                                Boat Ramps





                   NAME OF FACILITY                           LOCATION                         CAPABILITY         PARKING

               Chestnut Park                    Foot of Chestnut Street, City of Erie       small boats only           30

               East Avenue Boat Ramp            Foot of East Avenue, City of Erie           small to medium            50

               Erie Outboard Motor Club         Foot of Myrtle Street, City of Erie         small to medium            35

               Lagoons Boat Ramps               Presque Isle State Park                     small to medium            50
      C4       Lampe Marina                     Port Access Road, City of Erie              large boats

               Marina Boat Ramp                 Presque Isle State Park                     large boats                40

               Niagara Boat Ramp                Presque Isle State Park                     small to medium            50

               Poplar Street Boat Ramp          Foot of Poplar Street, City of Erie         small boats only           15

               Vista Boat Ramp                  Presque Isle State Park                     small boats only           50








              *Parking combined with general marina parking, 100 spaces.



















                                                                                                                                                                                        Gull FUnt
                                            N                                                                                          Presque Isle%                                                                                             Legend
                                                                                                    D                                  Sftte
                                                                                                                                                 Park             Bay                                                            A.     Vista Boat Ramp

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 B.     Niagara Boat Ramp

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 C.     Presque Isle State Park Marina

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Presque Isle State Park Marina Boat Ramp
                         APProximate Swle 1-                       3200                               Marina                                           M&ry                                                                             Lagoons Boat Ramps
                                                                                                                                                       say
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Lampe Marina and Boat Ramp

                                                                                                                                                                                        F                                               East Avenue Boat Ramp

                                                                       B                                                                                                                                                                Bayshore Marina

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Lund Boat Works
                                                                                                                                              Z11arbor                                                                                  McAllister's Marina
                                                                                                                                                 Turning
                                                                                                                                                 Basin                                                                                  Surf and Turf Marina
                                                                                                                                                 I   H
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Erie Angler
                                                                                           Presque Isle Bay
                                                                                                                                                                   A@                                                            M.     Port Authority Marinas
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         (Includes Divell, Erie-Western Port Authority
                                                                                                                                                                                         V
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Canal Basin, and Harnot Marinas)

                                                                                                                                                 A                                                                                      Gem City Marina
                              Lake Erie                                                                                                                              M
                                                                                                                                                               N                                                                 0.     Presque Isle Yacht Club
                                                    A                                                                                                    Ai                                                                             Erie Outboard Motor Club

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Chestnut Park Boat Ramp
                                                                   Head of Bay                                 -A                                             P
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 R.     Jolly Roger Marina

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Walnut Street Marina


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Cherry Street Marina

                                                                                                     y                                                                                                                                  Commodore Perry Yacht Club

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Poplar Street Marina

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Bay Harbor Marina

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Perry's Landing Marina

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Y      Erie Yacht Club


                                              Greenhome & O'Yara, Inc.                                                                                                         Existing Marina@                                         and Boat Ram 8
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Exhibit -3








            boating facilities and support services.      Of the marinas and yacht clubs
            listed in that pamphlet, 19 were determined to be within the Study Area.
            No new marinas have been constructed. The Chestnut Street Marina, listed
            in the previous inventory, did not operate during the 1993 boating season.
            Located adjacent to the Waterworks facility (City of Erie Water Authority),
            the marina slips were vacant and the future plans for this facility are
            unclear.   In the past, there have been discussions about expanding the
            Chestnut Street Marina.      Slips at the Chestnut Street Marina are not
            counted in the matrix.


                 Improvements to the adjacent Chestnut Park boat ramp facility are in
            progress and expected to be completed in 1994. These improvements include
            the construction of two new ramps east of the existing ramps, repair of the
            existing ramps, removal of waterway obstructions, and construction of a
            floating pier adjacent to the ramps.      Additional planned improvements to
            the park will include construction of a parking lot with capacity for 20
            cars with trailers, and 16 spaces for cars alone.         A 12' wide concrete
            public walkway around the perimeter of the parking lot connecting on either
            side to the future Bay Front Bikeway.

                 In addition to improvements at the Chestnut Park boat launching
            facilities, improvements are also planned for launch ramps at Presque Isle
            State Park. Proposed improvements are expected to be completed in 1995 and
            include.:


                 ï¿½    Niagara Launch Ramp Renovation:       Renovating existing concrete
                      ramps and headvalls, constructing     a new concrete headvall and
                      cap, constructing two new 16' wide    launch ramps on both sides of
                      the headwall, and adding three new floating docks and a fully
                      accessible catwalk.


                 ï¿½    West Pier Launch RamR Renovation: Constructing four new      floating
                      docks and two catwalks to be attached to the two             existing
                      headvalls, and cutting groves into the concrete launch ramp to
                      provide traction for users.

                 0    Old Lagoon Launch Ram):     Replacing missing and damaged    pilings,
                      installing a headvall, and constructing a catwalk and one 20,
                      section of floating dock.

                 ï¿½    New Lagoon Launch Ramp:     Constructing two new floating docks to
                      replace existing docks, replacing the existing steel grate launch
                      ramp with a concrete ramp and extending it to the north side of
                      the headwall to provide an additional launch lane. Railings will
                      also be installed on the gangways.

                 In many cases it was found that the number of slips did not agree with
            the  previously published information.        To some degree this can be
            attributed to differences in how undivided mooring space, such as sea walls
            and landings are counted.       The matrix reflects the most recent data
            available. In those cases where input was not available from a facility's
            operator, slip numbers from the earlier inventory were used.



                                                  2-5








                 Attempts to accurately categorize slips by size were not consistently
            successful.   While some facilities such as Perry's Landing had slip size
            information to a very detailed level, most of the other marinas did not.
            Coupled with the reality that slip sizes place only an upper limit to the
            size of boat which   can be moored, it was determined that slip size data
            would not be included in the results matrix.       The relative proportion of
            sail to power boats was included as a survey question. It became readily
            apparent that the overwhelmingly predominant boat type for all but two
            facilities was power boats.

                 While confirming the presence of repair facilities was straight-
            forward, categorizing those facilities proved more difficult. Most of the
            larger facilities have lifts or some other means of removing boats from the
            water and several have paid mechanics or associated repair businesses on
            site.   In the survey, facility operators were asked to categorize the
            nature of repairs done on site. However, since most facilities will allow
            individual boat owners to work on their boats or employ outside personnel,
            it was not possible to narrowly define the types of repairs done at each
            facility. The summary matrix reflects all facilities where repairs can be
            performed (see Exhibit 2-1).

                 Parking was another area where accurate data could not be generated by
            questioning the facility operators. In general, the facilities interviewed
            did not have delineated parking spaces; rather parking is usually in the
            form of loosely organized rows on unmarked, gravel lots.       Therefore, for
            those facilities where no parking capacity was declared by the operator,
            parking capacity was estimated through interpretation of the aerial
            photography commissioned for the survey. The boundaries for parking areas
            were delineated for each facility and transferred on to base maps using
            Stereo Zoom Transfer Scopes.      These base maps were then used for the
            computation of the acreage devoted to parking at each facility. The known
            parking counts available for some facilities allowed for the computation of
            a ratio for use in estimating parking capacity for other facilities.         In
            the case of the Presque Isle Bay area these ratios were assessed at 120
            parking spaces per acre for marinas, except for those in the Canal Basin
            area where parking is more dense at 150 spaces per acre. At boat ramps the
            average parking to area ratio was 70 spaces per acre, which includes a
            combination of car/trailer parking and single car parking.       The number of
            estimated parking spaces for each facility is shown on Exhibits 2-1 and
            2-2.


            2.2 Proposed Recreational Boating Facilities

                 Proposed recreational boating facilities are defined as: (1) planned
            expansions or new facilities that have received all necessary approvals but
            have not initiated or completed the proposed development; (2) projects that
            have entered into the development review process by submitting permit
            applications or development plans to local, State or Federal review
            agencies; or (3) projects that have not formally entered the permit review
            process but for which there is a high degree of certainty that the project
            will move forward in the near future.


                 Five planned expansions of existing facilities or new facilities have
            been identified as proposed recreational boating facilities in the Presque

                                                  2-6








            Isle Bay Study Area (Exhibit 2-4).        These proposed facilities, if all
            completed, would add 792 boat slips to the current inventory of 2,278 slips
            in the Study Area.    A brief description of each of the proposed facilities
            follows.

                  Bay Front Center (Grain Elevator Pier)

                  The Bay Front Center is a proposed mixed-use redevelopment project
            that will include residential uses, a permanent home for the Niagara,
            historical museum and library, and two marinas.       The concept for the Bay
            Front Center is a public-private sector initiative which is being promoted
            by the Erie Western Pennsylvania Port Authority, Penelec, the Pennsylvania
            Historical and Museum Commission, and the County of Erie.             The Port
            Authority has obtained plans for a proposed marina at the Grain Elevator
            pier from the original marina developer (Pomorski, pers. comm., 1993). The
            marina concept for this site proceeded as far as obtaining joint PADER and
            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval before the project was shelved.
            There is some controversy concerning this proposed marina because of the
            need to temporarily dock lake freighters along the east side of the grain
            elevator pier for repair by Erie Marine Enterprise's.         There have been
            discussions about temporary piers and finger slips which could be removed
            following the boating season        and perhaps during emergency repair
            situations.    The total number of slips anticipated for this marina is
            approximately 100.

                  Bay Front Center (south shore of East Canal Basin)


                  Another proposed marina which is anticipated to be part of the Bay
            Front Center will be located on the south shore of the East Canal Basin,
            adjacent to the former Penelec power plant.       The proposed site contained
            covered slips that have been razed in anticipation of this development.
            Although no final permits have been granted for this proposed marina, the
            Port Authority is waiting for approval for dredging of the Canal Basin to
            initiate the actual marina design process. It is the opinion of the Port
            Authority that permit approval for dredging is forthcoming and that the
            proposed marina will be a reality in the near future (Pomorski, pers.
            comm., 1993). Hence, we are considering this a proposed marina site. The
            total number of slips anticipated for this marina is approximately 100.
            Exhibit 2-4 Map of Proposed and Potential Facilities

                  Cherry Street Marina

                  The existing Cherry Street Marina has 220 slips (pers. comm. with
            marina operator, 1993). The marina owner requested and has received joint
            PADER and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit approval and received zoning
            approval from the City of Erie to expand the facility to 425 slips.          The
            owner has expanded the breakwaters to accommodate the additional slips.
            However, the reduced demand for these slips over the past several boating
            seasons has slowed the expansion project.       The marina operator reported
            that this marina had 60-80 vacant slips during the 1993 boating season. if
            conditions improve and the proposed expansion is completed, 205 additional
            slips would be added to the total number of boat slips in the Study Area,



                                                  2-7



















                                                                                     Gull Pbfnt
                    N                                          Presque Id                                       Legend
                                                               State Park  aw
                                                                                                         roposed
                                                                                                                 and Potential
                                                                                                         arina8
                                                                                                        P @oposed Marina Boundary
                                                                                                         r


                                                                      mi-fy
           Approximate Scale 1- 3200                                                                    P tential Marina Boundary
                                                                                                        H rbor Entrance
                                                                                                        and Turning Basin



                                                                    arbor
                                                                    urning
                                                                   BasIn



                                          Presque Isle Bay

                                                                                 A,
                                                                                 -A@



             Lake Erie



                                                     ,v
                               Head of Bay







                       A




                  X
                                Al
                                                                                                        P





















                                                                       Proposed and Potential               Boating Facilities
                     Cr e enho me & O'Yar a, Inc                                                                          Exhibit 2-4









                  Perry's Landing (Existing Marina)

                  The existing marina at Perry's Landing accommodates 200 slips.          All
            the  necessary approvals for an additional 37 slips have been obtained.
            This expansion would extend new floating docks from the existing main
            piers.    Staff of Perry's Landing Marina contacted during this study
            indicated that this minor expansion will be constructed between the 1993
            and 1994  boating seasons.    The staff also noted that there have been no
            slip vacancies during the past three boating seasons.

                  Perry's Landing (New Marina ProRosed Between Piers 1 and 2)

                  The original Perry's Landing mixed-use project, developed by West Bay
             roperties, included residential, commercial, and marina development on
            Piers 1, 2, and 3.         The project faltered in 1989 due to financial
            Pshortages, and the primary lender, Integra Bank, assumed ownership of West
            Bay Properties.    The project site plan received joint PADER and U.S. Army
            Corps of Engineers permit approval for the water-related development in
            October 1987.    The original permit for the uncompleted portion of Perry's
            Landing lapsed because a permit extension request was not made prior to
            October 1990.


                  Recently, plans for the completion of Perry's Landing Marina have
            resurfaced. The revised plans for the marina expansion will use a patented
            floating breakwater system, tradenamed "Waveshield." The proposed expansion
            would add approximately 350 slips to Erie's waterfront over a 5-year
            period.   Assuming that permit approval is granted in early 1994, instal-
            lation of the floating breakwater might begin as early as the fall of 1994.

            2.3 Potential Recreational Boating Facilities

                  The objective of developing an inventory of existing, proposed, and
            potential recreational boaiing facilities is to develop a realistic
            scenario of the ultimate build-out potential of Presque Isle Bay.             The
            estimate of the future build-out is not intended to be a worst-case
            scenario but one that recognizes the economic feasibility and the
            environmental constraints of future facilities.


                  The time frame associated with the future build-out projection is much
            more difficult to arrive at.      Several years ago, it seemed that if a slip
            was available for rental in the Study Area, it was occupied.       Although the
            weekend weather during the 1993 boating season was very conducive to
            recreational boating, the previous boating season was very inclement .(Mong,
            pers. comm., 1993).     Several of the marinas reported vacant slips during
            the 1993 boating season, although most of the marinas appeared full during
            field visits to Presque Isle Bay during the 1993 boating season.              The
            sluggish economic conditions over the past two years have certainly
            affected demand for additional slips and recreational boater usage
            patterns.   The long-term trends in recreational boating indicate that with
            improved economic conditions, the demand for additional recreational
            boating facilities will increase.





                                                   2-9








                 A comprehensive approach to evaluating potential sites for marina
            development was undertaken for this study. Aerial photointerpretation was
            used to identify potential sites.      Local comprehensive plans and zoning
            ordinances were reviewed to determine where marinas or other re     c  reational
            boating facilities _were permitted by right or by conditional approval.
            Field visits to potential development sites were made.                 Physical
            constraints, such as steep slopes and water depth, that increase
            development costs or make permit approval unlikely (i.e., any           required
            federal permits with PACZMP consistency review; see Section 8.0) were
            identified.    Boating criteria,    such as accessibility to channels and
            prevailing currents and waves, were determined.           Impacts to natural
            resources were found to be major constraints for potential marina sites.
            Environmentally   sensitive   habitats    such  as   shallov-water    habitats,
            supporting fish spawning and nursery areas, were identified and mapped for
            this analysis.    Land use criteria such as the availability of parking,
            which proved to be an important site consideration, were identified and
            incorporated into the analysis.

                 The following set of criteria were incorporated into the analysis to
            predict the size and location of potential recreational boating facilities:

                 0     presence of shallow-water habitat;
                       steep slopes;
                       known high quality fish spawning and nursery areas;
                       areas of significant emergent or submergent wetlands;
                       economic feasibility of potential marina site.       Most important
                       factors   identified   were   extent   of   dredging   required    or
                       prohibitively high cost of breakwater construction due to water
                       depth;
                       areas of poor circulation and flushing;
                       adequate, level, fastland for parking and other marina support
                       facilities;
                       access to primary road and access to major road network;
                       habitat for rare, threatened or endangered species;
                 0     potential for impacts to intact lake bluff habitat;
                       availability of infrastructure (sewer, water, solid waste,
                       electricity);
                       prevailing currents and waves;
                       accessibility to channel.

                 In addition to developing these criteria, interviews were conducted
            with members of the Presque Isle Bay Recreational Boating Task Force to
            assist in id 'entifying sites where new facilities or expansions of existing
            facilities were conceptually proposed in the past but no significant action
            has occurred to justify placing these sites into the Proposed Recreational
            Boating Facility category.    Each of the potential sites, where conceptual
            plans were developed at some time in the past, was specifically evaluated
            against the criteria described above.

                 The   results   of the analysis of potential recreational boating
            facilities identified seven expansion sites that could conceivably add
            1,911 boat slips to the Study Area if all potential projects were completed
            (Exhibit 2-4). The number of additional potential slips was calculated by
            determining the water area in acres for each potential site and multiplying

                                                  2-10








            acreage by an average number of slips per acre. The actual number of slips
            per acre of water area available is dependent upon a number of factors
            including slip size, type of boats (sail versus power), and configuration
            of marina (determines location of fairways and main piers).       Without any
            conceptual designs for the potential marinas, the average number of slips
            per water acre was- determined by aerial photo inte rpre tat ion of several
            recently constructed marinas in the Study Area and determining the number
            of slips per acre.      The average number of slips per water acre was
            estimated to be 35 slips.

                 A brief description of the six potential recreational boating
            facilities follows:


                 Perry's Landing (West of Pier 1). The western side of Perry's Landing
                 Pier 1 has been shown with marina piers in some of the early
                 conceptual schemes for the overall development.            Dredging and
                 protection from prevailing northwesterly winds are two constraints for
                 this site.   The area designated for this potential marina site could
                 conceivably support 280 slips.

                 Perry's Landing (Existing Marina).        The marina is planning to
                 eventually add approximately 88 slips to their existing operation by
                 extending short finger piers from the western edge of Pier 3.          No
                 detailed design for this marina expansion has been developed (Perry's
                 Landing staff, pers. comm., 1993).

                 Commodore Perry Yacht Club.     Members of the Yacht Club have stated
                 that no expansion of their facilities is planned; however, this
                 portion of the Erie waterfront is clearly a logical place for marina
                 expansion.    The recent improvements to the Cherry Street Marina
                 extended the breakwater, making any expansion of the Yacht Club
                 economically feasible because the area is now protected on both sides.
                 Although current members have expressed that they are strongly against
                 any planned expansion, the suitability of this site for expansion
                 argues for placing this site in the Potential Recreational Boating
                 Facilities category.

                 The Waterworks.    There have been conceptual plans developed at one
                 time for a 400-slip marina which would wrap around the Waterworks
                 Facility operated by the City of Erie Water Authority (Kissel, pers.
                 comm., 1993).    The recent placement of a settling basin on the site
                 may restrict the availability of parking, requiring some redesign of
                 water filtration operations for any future marina expansion.           The
                 potentiAl facility analysis estimated that 392 slips could be
                 constructed at this site.


                 Erie Sand and Gravel Site. Current Erie Sand and Gravel operations on
                 the pier west of Dobbins Landing are expected to be relocated to
                 another industrial location on the Erie waterfront, opening up this
                 pier for redevelopment opportunities.      Conceptual plans have shown
                 residential development (condominium townhomes) with marina slips for
                 the future residents.        Dredging and prevailing winds are two
                 constraints for this potential site. The potential facility analysis
                 estimated that 182 slips could be constructed at this site.


                                                 2-11









                  Lami)e Marina.   This existing marina, located south of the channel
                  entrance (outside of Presque Isle Bay), is owned and operated by the
                  Port Authority.    Although there have been discussions about using a
                  portion of the -dredged-material spoils area for an expansion of Lampe
                  Marina, this option was not included in the potential marina analysis.
                  Current state water quality requirements do not permit using the
                  spoils area for its original purpose because of the degree of
                  contamination of harbor bottom sediments. The adaptive reuse of this
                  area, protected by breakwaters, is an attractive possibility but one
                  fraught with many hurdles to its implementation.             Instead, the
                  potential marina analysis proposed an expansion of Lampe Marina
                  towards the shoreline, providing an additional 574 boat slips.

                  Several other potential marina locations in the Study Area that were
            once considered as viable marina locations were not included in this
            evaluation because of prohibitive cost implications or significant
            environmental constraints.        The Erie Waterfront Comprehensive Plan,
            prepared in 1986, showed a large marina proposed on filled land to the
            southwest of the Erie International Marine Terminal (Land Design/Research
            1986).    This marina concept progressed to the design phase where it was
            found that cost projections for the marina breakwater were prohibitive
            (Kissel, pers. comm., 1993).

                  A marina proposed in the waterfront area between Cherry Street Marina
            and the Waterworks Facility was denied in the permit process because of
            potential impacts to productive fish spawning and nursery habitat (Kissel,
            pers. comm., 1993).     This portion of the Erie shoreline is also severely
            constrained by a lack of adequate space for parking.

                  The potential expansion of Presque Isle State Park Marina was
            considered to be a Potential Recreation Boating Facility site.           However,
            expansion of this area will most likely not result in any significant
            increase in number of slips.      Discussions with State Park staff indicate
            that currently no expansions are planned, and that any expansion of main
            piers would be used to reconfigure the existing marina operation, providing
            more amenities for the boaters and riot adding significantly to the total
            number of slips available.        No other significant recreational boating
            facility improvements are planned at Presque Isle State Park, other than
            minor improvements to the boat ramps.

                  No new marina facility sites were considered between Perry's Landing
            and the Erie Yacht Club and continuing westward to the Head of the Bay
            because of 'significant physical and environmental constraints.                The
            Lakeshore Bluff is very steep along the shoreline and very limited fastland
            is available for marina support facilities.        There is extensive shallow-
            water habitat, productive fish spawning and nursery areas, wetlands, and
            threatened terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

            2.4 Commercial Port Facilities Inventory

                  An inventory of commercial port facilities and an evaluation of the
            future of Erie's port is important in determining the potential for future
            conflicts    between    port-related    activities    and    opportunities     for


                                                   2-12







            redevelopment along Erie's waterfront.   The existing commercial/industrial
            operations located within the waterfront Study Area were identified and
            phone interviews were conducted with representatives of the waterfront
            industries. Interviews were also conducted with Erie Western Pennsylvania
            Port Authority staff to discuss the overall health of Erie's waterfront
            industries and projections for the future.

                 2.4.1 Vaterfront Industrial Facility Descriptions

                 Descriptions of the major waterfront industrial uses within the Study
            Area are described below. Current operations are described and the future
            plans of these industries are discussed, where information was available.

                 Erie Sand and Gravel

                 Erie Sand and Gravel is the most active port user and provides sand
            and  stone aggregates for the surrounding region.        Dredges which are
            operated out of the Port of Erie by Erie Sand and Gravel dredge sand and
            gravel from the bottom of Lake Erie.    The dredging operation takes place
            six days per week, weather permitting, and the boats come into port twice a
            day to discharge the dredged material. Aggregate stone from Canada is also
            brought in two to three times a month by lake freighters (Miley, pers.
            comm., 1993). The average annual bulk tonnage moved through Erie Sand and
            Gravel operations is 800,000 tons; the 1992 amount was 810,000 tons.

                 As stated elsewhere in this report, Erie Sand and Gravel will most
            likely consolidate its operations (now in two locations) in the near
            future. One possible site for relocation of its operations is at the Erie
            International Marine Terminal.      Erie Sand and Gravel operations are
            anticipated to continue in the same general tonnage range in the future.


                 CODAN


                 CODAN is located at the Erie International Marine Terminal and is a
            warehousing company. The recent down-turn in the economic climate for the
            region has reduced import-export shipments from the CODAN facility over the
            past several years. Historically, between 40 and 45 ships a year docked at
            the CODAN facility, shipping between 120,000 and 170,000 tons of material
            and goods (Morosky, pers. comm., 1993).     In more recent years, 20 to 30
            ships per year dock to load and unload metal alloys, scrap steel, steel
            slab, boilers, locomotives, and general cargo.    Large ore shipments occur
            more sporadically. More current data indicates that CODAN moves 80,000 to
            100,000 tons of materials and goods annually (Frawley, pers. comm., 1993).
            The company -is being sold and will be out of business by the beginning of
            December 1993. However, it is envisioned that the new owners will continue
            existing import-export operations (Frawley, pers. comm., 1993).

                 GAF CorRoration

                 The GAF Corporation is a manufacturer of roofing materials. The plant
            has been in operation for over a century and was first operated by the H.W.
            Watson Company, followed by Rubberiod and was later taken over by GAF
            Corporation (Adams, pers. comm., 1993). GAF produces roofing materials and
            serves an area of 500 to 600 miles surrounding Erie.     The GAF Corporation


                                                2-13








             facility at Erie is not dependent on port-related facilities.                   Raw
             materials come. to the plant via rail and trucks and the finished product is
             sent out via trucks only.     Over the last two years, GAF invested over $1.4
             million on plant improvements, indicating a long-term investment in this
             facility.

                   Erie Coke ComRany

                   The Erie Coke Company is located in the South Shore portion of the
             Study Area.    Since the turn of the century this site has been occupied by
             an industrial use.     Originally, the Perry Ship Building Company operated
             from this site and  produced pig iron. It was later taken over by Interlake
             and Koppers and     is now operated by Erie Coke Company.             This plant
             manufactures foundry coke.      The raw material is coal, which comes to the
             plant via the Conrail railroad.      The coal is processed into coke, which is
             then sent out to customers by rail and trucks.        None of the raw materials
             or finished products is transported through the port. No expansion of this
             plant is envisioned at this time (Babay, pers. comm., 1993).

                   Erie Marine Enterprises


                   Erie Marine Enterprises has operated a 1,250         foot drydock at this
             location   since    1991.     The previous operation included both ship
             construction and repair. The main operation of this        facility is to repair
             ships and lake freighters ranging from 900 feet to         1,000 feet in length.
             Erie Marine Enterprises, operation also includes the       production of boilers
             which are shipped out by barge.

                   When the Erie Waterfront Comprehensive Plan was being prepared in
             1986, the future of the drydock facility was in doubt.              In f act, the
             waterfront development plan identified the site for mixed-use redevelop-
             ment. As one of only two drydocks on the Great Lakes that can accommodate
             the never 1,000 foot freighters, it is anticipated that Erie Marine
             Enterprises will continue to be a viable operation in the future.
             Certainly,    the   work   force   and   drydock    activities   will     fluctuate
             significantly over time. No expansion of this facility is anticipated.

                   Erie Manufacturing ExRort Complex

                   The Greater Erie Industrial Development Corporation (GEIDC) has
             acquired a site from the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority and is
             constructing a 36,000 square foot multi-tenant manufacturing facility at
             the Port of Erie.      Plans are to lease the complex to a minimum of two
             manufacturing companies requiring a heavy duty (20 ton crane/26 feet under
             hook) facility to produce large products.       The new facility will offer the
             Erie area its first opportunity to capitalize on a Port of Erie location to
             induce value-added manufacturing activities (CZM 306A Grant Application,
             1993).


                   2.4.2 Port Facilities Summary

                   As chronicled in the Historical Setting (Section 1.2), the Port of
             Erie  has one of the finest natural harbors on the Great Lakes.           This was
             essential to the City's development as an industrial and manufacturing

                                                    2-14








            center. The harbor supported an extensive commercial fishery, and the port
            was an important spoke in a transportation hub that also included rail and
            highways.   For many years, the port was able to adjust to changing times
            because of the diversity of its water-dependent activities.        However, its
            importance as a shipping port has declined over the years due to a number
            of factors:

                  ï¿½    Changes in the vessel and cargo handling capacity have made the
                       port's   facilities   obsolete   and   modern   port   facilities    a
                       necessity;

                  0    The port lacks adequate access to the interstate highway system;

                  ï¿½    There is a lack of market growth in the region, and the Port of
                       Erie is not strategically placed to capture inter-regional and
                       international growth opportunities.

                  All of these factors are applicable to a decline in the movement of
            coal, and other bulk commodities such as grain and ore through the Port of
            Erie.   The projections for future tonnage handled by the Port of Erie are
            anticipated to stabilize at current levels of approximately one million
            tons per year (Morosky, pers. comm., 1993). As a result of the historical
            decline in industrial and commercial port activities, and the increasing
            growth of recreational boating and fishing, the Erie waterfront is now
            poised to enter into a new era of redevelopment.

                  It is projected that the industrial and port-related commercial uses
            will be consolidated towards the eastern portion of the Erie waterfront in
            the vicinity of the Erie International Marine Terminal.         This projection
            follows a historical trend.      This will then allow areas vacated, such as
            the Erie Sand and Gravel pier to the west of Dobbins Landing, to be
            redeveloped for other uses.       In the near future, the only major port-
            related facility on the older portion of Erie's waterfront may be the Erie
            Marine Enterprises.

                  There are tremendous opportunities for the creative redevelopment of
            the waterfront to include residential, commercial, public open space, and
            increased opportunities for recreational boating facilities,              Lessons
            learned from other waterfront redevelopment projects across the country,
            stress the importance of encouraging public spaces to draw residents and
            visitors to the waterfront.      It is encouraging that the Bayfront Center,
            the most visible waterfront redevelopment project on the planning horizon,
            includes many features which will bring people to the waterfront.















                                                  2-15









            3.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT

                 The purpose of the water quality assessment was to identify and
            evaluate the potential impact of recreational boating on water quality
            conditions in Presque Isle Bay.          This study focused on identifying
            potential water quality impacts of recreational boating.        The assessment
            results will be used to identify areas for further investigation with
            respect to the actual magnitude and severity of water quality impacts
            attributable to recreational boating activity on Presque Isle Bay.

                 The analysis was limited to assessing the impacts to the water column
            and does not include investigation of the bottom sediments (The source of
            bottom sediment pollution cannot be readily determined). A variety of data
            sources were examined including the Presque Isle Bay Remedial Action Plan
            (RAP), recreational boating literature, and the results of a limited
            sampling program which was conducted as part of this study.

                 The RAP was reviewed to assess existing water quality conditions in
            Presque Isle Bay (PADER, 1992).      The RAP identified the most significant
            sources of pollution to the Bay including combined sewer overflows,
            nonpoint source pollution, wastewater treatment plants, and industrial
            sources.    Recreational boating impacts were not discussed in detail.
            Annual loads were computed for pollutants generated by these sources. The
            RAP also identified water quality problems in the Bay and impairments to
            specified beneficial uses.

                 The potential for significant water quality impacts associated with
            recreational boating, and the methods for computing annual loads for the
            associated pollutants, were identified through a literature review. Using
            the results of the boater survey and boat counts conducted at Presque Isle
            Bay during the 1993 boating season (Section 5.0), annual loads                (or
            concentrations) for select pollutants associated with boating activity were
            estimated.    The estimated loads were then compared to the annual loads
            presented in the RAP in order to assess the relative impact of boating
            activity on water quality conditions in Presque Isle Bay in comparison to
            other pollutant sources.

                 A limited water quality sampling program was conducted in two marinas
            in Presque Isle Bay throughout the 1993 boating season. The results of the
            sampling program were compared to Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
            Resources RADER) water quality standards and criteria and were used to
            identify potential water quality problems in Presque Isle Bay.         Potential
            causes for the observed water quality problems were identified including
            combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges and industrial point sources, as
            well as recreational boating activity.

                 The impact of boat wakes on the Presque Isle Bay shoreline was also
            evaluated.   This analysis focused on erosion in narrow channels and speed
            restriction areas due to recreational boating.







                                                  3-1








             3.1 Vater Resources Background

                  Presque isle Bay is a shallow, nearly fully enclosed bay located on
             the southern shore of Lake Erie.      The most significant sources of flow to
             Presque Isle Bay are from Scotts Run and Mill and Cascade Creeks.
             Virtually all of the City of Erie drains to Presque Isle Bay. The majority
             (57 percent) of the 25 square mile Presque Isle Bay watershed is
             characterized by residential development (PADER, 1992).          Commercial and
             industrial land uses account for slightly less than 20 percent of the total
             drainage area.   Approximately 16 percent of the watershed is undeveloped.
             The most significant undeveloped area is the 3,200 acre Presque Isle State
             Park.


                  Presque Isle Bay is a nearly enclosed body of water. Pollutants which
             do not degrade quickly tend to settle in the Bay sediments (PADER, 1992).
             In addition, the exchange of water between Presque Isle Bay and Lake Erie
             is relatively limited and water quality conditions within Presque Isle Bay
             are not significantly affected by conditions in Lake Erie (PADER, 1992).

                  Aquatic habitat conditions in the Bay are relatively good based on the
             diversity of freshwater habitats observed including shallow water habitat,
             marshes, ponds, and other types of wetlands (PADER, 1992).          Presque Isle
             Bay also supports a variety of fisheries.


                  3.1.1 Reviev of the Remedial Action Plan


                  Results presented in the Remedial Action Plan were used to assess the
             relative significance of annual pollution loads from recreational boating
             activity in comparison to annual loads from other sources.               Pollution
             contributions from a variety of land-based sources were quantified in the
             RAP. Pollution associated with recreational boating activity, however, was
             not considered.


                  As outlined in the RAP, the water quality problems in the Bay were
             identified with respect to impairments of 3 of 14 specified beneficial uses
             including:

                  ï¿½     Fishery impacts as evidenced by fish tumors. These tumors may be
                        due, in part, to elevated levels of polycyclic aromatic
                        hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the bay;

                  ï¿½     Dredging restrictions due to high metals, nutrients, cyanide, oil
                        and   grease,   volatile    solids,    and   potentially    high    PAH
                        concentrations in Bay sediments;

                  ï¿½     Potential for beach closings due to high fecal coliforms near
                        storm sever discharge points.

                  The   impairments were linked to pollutants which were identified as
             pollutants of concern (POCs).       Some POCs were monitored during the RAP
             study period and, despite observed impairments, the monitoring results
             indicated that State water quality standards and criteria in the Bay as
             listed in the Pennsylvania Code, Titles 16 and 25, were not violated.
             Impairments were, therefore, attributed to probable sediment releases and

                                                    3-2







             re-suspension of POCs.      The long hydraulic detention time in the Bay
             promotes the settling of pollutants from the water column to the sediment
             layer.

                  Annual loads for the POCs for three land-based sources (point sources,
             nonpoint sources, and CSOs) were presented in the RAP.        In addition, the
             total volume of pollutants in place in the Bay sediments was estimated.
             The  point sources include permitted industrial and sanitary discharges in
             the Presque Isle Bay watershed.        The nonpoint source loads considered
             include surface runoff, groundwater infiltration, and air deposition. The
             annual loads are used in Section       I., of this report to determine the
             relative significance of the recreational boating contribution.

             3.2 Impact of Recreational Boating Activity Based on Literature Review

                  Activities related to recreational boating may impact water quality
             conditions.   The activities which are likely to be the most significant
             sources of   boating-related pollution include the discharge of sanitary
             waste from   boats, boat paints and boat cleaning, and the release of
             hydrocarbons and fuel additives from boat engines.

                  3.2.1 Sanitary Vaste Discharges

                  Sanitary waste discharges from boating activities, sewerage overflows,
             or other sources impact water quality conditions by increasing biochemical
             oxygen demand (BOD) (Milliken, 1990).      BOD is a measure of the amount of
             dissolved oxygen (DO) required for decomposition of organic matter.            In
             general, as BOD increases, DO levels decrease, and less oxygen is available
             for aquatic organisms.     In extreme cases, this may     lead to fish kills.
             Sanitary wastes may also introduce into the water potentially harmful
             pathogens which can cause diseases such as hepatitis,     typhoid, and cholera
             (Milliken, 1990).

                  Sanitary waste discharges are evaluated through      measurement of fecal
             coliforms, a bacteria present in the intestines and feces of all
             warm-blooded animals.    Fecal coliforms are removed from the water column
             through dilution, die-off, and sedimentation.       Dilution depends upon the
             volume  of available water,       flushing characteristics,     and background
             concentrations.   Die-off of the bacteria is a function of several factors
             including water temperature and toxicity.       Finally, some   fecal coliforms
             will sink to the bottom.     These coliforms tend to exhibit    longer survival
             times than those  in the overlying water column.

                  Sewage discharges from boats introduce concentrated, small volumes of
             waste into the water.        Impacts from these wastes tend to be most
             significant in localized areas where boating activity or mooring occurs.
             Boat sanitary waste discharges in Presque Isle Bay are regulated under the
             Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 312, and the Commonwealth of
             Pennsylvania Fishing and Boating Regulations, Section 97.9 and 99.5. These
             regulations require recreational boats with toilet (or head) facilities to
             be equipped with approved marine sanitation devices (MSDs). Sanitary waste
             discharges  from boats equipped with flow-through Type I and II MSDs are
             permitted. Type I and II MSDs chemically disinfect sanitary waste prior to
             discharge.   Discharges from toilets equipped with other types of MSDs and

                                                    3-3








            portable toilets are prohibited.         Illegal sanitary waste discharges,
            however, still may occur.

                  3.2.2 Boat Painting and Boat Cleaning

                  Boat painting   and boat cleaning are potential sources of metals,
            solvents,   nutrients, and other toxins.     Painting is usually conducted in
            dry storage areas.    Topside painting, however, can be performed while the
            boat is in the water.     Cleaning can be conducted both   when the boat is in
            dry-storage or while in the water.          Surface water conditions may be
            impaired when runoff from upland areas, paint releases,     and wash water from
            boats enter the Bay.

                  Boats are usually painted with anti-fouling paints    containing biocides
            which prevent the growth of fouling organisms on boat       bottoms.    The most
            common type of biocide used is copper.      Anti- fouling   paints are  designed
            to release these chemicals into the surrounding water through           ablative
            action and leaching.     Leaching is the release of low levels of       biocides
            over time.    Ablative paints are designed to shear off of the boat as it
            travels, releasing biocides along with the paint.

                  Both copper and tributlytin (TBT) have been found in some marina
            waters at levels that are toxic to aquatic organisms other than fouling
            species (Young, 1974).     Dissolved copper was detected at toxic levels in
            several states, including Maryland (USEPA, 1993) and California (Young,
            1974).    Toxic levels of TBT have also been observed across the country
            including Maryland, Washington state, California, and North Carolina
            (Grovhoug, 1986; NCDEHNR, 1991; USEPA, 1993). Previously, TBT was used in
            bottom paints.    TBT, which is highly toxic, is now regulated by the EPA
            under the   Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988.            This act
            prohibits the use of paints containing TBT on non-aluminum       boats under 25
            meters in   length (USEPA, 1993).      In addition, all TBT paints must be
            certified  by the U.S. EPA as releasing no more than 4 ug/cm2/day into water
            (Milliken, 1990). Therefore, it is assumed that TBT is not currently used
            on recreational boats.


                  Cleaning   activities   include boat washing and hull scrubbing.
            According to the boater survey, 67 percent of the boat cleaning is
            performed in locations other than the bay (e.g., at home).          Most of the
            boaters surveyed use soap and water although cleaners such as       teak cleaner
            and fiberglass polisher may also be used.        Cleaning products may contain
            ammonia nitrogen, sodium hypo-chlorite, chlorinated solvents, petroleum
            distillates, ' and lye, which are toxic to aquatic organisms in high
            concentrations.     Detergents containing phosphates can be a source of
            phosphorus.    Phosphorus and ammonia nitrogen are nutrients and can impact
            water quality conditions by promoting the growth of algae.

                  3.2.3 Engine Releases

                  Most studies on pollution due to engine releases focused on two-stroke
            outboard engines. Two-stroke engines accomplish fuel intake and exhaust in
            the same cycle and therefore tend to release unburned gas along with
            exhaust gases.    Outboard engines, which are typically two-stroke engines,
            release approximately 25 percent of their total petroleum intake to the air

                                                   3-4








            and water. The petroleum intake includes both gasoline and the lubricating
            oils which are mixed in with the fuel.         Inboard engines, which are
            typically four-stroke engines, are estimated to release approximately 2
            percent of their total petroleum intake and are, therefore, considered to
            be a less significant source of petroleum pollutants (Mele, 1993).
            However, inboard motors contribute an additional petroleum source which is
            the discharge of oily water from the bilge.

                Approximately 37.5 percent of the petroleum discharged to the air and
            water by boat engines will remain waterbound (Mele, 1993). The waterbound
            petroleum will collect at the water surface, dissolve into the         water
            column, or settle to the bottom.    Much of the petroleum breaks down into
            simpler carbon chains and is taken up by aquatic organism and plants.
            However, the petroleum and the additives in the gasoline that settle to the
            bottom can persist for several years and potentially become a long-term
            water quality problem.

                 Impacts associated with petroleum pollution include odor, off taste in
            fish, and toxic effects on marine organisms.         In urban watersheds,
            petroleum inputs from boating activity may increase the toxicity of
            background petroleum concentrations from land-based sources, increasing
            long-term effects.

            3.3 Sampling Study

                 A limited water quality sampling program was conducted at two marinas
            in Presque Isle Bay during the 1993 boating season. Sampling was performed
            to determine concentrations of specific pollutants which are associated
            with recreational boating activities.   The sampling was performed in the
            marinas where potential water quality impacts from recreational boating may
            be worse than in open water areas.   The results of the sampling effort are
            Presented in Appendix A. The laboratory results and the field sheets which
            include personnel performing the sampling, calibration records, and other
            pertinent sampling information are available for review at the Erie County
            Department of Planning.    A map showing the sampling locations is also
            included with the field sheets.


                 3.3.1 Methodology

                 Preliminary sampling locations were selected by Greenhorne & O'Mara
            and  reviewed and approved by the Erie County Department of Planning.
            Sampling was conducted by personnel from the Pennsylvania State University.
            The majority of the sampling was conducted at the Bay Harbor Marina and the
            Presque Isle State Park Marina.     However, the first set of samples was
            collected from the Commodore Perry Yacht Club and Presque Isle State Park
            Marina. (The Commodore Perry Yacht Club declined to participate in the
            remainder of the sampling program).

                 Seven sets of samples were collected through the boating season. The
            first set of samples was collected on May 17, 1993, prior to the start of
            the boating season.    This sample set was used to assess baseline water
            quality conditions. The remaining samples were collected on June 14; July
            2, 6, and 30; August 2; and September 7, 1993.          These samples were
            collected immediately before and after weekends and holiday weekends and

                                                3-5








            coincided with the dates of the boater surveys and the boat counts (Section
            6.0). These samples were used to assess the relative impact of weekend and
            holiday boating activity on water quality conditions in Presque Isle Bay.

                  A variety of -field parameters including dissolved oxygen and water
            temperature were measured at each marina at one foot below the surface
            (surface measurement) and from one-two feet above the bottom (depth
            measurement). The dissolved oxygen and temperature measurements were made
            with a YSI Model 57 oxygen meter which was calibrated in the field.          Grab
            samples were collected at the surface and at depth using an at-depth
            sampler.    A portion of the sample water was poured into polyethylene
            wide-mouthed jars and tested for pH and conductivity. A Cole-Parmer Model
            5941-00 pH meter and a Fisher Model 09-325-360 conductivity meter were
            used. The pH meter was calibrated each time in the field. However, there
            were problems with the conductivity meter and therefore, the conductivity
            measurements are suspect.      Secchi depth was also measured at each station
            with a secchi disk.       Observations regarding weather, air temperature,
            number of docked boats, and water depth were also recorded. The remaining
            portion of the sample      was poured into polyethylene, glass, and amber
            bottles, as appropriate, and     transported to the laboratory for analysis.
            Preservatives were added to the samples in the field as appropriate. Trip
            and field blanks were also submitted to the laboratory for analysis.           No
            duplicate samples were used for this analysis.

                  Laboratory tests were performed by Microbac Laboratory          using EPA
            certified methodologies.       The samples were analyzed for a variety of
            parameters which correspond to pollutants associated with sanitary waste
            discharges, engine and bilge releases, and boat painting and cleaning. The
            parameters which were analyzed included:

                  0    fecal coliform (most probable number);
                  0    diesel and gasoline range organics;
                  0    ethylene glycol;
                  0    lead;
                  0    copper;
                  0    tin; and
                  0    surfactants (detergents).

                  The  laboratory results are included in Appendix A.        Copies of the
            original   laboratory results are included with the water quality work
            calculation sheets and are available for review at the Erie County
            Department of Planning.

                  3.3.2 Additional Data Sources

                  Precipitation records    for the 72 hours preceding each sampling event
            were obtained from the         National Weather Service report for Erie,
            Pennsylvania (NWS, 1993).      This information is presented in Exhibit 3-1.
            Sustained periods of rain      can lead to the discharge of diluted sanitary
            wastes from CSOs to surface waters.      Runoff from rainfall events may also
            contain urban nonpoint source pollutants such as oil and sediment.            Bay
            Harbor Marina is located near a CSO discharge point and, therefore, water
            quality conditions (especially fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen
            concentrations) may be impacted.

                                                   3-6













                                                 EXHIBIT 3-1


                                                CLIMATE DATA


                                           Rainfall During        Rainfall During
                                          Preceding 72 Hours       Sampling Date
                              Date               (IN)                   (IN)


                            5/17/93              0.02                   0.00
                            6/14/93              0.00                   0.00
                            7/02/93             <0.01                   <0.01
                            7/06/93              0.00                   0.00
                            7/30/93              0.77                   0.15
                            8/02/93              0.15                   0.30
                            9/07/93              0.65                   0.00



            Source:      National Weather Service,    1993





                  3.3.3 Sampling Results

                  The sampling results as well as the climate data and the boater survey
            results were used to draw conclusions about the potential impact of
            recreational boating activity on water quality in Presque Isle Bay.                The
            sampling data results for selected parameters               (i.e., fecal coliform,
            dissolved oxygen, temperature, surfactants, pH, copper, and lead) were
            compared to PADER water quality standards and criteria and the percent of
            samples outside the standards or criteria was calculated for each
            parameter. The results of this comparison are presented in Exhibit 3-2.

                  Measured parameters that have no corresponding PADER standard include
            diesel and gasoline range organics, ethylene glycol, tin, conductivity, and
            secchi depth.     However, the diesel and gasoline range organics, ethylene
            glycol, and tin measurements were all below detection limits.              Therefore,
            these substances were either not present in the water column or present at
            concentrations below the detection limit.


                  Conductivity was not examined due to suspected erroneous readings.
            The secchi    depth readings, which are a measurement of water clarity,
            indicate that water at the Bay Harbor and Presque Isle State Park marinas
            was clearer during the early part of the boating season than during the
            latter part. Decreased clarity may be due to algae, sediment resuspension,
            storm sewer discharges (Bay Harbor Marina), or boat engine releases.
            Organic suspended solids (e.g., algal cells) in the water column impact
            water clarity (NALMS, 1990).

                  Surfactant concentrations did not violate the PADER water quality
            standard. In addition, water temperatures were within PADER limits as were
            lead and copper concentrations.

                                                     3-7
















                                                                                            Exhibit 3-2
                                    Comparison of Sampling Results to Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards and Criterial,2


                             Parameter                          Sampling Results                            Standard                                  Notes
                                                      Range of Values           % of Samples
                                                                              Outside Standard
                       fecal coliform            <10 - 5000 MPNI100 ml    5           46%              <200 MPN/100 m13        1 or more violations during each sampling
                                                                                                      <5,000 MPN/100 m14       event. Most violations occurred at Bay
                                                                                                                               Harbor Marina.

                       dissolved oxygen               2.4 - 12.3 mg1l                 8%                    >5 mg/l            Minimum daily average
                                                                                                            >4 mg/l            Minimum
                                                                                                                               Violations (2 events) occurred at PIS State
                                                                                                                               Park Marina, bottom measurements.

                       MBAS (surfactants)           <0.025    0.110 mg/l              0%                    <0.5 mg/1          Maximum
       OD              water temperature              67.1    71.6 OF                 0%                      80 OF            June 1 - 15
                                                      70.7    78.4 OF                 0%                      87 OF            July 1 - 31
                                                      73.4    75.0 OF                 0%                      87 OF            August 1 - 31
                                                      69.8    72.5 OF                 0%                      84 OF            September 1 - 15
                       pH                             6.3 - 8.2 units                 19%                7.0 - 9.0 units       Most violations occurred after a weekend or
                                                                                                                               holiday.
                       copper                       <0.002    0.012 mg/l              0%                    <1 mg/l            Human health criteria
                       lead                            <1     14 @Lg/l                0%                    <50 @Lg/l          Human health criteria



                       1     Fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, surfactants, pH, and water temperature standards from Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Chapter 93.
                       2     Copper and lead standards from Pennsylvania Code, Title 16.
                       3     Maximum geometric mean for fecal coliforms based on five consecutive samples, each sample collected on different days, May 1-September
                             30 (swimming season); Maximum geometric mean for fecal coliforms of 2000 MPN/100 ml for remainder of year.
                       4     Maximum total coliforms as a monthly average value in central channel as demarcated by U.S. Coast Guard.
                       5     Fecal coliform sampling results are based on a single count as opposed to a geometric mean.








                The PADER limits for copper and lead are based on human health
           criteria.   PADER has also developed aquatic organism health criteria for
           copper and lead.    These criteria are significantly lower than the human
           health criteria and correspond to pollutant concentrations potentially
           harmful to aquatic  -species (PADER, 1992). Some of the observed copper and
           lead concentrations were above the aquatic organism health criteria,
           indicating that, although the observed concentrations are not considered
           harmful to humans, the concentrations are at levels potentially harmful to
           aquatic organisms. Potential copper and lead sources include resuspension
           from the   sediments, nonpoint source runoff, and CSO discharges.      Releases
           from boat paint are another possible copper source. Lubricating oil mixed
           in with boat fuel is another possible source of lead. The probable source
           of the lead and copper in Presque Isle Bay cannot be conclusively
           identified due to the limitations of the available data.


                Fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, and pH water quality standards were
           violated in one or both of the marinas during the sampling period.        These
           parameters are discussed in the following sections.


                Fecal Coliform


                At least one violation of the fecal coliform standard was observed
           during each sampling event.    The majority of the violations were observed
           at the Bay Harbor Marina and many of these violations occurred after
           weekends or holidays.     It is likely that CSO discharges may also have
           contributed to fecal coliform levels at the Bay Harbor marina as three of
           the violations occurred after periods of rainfall. Resuspension of fecal
           coliforms in the sediment is also a potential cause. Recreational boating
           activity may have also negatively impacted fecal coliform levels at the Bay
           Harbor marina.


                Fecal coliform does not appear to be a significant problem in the
           Presque Isle State Park Marina because the fecal coliform standard was
           exceeded on only two occasions, once during pre-season and once during the
           early portion of the boating season. The violations are not attributed to
           CSO discharges because there are no combined sewers into this area.         The
           violations may be from boats. However, violations occurred during periods
           of low boating activity, and studies conducted by the Erie County Health
           Department suggest that gull droppings may also contribute to the fecal
           coliform concentration in the State Park Marina (Wellington, 1993).

                According to the RAP, fecal coliform levels in the open bay area do
           not exceed PADER water quality standards.       Therefore, the discharges of
           sanitary wastes from recreational boats does not appear to be a significant
           problem in the open Bay.     The fecal coliform levels in the open Bay are
           reduced due to the larger volumes of available dilution water.

                Dissolved Oxygen

                Dissolved oxygen (DO) is an important indicator of the capability of a
           body of water to support aquatic life and is used to measure the amount of
             ygen available in the water column.         PADER water quality standards
           require DO concentrations to be at or above 4 mg/l at all times.            The
           ox

           minimum daily average is 5 mg/l.     Bottom DO concentrations at the Presque

                                                 3-9








            Isle State Park marina were below the 4 mg/l limit on two occasions
            although surface measurements on both occasions were well above the
            standard.   The difference between the surface and bottom measurements is
            unusual because the marina waters are generally well-mixed and do not
            usually exhibit stratification (PADER, 1992).      The results suggest that DO
            levels in or near the bottom may have been impacted by either a sediment
            oxygen demand or a localized BOD source such as decaying vegetation.
             anitary waste discharges were not considered as a potential BOD source
            because fecal coliform levels were below the detection limit on both
            oSccasions.

                 Based on the sampling data, recreational boating does not appear to
            significantly impact DO concentrations in Presque Isle Bay.

                 DH

                 Minor violations of the pH standard were observed in 19 percent of the
            sampling events.     Most of these violations occurred after periods of
            sustained rain.     All of the violations indicated that the water was
            slightly acidic.    A wide variety of factors can cause low pH measurements
            including acid   rain and industrial pollutants in untreated storm water
            runoff.   The actual cause of the low pH cannot be determined due to the
            limited data available.


            3.4 Pollutant Loads Related to Recreational Boating Activity

                 Methodologies identified during the literature review and the results
            of the boat count and boater survey were used to estimate annual load rates
            (or concentrations) from recreational boating activity for copper, total
            petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and fecal
            coliform.   Pollutants associated with boat cleaning were not quantified.
            The boater survey results indicated that most of the boats used at Presque
            Isle Bay are cleaned at home:

                 When possible, the estimated annual loads were compared to annual
            loads in the RAP to assess the relative impact of recreational boating
            activity on Presque Isle Bay in comparison to the point sources, nonpoint
            sources, and CSO'discharges considered in the RAP. The estimated loads and
            concentrations are presented in Exhibit 3-3.          The Water Quality Work
            Calculation Sheets which show the load calculations are available for
            review at the Erie County Department of Planning.

                 3.4.1 Copper

                 The annual load was estimated for copper which is used as a biocide in
            anti-fouling paints. The methodology developed by the Southern California
            Coastal Water Research Project (Young, 1974) and the results of the boater
            survey and boat count were used to estimate the annual load.

                 The annual copper load estimate was based on the following assumptions
            which were obtained from the boater survey:

                 0     Eight percent of the boats in Presque Isle Bay are painted
                       (including moored and trailered boats);


                                                  3-10









                  0     The majority of the boats that are painted are painted once a
                        year.   The overall percentage of boats painted was prorated to
                        account for the boats that were painted less frequently;

                  0     All of the boats       that are painted use anti-fouling paints
                        containing copper;

                  0     The average percent copper by volume was estimated to be 43.1
                        percent. This value is an average of the percent metallic copper
                        in the antifouling paint brands most commonly reported in the
                        boater survey (e.g., Interlux);

                  0     The average boat length is 20 feet;

                  0     The length of the boating season at Presque Isle Bay is five
                        months.


                  In addition, because the copper release rate from the paints is not
             available, it was assumed that all of the copper in the paints was released
             to the water during the five-month boating season. Anti-fouling paints are
             specifically designed to release copper (or other biocides) to the
             surrounding water. A conservative assumption was made that all copper from
             painted boats is released even though trailered boats (as opposed to moored
             boats) do not remain in the water throughout the five-month boating season.
             It is probable that most of the copper in antifouling paints is released
             during the first few times the boats are placed in the water.

                  The annual load for copper from recreational boats to Presque Isle Bay
             was estimated to be 761 lbs/yr.         Based on the information in the RAP,
             recreational boats are the second-most significant source of copper to the
             Bay.    The recreational boat contribution is one third of the nonpoint
             source contribution (2,500 lbs/yr). However, the estimated copper load is
             almost  three times the CSO contribution (264 lbs/yr).

                  It is likely that the actual annual copper load from recreational
             boats to Presque Isle Bay is less than estimated.           The estimated copper
             load was based on the total amount of copper being released in a five-month
             period.   If it is assumed that the release rate of copper is constant and
             occurs over a twelve-month period (which is the frequency of boat
             painting), then the estimated copper load would be 5/12's of 761 lbs/year
             or 316 lbs/yr.    Even with this adjustment, recreational boats would remain
             the second-most   significant source of copper to the Bay.

                  3.4.2 Hydrocarbons

                  The annual load for petroleum hydrocarbons from recreational boats is
             based on releases from boat engines.           The estimate was based on the
             following assumptions:

                  0     Two-stroke, outboard engines release approximately 25 percent of
                        their total petroleum intake to the air and water (Mele, 1993);




                                                    3-11












                                                                         Exhibit 3-3


                        Estimated Annual Loads and Concentrations for Pollutants Associated with Recreational Boating





                                    Parameter               Point Sources       Combined sewer        Non-Point       Recreational*
                                                                (lbs/yr)          overflows            Sources            Boating
                                                                                   (lbs/yr)            (lbs/yr)           (lbs/yr)

                           Copper                               <139                264                2,500                761

                           Total petroleum hydrocarbon          ---                 ---                 ---              65,100

                           PAHs                                 ---                <340                 ---                 325



                            Note: Point source, combined sewer overflow, non-point source, and in-place figures from
                                    Remedial Action Plan (PADER 1992).




                                  Parameters                  Estimated Concentrations                             Standard

                                Fecal coliform.        260 MPN/100 ml    Bay Harbor Marina                   <200 MPN/100 ml
                                                       135 MPN/100 ml    Presque Isle State Park Marina





                       *These numbers, which are based on the best available data, may vary widely and should not be used to make
                       planning level decisions.








                 0    Two-stroke, inboard engines release approximately 2 percent of
                      their total petroleum intake to the air and water (Mele, 1993);

                 0    Approximately 37.5 percent of the petroleum released from boat
                      engines to the air and water remains waterbound (Mele, 1993);

                 0    Approximately 95 percent of the boats on the Bay are powered
                      (boater survey);

                 0    Powered boats are actively used an average of 23 days per year
                      (boater survey);

                 0    Approximately 70 percent of the boaters operate their boats in
                      the Bay rather than exclusively in Lake Erie; and

                 0    The average fuel consumption during a typical week of boating is
                      23 gallons.

                 Using these figures, the annual total petroleum hydrocarbon load from
            recreational boats to Presque Isle Bay was estimated to be 65,100 lbs/year.

                 The total petroleum hydrocarbon load was not examined in the RAP.
            instead, the RAP focused on a small fraction of hydrocarbons, polycyclic
            aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). PAHs tend to persist in the environment and
            have been associated with chronic toxic impacts on aquatic organisms
            (PADER, 1992).     PAHs, which are found in refined petroleum products,
            include compounds such as anthracene and naphthalene and generally account
            for only a small fraction of the hydrocarbons found in fuel and oils (Mele,
            1993).


                 The PAH content in the fuels and lubricant oils load from recreational
            boats to Presque Isle Bay was assumed to be 0.5 percent of the total
            petroleum hydrocarbon load which translates to an annual PAH load of
            approximately 325 lbs/year (Mele, 1993).      This estimate does not take in
            account fuel consumption patterns related to amount of fuel consumed in the
            Bay versus amount of fuel consumed in Lake Erie. Therefore, the actual PAH
            load attributable to recreational boating activity on Presque Isle Bay is
            probably less than estimated.

                 In the RAP, only the annual load for PAHs from CSO discharges was
            developed. Sufficient information was not available to quantify the point
            and nonpoint source contributions. The CSO discharge rate was estimated to
            be 340 lbs/year, which is somewhat more than the estimated recreational
            boating rate.   Although the actual PAH load from recreational boating may
            be less than estimated, in the absence of the point and non-point source
            rates, recreational boating appears to be a potentially significant
            contributor of PAHs to the Bay.

                 3.4.3. Fecal Coliform Concentration


                 A concentration rather than an annual load was developed for fecal
            coliform.    In comparison to other pollutants, fecal coliform degrades
            quickly and- will not significantly accumulate in the bottom sediments.



                                                 3-13









            Therefore, the concentration of fecal coliform in the water is a more
            accurate gauge of potential impacts than an annual load.

                 A daily average fecal coliform concentration was calculated for each
            of the two marinas monitored during the sampling study using a methodology
            based on the State of Maryland Marina Assessment Model (Milliken, 1990).
            The calculations were based on the following:

                 0    the number of slips in each marina;
                 0    an average surface area per boat slip of 900 square feet/slip;
                 0    the average depth in each marina;
                 0    the average number of boats at each marina;
                 0    the average number of occupants per boat (3.2 from boaters
                      survey);
                 0    the average amount of time the boats were occupied each day when
                      in use;
                 0    a sanitary device failure rate of approximately 50 percent;
                 0    a 38 percent occupancy rate; and
                 0    the number of fecal coliforms generated per person per day.

                 The  average surface area per boat slip corresponds to the amount of
            dilution  water available in the boat slip and the marina channels.       Using
            this model, fecal coliform concentration estimates would generally be
            greatest in small, shallow marinas.     Because the channels at Presque Isle
            State Park Marina are wider than at Bay Harbor Marina, it is likely that
            more dilution water is available on a per boat slip basis. Therefore, the
            actual fecal coliform concentration at Presque Isle State Park Marina is
            probably lower than estimated.


                 This is a conservative estimate because the total number of boats at
            the marinas was included in the computations.     However, the boater survey
            results indicated that only 40 percent of the boats at Presque Isle Bay are
            equipped with marine sanitation devices.      Therefore, the assumption that
            all boats discharge to the water is a worst-case scenario.

                 The estimated   average daily fecal coliform concentrations at Bay
            Harbor and Presque    Isle State Park marinas were estimated to be 260
            (MPN)/100 ml and 135  MPN/100 ml, respectively.

                 The Bay Harbor   estimate exceeds the PADER limit of 200 MPN/100 ml.
            The results suggest  that sanitary waste discharges from recreational boats
            may have an impact on water quality conditions within the Bay Harbor
            Marina.   However, fecal coliform concentrations outside the marinas are
            probably  significantly less.     The impact of fecal coliform loads from
            recreational boats inside a marina rapidly decreases as the distance from
            the marina increases (Milliken, 1990).       In addition, because there is
            combined sever outfall at Bay Harbor Marina, CSO discharges probably have a
            more significant impact on water quality conditions in the Bay Harbor
            Marina than sanitary waste discharges from recreational boats.








                                                 3-14








            3.5 Summary of Water Quality Impacts Related to Recreational Boating in
                 Presque Isle Bay

                 The results of the sampling study and the estimates of annual loads
            (and concentrations    due to recreational boating suggest that recreational
            boating may impact water quality conditions in Presque Isle Bay.             This
            water quality study is based on available information and cursory water
            quality sampling.     Further investigations should be conducted prior to
            making planning level decisions.         Specifically, the potential impacts
            include:


                 ï¿½     Total petroleum hydrocarbon and PAH loads from engine releases.
                       The annual load estimates suggest that recreational boating may
                       be a significant source of PAHs to Presque Isle Bay.         Based on
                       the sampling results, however, gasoline and diesel were not
                       detected in the marinas.      The total petroleum hydrocarbon and
                       PAHs load may be settling to the. bottom of the Bay or
                       evaporating.

                 0     Fecal coliform from the discharge of sanitary wastes.              The
                       sampling results and the concentration estimates indicated that
                       sanitary discharges from recreational boats may impact fecal
                       coliform concentrations within Bay Harbor Marina.       However, CSO
                       discharges probably have a more significant impact at Bay Harbor
                       marina than recreational boats.       Fecal coliform levels in the
                       Presque Isle State Park Marina were generally lower than at the
                       Bay Harbor Marina which could be due to the fact that the Presque
                       Isle State Park Marina is larger and deeper and is not adjacent
                       to any CSOs.

                 ï¿½     Copper from anti-fouling boat paints. During the sampling study,
                       copper was detected at levels which are harmful to some aquatic
                       organisms.   Because of the limited amount of water quality data
                       available, recreational boats cannot be identified as the sole
                       source of the observed copper. However, the copper load estimate
                       suggested that recreational boating, specifically releases from
                       anti-fouling paints, may be the second-most significant source of
                       copper   to   Presque   Isle   Bay   (after   the   nonpoint    source
                       contribution).


            3.6 Boat   Vake Impact Study

                 A limited investigation of the effects of boat wakes on the Presque
            Isle Bay shoreline was performed.         This investigation focused on the
            shoreline in narrow channels and along speed restricted areas.             Narrow
            channels are characterized by high boat frequency and dense boat traffic.
            Erosion due to boat wakes is common in such areas.        In addition, in areas
            where speed transitions occur due to posted speed limit changes, boats may
            often operate near their maximum wake energy.         This, in turn, may cause
            shoreline erosion. Shoreline erosion is also impacted by natural wind and
            wave actions, especially during storm events.





                                                  3-15








                 The investigation was conducted by Greenhorne & O'Mara on May 18 and
            19, 1993.   The investigation included interviews with select individuals
            familiar with Presque Isle Bay and visual inspection of the Bay shoreline.
            The persons interviewed included:

                 0    John    Mon g, Assistant  Director,   Erie   County   Department    of
                      Planning; and

                 0    Harry Leslie,  Park Superintendent, Presque Isle State Park.

                Shore erosion due   to boat wakes did not appear to be a significant
            problem in the Bay.     This may be attributed to the extensive structural
            armoring which has been placed along the Bay shoreline including:

                 0    Most of the city-side shoreline (metal bulkhead);

                 0    Shorelines near designated launch facilities in Presque Isle
                      State Park (riprap and metal bulkhead);

                 0    The East and West Piers at the entrance to Marina Lake (metal
                      bulkhead);


                 0    Crystal Point in Misery Bay near Perry's Monument (concrete
                      bulkhead);

                 0    The North and South Pier at the entrance to the Bay (metal
                      bulkhead); and

                 0    The channel wall along the Port of Erie terminal (metal
                      bulkhead);

                 In addition, "Minimum Wake Within 500 Feet of Shore" signs are posted
            at most launch sites and at ihe entrance to Marina Lake. This minimum wake
            requirement (as opposed to a speed restriction) significantly reduces the
            potential for shore erosion due to boat wakes,

                 Only a limited amount of erosion was observed along the Presque Isle
            Bay shoreline, primarily near the boat dock near Waterworks Park and at
            Fry's Landing in Misery Bay.     These areas are not armored and appeared to
            have been denuded of protective vegetated cover and may be more susceptible
            to boat wake erosion.    In general, however, areas where heavy or frequent
            boat traffic occur are protected by a combination of structural and
            regulatory controls.
















                                                 3-16










           4,0 FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL IKPACTS


                An assessment of the potential for adverse environmental impacts
           related to future recreational boating activities on Presque Isle Bay is a
           complex task.    A set of criteria was used to develop a reasonable build-
           out scenario for proposed and potential marinas         in the Study Area.
           Numerous assumptions were necessary to estimate a future, high-peak
           recreational boating day. The anticipated increase in recreational boating
           needs to be weighed against a historical decline in Erie's industrial base
           and commerce moving through the Port of Erie.        The recommendations for
           point and nonpoint source pollutant load reductions contained in the RAP,
           if implemented incrementally over time, would reduce the total loading to
           the Bay from the Presque Isle Bay watershed and increase the relative
           impact of pollutant loading associated with recreational boating.

                A good understanding of the expected pace of new waterfront
           development would be useful in evaluating projected recreational boating
           impacts against the other factors that play an important role in the
           overall future water quality of Presque Isle Bay. Unfortunately, there is
           no certain way to predict how long it will take to reach the marina build-
           out scenario proposed for Presque Isle Bay.

           4.1 Assumptions for Projecting Future Impacts

                Despite the risks in developing projections for marina build-out and
           an estimation of future high-peak day usage, it is essential to evaluating
           carrying capacity issues for Presque Isle Bay.      The assessment of future
           water quality conditions and the evaluation of future boating congestion is
           based upon these projections.        Consideration was given to the boat
           registration information available from the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
           Commission.   However, since the data represents registered boats and not
           the available capacity of facilities on the Bay, and because it doesn't
           consider the potential for latent demand (people who would boat if more
           facilities were readily available), a different approach to project future
           usage was selected.    The projections of marina build-out and future high-
           peak day usage is based on the existing facilities inventory and boater
           survey information. The inventory shows 2,278 boat slips available for use
           during the 1993 boating season.      Aerial photo inte rpretat ion was used to
           accurately count boats on the Bay during the 1993 boating season, including
           the 4th of July weekend which represented the high-peak usage day.          The
           aerial boat count identified 668 boats, including 54 special category
           boats, on Presque Isle Bay during the peak day of this holiday weekend.
           The weekend was a "special event" weekend during which       the Port of Erie
           hosted a flotilla of "tall ships."

                Sections 2.2 and    2.3 describe the methodology and results of the
           inventory of proposed and potential marinas.      The estimate of the future
           build-out scenario for  the Study Area is an additional 2,703 slips of which
           574 new slips could be  constructed outside of the Presque Isle Bay.

                The estimate of     the future high-peak usage day was prepared by
           considering the following sources of additional boats (above the current
           high peak day):    additional trailered boats; proposed marinas in the Bay;


                                                 4-1








            potential marinas in the Bay; potential marinas outside of the Bay
            (expansion of Lampe Marina); and additional transient boats.

                  Exhibit 4-1 illustrates how the future high peak usage day was
            calculated.    The calculation assumed a high marina usage rate of 30
            percent, which is generous.     Marinas during high usage periods generally
            have usage rates of between 20 and 30 percent. The number of future slips
            was multiplied by 0.3 to estimate the number of boats that would be on the
            water.    The number of boats was further reduced by a factor of 0.7 to
            reflect the boats which only transit the Bay to Lake Erie. This factor was
           -determined by results obtained from the boater survey.         The anticipated
            increase in trailered boats was relatively small (55 boats) and reflected
            minor improvements to the boat ramps around Presque Isle Bay.         There did
            not appear to be a strong likelihood of additional boat ramps with large
            parking capacity being constructed within the planning period.         Increased
            availability of slips for transient boats was incorporated into the build-
            out scenario, leading to an additional 50 boats visiting Presque Isle Bay
            during a future high peak event.      Boats leaving Lampe Marina either enter
            Presque Isle Bay or head directly out to the Lake. The assumption that 50
            percent spent a portion of their time in Presque Isle Bay was supported by
            the boater survey data,

                  The future high peak day usage calculation shows an additional 622
            boats using Presque Isle Bay following completion of the build-out
            scenario.   This addition represents about a doubling of the recreational
            boating density from the current high peak usage day (Exhibit 4-1).          Low
            usage days would also most likely show about a doubling of the boats using
            Presque Isle Bay for recreational activities.

            4.2 Future Water Quality Conditions

                  The potential impacts on water quality due to           future predicted
            increases in boating activity were evaluated.          Based  on the analysis
            outlined in the previous Section, it is estimated that on peak usage days,
            the number of boats using Presque Isle Bay for recreation will double. The
            number of slips in the Study Area could increase by 2,700 or an increase of
            133 percent over existing conditions.            Future pollutant loads (or
            concentrations) were estimated for copper, hydrocarbons, and fecal
            coliforms.     A summary of existing versus future conditions loads is
            included in Exhibit 4-2.


                  Copper

                  By doubling the amount of recreational boats, the estimated annual
            load for copper will also double.            As discussed in Section 3.4,
            recreational boats are predicted to be the second most significant source
            of copper in the bay for existing conditions due to the leaching of
            anti-fouling paints into the water. If the number of recreational boaters
            doubles, over 50 percent of the total predicted copper load to the bay
            would be generated by recreational boats.      This amount of copper may have
            an impact on the water quality of the bay.





                                                   4-2







                                           Exhibit 4-1


                            Future High Peak Day Usage Calculation



                                                                                Boats
                                                               High Marina Remaining
                                       Number of Number of      Usage Rate      in Bay
                                         Slips       Boats         (30%)        (70%)

          Current Slips

          Presque Isle Bay                2026
                                                               ...... ............
                                                                                 NO
          Adjacent Lake Erie Waters       252

          Subtotal                        2278


          Future Slips

          Presque Isle Bay

                                                                    238           166
            Proposed                       792

            Potential                     1337                        01          281
                                                                    4

          Subtotal                        2129                      639          4472

          Adjacent Lake Erie Waters

            Potential                      574                      172          861,2

          Total Future Slips              2703

          Boat Ramps
          (Trailered Boats)

            Existing                                   350                        245
                                                Ex
            Future Addition                            55                         392

          Transient Boats                                                         502

          Future High Peak Usage       iii

            Current High Peak
            (July 4, 1993)                             614
                                                                ..............
                                                                 M
            Future Contribution                        622


          Total High Peak Usage Day                   1236

           lAssume 50 percent of boats from South     Shore expansion visit Bay.
           2Future contribution is sum of numbers     shown  with Footnote.



                                              4-3



                                                   as so Im -go 0-0 aw,





                                                       Exhibit 4-2


                                        Estimated Annual Loads and Concentrations
                                           for Existing and Future Conditions




                                          Parameter           Existing        Future
                                                             Conditions     Conditions
                                                               (lbs/yr)      (lbs/yr)
                                    copper                      761           1540
                                    Total petroleum            65,100       133,129
                                    hydrocarbon
                                    PAHs                        325           666


         A.
          I
          Ph
                            Parameter        Existing             Future           Location
                                           Concentration      Concentration

                              fecal       260 MPN/100 ml      293 MPN/100 ml Bay Harbor Marina
                            coliform
                                          135 MPN/100 ml      175 MPN/100 ml     Presque Isle
                                                                              State Park Marina









                 However, the sampling results indicate that copper levels in the water
            column are very low.     This observation may be partly attributed to the
            settlement of copper to the Bay sediments.        In addition, the sampling
            results also indicate that the contribution of copper from recreational
            boats may not be as significant as the literature suggests.       Furthermore,
            because new anti-fouling paints which do not contain copper are being
            developed, the estimated annual load for copper from recreational boats
            will probably be less than indicated by the load computations. Use of new
            paints which do not contain copper is likely to become more common in the
            future.


                 Hydrocarbons


                 The annual loading estimates for existing conditions indicate that
            recreational boating is a significant source of PAHs to Presque Isle Bay.
            Based on future conditions, the predicted contribution of PAHs to the Bay
            will double.   It is likely that these loads will impact aquatic organisms
            in the Bay. However, a more detailed study of the impacts of hydrocarbons
            due to recreational boating should be performed to quantify the impacts of
            hydrocarbons, specifically PAHs which are very toxic, on organisms and on
            human health.


                 The majority of the PAH load from recreational boating will probably
            settle to the bottom of the Bay.    As discussed in Section 3.1.1, previous
            water quality studies conducted in the Bay indicate that PAHs in the water
            column are not a problem. Instead, it is the PAHs in the bottom sediments
            which are of concern.       When the sediments are disturbed, PAHs are
            re-introduced into the water column and becomes available for ingestion by
            aquatic organisms.


                 Fecal Coliforms


                 The fecal coliform concentration estimates for existing conditions
            were computed based on the actual number of boat slips being utilized at
            Bay Harbor and Presque Isle State Marina.     Because there are no expansion
            plans for these marinas, the estimates for proposed conditions are based on
            the total number of existing slips at the marinas.       The predicted fecal
            coliform values are 293 MPN/100 ml and 175 MPN/100 ml at Bay Harbor Marina
            and the Presque Isle State Park Marina, respectively.          The value for
            Presque Isle State Marina is still under the state standards of 200 MPN/100
            ml.

                 However, based on the sampling results, the fecal concentrations were
            higher than the predicted values. The higher values are due in part to the
            CSOs, particularly in Bay Harbor.    Based on the limited study data, it is
            not certain whether there will be a large increase in fecal coliform
            concentrations with an increase in boating activity.

            4.3 Projected Shoreline Impacts Associated Vith Future Boating Activities

                 The projected    shoreline   impacts associated with future boating
            activities will depend, to a great extent, on where the proposed "landside"
            improvements are located.     The shoreline improvements include marinas,

                                                 4-5








             yacht clubs, gas docks, dry-storage, parking facilities, and other
             recreational   boating   support   services.      If   the   future    shoreline
             improvements follow the build-out     scenario developed in this study, the
             potential   adverse   environmental    impacts    associated   with    shoreline
             development will be-minimized.

                  There are several reasons for this statement.        Many of the criteria
             utilized in determining potential locations for new recreational boating
             facilities reflected a sensitivity to the potential adverse environmental
             impacts associated with constructing and operating marinas.        Although not
             intentional, the analysis lead to a "redevelopment" thrust to future marina
             siting.   The demise of Erie's industrial and commerce based waterfront
             provides great opportunities for redevelopment which includes increased
             recreational boating facilities.

                  Locating future recreational boating facilities elsewhere in the Study
             Area would have the potential for significant adverse environmental
             impacts. Much of the undeveloped shoreline west of the Erie waterfront and
             along the bay shore of Presque Isle is constrained by environmentally
             sensitive areas.   Along much of the shoreline, particularly in areas with
             steep bluff slopes, new facilities would not be practical.               In the
             easternmost portion of the Bay, new recreational boating facilities would
             conflict with on-going port-related commerce and industry.



































                                                   4-6










            5.0 CARRYING CAPACITY CONCEPTS


                This study is one of many that have been concerned with the general
            issue of maintaining a quality recreation experience in the face of
            increasing numbers of visitors.  Much of this research has focused on the
            notion of recreational carrying capacity. In 1964, Wagar defined carrying
            capacity as "the level of recreational use an area can withstand while
            providing a sustained quality of recreation." Since that time, the concept
            has evolved considerably and the term carrying capacity has different
            connotations today than it did 10 or 20 years ago.

            5.1 Review of Carrying Capacity Concepts

                The evolution of carrying capacity research came about during a period
            of burgeoning recreational use of natural areas.    Literally hundreds of
            studies have addressed various aspects of carrying capacity in a wide
            variety of outdoor recreation environments.         A number of recent
            publications provide synopses of this literature (Graefe et al. 1984;
            Manning 1985; Stankey and Schreyer 1987).        The following discussion
            summarizes the major principles derived from previous research, with
            particular emphasis on the findings that were instrumental in the design of
            the current study.

                5.1.1 Resource Carrying Capacity

                Resource carrying capacity as it relates to the recreation experience
            has been defined as "The capability of natural resources to withstand use
            for a desired quality of recreation experience" (Gold 1980). In a broader
            definition, resource carrying capacity is the level of use a resource can
            sustain without irreversible degradation.   Recreational resource managers
            are tasked with two goals; 1) to provide a recreational experience that
            meets the needs of the user, and 2) to protect the resources in a manner
            that does not allow degradation.    Some of the natural resources in the
            Presque Isle Bay area, particularly in the State Park, are sensitive to the
            potential impact of the user. Therefore, even though the resource manager
            must consider both goals, it is expected that the resource capacity will be
            the most constraining to use.

                Resource capacity is a function of the ecological character of the
            resource, whether a site or a larger system like the Bay.   When trying to
            determine resource capacity, the interrelations among systems which make up
            the natural environment must be reflected (Exhibit 5-1).         Given the
            complexity of environmental systems, environmental effects (which determine
            capacity) tend to occur in complex webs.     Sometimes several effects can
            result from a single disturbance; in other instances, a number of separate
            activities may result in a single effect.    The complexity of this web is
            the greatest limitation to determining a resource capacity (Rogers & Golden
            1977).


                While this study has considered the potential impacts of recreational
            boating on Presque Isle Bay, there are numerous other contributors that
            were not studied. What is known is that the recreational (social) carrying
            capacity of the Bay has not been reached. For some pollutants it appears


                                                5-1








                                                  Exhibit 5-1

                                     Ecological Impacts of Recreation



                                              Intrusion into Habitat
                                             by Recreational Activity


                   Disturbance             F   Alteration of Habitat               Mortality
                   F  Adaptation         I Migration or Displacement      FR6production Levels I
                                Adapted From                FP-O-P:: tion Change
                         WaU and Wright (1977.42)                     . I
                                                             Species Composit7ion


                              Social Impacts of Increasing Recreational Use



                                                Recreational Use


                      Con=ts Between U7sers                             Resource Imp
                                                                  7
           Perceived Crowding        Dissatisfaction      Perceived Resource        Conflicts Between
                                                              Impacts                    Users




             F
                 %tor Displacement]      FExpcriential Change
                L




                                                     5-2








            that boating is a notable contributor to the Bay, however, overall the
            relative impact of recreational boating on the Bay is minor.         There are
            also numerous other activities which have an impact on the resource
            capacity,  such as land development, port operations (eg. maintenance
            dredging), road construction,     sever outfalls, and industrial operations.
            These activities, and there relative impact to the resources of the Presque
            Isle Bay area are unknown, and would require extensive testing to be
            determined.


                 Given the complexity of the resource carrying capacity issue, carrying
            capacity is most appropriately viewed as a management concept or tool, a
            means toward the end of providing a certain type or quality of experience.
            The concern with "finding the carrying capacity" is being replaced with an
            emphasis on identifying and maintaining the conditions that will produce
            the desired outcome (see Section 5.2).

                 5.1.2 Impacts to the Recreation Experience

                 Evaluating the capacity of a given area for recreation involves a wide
            range of variables that may influence the quality of the outdoor recreation
            experience. One of the major conclusions that can be derived from previous
            relevant research is that there is no single predictable response of
            visitors to varying use levels. Rather, visitors are affected by a series
            of interrelated impacts which result from recreational use of a given area
            (Exhibit 5-1).   Recreational use leads most directly to tangible outcomes
            like contacts between visitors and impacts on the natural environment.
            These social and environmental impacts in turn can lead to a variety of
            perceptual and behavioral responses by visitors.

                 It is helpful to view the various items shown in Exhibit 5-1 as
            potential impacts to the recreation experience, and to recognize that
            several sequential levels of impacts may occur.          First order impacts
            (contacts between users and resource impacts) may contribute to any
            combination of impacts within the next level (i.e., perceived crowding,
            dissatisfaction, perceived resource impacts, and conflicts between users).
            But not all of these impacts will necessarily occur in all situations.
            When they do occur, the various impacts may tend to reinforce each other.
            For example, a person may feel more crowded if he/she perceives the
            environment to be degraded or experiences conflicts with other visitors
            (Stankey and Schreyer 1987).    On the other hand, some forms of impact may
            act to offset or cancel out other impacts. The perception of crowding may
            be reduced, for example, if a person responds by moving to a different
            environment (displacement) or by changing his or her perceptions of the
            experience (experiential change).

                 Capac ity- related studies like this investigation of Presque Isle Bay
            need to consider all of these potential impacts to the recreation
            experience. Accordingly, indicators were developed to measure each type of
            impact.  The indicators used represent state-of-the-art measures developed
            from previous studies.






                                                  5-3










                   Satisfaction

                   Researchers and managers alike have often maintained that the goal of
             recreation management is to maximize user satisfaction (Lucas and Stankey
             1974).    Studies af visitor satisfaction have consistently reaffirmed
             several major conclusions: (1) Most visitors to outdoor recreation areas
             report relatively high satisfaction levels (Heberlein and Shelby 1977).
             Schreyer (1979) suggests that recreationists are basically out to have a
             good time and are often able to achieve a satisfying experience by shifting
             their perceptions, priorities or behaviors. (2) Satisfaction is influenced
             by a variety of situational and subjective factors (Hendee 1974; Graefe and
             Fedler 1986).     It typically is not strongly related to visitor density
             levels (Graefe et al. 1984).      (3) Overall satisfaction can be measured in
             various ways,    Recent studies suggest that multiple-item indices provide
             more sensitive and reliable measures than single item indicators (Vaske et
             al., 1986; Graefe and Fedler, 1986).


                   Crowding


                   It is widely recognized that there is a distinct difference between
             density and crowding (Stokols, 1972).        Density refers to the number or
             concentration of people in a given area, while crowding is the negative
             evaluation of a certain density, a value judgment that there are too many
             people.   Thus, whether or not an area is crowded is a subjective judgment
             of an individual, not an objective fact.      Numerous studies lend support to
             a traditional crowding model in which use levels influence the numbers of
             contacts between individuals, which in turn lead to perceptions of crowding
             (Graefe et al. 1984).          These same investigations found that the
             relationship between density and crowding is mediated by a variety of
             variables,    such   as   visitors'   expectations,    preferences    and    prior
             experience.    Most importantly, crowding perceptions vary depending       on the
             types of behaviors encountered and the location of encounters with other
             visitors. Thus, questions about crowding need to be phrased with reference
             to particular points during the overall experience.

                   Conflict


                   Recreational conflict has been defined as a special case of user
             dissatisfaction in which visitors attribute the cause of goal interference
             to the behavior of other individuals (Jacob and Schreyer 1980).               Most
             previous studies of conflict have focused on asymmetrical relationships
             between different activity groups, especially between participants using
             motorized and non-motorized means of transportation (Adelman et al., 1982).
             Conflicts within a given activity like boating can also arise when visitors
             with different expectations and norms interact with each other.           Conflict
             was represented in this study with several questions probing boaters'
             reactions to certain behaviors practiced by other boaters.

                   Displacement


                   A shift in behavior patterns in response to changes occurring in the
             environment has been called recreational displacement (Becker, 1981;
             Schreyer 1979). Behavioral changes may involve simply revising the pattern
             of participation within a given area.           In the most extreme form of

                                                    5-4








             displacement, people who are most sensitive to user density may stop
             visiting an area entirely as a result of conditions they have encountered
             there.  These displaced visitors presumably seek out an alternate setting
             with lower use levels.     It is difficult to document this latter type of
             displacement because most studies take place in the field and include only
             the current users of a given area.         This study was no exception, but
             several indicators of various types of displacement were incorporated into
             the study questionnaire.    These included modifications in the time, place
             and activity participation of Presque Isle Bay boaters.         In addition, a
             hypothetical question asked boaters if they would have come to the lake if
             they knew what the conditions would be like that day.

                  5.1.3 Use/Impact Relationships

                  Shelby and Heberlein (1987) stated that carrying capacities can be
             determined only when the relationships between use levels and relevant
             indicators of experiential quality are known. This principle is the major
             premise underlying the overall study design used in this investigation.
             Meeting this condition required a sampling design that would allow visitor
             perceptions to be examined in relation to boat use levels and patterns.
             Thus, the measurement of use levels and the visitor survey were both
             implemented on the same sampling schedule.

                  Previous studies demonstrate that the relationships between visitor
             use levels and impacts to     the experience are complex and mediated by a
             variety of background and situational factors.         Impacts to the outdoor
             recreation experience are,    by definition, a consequence of recreational
             use, but the strength and nature of the relationship vary widely for
             different types of impacts. For example, numerous studies have challenged
             the fundamental hypothesis    that increased density would reduce visitors'
             overall satisfaction (Graefe et al. 1984).        Instead, studies have shown
             that the amount of use affects the quality of the experience differently
             for different people.    In this particular study, satisfaction levels were
             highest on the highest use holiday weekend, suggesting that factors other
             than density levels are more important determinants of satisfaction at
             Presque Isle Bay.

                  One of the most important factors affecting use/impact relationships
             is the inherent variation in tolerance among individuals and user groups.
             Put simply, all people do not respond the same way to encounters with other
             visitors. How people respond to other visitors varies for participants in
             different   activities    and    depends   on    many   different     background
             characteristics, such as previous experience, motivations, and attitudes
             (Stankey and McCool, 1984; Wagar, 1964).        Manning (1985) suggests, for
             example, that experience affects crowding perceptions and norms either
             through refinement of tastes or by virtue       of exposure to lower density
             conditions during earlier participation.

                  In sum, the relationships between use      levels and various impacts to
             the experience are neither simple nor uniform.        Yet understanding these
             relationships is fundamental for managing the recreation experience. This
             study includes a full examination of such relationships at Presque Isle
             Bay.



                                                   5-5








            5.2 Evolving Frameworks for Management

                 There is generally consensus in the literature that carrying capacity
            is most appropriately viewed as a management concept or tool, a means
            toward the end of providing a certain type or quality of experience.       The
            initial concern with "finding the carrying capacity" is gradually being
            replaced with an emphasis on identifying and maintaining the conditions
            that will produce the desired quality experiences. Current management
            frameworks like the Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey et al. 1985) and
            Visitor Impact Management (Graefe et al. 1990) address the concerns that
            originated in the carrying capacity concept, yet barely mention the term,
            carrying capacity.

                 Current management models are built on the recognition that any
            effective management strategy involves both scientific and evaluative
            (judgmental) components (Shelby and Heberlein 1987).          The scientific
            component focuses on documenting the relationships within     the system and
            thereby provides the data needed to predict 'the impacts of different
            planning/development alternatives.    The evaluative component is concerned
            with the desirability or acceptability of the impacts associated with
            various alternatives.


                 Exhibit 5-2 presents one framework that has been developed for
            managing the impacts associated with increasing recreational use (Visitor
            Impact Management). This framework was derived from an extensive review of
            the literature and is conceptually similar to the Limits of Acceptable
            Change process that was developed for the U.S. Forest Service.        The VIM
            process  includes   an eight-step    sequence  for assessing    and managing
            recreation impacts.   The steps in this process are designed to facilitate
            dealing with three basic issues inherent to impact management: (1) the
            identification of problem conditions or unacceptable impacts (steps I
            through 5); (2) the determination of potential causal factors influencing
            the occurrence and severity of the current impacts; and (3) the selection
            of potential management strategies for ameliorating unacceptable impact
            conditions.   The data collected in this study were designed to provide
            inputs at various decision points in this type of management framework.

                 An important outcome of this study, then, is the documentation of
            existing conditions at Presque Isle Bay and the relationships between these
            conditions and peak use boat densities. This information provides a basis
            for: (1) evaluation of the acceptability of current conditions, (2) identi-
            fication of management actions designed to improve current conditions, (3)
            evaluation of the probable impacts of various potential options for further
            facility development and expansion, and (4) development of procedures for
            monitoring the quality of boating at Presque Isle Bay in the future.











                                                 5-6







                                                                        Exhibit 5-2


                                                                      VISITOR IMPACT
                                                      MANAGEMENT/PLANNING PROCESS


                  BASIC APPROACH-Systematic process for identification of impact problems. dicir causes. and effective management strategies for
                                                                      reduction of visitor impacts
                      CONDITIONS FOR USE-Integrated with other plannin hameworks or as mans cment tool for localized impact, problems.


                                                                 STEPS IN PROCESS


                               Preassessment Data Base Review                                 Comparison of Standards and Existing
                                                                                                              Conditions
                         Review of legislative and policy direction,
                         previous research and area dam base.                               Field assessment of social and ecological
                                                                                            impact indicators.
                         Product. Summary of existing situation
                                                                                            Product: Determination of consistency or
                                                                                            discrepancy with selected standards                 C
                                                                                                                                                0
                             Review of Management Objectives
                                                                                                                                                C
                                                                                                                                                0
                         Review existing objectives for consistency
                         with legislative mandate and policy direc-                      Discrepancy              NoDiscrWancy
                         tion. Specify visitor experience and
                         resource management objectiveL

                         Product. Clear statement of specific area
                         objectives                                                            Identify Probable Causes of Impacts
                                 e.g- maintain natural vegetation in
                                          riparian zones.
                                                                              C             Examine use patterns and other potential
                                                                                            factors affecting occurrence and severity of
                                                                              C             unacceptable unpacts.
                                                                              0
                             Selection of Key Impact Indicators               2
                                                                               I            Product: Description of causal factors for
                         Identify measurable social and ecological                          management attention.
                         variable& Select for examination those most
                         Md=t to am management objectives.                                                    I
                         Product. List of indicators and units of                                 Identify Management Strategies
                         measurement.
                             eg, loss of vegatation/% of ground cover                       Examine full range of direct and indirect
                                                                                            management strategies dealing with prob-
                                                                                            able causes of visitor impacts.
                           Selection of Standards for Key Impact
                                           Indicators                                       Product. Matrix of alternative management
                                                                                            strategies
                         Restatement of management objectives in
                         terms of desired conditions for selected
                         impact indicatom

                         Product.   Quantitative statements of desm-ed
                         conditions                                                 8                       Implementation
                             e.g, no more than 30% vegetation loss at
                                           specified site


                                                                            5-7










           6.0 BOATER SURVEY RESULTS


                This component of the study focused on documenting peak boating use
           patterns and their effects on boating quality at Presque Isle Bay during
           the summer 1993 boating season.        Emphasis was placed on developing
           indicators of boating use levels and boaters' perceptions of and reactions
           to the boat densities they encountered.

                The boater survey was designed to examine the relationships between
           boating densities during peak use periods and boaters, evaluations of the
           conditions resulting from these density levels.         User surveys were
           conducted to obtain     a description of bay users, including their
           characteristics, activities, and perceptions of the boating experience.
           The boater survey also obtained mea'sures of boating use levels and patterns
           which were needed for the examination of the relationships described above.

           6.1 Methodology

                Several types of data were collected to meet the objectives of this
           study. Boat use levels were measured through aerial photography, counts of
           boating traffic at two locations (the channel to Lake Erie and the channel
           to Marina Lake), and counts of the numbers of vehicles and boat trailers
           parked at selected access points on the bay.     User perceptions of their
           experiences were obtained through exit interviews with 479 boaters sampled
           at major boat ramps and marinas on the bay.    Both the measurement of boat
           density and the visitor surveys were implemented on ten sampling days
           during the summer of 1993 (aerial photography was conducted on only four of
           these sampling days).

                6.1.1 Sampling Design

                The overall goal of the sampling design was to represent the varying
           levels of peak use and patt@rns of activity that occur on Presque Isle Bay
           throughout the summer.   Four weekends were selected as sampling periods,
           including two holiday weekends (June 12 & 13, July 3 & 4, July 31 & August
           1, and September 5 & 6). Boater surveys were implemented on both Saturday
           and Sunday during each of these sampled weekends (Sunday and Monday for the
           Labor Day holiday weekend).     In addition, two weekdays were sampled to
           provide a base of comparison to weekend peak use levels.        One of the
           sampled weekdays resulted in   zero interviews completed due to inclement
           weather. Exhibit 6-1 shows the locations for the Boater Survey Sample.

                6.1.2 Parking Lot Counts

                On each  sampling day, personnel stationed at selected access points
           made periodic counts of the numbers of vehicles, boat trailers, and
           vehicle/trailer combinations parked at the site (Exhibit 6-1). Counts were
           made at approximate two-hour intervals throughout each sampling day  *    The
           counts were made at eight specified locations surrounding the bay (four
           along the Erie Bayfront and four within the State Park). Thus, they do not
           represent measures of total boat use, but rather should be viewed as
           indicators of boating density levels.    Boaters gaining access to the lake
           at other private marinas and other smaller boat ramps and those entering
           the Bay from Lake Erie are not represented in these counts.

                                               6-1















             Exhibit 6-1 SUMMARY OF BOATER SURVEY SAMPLE


                                                     PERCENT OF           PERCENT OF
             STUDY LOCATION                          INTERVIEWS PEAK USE COUNTS


             Erie Bayfront Sites

               Lampe Ramp/Marina                           16%                  28%

               East Avenue Ramp                            12%                   9%

               Perry's Landing                             16%                   0%

               Erie Yacht Club                              3%                   0%

               Dobbin's Landing                             3%                   0%
               Chestnut Street Ramp                         0%                   5%

               Bay Harbor Ramp                              0%                   3%

                  Erie Bayfront Subtotal                   50%                  45%



             State Park Sites

               West Pier (Marina) Ramp                     17%                  16%

               Marina                                      14%                  28%

               Niagara Ramp                                15%                   8%

               Lagoon Ramp                                  3%                   0%

               Beach 9                                      1%                   0%

               Vista Ramp                                   0%                   3%

                  State Park Subtotal                      50%                  .55%








                                                     6-2









                   6.1.3 Boat Channel Counts

                   On these same sampling days, field personnel counted the number of
             boats passing through the main channel between Presque Isle Bay and Lake
             Erie as well as the channel from Presque Isle Bay to Marina Lake within
             Presque Isle State Park. The number of boats passing in each direction was
             tabulated in fifteen-minute intervals.     At the main channel to Lake Erie,
             these counts were made continuously throughout the day for eight to ten
             hours with varying starting and stopping times.           At the Marina Lake
             channel, selected fifteen-minute intervals      were sampled throughout each
             day. Beginning with the July 4th sampling, separate counts were made for
             the following categories of boats passing in   either direction: power boats,
             sail boats, personal watercraft, and "other"   boats.

                   6.1.4 Aerial Photography

                   Aerial photographs were an integral component of the visitor survey
             and provided a measure of the actual numbers of boats on the bay and at
             selected locations at certain points in time.       Aerial photographs of the
             bay surface were taken on one day within each of the four sampling
             weekends. The day selected was intended to represent the peak day of that
             weekend based on weather forecasts.       The overflights were flown between
             1:00 to 2:00 P.M.


                   Photo missions were flown on June 12, July 4, July 31, and September
             5.    The photography was taken at a flying height of approximately 6000
             feet, which yielded a photo scale of one inch to one thousand feet.         This
             scale of photography is appropriate for identifying different types of
             boats.   Bausch and Lomb Stereo Zoom Transfer Scopes (ZTS) were used to
             complete the transfer of interpreted data, a process which results in a
             highly accurate cartographic product.       The ZTS facilitates the transfer
             process by superimposing the imagery onto the basemap optically, thus
             allowing for an accurate plot of the boats, position and type on to the
             200-scale and 400- scale orthophoto basemaps.

                   The boats were identified and counted into six different categories:
             (1) moving power boats, (2) stationary power boats, (3) sailboats, (4)
             boats moored along the shoreline, (5) waterskiers (identifying waterskiers
             by photointerpretation was not successful and this category was dropped to
             avoid any undercounting),     (6) special category boats (e.g., jet skis,
             canoes). The boat's position and direction of travel were plotted onto the
             working basemaps, with a different symbol representing each different
             category.

                   The number of boats and types of boats which were docked at all of the
             marinas and boat launch facilities in the Presque Isle Bay were also
             counted. Exhibit 6-2 presents the results of the photointerpretation boat
             counts for the four weekends sampled.      The table illustrates the seasonal
             progression very well: early in the season, the total number of boats is
             lowest and many boats are drydocked; and, as the season progresses the
             total number of boats identified increases steadily and then begins to
             taper off towards Labor Day.      The July 4th weekend was clearly the high
             peak usage day for the 1993 boating season.


                                                   6-3













             EXHIBIT 6-2 AERIAT PHOTOINTERPRETATION BOAT COUNTS IN PRESQUE ISLE BAY



             Boats in Presque Isle Bay             June 12     July 4    July 31    Sept 5

                 Moving Power Boats                   107        200        84        101

                 Stationary Power Boats               132        314       158        191


                 Sailboats                             43         68        51          67


                 Moored Boats                          42         32        15            3


                 Special Category Boats*                 9        54**      20          23

                 Total Boats in Presque Isle Bay      333        668        328       385



             Boats in Marina Slips or Docked (in    Water)


                 Power Boats                          1175       1237      1490       1451


                 Sail Boats                           301         298       344       350


                 Special Category Boats                16          24        12         10

                 Total Boats Docked                   1492       1559      1846       1811



             Dry Storage at Marina/Yacht Club/Boat Ramp

                 Power Boats                             88        52        46         17


                 Sailboats                               49        37        32         13


                 Total Boats in Dry Storage            137         89        78         30



             Grand Total of Boats Identified          1962       2316      2252       2226




                   includes canoes, jet skis, pontoon boats
                    does not include 6 Tall Ships








                                                  6-4









                 6.1.5 Personal Interviews

                 User characteristics, perceptions, and opinions were measured through
            on-site interviews conducted at major access points surrounding Presque
            Isle Bay. Interviews were conducted by a team of trained interviewers, all
            of whom were graduate students at Penn State University.      Interviews were
            completed on nine of the ten sampled days (no interviews were conducted on
            July 30 because no boaters were available due to very inclement weather).
            Sites sampled included twelve different locations surrounding the bay (see
            Exhibit 6-1).   Sampling at each of these sites was rotated throughout the
            survey season; not all sites were sampled each day.            The number of
            interviewers working each day ranged from five to seven.         Half of the
            interviews were completed at sites within Presque Isle State Park and the
            other half were conducted at sites along the Erie Bayfront.

                 The on-site survey questionnaire was patterned after similar previous
            studies and was designed to measure a complete set of potential impacts to
            the quality of the recreational boating experience, as well as boaters'
            general characteristics and activity patterns. Boaters were interviewed as
            they were exiting the bay or lake (in some cases boaters sampled at marinas
            may not have completed their boating for the day, but all had been out on
            the water prior to the interview).     One of the persons within the boating
            party was randomly selected (if willing) to answer the survey questions.
            People contacted later in the summer who had already completed the survey
            on a previous occasion were not asked to respond to the survey more than
            one time.


            6.2 Survey Results


                 6.2.1 Boat Use Patterns


                 Boat density levels followed a consistent pattern for the ten days
            they were observed (Exhibit 6-3).    The highest vehicle counts were made at
            the two large marinas included among the sampling sites (Lampe and Presque
            Isle State Park) and reflect the large vehicle parking lots available at
            these sites.   Each of these sites accounted for 28 percent of the total
            number of vehicles counted at all eight sites.

                 For each of the sampled weekends, Sunday peak use levels were higher
            than the numbers counted for the corresponding Saturday.             The boat
            densities observed on July 4th probably represent the peak use level
            occurring during 1993, since this day was the stereotypical holiday Sunday
            with ideal b oating weather conditions.    Likewise, the low counts recorded
            on July 30 probably represent the lowest boating density for the entire
            summer since this day was particularly cold, windy, and rainy.      The lower
            use levels recorded for the final sampling weekend probably reflect the
            beginning of a normal tailing off of boating activity toward the end of the
            boating season, coupled with less favorable weather conditions over the
            Labor Day weekend.

                 Peak use levels during the day were typically recorded between 2:00
            and 4:00 P.M., and then declined as the day went on (Exhibits 6-4 and 6-5).
            The 7:00 to 8:00 P.M counts were relatively similar to the counts made at
            noon on any given day. The pattern observed on July 4th showed more

                                                 6-5



     Mao MAN M W M ON                                                                                                         MM M M M M MW M



                                                                                                                              Exhibit 6-3
                                                                                                    Summary of Peak Parking Lot Counts- 2:OOPM



                               250    - - ------------------ ----------------------------------------- ............ ..... ... ........... ................. - -------- --- --------- . .......I..................... .-------- - -------- --------- - ------ .. ...... .----- - ------- ....... ------- - - - ----- - --------






                               200    - - ------------------- --- - ------ -- ----------------- - @e ................... .............. .................................................... ............. ---------- I---  ........I.............................. ....... ............... --------- -.......... ......  ---------------------





                               150            ............................. ...................................... ....... ... ..........W-------- -I...................... ........ ................... .................. ............... --- --- ............... ---- ------ ............ ----- --------- - - -------- - -__




                                                                                                                       X
                                                                                                                        I
                               100                                                     ......... .........  ............ .......... ......  .....  ...................................... ........... .............................. ..... .. -----------  ..........
                                                                                                                         ------- --------- .... . ...                                  - ----- -






                                                                                                          A


                                                                         ...................... . . ............................ .... .............. .............. ........... . .................. ............................ ......... .........
                                 50                                                                                                                                                                                         ................. .... .........
                                                                                                                                                          - - - - - -- - --  ML
                                                                                                                                                      A  - - - - - - -       A
                                                                    .....               ........ ...      L                                                         .......  A
                                         .............       A

                                   0

                                    12-Jun                13-Jun                  3-Jul                4-Jul                  30-Jul               31 -JW                  I-Aug               31-Aug                   5-Sep                6-Sep
                                                                                                                                  Survey Date

                                                               0       Larnpe                   0         East Ave.          ...-0    ...   S.P.Ramp                         S.P.Marina         ---* --- Niagara

                                                              * - - Chestnut St.                6         Bay Harbor        - - - -A  ...   Vista


                                                      *Note: Diamonds are high use areas, squares are medium use areas, and triangles are low use areas.








             consistency across all sampling sites        (see Exhibit 6-3), whereas the
             pattern on June 12th revealed a notable difference in boating activity at
             the East Avenue ramp (Exhibit 6-4). At the East Avenue ramp on June 12th,
             the peak number of vehicles counted was during the earliest count (9:30
             A.M.), which is probably a reflection of the popularity of this particular
             ramp among Lake Erie anglers who were more likely to be out on the water at
             this time of day.

                  Exhibits 6-6 and 6-7 demonstrate the daily pattern of boating activity
             across sampling days for two particular access areas, Lampe Ramp/Marina and
             the Presque Isle State Park Ramp.       These figures further illustrate the
             popularity of boating on Sundays as well as the wide range of boating
             densities found even within summer weekends.        The pattern throughout the
             day remained quite consistent with patterns at     other locations in that the
             density levels varied widely.        One notable   exception (the drop-off in
             numbers between 11:00 and 12:00 at both locations on September 6) was due
             to a change in weather conditions, which started partly cloudy and changed
             to rain around 11:00 which continued for the rest of the day and curtailed
             the expected boating activity on this Labor Day holiday this year.

                  Results of the counts of boat traffic through the main channel between
             Presque Isle Bay and Lake Erie show a similar pattern across sampling days
             (Exhibit 6-8).     Traffic on the 4th of July was noticeably higher than
             traffic on other weekend days.      Peak traffic levels are slightly earlier
             than they appear  because data shown in the figure are the average for each
             one-hour increment and are assigned to the endpoint of that sampling
             period.

                  Exhibits 6-9 and 6-10 depict the daily pattern of boat traffic in the
             main channel on two sampling days, July 3rd and 4th. As one would expect,
             traffic on July 3rd was light prior to 10:00 A.M., reached a peak level
             around noon, and remained at that level until late afternoon. Boat traffic
             earlier in the day was more likely to be going from the bay out to the
             lake, and in the evening this pattern shifted such that more boats were
             coming in of f the lake.    During the middle part of the day, the number of
             boats traveling in either direction was roughly equivalent.

                  Channel boat traffic patterns on July 4th showed a similar pattern
             (Exhibit 6-10), although the numbers of boats counted per fifteen-minute
             interval were much higher.       Exhibit 6-10 also graphically depicts the
             dominance of power boats versus sail boats, personal watercraft (jet skis),
             and other boat types within the channel.

                  Exhibit'6-11 presents a summary of the four methods used in this study
              or measuring boating use levels on Presque Isle Bay.          The four methods
             showed a high degree of consistency across the sampling        days.   The total
             f

             numbers of vehicles counted across all eight counting          locations in the
             middle of the afternoon ranged from a low of 56 on August      31 (a Tuesday) to
             863 on the 4th of July.      The number of vehicles counted on other weekend
             days was relatively consistent throughout the summer.          Likewise, aerial
             photography found a peak of 668 boats on the bay on July 4th versus between
             300 and 400 on each of the other sampled weekends. Similarly, boat counts
             in the main channel showed a peak of about 300 boats per hour (converted
             from fifteen-minute intervals in order to show up more clearly on the scale

                                                    6-7



 MMMM MM M MM M Mao" M MM M M No



                                      Exhibit 6-4
                             Daily Parking Lot Counts - June 12, 1993 (Sat)


         180



         160



         140



         120



       4. 100



   C,    80


         60



         40



                                                 - - - - - -Ar - - - -
         20

                                  ...................


           0

          8:00  9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00

                                        Time


                  6  Lampe  0  East Ave. --E--- S.P.Ramp S.P.Marina --- Niagara

                  * - - Chestnut St.6Bay Harbor ---- A - - Vista

                *Note: Diamonds are high use areas, squares are medium use areas and triangle are low use areas



   WMIM                                                                       M M



                                                                               Exhibit 6-5
                                                               Daily Parking Lot Counts - July 4, 1993 (Sun)


                   300






                   250
                                                                                                                  4.





                   200




                   150                           <1
       CF)

        '0



                   100






                     50



                                                                       -Ar-
                                                                                                                                A
                                               -Ar
                      0

                       9:00       10:00      11:00      12:00       13:00      14:00      15:00       16:00      17:00      18:00       19:00      20:00

                                                                                    Time
                                                                                                       -IF-


                                                                          -A


                                                                                            7 - - - - -








                                            Lampe                East Ave.   ---- N... S.P.Ramp       0-   S.P.Marina           Niagara

                                       A--- Chestnut St.         Bay Harbor - - * - - Vista

                                    *Note: Diamonds are high use areas, squares are medium use areas and triangles are low use areas



                                                              mmmm



                                                                                Exhibit 6-6
                                                                Parking Lot Counts - Lampe Ramp & Marina


                    250







                    200







                    150






         C)
                                                                                                                     _'O
                    100







                     50
                                *W@ather relat: d drop


                                                                                                                                       A


                      0

                       7:00      8:00      9:00     10:00     11:00     12:00     13:00     14:00     15:00     16:00     17:00    18:00     19:00     20:00

                                                                                      Time
                                                                                                  A- - @__




                                       12-Jun     0     13-Jun           3-Jul            4-Jul   ---- 0--- 31 -JuI ---- --- I-Aug   .... AL--- 31-Aug

                             ---0---- 5-Sep             6-Sep

                                   *Note:Squares are Saturdays, diamonds are Sundays, and triangles are weekdays.








                                                                                       Exhibit 6-7
                                                                   Parking Lot Counts - Presque Isle State Park Ramp


                     160




                     140




                     120



                 Z   100
                 >


                      80




                      OU

                                                                                                                                          0.


                      40


                                        Weatherr:elated dr
                                                          OP
                      20

                        0                                                                                                      .......      A
                                                                                        A.   .........     A..... --------- 1 - -



                         7:00       8:00       9:00      10:00      11:00      12:00     13:00       14:00     15:00      16:00      17:00      18:00      19:00     20:00

                                                                                               Time


                                          12-Jtm       0     13-Jun - -         34W      - - 0-    4-Jul    .... 0--- 31-JW    .... E1* - - I-Aug .... A--- 31-Aug

                                     ---- 5-Sep              6-Sep


                                                  *Note: Squares are Saturdays, diamonds are Sundays, and triangles are weekdays.



                                                                                   M M Ml



                                                                                       Exhibit 6-8
                                                                    Summary of Daily Boat Counts - Main Channel


                      90




                      80
                                                                                  /C@



                      70



                      60



                                                                                                                                 ----------

                      50



                      40
       N)
                                                                                              or

                      30                                                                                                                                         6



                      20                                    N



                      10


                                                                         ..........
                        0                                    .........                                          ..........       .........

                         8:00                  10:00                  12:00                 14:00                  16:00                 18:00                  20:00

                                                                                            Time


                                         12-Jun       0     13-Jun      0     3-Jul       0-    4-Jul   .... 0... 3 1 -Jul ---- --- I-Aug         --- 31 -Aug

                                      ... 5-Sep       A    6-Sep


                                             *Note: Squares are Saturdays, diamonds are Sundays and triangles are weekdays.



   Le MMM MM M MM M



                                                                     Exifibit 6-9
                                          Boat Counts at Presque Isle Bay Main Channel - July 3, 1993









                                                                     15:30











      0)                                                                                                                                     Number of Boats Out

      CA)
                                                                                                                                          M Number of Boats In


                                                                   =AFE @3F=Ip@



                                                                      10.




                                                                      9:


                                                                      8.

                                                                      9.00


                    -60               -40                -20                0                20                 40                60

                                              <--- Number of Boats Out    ------ Number of Boats In --- >
                                                                      9..


                                                                      8.



       lip mon M                                                                                              MM = =



                                                                                                                    Exhibit 6-10
                                                                               Boat Counts at Presque Isle Bay Main Channel - July 4, 1993




                                                                                                              I Q. 1 1)  0




                                                                                      1                       1 K'30
                                                                                                              X-00
                                                                                                                 '45
                                                                                                  0           17.30
                                                                                                  0           1 /: 1:) -
                                                                                                              ",W)
                                                                                                              10:4-')                                                                                                                                    Offier-Out
                                                                                                              16130
                                                                              0                                                                                                                                                                          Jetsid-Out
                                                                                                              -10700
                                                                                                              I                                                                                                                                          Sail-out
                           c!                                                                                 1 7 io
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   D Power-Out
             I            M                                                                                   1-5.00

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Other-In

                                                                                                              14' 1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Jetsid-in
                                                                                                              14'00

                                                                                                              1-.
                                                                                                              13:30                                                                                                                                      Sa-in

                                                                                                              I i'u()                                                                                                                                    Power-in







                                                                                                              I 1 .30


                                                                                                              I 1 .00





                                    -60                        -40                         -20                          0                          20                          40                          60                         80

                                                                         <--- Number of Boats Out                      ------  Number of Boats In --- >



                                                                                                                                                                                   M M M



                                                                                                                                                                                     Exhibit 6-11

                                                                                                                                                                 Summary of Use Level Indicators



                                            900        - - ----- -------------------- -- --------------------------------- ------------------------------ -- ----- - ------ --- ------ - ------- .... ...  -----  - ------ -   -----    ........ . . ..... .. ...... ..  ...... . .......     ----- -    -------   ----- - - -----  - ----- - - -----




                                            800        - - ------------------------------------- - ---------- ---------- ------------- ----- . .............        .........................................          .............. ............   .............. ..........       ....... ................................ ..........          --------




                                            700        - - -------------- ------------ ..........   ------ ............. .................. . .. ...................................... -...,.@ ............ .... ............. ................ .......                  ---------------- ..........  .....................  ............................



                                            600            ;7 ...... .... .... .........  ......... ------- ......... .- -----  ......... .. ... ... .. ....................         . .............. .... .....       -------- -......... ........ ...... .  ------- - -----     - -----    ------- - -------  - -----       -----            - -----



                                            500        - - ------------------------- ----------------------- ... ............... - ----------- -------- ---------- -- -------- ......... .......... . .   ----- ...................-......       .................... ...............................  -----------  ................     .......-




                                            400        - - ----- -- ----------- ----------------- ----------------------- ---------------------------- .. ................ ................ ..... ... .......  ......... ....................... ......... ............................       ..................     ......................... ...........




                                            300             ------------------------- --- --  .......................... ............. ............. ...................... .......... ...................................................... ..................... ................    ...... .......................... ...............  ---------------



                                            200        - - ----- --------- - -----            ......      .. ..................                 ......  ------   - -------   .............. ........ ................. -.................... ............................... ...........   .... ....     .........  .............  .................1------


                                                            - - - - - - - -                 X - - - - - - - --                      - - - - - - - -                                                    Ar
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  A
                                            100        - - ---------------- ---------------------------------------------- ----------- ------ - ----------- ------ -- -------- ........         .... ...... .......... .. .................   .........        ...............
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     .......... ............. @:@  ........      ..........................




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     _)K
                                                 0                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   - I
                                                   12-Jun                              13-Jun                               3-Ad                                 4-JW                             3 1 -Jul                            I-Aug                              31 -Aug                              5-Sep                               6-Sep
                                  *AIRCT           Boat counts derived from Aerial Photos                                                                                                 Survey Date

                                    BTCTI          Boat counts from main channel
                                                                                                                                                                              *---G- AIRCT                                                     BTCTI                                     BTCT2                ---- *... PLOTCT
                                   BTCT2           Boat counts from State Park Marina Channel

                                    PLOTCT = Parking Lot counts ofVehicles, Trailers & Combinations








            used in the figure) on July 4th but closer to 200 per hour on other summer
            weekend days. The counts made at the other channel (from Presque Isle Bay
            to Marina Lake) were more constant and less consistent with the other three
            indicators; thus no further analyses of these boat counts were pursued *

                 A statistical correlation analysis was also conducted to measure the
            relationships between the four methods of measuring boating use (Exhibit 6-
            12).  The resulting correlation coefficients showed that the boat counts
            made at the main channel (Boat Count 1) were strongly correlated with both
            the counts from aerial photographs (r=.966) and the parking lot counts of
            vehicles and boat trailers (rm.957). As noted above, the correlations with
            the boat counts at the Marina Lake channel (Boat Count 2) were not as
            strong, suggesting those counts are a less effective indicator of overall
            use levels on Presque Isle Bay.   Based on the strong correlations for the
            main channel boat counts, it is concluded that these counts can serve as a
            highly accurate indicator of overall boating activity on Presque Isle Bay.

                 6.2.2 Descriptive Profile of Presque Isle Bay Boaters

                 One of the purposes of the survey of boaters was to collect background
            information on the population of bay users. A summary of this information
            is presented in Exhibit 6-13 and in the copy of the survey instrument shown
            in Appendix A.   Before examining this data, however, it is important to
            consider a key study variable that was used to group the overall sample of
            Presque Isle Bay boaters into three groups: those that boated only on
            Presque Isle Bay during their trip that day, those that boated only on Lake
            Erie (although they may have crossed through the bay to reach the lake),
            and those that boated on both the bay and Lake Erie.      The largest group
            (49Z) included those that boated on both the bay and the lake (Exhibit 6-
            14).  An additional 21 percent reported boating only on the bay while 30
            percent reported boating only on the lake. This user group classification
            is important because the responses to many of the questions included in the
            survey can be better understood when viewed in relation to this breakdown
            of what areas people had experienced.

                 The thirty percent of respondents who had boated only on Lake Erie
            tended to be more local in origin (56Z from Erie versus 42-47Z of the other
            groups), more active (50 days boating during the past year versus only 30
            for those who stayed only on the bay and 40 for those who used both the
            lake and bay), and more experienced and skilled (see Exhibit 6-13).       In
            contrast, those who stayed on the bay exclusively tended to have the
            smallest boats and greatest diversity in types of boats used.         Family
            boating groups were most likely to stay on the bay, while those with larger
            and more powerful boats were more likely to use both the bay and the lake.
            Finally, those staying on the bay reported shorter amounts of time spent on
            the water, and longer trips were reported by those who went out on the
            lake, either exclusively or in combination with boating on the bay.

                 Some of these differences can be better understood in terms of the
            boating activities reported by survey respondents. As shown in Exhibit 6-
            15, fishing was the most popular activity among sampled respondents, with
            52 percent reporting some fishing activity and 45Z of all time spent on the




                                                6-16


















          Exhibit 6-12 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN USE LEVEL DENSITY MEASURES.


                                 Air Count      Boat Count #1          BoatCount#2       Parking Lot Count
                                               (Main Channel)       (Marina Channel)
          Air Count               1.000


          Boat Count #1           0.966          -1.000


          Boat Count #2           0.475          0.815                 1.000


          Parking Lot Count       0.879          0.957                0.919                  1.000










































                                                         6-17







          Exhibit 6-13 DESCRIPTIVE PROFILE OF PRESQUE ISLE BAY BOATERS, BOATS, AND
                         CHARACTERISTICS OF SAXPLED TRIPS BY USER GROUP.


                                                                                           USER GROUP
                                                                       Total      Boated Only Boated Only Boated on
                                                                      Sample           on Bay       on Lake      Bay & Lake
                                                                     (n=478)         (n=98)        (n=142)        (n=233)

          Principal Home Residence: State = Pennsylvania                 93%           93%             96%            94%
          Principal Home Residence: Town          Efie                   48%           42%             56%            47%
                                                  Pittsburgh             10%           12%             8%             12%
          Average Nffies from Principal Residence to P.I.Bay             55.0          67.6            47.5           52.2
          Average 1993 Total Boating Participation (days)                41.2          30.2            50.4           39.7
          Average 1993 Boating Participation on P.I. Bay (days) 24.0                   15.1            29.1           24.1
          Average Years Boating Experience                               17.0          15.6            19.2           15.8
          Average Perceived Boating Skill Level (1-4)                    2.7           2.4             2.7            2.7
                   1 - Novice (%)                                        9%            11%             7%             10%
                   2 - Intermediate (%)                                  34%           49%             32%            28%
                   3 - Advanced (0/6)                                    38%           26%             45%            40%
                   4 - Expert (%)                                        19%           13%             16%            22%
          Boater Safety Course Completed (0/6)                           46%           44%             41%            50%
          Type of Boat Owned (%)
                   Runabout                                              48%           42%             57%            44%
                   Cabin Cruiser                                         32%           17%             29%            40%
                   Bass Boat                                             7%            16%             7%             4%
                   Sailboat                                              5%            11%             1%             5%
                   Jetski                                                3%            4%              1%             5%
                   Other                                                 5%            9%              6%             3%

          Average Boat Length (feet)                                     20.2          17.8            19.9           21.4
          Average Engine Horsepower                                      164           107             146            196
          Type of Boating Group (%)
                   Family                                                46%           64%             40%            44%
                   Friends                                               26%           14%             36%            23%
                   Family and Friends                                    20%           10%             14%            29%
                   Alone                                                 7%            10%             9%             4%

          Average Group Size                                             3.2           2.9             2.7            3.7
          Average Length of Time Spent Boating (Hrs.)                    6.1           4.8             6.4            6.5
          Boating Activities - % of Time Spent
                   Anchored                                              6%            5%              3%             9%
                   Fishing                                               45%           30%             81%            29%
                   Swimming                                              4%            2%              1%             5%
                   Waterskiing                                           3%            3%              0%             4%
                   Pleasure Cruising                                     29%           34%             10%            39%
                   Sailing                                               5%            13%             1%             4%
                   Jet Skiing                                            3%            5%              1%             4%
                   Other                                                 4%            8%              2%             4%



                                                                   6-18












                                                                                Exhibit 6-14



                                              Categorization of Sampled Boaters by Where the), Boated on Day Sampled



                                                                                                                      Presque Isle Bay Only
                                                                                                                              21%

                                                     . .... . .......




                      B&I May & Lake
                            49%











                                                                             . .. . .......



                                                                                                                              Lake Erie Only
                                                                                                                                   300/()








            water accounted for by fishing.       Activity participation varied substan-
            tially, however, in relation to where people had gone boating (see Exhibit
            6-13).   Fishing was especially dominant among those boating only on the
            Lake (81 percent of time spent on fishing versus 29-30 percent for those
            who boated on the   -bay as well) .    On the other hand, pleasure cruising
            tended to be a more popular bay boating activity, accounting for 34-39
            percent of the time spent by groups boating on the bay versus only 10
            percent of those boating exclusively on Lake Erie.

                 6.2.3 Perceptions of Quality in the Boating Experience

                 The survey of boaters included a variety of types of questions
            designed to measure boaters' perceptions of quality and the potential
            impacts that might reduce the quality of their experience. The indicators
            measured represent a complete set of potential impacts identified from
            previous boating studies. As in previous studies, some of these items have
            been combined into indices measuring the major types of impacts to the
            quality of the boating experience. These indices provide measures that are
            more sensitive and reliable than the individual survey items themselves.

                 Exhibit 6-16 summarizes these various measures of quality and boating
            impacts for the overall boater sample as well as the three user groups
            discussed above.    Survey respondents generally were relatively satisfied
            with their boating experiences, although those going out only on the Lake
            reported lower satisfaction       on both the       overall trip rating and
            satisfaction index than the other two groups.      The pattern of responses to
            items included within the satisfaction index       suggests that most boaters
            enjoyed their trips and felt they were worth the money they had spent,
            although for many the sampled boat trip did not measure up to their ideal
            or best-ever boating outing.        For comparison, Exhibit 6-17 shows the
            results of similar studies of other nearby waterbodies.

                 Perceptions of crowding also varied in relation to location of boating
            (Exhibit 6-16).    Those who boated only on Lake Erie tended to report less
            crowding, especially at the start of their trip and out on the water while
            boating. Since the Lake-only boaters also tended to be less satisfied than
            the others, this is the first indication that boaters' overall trip eval-
            uations are not strongly influenced by crowding perceptions.             Comments
            received from boaters and responses to open-ended questions (Appendix B) in
            fact suggest that weather and wave conditions may be the primary reason why
            Lake-only boaters tended to be less satisfied than those using the bay.

                 Among the other boating impact measures, scores on the conflict index
            and noise item differed significantly across user groups, with bay-only
            boaters reporting slightly higher levels of noise and conflict.             These
            differences, while slight, perhaps reflect the smaller size and general
            closeness of the bay compared to Lake Erie, since items related to noise
            and other boats coming too close seemed to be more sensitive within the
            confines of the bay.    In contrast, displacement tended to be lowest among
            those who had used both the lake and the bay.            Perhaps those boaters
            willing to use both locations were better able to avoid the types of
            displacement items shown due to their use of a larger and less restricted
            environment that the confines of Presque Isle Bay.



                                                  6-20









                                                      Exhibit 6-15
                                   Participation vs Tirne Spent on Various Boating Related Activities


                  60






                                         - - - - --------- - -
                  50--,





                                                                         - - -------- - -------
                  4
                    0-//





                                      -- --------
                  30-'




                  20-/





                                         - - - - - - - - - - -
                  10-


                                                                                Afff
                   0-                                                                     vz@
                              T-
                       Fishing  Pleasure  Anchored Swimming Waterskiing Other   Sailing  Jet Skiing Board
                                 Cruising                                                          Sailing
                                                       Boating Related Activities



                                       Percent Participating    Average Percent of Time Spent









                  Exhibit 6-16 VALUES FOR SELECTED ROPACT INDICES AND THEIR CONVONENT
                                     ITEMS BY WHERE VISITORS BOATED.

                                                                                                 USER GROUP
                                                                          Total          Boated Only           Boated Only             Boated on       Level
                                                                       Population            on Bay              on Lake           Bay & Lake           of
                                                                          (n--478)           (n--98)             (n--140)              (n--230     Significance*


                  Overall Trip Rating                                     7.3                7.4                 6.8                   7.6              .004
                  Satisfaction Index2 (og = O.S8)                         3.7                3.7                 3.6                   3.8              .007
                    Thoroughly Enjoyed Trip                               86%                80%                 80%                   91%              .004
                    Trip Not as Enjoyable as Expected3                    20%                20%                 25%                   16%                 ns
                    Cannot Imagine a Better Trip                          32%                38%                 30%                   31%              .047
                    Trip Worth the Money Spent                            86%                87%                 82%                   90%                 ns
                    Disappointed in Some Aspects of Trip3                 30%                33%                 37%                   25%                 ns
                    Want No More Trips Like ThiS3                         7%                 8%                  9%                    5%                  ns
                  Crowding Index4 (oc = 0.74)                             2.2                2.1                 2.0                   2.2              .057
                    Perceived Crowding
                             At the access at start of the trip           2.4                2.7                 10                    2.6              .003
                             Out on the Bay/Lake                          3.7                3.5                 3A                    3.9              .052
                             At the channel                               4.8                4.5 (n7-40)         4.4 (n7--102)         5.0                 ns
                             At the access at end of trip                 3.2                3.2                 3.0                   3.3                 ns
                    Influence of Others                                   21%                29%                 14%                   20%              .038
                    Number of Boaters Reduced Enjoyment                   10%                14%                 8%                    9%                  ns
                    Expectation of Use Level                              13%                11%                 11%                   14%                 ns
                  Displacement Index2 (og = 0.78)                         1.9                2.0                 2.0                   1.8              .009
                    Avoided Favorite Parts of Bay                         11%                15%                 13%                   9%                  ns
                    Stayed Off Bays Part of Day                           8%                 8%                  8%                    9%                  ns
                    Gave Up Activity Due to Crowding                      7%                 10%                 7%                    6%                  ns
                  Safety Index2 (a= 0.60                                  4.1                4.0                 4.1                   4.1                 ns
                    Other Boats Came Too Close3                           19%                27%                 21%                   16%                 ns
                    Consider Law Enforcement Adequate                     76%                78%                 70%                   80%                 ns
                    Nearly Had an Accident3                               2%                 3%                  0%                    1 %                 ns
                    Considered Conditions on the Bay Safe                 89%                90%                 83%                   91%              .035
                    Unsafe Number of Boats on the Bay3                    6%                 7%                  5%                    7%                  ns.
                    Observed an Unsafe Boating Situation5                 22%                25%                 19%                   22%                 ns
                  Conflict Index2 (a= 0.69)                               2.0                2.2                 2.0                   2.0              .026
                    Other Boats Came Too Close                            19%                27%                 21%                   16%                 ns
                    Bothered by Noise of Other Boats                      4%                 11%                 0%                    3%               .000
                    Observed Inappropriate Behavior                       12%                15%                 6%                    12%                 ns
                  Environmental Quality Index2 (oc = 0.48)                3.3                3.3                 3.1                   3.3                 ns
                    Bay Water Quality Appeared Good                       73%                68%                 77%                   72%                 ns
                    Would Feel Comfortable Swimming in Bay 42%                               54%                 33%                   42%              .022

                  lVariable scored on 10-point scale, with 10 being the perfect trip; value shown is mean based on responses.
                  2Variable scored on 5-point scale, with I = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Index scores are the mean of the items list*&
                    Values for items listed under each index are the percent who agreed or strongly agreed with each statement
                  31tem scoring reversed for computation of index due to negative statement wording.
                  4Variable scored on 5-point scale, with I = least crowded and 5 = most crowded. Crowding index includes 4 measures of perceived crowding
                    (I = not at all crowded to 9 = extremely crowded), influence of others (1 = increased enjoyment, 5 = no effect 9 = decreased enjoyment), number
                    of boaters reduced enjoyment (I = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and expectation of use level (I = a lot less than expected to 5 = a lot
                    more than expected). index scare is the mean of all items listed, standardized to a 5-point scale. Value for influence of others is % reporting
                    reduced enjoyment (6-9); value for expectation is % seeing more than they expected to see (4-5).
                  5Dichotomous variable; values shown are percent who said yes, they observed an unsafe boating situation.
                  *The level of significance represents the probability that the differences shown are due to chance; ns indicates there is no significant difference
                    between user groups at the .05 level of probability.           6-22









                   Exhibit 6-17 Comparison of Boating Impact Measures on Presque Isle Bay with Other Nearby Water Resources




                                                                         Presque           Raystown            Delaware               Berlin
                                                                         Isle Bay          Lake (PA)          Inland Bays         Lake (OH)



                   Overall Trip Rating                                      7.3                7.5                 7.5                7.2


                   Satisfaction Measures
                     Thoroughly Enjoyed Trip                                86%                85%                 90%                84%
                     Trip Not as Enjoyable as Expected                      20%                15%                 20%                19%
                     Cannot Imagine a Better Trip                           32%                25%                 21%                18%
                     Trip Worth the Money Spent                             86%                91%                 92%                89%
                     Disappointed in Some Aspects of Trip                   30%                32%                 29%                38%
                     Want No More Trips Like This                           7%                 5%                  N/A                7%

                   Crowding Measures
                     _Perceived Crowding
                     ........ At the access at start of trip                2.4                3.8                 N/A                3.3
                     ......... Out on the Bay/Lake                          3.7                5.7                 4.9                5.3
                     ......... At the Channel                               4.8                N/A                 N/A                N/A
                             At the access at end of trip                   3.2                4.2                 N/A                4.5
                     In fluence of Others                                   21%                40%                 24%                39%
                     Number of Boaters Reduced Enjoyment                    10%                N/A                 N/A                32%

                   Displacement Measures
                     Avoided Favorite Parts of Bay/Lake                     11%                25%                 12%                22%
                     Stayed Off Parts of Day                                8%                 27%                 14%                27%
                     Gave Up Activity Due to Crowding                       7%                 23%                 6%                 29%

                   Safety Measures
                     Other Boats Came Too Close                             19%                34%                 32%                36%
                     Consider Law Enforcement Adequate                      76%                N/A                 66%                65%
                     Nearly Had an Accident                                 2%                 N/A                 2%                 4%
                     Considered Conditions on the Bay Safe                  89%                78%                 89%                80%
                     Unsafe Number of Boats of the Bay                      6%                 17%                 N/A                1970
                     Observed an Unsafe Boating Situation                   220f               N/A                 26%                41%

                   Conflict Measures
                     Bothered by Noise of Other Boats                       4%                 5%                  9%                 11%
                     Observed Inappropriate Behavior                        12%                22%                 17%                28%














                                                                          6-23








                 Perceptions of safety and the environmental quality of Presque Isle
            Bay did not differ significantly among the three user groups (bay only,
            lake only,   and bay/Lake boaters).       Nor did they differ across those
            pursuing different boating activities (Exhibit 6-18). Fishermen, however,
            tended to be the least satisfied boating group, which may account in large
            part for the lower -satisfaction scores associated with boating only on Lake
            Erie   (which   is   heavily   dominated    by   fishing).       A  few    other
            activity-specific differences worth noting include the finding that
            swimmers were somewhat more sensitive to the number of boats on the water
            and their impacts on safety, while sail boaters were much more likely to
            object to noise from other boats, although even among sailors, only a small
            segment (22Z) were bothered by the noise of other boats (Exhibit 6-18).

                 6.2.4 Effects of Boat Density on Boating Quality

                 Establishing the relationships between the number of boats on the bay
            and the various measures of quality in the boating experience is a critical
            element   in   the   evaluation   and   management   of    current  conditions  *
            Consequently, boaters' responses to the various impact indices and
            component items were analyzed by boat density level (Exhibit 6-19).           The
            four density levels represent conditions observed on a peak 4th of July
            holiday (high use), typical summer Sundays (medium/high use), typical
            summer Saturdays (low/medium use) and normal weekdays and weekend days when
            bad weather conditions may prevail (low use).

                 The crowding index and its component items varied to a greater extent
            by density level than any other impact index. The pattern for crowding was
            as expected;     crowding scores increased as density levels increased          *
            Noteworthy, however, is the fact that only 19Z of those sampled on the 4th
            of July reported that the number of boaters encountered was more than they
            expected.   This may explain why the majority of boaters sampled under the
            highest density conditions reported no loss of enjoyment as a result of the
            number of boats on the water.


                 The satisfaction measures also varied significantly in relation to use
            level, but the direction of the trend was opposite of what was expected.
            That is, satisfaction was at its highest among boaters sampled at the
            highest density level. This finding held true across both the overall trip
            rating and the satisfaction index and most of its component items.          This
            finding, coupled with the lack of significance found for the other impact
            indices, suggests that use levels have not become a significant deterrent
            to satisfaction among Presque Isle Bay boaters.       It appears   that boating
            satisfaction depends more on other factors such as wave            and weather
            conditions.


                 To further explore the determinants of quality in             the boating
            experience, Exhibit 6-20 presents the relationships between the various
            trip quality and impact measures and the overall level of          satisfaction
            reported by boaters.       In this analysis, the sample of         boaters was
            categorized into three levels according to their satisfaction index scores.
            Consistent with the previous results and discussion, boaters showing the
            lowest degree of overall satisfaction did not differ significantly in their




                                                  6-24







                     Exhibit 6-18 VALUES FOR SELECTED IMPACT INDICES AND COMPONENT ITEMS BY
                                       PRIMARY ACTIVITY GROUP.

                                                                                          ACTIVITY GROUP
                                                               Anchored Fishing Swim-                 Water- Pleasure Sailing Jet                     Other          Level
                                                                                            ming       Skiing    Cruising                 Skiing                       of
                                                                (n=38) (n=225)            (n-- 16)    (n7-14)    (n-- 126)        (n=23) (n--15)     (n=18) Significance*


                     Overall Trip Ratingi                          7.5           6.8        8.2          8.1        8.0           8.3        8.0        6.5          .000

                     Satisfaction Index2                           3.8           3.5        4.1          4.0        3.9           4.0        4.1        3.4          .000
                     Thoroughly Enjoyed Trip                       95%           81%        94%          93%        89%           96%        100%       56%          .007
                     Trip Not Enjoyable as Expected3               23%           28%        6%           0%         12%           9%         0%         24%          .010
                     Cannot Imagine a Better Trip                  41%           28%        62%          29%        33%           35%        47%        22%          .015
                     Trip Worth the Money Spent                    95%           82%        94%          100%       90%           96%        100%       67%          .000
                     Disappointed in Aspects of Trip3              33%           42%        12%          21%        14%           30%        13%        33%          .000
                     No More Trips Like This3                      3%            10%        7%           0%         5%            0%         0%         7%           .023
                     Crowding Index      4                         2.0           2.1        2.3          2.0        2.2           2.4        2.1        2.1            ns
                     Perceived Crowding
                        Access at Start of the Trip                2.3           2.1        3.2          2.1        2.8           3.5        2.9        2.6          .003
                        Out on the BaylLake                        3"5           3*5        4*3          3*3        4,0           4,2        33         3*8            ns
                        At the Channel                             4.5           4.6        4.9          4.0        5.0           5.7        4.2        5.8            ns
                        At the Access at End of Trip               3. 0          3.2        3.6          2.8        3.3           3.4        3.3        2.6            ns
                     Influence of Others                           18%           19%        17%          22%        25%           30%        7%         17%            ns
                     Numbers Reduced Enjoyment                     10%           11%        12%          14%        9%            13%        0%         0%             ns
                     Expectation of Use Leve'l                     10%           10%        19%          14%        18%           9%         13%        17%            ns
                     Displacement Index       2                    1.9           2.1        1.9          1.7        1.8           1.9        1.8        1.9          .011
                     Avoided Favorite Parts of Bav                 8%            16%          6%         7%         8%            9%         7%         11%            ns
                     Stayed Off Bays Part of Day                   5%            12%        6%           0%         7%            9%         0%         0%             ns
                     Gave Up Activity Due to Crowds                16%           10%        12%          0%         2%            4%         0%         0%           .024
                     Safety Index2                                 4.1           4.0        4.0          4.1        4.2           4.0        4.3        4.1            ns
                     Other Boats Too Close3                        20%           24%        31%          21%        12%           21%        13%        6%             ns
                     Consider Enforcement Adequate                 87%           70%        81%          86%        78%           83%        87%        72%            ns
                     Nearly Had an Accident3                       3%            1%         6%           0%         2%            0%         0%         0%             ns
                     Considered Conditions Safe                    85%           85%        97%          93%        91%           96%        87%        94%            ns
                     Unsafe Number of Boats3                       5%            7%         19%          7%         6%            0%         0%         0%           .008
                     Observed an Unsafe Situation5                 24%           20%        31%          29%        21%           35%        7%         28%            ns

                     Conflict Index2                               2.0           2.0        2.0          2.0        2.0           2.2        1.8        1.8            ns
                     Other Boats Too Close                         20%           24%        31%          21%        12%           21%        13%        6%             ns
                     Bothered bv Noise of Boats                    5%            2%         0%           0%         4%            22%        0%         0%           .002
                     Observed Inappropriate Behavior               13%           11%        12%          7%         15%           13%        0%         0%             ns
                     Environmental Quality Index2                  3.3           3.2        3.2          3.5        3.2           3.5        3.6        3.2            ns
                     Water Quality Appeared Good                   72%           81%        69%          57%        70%           78%        27%        50%          .001
                     Feel Comfortable Swimming                     54%           39%        37%          64%        37%           56%        33%        61%            ns


                     Variable scored on 10-point scale, with 10 being the perfect trip; value shown is mean based on responses,
                     2 Variable scored on 5-point scale, with I = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Index scores are the mean ofthe items listed.
                     Values for items listed under each index are the percent who agreed or strongly agreed with each statement.
                     31tem scoring reversed for computation of index due to negative statement wording.
                     4Variable scored on 5-point scale, with I = least crowded and 5 = most crowded. Crowding index includes 4 measures ofperceived crowding
                     (I = not at all crowded to 9 = extremely crowded), influence ofothers (I - increased enjoyment, 5 = no effect, 9 = decreased enjoyment), number
                     ofboaters reduced enjoyment (I = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and expectation ofuse level (I = a lot less than expected to 5 = a lot
                     more than expected). Index score is the mean of all items listed, standardized to a 5 -point scale. Value for influence of others is% reporting
                     reduced enjoyment (6-9)- value for expectation is % seeing more than they expected to see (4-5).
                     5Dichotomous variable; values shown are percent who said yes, they observed an unsafe boating situation.
                     *The level ofsignificance represents the probability that the differences shown are due to chance; ns indicates there is no significant difference
                     between user groups at the .05 level ofprobability.

                                                                                            6-25







                   Exhibit 6-19 VALUES FOR SELECTED IMPACT INDICES AND TBEIR COMPONENT ITEMS
                                       BY LEVEL OF USE.

                                                                                                                     USE LEVEL
                                                                                Low            Low/Medium              Medium/High             High             Level of
                                                                                (n=10)            (n--252)               (n=143)            (n=73)            Significance*


                   Use Level (Boats/Hour in Channel)                            8-56              124-144                180-212               284                 .000
                   Overall Trip Ratingi                                         5.8                   7.6                    7.1               8.2                 .001
                   Satisfaction Index2 ((x = 0.88)                              3.3                   3.8                    3.6               4.1                 .001
                     Thoroughly Enjoyed Trip                                    50%                   86%                    82%               94%                 .004
                     Trip Not as Enjoyable as Expccted3                         40%                   18%                    22%               8%                  .025
                     Cannot Imagine a Better Trip                               17%                   34%                    26%               48%                    ns
                     Trip Worth the Money Spent                                 67%                   88%                    82%               14%
                     Disappointed in Some Aspects of Trip3                      67%                   30%                    32%               14%                 .035
                     Want No More Trips Like This3                              0%                    5%                     7%                3%                     ns
                   Crowding Index4l ((x = 0.74)                                 1.2                   2.1                    2.1               2.7                 .000
                     Perceived Crowding
                         At the Access at Start of the Trip                     1.0                   2.4                    2.3               3.1                 .004
                         Out on the Bay/Lake                                    1.0                   3.5                    3.5               5.6                 .000
                         At the Channel                                         1.0                   4.4                    5.0               6.9                 .000
                         At the Access at End of the Trip                       1.0                   3.2                    3.1               4.2                 .000
                     Influence of Others                                        11%                   18%                    18%               36%                 .021
                     Number of Boaters Reduced Enjoyment                        0%                    10%                    11%               16%                    ns
                     Expectation of Use Level                                   0%                    12%                    11%               19%                 .059
                   Displacement 1ndex2 (oL = 0.78)                              1.8                   1.9                    2.0               1.9                    ns
                     Avoided Favorite Parts of Bay                              0%                    10%                    11%               18%                    ns
                     Staved Off Bavs Part of Dav                                0%                    9%                     7%                12%                    ns
                     Gave Up Activity Due to Crowding                           0%                    8%                     6%                10%                    ns
                   Safety Index2 (oL = 0.66)                                    4.0                   4.1                    4.0               3.9                    ns
                     Other Boats Came Too Closc3                                0%                    20%                    21%               22%                    ns
                     Consider Law Enforcement Adequate                          50%                   76%                    75%               72%                    ns
                     Nearlv Had an Accident3                                    0%                    1%                     3%                0%                  .027
                     Considered Conditions on the Bav Safe                      67%                   91%                    87%               85%                 .006
                     Unsafe Number of Boats on the Bay3                         0%                    5%                     7%                15%                 .038
                     Observed an Unsafe Boating Situation5                      10%                   19%                    24%               29%                    ns
                   Conflict Index2 (oL = 0.69)                                  1.8                   2.0                    2.0               2.0                    ns
                     Other Boats Came Too Close                                 0%                    20%                    21%               22%                    ns
                     Bothered bv Noise of Other Boats                           0%                    5%                     3%                3%                     ns
                     Observed Inappropriate Behavior                            0%                    10%                    14%               16%                    ns
                   Environmental Quality Index2 ((x = 0.48)                     2.9                   3.2                    3.2               3.2                    ns
                     Bay Water Quality Appeared Good                            33%                   76%                    72%               69%                    ns
                     Feel Comfortable Swimming in Bay                           67%                   39%                    46%               40%                    ns


                     Variable scored on I 0-point scale, with 10 being the perfect trip; value shown is mean based on responses.
                   2Variable scored on 5-point scale, with I = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Index scores are the mean of the items listed.
                     Values for items listed under each index are the percent who agreed or strongly agreed with each statement.
                   3 Item scoring reversed for computation of index due to negative statement wording.
                   4Variable scored on 5-point scale, with I = least crowded and 5 = most crowded. Crowding index includes 4 measures of perceived crowding
                     (I = not at all crowded to 9 = extremely crowded), influence of others (I = increased enjoyment, 5 = no effect, 9 = decreased enjoyment), number
                     of boaters reduced enjoyment (I = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and expectation of use level (I = a lot less than expected to 5 = a lot
                     more than expected). Index score is the mean of all items listed, standardized to a 5-point scale. Value for influence of others is % reporting
                   5 reduced enjoyment (6-9); value for expectation is 9/o seeing more than they expected to see (4-5).
                     Dichotomous variable; values shown are percent who said yes, they observed an unsafe boating situation.
                   *The level of significance represents the probability that the differences shown are due to chance, ns indicates there is no significant difference
                     between user groups at the .05 level of probabilim

                                                                                              6-26






                   Exhibit 6-20 VALUES FOR SELECTED IMPACT INDICES AND THEIR CONWONENT ITEMS
                                        BY THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION.

                                                                                                  USER SATISFACTION LEVEL
                                                                                   High                   Medium                         Low                       Level
                                                                               Satisfaction              Satisfaction                Satisfaction                     of
                                                                                   (n=152)                 (n=105)                       (n=218)               Significance*

                   Overall Trip Ratingi                                               8.9                     7.9                        6.0                          .000
                   Satisfaction Index2 ((X = 0.88)                                    4.5                     3.9                        3.1                          .000
                       Thoroughly Enjoyed Trip                                       100%                     98%                        68%                          .000
                       Trip Not as Enjoyable as Expected3                             1%                      2%                         42%                          .000
                       Cannot Imagine a Better Trip                                   75%                     23%                        6%                           .000
                       Trip Worth the Money Spent                                     99%                     100%                       72%                          .000
                       Disappointed in Some Aspects of Trip3                          5%                      7%                         60%                          .000
                       Want No More Trips Like This3                                  0%                      0%                         15%                          .000
                   Crowding Index4 ((x = 0.74)                                        2.1                     2.1                        2.2                          ns
                       At the access at start of the trip                             2.5                     2.5                        2.4                          ns
                       Out on the Bay                                                 4.0                     3.8                        3.4                          ns
                       At the channel                                                 5.2                     4.8                        4.5                          ns
                       At the access at end of trip                                   3.2                     3.4                                                     ns
                       Influence of Others                                            17%                     16%                        24%                          ns
                       Number of Boaters Reduced Enjoyment                            4%                      6%                         16%                          .002
                       Expectation of Use Level                                       9%                      12%                        16%                          ns
                   Displacement 1ndex2 (a = 0.78)                                     1.8                     2.2                        2.5                          .000
                       Avoided Favorite Parts of Bav                                  7%                      9%                         16%                          .001
                       Staycd Off Bays Part of Day                                    5%                      9%                         11%                          .027
                       Gave Up Activity Due to Crowding                                 1%                    6%                         12%                          .000
                   Safety Index2 (m = 0.66)                                           4.2                     3.9                        4.0                          .000
                       Other Boats Came Too Close3                                    15%                     14%                        25%                          052
                       Consider Law Enforcement Adequate                              80%                     75%                        73%                          ns
                       Nearly Had an Accident3                                        0%                      0%                         3%                           049
                       Considered Conditions on the Bav Safe                          95%                     88%                        84%                          .041
                       Unsafe Number of Boats on the Bay                              6%                      3%                         8%                           ns
                       Observed an Unsafe Boating Situation5                          24%                     24%                        19%                          ns
                   Conflict 1ndex2 ((x = 0.69)                                        1.9                     2.2                        2.0                          .001
                       Other Boats Came Too Close                                     15%                     14%                        25%                          .052
                       Bothered by Noise of Other Boats                               3%                      3%                         4%                           ns
                       Observed Inappropriate Behavior                                10%                     7%                         14%                          .036
                   Environmental Quality 1ndex2 ((x = 0.48)                           3.3                     3.2                        3.0                          ns
                       Bay Water Quality Appeared Good                                78%                     71%                        71%                          ns
                       Would Feel Comfortable Swimming in Bay                         45%                     46%                        37%                          ns


                       Variable scored on 10-point scale. with 10 beingthe perfecttrip; value shown is mean based on responses.
                   2 Variable scored on 5-point scale, with I= strongly disagree and 5 =strongly agree. Index scores are the mean of the items listed.
                       Values for items listed under each index are the percent who agreed or strongly agreed with each statement.
                   31tem scoring reversed for computation of index due to negative statement wording.
                   4Variable scored on 5-point scale, with I = least crowded and 5 = most crowded. Crowding index includes 4 measures of perceived crowding
                       (I = not at all crowded to 9 = extremely crowded). influence of others (I = increased enjoyment, 5 = no cffect, 9 = decreased enjoyment), number
                       of boaters reduced enjoyment (I = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and expectation of use level (I = a lot less than expected to 5 = a lot
                       more than expected). Index score is the mean of all items listed, standardized to a 5-point scale. Value for influence of others is % reporting
                       reduced enjoyment (6-9); value for expectation is % seeing more than they expected to see (4-5).
                   5 Dichotomous variable-. values shown are percent who said yes. they observed an unsafe boating situation.
                   *The level of significance represents the probability that the differences shown are due to chance; ns indicates there is no significant difference
                       between user groups at the.05 level of probability.




                                                                                             6-27








            responses to the crowding questions, suggesting that crowding has little to
            do with boater satisfaction on Presque Isle Bay. The displacement, safety,
            and conflict indices were related to overall satisfaction, however. Boaters
            who were most satisfied also reported the highest levels of perceived
            safety and the lowest levels of displacement and conflict.

                 Consideration of the characteristics of boaters in relation to their
            satisfaction scores sheds further light on who was satisfied and who was
            not among the overall population of boaters (Exhibit 6-21).          The most
            noteworthy characteristic of the least satisfied boater group was the
            proportion of fishermen within this group. Fifty-six percent of the least
            satisfied boaters were anglers, compared with only 34 to 38 percent of the
            more satisfied groups of boaters.

                 A similar analysis was conducted with the 9-point influence of others
            scale in a final attempt to identify factors contributing to loss of
            satisfaction among boaters (Exhibit 6-22).       In this case, boaters were
            classified in terms of their responses to the question, "How did the number
            of boaters at the bay today affect your overall boating experience?" (a
            measure of crowding and a component of the crowding index).         The three
            categories of boaters compared include those whose experience was enhanced
            by the densities they encountered (values 1-4 on the 9 point scale), those
            who reported no effect (value 5 on the scale; by far the most common
            response), and those reporting decreased enjoyment (values 6-9 on the
            9-point scale).    The latter group can be interpreted as those boaters who
            felt some degree of crowding, since crowding is usually defined as a
            negative reaction to a given density level.       This latter group included
            about 23 percent of the study respondents.

                 As can be seen in Exhibit 6-22, virtually all of the impact measures
            showed significant differences across the three groups of boaters. In most
            cases, there was little or no difference between the first two groups
            (those reporting either increased enjoyment or no effect from the influence
            of others).  The decreased enjoyment (or crowded) group stood out with the
            highest levels of displacement and conflict.     Thirty-six percent of these
            boaters avoided favorite parts of the bay and 26 percent gave up some
            activity due to crowding (compared to negligible percentages of the other
            groups).   Forty percent of the "decreased enjoyment" group observed an
            unsafe boating situation (compared to 2-4 percent), underscoring the
            importance of safety as a determinant of satisfaction. Forty-five percent
            said other boats came too close and 38 percent reported observing some
            inappropriate behavior.    These findings imply that those boaters who are
            experiencing unpleasant impacts resulting from other boaters are most
            likely responding to certain inappropriate behavior patterns rather than
            simply the number of boaters encountered.      In many cases, these behavior
            patterns are amenable to management through enforcement and educational
            practices.

                 Looking at the characteristics of these same boater segments, it
            appears that those most sensitive to the influence of others are more
            likely to be the more active, experienced, and skilled boaters, as well as
            those who travelled greater distances to boat at Presque Isle Bay (Exhibit
            6-23).



                                                 6-28








                 Exhibit 6-21 DESCRIPTIVE PROFILE OF PRESQUE ISLE BAY BOATERS, BOATS, AND
                                  CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLED TRIPS BY USER SATISFACTION RATING.


                                                                                                  USER SATISFACTION LEVEL
                                                                                                  High            Medium              Low
                                                                                              Satisfaction      Satisfaction      Satisfaction
                                                                                                  (n=152)         (n=105)          (n=218)

                 Principal Home Residence: State = Pennsylvania                                   95%                97%               91%
                 Principal Home Residence: Town = Eric                                            51%                56%               43%
                                                      = Pittsburgh                                11%                12%               10%
                 Average Miles from Principal Home Residence to P.I.Bay                           49.5               46.9              62.9
                 Average 1993 Total Boating Participation (days)                                  37.8               34.9              46.2
                 Average 1993 Boating Participation on P.I. Bay (days)                            26.3               24.0              22.2
                 Average Years Boating Experience                                                 16.7               16.5              17.3
                 Average Perceived Boating Skill Level (1-4)                                      2.7                2.6               2.7
                           I - Novice (1/o)                                                       9%                 10%               9%
                           2 - Intermediate (%)                                                   33%                37%               33%
                           3 - Advanced (%)                                                       39%                33%               39%
                           4 - Expert (%)                                                         19%                19%               19%

                 Boater Safety Course Completed                                                   54%                44%               42%
                 Ty
                    pe of Boat Owned (%)
                           Runabout                                                               43%                42%               53%
                           Cabin Cruiser                                                          36%                41%               25%
                           Bass Boat                                                              4%                 8%                9%
                           Sailboat                                                               8%                 3%                4%
                           Jetski                                                                 4%                 2%                4%
                           Other                                                                  9%                 6%                3%

                 Average Boat Length (feet)                                                       21.2               20.9              19.2
                 Average Engine Horsepower                                                        182                188               138
                 Type of Boating Group (%)
                           Family                                                                 46%                49%               46%
                           Friends                                                                24%                18%               31%
                           Family and Friends                                                     27%                22%               14%
                           Alone                                                                  2%                 8%                9%

                 Average Group Size                                                               3.7                3.4               2.8
                 Average Length of Time Spent Boating (Hrs.)                                      6.4                6.6               5.6

                 Boating Activities - Average % of Time Spent
                           Anchored                                                               7%                 7%                5%
                           Fishing                                                                34%                39%               56%
                           Swimming                                                               7%                 2%                2%
                           Waterskiing                                                            3%                 3%                2%
                           Pleasure Cruising                                                      33%                38%               22%
                           Sailing                                                                8%                 3%                3%
                           Jet Skiing                                                             4%                 2%                3%
                           Other                                                                  4%                 6%                5%







                                                                            6-29







              Exhibit 6-22 VALUES FOR SELECTED IMPACT INDICES AND THEIR COMPONENT ITEMS
                                BY INFLUENCE OF OTHERS ON THE BOATING EXPERIENCE.

                                                                                        INFLUENCE OF OTHERS
                                                                 Increased            No Effect on            Decreased             Level
                                                                Enjoyment             Enjoyment               Enjoyment                of
                                                                    (n=53)              (n=255)                  (n=98)         Significance*

              Overall Trip Ratingi                                     7.7                 7.0                   7.5                     ns
              Satisfaction Index2 ((X = 0.88)                          4.0                 3.7                   3.6                   .046
                 Thoroughly Enjoyed Trip                               92%                 84%                   85%                     ns
                 Trip Not as Enjoyable as Expected3                    15%                 23%                   20%                     ns
                 Cannot Imagine a Better Trip                          50%                 32%                   25%                     ns
                 Trip Worth the Money Spent                            91%                 85%                   89%                     ns
                 Disappointed in Some Aspects of Trip3                 24%                 33%                   45%                   .013
                 Want No More Trips Like This3                         8%                  7%                    8%                      ns
              Crowding Index4 ((x = 0.74)                              1.7                 2.0                   2.8                   .000
                 Perceived Crowding
                 At the Access at Start of the Trip                    2.1                 2.2                   2.9                   .008
                 Out on the Bay/Lake                                   2.9                 3.2                   4.7                   .000
                 At the Channel                                        4.0                 4.5                   5.8                   .001
                 At the Access at End of Trip                          2.6                 2.8                   4.0                   .000
                 Influence of Others                                   0%                  0%                    100%                  .000
                 Number of Boaters Reduced Enjoyment                   2%                  4%                    40%                   .000
                 Expectation of Use Level                              12%                 8%                    30%                   .000
              Displacement Index2 (oL = 0.78)                          1.8                 1.9                   2.5                   .000
                 Avoided Favorite Parts of Bay                         8%                  8%                    36%                   .000
                 Stayed Off Bays Part of Day                           6%                  5%                    11%                   .000
                 Gave Up Activity Due to Crowding                      2%                  5%                    26%                   .000
              Safety Index2 ((x = 0.66)                                4.2                 4.1                   3.6                   .000
                 Other Boats Came Too Close3                           17%                 15%                   45%                   .000
                 Consider Law Enforcement Adequate                     83%                 73%                   77%                     ns
                 Nearlv Had an Accident3                               0%                  1%                    5%                    .023
                 Considered Conditions on the Bay Safe                 93%                 89%                   80%                     ns
                 Unsafe Number of Boats on the Bay3                    4%                  3%                    22%                   .000
                 Observed an Unsafe Boating Situation5                 16%                 18%                   40%                   .000
              Conflict lndex2 (a = 0.69)                               1.8                 1.9                   2.6                   .000
                 Other Boats Came Too Close                            17%                 15%                   45%                   .000
                 Bothered by Noise of Other Boats                      2%                  3%                    12%                   .002
                 Observed Inappropriate Behavior                       9%                  6%                    38%                   .000
              Environmental Quality Index2 ((x = 0.48)                 3.3                 3.2                   3.2                     ns
                 Bay Water Quality Appeared Good                       66%                 70%                   77%                     ns
                 Would Feel Comfortable Swimming in Bay                47%                 43%                   49%                     ns


                 Variable scored on 10-point scale. with 10 being the perfect trip; value shown is mean based on responses.
              2Variable scored on 5-point scale, with I = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Index scores are the mean of the items listed.
                 Values for items listed under each index are the Iercent who agreed or strongly agreed with each statement.
              3 Item scoring reversed for computation of index due to negative statement wording.
              4Variable scored on 5-point scale, with I = least crowded and 5 = most crowded. Crowding index includes 4 measures of perceived crowding
                 (1 = not at all crowded to 9 = extremelv crowded), influence of others (I = increased enjoyment, 5 = no effect, 9 = decreased enjoyment), number
                 of boaters reduced enjoyment (I = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and expectation of use level (I = a lot less than expected to 5 = a lot
                 more than expected). Index score is the mean of all items listed, standardized to a 5-point scale. Value for influence of others is % reporting
                 reduced enjoyment (6-9); value for expectation is 0/6 seeing more than they expected to see (4-5).
              5 Dichotomous variable; values shown are percent who said yes, they observed an unsafe boating situation.
              *The level of significance represents the probability that the differences shown are due to chance; ns indicates there is no significant difference
                 between user groups at the .05 level of probability.

                                                                              6-30







             Exhibit 6-23 DESCRIPTIVE PROFILE OF PRESQUE ISLE BAY BOATERS, BOATS, AND
                               CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLED TRIPS BY THE REPORTED INFLUENCE OF
                               OTHERS ON THE BOATING EXPERIENCE.

                                                                                                  INFLUENCE OF OTHERS
                                                                                         Increased          No Effect on Decreased
                                                                                         Enjoyment         Enjoyment         Enjoyment
                                                                                             (n=53)          (n=256)           (n=78)

             Principal Home Residence: State = Pennsylvania                                  96%                94%                95%
             Principal Home Residence: Town = Erie                                           49%                49%                49%
                                                 = Pittsburgh                                15%                10%                10%
             Average Nfiles from Principal Home Residence to P.I.Bay                         38.3               51.6               70.6
             Average 1993 Total Boating Participation (days)                                 3TO                38.4               46.8
             Average 1993 Boating Participation on P.I. Bay (days)                           21.9               18.2               31.5
             Average Years Boating Experience                                                18.8               17.3               17.1
             Average Perceived Boating Skill Level (1-4)                                     2.4                  2.6              2.7
                       1 - Novice (%)                                                        17%                9%                 8%
                       2 - Intermediate (%)                                                  34%                34%                30%
                       3 - Advanced (%)                                                      36%                40%                41%
                       4 - Expert                                                            13%                17%                22%

             Boater Safety Course Completed                                                  34%                40%                53%
             T9e of Boat Owned (%)
                       Runabout                                                              47%                53%                58%
                       Cabin Cruiser                                                         19%                27%                18%
                       Bass Boat                                                             9%                 8%                 10%
                       Sailboat                                                              13%                3%                 6%
                       Jetski                                                                6%                 4%                 1%
                       Other                                                                 6%                 5%                 5%

             Average Boat Length (feet)                                                      18.1               19.3               18.7
             Average Engine Horsepower                                                       151                136                130
             Type of Boating Group (%)
                       Family                                                                40%                44%                54%
                       Friends                                                               29%                28%                22%
                       Family and Friends                                                    19%                19%                18%
                       Alone                                                                 12%                8%                 5%

             Average Group Size                                                              2.9                3.0                3.2
             Average Length of Time Spent Boating (Hrs.)                                     4.8                5.8                6.2

             Boating Activities - % of Time Spent
                       Anchored                                                              8%                 8%                 6%
                       Fishing                                                               31%                55%                47%
                       Swimming                                                              8%                 3%                 2%
                       Waterskiing                                                           2%                 2%                 3%
                       Pleasure Cruising                                                     32%                21%                27%
                       Sailing                                                               10%                3%                 8%
                       let Skiing                                                            6%                 4%                 1%
                       Other                                                                 3%                 4%                 3%








                                                                           6-31










             7.0 CARRYING CAPACITY ANALYSIS


             7.1 Evaluation of Existing Conditions

                  As described in Section 5.0, current recreational planning models
             clearly identify the     management process of problem identification and
             selection of indicators and standards for measuring impacts, as the role of
             management rather than   of research.    Those responsible for the management
             of Presque Isle Bay      ultimately must decide whether or not current
             conditions are acceptable.      Thus, while this study can demonstrate, for
             example, that the average satisfaction of weekend boaters during 1993 was
             7.3 on a 10-point scale, or that the average perceived crowding score in
             the channel was 4.8 on a 9-point crowding scale, area planners and managers
             must decide if these values are consistent with their objectives for the
             area.


                  Study results can aid managers with such decisions in two ways.
             First, it provides data on how the visitors perceive current conditions.
             Agency personnel may have their own opinions about existing conditions, but
             prior to this study had no concrete data regarding the visitors,
             perceptions. Other studies have shown that the perceptions of managers and
             visitors often differ (Hendee et al. 1970; Merriam et al. 1972; Peterson
             1974; Graefe et al. 1984; Stankey 1987).        Thus, while managers may base
             their decisions on any criteria they consider relevant, data on visitor
             perceptions provide one additional source of information for decision
             making.

                  Secondly,   study results can be used       as a basis for establishing
             quantitative standards of acceptability.        Current management approaches
             like the Visitor Impact Management framework rely on standards to make the
             evaluation process objective and systematic. Standards provide a means of
             describing the type of experience that is        to be provided in measurable
             terms. Problem identification then is based      on the comparison of existing
             conditions and corresponding standards.         In this case, there are no
             pre-existing standards for the boating experience at Presque Isle Bay.
             Thus, knowledge of the current levels of     various impact indicators provide
             a baseline against which an initial set of standards can be determined.

                  For example, various segments of the population of Presque Isle Bay
             boaters rated the overall quality of their boat trip between 6.5 and 8.3 on
             a ten-point scale (Exhibits 6-13 and 6-16).          About one-fifth of those
             sampled reported that their enjoyment was reduced because of the number of
             other boaters they encountered.         The vast majority (892) considered
             conditions on the bay safe on the day they were interviewed, while 22
             percent reported that they had observed an unsafe boating situation.            if
             local resource managers consider such conditions acceptable, then these
             statistics can be used to set standards against which future measurements
             can be compared.

                  After the acceptability of current conditions has been assessed, a
             second type of information needed to examine the question of capacity
             involves identifying the relationship between visitor use patterns and the
             impacts one is trying to control.       It is necessary to demonstrate a link
             between cause (visitor use) and effect (impacts on either the environment

                                                    7-1








            or the visitor experience)    The stronger this relationship is, the more
            precise one can be in estimating carrying capacities.      If there is no
            significant relationship,  it is not possible to determine a capacity
            because the impact remains constant regardless of the use level. In such a
            case, a capacity limit would serve no purpose.

                 Study findings revealed relatively weak relationships between use
            levels and the quality of the boating experience on Presque Isle Bay. The
            most noticeable impact of higher boating densities was a higher degree of
            perceived crowding.   Crowding in turn seemed to influence other impact
            measures, including displacement, safety, and conflict. All of these types
            of impacts, however, occurred relatively infrequently and few boaters
            reported that the number of boats encountered negatively affected their
            experience, even under the highest conditions.    Thus it appears boating
            levels on Presque Isle Bay have not yet approached capacity limits based on
            evaluation of the quality of the boater experience.


            7.2 Evaluation of Future Conditions


                 While the documented relationships between boating use levels and
            resulting impacts were insufficient for determining an overall capacity,
            study results can be used to evaluate the potential effects of future
            conditions resulting from various management or facility development
            options. The likely effects of new or expanded facilities on Presque Isle
            Bay would naturally depend to some degree on the type, size, and location
            of the proposed facility.   There are three basic findings of this study,
            however, that should be kept in mind when considering any type of further
            facility development.


                 Range of Peak-Use Density Levels


                 The density of boats using the bay at one time on summer 1993 weekend
            days varied widely. The number of boats counted from aerial photos of the
            bay surface was twice as high on July 4th as it was on three other sampled
            weekends. Access areas were used to their full capacity only occasionally
            (possibly only on the 4th of July) this summer.      This variation in use
            intensity results largely from the influence of weather conditions. It is
            reasonable to expect that the use patterns of any new facilities would
            mirror those of the existing facilities on the bay.       Thus, additional
            facilities would be used to their full capacity relatively infrequently
            (mainly on holiday weekends with good weather conditions).   On these peak
            days, the additional access provided could lead to total use levels above
            the maximum recorded in this study.    For the remaining non-peak weekends
            and weekdays, the total number of boats on Presque Isle Bay would remain
            within the range observed during 1993.

                 General AcceRtance of Existing Conditions

                 Most boaters surveyed were quite satisfied with their boating exper-
            iences and relatively few reported impacts of displacement, conflict, or
            safety problems.   While these results do not guarantee that Presque Isle
            Bay boaters will accept higher boat densities, they do document that most
            current users do not feel that the bay is already overused.    Further in-


                                                7-2









             creases in boating facilities would be more questionable if current users
             perceived there was already a greater problem with existing conditions.

                  Weak Relationshipg Between Boat Densities and Boating Quality

                  As noted earlier, most measures of boating quality and the impacts
             that might interfere with boating quality showed little or no variation in
             relation to different boat densities. Thus, within the range of densities
             represented in this study, management actions that change the number of
             boats using the bay should have little impact on the experience of boaters.
             There is greater uncertainty in predicting the effects of actions that
             could greatly increase boating densities beyond the range included in the
             study.    The weak association between use levels and quality/impact
             variables, however, coupled with the tendency for maximum use to occur only
             infrequently,   implies that modest or incremental increases in boating
             densities will have little impact.       Of course, one cannot rule out the
             possibility of a non-linear relationship between boat density and boating
             quality.   Such a relationship would be characterized by a threshold use
             level above which large portions of the boating public become disturbed.
             Clearly, no such threshold was reached during the 1993 boating season. The
             safest way to avoid reaching such an unacceptable use level in the future
             would be to consider facility development proposals incrementally, allowing
             only relatively small expansions in boating access at any one time, and
             monitoring the responses of boaters to the resulting new conditions.

                  Applying    these   considerations    to   the   projections    for    future
             development at and around Presque Isle Bay (Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 4.1), it
             is necessary to consider the potential impacts that could occur if the peak
             number of boats using the bay doubles, as suggested in the maximum build-
             out scenario. Because boater perceptions were not strongly correlated with
             the use levels observed in this study, we cannot project how boaters would
             respond to boat densities twice as high as current peak levels.           We can
             state, however, that such conditions would occur only rarely, if at all,
             since boaters might pursue various self-selection behaviors, such as
             boating at off peak times or leaving the Bay to cruise or fish on Lake
             Erie, which would reduce the total densities below that assumed in the
             build-out scenario.     The more typical densities found on ordinary summer
             weekends would probably be comparable to the current maximum density level,
             which is a condition that we can evaluate. Boaters sampled on the 1993 4th
             of July holiday reported the highest satisfaction levels recorded during
             the entire summer.     We can only assume that boaters would not object if
             such conditions became more common on Presque Isle Bay.

                  Of course, a doubling of current peak use levels would not occur
             overnight and, in fact, is based on a series of proposed and potential
             development alternatives that might or might not be implemented, and
             certainly will not all be implemented at one time.         Considering only the
             currently proposed not potential) marina development, along with an
             assumed increase in trailered and transient boats results in an increase of
             only 255 additional boats under peak conditions (42 percent increase over
             the current peak).      In addition, 367 boats are projected to come from
             potential marina expansion projects (see Section 4.1).            Accepting the
             limitations of determining a definitive recreational boating carrying
             capacity for Presque Isle Bay, based on the data collected for this study,

                                                    7-3









           we feel 900 additional boat slips along the existing Erie waterfront would
           not have an irreversible detrimental effect.    Once the expansion of new
           slips approaches 900, an evaluation of additional available capacity water
           quality and recreational carrying capacity should be conducted.























































                                              7-4









            8.0 REVIEW OF LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITIES

            Millcreek Township Comprehensive Plan

                 The Millcreek Township Comprehensive Plan (August 1980), includes an
            analysis,   summary,- and   recommendations   for development     in Millcreek
            Township.    The westernmost end of Presque Isle Bay is located on the
            northeastern tip of Millcreek Township. This area possess some development
            potential and could be incorporated into the waterfront development of the
            City of Erie. The land use analysis shows the area along the bay as being
            a flood hazard and having wetlands and steep slopes along the bluffs. The
            Plan recommends that development in these areas be restricted, or the land
            be retained in its present state. The General Development Plan also shows
            the shore area abutting Presque Isle Bay for parkland or restricted
            development.

            Millcreek Township Zoning   Ordinance

                 The Zoning Ordinance   of Millcreek Township, enacted December 30, 1974
            with amendments through     January 8, 1991, is designed to achieve the
            development objectives of   the Comprehensive Plan.

                 Presque Isle Bay is    adjacent to four zoning categories in Millcreek
            Township.

                 0     "A"   Residence  District permits parks not operated as business
                       for profit (Section 402).

                 a     "B" Business District permits parks.

                       Light Industrial

                       The Resort/Business District is intended to provide space for
                       facilities   serving   the   recreation    and   vacation    oriented
                       population in the Presque Isle area.           The purpose of the
                       Resort/Business District is to provide standards for specific
                       types of land uses and to control the intensity of development in
                       order to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts in
                       areas near the entrance to Presque Isle State Park.              This
                       District promotes and enhances the many recreational and
                       commercial uses of land adjacent to the entrance of Presque Isle
                       State Park, and do so in a manner that protects the people's
                       right to natural, scenic and aesthetic values of this unique
                       natural resource which is part of the common property of all the
                       people.

                 Boating facilities, marina, and rentals and sales of boats are
            permitted uses in the Resort/Business District.








                                                  8-1









           City of Erie. Waterfront Comprehensive Plan

                The Waterfront Comprehensive Plan for the City of Erie, (May 1986),
           was transmitted to the Mayor via a letter dated August 29, 1986, for
           implementation.     -

                The Comprehensive Plan was designed to guide development of the Lake
           Erie waterfront toward a balanced mix of existing and proposed uses to
           safeguard the viability of water-dependent commerce and industry while
           encouraging an expanded range of people-oriented activities.     The Plan is
           the official planning guide for development and serves to guide zoning
           revisions.


                The Comprehensive Plan provides a framework to guide revitalization of
           the waterfront area by focusing on the following objectives:

                0    Encourage residential development to build a downtown population
                     that will support commercial activity and create a 24-hour cycle
                     of pedestrian use.

                a    Consolidate existing wate rf ront- oriented industrial uses at the
                     Marine Terminal, and relocate non-waterfront industry to more
                     appropriate areas.

                a    Capitalize on the current demand for marina facilities with new
                     port development.

                0    Adjust current plans for Niagara Place to be more compatible with
                     the scale of the Erie community and reflect a maritime commercial
                     theme.


                0    Recognize the prime commercial opportunity at the end of State
                     Street and devel'op it as a focal point of the revitalized
                     waterfront.


                0    Retain the historic ship Niagara in its current location to take
                     advantage of its visibility and reinforce the importance of the
                     State Street area.


                0    Establish   a unifying    urban character    for  the   revitalized
                     waterfront with a density and scale that are compatible with the
                     existing community.

                The  Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that the Presque Isle Bay Bluff,
           the Port  of Erie and Waterfront Area, and Presque Isle Bay are identified
           as an Overlap Geographic Area of Particular Concern (GAPC) by the Coastal
           Zone Management Program (CZMP) and therefore special attention has to be
           given to their development. The CZMP recognizes the area as being unique,
           offering a climate conducive to the development of both port and
           recreational activities. Uses to be highly encouraged include:






                                                8-2








                       Increasing the port's import and export grain handling capacity.

                       Increasing the warehouse capacity and capability.

                  ï¿½    Providing-better road access between the port and the interstate
                        highway system.

                  ï¿½    Improving port facilities used in support of the commercial
                       fishing fleet.

                  ï¿½    Expanding the marina capacity of the harbor.

                  a    Providing better recreational access to the harbor via the
                       development of access roads, parking lots, and service docks.

                  The bluffs along the shoreline act as an environmental buffer zoneand
            support many species of wildlife and vegetation.               Urban development
            pressures within the City's bayfront have eliminated much of the ecological
            significance of the bluffs. It is therefore important that these areas be
            monitored.


                  Presque Isle Bay is also significant because it is a socioeconomic
            resource.    The Bay is used year-round as a recreational area and Presque
            Isle is Pennsylvania's only Great Lakes harbor.          The Comprehensive Plan
            further recommends an expanded variety of uses which draw people to the
            waterfront. This is seen as the key that will unlock the potential of the
            area,    spur   economic    growth,    provide    a  variety    of    recreational
            opportunities, and enhance the image and identity of the community.               A
            broad range of new waterfront uses which are appropriate and potentially
            marketable include: specialty retail, restaurants, hotel and entertainment
            uses,   cultural/historical attractions,      parks and plazas,     offices,    and
            housing.

                  By using a mixed land use planning approach which emphasizes
            integration of diverse but compatible functions, the potential for economic
            development is significant. The goal is to establish an activity mix which
            draws substantial numbers of persons for a variety of reasons throughout
            the day and evenings to create a functional focus and lively atmosphere.
            This will enable the waterfront to maximize its economic development
            potential and capitalize on the opportunity to create mutually beneficial
            relationships between the waterfront area and the surrounding areas.

                  The Comprehensive Plan states that over the years the numbers of boat
            registrations have increased significantly and there is an unmet demand for
            boat slips.      Therefore, the potential for expanding marina facilities
            exists.     The Plan recommends that the waterfront would be able to
            accommodate an     additional 700-1,000 slips between 1985-1990 with the
            potential for an additional 600-800 slips between 1990-2000.

                  In order to  implement its recommendations and guide development on the
            waterfront, the    Comprehensive Plan made recommendations for amending the
            City's zoning map in addition to site plan and design review requirements.



                                                    8-3









            City of Erie Zoning Ordinance

                 The City of Erie's Zoning Ordinance, effective August 1, 1968 and
            revised July 1, 1992, incorporated the zoning amendments recommended by the
            Waterfront Comprehensive Plan and set the stage for development along the
            waterfront to take place.

                 The Waterfront Districts (Section 202.50) provide a framework to guide
            and control the development of the Erie Bayfront.          This district is
            intended to coordinate future public and private improvements in a mixed
            land use concept. The waterfront districts are as follows (Exhibit 8-1):

                 1.    Waterfront Commercial District (W-C), designed for residential,
                       commercial, recreational and historical uses.

                 2.    Waterfront Commercial District No. 2 (W-C-2), designed for
                       residential, commercial, recreational and historical uses.      The
                       zones are differentiated by the requirements for lot, yard and
                       height requirements.

                 3.    Waterfront Industrial District (W-M), designed for industries
                       that require waterfront or waterfront related uses.

                 4.    Waterfront Residential Districts (W-R), designed for high density
                       residential areas on valuable properties or properties where good
                       access, public utilities, and common facilities warrant a higher
                       density population.

                 All uses permitted within the Waterfront Districts are categorized as
            conditional uses in order to properly regulate the development along the
            waterfront.  Marinas are permitted as a conditional use in the Waterfront
            Commercial (W-C) District (Section 204.20).

            Additional requirements are as follows:

                 a     Developments  which access the bayfront water's edge         in a
                       Waterfront District must provide free public accessway.

                 0     Off-street parking (Section 302)     shall be provided for all
                       developments and any enlargements to existing facilities.
                       Marinas require 1 parking space per 2 boat stalls.

                 0     Any proposed development located within the Waterfront District
                       shall have all necessary permits from the various governmental
                       agencies such as the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.
                       Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department
                       of Environmental Resources (Section 306).        Additionally, an
                       Environmental Assessment for impacts on the air, water, and land
                       to provide a general picture of the total development impact on
                       the harbor and shoreline is to be submitted for review.







                                                 8-4









            Erie County Regulations

                  According to John Mong of the Erie County Department of Planning
            IECDPI, Erie County has no specific regulations which deal with development
            within Presque Isle Bay.      However, the ECDP is responsible for reviewing
            all subdivisions and land developments within the project area.         The ECDP
            also reviews all zoning changes which are proposed by the local municipal-
            ities.    In accordance with the provisions of Pennsylvania Act 14, Erie
            County government is notified of any developments within the City of Erie
            and Millcreek Township. The ECDP is also responsible for administering the
            PCIMP on behalf of PADER.


            State Regulations

                  Fishing and Boating Regulations


                  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Fishing and Boating Regulations are
            administered by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission which regulates
            permits for the disturbance of waterways or watersheds.         The Pennsylvania
            Fish and Boat Commission is charged with administering and enforcing laws
            and regulations relating to fishing and boating on all waters of the
            Commonwealth.   These responsibilities extend to Presque Isle Bay and there
            are no special or additional responsibilities which pertain to fishing and
            boating in Presque Isle Bay (Moore, pers. comm.,             1993).     The main
            responsibilities of the Fish and Boat Commission are:

                  1.   The encouragement, promotion and development of the fishery
                       interest.
                  2.   The protection, propagation and distribution of fish.
                  3.   The management of boating and operation of boats.
                  4.   The encouragement, promotion and development of recreational
                       boating.

                  The Commission institutes general and special rules and regulations
            concerning    fish   and   fishing   including     the  regulations    concerning
            protection, preservation and management of fish and fish habitat, in
            addition to fish restoration and management.           The Commission is also
            charged to supervise and administer regulations concerning the operation of
            boats through the establishment of educational programs and improvement of
            waterway facilities including aids to navigation (PAFBC, 1993).

                  Permits required for Fishing and Boating include the following:

            Activity and Permits Reguire                         Agencl

            Marina Develol2ment/ExRansion (includes dredge and fill     process)

                  Dam Safety and Encroachment                    PADER
                  Penn. Clean Streams Law                        PADER
                  Pennsylvania CZM                               PADER
                  Section 404 Permits                            Corps of Engineers
                  Section 404(b)(1)                              EPA
                  Section 10                                     USFWS
                  Water Obstruction, Section 105                 PADER


                                                   8-5






































                                                  PRESQUEISLE BAY




                                                                                                                                                       %


                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                        - - - - - - - -
                                R-3W                                         IR-                                                       -2
                                                        C-2w

                                                                                                         C-2w

                                                                                                         - --------- --
                                                                                                       L   4q I           @1 I                 %
                                                                                                      T-1
                                                                                                                                                %
                    3 r d .                                                                        2-1
                                                                                                    .  i
                                            "L-        1@=TR      3 Iq               L
                                                                                                                                                                      El
                                                                                  ij
                                                                    TML                                                                                               C:
                 0       IC


                                                                                                                                                      YU
                                                                                                                                                      z
                 z       16     a               j      C                                            Z                     4       1
                                                                                                                          C                     ME
                 C                              96                    a              a          a                         L                     'Mc          L        U,










                Not To Scale


                Presque Isle Bay Recreational Boating,Study
                                ENGINEERS - ARCWIIC75 - MINNIRS - SCIENUSTS . SURVEYORS . NOTOG.1-fiR.STS                  City               of         Erie
                                    GREENHORNE & O'MARA, INC.
                 r
               @!Q      Jl







                                9DD1 MOONSTON ROAD, GREENBELT, MARYLAND 2D7M                        Waterf ront Zoning
                                                                                                                                                 EXHIBIT 8 1

             Source: Erie Waterfront Comprehensive Plan, 1986
                                                                                              8-6








                 Building Permit                               City of Erie
                 Water Resource Regulations                    PADER

            Construction of Piers and Bulkheads                PADER


            Landside Improvements


            Parking Facilities:

                 Building Permit                               City of Erie

            Boat Ramp and Parking

                 Building Permit                               City of Erie
                 Dam Safety and Encroachment                   PADER
                 Clean Streams Law                             PADER
                 Pennsylvania CZM                              PADER
                 Section 404                                   Corps of Engineers
                 Section 404(b)(1)                             EPA


            Recreational Boating and Fishing


                 Fishing and Boating Regulations               Fish and Boat Commission
                 NPDES Permit                                  PADER




                 Dam Safety and Waterway Management

                 The Dam Safety and Encroachments Act gives the State authority to
            protect wetlands. Dams, water obstructions, and encroachments proposed in
            or otherwise affecting any important wetland will have to meet performance
            standards as stated in Chapter 105 of the Pennsylvania Code of Regulations.
            These standards require that the maintenance of the character and function
            of coastal wetlands be a primary consideration for the permitting of any
            action in those wetlands.    Permits are issued by PADER's Division of Dams
            and Waterways Management.    PADER's jurisdiction in and along Lake Erie is
            defined by the highwater elevation of 572.8 feet International Great Lakes
            Datum (IGLD) and low water elevation of 568.6 IGLD.

                 The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources may by written
            agreement, delegate to a County Conservation District or other County
            agency one or more of its regulatory functions, including enforcement,
            permitting, 'inspection, and monitoring of specified categories of water
            obstructions and encroachments.    However, this does not apply a to public
            utility, a political subdivision, or a water obstruction or encroachment
            constructed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.        A permit issued to a
            delegated agency is subject to review by the Department.

                 Clean Streams Law


                 The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law prohibits the discharge of
            pollutants into the waters of the Commonwealth and is regulated by the
            Department of Environmental Resources.     Chapter 102 provides the authority

                                                  8-7








           for PADER to implement erosion and sedimentation control programs. This is
           regulated by the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation in PADER.

           Pre8gue Isle State Park

                Presque Isle State Park is important to the Erie Harbor, not only
           because it protects the harbor but it is also important as a research,
           educational, and recreational area. The PADER Bureau of State Parks, which
           regulates the operation of Presque State Park, is responsible for
           supervising, maintaining, improving, policing, protecting, and the overall
           stewardship of the park (Houghton, pers. comm., 1993). Presque Isle State
           Park promotes outdoor recreation and education and is an area of natural
           and unusual scenic beauty.       In order to meet the responsibility of
           maintaining this park, properties are acquired from time to time as they
           become available.     Because of its popularity, there is a desire for
           transportation, shelter, comfort and educational facilities.     However, in
           making available these facilities, design and construction have to be
           carefully considered so as to preserve the natural features of the of the
           park (PBSP, 1993).

                The authority for the enforcement of laws, rules, and regulations in
           Presque Isle State Park is delineated in the Pennsylvania Administrative
           Code of 1929 which gives park officers the same authority to enforce the
           law as a police officer of a First Class City.         The area under park
           jurisdiction includes all areas on land, lakes, and lagoons within the
           park, Misery Bay, Marina Lake, and extends 500 feet from the shoreline into
           the surrounding waters. Though Park Officers are empowered to enforce all
           laws which apply within the park, enforcement of game and fish regulations
           are most often left to the officers of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
           Commission. The Park Officers are responsible for the enforcement of park
           regulations such as those which regulate activity in the Gull Point
           Management Area (Houghton, Pers. Comm. 1993).

           Federal Reaulations


                Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP)

                Federal CZMP guidance documents stress the need to protect and wisely
           use the important national resources contained in the coastal zone.       The
           Coastal Zone Management Act was signed into Law by the Congress of the
           United States on October 27, 1972. The Act authorized a Federal grant-in-
           aid program to be administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn
           delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
           Administration's (NOAA) Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM).         The
           grants-in-aid were to facilitate the establishment of State Coastal Zone
           Authorities empowered to manage their coastal waters and adjacent lands.

                The Coastal Zone Management Act, amended July 20, 1976, empowered the
           States to exercise full authority over their coastal areas.           Federal
           agencies and local government agencies were required to participate in the
           development of management programs, and state governments were given the
           central role and responsibility of the process.     Financial assistance was
           granted to the states to help in achieving the stated objectives and
           policies. States with coastal areas are eligible for grants from NOAA for

                                                8-8








             p to 80 percent of the cost for developing coastal zone management
            programs. The states are required to address specific issues, consult with
            Ulocal governments and relevant Federal agencies, and involve the general
            public.    The Management Program is then submitted to the Secretary of
            Commerce for approval, and if it is approved the state is then eligible for
            annual grants to administer the management program.

                  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program was
            approved by the Federal Government and addresses major coastal resource
            management issues of State, Federal, and local concerns and has developed
            policies to guide State decision making in the coastal zones. These areas
            of concern are:


                  1.   Coastal Hazards
                  2.   Dredging and Spoil Disposal
                  3.   Fisheries Management
                  4.   Wetlands
                  5.   Public Access for Recreation
                  6.   Historic Sites and Structures
                  7.   Port Activities
                  8.   Energy Facility Siting
                  9.   Intergovernmental Coordination
                  10.  Public Involvement


                  A State statute, the Bluff Recession and Setback Act (BRSA) requires
            municipalities within the Bluff Recession Hazard Areas along the Lake Erie
            shoreline to enact setback ordinances affecting stationary structures.

                  The  CZMP has a     "consistency"   element which helps with policy
            implementation.    Under the PACZMP Act of 1972, as amended, Pennsylvania's
            CZM program is required to review federal activities for consistency with
            its policies.      The federal activities reviewed are divided into four
            categories: 1)    federal assistance; 2)    federal permit; 3) direct federal
            development project; and 4) Outer Continental Shelf activities.

                  On the state level, the CZM program reviews certain state permit
            applications and state activities for consistency.         Those state permit
            applications selected for review are solid waste, encroachment, air and
            water quality.     The program also reviews state funded projects or state
            development projects for consistency.        These reviews are accomplished
            through a Governor's Executive Order, or interagency agreements.

                  Presque Isle Bay, which is managed under the authorities of the Dam
            Safety and Encroachment Act and the Clean Streams Law, is a unique area
            offering a climate conducive to the development of both port and
            recreational facilities.     High priority uses include development of coal
            loading and off loading facilities, increasing the port's import and export
            grain handling capacity, increasing the port's warehousing capacity and
            capability, providing better road access between the port and the local
            interstate highway system, improving port facilities used in support of the
            growing commercial fishing fleet, expanding the marina capacity of the
            harbor, providing better recreational access to the harbor, and providing
            better recreational access roads, parking lots, and service docks.           Low


                                                   8-9








            priority uses are any uses which exclude or conflict with high priority
            uses.


                  Most of  the authorities which are responsible for implementing the
            PCZMP are in   the Department of Environmental Resources, the leading agency
            for administering the CZMP.

                  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

                  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for wetland
            delineation. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S. Army Corps
            of Engineers the power to issue permits for the discharge of dredge or fill
            materials in the "waters of the United States."         A Section 404 permit is
            required for disposal of dredge of fill materials in:

                  ï¿½    Territorial seas of the United States.


                  ï¿½    Coastal and inland waters,       lakes,   rivers, streams, that are
                       navigable waters of the United States.

                  ï¿½    The tributaries of navigable waters of the United States,
                       including adjacent wetlands, even if separated by a dike, berms,
                       or dunes.
                  ï¿½    Interstate waters and their tributaries, including adjacent
                       wetlands.


                  ï¿½    All other water bodies not included in the above categories.

                  If an area is within the Corps' jurisdiction, an individual dredge and
            fill permit may be required for certain activities, or approval under a
            "Nationwideff permit can be issued for other specific categories of
            activities.      The Corps determines whether a wetland is within its
            jurisdiction by using specific criteria as contained in 40 CFR Part 230,
            and more recently in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
            Jurisdictional Wetlands published in January 1989. These criteria include
            various factors such as adequacy, areal extent, type of vegetation, tidal
            or flood water heights, and soil and hydraulic characteristics.

                  Environmental Protection Agency


                  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in conjunction with the
            Secretary of the Army, has responsibility for developing and ensuring
            compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, effective March 23, 1981, which
            are the substantive environmental criteria used in evaluating discharges of
            dredged or fill material under Section 404.


                  U.S. Coast Guard


                  The primary responsibility of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) operations
            in Presque Isle Bay is to undertake search and rescue missions (Carter,
            pers. comm., 1993).     The USCG responds to emergencies such as boat fires,
            collisions, sinkings or rescuing persons who are experiencing difficulties
            in the water. The USCG is also responsible for the maintenance of Aids to
            Navigation such as buoys which guide barges into docking areas.                They


                                                   8-10








           monitor the buoys to make sure they are in place and in good condition. In
           addition, the USCG will respond to any oil, chemical or other type of
           spills which occur on the Bay. They are responsible for containment of the
           spill and investigation as to the cause of the spill.    The decision as to
           who will undertake -the clean-up of the spill is made in conjunction with
           DER.


                Nonpoint Source Pollution


                National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are
           required for stormwater discharge.   The objective of the NPDES stormwater
           program is to target control efforts at the greatest source of nonpoint
           source pollution.






















































                                               8-11









            9.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS


            9.1 Presque Isle Bay Recreational Boating Management Recommendations

                 The findings of this study (both the boater         survey and the water
            quality study) indicate that Presque Isle Bay can support increases in
            recreational boating activities and infrastructure.       This belief is based
            upon the fact that current levels of boating activity have not had a
            negative   impact on    the boating experience and that the relative
            contribution of pollutants by boating activities and infrastructure is
            minor. This is not to suggest recreational boating activities, both on the
            water and associated with support facilities on the shoreline, do not have
            adverse environmental impacts.     Several of the management recommendations
            included in this section address areas where environmental impacts
            associated with recreational boating can be minimized.

                 Therefore,   accepting the limitations of determining a definitive
            numerical recreational boating carrying capacity for presque Isle Bay,
            based on the information collected through the boater questionnaires and
            the water quality sampling, and based upon the level of analysis conducted
            for this study, we feel 900 additional boat slips along the existing Erie
            waterfront would not have an irreversible detrimental effect on Presque
            Isle Bay.    Therefore, 3200 boat slips could be viewed as the present
            capacity of the Bay.      This assumes that all new marina facilities are
            located,   designed,  and constructed using appropriate water facility
            guidelines which are available in the literature, a portion of which are
            discussed elsewhere in this report.     This capacity also assumes all other
            parameters are held constant. This would include the number of boat launch
            ramps and the number of boaters using them, which is typically managed
            through the number of parking spaces available, and that the number of
            transient boaters remains constant.       It also assumes no improvement or
            degradation in the contribution of pollutants through point and non-point
            sources.


                 Once the expansion of recreational boating facilities approaches the
            addition of 900 new boat slips (which will total 3178 boat slips in the
            study area), the study team recommends that the question of carrying
            capacity be revisited to determine if additional capacity can be provided
            at that time.   A detailed water quality assessment should be conducted to
            evaluate whether additional      recreational boating pressures would be
            detrimental to the Bay.          The progress made in implementing the
            recommendations of the Remedial Action Plan regarding the land-side
            contribution of point and non-point source pollutants can be incorporated
            into the evaluation of pollutant loadings from future recreational boating
            activities in the Bay.    Also, the recreational carrying capacity analysis
            developed in this study effort provides an excellent foundation for
            reevaluating recreational boating concerns.

                 This is an opportune time, from a planning perspective, to address
            recreational boating issues on Presque Isle Bay. There is the opportunity
            to be proactive instead of responding to crisis situations.          Recommenda-
            tions can be developed to preserve the natural resources of the Bay and to
            address areas of concern regarding the contribution of pollutant loadings
            from recreational boating before significant adverse impacts are detected.

                                                  9-1








           The findings do not suggest that there is a preservation versus utilization
           issue present.    Current levels and incremental increases in recreational
           boating on Presque Isle Bay can coexist with a management approach that has
           the protection of the natural resources as its primary objective.

                 The recommendations in this section of the report address both the
           current situation and future conditions as boating pressure on the Bay
           increases.    The recommendations need to be tailored to the appropriate
           management or regulatory authority that can most effectively address the
           issue. Some of the recommendations can be implemented by resource managers
           and by local jurisdictions, others suggest actions that can be taken by the
           boating industry or by government at the state and national level.

                 Exhibit 9-1 depicts the opportunities and constraints to recreational
           boating on -Presque Isle Bay.         The map identifies opportunities for
           expansion of recreational boating facilities along the Erie waterfront and
           on the South Shore of Presque Isle. If done properly, the redevelopment of
           the waterfront will provide an economic development opportunity for the
           City of Erie.    As has occurred in many waterfront redevelopment projects,
           most notably in the example of Baltimore, attracting residents and visitors
           to the waterfront has also focused attention on water quality and
           protecting the natural resources present.

                 Exhibit 9-1 also identifies environmentally sensitive areas and
           constraints to expanding marinas, yacht clubs and other boating facilities
           on the shoreline. Information on shallow-water habitat, defined as waters
           less than six feet in depth, was obtained from marine charts and National
           Wetlands Inventory Maps prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
           Shallow-water areas in Presque Isle Bay provide important habitat for fish
           spawning   and   nursery.      Aquatic vegetation     was mapped by       aerial
           photointerpretation and includes emergent, submergent, and floating aquatic
           vegetation. The Lake shore bluffs are identified as the steep slope areas;
           they are a significant phyiical and environmental constraint to shoreline
           development along the City of Erie and Millcreek Township waterfront.

                 Several existing management zones implemented by Presque Isle State
           Park   resource   managers,  and which affect recreational boating,          are
           identified on the constraints and opportunities map. An interconnected set
           of ponds and lagoons with access to the Bay have been designated by the
           state park as a non-motorized boating area.          These ponds and lagoons
           support a diverse set of wetland plant communities and provide a wide-array
           of wildlife habitat.     Canoes and    rowboats are allowed for fishing and
           paddling. A five hundred foot "no-wake" zone is in effect along the entire
           bayshore of Presque Isle.

                 The Gull Point Special Management Area is depicted on the easternmost
           point of Presque Isle and encompasses an area of approximately 67 acres.
           Although this area has been identified as a unique and fragile natural area
            or some time, additional special management area restrictions will go into
           effect on April 1, 1994.     The management area is closed to all public use
           f

           from April 1 through November 30.       All land and water access, including
           hiking and beaching of boats, is prohibited.       Boats are not permitted to
           moor within 100 feet of the shoreline.



                                                 9-2



















                                                                                   GO Pbfnt


                                                                                                             Legend
                                                            Presque ls16%
                                                                 Park





                                                                                                     S
                                                                                                         Ilow W
                                                                                                                ater Habitat
                                                                                                       h
         Approximate Scale 1- 3200
                                                                                                     Aq  atic Vegetation
                                                                                                     Pre que Isle State Park
                                                                                                     Prohibition of
                                                                                                     Motorized Boats

                                                                 Harbor
                                                                                                          ue Is
                                                                 Turning                             Pr  q     le State Park
                                                                 Basin
                                                                                                     N o Wake Zone
                                                                                       X\
                                        Presque Isle Bay                                             St@ep Slopes
                                                                                                  IV Proposed Marina
                                                                                                     Po ential Marina
            Lake Erie
                                                                                                   V
                                                                                                     Bo t Concentration Areas
                         . . . . . . .                                                                   que Isle State Park
                                                                                                          Point Management Area
                             Haed of Bay          Y
                                                                                                     Harbor Entrance
                                                                                                     and  Turning Basin
                                      V


                    V*
                                                                                                  H
                                                                                                    ead @f Bay: Proposed
                                                                                                  Resource Management Area
                 X



                                                    Recreational Boating Constraints                   and Opportunities
                   Creenhorne & O'Mara, Inc                                                                           Exhibit 9-1








                 The eastern tip of Gull Point is an area of shifting sandspits which
            provide critical habitat for nesting and migrating shorebirds. It has also
            been popular with recreational boaters and provided a place where boaters
            could beach their boats or moor just offshore in a relatively protected
            setting.   This restriction has generated controversy over its merits among
            some boaters and re-source managers, and provides a good example of natural
            resource use conflicts.        This restriction will also increase boat
            congestion along Beach Number 11 lidentified on Exhibit 9-1 as a boat
            concentration area), one of the few remaining areas where boats can moor
            offshore.


                 The Head of the Bay is identified in this study as a portion of the
            Bay which should be managed to protect the aquatic resources present and
            adjacent undisturbed Lake Bluff and shoreline plant communities. Sections
            1.1.1 and 1.1.4 describe the significance of aquatic and terrestrial
            communities that are present in the proposed management area. They include
            a variety of habitats which are imperiled; contain rare, threatened or
            endangered species; and provide important fish spawning habitat and fish
            nursery grounds.      This study recommends that a "no-wake" policy be
            implemented within    the limits depicted as a Resource Management Area.
            Fishing and low-impact boating activities would be permissible; water
            skiing and power cruising should be strictly prohibited.

                 A   public   information   effort   should   be   undertaken    to   inform
            recreational boaters of their responsibility in protecting the natural
            resources of Presque Isle Bay. Resource managers should encourage boaters
            to play a stronger role in the bay's protection and enhancement efforts.

                 Summary of Management Recommendations

                 ï¿½     When expansion of recreational facilities approaches 900 new boat
                       slips, a detailed assessment should be conducted to address
                       availability of additional capacity, water quality, and carrying
                       capacity.

                 ï¿½     There does not appear to be a need to restrict or limit public
                       access to Presque Isle Bay currently or in the near future.
                       Monitoring of the boating conditions should be conducted over
                       time if use levels increase (see Section 9.1).

                 ï¿½     Resource managers should consider a balanced approach to
                       maximizing the uses of the Bay and preserving environmental
                       quality.

                 ï¿½     One-fifth of the boaters sampled reported that other boats had
                       come too close to them while boating. Such incidents were one of
                       the greatest safety concerns among Presque Isle Bay boaters. All
                       pertinent organizations should consider methods of strengthening
                       their educational efforts to create more boating safety awareness
                       on the Bay.






                                                  9-4








                   0   Vhile it appears that crowding is not an existing problem on
                       Presque Isle Bay,     areas that were identified as having the
                       potential for congestion should be closely monitored by resource
                       management personnel to identify safety concerns or environmental
                       factors before they become problems in the future.

                   0   A "no wake" zone should be considered for the area depicted on
                       Exhibit 9-1 as the Head of Bay Resource Management Area.           The
                       restricted area should fall within the area where water depth is
                       61 or less. Natural resource managers should conduct additional
                       investigations    of   all   ramifications   associated    with    the
                       establishment of such an area. Criteria should be developed for
                       monitoring this and other environmentally sensitive areas in
                       Presque Isle Bay.

                   a   Educational displays should be developed and placed at key
                       locations to educate users about the sensitivity of the Bay's
                       resources and ways to minimize potential use conflicts.

                   0   The   inventory   of existing recreational boating facilities
                       indicates that four marina pump-out facilities are located within
                       the Study Area.    A Clean Vessels Act survey of Presque Isle Bay
                       should be conducted to determine the adequacy of marina pump-out
                       facilities. If found adequate, a petition should be forwarded to
                       the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the use of
                       Flow Through Type I and Il Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs) in
                       Presque Isle Bay.

                   0   The EPA, with the support of and in coordination with the boating
                       industry,   should promote the development of       technologies to
                       reduce   total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)         from two-stroke
                       outboard marine engines.     The development of an efficient four-
                       stroke outboard marine engine would significantly reduce both TPH
                       and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) from entering aquatic
                       systems.

                   0   EPA should support increased research funding to determine a
                       viable alternative to the use of copper-based anti-fouling paint.
                       State resource managers should closely monitor the fate of copper
                       released into Presque Isle Bay from wood and steel boats painted
                       with copper-based paints.

                   0   Millcreek Township should consider a Lake Bluff and Shoreline
                       Land Preservation Program utilizing zoning amendments together
                       with land preservation techniques such as donation, acquisition
                       of easements, and voluntary conservation agreements, to preserve
                       the unique natural resources present along the shoreline.
                       Marinas, which are currently permitted in the zoning district
                       fronting the Head of the Bay, should be prohibited due to the
                       environmental sensitivity of the area.

                   6   The    Pennsylvania    Department   of    Environmental     Resources,
                       especially through the consistency review process, together with
                       other State reviewing agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of

                                                   9-5







                       Engineers, should carefully review joint permit applications for
                       waterfront   development    in   areas   outside   the   proposed    and
                       potential marina sites identified in this study.

                 0     Almost eight years have passed since the Erie Waterfront
                       Comprehensive Plan was prepared.       Some of the proposed projects
                       have changed, such as the marina development planned near the
                       Erie International Marine Terminal, east of the Turning Basin.
                       The Comprehensive Plan assumed wrongly that the drydock facility
                       was not a viable option and the success of Erie Marine Enterprise
                       is welcomed.     However, many of the recommendations prepared at
                       that time are still valid today.       The City of Erie and the Erie
                       Western   Pennsylvania Port Authority should continue to be
                       proactive in encouraging public/private sector initiatives to
                       take advantage of the waterfront opportunities for redevelopment.

                  0    The   City   of  Erie,   or   the Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port
                       Authority, should consider providing slips for transient boats
                       along the Presque Isle Bay waterfront.       There is a known demand
                       for such facilities and the City could benefit economically by
                       encouraging more visitation from recreational boaters cruising
                       Lake Erie. The area near Dobbins Landing appears to be a viable
                       location.


            9.2 Recommendations for Future Monitoring

                  Regardless of what carrying capacity is assumed for the Bay, or which
            management and facility development alternatives are implemented in the
            future, the effects on boating quality can ultimately only be determined
            through a monitoring program. Results of this study can be used to suggest
            what variables can be monitored most effectively as well as what variables
            may be most important as potential limiting factors in the future       '

                  Any future monitoring program should include measures of boat density
            and use patterns as well as data on critical indicators of boating quality
            and impacts.      The strong correlations between the various use level
            indicators included in this study imply that those indicators that can be
            obtained in the most cost-effective manner could be used as surrogate
            measures of overall boating use levels.          Thus, periodic counts of boat
            traffic through the main channel to Lake Erie       should be made on a regular
            sampling schedule, although it probably is not necessary to maintain
            continuous counts throughout the day as was         done in this study    '   At a
            minimum, the numbers of boats traveling in          either direction should be
            counted for several 15-minute intervals within       a constant time period (say
            between 2:00 and 4:00 P.M. to capture the peak use) to reduce the
            possibility of distortion due to peaks and outliers. In addition, parking
            lot counts could be made at a few selected locations to provide a base of
            comparison to the boat channel counts.        The relatively large parking lots
            at Lampe Marina and the State Park (West Pier) would provide good locations
            representing the larger number of locations monitored during this study.

                  Boating quality/impact indicators that should be monitored include
            those occurring most frequently in the present study as well as those most
            strongly associated with use levels and/or overall boating satisfaction.

                                                    9-6








            Boater satisfaction is an important variable because it indicates boaters'
            overall reaction to their boating experience.     Although satisfaction at
            Presque Isle Bay was relatively high and was not negatively associated with
            use levels, it should still be monitored in the future to detect changes
            that may occur in response to changing boating conditions.

                 Of the various satisfaction measures included in this study, the
            10-point overall trip rating, while less sensitive and precise, can be
            obtained and analyzed more easily and thus has a practical advantage over
            the satisfaction index comprised of six separate items.     Because of the
            strong correlation between the overall trip rating and the satisfaction
            index, use of the 10-point scale should provide an adequate means of
            detecting unacceptable changes in the overall quality of boating at Presque
            Isle Bay. If monitoring does reveal a drop in this score in the future, it
            would be useful to conduct an in-depth investigation similar to the current
            study which would include the more complete satisfaction index.

                 Of all the impact indicators measured, the various crowding measures
            tended to be most strongly correlated with the boat density measures.
            Perceived crowding in the channel appears to be the most serious
            crowding-related concern   and should definitely be monitored if more
            facilities are developed on Presque Isle Bay.

































                                                9-7









            10.0 REFERENCES

            Adelman, B. J. , T. A. Heberlein and T. M. Bonnicksen.             1982.     "Social
            psychological explanations for the persistence of a conflict between
            paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.h
            Leisure Sciences 5 @1): 45-62.

            Becker, R. H. 1981. "Displacement of recreational users between the Lower
            St. Croix and Upper Mississippi Rivers."              Journal of Environmental
            Management 13: 259-267.

            The Brandow Company.        December 1. 1992.        "The Erie County Economic
            Adjustment Strategy and Implementation Plan."

            City of Erie. 1992 (latest revision). Zoning Ordinance, City of Erie, PA.
            Effective date August 1, 1968.

            Ditton, R, B*, A* R, Graefe, and A. J. Fedler.              1981*     "Recreational
            satisfaction at Buffalo National River: some measurement concerns."               In
            Some Recent Products of River Recreation Research.           USDA Forest Service
            General Technical Report NC-63, North Central Forest Experiment Station,
            St. Paul, MN, p. 9-17.

            Erie County, Department of Planning et al.          Undated.    Lake Erie Boating-
            Facilities and Related Services, Erie County, Pennsylvania.

            Fisher, John S. et al.         1987.    A Comparison of Water Quality at Two
            Recreational Marinas During a Peak-Use Period.          Raleigh, North Carolina:
            U.N.C. Sea Grant College Program, North Carolina State University.

            Gold, Seymour M. 1980. Recreation Planning and Design. New York: McGraw-
            Hill Book Company.

            Graefe, A. R., F. R. Kuss and J. J. Vaske.                1990.    Visitor impact
            management: the planning framework.        Washington, D.C.: National Parks and
            Conservation Association.


            Graefe, A. R. and A. J. Fedler.            1986.    "Situational and subjective
            determinants of satisfaction in marine recreational fishing."               Leisure
            Sciences 8 (3): 275-295.

            Graefe, A. R., J. J. Vaske and F. R.           Kuss.    1984.    "Social carrying
            capacity: an integration and synthesis of twenty years of research."
            Leisure Sciences 6 (4): 395-431.


            Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.      1993.      City of Erie - Foundries and Machine
            ShoRs. Data Analysis Report, Erie County Industrial Resources Survey Phase
            I. Prepared for Erie County. Erie, Pennsylvania.

            Grovhoug, J.0. et al.      1986.    "Baseline Measurements of Butyltin in U.S.
            Harbors and Estuaries."        Paper presented at the Oceans 86 Conference,
            September 23-25, 1986, at Washington D.C.




                                                    10-1








             Heberlein, T. A. and B. Shelby.      1977.    "Carrying capacity, values and the
             satisfaction model: a reply to Greist." Journal of Leisure Research 9 (2):
             142-148.


             Hendee, J.C. and R.W. Harris. 1970.        "Foresters' Perception of Wilderness
             User Attitudes and Preferences." Journal of Forestry, 68(12) 759-762.


             Hendee, J. C.         1974.      "A multiple-satisfaction approach to game
             management." Wildlife Society Bulletin 2 (3): 104-113.

              acob. G. R. and R. Schreyer.       1980.    "Conflict in outdoor recreation: a
             theoretical perspective." Journal of Leisure Research 12 (4): 368-380.

             Land Design/Research, Inc. 1986. Waterfront Comprehensive Plan. Prepared
             for the City of Erie, Pennsylvania.

             Lucas, R. C. and G. H. Stankey.          1974.    "Social carrying capacity for
             backcountry recreation. "      In Outdoor Recreation Research: ARDlying the
             Results.   USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-9, North Central
             Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul MN, p. 14-23.

             Maguire, R. James.       1986.    "Review of the Occurrence, Persistence, and
             Degradation of Tributyltin in Fresh Water Ecosystems in Canada. "              Paper
             presented at the Oceans 86 Conference, September 23-25, 1986, at Washington
             D.C.


             Manning, R. E.     1985.    "Crowding norms in backcountry settings: a review
            *and synthesis," Journal of Leisure Research 11 121: 75-89,

             Mele, Andre.     1993.   Polluting for Pleasure.      New York: W.W. Norton and
             Company.

             Merriam, L.C., Jr., K.D. Wald, and C.E. Ramsey.              1972.     "Public and
             Professional Definitions of the State Park: A Minnesota Case." Journal of
             Leisure Research, (4) Fall: 259-274.

             Milcreek Township. 1980. ComRrehensive Plan for Millcreek Township, Erie
             County, Pennsylvania.

             Millcreek Township.      1991.    Zoning Ordinance, Millcreek Township, Erie
             County, PA. Enacted December 30, 1974.

             Milliken, Andrew S. and Virginia Lee.            1990.    Pollution ImRacts from
             Recreational' Boating: A Bibliography and Summary Review.             Narragansett,
             Rhode Island: Rhode Island Sea Grant Publications, University of Rhode
             Island.


             North American Lake Management Society (NALMS). 1990. Lake and Reservoir
             Restoration Guide. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
             Washington, D.C.

             Nixon, Scott W. et al.        1973.    Ecology of Small Boat Marinas.         Marine
             Technical Report Series No. 5. Kingston, Rhode Island: University of Rhode
             Island.


                                                     10-2









             North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
             1990.   North Carolina Coastal Marinas: Water Quality Assessment.            Report
             No. 90-01.


             North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
             1991. Coastal Marinas: Field Survey of Contaminants and Literature Review.
             Report No. 91-03.

             Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Environmental Resources, Chapter 105, Dam
             Safety and Waterway Management. Department of Environmental Resources.

             Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PAFBC).          1983.   Presque Isle Bay
             Fisheries Assessment. Fisheries Management Section.

             Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PAFBC). 1993. Fishing and Boating
             Regulations.


             Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks (PBSP). 1993. Resource Management Plan
             Presgue Isle State Park. Erie, PA.

             Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) and the Presque
             Isle Bay Public Advisory Committee.          1992.   Presgue Isle Bay Remedial
             Action Plan.


             Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER).                   1989.
             Environmentally Sensitive Areas Study - Presgue Isle State Park. Prepared
             by RBA Group.

             Pennsylvania Geological Survey. 1991. Presgue Isle State Park, A Dynamic
             Interface of Water and Land. Pennsylvania Trail of Geology, Park Guide 21.
             Harrisburg, PA.

             Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PAFBC).          1987.   Presgue Isle Bay
             Fisheries Assessment. Fisheries Management Section.

             Peterson, G.L. 1974.      "A Comparison of the Sentiments and Perceptions of
 f'-k        Wilderness Managers and Canoeists in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area."
             Journal of Leisure Research, (6) Summer 194-206.

             Rogers & Golden, Inc. and Alan Mallach/Associates.         1977.   Maryland Major
             Facilities Study, Volume 4* Environmental Assessment Handbook.             Maryland
             Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD.

             Schreyer, R.     1979.    ffSuccession and displacement in river recreation."
             Paper prepared for River Recreation Project, USDA Forest Service, North
             Central Forest  Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, 45 pp.

             Shelby, B. and T. Heberlein.       1987.   Carrying Capacities in Recreational
             Settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

             Stankey, G. H. and S      McCool.    1984.   ffCarrying capacity in recreational
             settings: evolution, appraisal and application."         Leisure Sciences 6 (4):
             453-474.


                                                    10-3








             Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, R. C. Lucas, M. E. Petersen and S. S. Frissell.
             1985.    The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness
             Planning.      USDA Forest     Service    General Technical Report INT-176.
             Intermountain  Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, Utah, 37 pp.

             Stankey, G. H. and R. Schreyer.        1987.   "Attitudes toward wilderness and
             factors affecting visitor behavior: a state-of -knowledge review."                In
             Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of
             Knowledge, Future Directions. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report
             INT-220. Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah, p. 246-293.

             Stokols, D. 1972. "On the distinction between density and crowding: some
             implications for future research." Psychological Review 79: 275-277.

             U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.           1991.    Erie
             County Pennsylvania Soil Survey.

             U.S.   Department     of   Commerce,     National    Oceanic    and    Atmospheric
             Administration.      1980.      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Coastal Zone
             Management Program and Final Environmental ImRact Statement.

             United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.               1993.
             Guidance Specifying Management MeasuKes for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution
             in Coastal Waters. Washington, D.C.

             Vaske, J. J., A. J. Fedler and A. R. Graefe. 1986. "Multiple determinants
             of satisfaction from a specific waterfowl hunting trip." Leisure Sciences
             8 (2): 149-166.


             Wagar, J. A.     1964.   The carrying caRacity of wildlands for recreation.
             Society of American Foresters, Forest Science Monograph,23 pp.

             Wellejus, E.     1980.    Erie - Chronicle of a Great Lakes City.            Winsor
             Publications Woodland Hills, CA.

             Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC).       1993.   Draft Erie County Natural
             Heritage Inventory. Pittsburgh, PA.

             Young, David R. et al.      1974.   Mariiae InRuts of Polychlorinated BiRhenyls
             and Copper from Anti-Fouling Paints.          El Segundo, California: Southern
             California Coastal Water Research Project.

             Yousef, Yous  ef A.    1974.   Assessing Effects on Water Quality by Boating
             Activity.     Prepared for the National Environmental Research Center.
             Orlando, Florida: Florida Technical University.

             Zagorski, S. J. and M. Sampson.         1982.   "The Changing Configuration of
             Presque Isle State Park Peninsula."        The Journal of Erie Studies.        Vol.
             11, No.l.








                                                     10-4









             Personal Communications


             Adams,  David.      Plant Manager,    GAF Corporation,     Erie,    Pennsylvania.
             November 3, 1993.

             Babay, Jim.     Plant Controller, Erie Coke Company, Erie, Pennsylvania.
             November 2, 1993.

             Boffoet, Larry.     Assistant Director, Economic Development Corporation,
             Erie, Pennsylvania. November 3, 1993.

             Carter, Craig.     Chief Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.         Erie, Pennsylvania.
             November 22, 1993.

             Frawley, Art. Controller, CODAN, Erie, Pennsylvania. November 3, 1993.

             Hickey, Jack.    May 1993.    International Paints.      Personal Communication
             with Robin Potter.


             Houghton, Pete.     Chief, Presque Isle State Park.         Erie, Pennsylvania.
             November 22, 1993 and December 14, 1993*

             Kissel, Edward.    S.O.N.S of Lake Erie representative.        Presque Isle Bay
             Recreational Boating Task Force. November 1, 1993 and December 16, 1993.

             Miley, Steve. General Manager, Erie Marine Enterprise, Erie, Pennsylvania.
             November 2, 1993.


             Mong, John.    Project Manager, Erie County Department of Planning.           Erie
             County, Pennsylvania. October 22, 1993.

             Morosky, Larry.       Executive Director, Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port
             Authority. July 23, 1993 afid October 28, 1993.

             Murray, Charles.     Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.        December 16,
             1993.


             Pomorski, Doug. Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority. July 23, 1993.

             Simmons, John.    Recreational Boating Bureau Chief.      Pennsylvania Fish and
             Boat Commission. October 27, 1993.

             Wellington, Bob. Erie County Health Department. October 13, 1993.















                                                   10-5



   I
   I
   I
   I
   I
   I
   I
   i
   I                                        APPENDIX A
                                    VATER QUALITY SAMPLING DATA
   I
   I
   I
   'I
   I
   I
   I
   1,
                                                A-1
   I
   I



    Wan M`M MM)m M@M MAN M,                                                                                                      M, M M M at M as

                                                                          Presque Isle Bay Recreational Boating Impacts
                                                                                    Water Quality Sampling Results
                                                                5/17/1993           (PRE-SEASON)                                           6/14/1993        (POST-WEEKEND)

                                                  COMMODORE          COMMODORE      PIB STATE PARK PIS STATE PARK          BAY HARBOR         BAY HARBOR      PIB STATE PARK PIB STATE PARK
                         PARAMETERS                 PERRY             PERRY             SURFACE             DEPTH            SURFACE             DEPTH             SURFACE            DEPTH
                                                    SURFACE           DEPTH


                  DIESEL RANGE ORGANICS              < 0.1             < 0.1              < 0.1              < 0.1              < 0.1             < 0.1              < 0.1             < 0.1
                              (Mg/1)


                 GASOLINE RANGE ORGANICS           < 0. 01            < 0.01             < 0.01             < 0.01            < 0.01             < 0.01            < 0.01             < 0.01
                              (Mg/1)

                        SURFACTANTS                   0.046         < 0.025                0.025              0.033              0.025             0.032          < 0.025           < 0.025
                              (mg/1)
                      ETHYLENE GLYCOL                   < 2                < 2                < 2               < 2                < 2               < 2                < 2                < 2
                              (mg/1)
                      FECAL COLIFORM                    800               1200              3600                1800               200                 60              1500                200
                              (MPN)
                              LEAD                          2                  2                  2                 2                  4                 4              < 1                < 1
                              (ug/1)
                              COPPER                  0.007              0.006             0.005              0.004          < 0.002            <  0.002          < 0.002           < 0.002
                              (mg/1)
                              TIN                  < 0. 04            < 0. 04            < 0.04             < 0.04            < 0. 04            < 0. 04           < 0. 04            < 0. 04
                              (Mg/1)
                     DISSOLVED OXYGEN                   9.2                9.3              11.3                9.8            8.6*              10. 3*            12. 2*             10.5*
                              (mg/1)
                        CONDUCTIVITY                    494                441                471               458                521                495               507                531
                              (umhos)
                        WATER TEMP.                     15.0              14.5              15.5                15.0              21.0               19.5              22.0               20.0
                     (degrees Celsius)
                              PH                        7.2                7.0                7.1               7.0                7.4                7.4               7.0                7.2
                              (units)

                        TOTAL DEPTH
                                                        6.0                                 13.0                                   8.0                                 13.5
                              (ft)
                        SECCHI DEPTH             CLEAR TO                                     4.5                                  4.5                                  9.0
                              (ft)                  BOTTOM


                                                                                                                                                                        344
                      OF BOATS IN DOCK                     35                                 144                                  195


                          AIR TEMP
                                                        13.0                                13.0                                   31.0                                31.0
                     (degrees Celsius)
                                     NOTE: Field conductivity               readings are suspect.
                                            *Dissolved oxygen meter calibration suspect.



    SWIM MIM MMIM MIM mew OMMINN M MMIMM

                                                                         Presque Isle Bay Recreational Boating Impacts
                                                                                    Water Quality Sampling Results
                                                               7/2/1993           (PRE-HOLIDAY)                                          7/6/1993         (POST-HOLIDAY)

                         PARAMETERS              BAY HARBOR        BAY HARBOR      PIB STATE PARK PIB STATE PARK          BAY HARBOR        BAY HARBOR      PIB STATE PARK PIS STATE PARK
                                                   SURFACE            DEPTH             SURFACE            DEPTH            SURFACE            DEPTH             SURFACE            DEPTH


                   DIESEL RANGE ORGANICS             < 0.1             < 0.1              < 0.1             < 0.1             < 0.1             < 0.1              < 0.1             < 0.1
                             (Mg/1)


                  GASOLINE RANGE ORGANICS          < 0. 01            < 0. 01           < 0.01            < 0.01            < 0. 01            < 0.01            < 0.01            < 0.01
                             (Mg/1)

                         SURFACTANTS                  0.027         < 0.025            < 0.025           < 0.025           < 0. 025          < 0.025            < 0.025           < 0.025
                             (Mg/l)
                      ETHYLENE GLYCOL                   < 2               < 2                < 2               < 2               < 2                < 2               < 2               < 2
                             (mg/1)
                       FECAL COLIFORM                   220                230                 10                80              840                  60                50                 60
                             (MPH)
                             LEAD                           5                 6                  2                 1                 5                  5                 2             < 1
                             (ug/1)

                            COPPER
                                                      0.006             0.007              0.003             0.004             0.012             0.008              0.008             0.008

                             TIN                   < 0. 04           < 0.04             < 0. 04           < 0.04            < 0. 04            < 0. 04           < 0. 04           < 0. 04
                            (Mg/l)
                     DISSOLVED OXYGEN                   5.6                5.3               6.3               5.8               6.7                6.4             10.0                4 .3
                            (Mg/1)
                        CONDUCTIVITY                    503                576               496               488               538                536               506               512
                            (umhos)
                        WATER TEMP.                    21.8              21.5               22.8              22.0              24.5               24.0             25.8               23.0
                     (degrees Celsius)
                             PH                         6.8                7.3               7.8               7.7               7.4                7.6               7.6               7.5
                            (units)
                        TOTAL DEPTH                     8.0                                 14.0                                 8.0                                14.0
                             (ft)

                       SECCHI DEPTH
                                                        4.5                                  5.5                                 4.5                                  8.0
                             (ft)


                      OF BOATS   IN DOCK                205                                  402                                 209
                                                                                                                                                                      411


                          AIR TEMP
                                                       24.0                                 24.0                                27.0                                27.0
                     (degrees Celsius)
                                     NOTE: Field conductivity              readings are suspect.



                                                                            NO rm M on M M. M

                                                                         Presque Isle Bay Recreational Boating Impacts
                                                                                   Water Quality Sampling Results
                                                              7/30/1993            (PRE-WEEKEND)                                         8/2/1993         (POST-WEEKEND)


                                                BAY HAPJ30R        BAY HARBOR      PIS STATE PARK PIS STATE PARK          BAY HAPJ30R       BAY HARBOR      PIS STATE PARK PIS STATE PARK
                         PARAMETERS               SURFACE             DEPTH            SURFACE            DEPTH             SURFACE            DEPTH            SURFACE             DEPTH


                  DIESEL RANGE ORGANICS             < 0.1              < 0.1             < 0.1              < 0.1             < 0.1              < 0.1            < 0.1              < 0.1
                             (Mg/l)


                 GASOLINE RANGE ORJ3ANICS          < 0.01            < 0. 01            < 0. 01           < 0.01             < 0. 01           < 0.01            < 0.01            < 0.01
                             (Mg/1)

                        SURFACTANTS                   0.035             0.057             0.034         < 0.025                0.033             0.037         < 0.025            < 0.025
                             (Mg/l)
                      ETHYLENE GLYCOL                   < 2               < 2               < 2                < 2               < 2                < 2               < 2               < 2
                             (mg/1)
                      FECAL COLIFORM                   3800              5000                  20            < 10                530                850             < 10              < 10
                             (MPN)
                             LEAD                           8                 9                 3                  2                 7                14              < 1               < 1
                             (ug/1)
                             COPPER                   0.007             0.007         < 0. 002           < 0. 002              0.007             0.011          < 0. 002          < 0.002
          41                 (Mg/1)
                             TIN                   < 0. 04           < 0. 04            < 0. 04           < 0. 04           < 0. 04            < 0. 04           < 0. 04           < 0. 04
                             (Mg/1)
                     DISSOLVED OXYGEN                   5.7               5.6               7.0                6.9               5.5                5.5               8.8               2.4
                             (Mg/1.)
                        CONDUCTIVITY                    442               463               450                402               494                500               457            469*
                             (umhos)
                        WATER TEMP.                    23.2              23.2               24.0              24.2               23.0              23.0             23.9                23.0
                     (degrees Celsius)
                             PH                         7.2               7.4               8.2                8.1               6.3                6.3               8.0               7.6
                             (units)
                        TOTAL DEPTH                     8.5                                 14.0                                 8.0                                14.0
                             (ft)

                        SECCHI DEPTH
                             (ft)                       2.0                                 3.0                                  3.5                                  3.5

                      OF BOATS IN DOCK                  204                                 418                                  204                                  416


                         AIR TEMP
                                                       18.5                                 18.5                                 21.5                               21.5
                     (degrees Celsius)

                                     NOTE: Field conductivity readings are suspect.
                                           * Laboratory conductivity reading for this                       site (at depth) was 269              umhos.



                                                                             M,MM M MM M M


                                                                          Presque Isle Bay Recreational Boating Impacts
                                                                                    Water Quality Sampling Results

                                                                9/7/1993          (POST-HOLIDAY)


                                                 BAY HARBOR         BAY HARBOR      PIB STATE PARK PIB STATE PARK
                         PARAMETERS                SURFACE             DEPTH            SURFACE             DEPTH


                   DIESEL RANGE ORGANICS             < 0.1              < 0.1              < 0.1             < 0.1
                              (Mg/1)


                  GASOLINE RANGE ORGANICS           < 0.01            < 0.01             < 0. 01           < 0. 01
                              (Mg/1)

                         SURFACTANTS                 0.037              0.038              0.055             0.110
                              (Mg/1)
                      ETHYLE14E GLYCOL                   < 2               < 2                < 2                < 2
                              (Mg/1)
                       FECAL COLIFORM                   1400               1300                 20             < 20
                              (MPN)
                              LEAD                           3                 5                  1              < 1
                              (ug/1)

                              COPPER
          Ln                  (Mg/1)                 0.008              0.011              0.007             0.004
                              TIN                   < 0. 04            < 0. 04           < 0. 04            < 0. 04
                              (Mg/1)
                      DISSOLVED OXYGEN                   5.3               5.8                6.2                5.9
                              (mg/1)
                        CONDUCTIVITY                 N/A                N/A                N/A               N/A
                              (umhos)
                         WATER TEMP.                    21.0               21.0              22.0               22.5
                      (degrees Celsius)
                              PH                         7.2               7.3                6.8                6.9
                              (units)

                         TOTAL DEPTH
                                                         7.5                                  12.5
                              (ft)

                        SECCRI DEPTH
                                                         5.0                                  3.5
                              (ft)

                       OF BOATS    IN DOCK               213                                  422


                           AIR TEMP
                      (degrees Celsius)                 16.5                                  16.5




 I
 I
 i
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
                                            APPENDIX B
 I                                    BOATER SURVEY RESULTS
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                                              B-1
 I
 I







                             1993 PRESQUE ISLE BAY RECREATIONAL BOATING STUDY

                                                            SUMMARY OF BOATER SURVEYS


         NLTMBER OF INTERVIEWS COMPLETED: 479

         DATE OF INTERVIEWS:                                  JUNE 12              74
                                                              JUNE 13              71
                                                              JULY 3               72
                                                              JULY 4               74
                                                              JULY 31              47
                                                              AUGUST 1             72
                                                              AUGUST 31            6
                                                              SEPT. 5              59
                                                              SEPT. 6              4

         LOCATION OF INTERVIEWS:                              LAMPE RAMP/MARINA                                     77
                                                              EAST AVENUE RAMP                                      58
                                                              PERRY'S LANDING                                       76
                                                              ERIE YACHT CLUB                                       12
                                                              DOBBINS LANDING                                       16
                                                              PRESQUE ISLE STATE PARK
                                                                        WEST PIER RAMP                              82
                                                                        MARINA                                      68
                                                                        NIAGARA RAMP                                74
                                                                        LAGOON RAMP                                 13
                                                                        BEACH 9                                     3

         I. Where is your principal home residence?
                   PA-93% OH-3% (state)                       ERIE-48% PITTSBURGH-10% (town)

            About how many miles is it from your residence to Presque Isle Bay one-way?
                   RANGE= 0-750 MILES ME_AN= 55 MILES' MEDIAN= 5 MEL.ES2

         3. How many people were in your boating group today? Include all the people who used the boat today?

                   RANGE           0- 15 PEOPLE MEAN = 3.2 PEOPLE                                           MEDIAN=2 PEOPLE

         4. Which of the following best describes the people in your gro 9
                                                                                                    3u
                               7% Alone                                            20% Family I -Friends
                              26% Friends                                          .4% Business Associates
                              46% Family                                           .4% Other
                   4a. How many children under age 12 are in your group?

                              21% OF GROUPS HAD AN AVERAGE OF 1.9 CHILDREN WITH THEM


          The mean value is the aridmxfic avenge, or the sum of all responses divided by the number of cases.
         2 Ile median is the middle value, or the value having the ume number of scores with smaller values as there are with larger values.




                                                                                   B-2








      5. What time did you start boating today?

             RANGE=4:00 AM TO 7:00 PM

      6. Have you finished boating for the day?

             ' )0% No                    70% Yes

                     IT NO When do you plan to go out on the water again?

                           RANGE= 11:00 AM TO 8:00 PM

                           When do you plan to stop boating for the day?

                           RANGE= 12:00 NOON TO 12:00 MIDNIGHT

      Next, I would like to ask some questions about your boat.

      7. What kind of boat do you have at the lake today?

                     32% Cabin Cruiser           1%   Row Boat
                     48% Runabout                1%   Canoe or kayak
                     < 1 % House Boat            0%   Pontoon Boat
                     5 % Sailboat                7%   Bass Boat
                     3% Waverunner/jetski        2%   Sailboard
                                                 1%   Other

      8-- What kind of power, if any, does your boat use?

                     33% Outboard                4% Sail only
                     18% Inboard                 1% Paddle/oar only
                     44% Inboard/Outboard        < 1% Other

      9. What is the total horsepower of your engine(s)?

             RANGE=0-1000 HP             NlEAN=164H? MEDIAN=130B:P

      10. How many feet long is your boat?

             RANGE=6-50 FEET              NIEAN=20FEET MEDLAN=19FEET

      My next questions are about your boating experience.
      11. How many years have you been a boater?

             RANGE=0-65YF-ARS MEAN=17YEARS NIEDLAN=15YFEARS

      12. How would you rate yourself as a boater?

             9% Novice            34% Intermediate        38% Advanced              19% Expert

      13. Have you ever taken a boater safety training course?

             54% No               46% Yes




                                                        B-3







     14. How many days did you boat on Presque Isle Bay last year?
           RANGE=0-200 DAYS        MEAN=24DAYS MEDIAN=14DAYS
     15. Including your boating at Presque Isle Bay, how many days did you boat in total last year?
           RANGE=0-365 DAYS        MF-AN=41 DAYS MEDLAN=30 DAYS


     16. Here is a list of boating activities you raight have participated in today. Please tell me which of these
     activites your boating group did. What percent of time did you spend on each of the following activities?

      Percent      Average Percent
     Participating  of 'rune Spent

      18%               6.5%       Anchored
      52%              45.3%       Fishing
      11%               3. 5 %     Swimming from Boat
       7%               2.8%       Waterskiing
      46%               29.3%      Pleasure Cruising
       5%               4.8%       Sailing
       1%               1.2%       Board Sailing
       4%               3.4%       Jet Skiing
       7%               3.3%       Other

     17. While boating today, did you:
           21 % Boat only within Presque Isle Bay
           30% Boat outside of the Bay on Lake Erie
           49% Boat both within the bav and on Lake Erie

     18. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the perfect trip), how would you rate the quality of your boating
     experience today?

           RANGE= 1-10             MEAN = 7.3       N4EDLkN=8.0

     19. What were the most enjoyable aspects of your boat trip today?
      NICE WEATHER, CATCHING FISK RELAXATION, SCENERY (MOST COMMON ANSWERS)
     20. What were the least enjoyable aspects of your boat trip today?
      ROUGH WEATHER, NOTHING, NO FISH (MOST COMMON ANSWERS)
     21. Using the enjoyment scale on the card, how did the number of boaters at the lake today affect your
     overall boating experience?


             2%      4%       5%      3%       66%     5%      10%      3%      3%

             1        2       3       4        5       6       7        8       9


             Increased my enjoyment        No effect         Reduced my enjoyment


                                               B-4







       22. Next I am going to read some statements about boating here at Presque Isle Bay. Based on your
       experience here today, please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement I read,
       using the agrez@zrnent scale on the card.

                                                             STRONGLY                                    STRONGLY
                                                              AGREE      AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE DISAGREE

       I avoided my favorite parts of the bay
       because there were too many boats there                    3%       9%         8%        50%        30%
       I thoroughly enjoyed my boat trip today                    31%      55%        6%          7%        2%
       I stayed off the bay during parts of the day
       today because there were too many boats on the bay         2%       6%         7%        54%        30%

       My boating trip was not as enjoyable as I
       expected it to be                                          4%       16%        4%        51%        25%

       There was an unsafe number of boats
       on the water today                                         1%       5%         5%        61%        28%
       I cannot imagine a better boating trip                     8%       24%        14%       44%        10%
       Other boats came closer to my boat than I like             5%       14%        2%        55%        24%

       The bay water quality appeared good                        11%      62%        9%        13%         5%

       I do not want to go on any more boat trips
       like this one                                              2%       5%         3%        45%        44%

       The noise of other boats reduced my enjoyment
       on the bay today                                           1%       3%         3%        63%        31%

       My boat trip today was well worth the money
       I spent to take it                                         21%      65%        5%          7%        2%

       There are adequate law enforcement patrols
       at Presque Isle Bay                                        27%      49%        14%         9%        2%
       If I had known what it was going to be like here
       today I would not have come on this visit                  3%       7%         2%        47%        41%
           @ 9

       I was disappointed with some aspects of
       my boat trip                                               4%       26%        3%        49%        18%
       1 would feel comfortable swimming in the bay               8%       34%        10%       33%        15%
       The number of boats on the bay reduced my
       enjoyment of the bay today                                 1%       9%         7%        61%        23%
       I nearly had an accident on the bay today
       because of crowded conditions                              1%       1%         1%        41%        56%





                                                          B-5











                                                        STRONGLY                                 STRONGLY
                                                          AGREE     AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE DISAGREE


      The behavior of other boaters interfered with
      the quafity of my boating experience                   2%       10%       4%       56%        29%

             ]IF AGREE WrM TEEIS STATEMIENT
             Can you describe how:

      I did not like the amount of time I had to
      wait to get on the water today                        1%         2%       3%       50%        44%

             ]IF AGREE How much time did you have to wait?

                    AVERAGE= 25 MR4UTES

                    How long are you willing to wait?

                    AVERAGE= 18 MINUTES

      Boating conditions on the bay today were safe        21%        68%       5%         7%       <1%
      I did not participate in some boating activities
      today because of crowded conditions on the bay        1%         6%       3%       60%        30%

             ]IF AGREE Which activities?


      23. Did you observe any unsafe boating situations on the bay today.?

                    78% No               22% Yes

                                         EF YES, could you describe them?

                                         Where did they occur? COMMENTS LISTED IN
                                                        SEPARATE DATA REPORT

      24. Using the crowding scale on the card, how would you describe the boating conditions at each of the
      following areas today?

                1        2         3         4        5         6        7         8         9


               Not at all           Slightly              Moderately               Extremely
               Crowded               Crowded               Crowded                   Crowded

             2.4 At the access area at the start of your trip (mean rating)
             3.7 Out on the bay while boating
             4.8 At the channel
             3.2 At the access area when you stopped boating







                                                       B-6







     25. How did the number of people you saw at the bay today compare with what you expected to see?
          18% A lot less than you expected
          __% A little less than you expected
          44% About what you expected
          10% A little more than you expected
          3% A lot more than you expected
          2% You didn't really have any expectations
     26. Were there any specific locations on the bay or lake that you felt were especially crowded?

          CONUMDENTS LISTED Eli SEPARATE DATA REPORT

     The last few questions are about how you handle the maintenance and upkeep of your boat.

     27. What material is your boat made of (the hull)?

          78% Fiberglass 2% Wood 20% Metal
     28. How often is your boat painted? 77% NEVER 7% EVERY YEAR 6% EVERY 5 YEARS
     29. What are the brand names of the paints and other products used on your boat?
          INTERLUX (most common answer)
     30. How soon after painting is your boat returned to the water?
          5% < 1 week   5% 1 week   9% > 1 week   83% Not applicable

     3 1. What other tv
     possible)   , pes of maintenance are performed on your boat while it is in the water? (Be as specific as
          11% Engine repair  11% Oil change  21% Other (mostly minor tune-ups)
     32. How many times a year do you clean the outside of your boat?

          7% AFTER EACH USE 5% EACH WEEK 9% ONCENEAR 15% TWICE/YEAR

     33. What cleaning solutions do you use? (List the brand and product names)
          SOAP AND WATER (most common answer)

     34. Where do you clean your boat?
          18% Marina 3% Dry dock 67% At home 11% Other
     35. How old is your boat and engine?
          age of boat RANGE=0-52 YEARS      NIEAN=10YEARS NIEDIAN=7YEARS
          age of engine RANGE=0-36 YEARS    MF-AN=9 YEARS NlEDIAN=6 YEARS




                                           B-7








    J6. How large is your gas tank?

         RANGE=0-400 GALLONS      MEAN=47 GALLONS MEDIAN=28 GALLONS

    _)7. Where do you fill your gas tank? 77% GAS STATION 20% MARINA/GAS DOCK
    3 )8. During a typical week of boating on Presque Isle Bay, how much gasoline do you use?

         RANGE= 0-360 GALLONS     MEAN=24GALLONS MEDLAN=15 GALLONS

    39. Does your boat have a marine toilet or porta potty? 60% No 40% Yes
         ASK IF YES What type is it?
         18% Built-in head with holding tank
         21% Portable unit (Porta Potty)
         1% Other



    40. Finally, do you have any suggestions for improved management of Presque Isle Bay?
         COM34ENTS LISTED IN SEPARATE DATA REPORT





    ADDITIONAL COMMIENTS:

         COMMENTS LISTED IN SEPARATE DATA REPORT

























                                        B-8




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                                         APPENDIX C
 I               BOATER COMMENTS ABOUT RECREATIONAL BOATING ON PRESQUE ISLE BAY
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                                             C-1
 I
 I







             Table AA. Open-ended responses for most enjoyable aspects of the trip.

                          Value Label            Freauency Valid Percent
             WEATHER/WIND CONDITIONS                  137      23.1
             FISH/FISHING                             104      17.6
             BEING W/ FAMILY/FRIENDS                  58       9.8
             REST/RELAXATION                          41       6.9
             WATERAVAVE CONDITIONS                    31       5.2
             ENJOYING NATURE/SCENERY                  29       4.9
             BOATING/PLEASURE CRUISING                27       4.6
             BEING OUT ON LAKE/BAY                    19       3.2
             ESCAPE/GETTING AWAY                      14       2.4
             OTHER/MISC                               14       2.4
             COMING IN/GETTING OFF LAKE/BAY           13       2.2
             TALL SHIPS                               13       2.2
             SWIMMING                                 12       2.0
             EATING/DRINKING                          10       1.7
             EVERYTHING                               10       1.7
             WATERSKIING                              10       1.7
             NOTHING/NONE                             8        1.4
             ACCESS/GETTING HERE                      6        1.0
             GIRLSIWOMEN                              6        1.0
             BEING INTERVIEWED                        5        0.8
             SAILING                                  5        0.8
             GETTING WET                              4        0.7
             SIGHTSEEING                              4        0.7
             LACK OF CROWDS/CROWD                     2        0.3
             RECREATION/LEISURE/FUN                   2        0.3
             BEACH/BEACHES                            1        0.2
             BOAT RAN WELL                            1        0.2
             CHANNEL                                  1        0.2
             JET SKIING                               1        0.2
             LISTENING TO RADIO                       1        0.2
             LONG POINT                               1        0.2
             NICE FACILITIES                          1        0.2
             SUNBATHING                               1        0.2

                                         Total      592      100.0%















                                             C-2







            Table BB. Open-ended responses for least enjoyable aspects of boat trip.

                                 Value Label                         Frequency           Valid Percent
            WATER/WAVE CONDITIONS                                           105                21.0
            NOTHING/NONE/NO                                                 71                 14.2
            WEATHER/WIND CONDITIONS                                         64                 12.8
            FISH/FISHING                                                    53                 10.6
            BROKE DOWN/MECHANICAL PROBLEMS                                  31                 6.2
            CROWDING/TOO MANY BOATS/PEOPLE                                  28                 5.6
            ACCESS AREA/MARINA/DOCKS                                        21                 4.2
            OTHER/MISC                                                      18                 3.6
            INJURY/SICKNESS                                                 13                 2.6
            BUGS/FLIES/INSECTS                                              11                 2.2
            WEEDS/SEAWEED                                                   11                 2.2
            COMING INMOME                                                   7                  1.4
            SWANTED/FALLING/GETTING WET                                     7                  1.4
            OTHER BOATERS                                                   6                  1.2
            LOST SOMETHING                                                  5                  1.0
            UNSAFE BOATING                                                  5                  1.0
            ACCIDENT/COLLISION                                              4                  0.8
            CLEANING BOAT                                                   4                  0.8
            LAUNCHING/RETRIEVING                                            4                  0.8
            RESTROOMS                                                       4                  0.8
            CHANNEL                                                         3                  0.6
            COST                                                            2                  0.4
            EATING/DRINKING                                                 2                  0.4
            GETTING HERE/DRIVING                                            2                  0.4
            JET SKIERS                                                      2                  0.4
            NOISE                                                           2                  0.4
            SAILING/SAILORS                                                 2                  0.4
            SMELL                                                           2                  0.4
            WATER QUALITY/POLLUTION                                         2                  0.4
            BEACH/SHORE CONDITIONS                                          1                  0.2
            EVERYTHING                                                      1                  0.2
            GULL POINT                                                      1                  0.2
            LACK OF TIME                                                    1                  0.2
            PACKING/PREPARATION                                             1                  0.2
            PARKING                                                         1                  0.2
            POLICE/LAW ENFORCEMENT                                          1                  0.2
            THE BAY (IN GENERAL)                                            1                  0.2
            WAITING                                                         1                  0.2
                                                      Total           500                100.0%








                                                           c-3






             Table CC. Open-ended responses describing the behavior of other boaters that interfered with the
                        boating experience.

                              Value Label                      Frequency Valid Percent
             CARELESS/INCONSIDERATE BOATERS                           7           15.2
             JET SKIERS                                               7           15.2
             FAILURE TO OBSERVE RULES (R.O.W.)                        6           13.0
             SPEED-TOO FAST/SLOW                                      6           13.0
             TOO CLOSE                                                6           13.0
             CUT OFF/GOT IN WAY                                       3           6.5
             LOUD MUSIC/NOISE                                         3           6.5
             WAKE VIOLATIONS/BIG WAKES/WAVES                          3           6.5
             CROWDS/CROWDING                                          1           2.2
             FISHERMEN                                                1           2.2
             NONE/NOT TODAY                                           1           2.2
             OTHER/MISC                                               1           2.2
             SAILBOATS/SAILORS                                        1           2.2
                                                        Total       46           100.0%



             Table DD. Open-ended responses for activities displaced due to crowded conditions.

                               Value Label                       Frequency Valid Percent
             FISHING/FISHED MORE                                      8              36.4
             WATERSKIING/TUBING/KNEE BOARDING                         6              27.3
             PLACE DISPLACEMENT (GENERAL)                             3              13.6
             BOATING/BOATED MORE                                      2              9.1
             TALL SHIPS (VIEWING/SIGHTSEEING)                         2              9.1
             SWIMMING                                                 1              4.5
                                                         Total        22          100.0%


























                                                             C-4







             Table EE. Open-ended responses for unsafe boating situations observed by respondent.

                                    Value Label                           Frequency Valid Percent
             JET SKIERS                                                         16           13.7
             SPEEDING/TOO FAST                                                  15           12.8
             TOO CLOSE                                                          12           10.3
             CUT OFF/IN FRONT                                                   11           9.4
             BOATSIZE-TOO BIG/SMALL                                             7            6.0
             SAILBOATS                                                          7            6.0
             ARMS/LEGS IN WATER WHILE MOVING                                    5            4.3
             WAKE VIOLATIONS                                                    5            4.3
             OTHER/MISC                                                         4            3.4
             ALCOHOL/DRINKING & DRIVING                                         3            2.6
             BOATING LANE VIOLATIONS                                            3            2.6
             GENERAL RULE VIOLATIONS                                            3            2.6
             CARELESSNESS                                                       2            1.7
             COLLISION/ACCIDENT                                                 2            1.7
             RECKLESS DRIVING                                                   2            1.7
             STANDING/ROCKING BOAT                                              2            1.7
             WATERSKIING                                                        2            1.7
             BOATING ALONE                                                      1            0.9
             CANOE/KAYAKS                                                       1            0.9
             CAPSIZING/SWAMPING                                                 1            0.9
             CROWDING/HEAVY TRAFFIC                                             1            0.9
             HANDICAP DECK STICKS OUT TOO FAR                                   1            0.9
             INJURYALLNESS                                                      1            0.9
             NAVIGATION PROBLEMS                                                1            0.9
             NOT PAYING ATTENTION                                               1            0.9
             OVERLOADED BOAT                                                    1            0.9
             PFD/LIFE JACKET VIOLATIONS                                         1            0.9
             POLICEILAW ENFORCEMENT                                             1            0.9
             ROCKS                                                              1            0.9
             SMOKING ON BOAT                                                    1            0.9
             TOO CLOSE TO SHORE                                                 1            0.9
             UNSAFE RE-FUELING                                                  1            0.9
             WAVE/WATER CONDITIONS                                              1            0.9
                                                                  Total         117        100.0%















                                                           c-5








             Table FF. Open-ended responses for location of unsafe boating situations observed by respondent.

                           Value Label                 Frequency Valid Percent
             ALL OVER BAY/EVERYWHERE                        21            24.1
             CHANNEL                                        19            21.8
             LAKE ERIE                                      9             10.3
             MARINA CHANNEL/ENTRANCE                        6             6.9
             DOCKS/ACCESS AREAS/MARINAS                     5             5.7
             BAY & LAKE                                     4             4.6
             BEACH11                                        4             4.6
             MIDDLE OF BAY                                  3             3.4
             OTHER/MISC                                     2             2.3
             FISHING AREAS
             FUEL DOCKS
             GRAVE YARD POINT                               1             1.1
             GULL POINT
             HAMMERMILL,
             MISERY BAY
             NEAR LAWE
             NORTHEAST AREA
             RUM RUNNERS
             SHADESBEACH
             STATE PARK MARINA/RAMP
             THOMPSON BAY
             WATERSKIING AREAS
             WEST SIDE
                                                Total       87         100.0%





























                                                                c-6









            Table GG. Open-ended responses for specific location on Bay/Lake that respondents felt were
                     especially crowded.

                              Value Label                      Frequency Valid Percent
            NONE/`NO                                               250            61.6
            CHANNEL                                                 54            13.3
            ACCESS AREAS/LAUNCH                                     34            8.4
            BEACH#11                                                15            3.7
            BAY-IN GENERAL                                          9             2.2
            NEAR TALL SHIPS                                         9             2.1
            GULL POINT                                              4             1.0
            SHADESBEACH                                             4             1.0
            BEACHES-IN GENERAL                                      3             0.7
            DOBBINS LANDING                                         1)            0.5
            FISI-IING AREAS                                         1)            0.5
            HAMMER MILL                                             1             0.5
            HEAD OF BAY                                             1)            0.5
            PARKING LOTS                                            1             0.5
            WATERSKI RAMPS/AREA                                     2             0.5
            BARS                                                    1             0.2
            BEACH#6                                                 1             0.2
            HARBOR                                                  1             0.2
            LAGOON                                                  1             0.2
            NO WAKE AREAS                                           1             0.2
            PRESQUE ISLE MARINA                                     1             0.2
            RUM RUNNERS                                             1             0.2
            SNO-CO CRISTA AREA                                      1             0.2)
            THE WALL                                                1             0.2
            THONTSON BAY                                            1             0.,7
            TYPICAL PLACES                                          1             0.2
            YACHT CLUB                                              1             0.2
                                                        Total      406          100.0%




















                                                           c-7










                                                                                                                           NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                      : 3 6668 14111670 9