[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
PRESENT USES, POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, AND CROSSING REQUIREMENTS IN THE LOWER DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AREA WILMINGi.@ 4@ RRIDGET@ wl @NT Ty DELA!VAREBAY CAPE MA Y LMES OTH REh BE'OABC cac --------------- A study prepared for THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY by HT URS Corporation and Arthur D. Little, Inc. 393 C3 MARCH 1980 *Clm P74 1980 PRESENT USES, POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, AND CROSSING REQUIREMENTS IN THE LOWER DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AREA A study prepared for THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY by URS Corporation and Arthur D. Little, Inc. March 1980 Property of CSC Library U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY Governor of Delaware Governor of New Jersey PIERRE S. duPONT BRENDAN T. BYRNE AUTHORITY MEMBERS DELAWARE NEW JERSEY GARRETT B. LYONS, D.D.S. CLARENCE B. McCORMICK Chairman Vice Chairman REMSEN C. BARNARD, III JOSEPH J. FABI, JR. ALFRED LEO DONNELLY ANGELO J. FALCIANI ERNEST E. KILLEN JOHN VINCI WILLIAM J. MILLER, JR. Director THEODORE C. BRIGHT General Manager 0. FRANCIS BIONDI CHARLES RENRY JAMES Legal Counsel - Delaware Legal Counsel - New Jersey JOSEPH J. RILEY, D.O. Secretary March 1980 Arthur D Little, Inc URS CORPORATION Arthur D. Little, Inc. 150 EAST 42ND STREET NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10017 ACORN PARK - CAMBRIDGE, MA. 02140 TEL: (212) 953-8600 TELEX: 12-5312 URS-NYK (617) 864-5770 TELEX: 921436 April 1, 1980 Mr. William J. Miller, Jr. Director The Delaware River and Bay Authority P. 0. Box 71 New Castle, Delaware Re: Present Uses, Potential Developments and Crossing Requirements -- The Lower Delaware River and Bay Area Dear Mr. Miller: In accordance with our agreement, we are pleased to transmit our report addressing and fulfilling the basic study objectives to: � Analyze regional transportation systems and their present and future adequacy; � Study the need for additional crossings; � Examine regulatory responsibilities, resources and roles of various governmental agencies in the River and Bay region; and 0 Investigate the types of development concepts and potentials which could be appropriate for the Lower River and Bay Area. The findings of our study are that while additional fixed crossing facili- ties cannot be justified at this time, there are other needs and conditions which should be addressed. Many of them have the support of officials in both States; however, they require specific actions to enable them to be developed or advanced. Since the Authority represents an institutional resource of considerable potential in the Bay Area, its use for such pur- poses should be examined. The Authority has a unique position as: (1) the only Bi-State New Jersey- Delaware institution; and (2) the only institution with legally defined and established responsibilities focused on the Lower River and Bay as a unit. In addition, it has substantial institutional authority under-its Bi-State Compact; there are extensive checks and balances to assure that the Authority continues to act in the best interests of the two States as interpreted by the Governors and the Legislatures of each; and the Authority has financial and staff capabilities and potentials which can be readily used to address identified needs of the Region. The following functions should be undertaken by the Authority to initiate such activity: � The establishment of a division within the Authority to be responsible for the Bi-State monitoring of environmental and development activities and potentials within the Bay and its shoreline areas; � The coordination of Bi-State conservation and development for the Bay Area, consistent with Delaware and New Jersey policies and regulations; and � After preliminary State approvals, the preparation of develop- ment plans for Bay-oriented projects when such development would not otherwise occur. The benefits of Authority involvement in these areas would be the achieve- ment of consistent Bi-State conservation and development in accordance with State policies and the development of clearly needed marine-related projects without the use of State resources. At the present time State agencies generally have other priorities as well as limited resources and, most importantly, they do not have the basic responsibility to identify and accomplish development and make preliminary investments for needed projects which can significantly enhance the well-being of the people of the Bi-State area. We wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge the considerable assistance and cooperation of many government agencies, public officials and private individuals who contributed greatly to the execution of this study. Officials of the State of Delaware Office of Management, Budget and Plan- ning and the Governor's Office in New Jersey were of special assistance, as were the staff of the Delaware River and Bay Authority. Very truly yours, Ra3@tond Tillman John M. Wilkinson URS' CORPORATION ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Background The lowermost reaches of the Delaware River and the Delaware Bay have been and remain today of great economic and environmental significance to the two States joined by these waters. Both New Jersey and Delaware benefit greatly from the river and bay as a ship channel, safe harbor, seaport region, recreational area and environmental resource. In earlier times these waters were rich as well in the diversity and pro- ductivity of their fish, shellfish, and wildlife species and habitat, and perhaps they may become so again. Over the years, the inhabitants of both New Jersey and Delaware have separately established laws, policies, institutions, and regulations which at one and the same time seek development and conservation of the natural resources surrounding the lower river and bay. Sometimes in concert with federal and local agencies, each State has managed its roughly one-half of the river and bay for these often conflicting objec- tives. Still, with one exception, the two States do not have a mecha- nism to plan for, develop, conserve, and manage this great natural water resource as a unit. The exception is the Delaware River and Bay Authority. Created by an interstate Compact approved by the United States Congress in 1962, this agency of the two State governments of New Jersey and Delaware was organized for the purposes of (i) developing and operating crossings over the Delaware River and Bay at any location south of the boundary line between the State of Delaware and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (ii) developing and operating "... any transportation or terminal faci- lities which border on or are adjacent to the River and Bay" south of this boundary line, and (iii) the performance of such other functions as might be entrusted to it by concurrent legislation of the two States. Objectives Following recommendations of the University of Delaware, College of Marine Studies, and Rutgers University, Water Resources Research Insti- tute, the Authority funded this Study to analyze transportation devel- opments in the lower river and bay region, to consider possible additional crossing requirements, and to identify and describe other marine-related development potentials and needs, all within the framework of the exist- ing multiplicity of governing bodies each partially but not solely con- cerned with the lower river and bay, and with special emphasis on the institutional and regulatory problems posed by this situation. Scope of Study The scope of study has been broad and comprehensive -- an evaluation of the region's historical economic setting or "'base" for development and its future trends, development potentials and environmental concerns arising from this base, the institutional setting that exists to deal with these development potentials, and the institutional and policy constraints that may impede needed actions and developments in the future of the.bay region. Finally, with these conditions and assess- ments presented, the Study considers required functions with respect to interstate coordination, environmental planning and development activi- ties in the Bay area. Summary of Major Findings The Study concludes that the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the Cape May- Lewes Ferry crossings are adequate to satisfy trans-bay crossing require- ments for the remainder of this century. The Study concludes that the ports of Wilmington, Philadelphia and Camden, with implemented expansion plans, will be able to handle forecasted tonnage through 1990. The Study concludes that the current lightering operation in the Lower Bay vis-a-vis more formal offshore port development requires continuing examination. The Study concludes that the considerable overlap of regulatory functions among institutions in the region is largely a function of the federal division between State and national responsibilities or between.State governments. Both federal and State agencies seek to improve water quality, preserve wetlands, protect fish and wildlife, and regulate land uses. Moreover, four different port agencies'are chartered to function in the region. These several functional overlaps will persist, with attendant uncertainty as to future development in the bay area. The Study identifies the following development potentials: � additional marinas � boating and fishing facilities at Cape May or Lewes � monitoring of Baltimore Canyon possibilities � monitoring of dredge disposal activities and beach restoration needs � coordination of Bi-State planning The basis for these major findings is set forth in summary in the fol- lowing pages and developed in detail in the main report to the Authority. 2 THE SETTING FOR REGIONAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT The Economic Setting The Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA) region is defined in this study to include the entire State of Delaware (New Castle, Kent, and Sussex Counties) and the four counties of southern New Jersey (Cape May, Atlantic, Cumberland, and Salem). This region had a 1977 population of slightly over 1,000,000 and encompassed about 3,620 square miles of land area, largely in flat coastal plains. It includes significant amounts of prime agricultural lands, woodlands and environmentally sensitive wetlands, as well as major recreational resources, such as beaches, and the urbanized areas of Wilmington, Newark, Dover, Milford, Lewes, Cape May, Salem, Bridgeton, Millville, Vineland and Atlantic City. The economic setting for growth and development in this region is largely established by: 0 trends in the larger Middle Atlantic Region; 0 the shifting economic base and environmental influences in each of three subregions; 0 the resources of the Delaware River and Bay and their uses; 0 the regional transportation system. The region is closely linked to the larger six-state Middle Atlantic region -- a region whose population grew between 1.0% and 1.5% per year during the 1950's and 1960's but remained largely stable in the 1970's. Trends in this larger region clearly have implications for the DRBA region, both for its economic development and for its regional transpor- tation facilities. This Middle Atlantic region supplies most of the visitors who support the strong and growing tourist economy of the coastal areas, and it provides a significant share of the market demand for many of the agricultural and fishery products of the coastal and central areas of DRBA region. In addition, the future of the DRBA region's important petrochemical industry is strongly linked to the future of that industry throughout the entire Middle Atlantic region, which is now being strongly challenged by rapidly growing areas in Texas and Louisiana. The Middle Atlantic region is a major source of cross-bay transportation demand both on the Delaware Memorial Bridge (where less than 10% of the traffic is estimated to be local commuters) and on the Cape May-Lewes Ferry (largely long- distance recreational traffic) as well as marine transportation demand within the Bay, since 80% of the traffic and lightering activity is related to crude petroleum, most of which is for refineries located outside the DRBA region. 3 The DRBA region consists of three functional subregions -- a relatively narrow, urbanized and industrialized corridor to the northwest including Wilmington, Newark and Pennsville, a relatively narrow coastal recrea- tion corridor to the southeast including Atlantic City, Cape May, Lewes and Rehoboth Beach, and a largely agricultural midsection including the cities of Milford, Dover, Bridgeton, Vineland and Millville. Each of these three subregions has a different economic base and a significantly different set of environmental resources and conditions. Consequently, each has beencharacterized by a significantly different development history and each has a different potential future in the context of emerging regional trends. The industrialized and urbanized subregion of New Castle and Salem Coun- ties has better access to the rest of the Middle Atlantic region and to the Delaware River and Bay than do the other two subregions. The area is linked across the Delaware River and Bay by the twin spans of the Delaware Memorial Bridge and has historically been less isolated than other regions. Environmental concerns and resistance to growth and industrial development have not been pronounced. Consequently, this urban area was the most rapidly growing of the three subregions in the 1950's and 1960's, with a booming population growth of over 3% per year. It grew at more than twice the rate of the larger Middle Atlantic region, as the petrochemical industry expanded and as it and other less developed segments of the urbanized Northeast Corridor began to fill in. However, since 1970, there has been a distinct slowing of population growth in this subregion to about 0.4% per year, trailing significantly behind that of the other two subregions since that time. State projections of future population growth of about 1% per year in this subregion through 1995 anticipate that growth will again pick up but will continue to trail that of the other two subregions. Given recent trends, even these projections may be on the high side unless the competitive position of the entire Middle Atlantic region and particularly the petrochemical industry can. be improved. The prospects for this subregion are therefore likely to be stability or modest growth with continuing local efforts to stimulate economic and industrial devel- opment in the City of Wilmington, at the Port of Wilmington, and in those areas along the Delaware River which are designated by both States as being suitable for additional industrial development. The coastal recreation subregion including Sussex, Cape May and Atlantic Counties has bad good access to major population centers of the Middle Atlantic region (New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore) and is now linked across the Delaware Bay by the Cape May-Lewes Ferry service, initiated in 1964. It has extensive recreational resources with good boat access to the ocean and bay and with extensive public access to the shoreline. it has historically been a highly seasonal area with summer weekend populations totalling three times the year-around populations. With increasing retirement migration, increasing leisure time, and the new Atlantic City casino development, this subregion has now become the 4 fastest growing part of the DRBA region -- despite existing environ- mental factors such as wetlands, limited water supply and current gaso- line and/or related energy considerations. From a relatively modest rate of population growth of 1.5% per year during the 1950's and 1960's, its rate of growth has increased to close to 2% per year since 1970 and is projected to exceed 3% per year through 1995. This projected growth anticipates that about 55% of the total population growth anticipated in the DRBA region through 1995 (about 200,000 people) will occur in this coastal area -- an area which now has only about one-third of the region's total population. This growth could be even more rapid if Atlantic City development is accelerated. Twelve casinos are projected to add a permanent population of 200,000 in the Atlantic City area alone. If the Baltimore Canyon becomes a major oil or gas field, or if the commercial fishing industry more fully ex- ploits the 200-mile limit out of Lewes or Cape May, growth would further accelerate. Despite severe environmental conditions, the prospects for this subregion are likely to be rapid economic and population growth, with continuing local efforts to manage or control growth and restrict development that might degrade sensitive wetland or shoreline environ- ments. The agricultural and less urbanized midsection, including Cumberland and Kent Counties, has limited access to the rest of the Middle Atlantic region and has no cross-bay link within the subregion. The area has historically been relatively isolated from the rest of the Middle Atlan- tic region. Its development has been largely a function of agricultural or fishery resources (poultry in Delaware, truck farming in New Jersey, oyster farming in the Bay) and special developments associated,with the glass industry in Millville and Bridgeton, New Jersey, and the govern- ment and military in Dover, Delaware. Excluding Dover Air Force Base, this subregion has grown steadily at 1.5% to 2.0% per year since 1950 and is projected to continue to do so through 1995. Although the oyster industry was hit hard by the blight during the 1950's, and although the agricultural sector has been adversely affected by com- petition, both industries appear to be making a comeback with increased outputs in recent years. Combined with the strong glass manufacturing industry and the strong government sector in Dover, prospects for this subregion are for moderate growth with no particular surprises or shifts. Significant development within the wide bands of wetlands, bordering both sides of the Bay, will depend greatly on satisfying environmental concerns. In addition to considering the setting for regional growth and develop- ment in the DRBA region as affected by the larger Middle Atlantic region and the three smaller subregions, it is important to consider the lower Delaware River and Bay itself. This encompasses about 625 square miles between the Pennsylvania State line and Cape May/Cape Henlopen or about one-sixth the land area of the region. This area consists largely of shallow waters and tidal mudflats and wetlands which represent valuable and environmentally sensitive habitats. It is an area which formerly 5 provided an important recreational and fishing resource and which now accommodates an important marine transportation system including the Port of Wilmington, the lightering area off Big Stone Beach and the nar- row ship channel. It is a resource which is gradually being cleaned up after years of industrial, agricultural and urban pollution. It is also a resource which has been subject to competing demands in the past (e.g. oil ports, pipelines, nuclear-power plants, recreation, fishing and marine farming) and which may have substantial potential in the future. Lightering activity in the Lower Bay doubled between 1972 and 1977 and prompted the Coast Guard to request an expansion of the lightering area in 1979. The 1977 lightering activity of'341,000 barrels per calender day virtually makes the area a de facto off-shore port, and construction of additional refinery capacity along the Delaware River could further increase pressure to expand the lightering area or develop an oil port. Oyster planting in the Bay reached a record level in 1978, and consider- able research is now being conducted by both Rutgers University and the University of Delaware on expanded aquaculture possibilities in the Bay. Recreational fishing has also improved dramatically in the Bay, with the best fishing in recent years now being the vicinity of Brandywine Light. These and other factors point to good, but as yet unclear, prospects for expanded use of the Bay. A final important factor in establishing the setting for regional growth and development is the regional land and marine transportation system. Prior to 1950, there were no interstate highways, neither the New Jersey nor the Delaware Turnpike had been completed, and there were no-major East-West Expressways. The only bay or river crossing in the DRBA region was the New Castle/Pennsville Ferry, and the only crossings of the Chesa- peake Bay were by ferry. During the 1950's and 1960's there were major improvements in roadways and crossings which significantly altered acces- sibility patterns and led to the rapid integration of the DRBA region into the larger Middle Atlantic region. There is not much likelihood of additional significant changes to the regional land transportation system and accessibility pattern, and the prospect is therefore for continued improvements to the existing system and continuing reinforcement for the development pattern of the 1950's and 1960's. There has not been as significant a change in the regional marine trans- portation system as in land transportation facilities, but marine trans- portation continues to shift significantly nonetheless. Crude oil which previously moved in shallow draft tankers began to shift to deep draft tankers in the late 1960's and 1970's, requiring lightering to move the cargoes up the Delaware River. Increased containerization of general cargo in the 1970's also began to affect the adequacy of port facilities and the competitive advantage of different ports, stimulating a major capital investment program in the Port of Wilmington. Finally, increased recreational boat registrations, which reportedly increased by 10% to 15% per year in the 1960's, have put considerable strains on marina and recreational boating facilities already limited by dredging and wetland restrictions. 6 The Institutional Setting This study also examines a host of formally constituted institutions and institutional functions and responsibilities. The Delaware River and Bay Authority was created by Compact between the States of New Jersey and Delaware and approved by Act of Congress in 1961* It assumed operation of the Delaware Memorial Bridge in 1962 and a second span was added to the Delaware Memorial Bridge in 1968. The Authority also initiated operation of a ferry service between Cape May and Lewes. Since completion of the second bridge span, the Authority has not undertaken any new construction projects or services. The interstate Compact creating the Authority authorizes it to do the following: "(a) The planning, financing, development, construction, purchase, lease, maintenance, improvement and operation of cross- ings between the States of Delaware and New Jersey across the Delaware River and Bay at any location south of the boundary line between the State of Delaware and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as extended across the Delaware River to the New Jersey shore of said river, together with stich approaches or connections thereto as in the judgment of the AUTHORITY are required to make adequate and efficient connections between such crossings and any public highway or other routes in the State of Delaware or in the State of New Jersey; and (b) the planning, financing, development, construction, purchase, lease, maintenance, improvement and operation of any transportation or terminal facility within those areas of both States which border on or are adjacent to the Delaware River or Bay south of the aforesaid line and which in the judgment of the States is required for the sound economic development of the area; and (c) the performance of such other functions as may be here- after entrusted to the AUTHORITY by concurrent legislation expressly in implementation thereof." Three other public transportation and developmental agencies are chartered to undertake tasks which at least partially overlap the responsibilities of the Delaware River and Bay Authority. They are the Delaware River Port Authority, the South Jersey Port Corporation, and the Port of Wil- mington. In addition, the Delaware Transportation Authority has certain responsibilities for financing and operating transportation facilities within the State of Delaware. The Delaware River Port Authority is an agency created by an interstate compact between Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It is authorized to con- struct and operate bridges, tunnels, and mass transportation links between Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Construction and operation of port facili- ties and study and promotion of the Delaware River ports are also part 7 of its charter. It now owns and operates four bridges across the Dela- ware River, three at Philadelphia and the Commodore Barry Bridge at Chester. It also operates the Lindenwold high-speed rail line between southern New Jersey and downtown Philadelphia. Its World Trade Division actively promotes the use of all Delaware Valley ports, and while it does not own or operate any port facilities of its own, its charter permits it to operate ports in two counties of Pennsylvania and all seven counties in the southern half of New Jersey. The South Jersey Port Corporation was created in 1968 by the New Jersey Legislature to take over existing public port facilities in Camden. The Corporation is chartered to provide port facilities in seven counties of southern New Jersey, including all of the shoreline of the Delaware River and Bay below the head of navigation. At the present time, the Corpora- tion operates two marine terminals in the Port of Camden, but has no plans to open port facilities at other sites. The Port of Wilmington is a municipal facility operated by the Department of Commerce of the City of Wilmington. The port is planning new con- tainer handling facilities, and has proposed expansion onto the Delaware Riverfront from its present site on the Christina River. While each of these three agencies is chartered to operate port or termi- nal facilities in a part of the Delaware River and Bay Authority's juris- diction, only the Port of Wilmington is actually doing so at this time. The most extensive publicly-owned port facilities in the Delaware Valley are controlled by the Philadelphia Port Corporation, which took over and expanded port facilities formerly owned by the City of Philadelphia. All of these facilities are located in Philadelphia County. Other institutions involved in the Delaware River and Bay are primarily of a regulatory nature. The government agencies which will have the greatest effect on the future of the Delaware River and Bay are those which regulate water quality directly or through control of alterations in wetlands or bottom lands and those which regulate shoreline land use. Also important are federal agencies which exercise controls on navigation, offshore port development, and the production and transporta- tion of energy. Local land use, zoning, and building agencies govern most projects along the shore, but these controls are similar to those encountered in any development. State and federal policies are generally designed to improve water quality and protect the bay's important tidal wetlands. Both States encourage consolidation cf new industrial development in the northern subregion. New development is preferred around Wilmington and in developed areas north of Pennsville, where local infrastructure already exists. Some development is also encouraged in smaller cities to the south. Develop- ment in the wetlands along both sides of the Bay is controlled through coastal facility siting laws and wetlands preservation statutes in each State. The Delaware Coastal Zone Act prohibits new heavy industry and bulk terminal facilities within the coastal zone, except for docking 8 facilities in the Port of Wilmington.* The Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA) in New Jersey, which applies to the entire Bay shore south of Pennsville, regulates a wider range of coastal development, including large housing and recreation projects, although no project is barred absolutely by the terms of the statute. In New Jersey, the major permit programs governing coastal development -- coastal siting, wetlands preservation, underwater lands -- are adminis- tered by the Division of Coastal Resources, Department of Environmental Protection. In Delaware, the Department of Natural Resources and Environ- mental Conservation administers the wetlands, underwater lands and beach erosion programs, while the Office of Management, Budget and Planning administers the Delaware Coastal Zone Act. The permit program of the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, under the Rivers and Harbors Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act covers the broadest range of potential developments along the Delaware River and Bay. Essentially all alterations of wetlands, all dredging, and under- water dumping of dredge spoil or fill require a Corps permit, awarded only after consideration of comments on the environmental effects by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Certification of consistency with State water quality law is also required for projects receiving a permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Any project which will discharge pollutants into the Delaware River or Bay requires a State Water Pollution Discharge permit and a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. An NPDES permit is issued by the Delaware State government under a delegation agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. New Jersey is preparing for delegation, but NPDES permits for sources in New Jersey are still issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Most major dis- charges are also subject to review by the Delaware River Basin Commission. While a port within the Bay or State territorial waters will require basic permits issued by the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard administers the issuance of permits for offshore oil ports under the Deepwater Ports Act. Coast Guard officials also issue permits for the construction of bridges across navigable waterways and promulgate navi- gation regulations which control ship traffic in the Bay, including the designation of specific lighterage areas for the transfer of oil from large tankers to smaller vessels. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS AND CONSTRAINTS Within this setting for regional growth and development the study inves- tigated development potentials and constraints of possible significance and performed detailed assessments of these factors in four general areas of special pertinence to the study effort. These areas are: A special permit may allow manufacturing uses. 9 � river and bay crossings; � conventional and offshore ports; � commercial fisheries and aquaculture; � recreational boating and shoreline development. In terms of expanded or additional crossings, the study examined two potential locations -- one to replace the Cape May-Lewes Ferry, the other half-way between the Ferry and the Delaware Memorial Bridge. For both of these locations the study concludes that existing crossings would be adequate to carry additional traffic projected through the year 2000 and that major desire lines of travel would be adequately met by existing crossings, though less significant desire lines (e.g., Dover-Atlantic City) would be better served by an additional or improved crossing. The study also concludes that toll revenue bond financing for such a crossing would not be feasible in the foreseeable future, and that traffic volumes would'not be sufficient to justify such a major capital investment (esti- mated at $1.0 to $1.3 billion in 1990) for a crossing to replace the ferry. The study proposes a method for evaluating the economic development benefits that might derive from the construction of a new crossing. How- ever, on this point as well, the study finds that overall transportation cost savings and net economic benefits are not likely to be significant for either crossing location, given the similar nature of the local econo- mies that would be joined by the crossing, the limited amount of travel whichcould be generated, and the orientation of major.urban areas to existing routes and crossings. While the study finds no justification for construction of a new fixed crossing during the next 20 years, it does conclude that: 1. continuing increase in ferry service capacity will be required into the 1990's; this need could be met by additional, larger and/or faster vessels and extended hours of operation; 2. by about the year 2000 there probably will be significan t changes in travel patterns, motor vehicle usage, and ferry characteristics which will require the re-examination of the feasibility of both expanded ferry service and a fixed crossing. in terms of conventional and offshoreports, the study concludes that the general cargo ports on the Delaware River at Philadelphia, Camden, and Wilmington have all developed expansion plans which, if implemented, should enable this "complex" of ports to handle forecast tonnages through 1990. At the Port of Wilmington, in particular, the proposed new multi- purpose crane and other recommended expansion measures should be suffi- cient to serve anticipated levels of commerce to 1990. 10 The study does conclude, however, that the continued adequacy and desir- ability of the lightering operation vis-a-vis a more formal offshore port requires continued examination. The current lightering operation may be adequate and more cost-effective than an offshore port, but additional oil imports in deeper draft tankers could strain the capacity of this lightering operation. Additional imports would at the same time enhance the financial feasibility of the various types of offshore oil ports previously proposed. Such additional imports are not likely, however, unless the region's refining capacity is significantly increased. Addi- tional imports are questionable in light of strong federal policy to prevent any increase in foreign oil imports. Should there be moderate additional deep-draft tanker imports, these may still not be sufficient to warrant the very high costs of a deepwater port off the Atlantic Coast. For the more financially feasible deepwater port options within the bay to become viable, current political and environmental opposition would have to be offset by convincing proof that a fixed deepwater port within the Bay would pose a smaller ecological threat than the current lighter- ing operation. Given the lack of additional development potentials identified for cargo ports, and given the high degree of uncertainty surrounding the prospects of an offshore oil port, the study concludes that there should be: 1. continued monitoring of lightering volumes, oil imports and Delaware Basin refinery capacity; 2. additional and more specific financial feasibility and risk assessment studies of Delaware Bay and Atlantic Ocean oil port options and expanded lightering should be performed, should the demand for lightering activities grow significantly or other- wise exceed perceived safe levels. As for constraints, any new bulk product unloading facility on the Dela- ware side of the Bay is currently illegal under the Delaware Coastal Zone Act, except in the Port of Wilmington. While such a terminal is not illegal under New Jersey law, State officials have expressed reservations about locating such a terminal within the Bay because of the damage which could be done to wetlands, shellfish beds, spawning areas and beaches by a major oil spill within the Bay. An oil transfer port located well offshore beyond the Delaware Capes would appear preferable under current State laws and environmental policies. Modification and expansion of existing port facilities is generally accepable under current State land use and coastal management plans. Any such project would require a Corps of Engineers permit, as well as a State permit for the use of any underwater lands. A State wetlands per- mit would also be required if tidal marshland is to be filled and altered. Federal environmental officials working with the Corps of Engineers seek o minimize any disruption of wetlands and to avoid filling shallow water areas wherever possible. They prefer docks and terminal structures located t on floats or pilings and sometimes seek compensating restoration of de- graded wetlands when filling activities are permitted. Any permit appli- cant who requires additional dredging to serve an expanded port must provide space for dredge spoil disposal. In terms of commercial fishing and aquaculture, the study concludes that both of these activities have considerable promise but as yet unproven development potential. The newly instituted 200-mile limit now gives preferential access to American fishermen for the fishery resource within this limit, 44% of which was harvested by foreign fishermen in 1974. In addition, worldwide consumption of fish increased by over 50% between 1963 and 1975, and U.S. per capita consumption of fish has increased at an annual average rate of 3.9% since 1967. This potentially increased supply combined with the rapidly growing demand may be particularly significant for the DRBA region, specifically at Cape May or Lewes. These two harbors already have the best conditions for accommodating fishing vessels south of New York City and north of Norfolk, Virginia. They have also historically been the center of the Middle Atlantic fish- ing industry. Although fish catches have declined to about 20% of their 1956 levels almost exclusively due to reduced catches of menhaden, most fishermen and industry representatives interviewed by the Delmarva Advis- ory Council in 1978 were "positive" that there were sufficient fish and shellfish resources off the mid-Atlantic coast to warrant increasing the size or number of their vessels. The species identified as having the greatest potential for expanded Middle Atlantic catches by the domestic fishing fleet were squid, mackerel, hake, and herring, now 90% harvested by foreign fleets. Realizing this potential is dependent upon successful entry into the export market. Commercial aquaculture is viewed by the study, as an activity with consid- erable promise. Oyster farming in the Delaware Bay was nearly eliminated by disease in the early 1950's. It has now begun to expand once more, and aquaculture throughout the country has grown to encompass such com- mercially viable enterprises as farming of trout, salmon, crab, lobster, catfish, shrimp, abalone, kelp and seaweed. However, domestic aquaculture still represents only 3% of the domestic fishery harvest, compared to a 10% share of the fishery harvest worldwide. With the gradual cleaning up of the Bay and with the establishment and expansion of important Univer- sity of Delaware marine research and development facilities at Lewes and at BiValve and Cape May by Rutgers University, additional development potentials for aquaculture are likely to be identified in the future. Given the strong development possibilities but limited current activity in commercial fishing and aquaculture, the development potentials identi- fied are: 1. expansion of export capability including storage, processing and distribution for the commercial fishing industry operating out of Cape May or Lewes; 2. improved facilities at Lewes or Cape May, particularly should fish catches expand significantly; 3. more detailed feasibility studies for facilities development for specific potentials identified in Breakwater Harbor or Cape May Inlet; 12 4. monitoring of aquaculture research efforts and their implica- tions for specific expanded development potentials in the Delaware Bay. Enhancement of fisheries resources in bay and adjoining waters of the coastal shelf is entirely consistent with State and federal efforts to preserve the wetlands and waters of the Bay so important in creating these resources. The 200-mile limit created by the Fisheries Conserva- tion Management Act offers new opportunities for American fishermen in harvesting fish formerly taken by foreign nations. Because the most popular fish in the American market are often overfished by American fishermen, major expansion must be based on the marketing of currently unpopular species or the sale of such species in foreign markets. While State and federal governments are anxious to expand the fishing industry, there is no single program for providing the necessary facili- ties for expansion. The federal government provides technical and finan- cial assistance to fishermen, and States can use economic development funds to encourage some aspects of the fishing industry. An expanded fishing industry is generally consistent with land use and coastal zone plans. Any fish processing plant that returns wastes to the Bay would require State and federal permits. Depending on the site, federal and State permits may be required for dredging or filling, alter- ation of wetlands, or creation of new piers and bulkheads. In New Jersey, a fishing processing plant or new terminal would probably require a CAFRA permit. With continued improvement in water quality, large scale aquaculture operations for several species might be located in the extensive shallows on either side of the Bay. At the moment, no agency in either State has a program to bring aquaculture projects to commercial viability, although the universities are developing extensive new knowledge. Aquaculture operators will find relatively few permitting problems, although they will need to lease or otherwise obtain approval for use of the bottom lands owned by each State and they could require a permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. I-n-- terms of recreational boating and shoreline development, the study identifies a wide variety of development potentials, most of which are in the immediate vicinity of Cape May and Lewes or upriver from Pennsville, New Jersey or Delaware City, Delaware. Development potentials along the remainder and largest share of the Delaware Bay shoreline are found to be severely constrained and virtually precluded by environmental constraints. Recreational boating in particular represents an increasingly significant development potential on the bayshore in the vicinity of Cape May and Lewes. This is because demands are continuing to increase, although at a slower rate than in the 1960's, while the ability to expand marina capa- cities is being increasingly restricted in the congested inland waterway and wetland areas. The desirability of recreational boating access to the Bay has also increased with the improved fishing and recreationall. potential. Those protected areas near the Capes without wetland problems now have expanded potential for recreational boating development. 13 Additional shoreline development potentials identified by the study in- clude beach restoration and development, dredge spoils disposal, port- oriented industrial, foreign trade or specialized facility development, and outer continental shelf (OCS) support. Several beach restoration projects along the Bay shore are being funded under a special Corps of Engineers demonstration project, and these beaches may enjoy renewed although probably still limited potential in the future. Dredge spoils disposal requirements generated by regular maintenance dredging of the ship channel have required the setting aside of extensive shoreline areas along the lower Delaware River for disposal sites. Additional sites or disposal methods will clearly be needed in the future and rep- resent a variety of development potentials and constraints. The poten- tial for special port-oriented development (e.g. industrial parks, foreign trade zones, and specialized coal shipping terminals) exists primarily in the vicinity of the Port of Wilmington, while the potential for OCS support exists at the Port of Wilmington and at Lewes and Cape May as well as Atlantic City. The future requirements for OCS support are, of course, highly uncertain, given the unclear future of Baltimore Canyon exploration and development. Given this diversity of shoreline development possibilities, the study identifies the following development potentials: 1. facilitation of additional private marina development at appropriate locations; 2. investigation of possible joint public/private developments of combined recreational boating and commercial fishing facilities at Cape May or Lewes; 3. continued monitoring of the Baltimore Canyon situation in order to anticipate specific development potentials; 4. continued monitoring of Corps of Engineers activities (beach restoration and dredge spoils disposal), and Port of Wilmington activities to identify any development needs not being addressed by these agencies; 5. coordinated bi-state planning and development of shoreline resources. Any development potentials will depend on the site and scope of the par- ticular project. In general, any project is likely to require a Corps of Engineers permit for dredging, filling or construction in the water, as well as State underwater land permits, and wetland permits if a wetland site is chosen. In New Jersey major marine and recreational development will also require a CAFRA permit. To minimize opposition under current permit policies, a project should avoid filling or altering wetlands and should require as little maintenance dredging as possible. Access chan- nels should be flushed by natural tidal action. Based upon current demands and these environmental constraints, the most likely sites for new marina 14 facilities are at Lewes and immediately north of Cape May. It is pos- sible that a new marina could be combined with the creative use of dredge spoil to create an artificial island, breakwater, or peninsula, but opposition can be expected if the waters filled are particularly produc- tive of fish or shellfish. New Jersey has four marinas, including one on Delaware Bay. Delaware operates a network of small boat launching ramps and is currently reconstructing a 250-vessel marina at the Delaware Sea- shore State Park. 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page BACKGROUND OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY REGION .......... I-1 I.A A DEFINITION OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY REGION .... I-1 I.A.1 The DREA Region .............................. 1-2 I.A.2 The Larger Middle Atlantic Region ............. 1-5 I.A.3 The Functional Subregions of the DRBA Region 1-8 I.B A REVIEW OF THE REGION'S HISTORICAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT .......................... o.............. 1-12 I.B.1 The Period Before 1600 ........ - ............ 1-14 I.B.2 The Period From 1600 to 1800 ................. 1-14 I.B.3 The Period From 1800 to 1950 ................. 1-16 I.B.4 The Period From 1950 to 1970 - The Rapid Incorporation of the DRBA Region into the Northeast Corridor ........................... 1-20 I.C RECENT TRENDS IN THE REGION (1970-1979) AND KEY FACTORS AFFECTING ITS FUTURE ........................ . 1-27 I.C.1 Population Trends and Forecasts ........... 1-27 I.C.2 Agricultural Trends and Forecasts ............ 1-28 I.C.3 Commercial Fishing Trends and Prospects ...... 1-36 I.C.4 Manufacturing Trends and Prospects ........... 1-39 I.C.5 Tourism and Marine Recreation - Trends and Prospects .................................... 1-46 II. HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ....o ................... II.A EXISTING NETWORK ..................... o.............. II.A.1 DRBA Facilities ............................. II-1 II.A.2 DRPA Bridges ................................ 11-8 II.A.3 New Jersey Highways ......................... II-10 II.A.4 Delaware Highways ........................... 11-13 II.A.5 Maryland and Virginia Facilities ............ 11-16 II.B PROPOSED HIGHWAY FACILITIES ......................... 11-18 II.B.1 Proposed New Jersey Highway Improvements .... 11-18 II.B.2 Proposed Delaware Highway Improvements ...... 11-22 II.B.3 Proposed Regional Highway Improvements in Other States ................................ 11-27 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) P a pe II.C TRAFFIC GROWTH TRENDS ............................. 11-29 II.C.1 Facilities of Delaware River and Bay Authority ................................. 11-30 II.C.2 Facilities of the Delaware River Port Authority ................................. 11-34 II.C.3 New Jersey Highways ....................... 11-35 II.C.4 Delaware Highways ......................... 11-41 II.C.5 Maryland and Virginia Facilities .......... 11-45 II.C.6 Intermodal Diversion Potential ............ 11-47 II.C.7 Effect of Energy Conditions ............... 11-51 II.D ADEQUACY OF HIGHWAY SYSTEM ........................ 11-54 II.D.1 Delaware River and Bay Crossings .......... 11-57 II.D.2 New Jersey Highways ....................... 11-64 II.D.3 Other Delaware Highways ..... .............. 11-66 II.E NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CROSSINGS ..................... 11-67 II.E.1 Additional Capacity ........................ 11-68 II.E.2 Improvement of the Regional Transportation System .................................... 11-68 II.E.3 Stimulation of Area Development ........... 11-71 III. MARINE TRANSPORTATION ..................................... III-1 III.A INTRODUCTION ....................................... III-1 III.B WATERBORNE COMMERCE ................................ 111-2 III.B.1 Area and Port Activity, 1-956-1977 111-3 III.B.2 Imports ................................... 111-7 III.B.3 Exports ................................... 111-25 III.B.4 Coastwise and Internal Commerce .......... 111-37 III.B.5 Future Trends .............................. 111-41 III.C TRENDS IN VESSEL USAGE ............................. 111-49 III.C.1 Vessel Types .............................. 111-49 III.C.2 Inbound Vessels - Wilmington Harbor ...... 111-51 III.C.3 Future Vessel Trends ....................... 111-52 III.C.4 Navigational Considerations .............. 111-55 III.D PORT FACILITIES ................................... 111-57 III.D.1 Wilmington ............................... 111-58 III.D.2 Other Facilities, Wilmington-to-the-Sea .. 111-62 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page III.D.3 Philadelphia ...................... ...... 111-62 III.D.4 Camden .................................. 111-64 IV. INSTITUTIONS, PLANNING AND REGULATIONS .................. IV-1 IV.A THE INSTITUTIONAL SETTING FOR PROGRAMS IN THE BAY AREA ......................................... IV-2 IV.A.1 Port and Waterway Facility Programs ....... IV-2 IV.A.2 Environmental Protection Programs ....... IV-4 IV.A.3 Land Use Planning ....................... IV-10 IV.A.4 Other Significant Programs .............. IV-14 IV.B OPERATION OF MAJOR PROGRAMS, PLANNING AND REGULATION ACTIVITIES IN THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY IV-15 IV.B.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............ IV-15 IV.B.2 National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) IV-20 IV.B.3 Fish and Wildlife Services (F&WS) ....... IV-22 IV.B.4 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ... IV-25 IV.B.5 United States Coast Guard (Department of Transportation) ......................... IV-27 IV.B.6 Delaware River Basin Commission ......... IV-30 IV.B.7 Delaware Coastal Zone Act ............... IV-32 IV.B.8 Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) New Jersey .............................. IV-37 IV.B.9 New Jersey Welands Law .................. IV-42 IV.B.10 Delaware-Wetlands Act ................... IV-44 IV.B.11 Subaqueous Lands - Delaware ............. IV-48 IV.B.12 Underwater Lands - New Jersey ........... IV-50 IV.B.13 Land Use Planning ....................... IV-52 IV.C PUBLIC AUTHORITIES UNDERTAKING PORT OR TRANSPORT PROJECTS IN THE DELAWARE BAY AREA ................ IV-61 IV.C.1 Delaware River Port Authority ........... IV-61 IV.C.2 South Jersey Port Corporation ........... IV-64 IV.C.3 Philadelphia Port Corporation ........... IV-66 IV.C.4 Wilmington Port ......................... IV-67 IV.C.5 Delaware River and Bay Authority ........ IV-69 IV.D INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHETICAL PROJECTS .. IV-79 IV.D.1 Fixed Crossing ......................... IV-81 IV.D.2 Expansion of Conventional Port Facilities IV-83 IV.D.3 Deepwater Port Development .............. IV-85 IV.D.4 Fishing Port Development and Fisheries , . . . IV-88 IV.D.5 Marina Development ...................... IV-89 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Pa&e IV.D.6 Other Shoreline Development .............. IV-91 IV.D.7 Dredge Spoil Disposal ..................... IV-93 IV.D.8 Aquaculture .............................. IV-95 IV.D.9 Comparison of Projects and Controlling Agencies ................................. IV-97 IV.E IMPROVING INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION .............. IV-99 IV.E.1 Closer Integration of Land Use Plans and Environmental Permits .................... IV-99 IV.E.2 Consolidation of State Permits for Water- front Development ........................ IV-101 IV.E.3 Clarification of Port Jurisdiction ....... IV-103 IV.E.4 A Planning and Development Agency for the Delaware River and Bay ................... IV-105 V. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS AND CONCEPTS ...................... V-1 V.A CROSSINGS ......................................... V-2 V.A.1 Locations of Possible Crossings .......... v-2 V.A.2 Regional Economic Analysis of Development Potential ................................ v-6 V.A.3 Bridge Location and Cost Factors ......... V-7 V.A.4 Ferry Service ............................ V-8 V.A.5 Existing Public Policy and the Institu- tional Environment ....................... V-13 V.A.6 Role of the DRBA ......................... V-14 V.B CARGO PORT DEVELOPMENT ............................ V-14 V.B.1 Planned Improvements ..................... V-15 V.B.2 Future Adequacy of Existing and Planned Facilities ............................... V-15 V.B.3 Existing Public Policy and the Institu- tional Environment ....................... V-17 V.B.4 Role of the DRBA ......................... V-18 V.C DEEPWATER PORT DEVELOPMENT ......................... V-19 V.C.l Development Potentials .................... V-19 V.C.2 The Development Needs ..................... V-21 V.C.3 Existing Public Policy and the Institu- tional Environment ........................ V-21 V.C.4 Role of the DRBA .......................... V-22 V.D COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ............................... Y-23 V.D.1 Development Potentials .................... V-23 V.D.2 The Development Needs .............I ........ V-25 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page V.D.3 Locational Considerations .................. V-25 V.D.4 Existing Public Policy and the Institu- tional Environment ......................... V-26 V.D.5 Role of the DRBA ........................... V-28 V.E AQUACULTURE ........................................ V-28 V.E.1 Development Potentials ..................... V-28 V.E.2 Development Needs .......................... V-29 V.E.3 Existing Public Policy and the Institu- tional Environment ......................... V-29 V.E.4 Role of the DRBA ........................... V-29 V.F. RECREATIONAL BOATING 14ARINAS ....................... V-30 V.F.1 Development Potentials ..................... V-30 V.F.2 Development Needs .......................... V-30 V.F.3 Locational Considerations .................. V-31 V.F.4 Existing Public Policy and the Institu- tional Envirorment ......................... . V-31 V.F.5 Role of the DRBA ........................... V-32 V.G SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL .................... V-32 V.G.1 Development Potentials ..................... V-32 V.G.2 Development Needs ......................... V-34 V.G.3 Public Policy and Role of the DRBA ......... V-34 V.H BI-STATE DELAWARE BAY-ORIENTED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FUNCTIONS .............................. V-34 APPENDIX A ......................................... A-1 APPENDIX B ......................................... B-1 v I. BACKGROUND OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY REGION This introductory section provides a background description of the Dela- ware River and Bay and its surrounding area. It also summarizes those factors and trends that have affected or are likely to affect the area's future and the present or potential activities of the Delaware River and Bay Authority.(hereinafter, the DRBA or the Authority). The section includes three parts: � A definition of the primary DRBA region and its three sub- regions and the larger Middle Atlantic region. 0 A review of the region's historical growth and development. � A profile of recent trends in the region's economic base and a discussion of key factors affecting the region's future. I.A A DEFINITION OF THE DRBA REGION The interstate compact creating the Delaware River and Bay Authority gives it responsibility for certain public projects in the Delaware River and Bay and along their shorelines from the Pennsylvania-Delaware border to the Atlantic Ocean. In order to understand the DRBA's present activi- ties and future role in the area, it is important to first understand the resources, roles, and interrelationships of the regions affecting and affected by the Authority's activities. In this context four points are worth emphasizing: The counties of New Jersey and Delaware which abut the Authority's area of interest represent a slice of the recreational, agricultural, and urbanized corridors of the large Middle Atlantic Region -- a slice whose future is therefore closely linked to that of the larger region and dependent on its shifting comparative advantages relative to other segments of the region. The use of the lower Delaware River and Bay is a key determinant of the region's overall role. The region consists largely of shallow waters and tidal mudflats and wetlands which represent valuable and environmen- tally sensitive habitats. It is a region which formerly provided an important recreational and fishing resource and which now accommodates an important and well pro- tected marine transportation system including the Port of Wilmington, the lightering area off Big Stone Beach and the ship channel. It is a region which is gradually I-1 being cleaned up after years of industrial, agricultural and urban pollution. It is a region which has been sub- ject to competing demands in the past (e.g., oil ports, pipelines, nuclear power plants, recreation, fishing, and marine farming) and which may have substantial poten- tial in the future. The regional transportation system plays a key role in determining the area's role. The major long distance auto and truck corridor of the Eastern Seaboard bisects the Authority's area of interest at the Delaware Memorial Bridge and is paralleled by important coastal recreation corridors for both automobiles and boats crossing the Bay between Lewes and Cape May. A major marine transpor- tation corridor (particularly for petroleum and petroleum products) bisects the Authority's area of interest in the other direction through the lower Delaware River and Bay and is paralleled by important recreational corridors linking the coastline with major population centers. These corridors and their links (e.g., the bridge and ferry crossing) play a large part in determining loca- tional advantages for different activities and will there- fore continue to play a large part in influencing sub- regional roles. The major natural resources supporting the area's econo- mic base include the shoreline beaches supporting tourism along the Atlantic Coast and some portions of the Delaware Bay, the sand deposits supporting the glass manufacturing industry in southern New Jersey, the agricultural resources supporting truck farming and the poultry industry, and commercial fishing and tourism along the coastline. These resources and others, including the yet undefined oil and gas resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, will con- tinue to have a major influence over the region's role. Defined below in more detail are the DRBA region, the larger Middle Atlantic region, and the three functional subregions of the DRBA region. I.A.l. The DRBA Region For purposes of this study, the DRBA region is defined as the entire State of Delaware (New Castle, Kent and Sussex Counties) and the four counties of southern New Jersey (Cape May, Atlantic, Cumberland, and Salem). Gloucester County, New Jersey, although represented on the Authority, was not included due to its much closer linkage with the Philadelphia/Camden metropolitan area. As shown in Exhibit I-1, the New Jersey and Delaware portions of this region are connected by the two crossings currently operated by the 1-2 in 7'@ -F % "7 N 17 q4 f 3---W %6- K N N 2 ATLANTIC CITY --'0 DO SCALE 5 is 2o slw.,. mil., 7 5 o 5 lo is 20 25 30 Kil-ow. AY DELAWARE B CAPE MAY MILFORD CAPE MAY LEWES FERRY T IE. REHOBOTH N Exhibit I- I THE DELAWARE RIVER AND SAY AUTHORITY STUDY OF CROSSING REOUIREMENTS AND PRESENT USES OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY DELAWARE BAY REGION URS CORPORATION ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. 1-3 Authority -- the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the Cape May-Lewes Ferry. These two crossings accommodated 18,820,000 vehicles in 1978, of which 81% were passenger automobiles. Over 99% of these vehicle crossings were made on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The DRBA region has about 3,620 square miles of land area, consisting primarily of flat coastal plains. A minor portion of the land area is in the upland Piedmont plateau, extending inland from the fall line, but the major.portion of the land area is in poorly drained coastal wetlands. Land that is well drained is excellent agricultural land, and about 36% of the region's total land area was in farms in 1974, according to the U.S. Census of Agriculture. A large part of the New Jersey Pine Barrens, ELS well as substantial amounts of Delaware @Yoodlands are also in the DRBA region. Urban land uses are concentrated in the Wilmington-Salem area and on the Atlantic shoreline. Additional smaller urban clusters include the inland towns of Dover and Milford, Delaware, and Vineland, Millville and Bridgeton, New Jersey. The DRBA region has about 625 square miles of Delaware River and Bay waters inside Cape May and Cape Henlopen. From the entrance of the bay to the anchorage area off Big Stone Beach,, the controlling depth. in the channels and ship traffic area is 55 to 100 feet. The 800 to 1000-foot-wide ship channel up the remainder of the river and bay is regularly dredged to a controlling depth of 40 feet at mean low water. Except for an area near the two capes, the rest of the Delaware River and Bay waters are relatively shallow with depths of less than 4 to 6 feet prevailing for about the first 1/2 mile off shore and less than 10 to 15 feet in most of the remaining waters., The bottom sediments of the Delaware River and Bay are primarily sand outside of a line running from Lewes, Delaware, to Port Norris, New Jersey (the Maurice River), and mud from that line up the bay and river. The shoreline of the region along the Atlantic Coast and for a short distance into the bay from each cape consists primarily of sandy beaches -- many of them State or city parks. With few exceptions the remainder of the bay shoreline from just inside the capes to Delaware City, Delaware and Pennsville, New Jersey is a two- to five-mile-wide strip of wetlands -- much of it included in national or State wildlife areas. North of Delaware City and Pennsville, the Delaware River shoreline has been largely developed with transportation facilities and industrial uses -- although a number of open areas remain, several of which are used for dredge spoils disposal. The DRBA region had an estimated permanent population of 1,040,000 in 1977 and has experienced population growth rates ranging from 2.8% per year in the 1950's to 1.6% per year in the 19150's and 1.1% per year between 1970 and 1977. The region is heavily urbanized in the north with 38% of the region's permanent population living in New Castle County which has 12% of the region's land area. The region also has a large seasonal fluctuation in population. On a typical August weekend, 1-4 the Atlantic Coastline reportedly experiences a threefold population increase over its permanent population. On these weekends, the'coastal population of over 1,000,000 persons would exceed the total permanent population of the rest of the DRBA region. The economic base of the DRBA region consists primarily of manufacturing, agriculture and tourism. The manufacturing base is made up largely of food products and glass manufacturing in the central part of the region and petrochemical industries and research in the northern portion. The agricultural base is made up largely of poultry products, corn, and soy- beans in the south and vegetables or truck farming in the north. The tourism base is closely tied to entertainment and gambling along the New Jersey ocean shoreline and fishing and swimming at the capes and along the ocean shoreline in Delaware. The transportation system of the DRBA region includes a major East Coast marine traffic corridor which runs through the Delaware River and Bay, and includes the Port of Wilmington, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, and the Big Stone Beach oil lightering area. The DRBA region's trans- portation system also includes the major East Coast vehicle corridor which runs north and south along Interstate 95 and th'e New Jersey Turn- pike (including the Delaware Memorial Bridge) and the major East Coast rail corridor. In addition to these major corridors, the region-is crossed by marine transportation channels for recreational boating and commercial cargo on the inland and intracoastal waterways maintained by the federal government and by smaller channels such as the Lewes- Rehoboth Canal, the Cape May Canal, and numerous bays and inlets along the Atlantic Coast. The region is also crossed by a second vehicle transportation corridor -- the Coastal Route, primarily a recreational route including the Garden State Parkway and Route 9 in New Jersey, the Cape May-Lewes Ferry, and Route 14 and 1 in Delaware I.A.2 The Larger Middle Atlantic Region The DRBA is an integral part of the larger Middle Atlantic region, which encompasses the Eastern Seaboard from Norfolk, Virginia to the New York City area (see Exhibit 1-2). For statistical purposes, we define this larger region as the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Mary- land, Delaware, and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. In addition to the two Delaware River and Bay crossings operated by the DRBA, this larger region includes numerous other crossings of the Dela- ware River, many operated by a similar bi-state New Jersey/Pennsylvania authority -- the Delaware River Port Authority. It also includes cross- ings of the Hudson River and New York Harbor, operated by the bi-state Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and crossings of the Chesa- peake Bay, not operated by bi-state authorities. The Middle Atlantic region has a land area of about 152,000 square miles, more than 40 times that of the DRBA region. This land includes the flat 1-5 CONN, YORK N, Piv YOk Hlorbor Ov Z@ cl DEN 'DOZeir 0 t1q: WASHII TOM dlp a., B'i A, columb '10 May Xj" ED The DRSA Region Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnef 0 VA @A EXHIBIT 1-2 THE LARGER MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION 1-6 coastal plains of New Jersey and the Delmarva Peninsula and large portions of the Piedmont Plateau and rolling foothills inland toward the Appala- chian Mountains. Like the DRBA region, this Middle Atlantic region in- cludes a band of agricultural land uses separating the tourist and recreation developments along the Atlantic Coastline from the heavily industrialized and urbanized Northeast Corridor. This larger region also includes a second band of agricultural uses flanked by tourist and recreational development near the Appalachians to the west of the North- east Corridor. In addition to the Delaware River and Bay, this larger region includes two other large and important bodies of water -- the Chesapeake Bay and the Hudson River/Long Island Sound. Both are larger than the Delaware River and Bay, and both have larger areas of deeper water near shore, making them more attractive for recreational boating and shoreline devel- opment. The shorelines of these other two areas are less dominated by wetlands and consequently are more extensively developed than is the Delaware Bay shoreline. The Atlantic shoreline is similar throughout this entire Middle Atlantic region, although it is more intensively developed to the north and less developed to the south than is the Atlantic Coastline of the DRBA region. The Middle Atlantic region had 47,074,000 permanent residents in 1970-or about 50 times the population of the DRBA region. In 1970 this region contained 23% of the nation's population and 25% of the nacion's manu- facturing employment, most of it within 200 miles of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. This larger region grew more rapidly than did the DRBA ' region in the 1950's, but its annual rate of growth declined to about 1.1% between 1960 and 1970 or about two-thirds the growth rate of the DRBA region during that period. The economic base of this larger region is more diversified than that of the DRBA region, although light manufacturing and particularly petro- chemicals remain a very strong component. Agriculture is somewhat less important in this region than in the DRBA region, and tourism is less of a traditional economic "base" component due to the fact that most of the tourism originates within this larger region. The transportation system of the Middle Atlantic region includes exten- sions to the marine traffic corridors of the DRBA region. The system also includes extensions of the two major north-south land traffic cor- ridors crossing through the DRBA region and several east-west corridors running from the Atlantic Coastline to the Northeast Corridor through the Appalachians to the Midwest. The DRBA region and the Middle Atlantic region are linked in the following ways: Cross-bay passenger automobile traffic, representing about 81% of total cross-bay traffic within the DRBA region, con- sists largely of vehicles with an origin and/or a destina- tion outside of the DRBA region. At the Delaware Memorial 1-7 Bridge, a large portion of the passenger vehicles reportedly move through the DRBA region along the I-95/Turnpike corri- dor or between the shoreline resorts of: the DRBA region and other population centers of the larger Middle Atlantic region, primarily the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington areas. � It is reported that cross-bay commercial traffic consists primarily of vehicles with an origin and/or a destination outside of the.DRBA region. � The majority of waterborne commerce in the Delaware River and Bay moves through the DRBA region to the Philadelphia area. � Many of the agricultural and fishery products of the DRBA region are sold in the fresh produce or fish markets in the Middle Atlantic States and distributed to the New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington markets. � Industrial and manufacturing production within the DRBA region is not geared to a local DRBA regional market, and most products are distributed outside of the region to either the Middle Atlantic or national market. � The visitor-oriented Atlantic Coastline and the Delaware Bay Shoreline are recognized.as important national as well as regional resources. Most visitors to this shoreline come from other parts of the Middle Atlantic states outside of the DRBA region. I.A.3 The Functional Subregions of the DRBA Region The DRBA region can usefully be characterized as having three distinct functional subregions as numbered in Exhibit 1-3 and as follows: 1. the industrialized and urbanized northern subregion 2. the agricultural and rural central subregion 3. the visitor-oriented and recreational coastal subregion. I.A.3.a The Industrialized and Urbanized Northern Subregion This subregion is dominated by the Northeast Corridor and the Wilmington Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes Salem County, New Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware. Functionally defined, it would include the cities of Wilmington, Newark and Pennsville and only the northern portions of New Castle and Salem Counties. For statistical purposes, we define it to include all of the Counties of New Castle and Salem. 1-8 IRINTO 0`4@1,LADELITHIA-.) e4 C MDEN'.:.... '0@ --tx- m G'O 40". % I N N -7 tow CITY DOVER To 0 5 SCALE Is 20 s 0 $1 To is 20 2S 30 t* D AWARfSAV EL OR ow 'o IT 'I.[ 81 A( H THE DELAWARE RIVER AND SAY AUTHORI TV STUDY OF CROSSING REQUIREMENTS AND 40mr.@- V." 00 VISIT 41111, A --J NJ PRESENT USES OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY URS CORPORATION ARTHUR 0. LITTLI, INC. 1-9 Exhibit -1-3 This subregion included 803 square miles of land area (about 22% of the region's total) and 460,500 inhabitants or 44.3% of the region's perma- nent population in 1977. Its growth is heavily influenced by changes in the petrochemical industry and by trends and developments along the en- tire Northeast Corridor. It grew very rapidly (at an annual rate of 2% to 4% during the 1950's and 1960's) as it and other less developed seg- ments of the Northeast Corridor began to fill in.. Since the late 1960's, growth has slowed to less than 0.5% per year. It has now stabilized as a major manufacturing area and center for the petrochemical industry. Manufacturing employment numbered approximately 58,000 in 1970 and ac- counted for 32.4% of the employment in this subregion. This percentage of employment in manufacturing is significantly higher than the approxi- mately 15% in the rest of the DRBA region and 25.2% nationwide. Close to three-fourths of this manufacturing employment is accounted for by five firms, three of which are major chemical firms and two of which are vehicle assembly plants. This subregion also includes the Getty Oil Company refinery complex at Delaware City, the nuclear power plant in Lower Alloway Creek Township, New Jersey, and the Port of Wilmington. This relatively small subregion is bisected in one direction by one of the East Coast's major marine transportation corridors, the Delaware River, and in another direction by the East Coast's major vehicle trans- portation corridor, Interstate 95, the New Jersey Turnpike, and the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The marine transportation corridor accommo- dated approximately 134,000,000 tons of waterborne commerce in 1977, while the vehicle transportation corridor accommodated approximately 18,600,000 vehicles in 1978 (at the bridge). Both corridors experienced traffic increases in excess of 20% between 1964 and 1974, and both have had a leveling off of traffic volumes in the last four years. The Delaware River and Bay shoreline in this subregion is more intensively developed and has less extensive wetlands than elsewhere in the DRBA region. The Christina River, with the Port of Wilmington, represents the main break in the Delaware River's western shoreline. It accommo- dates considerable marine traffic and has controlling depths of 38.7 ft. at Wilmington to 6 ft. at Newport, Delaware. The Salem River with the upstream city of Salem, New Jersey represents the major break in the eastern shoreline of the Delaware River. The Salem River is now rela- tively shallow and has little marine traffic, however there is a potential for increased use for marine transportation. I.A.3.b The Agricultural and Rural Central Subregion The central subregion is primarily an agricultural region, but it in- cludes a significant cencentration of glass manufacturing in Millville and Bridgeton, New Jersey, the state capital of Dover, Delaware, and the Dover Air Force Base. Functionally defined, it would include all of Kent and Cumberland Counties and some of Sussex, New Castle, and Salem Counties. For statistical purposes, we define it to include only the counties of Kent and Cumberland. 1-10 This subregion has about 30% of the DRBA region's land area (1,097 square miles) and had about 225,000 inhabitants or 21.6% of the DRBA's permanent population in 1977. It is heavily influenced by governmental activities and by trends in the agricultural economy and food processing industry. It grew rapidly during the 1950's from a population of 126,500 to 172,600. Much of this growth was due to the reactivation of Dover Air Force Base. By the 1970's growth had slowed to about 1% per year, but Kent County, Delaware continued to grow at about twice the rate of Cumberland County, New Jersey. This was due to continuing growth of the state capital of Dover. Manufacturing e 'mployment of 24,000 in 1975 included 5,500 in food products and 8,200 in glass and clay products. Dover Air Force Base employs about 5,000 military and civilian personnel. This central subregion is bisected in one direction by the widest part of Delaware Bay, at the southern end of which are extensive oil lightering operations to transfer oil from deeper droft Lankers to shallower draft barges. There is no land transportation corridor bisecting the region in the other direction, although crossings have been proposed in the past, for example, a Delaware Bay Bridge from Sea Breeze, New Jersey to Bombay Hook Point. The shoreline is the least intensively developed of the three subregions due to tidal mud flats and wetlands which extend two to five miles in- land, Both the Delaware and New Jersey shorelines have a number of small beaches, broken by the Cohansey and Maurice Rivers on the New Jersey side, and the St. Jones and Mispillion Rivers on the Delaware side. Each of these four rivers links an inland city to the shoreline, and each has limited recreational boating and marine development at the river mouth or upstream at the cities of Dover and Milford in Delaware and Bridgeton and Millville in New Jersey. I.A.3.c The Visitor-oriented and Recreational Coastal Subregion The southeastern subregion is largely dependent on the summer tourist trade. Functionally defined, this subregion would include a five-mile band of development along the Atlantic Coastline including narrow exten- sions along the bay shoreline from Cape May and Lewes northward. It would include Atlantic City, Ocean City and Wildwood in New Jersey, as well as Bethany Beach, Rehoboth Beach and Fenwick Island in Delaware. For statistical purposes, we define it to include all of the Counties of Atlantic, Cape May and Sussex. This subregion included 48% of the DRBA region's land area (1,720 square miles) and 354,900 inhabitants or 34% of the region's permanent popula- tion in 1977. It has been heavily influenced by recent trends in retire- ment migration, second homes, and tourism. It includes several parks and beach areas as well as the commercial and recreational fishing and boating centers of Cape May and Lewes. It is now also being affected by casino gambling in Atlantic City. This subregion grew relatively slowly during the 1950's and 1960's, from a year-round population of 230,800 in 1950 to 313,700 in 1970. Since 1970 its growth has accelerated while that in the other subregions has declined. Between 1970 and 1977 it grew at about two and one-half times the rates of the other two sub- regions. In addition to this growth in year-round population, summer populations have increased dramatically with the growth in accommoda- tions and campground facilities. The population on a typical summer weekend is about three times the year-round population, or over 1,000,000 people. Total non-food manufacturing employment in this subregion numbered about 15,400 in 1975. This represents about 15% of the subregion's total employment compared to over 32% represented by non-food manufacturing employment in the northern subregion. On the other hand, trade and ser- vice employment numbered about 43,000 or close to one-half of the sub- region's total employment compared to about one-third in trade and service employment in the northern subregion. Atlantic City casino development is projected to increase permanent employment by 90,000 assuming 12 casinos,l doubling the subregion's permanent employment and increasing population by some 200,000 people. This coastal subregion is bisected by the lower Delaware Bay, the Intra- coastal Waterway, and the Route 9/Garden State Parkway/Route 14 corridor which is joined by the DRBA ferry service linking Lewes and Cape May. Its shoreline is a combination of primarily wildlife management areas in the wetlands and summer home development along scattered beaches. In the Lewes and Cape May areas, the shoreline includes both residential and visitor-oriented uses with marina development along the Lewes- Rehoboth Canal and the Cape May Inlet. There is currently little marine or commercial recreation development along the Cape May Canal or within the Breakwater Harbor at Lewes. The most intensive park and visitor- oriented development is concentrated along the Atlantic Coastline. I.B A REVIEW OF THE REGION'S HISTORICAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT The pre-history and subsequent growth and development of the region covers the period from its formation due to receding glaciers to the north about 15,000 years ago to the most recent period of rapid urban- ization in the 1960's. Trends since 1970 are considered "current" and are discussed in Section I.C. Here, we review the European discovery and colonization in the 1960's, the expansion of agricultural and fish- ing through the 1700's and 1800's, the development of commercial and industrial centers in the late 1700's and 1800's, the establishment of glass manufacturing in the mid-1700's, the establishment of a strong petrochemical industry beginning in 1802, the maturing and partial decline of the agricultural, fishery and petrochemical sectors in the 1950's and 1960's, and the rapid urbanization of the northern part of the subregion following the construction of the Delaware Memorial Bridge and an effective regional transportation system in the 1950's. lCenter for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1978. 1-12 This historical perspective provides several important insights into the current and future roles of the region: 0 The development of the regional transportation system has continued to reinforce the isolation and conservative rural subculture of southern New Jersey and the Delmarva Peninsula. Following the demise of shallow draft marine traffic in the 1800's, and following the construction of the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal and the establishment of the lowest river and bay crossing at New Castle in the early 1800's, most transportation developments have tended to increase the capacity of through corridors and marine terminals serving Wilmington and areas further North. * Most of the DRBA region south of Wilmington did not have good access to important industrial resources (e.g. iron and coal) and was largely bypassed by the industrial revolution. Until the growth of tourism, most of this region was largely dependent on the agricultural and fishing economies (glassmaking was the exception). 0 The industrial base of the region, primarily in the Wil- mington area, has been eroded by improved transportation systems nationwide and by the shifts of relative market strengths and competitive advantage to the South and West. Although more recently developed than other indus- trial bases in the Northeast, some of the industrial plant is relatively obsolete. Industrial bases related to fishing and agricultural production suffered a pre- cipitous decline after World War II, and much of the remaining physical plant may be too obsolete to take advantage of new opportunities. 0 The rapidly increasing use of the Upper Delaware River and its shoreline in the Philadelphia area continued to cause downstream problems which reduced its downstream potential. * Although the region lagged behind the growth of other parts of the Northeast until the 1950's ' transportation improvements and overcrowding elsewhere helped stimulate a rapid catching up period for the DRBA region in the 1950's and 1960's. Rapid urbanization of the Wilmington area and increased development along the Atlantic Coast- line characterized the rapid but late incorporation of this region into the larger Northeast Corridor system. 1-13 I.B.1 The Period before 1600 The Delaware River and Bay was formed in large part following the last recession of the glaciers about 15,000 years ago. At that time the Brandywine and Schuylkill Rivers eroded toward the east to meet the Delaware (they had previously flowed directly to the ocean), and massive amounts of debris were deposited as sand and clay over the coastal low- lands by the Delaware. The lower estuary then flooded with the rising ocean water, giving the bay its present form. The Delaware River Basin and its geological regions are illustrated in Exhibit 1-4. Prominent among the Indians living along the De laware prior to the time of European exploration were the Lenni Lenape, "who fished, hunted and cultivated fields of corn, squash, beans, sweet: potatoes and a hearty tobacco."I I.B.2 The Period from 1600 to 1800 During the period from 1600 to 1800 the region was explored and settled by the first European colonists and became a major center for agricul- ture, shipbuilding, flour milling, fishing, lumbering and trade. The Spanish and Portuguese explored the Atlanti' 'c Coastline of the Middle Atlantic region in the 16th century, but Henry Hudson's Half Moon was the first European ship known to have sailed up the Delaware (August 28, 1609). He named it the South River and gave the Dutch their initial claim to the area. The area was named Delaware Bay after Lord de la Warr by Sir Samuel Argull in 1610, and Cape May and Cape Henlopen were named by Cornelius Jacobsen May who explored the Bay in 1614. The first European community was a 1631 Dutch settlement near Lewes (Zwaanendael) which was burned by Indians within a year.2 The Swedes and Finns established the next settlement near Wilmington in 1636. A succession of 13 Swedish expeditions then established settlements from Cape Henlopen into Pennsylvania. The Swedish settlements were taken over by the Dutch in the mid-1600's, and the Dutch built Fort Casimir and New Amstel (now New Castle) in the 1650's. The Dutch developed extensive diking and agricultural uses during this period. The Dutch also followed the usual colonial practice of purchasing tracts of land from the Indians to protect their title while alsr, carrying on an active trade. Following the English victories over the Dutch in 1664, the Dutch and Swedish settlements were taken over by the English, with the Dutch and Swedish colonists permitted to retain their lands after subscribing to 1U.S. Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, The Delaware River Basin, An Environmental Assessment of Three Centuries of Change (1975). 2Delaware State Planning Office, Delaware Preliminary Comprehensive Devel- opment Plan (1967). 1-14 Ex@i@it' 1-4 The Delaware River & BayBasin The Geological Regions of the oslawar& River Basin :A NEW YORK 10 @bo 4V LIMITS OF GLACIATION LIMITS OF GLACIATION PIEDMONT FALL LINE TRWYON A J-" PENNSYLVAN'4 MARYLAND WILMINGTON FALL LINE COASTAL PLAIN I DELAWARE BAY yl Ila Source: U.S., Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, The Delaware River Basin, An Environmental Assessment of Three Centuries of Change (1975). 1-15 an oath of allegiance to the King of England. The Quakers began to arrive in 1677 with William Penn taking title to large amounts of land received from Charles II of England. Following settlement by the English, the region was settled successively by the Germans, the Scots, and the Irish. From 1682, when Charles II granted William Penn land on the west side of the Delaware below Pennsylvania, a boundary dispute between William Penn and Lord Baltimore continued until the boundaries of Delaware were officially proclaimed in 1775, the northern boundary being an arc with a 12-mile radius from the New, Castle Courthouse. Until the mid-1700's the region remained primarily agricultural with communities linked by the rivers and a few roads and with Philadelphia being the center of trade with England. In 1738, the first glassmaking industry was established in New Jersey. Following the Revolutionary War, the region's recovery was assisted by the invention of automatic flour milling machinery. The mills along the Brandywine in Wilmington shipped about 300,000 bushels a year during this period. By 1800, the Delaware Basin had become a major center of American commerce and indus- try. "Flour, leather, textiles and paper were produced in the Brandywine Valley just above Wilmington. The Delaware was also the Nation's shipbuilding center, with water transportation assured by an extensive network of ports along the upper estuary. Many towns on the bay were shipping points for wheat, rye, corn, tobacco and live- stock grown in the interior and for the burgeoning oyster business. In the upper basin and in many com- munities around the timber, industry flourished. feeding -raw materials to the paper mills and shipyards in the Philadelphia and Wilmington areas."i By the end of the 1700's, the Delaware River also began to assume impor- tance as a potential supply of drinking water. Over one-third of Phila- delphia's population had fled the city in the 1970's when disease resulting from well contamination killed thousands.,,2 I.B.3 The Period from 1800 to 1950 During the period from 1800 to 1950, the region's industrial development became established in the Wilmington area, its fishing and agricultural sectors prospered, and its population increased to 675,000 (1950 Census). However, the shifts to coal for power and the shift to iron for ships caused the decline of a number of smaller towns along the lower Delaware River and Bay. The DRBA region did not grow as rapidly as the Philadelphia area, which had a population of 2.9 million by 1930. lCouncil on Environmental Quality, op. cit., p. 5. 2Pennsylvania Department of Health, Chronolog .y of Milestones, Pennsyl- vania's Clean Streams Program, p. 12 (1970). 1-16 Between 1801 and 1804 three important events occurred that were to have a major long-term impact on the DRBA region. � On January 21, 1801, ferry service between New Castle, Delaware and Pennsville, New Jersey began and was to continue as the sole Delaware River and Bay crossing in the DRBA region until the construction of the Dela- ware Memorial Bridge in 1951. � In 1802, E.I. Dupont, a French chemist who had worked with LaVoisier, was encouraged by President Jefferson to establish the DuPont Powder Mills just above Wil- mington -- mills that were to grow into the chemical complexes that still dominate the region. � On May 2, 1803, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company was organized in Wilmington with construction of the canal connecting the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays beginning on May 2, 1804. These three events were the basis for integration of the northern por- tion of the region into the urban-industrial development of the Northeast Corridor, while they also served to perpetuate the role of southern New Jersey and the Delmarva peninsula as rural agricultural and fishing areas. Following the War of 1812, economic activity in the DRBA region-and in the rest of the Delaware Basin increased significantly, with a number of factors contributing to the further industrialization of the northern part of the region and the continuing isolation of southern New Jersey and the Delmarva peninsula. � Steami-aboats began replacing sailing vessels in the river and bay in 1816, and the wooden shipbuilding industry went into a rapid decline. � A Delaware Bay breakwater was completed in 1834, but safe deep harbors or shoreline loading areas existed primarily along the 100 miles of river and bay from Delaware City to Trenton. 0 Adequate supplies of water power for the mills and of fresh processing or cooling water for industries existed primarily north of Wilmington. � The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal was opened in 1829; other canals and railroads soon followed, linking Phila- delphia to the Schuylkill coal region and to the Ohio Basin, thus offsetting an earlier advantage gained by New York with the completion of the Erie Canal. 1-17 Due to these and other factors, most of the increased economic activity in the 1800's occurred from Wilmington north where the cities had good access to the essential natural resources of the industrial revolution (water, coal, wood and iron) and a prime location supported by the nation's continuing westward expansion. Philadelphia, for example, grew sevenfold in 30 years -- from a population of 80,000 in 1830 to 566,000 in 1860. Much of the DRBA region was largely bypassed by the industrial revolu- tion. From 1850 to 19.00, as timber resources in the coastal plain were exhausted, and as the economic and industrial importance shifted from wood to iron and from water to coal, the natural advantages of the upper basin for industrial development increased and the smaller towns of the lower basin went into a period of economic decline. The exceptions to this were provided by the thriving glass industry in South Jersey and- the bay and ocean fishing industry. As noted in one report: "by the mid-1820's, fish from the Delaware Basin were being exported by wagon and boat, not only to places like New York and Baltimore but also to international markets as distant as China."l The character of the region again underwent dramatic change in the early 1900's. With the advent of the internal combustion engine, continued industrial expansion was no longer dependent on the river. The rail- roads and trucks began to move goods both within and between cities. Plants expanded near major roads, and truck farming as well as *food pro- cessing became a dominant feature throughout the DRBA region. Recrea- tional access to the shoreline was no longer as dependent on railroads and river boats as it had been during the 1800's, and the recreational centers of the Upper Delaware Bay served by these boats began to lose an important competitive advantage. Petroleum refineries and related petrochemical industries also expanded rapidly, particularly toward the end of this period. Throughout this period the overlapping and sometimes conflicting uses of the Delaware River and Bay continued to increase. major conflicts and problems of the Delaware River and Bay and its shoreline began to become evident in the late 1940's.2 Increased dumping, of untreated.effluent resulted in dangerous depletions of the river's supply of oxygen. Even in the late 1940's, 85% of Philadelphia's sewage was still being dumped into the river without treatment. Increased dumping of industrial wastes along the Delaware resulted in dangerously high concentrations' of toxic wastes, as 92% of Pennsylvania industries were not treating wastes dis- charged into the river in the 1940's. Increased dredi;ing of the ship channels increased turpidity and required expanding soils disposal sites 1U.S. Water Pollution Control Administration, Delaware Estuary Study, Preliminary Report and Findings, p. 50 (1966). 2Council on Environmental Quality, op. cit., pp. 9-21. 1-18 along the shoreline and in wetlands. Increased withdrawals of fresh water and out-of-basin diversions to New York created potential down- stream problems of salt-water intrusion. Increased usage of the shore- line for factories, refineries, and railroads blocked public access to the shoreline for recreational use. Increased food processing and use of fertilizer resulted in an overloading of the river with phosphates, nitrates, and other nutrients. Increased commercial ship traffic and recreational boating sometimes came into conflict. Increased commercial fishing seriously depleted fish stocks. The lack of effective solutions to these problems was in large part responsible for the 95% decline in Delaware River and Bay fish catches between 1900 and 1920 (see Exhibit 1-5) and for the major declines in recreational uses of the lower river and bay between 1930 and 1950. By the end of this period there was a realization that some remedial action was necessary. Regulations governing industrial pollution were promul- gated, and limited action was taken by the City of Philadelphia, among others. However, major sewer improvement programs did not come until comprehensive federal law was enacted in 1965 and 1972. Exhibit 1-5 - Weight of Fish Catches in the Delaware River - 1850-1965 Source: Council on Environmental Quality, op. cit p. 19. I-19 I.B.4 The Period from 1950 to 1970_- The RapLd Incorporation of the DRBA Region into the Northeast Corridoi-. Until the 1950's the DRBA region along with the rest of the Delmarva Peninsula to the south had been somewhat isolated from the rapid growth and development occurring along other parts of the Northeast Corridor and Atlantic Coastline. From 1950 to 1970, however, the DRBA region experienced the same rapid urban growth and shoreline development trends previously experienced elsewhere in the northeast. Improved accessi- bility of the region to major markets and population centers and over- crowding elsewhere in -the Middle Atlantic Region were factors contributing to these trends. Described below is the changing role of the DRBA region during this critical period in terms of: the@changing regional land transportation and accessibility, the changing patterns of marine trans- portation, population growth, the region's shifting economic base, and the changing institutional environment and public policy. I.B.4.a The Changing Regional Transportation System and Accessibility Patterns, 1950-1970 Land transportation systems in the DRBA region changed dramatically during the period from 1950 to 1970. These changes in turn significantly altered regional accessibility and travel patterns as well as land use and development trends. Prior to 1950, there were no interstate highways, neither the New Jersey nor the Delaware Turnpike had been completed, and there were no major east-west expressways. The only bay or river crossing in the DRBA region was the New Castle/Pennsville ferry, and the only crossings of the Chesa- peake Bay were by ferry. It reportedly took -over four hours to drive from Philadelphiato Cape May or from Baltimore to the Delaware shore and over four hours to drive from Wilmington to either New York City or Washington, D.C. Even downtown Philadelphia and Baltimore were over two hours away from Wilmington, and there was onl- limited intercity travel, y much of it by rail. Most longer-distance, land-basied commerce also moved by rail, and interstate trucking was a-much smaller industry than it is today. Since 1940 motor vehicles have tripled their share of intercity freight traffic, while the railroad share has been reduced by about one-third. Decisions made after World War II and in the early 1950's soon changed the entire nature of the land-based transportation system. Major road improvements included: � the New Jersey Turnpike, completed to the Delaware Memorial Bridge during 1951; � the Delaware Turnpike and John F. Kennedy Expressway, com- pleted in 1963; � the Garden State Parkway, completed in 1954; 1-20 0 the Atlantic City Expressway, completed in 1965; 0 the Interstate Highway System authorized by Congress in 1955, and not yet complete (1-95, 1-295, 1-495). Major water crossing improvements included: * The first span of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, completed in August 1951, replacing the New Castle/Pennsville ferry to link the Delaware and New Jersey Turnpike. 0 The second span of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, completed in 1968. 0 The Cape May-Lewes ferry service, initiated in 1964, pro- viding the first reasonable link between the road networks of the New Jersey coast and those of the Delaware coast. 0 The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, completed in 1964, link- ing the DRBA region's coastal routes with Norfolk, Virginia to the south. 0 The Bay Bridge across the Chesapeake Bay near Annapolis, the first span of which was completed in 1953, providing improved links between the Baltimore/Washington area and the Delmarva Peninsula including the coastal resorts of the DRBA region. 0 The Walt Whitman Bridge, completed in 1957, and other bridges across the Delaware River at Philadelphia, pro- viding improved links between Philadelphia and the DRBA region's c.oastal resorts in South Jersey. With these major improvements in roadways and crossings, regional acces- sibility for commercial, commuter, and recreational travel changed sig- nificantly over the 1950 to 1970 period. With these changes in accessi- bility, traffic patterns changed, and the DRBA region became a more integral part of the entire Northeast Corridor and Middle Atlantic region. Driving time from Washington, D.C. along the corridor through Wilmington to New York City was reduced to approximately four and one-half hours or 50% of its pre-1950 length. This improved accessibility greatly increased the Wilmington area's relative locational advantage for industrial loca- tion and development. The number of vehicles crossing the Delaware River at Wilmington increased from about 3 million per year in 1950 (the last year of the ferry operation) to 6.4 million per year in 1952 (the first full year's operation of the single bridge span) to 16.5 million in 1970. Driving time from the Philadelphia or North Jersey areas to the South Jersey coastal resorts and from Baltimore and Washington to the Delaware coastal resorts was reduced to about two hours or 50% of the pre-1950 length. This improved accessibility further increased the relative attractiveness of the DRBA region's Atlantic coast resorts to the popu- lations of the larger metropolitan areas. The traffic volumes along East-West Corridors increased dramatically as did visitor-days spent along the Atlantic coastline of the DRBA region. Trucking became increasingly competitive with rail and, by 1970, 3.0 million commercial vehicles were crossing the Delaware Memorial Bridge annually. Some rail lines were abandoned, service frequencies were reduced, and the larger Middle Atlantic region as well as the DRBA region became gen- erally more dependent on roads and less dependent on rail service for commercial, commuter and recreational travel. I.B.4.b Changing Patterns of Marine Transportation - 1950 to 1970 Marine transportation also changed dramatically during this period, again altering use of the Delaware River and Bay. Between 1952 and 1970, net tonnage of waterborne commerce on the Delaware River from Trenton to the sea increased from 71 million to 124 million tons.1 Most of this growth was due to increases in the tonnage of crude petroleum and petroleum products, with crude petroleum alone acounting for 47 million of the 124 million tons of freight traffic in 1970. Within the DRBA region, the activity at Wilmington Harbor increased from 2,238,000 tons in 1952 to 2,760,000 tons in 1970, an increase of 23%. Lightering activity in Lower Delaware Bay amounted to 1,549,000 tons in 1970. Elsewhere in the Delaware Basin, marine commerce increased more rapidly, with activity at Philadelphia harbor increasing from 38,321,000 tons in 1952 to 52,224,000 tons in 1970, an increase of 36%. Toward the end of this 1950-1970 period two important changes began to affect marine transportation in the Lower Delaware River and Bay: (i) containerization of general cargo began to affect port facilities and the competitive advantage of different ports, and (ii) the increasing trend to deeper draft vessels - particularly tankers - began to require rapidly.growing lightering operations involving additional smaller tankers and barges in the Lower Bay. The number of tankers and barges using the Big Stone Beach anchorage area increased from about 100 in 1960 to about 450 in 1970. In addition to the rapidly increasing commercial marine traffic, pleasure boating also increased dramatically during this period, with boat regis- trations in New Jersey and Delaware increasing by 10% to 15% each year 1U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part I.- Waterways & Harbors, Atlantic Coast, 1952- 1970. 1-22 during the 1960's.1 Extensive marina expansion occurred all long the inland waterway on the Atlantic Coasts of both New Jersey and Delaware, but there was little development along the bay shore. This was due to the extensive wetlands, shallow waters, pollution and lack of road access and other natural advantages along both sides of the bay. I.B.4.c Population Growth - 1950 - 1970 Between 1950*and 1970, the DRBA region's permanent population grew from 625,720 to 964,418, an. increase of 54% in just 20 years. Over one-half the population increase occurred in the City of Wilmington and New Castle County with increases of 66% during this period. Although smaller in absolute numbers, large percentage increases in population were also registered by Kent County (116%), Cape May County (60%), and Cumberland County (37%). Salem, Sussex and Atlantic Counties had 20-year popula- tion increases of 20% to 30%. During the 1950's and 1960's the northern and central subregions grew at about twice the rate of the coastal sub- region as the petrochemical and research complexes near Wilmington ex- panded and as congestion in other parts of the Northeast Corridor increased. See Table I-1 of 29 tables in the Statistical Appendix to this Section. The overall population growth rate of 54% for the region was double the rate for the Middle Atlantic region and significantly above the 34% growth registered for the U.S. during this period. During the 1950's, for example, the Wilmington-Salem Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) grew at about twice the rate of the Philadelphia and Baltimore SMSAs, and net inmigration to the Wilmington-Salem SMSA during this decade represented 12.5% of its 1960 population compared to 3.9% in the Philadelphia SMSA, and 5.4% in the Baltimore SMSA. Despite this larger relative growth, the 1960 population of the Wilmington SMSA represented 5.7% of the combined population of the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington SMSAs. The growth in a region's housing stock and households is often a better indicator of regional change than is population, particularly as it relates to changing travel demands and needs for additional transporta- tion facilities. As shown in Table 1-2, the region's housing stock grew at a slighter faster rate than did population. This more rapid growth was particularly evident in the 1960's as household size began to de- cline. It was also more evident in the coastal subregion, where the housing stock grew almost twice as fast as the population between 1950 and 1970, due in part to the rapid growth of second homes. Only Kent County population grew more rapidly than the housing stock during this IPleasure boat registrations in New Jersey increased from 39,000 in 1964 to 86,000 in 1970--an increase of 120% in 6 years, as reported by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Marine Services. 1-23 period, a likely reflection of the fact that group-quarters housing at Dover Air Force Base is not counted as housing units. Much of this population and housing growth was due to the postwar baby boom, but it was also fueled by the reactivation of Dover Air Force Base, by substantial employment increases in New Castle and Cumberland Counties, and by expanding second-home communities and some retirement migration to the coastal areas.1 I.B.4.d The Region's Shifting Economic Base As noted previously, the DRBA region's economy has been based historic- ally on agriculture (primarily vegetables, corn, and poultry), on fishing (primarily menhaden and oysters), on manufacturing (primarily food pro- cessing, apparel, clay and glass products and petrochemicals) and on tourism and recreation. During the 1950's and 1960's there were impor- tant changes in all of these sectors as well as in their relative impor- tance to the region's economy. As shown in Table 1-3, overall employment increased by 53.6% during this 20-year period with the largest percentage increases in Kent County (a 121.6% increase largely due to a more than ten-fold increase in govern- ment and military employment), iii New Castle County (a 74.1% increase due to substantial increases in both manufacturing and service employ- ment), and in Cape May County (a 58.6% increase due to increased tourism). The composition of the region's employment also changed, with agriculture and fisheries employment declining in importance, and with wholesale and retail trade, services, and government employment increasing in impor- tance. These trends generally paralleled national trend as shown in Table 1-4. Agricultural and fisheries employment declined by 54.1% during the period, and its share of the region's total employment declined from 8.9% to 2.7% (Table 1-5). This trend paralleled the national decline in agricul- tural employment of 51.6% to a 4.4% share of the total U.S. employment. The cause of this decline was largely mechanization in the agricultural sector, although farm acreage also declined by 22.0% (see Table 1-6). The value of farm products sold actually increased by 74.0% in constant dollars during this 20-year period (see Table 1-7). This increase was substantially larger than that for the U.S., primarily due to the rapidly growing poultry industry in Delaware. . Commercial fishing in the region declined substantially during this 20- year period. The value of the fish catch declined largely due to declines in the landings of oysters and menhaden. In Delaware the landings of all fish and shellfish declined from 176 million pounds in 1951 to 10 lThe reactivation of Dover Air Force Base brought a military population to Kent County ranging from 5,500 to 8,000 between 1955 and 1970. An additional 1,200 civilians and 11,500 dependents were attached to the Base in 1970. 1-24 million pounds in 1970, and the dockside value of this catch declined from $3.8 million to $1.7 million. For the three Middle Atlantic States of Delaware, New Jersey and New York, landed catches declined by 47.3% from 1,007,000,000 pounds in 1950 to 531,000,000 pounds in 1970, with the value of the catch remaining about constant due to increased prices. Manufacturing employment grew by 47.3%, almost double the nation's 25.0% growth in manufacturing employment, during this period (see Table 1-8) Both the Wilmington and Baltimore metropolitan areas maintained a strong competitive advantage for industrial location, despite their locations within a larger region with a mature economy and a relatively slow eco- nomic growth rate. Manufacturing employment in the Wilmington area grew by about 40% between 1950 and 1960 alone, and by 1960 the Wilmington- Salem SMSA had a higher concentration of manufacturing employment than did either the Philadelphia or Baltimore SMSAs. This growth in the region was primarily due to increases in the chemical, food processing, and clay and glass products industries. By 1970, the region's manufac- turing base was still dominated by the chemical industry with 28.1% of the region's manufacturing employment. Transportation equipment, glass and clay products, apparel, and food processing together accounted for an additional 49.0% (see Table 1-9). The region's manufacturing firms produced goods valued at $3,946,500,000 in 1970 with a value added of $1,837,100,000. As illustrated in Table 1-10, 60% of the value of the region's goods are shipped out of New Castle and Salem Counties, re- flecting the relatively high ratio of value per employee in the chemical and vehicle assembly firms concentrated in these two counties. Employment in personal and business services, in finance, insur .ance and real estate, and in wholesale and retail trade, expanded more rapidly than overall employment during this period. This development paralleled national trends toward the increasing share of employment in the service sector. In the DRBA region this trend was due in part to the develop- ment of Wilmington as an important regional finance and service center, in part to the reactivation of Dover Air Force Base and the expansion of government employment in Wilmington and Dover, and in part to the con- tinuing growth of tourism along the Atlantic Coast. Employment in personal and business services and in finance, insurance and real estate increased to a total of 108,014 (28.9% of the total regional employment). The highest percentage shares of this employment were in New Castle County which functioned increasingly as a regional service center and in Cape May and Atlantic Counties where tourism was strongest (see Table I-11). Wholesale and retail trade employment increased by 67.3% to a total of 72,871 (19.5% of the total regional employment). As with the other services, the highest percentage shares were in New Castle, Cape May and Atlantic Counties (see Table 1-12). Table 1-13 tabulates retail sales in the region for the years 1967 and 1972. The higher per capita sales in Cape May and Atlantic Counties again illustrate the importance of tourism to the local economy. 1-25 I.B.4.e The Changing Institutional Environment and Public Policy in the DRBA Region The 1950-1970 period also witnessed a substantial change in the role of institutions and public policy in the region. In 1962, the first bi- state agency of the governments of New Jerse- and Delaware was formed-- .Y The Delaware River and Bay Authority. The 1934 U.S. Supreme Court deci- sion resolving the Delaware-New Jersey boundary dispute had removed a major barrier to interstate cooperation.1 After protracted negotiations, the two States entered into a Compact permitting the Authority to plan, finance, and operate crossings of the Delaware River and Bay. The Com- pact also authorized the Authority to plan, develop, and operate trans- portation and terminal facilities in the bi@state area bordering the bay, provided that both legislatures approved such projects. This Com- pact was approved by the U.S. Congress in September 1962. The first span of the Delaware Memorial Bridge had been built by the Delaware Highway Department and opened in 1951. In 1962 the DRBA took over this span and financed the second span which opened in 1968. The new Author- ity also initiated ferry services between Lewes and Cape May in 1964. Institutional controls over the Delaware River and Bay environment also changed dramatically during the 1950-1970 period. Increasing environ- mental knowledge and concern was translated by political action into an array of regulatory programs at both the State and federal levels. These new programs were generally designed to protect rich ecological resources such as the Delaware Bay wetlands and to temper development programs with an institutionalized concern for preserving natural habi- tats. While some have criticized these regulatory programs for slowing the pace of development around the bay, others have praised them for preserving and enhancing the bay for fishing and recreation. Among these programs were: 0 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requiring the preparation of environmental impact sta Itements for any significant project involving federal actions (e.g., financing, operation, regulation). 0 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 which limit the pollutants discharged by cities and industries and provide funds for treating municipal sew- age. lThis boundary situation continues to be a problem between the States, especially as a result of the Delaware Coastal Zone Act which prohibits certain heavy industry facilities from Delaware waters, and therefore, from Salem County. In addition, the Act forbids multi-use piers and requires permits for all single manufacturing u .se piers in Delaware waters. In addition, there have been instances in Salem County in which permits were needed to be obtained from both States for the use of subaqueous lands. 1--26 Wetlands preservation controls enacted in New Jersey and Delaware to require special permits before wetlands could be altered for any purpose. The changing institutional environment is discussed in more detail in Section IV. I.C RECENT TRENDS IN THE REGION (1970-1979) AND KEY FACTORS AFFECTING ITS FUTURE Since 1970 the region's growth has slowed considerably, and the higher growth rates have shifted from the Wilmington metropolitan area to the Atlantic Coast. Manufacturing output has declined, while agricultural and fishery production have increased. Larger tankers and increased crude oil imports have caused a tenfold increase in lightering activity in the lower bay, while general cargo traffic at Wilmington and Phila- delphia has declined. Casino gambling activity has been legalized in Atlantic City, but the two recent energy crises have hurt the resort economy elsewhere along the coast. These trends affect cross-bay traf- fic demands, the need for crossings, and other potential activities within the region. In order to shed light upon the future role of the region and the Authority, the nature of these trends and how they-are likely to affect the region's and Authority's future are described here. I.C.1 Population Trends and Forecasts Population trends in the DRBA region and in the entire Northeast are critical determinants of lower river and bay crossing traffic demands, marine commerce, and shoreline land use. The rate of population and household growth influences recreational demands on the river and bay, on the bay shoreline and along the entire Atlantic Coast, thereby in- fluencing a major component of traffic at the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the Cape May/Lewes Ferry. Such growth also influences general traffic volumes throughout the region and on the bridge and ferry. It also influences the nature of the regional market for goods and services, thereby influencing agricultural and fishery production, some local manufacturing, and commercial freight traffic on or across the bay. Since 1970, population growth rates of the 1950-1970 period have declined substantially, and growth has shifted from the Wilmington metropolitan area to the Atlantic Coast. Regional population has grown by 8.0%, with growth along the Atlantic Coastline occurring at about four times the rate of the northern subregion (Table 1-14). Wilmington, like many other central cities, lost population, in part due to lower birth rates and smaller households and in part due to net outmigration from central cities in line with national trends (see Exhibit 1-6). The City experi- enced a population decline of 20.5% between 1960 and 1975 (19,675 per- sons) and New Castle County as a whole, which had 38% of the DRBA's 1977 population, also experienced small population declines from 1972 to 1977. The coastal subregion, on the other hand, grew at close to 2% per 1-27 year between 1970 and 1977, as retirement migration and coastal recrea- tion activities increased. Although these recent population growth rates are above the national and northeast growth rates (see Exhibit 1-7), they are still about one-half the rates experienced in the 1950's and 1960's. This is in part due to a lower birth rate, and in part due to national trends in interregional migration (see Exhibit 1-8). These recent trends provide one basis for projecting the future of the DRBA region, Should these trends in eco- nomic adjustment and demographic change continue, the region is projected to grow by approximately 379,000 people or 36% over the next 18 years (see Table 1-15). This growth is equivalent to about 1.8% per year and would occur primarily along the Atlantic Coast. With the rest of the northeast corridor (including Wilmington-Salem) projected to stabilize, there would be a slight increase in the relative importance of the Atlantic Coastline but no significant change or growth in the DRBA region's role in the Middle Atlantic region's economy or regional transportation system. Recent "policy projections" by Cape May and Sussex Counties and by the State of New Jersey use much lower population growth rates along the coast.1 The,rate of household growth is equally if not more important for the purposes of projecting and understanding future traffic, commerce, and recreation demands. The rate of growth in the number of households in the DRBA region and in the whole northeast has actually been higher in recent years than it was in the 1960's. This is in large part due to the new households being formed by the baby boom generation born in the late 1940's and 1950's. It is this continued growth in households that has fueled and is likely to continue to fuel. increased traffic and recreational demands in the region for the next 10 to 15 years. I.C.2 Agricultural Trends and Prospects The agricultural sector, including manufacturing of food and kindred products, is a major component of the economic base in southern New Castle and Salem Counties, as well as in Kent, Cumberland, Cape May and Sussex Counties. In 1974, this sector accounted for direct employment of approximately 30,000 or about 9% of the region's total employment (see Table 1-16). The estimated 1974 value of on-farm agricultural production was $443 million. lNew Jersey "Policy Projections" for Atlantic and Cape May Counties call for a 66.0% population growth for the 1975-2000 period. This compares to trend projections of 126.3% for Cape May County and 74.2% for Atlantic County. Sussex County policy projections call for a 23% increase be- tween 1975 and 1995 compared to a trends projection of a 51.1% increase. 1-28 Exhibit 1-6 U.S. Net Workforce Flows 1960-1963 and 1970-1973 (1,000' 134.1 61.6 CAW" CA." M. 25.4 SAW" 3.3 AMN ARM 1940-1 63 1970-1973 Note: Width of a:rows is proportional to volume of net flows between the areas. SOURCE: Regional Economic Analysis Division (1976) Wock-Force migration patterns, 1960-1973. Survey of Current Business October: 23-26. NET RESIDENTIAL FLOWS, 1970-1975 (000,000's) 1A 0 Note: Width of arrows is proportional to volume of net flows among the three areas. SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1975) Mobility of the population of the United States: March 1970 to March 1975. Series P-20, No. 285 in Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. From: Brian J.L. Berry and Donald C. Dahmann, "Population Distribution in the United States in the 1970's, Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1977. 1-29 Exhibit 1-7 Percent Change in Population by State 1970 to 1978 N PAK MINN .4HO !(,WA NFOR CA; IF f'OLO KANS lk t4 i, 5z's, N ME Ml s U.S.increase 7.3 percent TEXAS L A 4y. nt Change Perco, 0.1 to -11.0 AiA@@A 2 0.0 to 3.6 3.7 to 7.2 7.3 to 14.4 14.5 to 21.9 Sourre: Tabl 22.0 to 35.0 US fAPA TWNTOFCOMMERa .... u.0-C-- 1-30 Exhibit 1-8 Net InteriLegionalMigration 1965-1970 and 1970-1975 1965-1970 North Central 224 Northeast West 415 53 V 275 438 @k South 56 1970-1975 North Central 311 Northeast West 67 472 790 964 75 South Note: Width of arrows is proportional to volume of net interregional migration flows. Figures accompanyingarrows indicate numbers of net interregional migrants in thousands. Total numbers of interregional migrants for both periods appear in Table 4. SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: 1970. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1975) Mobility bi the Population of the United States: March 1970 to March 1975. Serius P-20, No. 285 in Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. From: Brian J.L. Berry and Donald C. Dahmann, "Population Distribution in the United States in the 1970's," Assembly of Behavioral and 7W Social Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1977. 1-31 This agricultural sector has also gone through substantial changes in the past ten years with the continuing decline of vegetable production and food processing, the continuing strength of the poultry industry, and recent increases in corn and soybean production. It is relevant to the DRBA's activities in two potentially important ways: M it is an important contributor to the economic vitality of the region and plays a particularly critical role in Sussex, Salem, Kent and Cumberland Coun- ties, (ii) it generates commercial truck traffic and may begin to play a larger role in waterborne commerce. The Port of Wilmington is exploring grain and poultry export, and farm products accounted for 50% to 60% of all dry bulk cargo exports from the Delaware Basin ports between 1963 and 197.7. I.C.2.a On-farm Agricultural Production Farm acreage in the region declined by a reported 68,754 acres or 7.5% between 1969 and 1974 (Table 1-17). This acreage amounted to approxi- mately 853,000 acres in 1974 or 36.2% of the region's total. Over 50% was in Sussex and Kent Counties. This decline represents a continuation of the rate of decline experienced since 1950 but also represents a slower rate of decline than for most other middle and south Atlantic states. On the other hand, harvested acreage in the region increased by about 40,000 acres or 7.2% in the same period to a 1974 total of 597,000 acres. Table 1-18 illustrates the trends in individual crops and poul- try production by county between 1969 and 1974. Vegetable, sweet corn and melon acreage declined from 103,843 to 87,243 acres (a decline of 16%), while soybean and field corn acreage increased from 149,031 to 233,788 acres (an increase of 56.9%). In 1974, approximately 68% of the harvested acreage was in corn and soybeans, while vegetable acreage has declined even more rapidly with the closure of several large food pro- cessing firms in New Jersey (H.J. Heinz, P.J. Ritter, Seabrook Farms). The poultry industry expanded during this same period. The number of broilers sold increased by 10.3%, from 112,905,000 to 124,640,000, and the number of hens sold increased by 41.9%, from 1,117,000 to 1,585,000. Exhibit 1-9 illustrates the distribution of farms and vegetables, sweet corn and melon acreages in the region. Totale 1974 farm acreage was concentrated in Kent and Sussex Counties (62.2% of the region's total) while there was very little in Cape May and Atlantic Counties (4.8% of the region's total). Vegetable acreage in 1974 was concentrated in Salem and Cumberland Counties (52.2% of the region's total) where vege- table acreage accounted for about 46,000 acres or about 37% of the har- vested acreage in these two counties. Most of' this acreage was in tomatoes, peas, and beans. Field corn and soybean acreage was concen- trated in Kent and Sussex Counties (77.6% of the region's total) where field corn and soybean acreage accounted for about 315,000 acres or about 58.3% of the harvested acreage in these two counties. 1-32 NUMBER OF FARMS: 1974 NUMBER OF FARMS: 1974 I DOT -So I DOT 30 VEGETABLES, SWEET CORN, AND MELONS VEGETABLES, SWBET CORN, AND MELONS HARVESTED FOR SALE: 1974 HARVESTED FOR SALE: 19F4 I OOT ISO ACM 1 001 ISO ACRIS us 0 C- 74. ISM I-f A. C.- Exhibit 1-9 Distribution of Farms and Vegetables/Sweet Corn/Melon Acreages in the DRBA Region 1974 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1974 Census of Agriculture 1-33 These different cropping patterns produced a much higher crop value per harvested acre in Salem and Cumberland Counties (about $500-$600 per harvested acre) than in Sussex County (about $125/acre). However, the concentration of the high-value poultry industry in Sussex County, 89.7% of'the region's market value of poultry products, meant that about 56% of the region's total market value of farm products was produced in Sussex County. Table 1-19 shows the 1969 and 1974 values of farm pro- ducts for each county and for the region. These values increased by 34.1% between 1969 and 1974, reflecting major increases in both poultry and grain production. 'This table also illustrates that about 45% of the value of farm production is in poultry. Exhibit I-10 illustrates the distribution of these product values. Since 1974, harvested acreages and the total value of agricultural pro- duction have declined slightly. Declines in the value of agricultural production have been particularly significant for vegetables. With the re-establishment of some food processing operations in New Jersey (e.g., Seabrook Bros. & Sons, Inc.), and with increasing demands for poultry products, local officials are hopeful for stabilization and possibly growth in the value of agricultural production. Increasing costs of transportation and energy, decreasing labor advantage on the West Coast, and increasing problems of water supply throughout the West should im- prove the relative competitive advantage of this region for agricultural production'-- particularly for the fresh food market. I.C.2.b Food Proces sing Closely tied to this on-farm agricultural production are the food pro- cessing industries referred to as the "manufacturing of food and kindred products" (SIC Code 20). Employment in this sector was estimated at 11,569 for the DRBA region in 1976. Several larger firms have relocated, closed or severely curtailed operations in recent years (e.g., H.J. Heinz, Seabrook Farms, P.J. Ritter, American Clam Company) while others have opened new operations (e.g., Gorton's Seafood). Employment in these industries is an important component of the region's economic base, particularly in Cape May, Cumberland, Kent, and Sussex Counties where this employment represents about 27% of all manufacturing employ- ment. The value-added by this manufacturing amounted to $529,600,000 in 1976, or 17.1% of the total value-added-by all manufacturing in the DRBA region. The value of processed or manufactured food shipments was $1,590,000,000 for 1976, or 19% of the total value of manufacture ship- ments. Employment changes in this-industry between 1974 and 1976 are listed in Table 1-20. 1-34 VALUE OF CROPS SOLD: 1974 VALUE OF LIVESTOCK, POULTRY, AND THEIR PRODUCTS SOLD: 1974 -7 I BOT $I AM.M am -*t @'Z=- j VALUE OF CROPS SOLD: 1974 VALUE OF LIVESTOCK, POULTRY, AND THEIR PRODUCTS SOLD: 1974 ............ Exhibit I-10 Distribution of Agkicultural Product Values in 1974 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1974 Census of Agriculture 1-35 I.C.3 Commercial Fishing Trends and Prospects Commercial fishing is an important component of the economic base in Atlantic, Cape May, and Cumberland Counties and once was important in Sussex County. In 1978, the dockside value of fish and shellfish land- ings in the DRBA region was an estimated $31 million. The direct ment in fisheries in 1974 included 1,814 fishermen and 1,085 engaged in seafood processing. Commercial fishing is now going through major changes with the institu- tion of the 200-mile limit and the rapidly increasing worldwide and domestic demand for fish and shellfish. Commercial fishing is relevant to the DRBA's activities in the following ways: � The fisheries present special needs in terms of shoreline land uses for processing and facilities for the commercial fishing fleet. Two abandoned Menhaden plants represent special problems and opportunities. � Aquaculture research and marine farming are important and. potentially expanding activities in the Lower Delaware Bay. � Fish and shellfish (particularly clams) are regularly trans- ported for processing or marketing on the Cape May/Lewes Ferry. � The Port of Wilmington is exploring fish exporting possi- bilities, and both Cape May and Lewes are assessing the .feasibility of expanded fishing port or fish processing facilities. � Both New.Jersey and Delaware are seeking financing and support for expanded facilities to take advantage of the new 200-mile limit. � The fishery resources, particularly the oyster beds, are environmentally sensitive. Potential DRBA activities such as dredging would have to address these problems. Until recently, commercial fishing in the Middle Atlantic states had steadily and rapidly declined from its peak in the mid-1950's. The total catch declined from 1,054,000,000 pounds; in 1956 to 140,000,000 pounds in 1970, an 87% decline in 14 years. I ''he value of this catch in the same period declined from $76 million to $52 million, due primarily to overfishing of menhaden and 923,000,000 pounds decline in catch in this period. Oyster catches also declined by about 7,000,000 pounds (87%) due to the blight. Declines continued into the early 1970's, but since 1974, there has been a substantial resurgence, with pounds of fish landings increasing by 13% between 1974 and 1978 and value of catch in- creasing by 194% to a 1978 total of $30,921,000 (see Table 1-21). Increased domestic and worldwide demand for fish and the resultant higher prices have renewed interest in the further expansion of commer- cial fishing in the Middle Atlantic region. U.S. per capita consumption of fresh and frozen finfish has increased at an average annual rate of 3.9% since 1967, and the world market has grown even more rapidly. The two major potentials for expansion of the commercial fishing indus- try are the 200-mile limit, particularly as it affects squid, mackerel, hake, and herring, and aquaculture, particularly as it affects oysters. In terms of offshore fishing and the 200-mile limit, a recent survey by the Economic Development District Agency for the Delmarva Peninsula found that 85% of fishermen and processors surveyed felt that the fishery resources and market prices were sufficient to support industry expan- sion. Although surfclams and menhaden are being fished near or beyond their sustainable yield, National Fishery Marine Service studies show significant "underfishing" for many species. The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 established preferential American access to fishery resources within 200 miles of the coast. Since 44% of the volume of fish caught in U.S. coastal waters north of Cape Hatteras were caught by foreign fishermen, this Act could open up a substantial opportunity for U.S. fishermen (see Table 1-22). The species having the greatest potential are squid, mackerel, hake, and herring, for which 90% of the recorded catch was previously harvested by foreign fleets. While some of these species would probably require an expanded export market, a recent feasibility study for Middle Township in Cape May County found that there was an adequate domestic market and supply of suitable finfish (primarily whiting and hake) to support additional fish processing capacity of 12 million to 20 million pounds per year. The 200-mile limit is not likely to have a significant impact on the shellfish industry (except possibly scallops) or industrial fish such as menhaden, due to overfishing and the current U.S. dominance. Aquaculture or marine farming is the second major potential for expan- sion of the commercial fishing industry. The focus of most of the aqua- culture research in the delaware Bay to date has been on the oyster, currently farmed on both the New Jersey and Delaware sides of the Bay, with activity cente'red at Port Norris and Bivalve on the New Jersey side. Exhibit I-11 illustrates the location of the natural oyster beds and the oyster planting grounds on the New Jersey side. Although the oyster landing declined dramatically in the early 1950's as a result of disease, it has recently begun to make a comeback, and the disease has apparently run its course. In 1978, there were more oysters planted in the New Jersey beds than ever before, and it is hoped that the improved production will continue. Both the University of Delaware, College of Marine Studies, at Lewes and the Rutgers University Research Laboratories in Bivalve and Cape May conduct oyster research as well as other research into aquaculture Exhibit 1-11 Location of oyster Beds on the New Jersey Side of the Delaware BaY BRIDGETON PT. MILLVILLE Arnold Pt. Bad A-ald Pf. SPOM Middle God cafts"sey at C'S*k Ship John Havtks 06*111 %*do PONT NORRIS 0 O"d Forrescus, Crpak 0 or 0 A Son Davis 3 Pt. Sh om a" or$ I EAST PT. Tonsm gods OYSTER PLANTING @ TOO GROUNDS Dood"Wre shoo *3: Lehi Y Legend: iM80 LOU" Aeres 2 3 4 3 N. MILES Tongers Beds DranOpwine $..a, V-7 Natural Oyster Beds LNhj (Scattering Growth) Natural Oyster Beds (Dense Growth Salinity Sampling Station APE MAY 1-38 possibilities. Although aquaculture now provides for less than 3% of domestic fishery production, compared to 10% worldwide, the percentage is growing. In addition to shellfish farming, there have been success- ful experiments and domestic commercial enterprises in lobster, shrimp, fish, seaweed, and saltmarsh farming, all of which may have relevance to the long-term future use of the Delaware Bay. As noted in a recent request from the U.S. Department of Commerce for a study of future capital requirements of the U.S. aquaculture industry, considerable capital investment requirements are anticipated. Although most financing will likely come from private sources, additional assistance from govern- ment agencies will be needed. I.C.4 Manufacturing Trends and Prospects Manufacturing has long been an important component of the economic base in the DRBA region. In 1970, it directly accounted for 28.4% of the region's total employment, for 44.7% of the total in Salem County, 41.5% in Cumberland County, and 30.4% in New Castle County. Since 1970 there has been a significant decline, production workers employed declining from 72,300 to 62,100 by 1976, a decrease of 14.1%, and non-production manufacturing workers declining from 44,500 to 41,800, a decrease of 6.1%. During this same period, manufacturing value-added remained con- stant at $3,095,000,000, and the val 'ue of the region's manufacturing shipments increased by 25.1% to $8,369,000,000. Since there were de- clines in both manufacturing value-added and value of manufacturing shipments in all counties except New Castle and Salem, the higher regional totals are likely the result of increasing values of the petro- chemical and possibly vehicle assembly output in the Wilmington area. Table 1-23 lists county-by-county changes in key manufacturing indica- tors. The decrease in manufacturing employment between 1970 and 1976 parallels trends in the New England and -Middle Atlantic Region and the nation. Manufacturing employment has not been growing as rapidly as other sec- tors nationally, and most growth has occurred outside the New England and Middle Atlantic Regions (Table 1-24). Although the 1974-1975 reces- sion contributed to the decline in manufacturing employment nationally, the decline within the DRBA region has been relatively steady since 1969. Despite these recent declines, most projections for the DRBA and Middle Atlantic Regions still call for growth in this sector through 1995. For. example, the Delaware Office of Management, Budget & Planning projects an increase in manufacturing employment for Delaware from the 1976 level of 66,000 to a 1995 level of 90,000. Between 1976 and 1978, how- ever, there was almost no change in Delaware's manufacturing employment, despite increases of about 10% in other non-agricultural employment. Given this fact, combined with the region's concentration of employment in two sectors with questionable regional futures (petrochemicals and vehicle assembly), these projected employment increases may prove to be too high. 1-39 The composition of the DRBA region's manufacturing employment in 1976 is shown in Table 1-25. As can be seen from this table, the region's manufacturing base is heavily dependent on the prospects of five speci- fic industries: Chemicals Petroleum and Allied Products (SIC 28, 29), Transportation Equipment (SIC 37), Glass and Clay Products (SIC 32), Textiles and Apparel (SIC 22, 23), and Food and Kindred Products (SIC 20). The food processing industry trends and prospects were discussed in the previous section on agriculture. The other four industries are discussed below, with detail provided on the more important and poten- tially more volatile petrochemical industry. Chemicals, Petroleum and Allied Products The petrochemical industry has a higher share of the region's manufac- turing employment than any other industry and also represents the region's largest industrial concentration relative to national employment shares for each industry. This is largely due to the headquarters locations of E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. and Hercules Inc. in Wilmington, the two largest employers in 1976 with approximately 9,000 and*2,000 employees respectively within the city. Although the prospects for this industry in terms of domestic petrochemical demand appear strong (Table 1-26), recent industry trends raise serious questions about its future within the region. duPont has recently announced termination of its dye manu- facturing operations at the Chambers Works in Pennsville, and Hercules had considered a transfer of its corporate headquarters to the South, probably Louisiana or Texas, but has now decided to remain. The duPont decision will reduce employment by a reported 900 production workers. The duPont decision does not necessarily reflect the major trend in the industry toward concentration of petrochemical production in the Texas- Louisiana area, where the environment is in fact more supportive of the industry in terms of climate, resource availability, taxes, regulations, and labor. Moreover, the number of petrochemical production workers in the region is relatively low already, with over 80% of the industry's local employment being classified as administrative, research, head- quarters and auxiliary. However, the national trend toward growth of petrochemical production in the South could have implications for the regionis economic base and facilities along the Delaware River. In addition to facing serious challenges in the chemical industry, the region could be facing some challenges relative to the petroleum refin- ing industry. Although the Getty refinery in Delaware City is the only major refinery in the DRBA region, there are others immediately to the north along both sides of the Delaware River (see Exhibit 1-12). These refineries make the Delaware Basin the largest concentration (68.7%) of refining capacity on the East Coast. However-, with 40% of the nation's demand for refined petroleum products, the East Coast has only 12% of the nation's refining capacity. About two-thirds of the region's demand is met by importing refined products from other regions via the Planta- tion and Colonial pipelines', and there has been pressure to expand the region's refining capacity. A Shell Oil proposal for a new 150,000- barrel/day refinery was blocked several years ago by the passage of a 1-40 PHILADELPHIA, 0 PENNSYLVANIA K. BP 7 SUN OIL 3 TEXACO 2 '4 MOBIL WILMINGTON -N- NEW Chesapeakeand GETTY Delaware (anal JERSEY .4- To Chesiapeake Bay DELAWARE LEGEND * Oil Refinay 3MO C11111141 ANCHORAGE CAP MA Anchorage Area BIG STONE AREA BEACH 0 10 20 v Scale in Miles C.HENLOPEN Exhibit 1-12 Location Map, Delaware Valley Refineries and Lower Bay Lightering Area 1-41 Delaware Bill forbidding refineries in the Coastal Zone. Although there are still active proposals for new refineries in Eastport, Maine (Pitts- ton) and Norfolk, Virginia (Colonial), it is uncertain when, if ever, new refinery capacity will be built on the East, Coast.1 Like the chemi- cal industry, petroleum refineries are likely to turn increasingly to the Texas-Gulf region for expansion. Deepwater off-shore ports are now going forward in that region, people there are used to the oil business, the infrastructure is there, the weather is better, and there are less environmental problems than in the DRBA region. Added capacity in the Delaware Basin is most likely to be associated with expansion of exist- ing facilities. One implication of this prospect is that the volume of lightering in the Lower Bay is likely to level off. As shown in Table 1-27, while volume of Delaware Bay oil imports involving lightering increased dramatically from 19.3 million barrels per year in 1970 to 124.4 million barrels per year in 1977, this volume is not sufficient to provide the throughput necessary to make an off-shore deepwater port In the Atlantic a viable project in terms of oil transshipment.2 This increase .in the 1970's was due in large part to the increasing dependence o'f Delaware Bay refineries on crude oil imports from the Mideast (see Exhibit 1-13) transported in very large deep draft tankers. However, despite this increase, less than half the crude oil needs of the Delaware Basin refineries required lightering in 1977, and while some feel that continually increased depen- dence on Mideast imports justifies a deepwater port off the Delaware or New Jersey shore, opening of the Suez Canal has made shallow draft vessels not involving lightering again more viable. Thus, even with substantially increased dependence on Mideast imports, it is unlikely that lightering activity will increase to the level required to justify an off-shore port. Recent developments make such a need even less likely, since there will now be a cap on crude oil imports and an increasing percentage of these imports is likely to come from the Western Hemisphere. The effort to reduce or stabilize crude oil imports may fail, and expan- sion of regional refinery capacity may occur. Tables 1-28 and 1-29 provide an estimate of the potential economic impacts on the Middle Atlantic region and on Cumberland and Cape May Counties of a hypothe- tical increase in refining capacity and development of an off-shore port. 1A new proposal for a $400 million 175,000-barrel-a-day refinery is also reportedly being studied for Camden. New Jersey officials have met with International Consolidated Oil Company and given preliminary sup- port. Also, a Portsmouth, Virginia refinery development was recently announced. 2A throughput of 400,000 barrels-per-day was found to be necessary to justify a $1/2 billion deepwater port 10 miles off-shore in Boston Harbor. (Arthur D. Little, Inc. report to the New England Regional Commission, 1974). 1-42 15, .3 1200 Eastern JAM) W10 L:1 t it) Aim! r i c a ;mada 200 1), 4 c 19 0 H7;? 1 1173 111C., dmist'.11, Exhibit 1-13 Source of Crude Oil for East Coast Refinery Runs 1-43 Another aspect of the petroleum industry that has been of recent concern to the DRBA region has been the Baltimore Canyon potential. However, since drilling began in March, 1978, there have been no significant oil finds, and at this writing only one well has reported a good flow of natural gas (see Exhibit 1-14). As a result, several oil companies have withdrawn and only 16 of the 45 companies qualified to bid on the second lease sale participated. Those companies that have remained bid con- servatively in the second lease sale. Average bids in the first sale were $11.8 million per tract; average bids in the second sale were $950,000 per tract. Brown & Root, Inc. has reportedly decided not to build a $45 million facility near Cape Charles, Virginia, for fabricat- ing off-shore drilling platforms. Transportation Equipment Vehicle assembly plants in New Castle County are also an important part of the region's economic base, employing approximately 9,000 workers and more production workers than the region's petrochemical industry. This industry also provides support for the volume of exports handled at the Port of Wilmington. However, the industry's two major facilities have been affected by both the recent dip in new car sales.and the prob- lems of downsizing. Glass and Clay Products The first glass manufacturing operation began in Millville and Bridgeton in the 1700's. Millville is now the headquarters for Wheaton Industries, with major facilities at Owens-Illinois and other glass manufacturers as well. Over 90% of this industry's employment in the DRBA region is on the New Jersey side of the Bay, where there are five establishments employing more than 1,000 workers. The high quality sands in the region and the extensive manufacturing facilities will probably support the industry's continued strength locally. Although the one-third reduction of Owens-Illinois's work force in 1978 presented a severe employment problem, most of the 700 who were laid off reportedly found work locally in the glass manufacturing industry. Textiles and*,Apparel Unlike the other three industries discussed, this industry is character- ized by a large number of smaller firms and, although it employed about 9,000 workers in 1976, only one establishment employed between 500 and 1,000 employees, and none employed more than 1,000. There were, however, over 50 firms in the DRBA region employing between 50 and 500 employees, and despite recent declines, it remains an important part of the region's economic base -- particularly in Cumberland and Atlantic Counties. Its future in the region remains a question, although the recent opening of new firms and expansion of others in Cumberland County is clearly a positive development following the county's loss of 625 jobs in 1976- 1977 due to the closure of four apparel firms in Vineland and Millville. 1--44 7. 45 -c 39 DRILLING ACTIVITY IN BALTIMOR Sift Company Stan, I Tantrism, First well found ga we]; was dry. 2 Tanneco Drilltnq oegan ". 3 Emovort First well dry; Tacc 2 mi. scurth Jan. 4 Guff Drillingbegan". 30 dry AW, 7 6 Eaxon D,illinc began Noy a Mobil Drilling began ca. 7 Cheh"m COST .3 test -11 Dry "I-altmeldoned TEN HIGHEST BIDS IN LEASE S sift cornpany Antou 8Tqnr*c@o Exxon 2, '10 IA",I*y 4-02 IMurphy 3.82 12 Tanintm 3.69 IR 13 TSOCk 2.16 14 E- 1.51 15 Arn-da, Hess 1,41 16 Murphy 1.23 17 HoTrpon. Oil 1.20 & Minerals 76 ro @Exhibit 1-14 Mid-Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Exploration I.C.5 Tourism and Marine Recreation Trends and Prospects This component of the region's economic base has been the most rapidly growing in recent years and has been principally responsible for the net inmigration between 1970 and 1977 of the estimated 39,100 house- holds to the three counties of the coastal subregion of the DRBA region. Growth has been so rapid in these areas that serious problems of,growth management such as sewer capacity, water supply, housing and condo- minium development have developed all along the Atlantic Coast. These problems have developed at the same time that communities in New Castle, Cumberland, and Salem Counties are trying hard to promote growth or prevent decline. Whether this growth along the Atlantic Coast will continue, whether the energy crisis or environmental concerns will bring it to a halt, or whether legalized casino gambling will cause it to increase further is a subject now being hotly debated in communities throughout the coastal subregion. What eventually transpires over the next twenty years will clearly have a major impact on transportation demands and on shoreline land use throughout the DRBA region. I.C.5.a The Potential Impact of Casino Gambling on the DRBA Region Casino gambling represents a new development likely to significantly affect the region -- particularly on the New Jersey side. Resorts International Casino opened its doors in Atlantic City at the end of May 1978 and has generated far more activity than was at first-antici- pated. Two additional new casino projects have now been approved, five casino/renovation projects are under construction, and ten additional casino developments. are at some stage of the approval process (see Exhibit 1-15). Should the "success" of casino gambling in Atlantic City continue, an additional 90,000 permanent jobs are forecast for Atlantic County, assuming a total of 12 new casinos (see Exhibit I-16).l This increase would translate into an additional permanent population of 200,000 for Atlantic and Cape May Counties, an increase of 79% over the 1977 popu- lation, and approximately 20,000 additional visitor-days on the Atlantic coastline each year, including new non-gaming tourists and conventions.2 The origins of these additional visitors and their impact on traffic volumes, as forecast by the New Jersey Department of Transportation, are illustrated in Exhibit 1-17. Additional visitors coming by way of lRutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research, Casino Impacts Atlantic County, New Jersey (1978). 2Economics Research Associates, The Evaluation of Casino-Hotel Develop- ment on the Demand for Housing in the Atlantic City Area (September, 1979). 1-46 Exhibit 1-15 ACTIVE CASINO PROJECTS IN ATLANTIC CITY May 1979 CASINO RENOVATION PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Boardwalk Regency (formerly Howard Johnson's Regency) Caesar's of N.J. Bally-Park Place (formerly Dennis Hotel, Marlborough-Blenheim Hotels) HiHo Claridge (formerly Claridge Hotel) Penthouse (formerly Holiday Inn) Phoenix Hotel & Casino (formerly Ambassador Hotel) Adamar of N.J. Subsidiary RENOVATION PROJECTS IN APPLICATION PROCESS Resorts International (for former Chalfonte Hotel) Ritz Hotel and Casino (for Ritz Apartments) Shelburne Benihana (for former Shelburne Hotel) Metropole Hotel and Casino (for former Morton Hotel) NEW PROJECTS IN APPLICATION PROCESS Dunes Hotel and Casino (site of former President Hotel) Golden Nugget Hotel and Casino (site of former Strand Hotel) Holiday Inn Hotel and Casino (marina location) Jersey Hotels, Inc. (White Horse Pike location) Sahara Hotel and Casino (President Hotel site) Del E. Webb Plaza Hotel and Casino (Mississippi and Columbia Avenues) NEW PROJECTS - APPROVALS OBTAINED Playboy Hotel and Casino Great Bay Hotel and Casino NON-CASINO HOTEL Howard Johnson Source: Atlantic County Division of Economic Development Atlantic County Growth Trends Report, May 1979, pg 16 1-47 Exhibit 1-16 EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION IMPACT OF ATLANTIC CITY CASINO DEVELOPMENT Employment Growth Due to Casino Development Casino's 4 8 12 Direct Employment 8,753 17,753 26,753 Indirect Employment 19,693 39,940 60,190 Summer 3,280 6,656 10,030 TOTAL 31,726 64,349 96,973 Atlantic County PoRulation Growth Due to -Casino Development Casino's 4 8 12 Population Growth Impact 57,832 127,468 200,588 Source: Rutgers UniversityCenter for Urban Policy Research, based on study by Economics Research Associates 1-48 1982 CASINO GAMaLING S. 5 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES S SCALE yr : 001-1500 Sol-2000 2001-2500 2501-3000 0 1 S- 3W-3500 3501-4000 4001-4500 4500 5 0, ;, 0.L IN 1A E) M r i U IH 0 H Wt-.9 . . ..... Exhibit 1-17 New Trips to Atlantic City Projected Desire Lines and Traffic Volumes - 1982 Source: New Jersey Department of Transportation the Delaware Memorial Bridge were projected to, increase peak bridge traffic on a 1982 August weekend by 1100 vehicles or 3%, assuming four to six casinos. Traffic impacts on Atlantic City to date include a 60% increase from the previous year on the Atlantic City Expressway at the Pleasantville Toll Plaza, a 10% to 15% increase from the previous year on U.S. 30/White-Horse Pike (October -December 1978), and an 8% to 10% increase from the previous year on U.S. 40/Black Horse Pike (October- December 1978).1 Air traffic has also increased into Atlantic City by about 300 aircraft per month or 90% in January-February 1979 and by about 2000 passengers per month or 60% in January-February 1979. An additional impact of casino gambling will be to increase the compe- titive advantage of Atlantic City for light industrial development. Improved access by more scheduled air service and a lower tax rate due to increased tourism revenues are likely to complement an already desir- able location on the Atlantic Coast. Should the success of Atlantic City foster approval of casino gambling in other nearby locations, the employment and population impact could be considerably less than forecast. if casino gambling is approved in New York, as is being proposed at limited locations, it could make Atlantic City increasingly dependent on visitors from the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington areas. I.C.5.b The Potential Impact of Local Environmental and Public Facility Constraints on Tourism and Marine Recreation The Atlantic Coastline has severe environmental and public facility constraints which are being increasingly recognized by local policy- makers attempting to provide for a realistic future: � Lack of an adequate water supply has forced Cape May County to consider tradeoffs between increases in year-round popu- lation levels and increases in tourism levels that can be accommodated. � Extensive wetlands and wetlands regulations have curtailed marina and marine recreation development. � In order to reflect State policy, and. severe constraints on further growth, the State of New Jersey has proposed county population levels lower than those projected by the County of Cape May. lNew Jersey Department of Transportation, as reported in Atlantic City Growth Trends Report, 1979, Atlantic County Division of Economic Development. 1-50 In order to reflect a local concern about sewer capacity and the county's-ability to accommodate rapid growth, Sussex County officials have asked for a lower level of population growth to be used than was previously projected by the state. As these constraints become more familiar, it is likely that growth will be further constrained along the Atlantic Coast, but pressures for recreational development and use are likely to mount and spill over to developable portions of the Delaware Bay shoreline. I.C.5.c The Potential Impact of the "Energy Crisis" The Arab oil embargo of 1974 caused a sharp falloff in recreational traffic and tourism along the Atlantic Coast, but recovery to th e pre- embargo levels was reportedly quick, once supplies of gasoline became available -- despite the higher prices. Although it would be natural to expect the same to happen following this year's "energy crisis," the effects of this crisis may be somewhat longer term. Prospects of continued gasoline shortages -- combined with higher prices -- may permanently alter travel and recreational patterns as the nation tries to move toward greater independence from the oil exporting nations. Without prospects of quick technological breakthroughs on synthetic fuels or automobile mileage, energy conservation may be practiced by some combination of reduced travel and increased shifts to more energy efficient modes. Although it was originally anticipated that resort areas such as the DRBA region's coastline would actually benefit from restricted availability of gasoline, it may be that this resort area will also be hurt albeit less than the more distant areas. Although vacationers spending a week or more may not be diverted from the coastal resorts, second-home owners and weekend or one-day commuters may be much more impacted. II. HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES One of the principal objectives of this regional study is to analyze and describe the highway transportation facilities which exist today in the area of the Delaware River and Bay between New Jersey and Delaware, and to consider the need for possible additional crossings between the two States. In consideration of this objective, the overall adequacy of the existing highway system was evaluated. This was done with respect to the type and degree of current usage, the aggregate burden placed on the facilities, and future travel demand and needs considering the planned highway improvements. The evaluation included the analysis of present and future traffic, as well as the need for a new crossing. With respect to the following text, frequent referral to Exhibit II-1, the Mid-Atlantic Region, and Exhibit 11-2, the Delaware Bay Region, is useful. II.A EXISTING NETWORK As shown in Exhibits II-1 and 11-2, a focal point of the existing highway network serving the Delaware Bay region and the Northeast Corridor is the Delaware Memorial Bridge, operated by the Delaware River and Bay Author- ity (DRBA). Connecting the New Jersey Turnpike and 1-295 in New Jersey with 1-95 and US 13 in Delaware, it is a key link in the movement of traffic between Camden, Atlantic City, New York and points north, and the Delmarva Peninsula, Norfolk, Baltimore, Washington and points south. As part of the 1-95 and connecting route system, it serves eastern seaboard traffic between Maine and Florida. In addition to the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the highway system serving and feeding traffic into the Delaware River and Bay region includes the Cape May-Lewes Ferry, also operated by the DRBA, the bridges of the Dela- ware River Port Authority (DRPA), the highway systems of New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, and to a lesser extent, certain highway facilities in Virginia and Pennsylvania. II.A.1 DRBA Facilities The DRBA presently operates two highway facilities in the Delaware Bay Region: the Delaware Memorial Bridge over the Delaware River between Pennsville, New Jersey and New Castle, Delaware, and the Cape May-Lewes Ferry across lower Delaware Bay between Cape May, New Jersey and Lewes, Delaware. deal N.Y. 38 /1001 NEW YoRt__1 wool, P E N N S V A N W, N E W I S E Y HARRISBURG 7w 9 q T ENTON HI LPHI 6 02 AMIDEN 72 06 WILA# TON 15 40 M A R Y L A N D 4 W. VA. 9 BALTIMORE 49 ATLANTIC CITY 47 30, DOVER ? Delaware Bay 49 CAPE MAY .*CAPt .V J(.tS WASHINGTO 13 301 so V I R G I N I A Chesapeake Bay Ab RICHMOND Scale in Miles 3 0 45 50 75 4 NORFOLK Exhibit 11-1 THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY STUDY OF CROSSING REOUIREMENTS AND 1 PRESENT USES OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY 5 r MID-ATLANTIC REGION N 0 R T H C A R 0 L I A 1PORATION ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. 11-2 I@A 0 71 36 BA, B 7 12 206 'WILMINGTo me 45 95 40 47 45 BIB N 40 @VINPAA 0 B RDrETC).N '50 9 A'TLAI@TIC 49 CITY 4k, 47 DOM, 9 SCAL@ Is 20 2S 3C 13 03 10 ri DELAWARE BAY 9 MA@ 4 'CAPE MAY LEWES 7 FERRY IV T13 lk REHOBOTH 7 BEACH 'N 13 ... . .. ... . ....9 '41 Exhibit 11-2 50 THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY STUDY OF CROSSING REQUIREMENTS AND PRESENT USES OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY 50 MAJOR ROUTES DELAWARE BAY REGION URS CORPORATION ARTHUR 0. LITTLE, INC. 11-3 II.A.l.a Delaware Memorial Bridge The Delaware Memorial Bridge connects the New Jersey Turnpike, 1-295 and other state highways in New Jersey with 1-95, US 13, US 301 and US 40 in Delaware. The places in and around -the surrounding region served by these routes are listed in Table II--l on the following page. The Bridge acts as a "funnel" for the several routes feeding into it on each side of the Delaware River. The Delaware Memorial Bridge was opened to traffic on August 16, 1951, and carried four lanes of traffic, two in each direction, in a single suspension span. A parallel suspension span was opened to traffic on September 12, 1968. With each span carrying one-way traffic, the.Twin Bridges are capable of handling eight lanes of traffic, four in each direction. Cross-overs have been constructed on each approach, and to- gether with lane signals on the spans, the Authority has the flexibility of closing lanes and even an entire span during light traffic periods for repairs and general maintenance. The traffic capacity of the Twin Bridges' eight lanes is 5,400 vehicles per hour in each direction on the basis of a traffic mix during peak hours of 13 percent commercial traffic and an approach grade of four. percent. Taking into account the relationship of the peak hours to the annual average daily traffic (AADT) and a directional split of 50-50 during peak hours, the hourly capacity of 10,800 corresponds to an esti- mated capacity of 123,000 vehicles per day. This is not the limiting capacity, since in theory the bridge could carry far larger volumes per day simply by extending the number of hours of peak flow. In contrast, the actual AADT during 1978 was 50,980, representing only 41 percent of the estimated capacity. Of this traffic, 19 percent was trucks. In the estimate of total capacity, a Level of Service "E" was used, which represents maximum traffic volumes at congested conditions. Further details on capacity and level of service follow under Section II.D. Bridge tolls are collected at an 18-lane toll plaza located on the Dela- ware side. The plaza itself is split, with nine eastbound and nine westbound toll lanes separated by an island which encompasses the Author- ity's administration building, parking lots and maintenance garages. The toll plaza also includes a special lane in each direction for extra- width vehicles. Of the nine toll lanes in each direction, three are unattended and are equipped with automatic toll collection equipment. In terms of capa- city, the nine toll lanes in each direction have, on the basis of an average rate of 500 vehicles per hour per lane, a traffic capacity of approximately 4,500 vehicles per hour in each direction. Hourly traffic counts made in July 1978 indicate a peak hour count of approximately 3,000 vehicles per hour in each direction, indicating that the toll plaza is operating at about 67 percent of capacity during the annual 11-4 Table II-1. Highways Radiating from the Delaware Memorial Bridge Side Route Places Served* East N.J. Tpk. Northern New Jersey, New York (New New England Jersey) 1-295 Camden, Trenton, US 40 Atlantic City NJ 49 Bridgeton, Cape May US 130 Northwest Salem and Gloucester Counties West 1-95 Baltimore, Washington and South (Delaware) US 40 Baltimore and-West US 13 Wilmington, Delmarva, Peninsula, Norfolk via Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel US 301 Annapolis and South via Chesapeake Bay Bridge Refer to Exhibit I-I of the Mid-Atlantic Region 11-5 peak summer.hours. The present toll schedule for the Bridge, which has been in effect since January 1, 1970, is shown in Table 11-2 along with the toll schedule for the Cape May-Lewes Ferry.1 II.A.l.b. Cape May-Lewes Ferry The Cape May-Lewes Ferry is an important transportation link between the Delmarva Peninsula, which includes the State of Delaware and the Eastern Shore counties of Maryland and Virginia, and the resort areas. of southern New Jersey'. Operation of the Ferry began in July 1964 with the purchase of four vessels from the Chesapeake Bay Ferry District, which until April 15, 1964, operated these ferries between Kiptopeke on Virginia's Eastern Shore and Little Creek, just east of Norfolk. (On April 15, 1964, the Chesapeake Bay ferries were replaced by the opening of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, the alignment of which is -roughly the same as that of of the previous ferry route. The Bridge-Tunnel is discussed further in Section II.A.5). The four ferries transferred from Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay service were replaced in 1974 by three new shallow-draft vessels capable of mak- ing the 16-mile crossing between Cape May and Lewes in 70 minutes. The ferries each have the capacity of transporting 100 vehicles and 700 passengers per trip. The most recent Ferry Schedule indicates service frequencies depending on the season as follows: No. of Daily Average Headway Season Departures (1) (hours) Oct.-May 4 3-1/2 - 4 June, Sept. 6 1-1/2 - 3-1/2 July-Aug. 10 1-1/3 - 2 (1) Scheduled in each direction, except during extremely cold weather when service has been curtailed in the past due to ice conditions in the Cape May Canal. As would be expected, the Ferry Schedule is geared to the seasonal traf- fic demand, which in 1978 varied from a low average daily traffic (ADT) of 138 vehicles per day in February (24 percent of the 1978 annual ADT of 582) to an average daily traffic of 1,530 vehicles per day in August (263 percent of the 1978 annual ADT). By contrast, the Delaware Memorial Bridge traffic varied from a low ADT of 36,107 vehicles per day in Janu- ary (71 percent of the annual ADT of 50,980),to an ADT of 65,688 vehicles per day in July (129 percent of the annual ADT). lNew toll rates will be implemented on September 1, 1979. 11-6 Table 11.2 Toll Schedules - DRBA Facilities DELAWARE MEMORIAL BRIDGE CAPE MAY-LEWES FERRY Class Description Axles Toll Class Description Toll I PASSENGER CARS - (all types) ....................... 2 $ .50 1 Passenger cars, station wagons, including - Light delivery trucks (reg. wt. 2 tons motorbike, motorcycle, carry- or less); hearses (except in funeral processions); all, pick-up, panel, self- motorcycles contained camper, with two axles Book of 20 accommodation tickets 10.00 and four tires (overall length up to 20') including driver ..... 8.00 2 TWO-AXLE TRUCKS ..................................... 2 .75 Including - all types with reg. wt. over 2 tons; 4 20' to 25 . ...................... 10.00 buses and tractors Book of accommodation tickets 15.00 5 25' to 35 . ...................... 13.00 3 THREE-AXLE TRUCKS .................................. 3 1.00 6 35' to 45 . ...................... 15.00 Including - Tractors or combination tractors and trailers; passenger cars with one axle trailer; 7 45' to 55 . ...................... 18.00 buses (all three-axle types) Book of 20 accommodation tickets 20.00 8 55' to 65 . ...................... 22.00 4 FOUR-AXLE TRUCKS ................................... 4 1.50 10 Over 65 . ........................ 32.00 Including - Tractors or combination tractor and trailer; passenger cars with two-axle trailer 11 Bicycle (ridden.or hand carried) Book of 20 accommodation tickets 30.00 including passenger ............ 3.50 5 TRUCKS AND TRUCK COMBINATIONS (per axle) ............. .35 12 Over width vehicles FIVE AXLES 5 1.75 All vehicles exceeding one or Book of 20 accommodation tickets 35.00 more of the limitations of Delaware and New Jersey ........ 6 NON-REVENUE VEHICLES ................................ Var. Foot passengers Including - Bridge maintenance, funeral processions Vehicle occupants after 6th ambulance, fire and police vehicles birthday (other than driver) ... 2.00 Foot passengers and vehicle 7 VEHICLES REQUIRING SPECIAL PERMIT ................. Var. 3.50 occupants before 6th birthday.. 1.00 Including - Contractors' equipment and machinery; Foot passengers (round trip all vehicles exceeding one or more of the limi- same day) ....................... 3.50 tations of Delaware or-New Jersey law Bus passengers (other than driver) ........................ 1.25 8 COMMUTATION TICKETS ....... .20 Special group rates - Round trip Book of 50 tickets - Good for one calendar month (50 or more persons) ........... 3.00 only, issued to passenger cars only 10.00 9 SHOPPERS TICKETS .................................. .35 Book of 20 tickets - Good for three calendar Double rate of length months only, issued to passenger cars only 7.00 10 TRUCKS AND TRUCK COMBINATIONS SIX AXLES or more (per axle) ... .................. .35 The seasonality of the Ferry operation is due to the activity in the area it serves, namely the resort and agricultural areas of southern New Jersey (Cape May, Cumberland and Atlantic Counties) and the Del- marva Peninsula (Sussex County, Delaware and the Eastern Shore counties of Maryland and Virginia) as shown in Exhibit 11-2. The Cape May-Lewes Ferry is part of Route US 9 in both New Jersey and Delaware, and, as such, serves as a link in the Ocean Highway routing between New York and Norfolk via the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey and US 13 on the Delmarva Peninsula (see Exhibit II-1). II.A.2 DRPA Bridges The Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA) operates the following four bridges upstream from the Delaware Memorial Bridge between Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Milesi Location Bridge Upstream Pennsylvania New Jersey Commodore Barry 13 Chester Bridgeport Walt Whitman 417 South Philadelphia Gloucester City Ben Franklin 30 Center City Phila. Camden Betsy Ross 35 North Philadelphia Pennsauken lFrom Delaware Memorial Bridge Of the four DRPA bridges, the Commodore Barry Bridge is the one most directly competitive to the Delaware Memorial Bridge and serves the Delaware Bay region (see Exhibit 11-2). The other three DRBA bridges carry traffic primarily between the City of Philadelphia and suburban New Jersey and between Philadelphia and Atlantic and Cape May Counties in New Jersey. The Commodore Barry bridge, which was open to traffic in February 1974, is located roughly halfway between the 'Delaware Memorial and Walt Whitman Bridges. In 1978 the Commodore Barry bridge carried an annual average daily traffic volume of 13,300, which was 21 percent of the total of 62,200 carried by the Delaware Memorial and the Commodore Barry bridges combined. With the traffic capacity of its five existing lanes (the center lane of which is reversible) at 75,000, expressed in AADT terms, the Commodore Barry Bridge presently is operating at 18 percent of capacity. In terms of trip origins and destinations, this Bridge "competes" to some degree with the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Traffic data compiled from roadside-interview surveys conducted in 1969 at the Delaware Mem- orial bridge toll plazal indicated that some 1.1 million vehicles per No surveys h .ave been conducted since. 11-8 year, or 3,000 per dayl would divert from the Delaware Memorial Bridge to the Commodore Barry Bridge by the time the Commodore Barry Bridge was open in 1975. These 3,000 vehicles represent approximately six percent of the Delaware Memorial Bridge traffic (1975 annual ADT was 48,400) and 31 percent of the total traffic on the Commodore Barry Bridge (the 1975 annual ADT was 9,800). Another indicator of the "commonality" of trips on the Delaware Memorial and Commodore Barry Bridges was the resultant drop in traffic on the Delaware Memorial,Bridge, from 51,800 vehicles per-day in 1973 to 46,000 in 1974. This drop was caused by two factors: the "energy crisis," which began in November 1973, and the opening of the Commodore Barry Bridge in February 1974. The two factors were isolated as follows: (A) Annual growth trend increment, 1971-73 1,700 (B) Actual 1973 AADT 51,800 (C) Projected 1974 AADT, if "energ y crisis" had not occurred and Commodore Barry Bridge had not opened @53,500 (D) Actual 1974 AADT 46,100 (E) Differential: (C) - (D) 7,400- (F) Portion of Differential attributed to "energy crisis" 4,400 (G ) Portion of Differential attributed to opening of Commodore Barry Bridge 3,000 Further data on traffic growth trends are listed in Section II.C of this Chapter. Tolls on the DRPA bridges are somewhat higher than those on the Delaware Memorial Bridge, as shown in Table 11-3.' Although the passenger car toll on the Commodore Barry Bridge is only 10 cents or 20 percent higher than that on the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the truck tolls are consider- ably higher on the Commodore Barry Bridge, in the range of 100 to 150 percent. This may partially account for the fact that while a trip, say, from New York to Wilmington is 10 miles' shorter via the Commodore Barry Bridge as compared to the Delaware Memorial Bridge, only six percent of lTrips between Wilmington and northern New Jersey and beyond. 11-9 the Delaware Memorial Bridge traffic is diverted to the Commodore 'Barry Bridge. Another reason for the apparently low diversion is the superior approach road system to the Delaware Memorial Bridge on the New Jersey side of the river via both the New Jersey Turnpike and 1-295, while the only practical New Jersey approach to the Commi Aore Barry Bridge is via 1-295 and US 130. These approach routes are shown on Exhibit 1-2 and described further in Section H.A.3. Table H.3. Toll Schedule - DRPA Facilities DIRPA DRBA Commodore Delaware Barry Memorial Vehicle Classification Bridge* Bridge** Passenger cars and light trucks $ .150 $ .50 Passenger car with I-axle trailer .90 1.00 Passenger car with 2-axle trailer 1.20 1.50 Motorcycles .35 .50 2-axle, 6-tire trucks 1.50 .75 3-axle trucks 2.25 1.00 4-axle trucks 3.00 1.50 5-axle trucks 3,75 1.75 Extra axles (trucks) .75 .35 2-axle bus .80 .75 3-axle bus 1.20 1.00 Commuter .40*** .20 Car Pool *in effect since February 1, 1978. "Similar classifications shown for comparative purposes. ***The 40-cent commuter rate shown is a nominal average per trip, con- sisting of $6 for a 30-day decal plus $.25'cash per trip for each of 40 trips. ****The 10-cent car pool commuter rate applies to cars occupied by three or more persons and the $4 books of 40 tickets are valid until the end of the calendar month following the month it was purchased. H.A.3 New Jersey Highways For the purpose of this study, the principal highways in New Jersey serv- ing the Delaware Bay region are divided into the following two categories (see Exhibit H-2): II-10 Highways Radiating from Delaware Memorial Cape May-Lewes Bridge Ferry Limited-access NJ Turnpike Garden State 1-295 Parkway Non-limi.ted access US 130 us 9 US 40 NJ 47 NJ 49 County 585 County 540 II.A.3.a Delaware Memorial Bridge The New Jersey Turnpike, a 118-mile toll road, runs from the Delaware Memorial Bridge (Interchange 1) to a junction with 1-95/80 and US 46 (Interchange 18), four miles west of the George Washington Bridge. It was opened to traffic in stages between November 5, 1951 and January 15, 1952, three to four months after the opening of the Delaware Memorial Bridge in August 1951. The original Turnpike consisted of four lanes, two in each direction, except for a 20-mile section in northern New Jersey. Since that time, portions of the Turnpike have been widened and two spurs were built to link the Turnpike with the Holland Tunnel (Interchange 14C) and the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interchange 6). The section north of New Brunswick (Interchange 9) carries four three-lane roadways, six lanes in each direction, with the two center road 'ways re- served exclusively for passenger cars. The 30-mile section north of 1-287 1-287 (Interchange 10) is designated 1-95, as this is the junction south of which 1-95 is proposed to be constructed on a new alignment west of Princeton and Trenton by the late 1980's. This will link 1-95 with the existing Scudders Falls Bridge over the Delaware River and the com- pleted section of 1-95 in Pennsylvania. Illustrative Turnpike tolls within its closed system of toll collection from the Delaware Memorial Bridge northward are listed below. Delaware Memorial Bridge New Jersey (Interchange 1) Turnpike Tolls to Psgr. 5-Axle Int. Location Cars Trucks 3 Camden-Philadelphi .35 $1.10 7 Bordentown-Trenton .70 2.35 11 Woodbridge-G.S. Pkwy 1.15 4.15 14 Newark Airport 1.75 5.70 18 George Washington Br. 2.25 7.00 Interstate Route 295 parallels the New Jersey Turnpike between the Dela- ware Memorial Bridge and its temporary terminus at US 130 in Bordentown. In several places the two expressways are within sight of each other. The northerly extension of 1-295 to a junction with 1-95 north of Tren- ton is not expected to be completed until the late 1980's. From the Delaware Memorial Bridge to NJ 42 in Camden County, 1-295 is a four-lane facility (two lanes in each direction), and north of NJ 42, it has six lanes. While 1-295 provides service via numerous interchanges to New Jersey communities between Deepwater and Bordentown, the Turnpike serves the longer distance traffic to places north of Bordentown and does pro- vide a measure of local service via four inter-mediate interchanges south of Bordentown. Also, some long-distance traffic uses 1-295 to Borden- town, switching to the New Jersey Turnpike in order to save the Turnpike toll south of that point. US 130, the predecessor of the New Jersey Turnpike and 1-295, now serves the local Salem and Gloucester County communities of Deepwater, Penns Grove and Bridgeport. US 40 is the direct route between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and Atlan- tic City, and is mostly an old two-lane highway passing through numerous small communities and the linear strip development between them. The following table shows time-distance comparison between US 40 and the Atlantic City Expressway. Delaware Memorial Bridge Distance Time to Atlantic City via (miles) (minutes) US 40 66 115 Atlantic City,Expressway 79 85 Savings via Expressway (13) 30 The Atlantic City Expressway is a 44-mile, four-lane toll road, which, together with NJ 42/US 322 and US 30 extend from Atlantic City to Camden. Expressway tolls for the full-length, 44-mile trip are collected at two across-the-road barriers located at Pleasantville and Egg Harbor City, and vary from a combined total of $1.25 for passenger cars to $5.00 for five-axle trucks. NJ 49 is a two-lane highway leading south from the Delaware Memorial Bridge to Millville in Cumberland County. In Millville, it connects with NJ 47 for most destinations in Cape May County. The alternative routing between the Delaware Memorial bridge and Cape May, bypassing the communities along NJ 49, is via US 40 and the NJ 55 Expressway to NJ 47. The only other route radiating from the Delaware Memorial Bridge in New Jersey is Salem County Route 540, a two-lane, nine-mile alternative to NJ 49 between the Bridge and Salem, which bypasses Pennsville and the other small communities just south of the Bridge. 11-12 II.A.3.b Cape May-Lewes Ferry The principal approach route to the Cape May-Lewes Ferry in New Jersey is the Garden State Parkway, which runs from a junction three miles east of the Ferry terminal for a distance of 173 miles north to the New York State line, with a 2.5-mile direct connection to the New York State Thruway (1-87). With the exception of the most northerly 10-mile sec- tion, which was completed in 1957, the Parkway'essentially was opened to traffic during 1954. The number of lanes in the parkway varies from four lanes (two lanes in each direction) for the 90-mile section from Cape May to Lakewood,.to a 12-lane section (dual-dual configuration), between Asbury Park and Perth Amboy. At Pleasantville, 38 miles north of its Cape May terminus, the Parkway connects with the Atlantic City Expressway for trips to Atlantic City and Philadelphia; and at Wood- bridge, 129 miles north of Cape May, the Parkway connects with the New Jersey Turnpike (1-95) for trips to New York City and New England. In contrast to the Turnpike's closed system of toll collection, Parkway tolls are collected at 11 across-the-road toll plazas and at several ramp locations in the northern section. The main line toll, which has not changed since 1954, is 25 cents for passenger cars at each toll barrier. Route US 9, the predecessor to the Garden State Parkway, parallels the Parkway from Cape May to northern New Jersey. Its principal function now is to provide local service to the numerous communties through which it passes. For most of its length it is a two-lane highway, but north of Lakewood (100 miles from Cape May) it widens to a four-to-six lane facility with numerous intersections at grade. Further discussion of US 9 is continued in Section II.A.4 in connection with its routing in Dela- ware. NJ 47, which intersects the Garden State Parkway and US 9 six miles north of Cape May, runs east to the beaches at Wildwood and west and north to Camden. With the exception of the four-mile section to Wild- wood, it is a two-lane facility. The other route radiating from Cape May and the ferry terminal area is County Route 585, which is the most direct link, via a toll bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway, to the Wildwood communities and beaches. II.A.4 Delaware Highways Unlike the New Jersey side of the Delaware River which is rural, the Delaware side in the vicinity of the Delaware Memorial Bridge is the Wilmington urban area. As shown in Exhibit II-1 of the Mid Atlantic Region, Chesapeake Bay divides the area west of the Delaware River and Bay basically into two transportation corridors: (1) the so-called Northeast Corridor, including Wilmington, Baltimore and Washington, and (2) the Eastern Shore or Delmarva Peninsula. 11-13 The.principal highway facility in the Northeast Corridor is 1-95, which, in the Delaware Bay region, connects Philadelphia and Wilmington and extends southwesterly to Baltimore and Washington. Connecting with 1-95 at a complex interchange at Christina Marsh, four miles west of the Delaware River, is 1-295, the approach route to the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and 1-495, which skirts around the east side of Wilmington and rejoins 1-95 just south of the Pennsylvania state line. 1-95 itself crosses the narrow "neck" of Delaware between the Pennsyl- vania and Maryland state lines, a total distance of 24 miles. The southerly or westerly 11-mile section, which was opened to traffic in 1963 under toll operation, is known locally and by investment bankers as the Delaware Turnpike. The northerly 13-mile section, completed in stages during 1966 and 1968, is a four-lane freeway through Wilmington. The Delaware Turnpike section of 1-95 is a six-lane toll road, which, combined with its counterpart in Maryland, is officially designated as the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway. The Delaware Turnpike opened originally as a four-lane facility, and was widened to six lanes in 1969 to accommodate the high volume of traffic. The Delaware Department of Transportation (DOT) is considering further widening to eight lanes. The annual average daily traffic volume for the Turnpike's fiscal year ended June 30, 1979 and varied from 35,000 at the Maryland line to 77,000 between Del. 7 and Del. 141. The reason for the large variation is that the 35,000 long-distance trips per day cross- ing the Maryland line combine with 42,000 trips, mostly local, originating in New Castle County. From 1963 through September 1976, Turnpike tolls were originally collected at a mainline barrier between the Maryland line and Del. 896, and on the easterly (northerly) ramps at Del. 896, Del. 273 and Del. 7. On September 30, 1976, the ramp tolls were elimi- nated, and the barrier tolls were increased to what they are today, starting at 50 cents for passenger cars, up to $1.50 for six-axle trucks, and $7.00 for special-permit vehicles. The Delaware Turnpike essentially is the "trunk" facility gathering traffic from its three northerly and easterly "branches": 1-95, 1-295 and 1-495. 1-295 is the four-mile "branch" which connects the Delaware Turnpike with the Delaware Memorial Bridge for service to New York and beyond via the New Jersey Turnpike, since 1-95 which would have provided this service, is not complete in Philadelphia and in the section of New Jersey between Trenton and New Brunswick. The section of 1-295 east of US 13 was opened to traffic in 1951 at the same time as the bridge, and west of US 13 in 1963 at the same time as the Delaware Turnpike. The third "branch" of Delaware's interstate system is 1-495, which opened traffic in 1977. From the Christina Marsh interchange to the Penn- sylvania line where it rejoins 1-95, its six lanes provide an alternate routing for through traffic bypassing the congested section of 1-95 in Wilmington; and it serves the Wilmington port area. As such, the Dela- ware DOT has signed local Wilmington traffic via 1-95 and through Phila- delphia traffic via 1-495. The 1977 AADT along 1-95 through Wilmington 11-14 was about 42,000 vehicles per day while 1-495 carried about 61,000 vehicles per day. Another route between the Wilmington area and Baltimore paralleling the 1-95 toll route is US 40, a four-lane divided highway with numerous intersections at grade, but nevertheless a fairly free-flowing facility. The 1977 AADT near the Maryland state line was 14,600. At State Road, US 40 runs together with US 13 as a six-lane facility with several traf- fic signals and is congested during peak hours. The 1977 AADT in this section was 51,500. In the vicinity of the Delaware Memorial Bridge US 40 joins 1-295 and has' an eight-lane roadway. New Castle County is a highly-developed urban area with many local arte- rial routes in addition to the major interstate routes, 1-95, 1-295, 1- 495 and US 40. Two major US-numbered interstate routes radiate from the Delaware Memorial Bridge to the Delmarva Peninsula: US 13 and US 301. US 13 is the "spine" highway of the Delmarva Peninsula or Eastern Shore. It starts in Philadelphia and passes through all of the communities, industrial areas and the City of Wilmington, paralleling 1-95. It runs together with US 40 for several miles south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and then heads south for Dover, Salisbury, Maryland and Norfolk via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. Except for some six-lane sections in the urban areas it serves, US 13 is a four-lane divided highway with numerous intersections at grade and traffic signals at the major cross- roads. As the "spine" highway of the Eastern Shore, recreational traf- fic between the Northeast Corridor cities and the Delaware-Maryland beaches uses US 13 to a great extent, particularly on summer weekends. The 1977 AADT at its southern section near the Maryland border 'was 11,300 vehicles per day, near the Dover Downs it carried 36,500 vehicles per day, and approaching Route US 40 south of the Wilmington Airport, it carried 22,200 vehicles per day. In Dover, US 113 branches away from US 13, providing local service to Milford and Georgetown, Delaware, and Berlin, Maryland. It is mostly a four-lane divided highway. Just north of Milford, Del. 1, another branch in the Eastern Shore "tree," leads southeast to Lewes and the Delaware beaches. Del. 1 is a fully dualized four-lane facility, except for a short two-lane section over the Lewes & Rehoboth Canal, known as the Rehoboth Beach Bypass. US 301, the other major US-numbered interstate route serving the Del- marva Peninsula, connects the Delaware Memorial Bridge with Middletown, Delaware and with the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. With the exception of the four-lane Summit Bridge over the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, US 301 is a two-lane facility in Delaware; but in Maryland, it is an.excellent four-lane, controlled-access divided highway with occasional intersec- tions at grade, some of which are signalized. The 1977 AADT on US 301 was 11,100 at Summit Bridge (which also carries Del. 896) and 5,300 at the Maryland line. Long range plans for the Delaware Department of Transportation call for the replacement of the low-type, two-lane high- ways-US 301, Del. 896 and Del. 71, connecting with the Summit Bridge by 11-15 a high-type facility, similar to the Bridge itself and the four-lane US 301 facility in Maryland. Further discussion of this and other proposed highway facilities in Delaware is continued in Section II.B.2. US 13 and US 301 are only two of the four bridges which span the Chesa- peake and Delaware Canal. The other two bridges, Del. 9 at Delaware City and Md. 213 at Chesapeake City, carry significant amounts of local (non-interstate) commercial traffic. As mentioned heretofore in Section II.A.3, the Cape May-Lewes Ferry is an integral part of US 9 on both sides of the Delaware Bay. From the Ferry terminal at Lewes, US 9 runs in a southwesterly direction, a dis- tance of 31 miles to Laurel, Delaware, where it terminates at US 13. Three miles outside of Lewes, US 9 connects with Del. 1 (for trips to Dover, Milford and the beaches), and midway between Lewes and Laurel it intersects US 113 at Georgetown. UD 9 is a two-lane facility which, together with US 13, forms a continuous alternative routing between New York City and Norfolk via the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. II.A.5 Maryland and Virginia Facilities As shown in Exhibit II-1 of the Mid-Atlantic Region,.Chesapeake Bay is the major body of water which separates the highway facilities south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge into two distinct, and very different in character and volume, transportation corridors: (1) Northeast Corridor via 1-95 and US 40 and (2) Delmarva Peninsula via US 13 and US 301. These two transportation corridors divide in New Castle County, Delaware, and continue on each side of Chesapeake Bay into the states of Maryland and Virginia. On the east side of Chesapeake Bay, US 13 (Ocean Highway) continues south from Delaware as a four-lane divided highway through the Eastern Shore Counties of Maryland and Virginia to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge- Tunnel. It passes directly through the city of Salisbury, Maryland and numerous other small communities on the Peninsula. Across the Bay, in Norfolk, Virginia it connects with US 17, the continuation of the Ocean Highway to Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; and Jacksonville, Florida. The key link in the Ocean Highway system is the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, operated by the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District, an 18--mile, two-lane crossing consisting of a series of low- and high-level. bridges and two tunnels under the Hampton Roads and Baltimore Channels of the Bay. The Bridge- Tunnel which carried about 5,000 vehicles per day in 1978, replaced the Kiptopeke-Little Creek Ferry in April 1964. Tolls range from $8.00 for passenger cars to over $50.00 for trucks. The other Eastern Shore "trunk" highway, US 301, continues southwest from Delaware through Maryland as a four-lane divided highway, bypassing the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area and connecting with 1-95 in 11-16 Richmond, Virginia. The key link in the US 301 routing is the Chesa- peake Bay Bridge, operated by the Maryland Transportation Authority, a division of the Maryland Department of Transportation. the first span of the Bridge carrying one lane of traffic in each direction was opened to traffic in 1952, and a second parallel three-lane span was completed in 1973 to meet the high growth in recreational traffic between the Baltimore-Washington area and the Delaware-Maryland beaches, particu- larly Ocean City, Maryland. In addition to US 301, the Bridge carries US 50, the principal route between Washington and Ocean City. Tolls range from $1.25 for p assenger cars to $5.40 for large trucks. On the west side of Chesapeake Bay, 1-95 and US 40 parallel one another from the Delaware line of Baltimore, at which point 1-95 continues to Washington and the South; and US 40 continues west to Frederick, Mary- land and points west. 1-95 between Wilmington and Baltimore is officially designated as the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway. In Maryland it continues as a sixlane toll road operated by the Maryland Transportation Authority, of which the Tydings Memorial Bridge over the Susquehanna River is an integral part. Tolls for use of the 42-mile Kennedy Highway are collected at the Tydings Bridge and vary from $1.00 per passenger cars to $3.00 for large trucks. The parallel Susquehanna River Bridge on US 40.is also a Maryland Transportation Authority-operated toll facility. Toils vary from 50 cents for passenger cars to $1.50 for large trucks, and reduced rate commuter privileges are available. 1-95 is temporarily routed through Baltimore via the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, and then on to Washington, Richmond and the South. Except dur- ing peak commuting and weekend hours when it is congested, the four-lane Tunnel is an ideal routing for 1-95 through traffic. During periods of congestion in the Tunnel, changeable-message signs on the approach routes to the Tunnel east and south of Baltimore direct mo torists to the alternate route via the'outer harbor crossing known as the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Tolls for use of both the Bridge and Tunnel vary from 75 cents for passenger cars to $3.00 for large trucks and commuter ticket books can be purchased. As described later in Section II.B.3, studies presently are under way by the Maryland DOT's Interstate Division for Baltimore City for the com- pletion of 1-95 in Baltimore, including a tunnel under the inner harbor to be known as the Fort McHenry Tunnel. South of Baltimore, two expressway routes are available for travel to and from Washington: 1-95 and Md. 295, the Baltimore-Washington'Park- way, No trucks are permitted on the Parkway south of Laurel, Maryland Surveys conducted by URS/Coverdale & Colpitts in the early 1970's for the Delaware Department of Transportation on US 301 at the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal and on 1-95 at the Delaware Turnpike toll plaza indicated 11-17 that for long-distance trips between Wilmington and points north and Washington and points south, approximately 87 percent used the 1-95 routing via Baltimore and 13 percent used the US 301 routing via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Annapolis. Both routes are comparatively the same in distance, but in terms of time, the 1-95 routing is shorter ex- cept during peak hours in Baltimore. The slowest segment of the US 301 route is the 15-mile, two-lane section in Delaware between 1-95 and the Maryland line. Comparative tolls for passenger cars via the two routes are illustrated in the following table. 1-95 via Baltimore US 301 via Annapolis Facility Toll Facility Toll Delaware Chesapeake Turnpike $ .50 Bay Bridge $1.25 Kennedy Highway 1.00 Baltimore Tunnel .75 Total $2.25 In terms of the two routings, travel between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and Norfolk, along the Ocean Highway route (US 13) via the Eastern Shore, is some 80 miles and 1-1/2 hours shorter than the inland route via 1-95 to Richmond and 1-64 to Norfolk. However, passenger car tolls along the Ocean Highway are $8.50 as compared to $2.50 along the inland route. For trip ends further south than Norfolk from the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the inland routing via 1-95 is more attractive in terms of travel time and mileage than the Ocean Highway. II.B PROPOSED HIGHWAY FACILITIES Section II.A of this Chapter described the existing highway network, while this section of the report describes the highway facilities pro- posed for the future in New Jersey and Delaware in terms of their regional location vis-a-vis the Delaware River and Bay crossings, and the main corridor routes in the other mid-Atlantic states. II.B.1 Proposed New Jersey Highway Improvem!nts At the state level, four agencies are responsible for the highway facil- ities in New Jersey: the New Jersey Department of Transportation, which maintains the state highway system; the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 11-18 which operates the New Jersey Turnpike; the New Jersey Highway Author- ity, which operates the Garden State Parkway; and the New Jersey Express- way Authority, which operates the Atlantic City Expressway. II.B.I.a State Highway System Information on proposed improvements to the state highway system was ob- tained from the Division of Planning and Research, Bureau of Highway Planning, of the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). The Planning staff furnished information from two sources within the Depart- ment: Status of Active Projects as of March 31, 1979, compiled by the Bureau of Environmental Analysis, and Status of Plans Report (Active) compiled by the Bureau of Design. In general, emphasis is placed on getting the most out of the existing system in terms of traffic engi- neering and selected construction projects, plus the completion of the interstate system. On the average projects take 18 months in the envi- ronmental assessment stage, 18 months in design, and then two construc- tion seasons to complete. Table 11-4 below is a list of active projects which would affect the traffic now using the DRBA facilities when com- pleted. Table 11.4. Status of Active NJDOT Projects* Route County Location Status Remarks 1-95 Mercer-Somerset 1-295 to 1-287 Location See note* 1-287 Passaic-Bergen Montville to N.Y.S. Location Last link of 1-287 1-695 Somerset 1-95 to 1-287 Location US 40 Salem Woodstown Bypass Location us 9 Ocean Lakewood Bypass Design NJ 147 Cape May US 9 to NJ 47 Design 1-195 Mercer NJ 29 to 1-295 Design 1-295 Mercer 1-295 to US 130 Design 1-295 Gloucester Woodbury Design Upgrading US 130 Status of active projects as of March 31, 1979, compiled by the Bureau of Environmental Analsysis. The completion of 1-95 in New Jersey will result in some t raffic diver- sion from the New Jersey Turnpike and 1-295 on the east side of the Delaware River to 1-95 on the west side of the Delaware River, which will have an impact on traffic crossing the Delaware Memorial Bridge. It is very uncertain at this time if the 25-mile section of 1-95 between 1-287 near New Brunswick and 1-295 by Trenton will ever be built. The final EIS is expected by the end of 1980; and a no-build alternative is a possibility. After that, design will take 3 years and, assuming fund- ing is available, construction will take another 3 years; therefore, 11-19 1-95 could not possibly be completed until the late 1980's. Meanwhile the New Jersey Turnpike adequately fulfills the traffic demands in the corridor between New York and Delaware, and 1-95 serves traffic between the Philadelphia-Trenton vicinity and Wilmington. Table 11-4 indicates significant highway improvement projects which have advanced from the preliminary location/design status of the Bureau of Environmental Analysis to active status under the Bureau of Design. Other lesser projects are also contained in the area's Transportation Improvement Programs and will contribute to the increased capacity and safety of the region's.road network. Status of Active NJDOT Projects* Route County Location Improvement US 40 Atlantic Mays Landing Intersection US 40, NJ 50 NJ 42 Gloucester-Camden 1-295 to A.C.Expwy Interchanges NJ 47 Cape May Middle Township Alignment and transition 1-295 Gloucester-Camden Highway lighting 1-295 Gloucester Repaupo Rd.-Del.St. Widening to six lanes 1-295 Salem NJ 48 Interchange *From Status of Plans Report (Active), dated March 1979; Bureau of Design. II.B.I.b New Jersey Turnpike With the exception of general safety and traffic operational improvements throughout the length of the Turnpike, only minor improvements are planned by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) in terms of their effect on improving access to the DRBA facilities. These are listed below: Status of NJTP Projects Location Improvement Status/Remarks Int. 13-A Newark Airport access Design complete Int. 15-W Toll plaza widening Accommodate 1-280 completion Int. 10 Park-ride lot Design complete NJ 3 to US 46 Widening to 6 lanes Conceptual planning Full service truck Preliminary feasibility stop study No further consideration is being given to the Turnpike extension to Toms River, known as the Driscoll Expressway. The Authority is in the process of selling the right-of-way it had acquired for that extension. 11-20 II.B.I.c G arden State Parkway Several major projects are under construction and in various stages of planning and design by the New Jersey Highway Authority, and on the State-controlled section of the Parkway, by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. Table 11-5 lists these Garden State Parkway (GSP) pro- jects from south to north. Most of the improvements noted in the table will benefit those motorists who use the Parkway to reach the Cape May- Lewes Ferry, particularly during the peak summer months. Table 11-5. Status of GSP Projects Location Improvement Status/Remarks Cape May County Grade separation Long-term plan to Int. 8 to Int. 12 Stone Harbor Rd. reduce summer con- GSP/US 9 combined gestion DOT project Ocean County New ramps to/from EIS in preparation Int. 74 south, Lolls added completion in late Forked River to ramps to/from north 1981 if approved Ocean County New toll ramps Same overall project Pinewald to/from north as the Forked River ramps Ocean and Manmouth Parkway widening, EIS submitted, approval Counties Toms River to Asbury Park expected, completion Int. 80-83 From 4 to 6 lanes in 1983 Int. 83-88 4 lanes, no widening Primarily State section Int. 88-98 From 4 to 6 lanes Int. 98-102 From 6 to 8 lanes Int. 102-Plaza From 8 to 10 lanes Middlesex and Union Parkway widening, Under construction, Counties MJTP to US 22 expect completion in from 6 to 8 lanes 1979, DOT project with HOV lanes New Gretna Completion 1981 Barnegat Completion 1981 Toms River Toll plaza widenings Completion 1983* Asbury Park Completion 1983* Union Completion 1982 Hillsdale Completion 1981 Indicates completion at same time as Parkway widening. 11-21 II.B.I.d Atlantic City Expressway Casino gambling in Atlantic City has had a substantial effect on the Atlantic City Expressway traffic. Since the opening of the Resorts International Hotel in late May 1978 through April of this year, Express- way traffic has increased 60 percent at its Pleasantville toll plaza (between Atlantic City and the Garden State Parkway) and 26 percent at its Egg Harbor toll plaza (west of the Garden State Parkway). The mag- nitude of the increases has been spread evenly throughout the year, but in terms of percentages, the increases in the winter months far exceed the summer months because of the lower level of the base traffic volumes to which casino gambling traffic is added. On the basis of this recent experience, the New Jersey Expressway, Authority has been evaluating the traffic trends and the capacity of the Expressway to determine the need for improvements in the future. This evaluation indicates that the four-lane Expressway will have sufficient capacity to carry traffic at an acceptable level of service to about 1985. During the next five years a significant portion of the traffic increase will occur in the winter months, during which time the Express- way has ample reserve capacity. Improvements are planned, however, at its two main-line toll plazas at Egg Harbor and Pleasantville, which have experienced congestion result- ing from increased traffic. The Egg Harbor toll plaza will be widened from eight to twelve lanes, while the Pleasantville toll plaza will be widened from six to eight lanes. A significant factor in the future growth of Expressway traffic is the fact that the other two state highways leading into Atlantic City, US 30 (White Horse Pike) and US 40 (Black Horse Pike) are semi-urban in character with numerous intersections at grade, both of which presently are operating at or near capacity. Such being the case, the only access route capable of carrying the additional traffic generated by the re- newed activity in Atlantic City is the Expressway. II.B.2 Proposed Delaware Highways Improvements Planning for future state highway improvements in Delaware is the responsibility of the Delaware Department of Transportation. These programs are developed in terms of short-term proposals through its 6- Year Capital Improvement Program and long-term proposals as designated in its 1995 Transportation Plan. The short-term proposals are formu- lated by its two line divisions: the Division of Highways for tax- funded projects, and the Delaware Transportation Authority for bond- financed projects. The long-term proposals are formulated by its Systems Planning staff. 11-22 II.B.2.a Short-term Program The most important route in Delaware in terms of providing service to the Delaware River and Bay Region is 1-95, and the principal part of 1-95 as a feeder route to the Delaware Memorial Bridge is the 11-mile Delaware Turnpike section between the Christina Marsh interchange com- plex and the Maryland line. II.B.2.a(l) Delaware Turnpike, As a bond project, the Delaware Turnpike is under the control of the Delaware Transportation Authority, which was created in 1976 by the 128th General Assembly under House Bill 1230 as a division of the State's Department of Transportation. The legislation changed the names of the former Department of Highways and Transportation and Division of Trans- portation to the Department of Transportation and Delaware Transportation Authority respectively. As stated in Section 1903 of the bill, the Authority, besides being responsible for the coordination of mass and specialized transportation in the State, operates the Delaware Turnpike and is authorized to finance the cost of transportation facilities, including the Turnpike, "in the name of the State, by the issuance of revenue bonds of the Authority, payable solely from the revenues of the transportation facilities." In accordance with this legislation, the Authority issued $14,850,000 in Transportation Revenue Refunding Bonds in September 1976; and in October 1979, $6,250,000 in Transportation Revenue Refunding Bonds (Series A), $700,000 in Special Obligation Bonds, and $23,000,000 in Transportation Revenue Bonds (Series B); all payable solely from the revenues of the Delaware Turnpike. In addition to the operation of the Turnpike, House Bill 1230 authorizes the Authority to maintain, repair, and improve such State Highways "as the Authority may deem necessary to assure the economic feasibility and management of the Turnpike." Pursuant to this legislation, the 1979 Series B bonds in the amount of $23,000,000 were issued to develop the plans for the widening of the Turnpike from six to eight lanes (four lanes in each direction between the Christina Marsh and Del. 273 interchanges) and for improvements to certain feeder roads of the Turnpike and 1-95 and 1-495, including Del. 7, Del. 273, Del. 896, Ott's Chapel Road, Airport Road, US 202, Del. 92, and several smaller projects. II.B.2.a(2) Non-Turnpike Projects The non-Turnpike sections of the interstate system in Delaware are under the jurisdiction of the Division of Highways. The only significant por- tion scheduled for improvement is the 3-1/2-mile section of I-95.between the Christina Marsh interchange and the.first interchange in Wilmington at Maryland Avenue and 2nd Street, which includes a long viaduct over 11-23 Amtrak's main line between Wilmington and Baltimore. The widening of this section from four to six lanes is under contract and scheduled for completion in December 1980. Together with the existing six-lane sec- tion north of 2nd Street, this widening project will result in a con- tinuous six-lane 1-95 facility between the Christina Marsh and Concord Pike (US 202) interchanges. the following table summarizes the exist- ing lane balance status of the interstate routes at the Christina Marsh interchange and the future status after the widening projects are com- pleted. West of Del. 141 East of Del. 141 No. of Lanes F2_-Way) No. of Lanes (2-Way) Route Tx-isting Proposed Route Existing Proposed Turn- 1-95 4 6 pike 1-295 4 4 (1-95) 6 8 1-495 4 41* Total 12 14 1-495 is a six-lane facility, but two of the six lanes are channelized between 1-495 and 1-295. Other tax-funded projects within the Division of Highways' Six- Year Capital Improvement Program are listed in Table 11-6. Of the eight projects listed in Table 11-6, only the reconstruction of the US 9 bridge over the Lewes & Rehoboth Canal in Sussex County would be of direct benefit to users of a DRBA facility, namely the Cape May- Lewes Ferry. The other seven projects would be of indirect benefit to users of the Ferry and the Delaware Memorial Bridge in terms of the general improvement of the highway system in Delaware. II.B.2.b Long-term Program In New Castle County, Delaware, the Delaware Department of Transporta- tion, Systems Planning Section, formulates long range plans through the comprehensive forum of the Wilmington Metropolitan Area Planning Coordi- nating Council (WILMAPCO). As per 23 U.S.C., "Highways," WILMAPCO is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (M.P.O.) designated to coordinate comprehensive, continuing, forecast land use and transportation plan- ning for the Wilmington, Delaware, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). In Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware, the Delaware Department of Trans- portation, Systems Planning Section, develops the forecast land use and transportation plan (Kent and Sussex Study) in coordination with the Delaware Office of Management, Budget and Planning, and with the Counties. 11-24 Table 11-6. Six-Year Capital Improvement Program New Castle County 0 Del. 7, 1-95 to Stanton: from 2 to 4 lanes 0 Del. 4, Del. 2 to Del. 7: from 2 to 4 lanes a US 202 (Concord Pike), 1-95 to Del. 92 (Naamans Road): from 4 to 6 thru lanes with protected left-turn lanes in the median ' 0 Del. 92 (Naamans Road), U.S. 13 to US 202: from 2 to 4 lanes Kent County Dualization of last link of US 113 from Dover AFB to Little Heaven Sussex County 0 US 9 bridge over Lewes & Rehoboth Canal: reconstruction 0 Del. 1 (Rehoboth Beach bypass): from 2 to 4 lanes over Canal' 0 Del. 20 through Seaford: from 2 to 4 lanes Source: Delaware Department of Transportation, Division of Highways In order to maintain a minimum 20-Year horizon land use and transporta- tion plan, the Systems Planning Section is in the final stages of having a WILMAPCO Year 2000 plan adopted and is in the preliminary analysis stage of having a Year 2000 Kent and Sussex Study approved. Existing adopted plans are for the year 1995. While the short-term projects are selected on the basis of priorities and funding potential, the long-term projects are based on need as determined by future volume/ capacity estimates for each link in the state highway system developed in the Transportation Plan. These long-term projects, which overlap with those listed in Table 11-6, are set forth in Table 11-7. Of all the projects in the 1995 Transportation Plan, the Del. 896 widen- ing in New Castle County and the need for additional capacity along US 13 through Dover and Smyrna in Kent County are particularly significant because they affect the two "trunk" routes on the Delmarva Peninsula. Del. 896 runs together with US 301 via the Summit Bridge over the Chesa- peake and Delaware Canal and connects directly with the Delaware Turn- pike section of 1-95 just south of Newark. One alternative method of funding the widening of Del. 896, which could accelerate its completion at an earlier date, is its possible financing as a toll-free Turnpike 11-25 Table 11-7. 20-Year Program in 1995 Transportation Plan New Castle County Del. 7 - 1-95 to Christianas now 2 lanes; proposed con- trolled-access on now alignment, 4-lane divided - 1-95 to Del.4: now 2 lanes; proposed 4-lone high-type divided or freeway - Milltown Road to Pa. State Line; from 2 to 4- Ian! div ided Ch rx.tiana to US 13: from 2 to 4-lane divided Del. 4 to Stantont now 2 lanes; proposed 4-lane high-type divided or freeway Del. 141 - Del. 2 to Lancaster Pike: now 4-lane undivided; proposed 4-lane freeway - Lancaster Pike to Barley Mill Road: from 2 lanes to 4-lane freeway - Barley Mill Road to Concord Piket from 2 lanes to 4-lane freeway US 202 (Concord.Pike), Del. 141 to Naamans Road: see Table 11-6. Del. 92 (Maamans Road), US 13 to US 2021 see Table 11-6 Del. 273, S. Chapel St. (relocated) to Ogletown: from 2 to 4 lanes 12th Street Connector, Hay Road to Ilth-12th Streets; now 2 lanes; proposed 2-to-4 lane arterial Delaware Avenue in Newark: from 2 to 3 lanes (1-way street) Del. 896 - Del. 4 to US 40: from 2 to 4-lane divided - US 40 to Middletown: from 2 to 4-lane divided Mill Creek Road, Stoney Batter Road to Del. 41t from 2 to 4-lane divided Del. 4 - Ogletown to S. College Avenue; from 2 to 4-lane divided - Del. 7 to Ogletown: from 2 to 4-lane divided - South College Avenue to Elkton Road: new alignment, initially 2 lanes, ultimately 4 lanes; now provided by W. Chestnut Hill Road Otto Chapel Road, 1-95 to US 40: improved 2 lanes Del. 72, Cleveland Avenue (Newark) to Possum Park Road: 2 to 4-lane divided DuPont Road, Del. 4 to Del. 2: 2 to 4-lane divided Kent County Need for additional capacity along US 13 in Dover acid Smyrna Sussex County Del. 404 (Bridgeville bypass) US 113 duatization, Milford to Georgetown Georgetown bypass for US 9 and Del. 18 traffic Del. 8 widening, Dover to Mifflau Road Del. 26 Corridor, Fenwick Island to Dagaboro area Source: Delaware Department of Transportation Systems Planning 11-26 improvement project, since there is no'doubt that it is a feeder route to the Turnpike. The DOT is presently considering this alternative and the legislation which would be required. Possible tax-funded alternatives which would provide the additional capacity needed on US 13 through Dover and Smyrna are bypasses around the two cities or the controlling of access with frontage roads. Since both are very costly, the DOT believes that the limited tax funds are better used on numerous other projects elsewhere in the State. Another alternative to' the "piecemeal" improvement to US 13, which has been studied by the DOT in the past, but which is not currently being given further consideration, is the construction of a North-South Exten- sion of the Delaware Turnpike as a bond-financed toll project. As originally proposed, the Extension would have connected the existing Turnpike, midway between the Del. 273 and Del. 896 interchanges, with US 13 and US 113 south of Dover via the Summit Bridge, a total distance of 44 miles. A spur connection to US 301 in Maryland would also be con- structed. Such an Extension had been considered as an alternative to both the Del. 896 widening and the Dover and Smyrna bypass projects. II.B.3 Proposed Regional Highway_Improvements in Other States Certain future improvements in the regional highway networks of the states adjacent to New Jersey and Delaware, particularly Pennsylvania and Maryland, can be expected to influence long-distance travel in the Northeast Corridor, thereby affecting highway usage in the Delaware River and Bay region and, in particularly, that of the Delaware'Memorial Bridge. II.B.3.a Pennsylvania Although the completion of 1-95 in Pennsylvania must be considered to- gether with its completion in New Jersey in terms of traffic diversions from the New Jersey Turnpike-Delaware Memorial Bridge to the 1-95 rout- ing on the west side, the following 1-95 improvements in Pennsylvania have also been considered with respect to traffic with origins and desti- nations as far north as Trenton, which are independent of 1-95 construc- tion in New Jersey. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, two sections of 1-95 are now open to traffic. The shorter, 2.2-mile section in Cen- ter City Philadelphia has recently been completed, and as of late 1979, it has been opened to traffic despite local environmental opposition. The other section, 3.5 miles in the vicinity of Philadelphia Interna- tional Airport, is part of a 12-year road program on-hold, depending on a gas tax increase of 3.5 cents per gallon to be introduced this year in the Pennsylvania legislature. After the 12-year program is rein- stated, 1-95 is expected to be completed five to six years later. 11-27 Once these two sections are completed and opened to traffic, 1-95 will be fully open in Pennsylvania. At that time, some traffic bound for the Trenton-Princeton area, which now uses the Delaware Memorial Bridge and 1-295 or the New Jersey Turnpike to avoid Philadelphia, could be expected to stay on the west side of the Delaware River on 1-95 until crossing the river at Trenton. These diversions would depend on the time of day due to peak-period congested conditions in Philadelphia. II.B.3.b Maryland Future highway improvements in Maryland will have only a peripheral effect on motor vehicle travel in the Delaware River and Bay region. The most significant project in terms of Northeast Corridor travel via 1-95 is the Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore, now scheduled for comple- tion by July 1984. The Fort McHenry Tunnel will close the last remain- ing gap of 1-95 in Maryland. Tolls at the Fort McHenry Tunnel are proposed to be the same as those at the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel.and the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Another project which could influence the choice of routing between points south of Baltimore in Maryland and the Delaware Memorial Bridge, is Maryland's DOT plan to construct a new $300 million freeway from Baltimore to Annapolis along the Md. 3 corridor through Millersville. The proposed freeway would upgrade Md. 3 to eight lanes between the Baltimore Beltway (1-695) and Md. 32. The roadway would continue south- east paralleling Md. 178 to US 50 at Annapolis. The alternate proposal to connect Baltimore and Annapolis by upgrading Ritchie Highway.(Md. 2) to six lanes was rejected by the DOT. Approval of the project is not expected until late 1980. In addition, concerning Maryland Route 213, the Philadelphia District of the Corps of Engineers has studied the construction of an additional crossing of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Although no other short- term improvements are scheduled in Maryland which would affect motor vehicle travel in the Delaware River and Bay region, the Maryland Depart- ment of Transportation recognizes the need to do something about the low-level bascule bridge over the Kent Narrows on US 301/50, along the approach to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge on the Eastern Shore. During sum- mer weekends when traffic is heavy, any openings of these bridges cause considerable traffic congestion. Although US 50 traffic is "captive" in terms of origin and destination, that portion of the US 301 traffic which has a choice between the 1-95 and US 301 routings between Washing- ton and points south and Wilmington and points north, could be influ- enced by traffic conditions at Kent Narrows. II.B.3.c Virginia In Virginia, a new four-lane high-level bridge on US 301 over the Rappa- hannock River at Port Royal will replace the old two-lane low-level bridge. This plus some planned additional four-lane widening of US 301 in Hanover County should improve the attractiveness of the US 301 rout- ing between Richmond and Wilmington via the Eastern Shore. 11-28 II.C TRAFFIC GROWTH TRENDS This portion of the analysis of the transportation facilities serving the Delaware River and Bay area includes a summary of historical traffic growth in the area; however, before analyzing past traffic trends, a review of related demographic data is required. Historically, the rate of increase in vehicular travel generally follows changes in population and, more closely, the number of motor vehicles registered. Table 11-8 below shows 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1975 population and motor vehicle registrations for the states in the northeast corridor including the District of Columbia which are served by the facilities of the Delaware River and Bay Authority. For comparison, data are included for the total United States. Also shown are the compound average annual growth rates for the periods 1950 to 1960, 1960 to 1970, and 1970 to 1975. Table 11-8. Historical Motor Vehicle Registrations and Population Area Served by Facilities of Delaware River & Bay Authority Motor Vehicle Registrations Population 1950 1960 1970 1975 1950 1960 1970 1975 Delaware 108,000 192,000 312,000 351,000 318,000 446,000 548,000 579,000 New Jersey 1,579,000 2,401,000 3,586,000 4,155,000 4,835,000 6,067,000 7,168,000 7,333,000 Virginia 9l8,000 1,426,000 2,263,000 3,251,000 3,319,000 3,967,000 4,648,000 4,981,000 Washington, D.C. 195,000 206,000 257,000 255,000 802,000 764,000 757,000 712,000 Maryland 685,000 1,155,000 1,872,000 2,423,000 2,343,000 3,101,000 3,922,000 4,122,000 New York 3,735,000 5,067,000 6,718,000 7,591,000 14,830,000 16,782,000 18,241,000 18,076,000 Pennsylvania 3,010,000 4,287,000 5,818,000 7,659,000 10,498,000 11,319,000 11,801,000 11,860,000 Total United States 49,162,000 73,869,000 108,418,000 132,950,000 150,697,000 179,323,000 203,235,000 213,032,000 Average Annual Per Vehicle Per Vehicle 9,020 9,446 9,978 9,634 Average Annual Percent Change 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1975 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1975 Delaware 5.9% 5.0% 2.4% 3.4% 2.1% 1.1% New Jersey 4.3 4.1 3.0 2.3 1.7 0.5 Virginia 4.5 4.7 7.5 1.8 1.6 1.4 Washington, D.C. 0.5 2.2 (-0.1) (-0.4) (-0.1) (-1.2) Maryland 5.4 5.0 5.3 2.8 2.4 1.0 New York 3.1 2.9 2.5 1.2 0.8 (-0.2) Pensylvania 3.6 3.1 5.6 0.8 0.4 0.1 Total United States 4.1 3.9 4.2 1.7 1.3 1.0 11-29 As can be seen from the table, the rate of growth in motor vehicle regis- trations exceeds the growth in population. In 1950, the number of per- sons per vehicle in the United States was 3.1. By 1975, the number had declined to 1.6. Historically, in general, the number of miles travelled per passenger car has remained fairly constant at 9,000 to 10,000 miles per vehicle per year. As a result, total annual increases in vehicle miles of travel have paralleled the growth in the number of vehicles. The following analysis of historical traffic growth in the area served by the crossings of DRBA presents a discussion of the changes in traffic volumes and their relationship to these statistics. As in the other sections of the report, the facilities have been divided into those operated by the DRBA, the competing crossings of DRPA, New Jersey and Delaware highways, and highways and crossings in Maryland and Virginia. II.C.1 Facilities of Delaware River and Bay Authority Since it was officially empowered on February 6, 1963, the Delaware River and Bay Authority has operated the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Dur- ing the summer of 1964, the Authority initiated cross-Bay service via the Cape May-Lewes Ferry. II.C.l.a Delaware Memorial Bridge The first span of the Delaware Memorial Bridge was opened to traffic on August 16, 1951. As a result of the increasing volume of traffic car- ried, it was decided in 1963 to construct a second span which was com- pleted and opened to traffic on September 12, 1968. Between 1952 and 1978, revenue traffic on the Bridge increased at a com- pound average annual rate of 4.0 percent. The graph on the following page shows the annual traffic volume and toll receipts for the twenty- seven full years of operation. During the facility's earlier years the rates of increase were significantly greater than the levels of the re- cent past. The years with the greatest increases were 1953, 1959 and 1964. The increase in 1953 is typical of the traffic development pat- tern for a new facility. The 1959 increase reflects the introduction of lower tolls on the Bridge and the 1964 increase followed the November 1963 opening of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway in Maryland and Delaware, constituting a direct express approach to the Bridge. Since 1951, the number of vehicles using the Bridge has increased every year with only two exceptions -- 1957 and 1974. In 1957 traffic de- creased by 0.2 percent by reasons of the May 16, 1957 opening of the Walt Whitman Bridge. In 1974, the other year of decline, there was a twofold reason for the reduction in the number of vehicles using the Delaware Memorial Bridge: the energy crisis and the February 1, 1974 opening of the Commodore Barry Bridge. The increase in traffic on the Delaware Memorial Bridge since 1974 has not yet been great enough to bring the total annual traffic volume up to the 1973 level. Total reve- nue traffic for 1978 was 18,584,000 as compared with 18,876,000 in 1973. 11-30 20,000 DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY DELAWARE MEMORIAL BRIDGE TRAFFIC VOWMES AND TOLL REVENUES z 1952-1978 ..00 < 16,000 co z w n z TRAFFIC VOLUMES W 12,000- 0.00 w 01-@ cc - z TOLL REVENUES w ... D 8,000 - 0 > 4,ooo - C). (A) (B) (D) (E) (F) (G) 0r- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cq cw% -r u-% %D r- Go cm 0 C14 C" -T UM %D r-. 00 a, 0 C4 M -T LA %D rl- OD LA LA UN V@, Ln LA L^ UN ON Cr, e-,, cm a) ON ON a% a% a% aN a' a% aN a% Ch a,, 01@ CIN (IN 01, Olt Notes: (A) Wait Whitman Bridge opened to traffic May 16, 1957. (F) Commuter tolls increased January 1, 1970. (B) Tolls reduced June 1, 1958. (G) Commodore Barry Bridge opened to traffic (C) Tolls reduced January 1, 1960. February 1, 1974 and year of energy crisis. (D) Tolls increased July 1, 1963. (E) Second span opened to traffic September 12, 1968. J,,000'- I@EVENUES '0001-0@ Exhibit 11-3 Source: URS/Coverdale & Colpitts. Inc.. March 1979 2600 DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY 2400 - CAPE MAY - LEWES FERRY - TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TOLL REVENUES 1965 - 1978 2200 - 2000- TOLL REVENUES i 8oo - z D 0 1600 - z U) 1400 - w z w w 1200- co 1000- w 0> 800 - PASSENGERS 600- 400 - - VEHICLES 200- ......... .... .0 60 a% C4 m r- Go %0 %6 %0 P.. r-. rl@ r- Cn 0% Ch Cr% ON CM (r@ a% cp% a, a% Toll Change Exhibit 11-4 Source: URS/Coverdale a Coots, inc., March 1979 11-32 Since its opening, the toll schedule on the Bridge has been changed four times. Tolls for all vehicle classes were reduced on June 1, 1958 and again on January 1, 1960. On both occasions, total revenues decreased since the increase in the number of vehicles was not great enough to offset the reduced toll charges per vehicle. On July 1, 1963, tolls for all vehicle classes paying full fare were increased; tolls for commuters were not changed. The result was a re- duction in the number of full-fare passenger cars while the number of commuters increased significantly, reflecting the shift of motorists for whom the reduced rate now became economical. On January 1, 1970* 'commuter tolls were increased and in the ensuing year the number of commuters declined by almost 300,000. An additional increase in toll rates was instituted on September 1, 1979. The following table shows the compound average annual growth rates for the periods 1950 to 1960, 1960 to 1970, and 1970 to 1975 for traffic on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The table also shows the rates of change for population and motor vehicle registrations in New Jersey and Dela- ware. Growth Trends in Delaware Memorial Bridge Traffic 1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1975 Compound Average Annual Growth Rate 5.8% 4.7% 1.3% Growth Trends in Population and Motor Vehicle Registrations 195 O@1960 1960-1970 1970-1975 Motor Motor Motor Popu- Vehicle Popu- Vehicle Popu- Vehicle lation Regist. lation Regist. lation Regist. Delaware 3.4% 5.9% 2.1% 5.0% 1.1% 2.4% New Jersey 2.3% 4.3% 1.7% 4.1% 0.5% 3.0% As can be seen from the table, the rate of growth for Bridge traffic during the 1950's and 1960's falls between the rates of growth in the number of vehicles registered in the states of Delaware and New Jersey. However, during thefirst half of this decade, Bridge traffic grew at a lower rate and more closely resembles the population trend. II.C.l.b Cape May-Lewes Ferry The Cape May-Lewes Ferry started operations on July 1, 1964. Exhibit 11-4 on the following page shows the trend in the number of vehicles and passengers carried and gross toll revenues for the 14 full years of operations. 11-33 The Authority currently operates three ferries, each capable of carrying 100 vehicles. The schedule for the peak July and August season of 1979 is being expanded to twelve sailings per day, compared to 10 per day in 1978. During the spring -and fall, there are six sailings per day and during the winter, four. The Authority plans to further expand its schedule by purchasing an additional ferry boat which will be put into service during the summer of,1981. As can be seen from Exhibit 11-4, the annual number of passengers and the number of vehicles using the Ferry have not changed drastically over the years. The banner-year of operations was 1978 when 212,000 vehicles and 642,000 passengers were carried. The increase in the number of behicles for 1978 compared to 1977 was 20 percent and for passengers, 10 percent. One of the reasons for the increase in the demand for ferry service was the opening of casino gambling in Atlantic City at the end of May 1978. To handle the additional traffic, the ferry schedule was expanded for the peak summer months. Between 1965 and 1978 total toll revenues for the ferry's operations in- creased at an average annual rate of 8.0 percent, principally as a result of toll revisions. Of the nine revisions in the ferry's history, two of the changes -- on February 1, 1965 and April 1, 1966 -- affected only small portions of total traffic. Of the remaining revisions, the Novem- ber 1966 adjustment was a decrease and the others were increases. The last toll revision was on January 1, 1975 and another revision became effective on September 1, 1979. II.C.2 Facilities of the Delaware River Port Authority The Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA) operates four crossings of the Delaware River between Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The southernmost facility -- the Commodore Barry Bridge -- is the nearest competitor to the Delaware Memorial Bridge since the two bridges are only twelve miles apart and are connected by modern express highways on both sides of the river. The Commodore Barry Bridge was opened to traffic on February 1, 1974 and connects Chester, Pennsylvania and Bridgeport, New Jersey. The following table presents the annual traffic volume for the four full years of operation and the percent change over the previous year: Commodore Barry Bridge Percent Change Over Annual Volume Previous Year 1975 3,594,000 1976 3,920,000 9.1% 1977 4,450,000 13.5% 1978 4,856,000 9.1% 11-34 As would be expected on a new facility, the annual growth rates are high as a result of the gradual shift of route by motorists and the develop- ment of "new" traffic induced by the availability of a new facility. . Traffic volumes on the Delaware Memorial Bridge are significantly higher than those on the Commodore Barry Bridge. The following table compares the traffic volumes on the two facilities for 1978. 1978 Traffic Volume Delaware Commodore Memorial Barry Bridge Bridge Passenger cars 15,088,000 4,435,000 Commercial vehicles 3,496,000 421,000 Total 18,584,000 4,856,000 As shown by the table, traffic volumes on the Delaware Memorial Bridge are almost four times as great as those on the Commodore Barry; the high volume is the result of two factors: (1) the Delaware Memorial Bridge is an integral segment of the major north-south through route serving long distance trips in the northeast corridor and (2) tolls on the DRBA facility are lower than those on the DRPA bridge. At the present time, the cash passenger car toll is $.50 and the rates for commercial vehicles range between $.33 and $.375 per axle on the Delaware Memorial Bridge; on the Commodore Barry bridge, the passenger car toll is $.60 and the rate for commercial vehicles is $.75 per axle. Although tolls for com- muters are not strictly comparable due to the different methods of col- lection, the tolls for a regular commuter who makes 50 one-way trips per month is $.30 on the Delaware Memorial Bridge and $.37 on the Delaware River Port Authority facilities. (On the DRPA facilities, commuters must purchase a decal good for thirty days for $6 and pay $.25 per trip.) There is a 10-cent car pool rate in effect on the Delaware River Port Authority crossings; however, in 1978 these transactions accounted for only one percent of total passenger car traffic. As mentioned previously, the other three Delaware River Port Authority crossings are further north and are not as competitive with the Delaware Memorial Bridge since the connections for through traffic are. not as good and the local traffic served is more northerly oriented. II.C.3 New Jersey Highways The New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway are both "feeder" routes to the facilities of the Delaware River and Bay Authority. The third toll road in New Jersey, the Atlantic City Expressway, serves Delaware Memorial Bridge traffic between the southern United States and Atlantic City and the remainder of the Jersey shore. The construction of segments of 1-295 parallel to the Turnpike between its southern terminus and Interchange 7 near Bordentown has had an 11-35 impact on the Turnpike. Since 1969, motorists have had the option of saving a portion of their turnpike toll by travelling on the competing toll-free expressway. However, no matter which route is selected, the motorist will use the Delaware Memorial Bridge as the crossing of the river and the Turnpike for the northern segment of the trip. Table 11-9 on the following page shows the traffic volume on the New Jersey Turnpike for the years 1952, 1960, and 1970 through 1978 and the growth, trend over this period. The overall compound average annual increase in traffic for the 27 full years of operation was 7.3 percent. As would be expected, the rates in the earlier years were generally higher. During the current decade there were decreases in 1974 and 1975 reflecting the impact of the first energy crisis. The compound average annual rate of change for the period 1970 to 1978 is 3.8 percent. For comparison, during the period 1970 to 1975 the rate of change for population in New Jersey w as 0.5% and for motor vehicle registrations, 3.0 percent. The Garden State Parkway is the main feeder route north of the Cape May-Lewes Ferry. Traffic from the population centers of northern New Jersey and the remainder of the northeast United States approach the Ferry via this high-speed expressway route. Traffic is highly seasonal at the two southernmost barriers: Cape May, located approximately 23 miles north of Cape May, and Great Egg, 30 miles north of Cape May. In 1978, approximately 38 percent of the total annual volume was handled during the peak months of July and August. As a result, growth trends at these locations reflect increases in tourist activity in southern New Jersey and cannot be compared to traditional demographic data. Table II-10 shows the growth trend for both locations for the years 1970 through 1978. In 1974, the year of the first energy crisis, there was a decrease at both locations. Other than that, the annual rate of increase at each location has exceeded 5 percent. Undoubtedly, part of the increased growth in the last two years has been a result of increased activity in the Atlantic City area in response to the introduction of casino gambling. The Atlantic City Expressway, used in connection with I-295.and NJ 42, is the fastest route between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and Atlantic City. Like the southern end of the Garden State Parkway, this road primarily serves vacation traffic and the growth pattern cannot be com-. pared to changes in population and motor vehicle registrations. Table II-11 summarizes historical traffic changes at each of the two across- the-road barriers on this facility: Egg Harbor and Pleasantville. The changes in traffic volume on this toll road have not followed a consistent pattern. During the first half of the decade there were significant reductions in traffic, especially in 1974 resulting from the energy crisis. In 1975 and 1976, traffic began to return to the Expressway. In 1977 traffic increased as a result of construction and 11-36 Table 11-9. New Jersey Turnpike, Annual Volume and Growth Trend 1952 to 1978 Percent Change Annual Volume Over Previous Year 1952@ 17,948,000 - 1960 49,083,000 13.4% 1970 89,655,000 6.22 1971 98,554,000 9.9 1972 107,933,000 9.5 1973 110,422,000 2.3 1974 106,628,000 (-3.4) 1975 105,633,000 (-0.9) 1976 109,234,000 3.4 1977 113,664,000 4.1 1978 120,623,000 6.1 First full year of operations. Compound average annual percent change. Table II-10. Traffic Growth Trends, Garden State Parkway Cape May and Great Egg Barriers Cape May Barrier Great Egg Barrier Annual Percent Annual Percent Volume Change Volume Change 1970 3,433,000 - 3,266,000 1971 3,709,000 8.0% 3,499,000 7.1% 1972 3,968,000 7.0 3,763,000 7.5 1973 4,388,000 10.6 4,273,000 13.6 1974 4,109,000 (-6.4) 4,095,000 (-4.2) 1975 4,453,000 8.4 4,408,000 7.6 1976 4,958,000 11.3 @4,848,000 10.0 1977 5,421,000 5.7 5,147,000 6.2 1978 5,638,000 7.6 5,712,000 11.0 11-37 Table II-11. Traffic Growth Trend at Atlantic City Expressw y Barriers Pleasantville Harbor Egg Harbor Barrier Annual Percent Annual Percent Volume Change Volume Change 1970 3,376,000 3,557,000 - 1971 3,35-2,000 (-0.7)% 3,622,000 1.8% 1972 3,167,000 (-5.5) 3,738,000 3.2 1973 3,220,000 1.7 4,144,000 10.9 1974 2,918,000 (-9.4) 3,538,000 (-14.6) 1975 3,010,000 3.2 3,728,000 5.4 1976 3,312,000 10.0 4,135,000 10.9 1977 3,705,000 11.9 4,560,000 10.3 1978 5,148,000 38.9 5,274,000 15.7 development activity in preparation for the introduction of casino gambling. The first casino opened Memorial Day weekend of 1978 and the result was an increase in traffic of approximately 39 percent at Pleasantville and approximately 16 percent at Egg Harbor. Another casino was opened in June 1979 and by 1982, a total of six casinos will be in operation in all likelihood. An additional indication of traffic growth trends in southern New Jersey can be seen in a summary of the traffic counts at the sites of four permanent automatic traffic recorders maintained by the state: 1-295 in East Greenwich Township, US 30 in Atlantic City, US 40 in Pleasantville and the Garden State Parkway in Middle Township. These sites are shown on the map (Exhibit 11-5) on the following page and the growth trend at each can be seen on the graph (Exhibit 11-6). The 1-295 automatic traffic recorder is located in East Greenwich Town- ship in Gloucester County. The compound average annual rate of change. at this site was 5.2%; however, the trend was actually a series of in- creases and decreases. The sharp increases in 1973 and 1976 reflect the completion of additional segments of this New Jersey Turnpike tollfree by-pass. US 30 and US 40, both serving Atlantic City traffic, have similar growth trends consisting of a moderate increase over the full eight-year period despite some decreases. In 1978, there was an increase of almost 9% on US 30 and almost 6% on US 40 reflecting the impact of the introduction of casino gambling. 11-38 IRS, 0-@- y. 38 .01000 NEW YoRt,-, P E N N S A N A N E N S E Y ?4ARRISOUAG 16 95 11 IRE N I ON HI D LPHI To 02 AMIDEN 72 R vwmL 15 R M A R Y L A.N D W. VA. 95 R 49 TLA NTIC VTY BALTIMORE 3 DOVER Dollourem 68V R 44b CAPE MAY WASHINGTO f4 R 3 IL 4 V R G I N I A choseposko say RICHMOND RECORDER SITE -R 0 23 , Ale 50 75 R 49 NORFOLK Exhibit 11- 5 THE DELAWARE RIVER AND SAY AUTHORITY STUDY OF CROSSING REOUIREMENTS AND PRESENT USES OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY SELECTED PERMANENT RECORDER SITES IN NEW JERSEY AND DELAWARE 0 R T H C A R 0 L I A 1.11111 CORPORATION AsImus a MITI INC 11-39 mooo 1-295 E. GREENVACH TWP 14PM US 30 ATLANTIC CITY 11JODO VS 40 PLEASANTVILLE-. ......... ... z z 1100, /01 7,000 1.00, .o0o'GARDEN STATE PKM 6poo MICOLE ITWP 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 19M AADT AT SELECTED PERmANENT RECORDER STATIONS IN NEW JERSEY Exhibit 11-6 11-40 The remaining site is located on the Garden State Parkway approximately 10 miles north of its southern terminus. The compound average annual growth rate at this location was 5.9% for the years 1971 through 1978. The increases in traffic at this location have been constant and rela-. tively sharp, with the exception of the decline in 1974 as a result of the energy crisis. In particular, the rate of growth has exceeded 8% in each of the last three years, reflecting the growth in this area spurred by the attraction of Atlantic City and the development of tourism in southern New Jersey. II.C.4 Delaware Highways II.C.4.a Delaware Turnpike The key section of 1-95 in terms of its linkage to the Delaware Memorial Bridge is the Delaware Turnpike. Since its opening in November 1963, its toll-paying traffic has grown as shown in Table 11-12. In the 11-year period, 1964 through 1975, long-distance barrier traffic doubled, while local ramp traffic increased nearly ten-fold. During this period, suburban development in the Wilmington-Newark corridor "exploded," undoubtedly induced by the high-speed service provided by the Turnpike. The elimination of local tolls on the northeasterly Turnpike ramps at Del. 896, Del. 273 and Del. 7 on September 30, 1976, also has been a significant factor influencing Turnpike traffic patterns in the last few years. While barrier traffic has shown a steady moderate growth in the range of two to six percent annually since the "energy crisis" ,in 1974, ramp traffic increased sharply during the last quarter of 1976 and throughout 1977, and still continues to outpace the growth in barrier traffic. In 1975, before the local tolls were eliminated, ramp traffic represented 48% of the total Turnpike traffic; by 1978, this proportion increased to 58%. The 5.5% drop in barrier traffic in 1979 was the result of the late Spring and Summer fuel shortage and the escalating fuel prices which ensued. On the basis of the above traffic estimates and counts made by the Dela- ware DOT on the low-volume southwesterly Turnpike ramps, the following traffic profile was prepared for the Turnpike for its fiscal year ended June 30, 1979. 11-41 Table 11-12. Delaware Turnpike Historical Traffic Growth Barrier (Thru)(A) Ramps (Local)(B) Total Percent Year AADT Growth AADT Growth 'AADT Ramps 1964(C) 16,262 - 3tO27 - 12,289 15.7% 1965 19,054 17.2% 4tOll 32.5% 23,065 17.4 1966 20v050 5.2 5v451 35.9 25v501 21.4 1967 21p786 8.7 7t516 37.9 29,302 25.7 1968 239843 9.4 11,033 46.8 34p876 31.6 1969 27pl73 14.0 14,498 31.4 41,671 34.8 19700) 29,275 7.7 16,659 14.9 45,934 36.3 1971 30,453 4.0 20,963 25.8 51,416 40.8 1972 32p438 6.5 24,906 18.8 57,344 43.4 1973 33,614 3.6 27,178 9.1 60,792 44.7 1974(E) 29,766 (11.4) 27,601 1.6 57,367 48.1 1975 31,459 5.7 29,383 6.5 60,842 48.3 19760) 329798 4.3 33v660 14.6 669458 50.6 1977 34,892 2.3 43,297 28.6 77tOO9 56.2 1978 34,892 3.5 48v169 11.3 83,061 58.0 1979 32,970 (5.5) NA - - - (A) Main-line toll barrier located between Del. 896 and the Maryland Line. (B) Ramps carrying traffic to and from the east (north) on the Turnpike at Del. 896, Del. 273 and Del. 7 (Churchmans Road), combined traffic. (C) First full year of operation. (D) Ramp tolls reduced April 1, 1970. (E) Barrier tolls increased January 1, 1974., (F) Barrier tolls increased and ramp tolls eliminated September 30, 1976. Source: Preliminary analysis by Delaware D.O.T., October 1978, updated through December 1979. 11-42 Interchange 1979 AADT To & Main Route From Ramps Line Del. 896 West 1,250 34,670 East 24,800 Del. 273 West 2,440 58,220 East 14,110 69,890 Del. 7 West 2,320 East 9,090 76,660 The above table, showing main-line traffic east of Del. 7 over twice the volume of the main line west of Del. 896 (at the toll barrier), reflects the large volumes of ramp traffic with local origins and destinations. The main-line section east of Del. 7 (just west of the Christina Marsh interchange), therefore, is the critical section in terms of the evalua- tion of the adequacy of the Turnpike, discussed further in Section II.D. On the basis of past trends, land use and population forecasts, traffic in this critical Turnpike section has been projected through 1985 in the following table. Also shown are the corresponding afternoon peak hour traffic estimates for the south-westbound roadway. Delaware Turnpike Projection, Critical Section AADT Peak Hour Year 2-Way Volume W/B 1979 76,660 4,210 1980 78,700 4,270 1981 80,800 4,330 1982 83,000 4,390 1983 85,300 4,450 1984 87,600 4,520 1985 90,000 4,580 II.C.4.b Other Delaware Highways Another measure of historical growth trends in traffic can be seen by analyzing traffic counts obtained by the State of Delaware at specific permanent traffic recorders. Exhibit 11-7 on the following page shows the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the years 1971 through 1978 at four locations. These locations are noted on the map in Exhibit 11-5. The general trend at the four stations has shown annual increases with the exception of the effect of the energy crisis in 1974. 11-43 22poo M500 - DEL 14 NORTH OF REHOBOT@-- 196000- -71 'oope 10000e US40 17,5W - 110000' WEST OF BEAR 16MO - w 14,500 49 (K w dc 13,000 - z z dc lt,5w - us 13 SOUTH OF GREENWOOD lQ000 us m 8,500- OF MIDDLEMWN 7. 00 1 1 197ti 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 AADT AT SELECTED PERMANENT RECORDER STATIONS IN DELAWARE Exhibit 11-7 11-44 The greatest increases occurred at the station located on Del. 14 north of Rehoboth, where the compound average annual growth rate for the period 1971-1978 was 5.7%. This reflects the increase of resort traffic in this area. The sharp seasonality in this area can be seen by monthly data at this site. Although the Annual Average Daily Traffic at this location was 20,500 in 1978, average daily traffic in July and August exceeded 35,500 and in an average day in January and February was less than 11,000. The other location in southern Delaware is on US 13, south of Greenwood. Between 1971 and 1976,' the annual rate of growth at this location ranged between five and six percent (with the exception of the impact of the energy crisis in 1974). In the last two years, the rate substantially decreased to 1.2 percent in 1977 and 2.3 percent in 1978. The remaining two stations are in northern Delaware and are located on US 40 and US 301. The site on US 40 is west of Bear and is used for local traffic and as a bypass of the Turnpike. At this site the com- pound average annual growth rate over the eight years was 3.4 percent; however, there were modest decreases of 1.2 percent and 0.6 percent in the last two years. The other permanent recorder is on US 301 west of Middletown and serves local traffic and long-distance trips by-passing Baltimore and Washington, D.C. via the Delmarva Peninsula. Traffic at this location has been consistently increasing since the energy crisis of 1974. The rate of growth in 1977 was 5.7 percent and in 1978, 3.6 percent. II.C.5 Maryland and Virginia Facilities The Maryland Transportation Authority operates five crossings and the Maryland Turnpike (JFK Memorial Highway). Each of these facilities is used by a different segment of long-distance through traffic on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Traffic between the northeast and points south of Baltimore use either the Maryland Turnpike or the Susquehanna River Bridge for the distance between the Delaware state line and the City of Baltimore and either the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel or Outer Harbor Bridge as a by-pass of the City of Baltimore. An alternative route between the northeast and Washington, D.C. is via US 301 and US 50 which includes the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. Traffic headed further south in Virginia has the option of by-passing Washington via US 301 and the Potomac River Bridge. Table 11-13 on the following page summarizes the growth trend on each of these facilities for the years 1950 through 1978. As can be seen from the table, both the Potomac River Bridge and the Susquehanna River Bridge lost traffic during the 1960's as a result of the completion of the Maryland Turnpike in 1963 and the diversion of traffic to that facility. A similar drop in traffic occurred at the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel after the March 1977 opening of the competing Outer Harbor Bridge, but total cross-Harbor traffic actually increased. 11-45 Table 11-13. Growth Trends on Maryland Toll Facilities Baltimore Outer Total Chesapeake Potomac Susquehanna Maryland Harbor Harbor Baltimore Bay River River Turnpike Year Tunnel* -Bridge** By-Pass Bridge Bridge Bridge (Barrier)*** Annual Traffic Volume 1950 - - 1,919,000 965,000 5,493,010 1960 12,807,000 12,807,000 2,966,000 2,391,000 9,416,000 6,156,000" 1970 21,795,000 - 21,795,000 5,810,000 2,085,000 5,756,000 10,606,000 1978 22,460,000 5,755,000 28,215,000 9,833,000 2,992,000 5,584,000 - 4-- Compound Average Annual Percent Change 1950- - - 4.5% 9.5% 5.5% - 1960 I- VOW- 5.5% 5.5% 7.0 (-1.4) (-4.8) 9.5% 1970 1970- 0.4 3.3 6.8 4.6 (-0.4) - 1978 *Baltimore Harbor Tunnel opened to traffic 1957. "Outer Harbor Bridge opened to traffic 1977. ***14aryland Turnpike opened to traffic 1963. ****1964. With these exceptions, the general trend has been toward lower rates of growth during this decade than in the previous twenty years. This is in keeping with the reduction in the rate of growth for population in the State of Maryland, as shown on Table 11-8. In Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel handles long distance through traffic travelling along the coast via the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and the Ocean Highway. The Bridge-Tunnel was opened to traffic in 1964. Total traffic using the facility in 1970 was 1,205,000 and increased at a compound average overall rate of 5.2 percent to 1,808,000 in 1978. For comparison, population in Virginia increased at a compound average annual rate of 1.4 percent between 1970 and 1975 and motor vehicle regis- tration at 7.5 percent. The rate of growth on the Crossing was between the rate of growth of population and motor vehicle registration. II.C.6 Intermodal Diversion Potential The choice of an alternative mode of travel for motorists using the facilities of the Delaware River and Bay Authority depends on the length of the trip. For local traffic, there are no alternatives. Motorists using the Delaware Memorial Bridge cannot switch to mass transit since there are no local buses crossing the River in this area. The Ferry does not handle local passenger traffic due to the significant travel time and distance involved. For a trip of intermediate length, there are two major alternatives -- rail and bus, and a third, more costly but faster choice -- air. For long-distance trips the same three alterna- tives are available, but train and air are the more acceptable. For trips of intermediate length, we have selected two major traffic movements in the northeast corridor to analyze: New York City to Washington, D.C. and New York City to Norfolk, Va. These two trips correspond to major movements in the two transportation corridors dis- cussed above: 1-95 and the Eastern Shore. In general, other trips between major population centers have characteristics similar to these movements. Table 11-14 summarizes the quantifiable characteristics of travel by each mode for the two selected trips. As the table shows, if a motorist drives at 50 miles per hour, the 225 mile trip between New York and Washington takes 4-1/2 hours,.the same time as the regular Amtrak train or the bus, but an hour longer than the Metroliner. Therefore, the time difference among these alternatives, rail, bus, and auto is not great. Because of the high value of time savings to business travellers, air travel is preferred since the higher cost is acceptable to most persons travelling on business. (In the travel time via public transportation, there is no allowance for time between the actual origin and destination and the railroad or bus station or airport, since it is assumed that approximately the same time will have to be added on both ends of the trip via auto.) 11-47 Table 11-14. Comparison of Characteristics of Private and Public .Transportation for Selected Trips in the Northeast Corridor New York City New York City to to Norfolk, Va. Washington, D.C. Via Delaware Via Cape May- Memorial Bridge Lewes, Ferry Distance 335 miles 342 miles 225 miles PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION Approximate 7 hours 8-1/2 hours 4-1/2 hours Travel Time Costs: Tolls $10.40 $20.40 $5.65 Gasoline (A) 35.84 34.88 24.08 Total $46.24 $5,5.28 $29.73 RAIL. Regular Merroliner Approximate time 10-1/2 hours 4-1/2 hrs 3-1/2 hrs. Fare (one-way) $23.00 $28.00 Number of scheduled trains per weekend day I(B) 11 6 per weekday l(B) 14 11 BUS Approximate time 8-1/2 hours 4-1/2 hours Fare (one-way) $33.00 $17.00(C) Schedule 8 per day hourly(D) AIR Approximate time 1 hour I hour Fare (one-way tourist) $50.00 $44.00 Schedule 6 per day(E) hourly(F) (A) Estimated at 10.7C per mile. (B) Through service not available; trip shown is by connection. (C) One-half of round trip fare (one-way ticket is $20.50). (D) Hourly during day; frequent service available at night. M Direct flights. M Data for hourly shuttle flights. There are additional scheduled flights. (G) Cost shown includes toll on Cape May-Lewes Ferry for driver and one adult passenger. 11-48 Total passenger car tolls for a trip via the Holland Tunnel, New Jersey Turnpike, Delaware Memorial Bridge, Delaware Turnpike, Maryland Turnpike and Baltimore Harbor Tunnel is $5.65. The cost of gasoline and other mileage-related running costs for the 225-mile trip is $24.08 based on a rate of 10.7-cents per mile. Thus the total perceived or out-ofpocket cost for the trip of $29.73 is higher than either the $23.00 oneway fare via regular train or the $28.00 fare via Metroliner. As far as scheduling is concerned, there are frequently scheduled depar- tures for all three modes of public transportation. At the present time, the Federal Department of Transportation is recommending that Amtrak cut down on the number of routes it maintains. However, this trip will not be affected since there are no plans for curtailing ser- vice in the northeast corridor. For the trip between New York City and Norfolk, Virginia, the travel time, distance and cost are shown via both the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the Cape May-Lewes Ferry. For both trips, the best route continues down the Delmarva Peninsula on US 13 and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tun- nel. Although the mileage difference between the Bridge and Ferry routes is only 7 miles, the travel time on the Ferry route'is 1-1/2 hours greater and the cost is $9.04 greater. A comparison of the alternative modes shows that the advantages and dis- advantages are similar to those for the trip between New York and Wash- ington. The major difference is that scheduling for public transporta- tion is not as frequent. In summary, the competitive advantage of travel by auto for a trip of intermediate length is the monetary savings when more than one person is making the trip in one auto. It should be noted that this benefit may be reduced in the future if the cost of gasoline continues to increase. For a long distance trip, the non-quantifiable characteristics are gen- erally more important than those that can be measured. For example, the trip between Miami and New York City is 1,300 miles, an estimated driv- ing time of more than 29 hours. The gasoline and toll cost is estimated to be $148.55, as shown in Table 11-15; but additional costs for lodging and food depending upon the habits of the traveller would have to be taken into consideration. The comparative figures for public transportation show that the time for auto, bus and rail are similar. Of course, air travel is significantly faster and if only one person is making the trip, it is less expensive. The costs shown for public transportation are basic rates; reduced fares are available depending upon certain conditions. Because a trip of this length generally involves the investment of a significant period of time and money, the traveller plans an itinerary that is most suited to his specific requirements. The major future 11-49 Table 11-15. Comparison of Characteristics of Private and Public Transportation for Trip between New York City and Miami New York City to Miami Distance 1,300 miles PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION Approximate driving time 29-1/3 hours Cost: Tolls $ 9.45 Gasoline* 139.10 Total $148.55 RAIL Travel Time 28 hours Cost (Coach, one-way) $92.00 BUS Travel Time 28 hours Cost (one way) $93.00 AIR Travel Time 2-1/2 hours Cost (one-way) $119.00 *Estimated at 10.7 per mile. development that may induce travellers to change their mode of travel is a shortage of the availability of gasoline. Because the cost of gaso- line now represents a significant portion of the overall cost of a long distance trip, prices would not have to increase drastically before additional motorists switch to another means of transportation. In addition to the quantifiable characteristics of cost and time, there are major non-measurable factors influencing the choice of the mode of transportation for both intermediate and long distance trips. The fol- lowing is a brief summary of the other advantages of both private and public transportation. Advantages of Private Transportation � Scheduling can be done at the convenience of the traveller � Transportation is from door-to-door and a car will be available for local travel at the destination. 11-50 Advantages of Public Transportation 0 The trip can be more relaxing for a passenger travelling alone; the person can read, work or do a similar activity instead of driving. 0 During a peak period of inclement weather, the aggravation of driving can be avoided. 9 There is no worry about the availability of gasoline. II.C.7 Effect of Energy Conditions As discussed in section II.C.l.a, the Delaware Memorial Bridge traffic has increased steadily since 1952 except in two years: a slight decline in 1957 with the opening of the Walt Whitman Bridge, and a more signifi- cant decrease in 1974 due to the opening of the Commodore Barry Bridge coupled with the Arab oil embargo. Since 1974, traffic volumes have been increasing at a lower rate of growth as a result of the escalation in the cost of living and particularly gasoline prices. The steady growth from the dip in 1974 to 1978 has been sufficient to bring the traffic level on the Delaware Memorial Bridge approximately up to the level which existed in 1973. No additional crossings, which could divert traffic from the Delaware Memorial Bridge, are now planned. Future traffic, therefore, will be governed by the availability and price of gasoline, the growth of the area served by the Bridge, the traffic generation potential of such major attractions as Atlantic City, and the distribution of bridge traf- fic in terms of short-distance and long-distance trips. With respect to gasoline costs, it can be expected that prices will increase steady as they have in recent years. These increases will be offset by the gradual shift to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. A review of the trend to small cars in the United States indicates that sales of U.S.-made cars were only 26% small cars (sub-compact and com- pacts) in 1972, but in 1976 they reached 41%. Inclusion of imports boosted small car sales in the U.S. to about 44% in 1972 and 51% in 1976. Looking towards 1981, annual sales of U.S. made small cars are expected to be about 6 million, larger U.S. made cars 3.5 million, and imports 2 million. It is estimated that over 85% of imported cars are in the subcompact classification. Thus, small car sales are expected to be almost 70% of new car sales in the U.S. in the next few years through 1981. In terms of the nationwide fuel supply and consumption by motor vehicles, the long-term conditions'must be considered, not the present motor fuel $$crisis," which will probably ease just as the 1974 "crisis" eased. The following are findings developed by the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress in a February 1979 report entitled 11-51 Technology Assessment of Changes in the Future Use and Characteristics of the Automobile Transportation System. 1. Even though the number of automobiles and vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) continues to rise, fuel consumption will peak by the early 1980's and then begin to fall as smaller fuel-efficient cars make up an increasingly greater share of the fleet. Between 1985 and 2000, consumption is ex- pected to stay approximately at the *1985 level as pro- gressive gains in fuel efficiency are offset by the continuing rise of VMT. 2. The complete exhaustion of oil resources is not likely. As production by conventional methods declines and oil becomes more scarce, the price will rise and more expensive recovery methods and novel technologies will be used to produce add- tional oil. 3. Small, gradual increments in the price of gasoline would not make significant reductions in the use of fuel. Analysis of historical data shows that a 15-percent increase in the real price of gasoline would reduct VMT by only about 3 per- cent. 4. Several major technological developments are expected by 1985: � Down-sizing programs will reduce the average size and weight of the vehicle fleet. Waste space from styling and image requirements will be greatly reduced. � Materials substitution -- greater use of lightweight materials such as aluminum, plastics and high-strength low-alloy steels -- will reduce vehicle weight further. � Changes in vehicle layout, such as front wheel drive, will allow further size and weight reduction. � Additional improvements in fuel economy will be achieved by improvements in transmission and drive-train effici- ency and by reduced power requirements for accessories. The application of electronic controls for fuel metering and ignition will help the engine maintain efficient performance and reduce the need for tune-ups. � Several new or refined engines may be widely offered, including diesels, several of which are now offered. The growth of the area served by the bridge and the traffic generation potential of Atlantic City and other major attractions, such as the new 11-52 Christiana Mall located at the Route 7 (Del.) interchange on the Dela- ware Turnpike, will continue to provide the underlying basis for traffic growth on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. As for the distribution of bridge traffic, Table 11-16 is a summary of the origin-destination patterns from the most recent roadside-interview survey in 1969. Although the data are 10 years old and the overall traf- fic volumes have gone up, the percentages in terms of origin-destination patterns are probably fairly accurate, with the exception of the double river crossings to and from Philadelphia, which have probably been vir- tually eliminated with*the completion of 1-95 through and past Philadel- phia. (In 1969, 1-95 only extended as far north as Wilmington.) Table 11-16. Origin-Destination Patterns of Delaware. Memorial Bridge Traffic Estimated 1969 AADT New York Southern Phila. New England N.J. Area Total The South 73% 18% 9% 100% Washington, D.C. 65 23 12 100 Eastern Shore of Maryland and Southern Delaware 36 49 15 100 Southern Maryland and Anne Arundel County 100 - - 100 Northern Maryland and Western Pennsylvania 45 43 12 100 Northern Delaware and Eastern Pennsylvania 12 84* 44* 100 All Other 54 36 10 100 Total 42% 49% 9% 100% Considered short-distance trips. All others can be considered long-distance trips. As noted in Table 11-16, the trips marked with an asterisk can be con- sidered short-distance trips; all others can be considered long-distance trips. The short distance trips represent 31 percent of the total. Assuming that all truck trips and most short-distance passenger car trips are relatively inelastic with respect to curtailment due to fuel avail- ability and pricing, the following table shows the distribution of bridge traffic in terms of elasticity. 11-53 Degree Estimated 1979 AADT of Psgr. Cars Heavy Elasticity Light Trucks Trucks Total Percent Elastic 23,589 - 23,589 53.5% Inelastic 12,536 7,953 20,489 46.5% Total 36,125 7,953 44,078 100.0% In the estimation of future growth rates for bridge traffic, considera- tion was given to the short-term and long-term availability and price of motor fuel, the underlying traffic growth potential of the area served by the bridge, and the fact that nearly half of the traffic crossing the bridge will not be affected much by fuel inconveniences, unless fuel becomes unavailable at any price. This is highly unl ikely, since after the 1974 energy crisis traffic nationwide regained its upward trend. With respect to the Cape May-Lewes Ferry, its future growth trends are likely to be somewhat higher than those of the bridge because of the impact of casino gambling in Atlantic City. Section II.D.l.b indicates that these growth rates will be moderate, however, reflecting the use of the ferry by long-distance recreational trips which are most suscep- tible to curtailment during periods of fuel shortages. II.D ADEQUACY OF HIGHWAY SYSTEM As stated in the introduction to this Chapter, one of the principal objectives of this regional study has been to analyze and present the highway transportation facilities which exist today in the area of the Delaware River and Bay between New Jersey and Delaware and to consider the need for possible additional crossings between the two states. In consideration of this objective, the overall adequacy of the existing highway system with respect to the type and degree of current usage, the aggregate burden placed on the facilities, and future travel demand and needs are addressed in this section. Previous analyses are also summarized in the process of evaluating the adequacy of the highway systems to serve present and future users. The evaluation of the adequacy of the highway system considers two con- ditions: (1) adequacy of the system to carry and expedite traffic and (2) adequacy of the system to satisfy the future travel desire patterns and needs of the users. The first refers to capacity and levels of ser- vice and the second refers to the shape of the network, specifically the location of major links. The principles and guidelines set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual prepared by the Highway Research Board in 1965, in terms of levels of service, were used in the evaluation of the adequacy of the highway systems to carry and expedite traffic. The following definitions of the 11-54 various levels of service were summarized from the Highway Capacity Manual. � Level of Service "A" - reflects free-flow operation in which a vehicle is not affected by other vehicles in the traffic stream. (Speeds of 60 mph or greater are limited by nationwide 55 mph speed limit.) 0 Level of Service "B" - is the higher speed range of stable flow. Free-flow operation has been reduced so that speed becomes primarily a function of traffic densities. (Speeds in the range of 55 to 60 mph are limited by nationwide 55 mph speed limit.) � Level of Service "C" - is the middle speed range of stable flow. Traffic approaches the maximum volume that can be maintained for extended periods of time without undue delay. (Speeds in the 50 to 55 mph range.) � Level of Service "D" - is the lower speed range of stable flow. Traffic operation approaches instability and becomes very sus- ceptible to changing operating conditions. (Speeds in the 40 to 50 mph range.) � Level of Service "E" - reflects unstable flow, with volumes approaching maximum capacity. Intermittent fluctuations in speed occur, actual stoppages become more frequent and their effects tend to be cumulative. (Speeds of about 35 mph.) � Level of Service "F" - indicates a forced-flow condition. The highway acts as storage for vehicles backing up from a bottle- neck. (Speeds from 0 to 30 mph.) With respect to roadway capacities, Table 11-17 shows traffic volumes, expressed in terms of equivalent passenger cars on level grades with 12- foot lanes and no roadside obstructions, are capable of being handled at the various levels of service along controlled access freeways or ex- pressways and non-controlled access rural highways. Although level of service "E" represents the ultimate capacity of a highway facility, traffic conditions at this level represent unstable flow and are considered unacceptable. The motoring public should be afforded the highest practical level of service within the limits of funding, particularly when the payment of tolls is involved. Although a Level of Service "B" is a desirable con- dition to maintain on a toll facility, as a practical matter Level of Service "C" is acceptable for short periods during peak hours. Even a Level of Service "D" may be tolerated for short periods, and it is not until Level of Service "E" is attained that traffic growth is restricted and toll revenue affected. 11-55 Table 11-17. Traffic Capacities at Various Levels of Service Level One-Way Hourly Traffic Capacity of Freeway or Expressway Non-Controlled Access Service 4-Lane 6-Lane 8-Lane 2-Lane(A) 4-Lane 6-Lane A 1,400 2,400 3,400 400 1,200 1,800 B 2,000 3,500 5,000 900 900 3,000 C 2,750 4,350 6,000 1,400 3,000 4,500 D 3,300 4,900 6,600 1,700 3,600 5,400 E + VU 0,000 8,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 F (A) Two-way volumes. Maw M M M,M;M M,M M, M M M M II.D.1 Delaware River and Bay Crossings In evaluating the adequacy of the existing Delaware River and Bay cross- ings, they were considered separately and in combination, to the extent of the commonality of origin-destination patterns and the approach road network. II.D.l.a Delaware Memorial Bridge The Delaware Memorial Bridge originally consisted of one four-lane cross- ing of the Delaware. However, to meet increasing traffic volume, a twin parallel bridge was opened to traffic in 1968. This more than doubled the capacity of the bridge. With an eastbound roadway 51 feet wide and a westbound roadway 52 feet wide and a gradient of four percent, the bridges provide the levels of service at the indicated traffic volumes shown below: Maximum Traffic Volume Eastbound Westbound Crossing Crossing At Level of Service A 1,600 1,710 At Level of Service B 2,440 2,520 At Level of Service C 2,800 2,900 At Level of Service D 3,075 3,175 At Level of Service E 3,900 4,030 At Level of Service F over 3,900 over 4,030 Hourly traffic volume data for the summer of 1978 indicate that the bridge operates at Level of Service C during a few hours in the summer months. The peak flows when this condition occurs are on Sunday even- ings indicating the relative importance of recreational traffic. How- ever, during an average Sunday, peak flows are about 2,200 vehicles per hour or Level of Service B. Commuter hour peak flows, occurring on weekday mornings and evenings, indicate volumes of 1,400 and 1,600 respectively, both within the Level of Service A. From the above, it can be concluded that at present there is no need for additional capacity at the Memorial Bridge. As discussed in Section C, the rate of growth of traffic on the Memorial Bridge during the 1950's and 1960's falls between the rates of growth in the number of vehicles registered in the states of Delaware and New Jersey. However, during the first half of this decade, Bridge traffic grew at a lower rate and more closely resembled the population trend. In light of the modest annual growth of Bridge traffic in recent years, the low population projections for the area served by the Bridge, and the recent lower rate of growth of motor vehicle registrations, the estimated increases in Bridge traffic for the years 1979 through 1983 11-57 have been conservatively estimated on the basis of a continuance of these downward trends. Recent concerns as to fuel costs and availability, of course, reinforce this approach. Traffic volumes are estimated to in- crease from 18,763,000 in 1979 to 19,035,000 in 1983, an increase of 1.4%.1 Considering a relatively high long term growth rate of between 1% and 2% to be appropriately conservative for transportation-planning purposes, it is estimated that by the year 2000 traffic volumes may reach a total of 24,500,000 representing an AADT of 67,200 vehicles with peak hour volumes during summer peak days of between 3,900 and 4,000 vehicles per hour in each direction. This indicates that by that time, summer Sunday traffic would reach the Level of Service E. However, average peak hour flows occurring generally during weekends throughout the year would be about 3,000 vehicles per hour which would represent conditions at the Level of Service D. Commuters and weekday morning and evening peak volumes would still be between the Levels of Service B and C. With the highway networks remaining as at present, the Delaware Memorial Bridge would be adequate to sustain estimated traffic growth through the year 2000, except for a few hours in the summer when capacity (operation at Level of Service E) would be reached. This condition would not be of such duration that it would deter a substantial amount of traffic.from using the Bridge and would not result in an adverse impact on toll reve- nues. In Section II.B of this report on "Proposed Highway Facilities" in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, mention was made of the long-term plans for completing 1-95 in the Philadelphia area and in the area between Trenton and New Brunswick, New Jersey. Today, with these missing links, the 1-95 corridor traffic between Delaware and the New York-New Jersey Met- ropolitan Area and points north uses the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the New Jersey Turnpike and 1-295 on the east side of the Delaware River. In the future, if and when 1-95 is completed, some traffic will divert from the Turnpike 1-295 routing on the east side of the river to the 1-95 routing via Philadelphia on the west side of the river, which will result in a diversion of traffic from the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The magnitude of these potential diversions is shown in Table 11-18 using data from the 1969 Origin-Destination Survey on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Although the data are 10 years old and the overall traffic volumes have gone up, the percentages in terms -of origin-destination patterns are probably fairly accurate. Roughly 50 percent of the traffic on the Delaware Memorial Bridge could conveniently divert to 1-95 on the west side of the river once the miss- ing 1-95 links are completed in Philadelphia and New Jersey. As an !Toll Rate Study, URS/Coverdale & Colpitts, May 1979. 11-58 Table 11-18. Traffic Diversion Potential from the Delaware- Memorial Bridge to 1-95 via Philadelphia Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Heavy Trucks Total Estimated Per- Estimated Per- Estimated Per- 1969 AADT cent 1969 AADT cent 1969 AADT cent Potential* 16,701 46% 5,729 72% 22,430 51% Non-potential** 19,424 54 2,224 23 21,648 49 Total 36,125 100% 7,953 100% 44,078 100% Includes traffic with northerly trip ends in the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area, New York State and New England. Includes traffic with northerly trip ends in southern New Jersey, plus (at the time in 1969 before 1-95 was open between Wilmington and Philadelphia International Airport), double river crossings via the Delaware Memorial and DRPA Bridges. Table 11-19. Toll Increments for Use of the Delaware Memorial Bridge and New Jersey Turnpike Toll Via Turnpike* Via 1-295** Facility Cars 5-Axle Cars 5-Axle Delaware Memorial Bridge $ .50 $1.75 $ .50 $1.75 New Jersey Turnpike 1.10 3.70 .40 1.40 Total $1.60 $5.45 $.90 $3.15 New Jersey Turnpike all the way between Interchanges 1 and 10. 1-295 between Delaware Memorial Bridge and Bordentown, and New Jersey between Interchanges 7 and 10. 11-59 indication of the degree of such diversions, two principal factors must be taken into account: (1) the loss in travel time due to rush-hour traffic conditions in Philadelphia, weighed against (2) the savings in toll via the 1-95 routing. The following table lists the relative distances and estimated travel times via the two routings: Relative Distances and Travel Times via 1-95 and New Jersey Turnpike Distance Time (minutes) Route (miles) Peak Non-Peak 1-95 101 136 119 N.J. Turnpike -94 102 102 Savings via Tpk. 7 34 17 *Between junction of 1-95 and 1-295 in Delaware and junction of 1-95-287 and New Jersey Turnpike. There is no toll along 1-95 via Philadelphia and the Scudders Falls Bridge over the Delaware River west of Trenton. On the routing via the east side of the river, tolls on the Delaware Memorial Bridge and New Jersey Turnpike (as far north as the 1-95 junction at Interchange 10) are shown for passenger cars and five-axle trucks in Table 11-19. On the basis of the savings in travel time via the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the New Jersey Turnpike weighed against the additional toll for the use of these time-savings facilities, it is estimated that if and when 1-95 is completed in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, 20 percent of the total traffic which would have been using the Delaware Memorial Bridge if 1-95 were not completed, would divert from the Bridge to the 1-95 routing via Philadelphia. Taking into account that 50 percent of the total bridge traffic is in the potential group for diversion (from Table 11-18), it is estimated that the Delaware Memorial Bridge will experience a 10 percent drop in traffic when 1-95 is completed. With the completion of 1-95, it is likely that by the year 2000 additional capacity for Bay crossings in the area of the Memorial Bridge would not be needed and the Delaware Memorial Bridge would be adequate to carry and expedite traffic. II.D.I.b Cape May-Lewes Ferry Each ferry has a capacity of 100 vehicles. Average headways during July and August vary from one to two hours. During peak periods, the 1979 schedules represent a departure each hour which is equivalent to 200 vehicles per hour both ways. With 12 departures from each shore the ferries can carry a volume of about 2,000 vehicles per day. Actual peak volumes in 1978 were 1,500 vehicles per day. 11-60 With the addition of a fourth ferry, the scheduled departures from each shore could be increased to between 45- and 50-minute headways and the capacity to about 2,600 vehicles per day or about 260 vehicles at peak hours. In estimating future traffic, historical traffic growth on the ferry, projected population increases for the area served by the ferry and the low growth in the number of automobile registrations in Delaware and New Jersey during the first half of this decade were taken into considera- tion just as they were for the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Additional factors influencing ferry operations are the planned expansion of the ferry schedule for the summer of 1979, the addition of a new ferry into service for the peak season of 1981 and the impact of casino gambling in Atlantic City. For these reasons, ferry traffic will increase in the future; however, the rate of growth is estimated to be moderate in light of the fact that the principal use of the ferry is for long-distance pleasure trips and these are the trips that are most likely to be cur- tailed somewhat if the price of gasoline increases drastically or an energy crisis persists. The number of passengers and vehicles using the ferry under the existing toll schedule is estimated to increase from 229,000 vehicles and 676,000 passengers in 1979 to 281,000 and 770,000, respectively, in 1983. This is an increase of 22.7% in vehicles and 13.9% for passengers.1 As noted above (in the year 1978) casino gambling in Atlantic City re- sulted in a significant increase in ferry traffic. Economic Research Associates, in a report on the Impact of Casino Gambling on the'Redevel- opment Potential of the Uptown Renewal Site and the Economy of Atlantic City, estimated a growth in gambling visitors of 320% from 1982 to 1990 based on an increase in the number of casinos from 6 to 15 or 18. If with only one casino the increase at the Ferry was about 20%, much higher increases than those projected may be realized. For transporta- tion planning purposes, a conservative growth of 8% per year is estimated through the middle of the 1990's. Thus, by the year 2000, a total of 2,200 vehicles may be using the Ferry crossing on an average day. This depends on the number of ferries in service and the schedules in effect. The Cape May-Lewes Ferry serves both (1) local trans-bay trips between points in southern New Jersey and the Eastern Shore, which would be far more circuitous via the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and (2) mid-Atlantic regional trips between central New Jersey and points north and the Dela- ware-Maryland beaches, Norfolk and points south via the Ocean Highway (US 13 and US 17), which could use the Ferry as an alternative routing to the Bridge. Table 11-20 illustrates, for several typical trips, approximate time, distance and toll comparisons between places or "deci- sion points" on both sides of Delaware Bay, via the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and via the Delaware Memorial Bridge. 1Toll Rate Study, 1979. 11-61 For example, a relatively "captive" Ferry trip (i.e., for which the Bridge routing is far longer in time and distance), between the junction of US 9 and Del. 1 outside of Lewes (the decision point for'Rehoboth Beach and Ocean City) and Cape May, is 148 miles shorter and 1 hour and 40 minutes quicker by Ferry. For these savings, the toll by way of the Ferry (in this comparison, for only the car and driver) is $7.50 more than the toll by way of the Bridge. In economic terms, using an auto- mobile running cost of 10.7 cents per mile the cost of mileage-related items and a time value of $3.00 per hour, the additional Ferry toll is offset by the time and mileage savings. Via Via Ferry Bridge Ferry Savings Auto running costs- $18.19 $0.64** $17.55 Time value 11.50 6.45 5.05 Toll .50* 8.00 (7.50) TOTAL $30.19 $15.09 $15.10 Reflective of January 1979 conditions 16-mile Ferry crossing deducted from the 22-mile total distance. On the other hand, the purely discretionary trip between the US 9-US 13 junction at Laurel, Delaware (the decision point for Salisbury and Nor- folk) and the New Jersey Turnpike-Garden State Parkway junction.at Wood- bridge, New Jersey (the decision point for the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area, upstate New York, New England and Canada) is essen- tially the same distance via Bridge and Ferry,, but is 1-1/2 hours longer by Ferry and $8.10 more costly in terms of tolls alone. Such a trip by Ferry, therefore, is made by choice as an alternative to the Bridge routing. This economic evaluation of the two existing alternative routings is made in light of the objectives of this regional study to consider a possible third crossing in the area between the Bridge and the Ferry. II.D.l.c Commodore Barry Bridge The Commodore Barry Bridge, with its five lanes (the center lane of which is reversible) has a capacity of 6,750 -vehicles per hour. Ex- pressed in terms of AADT the bridge can carry about 75,000 vehicles per day. The 1978 AADT was 13,300 or about 18 percent of the stated capa- city. Since its opening, the bridge has experienced a higher than aver- age growth rate of 10.6%. Most new facilities experience a high rate of growth during the first few years of operation as a result of generated traffic. For future planning purposes, a more normal rate of growth between 3% and 5% per year is estimated. Under this assumption, the bridge would be carrying about 32,000 vehicles per day, still well with- in its estimated capacity. 11-62 Table 11-20. Time and Distance Comparisons Typical Places or Decision Points Route Distance Time(D) Toll South North (A) (B) (miles)(C) (hrs.:min.) (E) US 9 - Del. 1 Cape May Bridge 170 3:50 $ .50 (F) Ferry 22 2:10 8.00 Savings 148 1:40 (7.50) GSP - ACE Bridge(j) 156 3:10 1.50 (H) Ferry 59 2:50 8.50 Savings 97 0:20 T.00) NJTP - GSP Bridge 175 3:30 1.65 (I) Ferry 152 4:30 9.75 23 (1:00) T8.10) US 9 US 13 Cape May Bridge 176 4:00 .50 (G) Ferry 50 2:50 8.00 126 1:10 (7.50) GSP - ACE Bridge(j) 162 3:20 1.50 (H) Ferry 87 3:30 8.50 Savings 75 0-:10) (7.00) NJTP - GSP Bridge 181 3:40 1.65 (I) Ferry 180 5:10 9.75 Savings 1 (1:30) (8.10) Notes: (A) Abbreviations: GSP = Garden State Parkway; ACE Atlantic City Expressway; and NJTP - New Jersey Turnpike. (B) Via Delaware Memorial Bridge; via Cape May-Lewes Ferry; and savings which Ferry affords in comparison to the Bridge. (C) Ferry routing includes 16-mile crossing of Delaware Bay. (D) Ferry routing includes 70-minute crossing plus 20-minute wait, 15-minute loading and 15-minute disembarkation, or a total of 2 hours. (E) For passenger car and, in the case of the Ferry, only the driver. (F) Decision point for Rehoboth Beach and Ocean City. (G) Decision point for Salisbury, Maryland; Norfolk, Virginia; and points south. (H) Decision point for Atlantic City. (I) Decision point for Metropolitan Mew York, upstate New York, New England and Canada. (J) Via Atlantic City Expressway and 1-295. 11-63 The Commodore Barry Bridge would be adequate to carry estimated future traffic through the year 2000 and beyond. II.D.2 New Jersey_Highways The four main New Jersey highways evaluated for adequacy are the New Jersey Turnpike and 1-295, along the north-south corridor leading to the Delaware Memorial Bridge; the Garden State Parkway, along the eastern shoreline leading to the Cape May-Lewes Ferry; and the Atlantic City Expressway, connecting the Philadelphia-Camden area with Atlantic City and also serving as a link between the Turnpike and the Parkway in Southern New Jersey. The New Jersey Turnpike has served north-south long distance movements in the northeast corridor since its opening in 1951 -- the same year as the opening of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The Turnpike is designated 1-95 between Edison (Interchange 10) to its connection with the George Washington Bridge. Since the segment of 1-95 parallel to the Turnpike between its southern terminus and Interchange 10 in Edison is not com- pleted, the Turnpike has served as a link between the completed portions of 1-95. Traffic volumes along the Turnpike range from a high of 120,000 vehicles per day along its 12-lane dual-dual roadways through Newark to a lower volume of 20,000 vehicles per day along its southern four-lane divided section. The Turnpike operates at Levels of Service C and D along the northern sections approaching the Lincoln Tunnel and at Level of Service B along its southern section approaching the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The average rate of growth of traffic on the Turnpike was 3.8% per year during the period 1970-78. At this rate, the southern section of the Turnpike will exceed the Level of Service D by, the year 2000. However, with the ultimate completion of 1-295 and 1-95 in New Jersey (when and if it becomes necessary) and through Pennsylvania, it is estimated that there will be a redistribution of traffic along these three major north- south corridor highways (as described previously in Section II.D.O. The Turnpike would continue to be adequate to sustain an acceptable level of operation in the foreseeable future, especially along its southern section which leads to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Route 1-295, which runs parallel to the New Jersey Turnpike, carried an annual average daily traffic of 24,000 vehicles in 1977 along its section south of the Camden-Gloucester area. The road under its present condi- tions operates at Level of Service B. The other major north-south route connecting to one of the Delaware Bay Crossings is the Garden State Parkway. This facility carried from 38,000 to 45,000 vehicles per day along its northern isection through Union and Essex Counties and about 4,000 vehicles per day along its southern sec- tion through Cape May County. The Parkway is operating at Levels of Service between D and E along its northern sections and at Level of 11-64 Service A along its southern section. However, the Parkway is a highly recreational facility and operation at Level of Service E prevails during peak summer hours along some sections in Cape May and other areas to the north. As shown in Table II-10, Section C, annual growth along the two southern across-the-road Parkway toll barriers was in the range of 6% to 7% per year on the average. The New Jersey Highway Authority has consistently maintained a policy of providing for increased capacity along the Parkway as required and after the increase is proven financially feasible. As presented in Section II.B., the Authority is planning to widen the Parkway along some sections in Ocean, Manmouth, Union and Middlesex counties and is also planning to expand the toll collection facilities along its southern sections. Pre- sent plans are for grade separations to increase capacity along the southern section through Cape May County. The Parkway is an essential link along the Ocean Highway between the North and South. Its importance to certain north-south movements is fully dependent on the Cape May-Lewes Ferry. A discussion of the ade- quacy of the Parkway to serve these movements is presented heretofore in Section II.D under the "Cape May-Lewes Ferry" heading. The third major highway facility serving the Delaware Bay Region within the State of New Jersey is the Atlantic City Expressway. Although this facility is not directly connected to the Delaware Bay crossings, its location between the two north-south corridors is thus related with the adequacy of the highway system which serves the Bay Region. In 1978, the Expressway carried 14,500 vehicles per day along its western'section and 14,000 vehicles per day through Pleasantville near Atlantic City. The facility was operating at the Level of Service B during the summer months along its western section and Level of Service A along its eastern section, except at toll plazas where Level of Service D prevailed. With the advant of casino gambling in Atlantic City there was a significant increase in traffic in 1978 and through the early part of 1979 (see Table II-11). Further development of casinos and related recreational facilities could attract additional traffic along the Expressway. Al- though not presently planned, it is likely that the New Jersey Expressway Authority will widen the Expressway from its present two lanes each way to three lanes in each direction before the year 2000 if developments in Atlantic City are realized as they are now envisioned by the Casino Gambling Commi ssion. Summarizing, the four main highway facilities in New Jersey leading to the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the Cape May-Lewes Ferry will be ade- quate to sustain normal traffic growth through the 1980's and to the year 2000 if presently planned construction and improvement projects are completed. Highly recreational traffic along the Parkway leading to the Cape May-Lewes Ferry may require additional construction not presently planned. 11-65 II.D.3 Other Delaware Highways The four main Delaware highways evaluated for adequacy were the Delaware Turnpike or 1-95 and US 40 in the Northeast Corridor and US 13 and US 301 on the Delaware Peninsula. The key section of 1-95 in terms of its linkage to the Delaware Memorial Bridge is the Delaware Turnpike. On the basis of (1) the traffic grow .th trends developed in Table 11-12 of this Chapter, (2) the capacity fig- ures listed in Table 11-17, factored for trucks, and (3) the expectation that the Turnpike will be widened to eight lanes by the end of 1981, Table 11-21 shows the level of service profile which was prepared to reflect estimated future peak-period operating conditions on the Turn- pike. Table 11-21 indicates that with its widening between Del. 141 at the Christina Marsh Interchange and Del. 273, the Turnpike, for the most part, can be expected to operate at an acceptable level of service through the mid-1980's. Accordingly, the Turnpike will continue to serve as the principal feeder route to the Delaware Memorial Bridge without any traffic constraints during this period. Table 11-21. Delaware Turnpike Level of Service Profile* Md. Line Del. 896 Del. 273 Del. 7 to to to to Year Del. 896 Del. 273 Del. 7 Del. 141 1979 A A C D 1980 A A C E 1981 A B C E 1982 A B C** C** 1983 A B C** C,** 1084 A B C** C** 1985 A B C** C** Based on afternoon peak-period conditions on the westbound (southbound) main roadway. **Based on widening to four lanes in each direction. Although the section of 1-95 between the Christina Marsh Interchange and the Pennsylvania line will only be operating at a tolerable level of service during peak hours despite the widening of the viaduct section leading into Wilmington, this should not have a constraining effect on the collection and dispersal of trans-river traffic, because parallel 1-495, which will have ample capacity for some time to come, can take up the overburden. 11-66 US 40, which parallels 1-95 from Delaware into Maryland, presently is operating between Levels of Service B and C except near the Maryland border where the Level of Service C is exceeded. These are acceptable conditions for a rural highway. US 40 can be expected to maintain an acceptable level of service well into the 1980's as long as the parallel 1-95 route continues to be adequate also, which is estimated to be the case. Traffic conditions on US 13 down through Smyrna and Dover are widely variable depending on location (urban versus rural) and season. Volume to capacity ratios for both US 13 and US 301 as developed by the Highway Division of the Department of Transportation indicate that both facilities have exceeded the Level of Service C and operate between Levels D and E. Assuming that (1) no major improvements are made to US 13, (2) no parallel arterials are built, with the exception of the four-laning of Del. 896, and (3) the growth trends developed in Section II.C.4.b are realized, traffic conditions on US 13 can be expected to deteriorate further by 1985 and conditions may become unacceptable. Traffic conditions on US 301, on the other hand, are governed by: (1) the expectation that it will be widened in the near future, with some resultant diversion of traffic from the 1-95 corridor via Baltimore to the US 301 corridor via Annapolis; (2) seasonal fluctuations that are not nearly as sharp as those experienced on US 13, and (3) the traffic growth trends developed in Section II.C.4.b. Although US 301 presently is routed between the Farnhurst Interchange and Summit Bridge via US 13 Del. 71 southbound/Del. 299 northbound, it has been assumed that if Del. 896 is improved as indicated above, US 301 would be routed via 1-95 and Del. 896 to Summit Bridge. At present, the rural section of US 301 between Summit Bridge and Middletown is operating between the Levels of Service D and E; if widened to four lanes, by 1985 traffic conditions could be expected to improve to acceptable levels of service. Summarizing, of the four main Delaware highways radiating from the Dela- ware Memorial Bridge, it appears that only US 13 will be adequate in the 1980's under current construction programs. Accordingly, during summer peak periods, some of the vehicles with southerly trip ends at the Dela- ware-Maryland beaches and northerly trip ends in New Jersey and points north, which presently use the Delaware Memorial Bridge, will probably then utilize the shorter, but more costly Cape May-Lewes Ferry to avoid congestion on US 13. II.E NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CROSSING Three major factors in the overall determination of the need for an additional crossing of the Delaware Bay are: (1) the need for added capacity of all existing crossings; (2) the need for an additional 11-67 crossing to better serve the desire lines and patterns of travel and thus provide a'more efficient transportation system; and (3) the wish to stimulate additional development. II.E.1 Additional Capacity As described previously, the Delaware Memorial Bridge has adequate capa- city to accommodate estimated traffic growth through the year 2000 with the existing highway network remaining essentially as at present. With the planned completion of 1-95 through Pennsylvania and in New Jersey, there will be some traffic diversion from the Memorial-Bridge to 1-95, and this makes it even more likely that the bridge will have adequate capacity through the year 2000. Also, the Commodore Barry Bridge, which competes with the Delaware Memorial Bridge for cross-river and cross-Bay traffic, will be adequate to sustain estimated traffic volumes through the year 2000. In assessing the adequacy of the Cape May-Lewes Ferry to handle antici- pated traffic through the year 2000, it should be noted that the capa- city depends entirely on the number of vessels and on the schedules. The number of ferries can be increased, and headways reduced signifi- cantly, so as to handle foreseeable traffic increases. In conclusion, there is no apparent need at present or through roughl y the year 2000 for an additional crossing of the Delaware Bay solely to provide additional traffic-carrying capacity. II.E.2 Improvement of the Regional Transportation System A 1973 traffic survey conducted by URS/Coverdale and Colpitts, Inc. for the Delaware Department of Transportation indicated that of a total of 47,000 trips along the US 40-Turnpike Corridor, about 10% were long- distance trips from New York and New England to and from the southeastern states, including Virginia. An earlier survey-conducted by Coverdale and Colpitts in 1969 on the Delaware Memorial Bridge indicated that 11% of all passenger car trips and 24% of all truck trips on the'Bridge were between the New York-New England region and the south, an equivalent of a total of about 6,000 trips in 1969. These long-distance trips are adequately served by the existing regional highway network. However, the 1969 Coverdale and Colpitts Study, which addressed a new crossing of the Delaware Bay approximately halfway between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the Cape May-Lewes Ferry, estimated that such a crossing would carry about 11,000 vehicles per day of which 10,800 would be diverted from the Memorial Bridge, about 100 from the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and 100 more would be induced or generated by the new facility. The trips diverted from the Ferry and from the Delaware Memorial Bridge were considered to find it more convenient to cross the Delaware Bay at a location approximately midpoint between the Ferry and the Memorial Bridge. Savings in distance travelled and in time would be realized by the 10,900 trips thus diverted. 11-68 Two-thirds of these trips were estimated to be long-distance New York- New England trips to and from the south. Other trips, primarily from Southern New Jersey and Baltimore, Washington and the Delmarva Penin- sula, accounted for the balance. The 1973 traffic survey across the US 40-1-95 Corridor corroborated this estimate with a 4,500 trip total for these long-distance trips. Since 1973 there has been a slight decrease of about 2.5% in traffic across the Delaware Memorial Bridge. This indicates no significant change in the order-of-magnitude estimate of trips which could be attracted to an additional crossing. In the 1969 study, it was concluded that, since most of the trips esti- mated to use a new crossing would be diverted from existing Delaware Bay Authority crossings, the trips would not represent an increase in toll revenue to the Authority and the feasibility of toll revenue bond finan- cing for a new crossing was remote. Since there has been no major growth in traffic since that date, it is likely that the pattern of traffic flows and demand has not changed appreciably since that time. In a more general vein, the regional transportation network has his- torically adjusted to connecting major population centers. Around the Bay Region, the major centers are (1) the Washington-Baltimore areas on the southwest corner of the region; (2) the Wilmington Area at the cen- ter; (3) the Philadelphia-Corridor area to the northeast; and (4) the New York Metropolitan Tri-State area beyond the northeast corner. Other lesser population centers extend along the coast on a strip development from the tip of the Delmarva Peninsula on the south, to central New Jersey shore northeast of the Bay, including Atlantic City at its nor- thern section and Rehoboth Beach and Ocean City on the Peninsula.. Other population centers extend along the spine of the Peninsula from Salis- bury through Dover and around a small core in southern New Jersey com- posed of Bridgeton, Vineland and Millville. These population centers clearly define the major desire lines of travel and existing regional and intra-regional corridors. The first and most heavily travelled of those corridors is the northwest to northeast cor- ridor between Washington-Baltimore and the Philadelphia-Camden-Trenton metropolitan areas. A second major desire line of travel is also between the Washington- Baltimore area and the New York Metropolitan area. The Delaware Memorial Bridge lies directly in the geographical path of the two major desire lines of travel mentioned above. The Bridge re- placed the Newcastle Ferry which originally was the key link between the northeast and south regions. Because of the convenience of that cross- ing and the existence of major highways connecting the metropolitan regions of Washington-Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelph@a-Camden-Trenton, and New York Tri-State areas, further strip development continued along this corridor, strengthening the importance of the transportation faci- lities serving the corridor, including the Memorial Bridge. 11-69 This corridor is presently the heaviest travelled in the Bay Region with a total of about 97,000 vehicles per day (1978) using US 40 and 1-95 southwest of Wilmington, and about 80,000 northeast of Wilmington along 1-95/495 continuing west of the Delaware River. East of the river 1-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike carry about 41,000 vehicles per day. A second major corridor, running east-west between Atlantic City and the Philadelphia-Camden area, carries about 59,000 vehicles per day along US 30, US 40/US 322 and the Atlantic City Expressway. The Peninsula north-south corridor carries about 23,000 vehicles per day between the Wilmington area and Dover and then splits in two with a branch to Salisbury carrying about 13,000 vehicles per day and another with about 15,000 vehicles per day towards the seashore resorts of Reho- both Beach and Ocean City. The north-south shoreline corridor carries about 15,000 vehicles per day along US 9 and the Garden State Parkway between Cape May and Atlantic city. The major flow corridors listed above connect all major population cen- ters and are adequately served by the existing highway network. All major desire lines of travel are thus reasonably accommodated by the present high-capacity crossing of the Bay (Delaware Memorial Bridge) and the substantially lesser capacity ferry crossing. There are some less significant desire lines which are not served. There is no convenient connection between the Dover area and the major resort and population center of Atlantic City. Also, there is no direct connec- tion between the south Jersey core (Vineland, Bridgeton and Millville) and the Peninsula area of Dover. A similar situation occurs between southern New Jersey resort communities and the resort communities along the Delmarva Peninsula. Although these are connected by the Cape May- Lewes Ferry, the crossing time, the toll, and the average ferry waiting time do inhibit traffic interchanges. However, these population centers are much smaller than those along the major traffic flow corridors and their traffic generation potential, particularly to possible trans-Bay destinations, is very limited. In summary, travel patterns or major desire lines of travel have devel- oped along and between historical areas of growth, development and popu- lation concentrations; the provision of high capacity transportation links along these corridors have further reinforced this development; and there is no need to provide additional traffic capacity or new links such as another Bay crossing to accommodate travel desires between major urban areas in and adjacent to the Region. There is some latent or unfulfilled travel desire between such areas as the Shore resorts of South Jersey and the Delmarva Peninsula which another crossing would address, but the traffic volume potential to another crossing because of 11-70 such latent travel demand is quite limited and is not comparable to the traffic levels needed to consider a major capital investment in a fixed crossing. II.E.3 Stimulation of Area Development Although the need for a new crossing of the Delaware Bay can be neither demonstrated nor supported on the basis of traffic usage or growth, limited existing crossing capacity, or the creation of a transportation network which better matches the overall travel demand or desire pat- terns in the region, it is possible in some instances to justify such a major transportation link on the basis of the economic development which would result. An approach to follow to ascertain the types and amounts of broad eco- nomic development benefits that would be attributable to the construc- tion of a new crossing is outlined in Section "A" of Chapter V. Also noted is a possible alignment and an order-of-magnitude construction cost as an indication of the general size of the necessary economic development benefits to be required to justify the public support of such a project. 11-71 III. MARINE TRANSPORTATION III.A INTRODUCTION Since colonial times, marine transportation in the Delaware River and Bay has played a significant role in both the social and economic development of Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This chapter thus addresses marine topics of current interest in the Delaware Basin -- principal waterborne commodity movements, the numbers of types of vessels using port facilities, a general evaluation of these facilities in terms of utilization and future adequacy, and marine navigational factors in both the Bay and River -- and focuses on aspects of pertinence to the DRBA Region. The evolution of the regional transportation systems -- land and water -- has been described in Chapter I. The ports of the Delaware River are "consumer ports" in that imports and receipts represent about 90% of total cargo activity. Because.the Dela- ware River Basin contains one of the largest concentrations of petroleum processing facilities in the country -- the area supplies a substantial portion of the east coast's petroleum requirements -- crude oil and bulk petroleum products such as residual fuel are the most important imports in terms of tonnage and have been the determining factor in the long range tonnage growth in waterborne commerce. The increasing demand for crude petroleum coupled with the greater draft requirements of the newer tankers has necessitated a large scale lightering operation in lower Delaware Bay, one of the most important operational developments in recent years. Other bulk commodities such as ores and nonmetallic minerals also have contributed to bulk cargo growth'. Imports and exports of general cargo, while far less important on a total tonnage basis than the bulk commodi- ties, have demonstrated a generally rising trend which is often obscured by year to year fluctuations in response to cyclical economic conditions. General cargo movements require considerably more port services per ton and yield more port revenue per ton than bulk cargoes, and therefore such cargoes are more significant than tonnage figures alone might indi- cate. At the present, the future level of economic activity in the Delaware River and Bay region, and the resultant effect on maritime transportation, is dependent upon many "non-technical" factors. It is therefore diffi- cult to quantify, even in the light of *careful analysis of past history. In the past, maritime freight movements of crude petroleum and petroleum products have demonstrated strong and consistent growth, but without fur- ther increases in regional refining capacity it is entirely possible that this growth may not continue. The shift of petrochemical production to the Gulf region, political instability in producing countries, as well as conservation efforts in the United States could also restrain future growth in the Delaware Basin. III-1 Government policy in support of increased coal utilization could, at least marginally, reduce petroleum demand, as could increasing dependence on other alternative energy sources. Balance of payments problems (largely induced by dependence on foreign oil) will also shape commercial activity. If the dollar declines in value relative to other major currencies, im- ports, at least in theory, should be reduced, and imports are significant to the Delaware River Ports. Finally, environmental considerations can be expected to constrain some commercial, industrial and residential development. Complex and interlocking factors such as these will influ- ence developments in the Delaware River and Bay. The Marine Transportation aspects of this Study have been organized in three topical sections. "Waterborne Commerce" gives a historical review of total activity in the Delaware River and Bay with additional emphasis on major import and export commodities and future trends. "Trends in Vessel Usage" describes the types and characteristics of commercial ves- sels, and includes comments on marine operational considerations. "Port Facilities" outlines the types of cargo handling facilities currently available and planned future developments. Based upon the information obtained and the analyses performed, a section of Chapter V presents an appraisal of the ability of the ports to handle future cargoes and dis- cusses various port development concepts and potentials. It should be noted that while the main thrust of this Report is directed toward the DRBA Region defined in Chapter I, activities in other ports and in the hinterland are significant and are discussed where necessary. III.B WATERBORNE COMMERCE This section presents statistical information regarding waterborne com- merce. Two basic data sources have been used. The first is Waterborne Commerce of the United States published in annual editions by the Corps of Engineers. The specific volume of interest is "Part I, Waterways and Harbors, Atlantic Coast." This data source provided tonnage statistics in total and by commodity for annual imports and exports and coastwise and internal shipments and receipts. (Definitions of these terms are provided in Exhibit III-1 at the end of this Chapter.) A second data source was the International Waterborne Commerce Report, an annual report issued by the ld Trade Division of the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA). This latter source proved valuable in that bulk and general cargo commodity data were separately disclosed and countries of origin (or destination) were given for international cargoes. Both data sources were used as noted. It should be mentioned at this point that initial analytical attention was generally focused on waterborne commerce along the entire Delaware Bay and River. The statistical series is entitled "Trenton to the Sea" in the Corps of Engineers data. The DRPA publication refers to "Ameri- port - The Ports of Philadelphia" to describe the same area. This initial focus provides necessary background for the subsequent, more specific study of Wilmington and other ports of interest: to this Study. 111-2 As an additional general statement, overall trends were first considered, such as "total imports" or "total exports" by area or by port. Further analyses were then performed to disclose the significant components in- cluded in and influencing overall trends. These analyses permitted a systematic, in-depth appraisal of different aspects of the Region's waterborne commerce. III.B.1 Area.and Port Activity, 1956-1977 In order to obtain a long-term-historic overview of total activity in the Delaware River and Bay and in the specific ports of Wilmington, Camden and Philadelphia, total cargo movements in the area and in these ports were analyzed. "Total," expressed as short tons of 2000 pounds,1 includes both imports and exports as well as coastwise and internal receipts and shipments. ("Local" or intraport activity is also included; except for Philadelphia, this category is usually not significant.) Table III-1 gives total annual tonnages handled in the entire Delaware River and Bay ("Trenton to the Sea") and in the Ports of Wilmington, Camden and Philadelphia.2 Data for the Port of Baltimore, which can be considered a competing port, are also provided. Indices of port activity were then computed based upon the average of total tonnage in the five- year period 1951-1956 being equal to 1.0; these indices are tabulated numerically in Table 111-2 and shown graphically in Exhibit 111-2 on the following pages. For total River and Bay tonnage, the trend has been steadily upward, peaking in 1974 and declining in the recession year of 1975 before re- suming a more restrained upward advance. The principal cause of this steady trend has been increasing oil imports, a factor which will be discussed in more detail subsequently. (Because of the concentration of refineries in the Delaware River and Bay area, the level of petroleum refining and its rate of increase is the single most important factor in tonnage activity). The annual variations in the ports under consideration are more striking, Camden having exhibited the greatest cyclical behavior; although in recent years its performance has been characterized by steadier growth. Philadephia has shown a more consistent level of activity and a relatively modest rate of long term growth. (For most of the time period shown in Exhibit 111-2, total activity at Philadelphia has been less than 20% greater than the average of the five base years, 1952 to 1956). Finally, Wilmington has displayed fewer and less extreme cyclical variations than Camden; activity at Wilmington peaked in the years 1972, 1973 and 1974 in large measure because of internal receipts of petroleum. At all three lAll "ton" or "tonnage" figures used in this Report are short tons unless specifically noted otherwise. 2Tabulations which are not directly included with the text are provided in Appendix B. 111-3 Table 111 -2. Indices of Car_go Activ#y gelected Ports and Harbors, 1956-1977 Delaware R. (Trenton Delaware R. Phila- Balti- Year Wilmington to at delphia more -Harbor the Sea), Camden Harbor Harbor 1952-1956 Average* 2,391 82,919 2,276 44,103 43.673 Indices of Cargo Activitr** 1957 1.06 1.27 0.75 1.18 1.19 1958 1.22 1.20 0.64 1.06 0.95 1959 1.03 1.25 0.67 1.08 0.92 1960 0.93 1.20 0.77 1.01 0.99 1961 0.90 1.17 0.82 0.93 0.87 1962 0.99 1.27 0.87 1.11 0.98 1963 0.95 1.25, 1.06 1.06 0.99 1964 0.93 1.31 1.15 1.07 1.10 1965 1.00 1.29 1.08 1.08 1.01 1966 0.99 1.37 0.96 1.12 1.00 1967 1.06 1.39 0.89 1.10 0.93 1963 1.06 1.40 0.84 1.12 0.97 1969 1.13 1.45 0.93 1.15 1.01 1970 1.15 1.50 1.12 1.18 1.17 1971 1.24 1.49 1.06 1.16 1.01 1972 1.51 1.53 1.25 1.10 1.05 1973 1.67 1.68 1.19 1.24 1.23 1974 1.63 1.73 1.35 1.36 1.37 1975 1.35 1.59 1.14 1.18 1.21 1976 1.11 1.61 1.03 1.15 1.20 1977 1.22 1.61 1.12 1.13 1.02 *Average of five years, 1952-1956 inclusive - thousands of tons. (Based on Data of Table III-1) "Base of 1952-1956 1.0 111-4 Table III-1. Comparative Cargo Activity Selected Ports and Harbors, 1952 to 1977 Delaware R. Delaware R. Phila- Baltimore Wilmingt an (Trenton at delphia Harbor & Year Harbor to the Sea) Camden Harbor Channels (Thousands of Tons) 1952 2,238 70,844 2,424 38,321 40 718 1953 2,463 74,018 2,359 37,288 41:810 1954 2,439 80,239 2,091 40,299 38,434 1955 2,259 880580 2,011 48,893 45,824 1956 2,556 100,912 2,497 55,713 51,580 1957 2,529 105,681 1,708 52,127 52,014 1958 2,912 99,844 1,446 46,664 41,703 1959 2,462 103,922 1,518 47,656 40,224 1960 2,231 990845 1,746 44,475 43,420 1961 2,155 97,190 1,873 40,965 37,815 1962 2,363 105,701 1,978 49,124 42,588 1963 2,265 104oOO7 2,422 46,673 43,197 1964 2,223 108,988 2,608 47,042 48,220 1965 2,392 107,315 2,467 47,735 44,267 1966 2,362 .1139443 2,178 49,506 43 877 1967 2,523 115o531 20018 48,703 40:738 1968 2,537 115,999 1,910 49,290 42,459 1969 2,695 120o408 2,119 50,526 43,917 1970 2,760 123,975 2,546 52,224 51,084 1971 2,967 123o543 2,415 51,134 44,003 1972 3,602 127j207 2,854 48,357 45,799 1973 4,002 139,297 2,698 54,630 53,787 1974 3,889 143j674 3,066 59,920 59,891 1975 3,227 131,819 2,591 52,030 52 661 1976 2,653 133,696 2,350 50,604 52:437 1977 2,918 133,276 2,538 49,711 44,756 Source: Annual Issues, Waterborne Commerce of the United States 111-5 1.7 INDICES OF CARGO ACTIVITY 000 1.6 % .......... 1956-1977 j.. 4 1.3 1. 2 see a w U 1.0 z 0.9 0.8 0.7 - o.6 e 9 o 9 e o o a o 9 o 9 DELAWARE RIVER, TRENTON TO THE SEA 0.5 - PHILADELPHIA HARBOR WILMINGTON HARBOR 0.4 - DELAWARE RIVER TO CAMDEN 0.3 - 0.2 1 1 1 - J 1956 1963 1970 1977 .0, 1. Y E A R Exhlbft 111-2 m mom ports, activity declined after 1974 because of a general recession in those years. From these observations it is possible to conclude that over the long term, the major Delaware River Ports handling general and bulk cargoes, including petroleum, have exhibited low growth tendencies which have been overshadowed by year to year variations. Such port activity is, of course, influenced by intrinsic factors such as rate structure and avail- able facilities and services. It will also be influenced, perhaps even more significantly, by prevailing economic factors such as the rate of economic growth, international trade, and currency fluctuations. In order to determine whether the nearby east coast port of Baltimore performed differently than Philadelphia during the historic period under review, activity indices of these two ports were compared as shown in Exhibit 111-3. While the Port of Philadelphia has displayed somewhat more consistent performance than Baltimore, both appear to be responding generally to the same economic factor. (Expressed in statistical terms, the co-efficient of correlation between the cargo activity data for these two ports is 0.839.) A least-squares trend line was calculated for the Port of Wilmington for the period 1956-1977 and d6viations from the trend were also determined. The series appears in tabular form in Table 111-3 and is shown graphi- cally in Exhibit 111-4. The analysis showed that about 70% of actual total tonnages are within + 13.3% of the calculated trend line.. It is of interest that the trend analysis indicates an annual growth in total activity of 50,000 tons, but the normal annual variation in total ton- nage is even greater than the figure. The "energy crises" of 1973 and 1979 and related abnormal levels, however, clearly indicate that trend line analyses, while useful, are not sufficient for forecasting likely future volumes. Specific cargo movements at Wilmington are discussed in a later section of this Chapter. III.B.2 Imports Imports are the most important component of total cargo activity in the Delaware River and Bay. (The ports under consideration are basically 11consumeril ports.) In this section total historical imports will be discussed first, followed by imports by commodity class and identifica- tion of originating countries or areas. Finally, imports by specific ports will be addressed. Table 111-4, presented subsequently, shows total imports for the Delaware River Basin for the years 1962 to 1977. Imports are shown by the cate- gories "general cargo" and "bulk," the value of the imports is provided, and average tonnage values have been calculated. The percentage of general cargo on both tonnage and value bases are also noted. Between 1962 and 1977, annual bulk cargo imports for the Basin increased from a level of about 45 million tons to 70 million tons; the overall 111-7 1.7 1.6 INDICES OF kCTIVITY 1.5 - PHILADELPHIA AND BALTIMORE 1.4 - 1956-1977 1.3 - 1.2 - LLJ 1.0 a 10, z 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 PHILADELPHIA 0.5 -------- BALTIMORE 0.4 0.3 1956 1963 1970 1977 Y E A R Exhibit 111-3 Table 111-3. Annual Tonnages - Actual and Trend Wilmington Harbor, 1956 - 1977 Year Actual Trend Trend+ Tonnage Tonnage Actual (Millions of Tons) 1956 2.39i* 2.190 0.916 1957 2.529 2.242 0.887 1958 2.912 2.293 0.787 1959 2.462 2.345 0.952 1960 2.231 2.396 1.074 1961 2.155 2.447 1.136 1962 2.363 2.499 1.057 1963 2.265 2.550 1.126 1964 2.223 2.601 1.170 1965 2.392 2.653 1.109 1966 2.362 2.704 1.145 1967 2.523 2.756 1.092 1968 2.537 2.807 1.106 1969 2.695 2.858 1.060 1970 2.760 2.910 1.054 1971 2.967 2.961 0.998 1972 3.602 3.012 0.836 1973 4.002 3.064 0.766 1974 3.889 3.115 0.801 1975 3.227 3.167 0.981 1976 2.653 3.218 1.213 1977 2.918 3..269 1.120 *Average of five years, 1952-1956. 111-9 WILMINGTON HARBOR 4.0 HISTORIC TONNAGE ACTIVITY AND TREND LINE ACTUAL TONNAGE--/ 3.0 TREND LINE z 0 1-- LL 0 Cf) z 0 2.0 1.0- 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 Y E A R Exhibit 111- 4 Table 111-4. Total Imports - Delaware River and Bay, 1962-1977 Tonnage ImDorts ------T-,.nnare Values Averare Vftlues Year General General General Percent Cs@:@o C:a - Bulk Cargo Total vulk rfrgo T3tal Bulk rgo Total Tmmim Val Tl@o-ur&nds of Fhcrt Ton-.-T- (ibouz@nds of Dollars) n'.rt [email protected] - 19(2 44,301.4 2,13?-0 46,433.4 24.15 4.6% 1963 42,389.1 2,311-8 4;,[email protected] - 12IF9,C90-T 26.60 5.2 1964 46,343-7 2,Loq.6 LS *,5,4.3 - 1,22L21--9-3 25-12 4.9 1965 47,808-3 2,941.2 502'7i9-5 - 123222CI33-2 26.oT 5.8 1966 49,531.9 3,262.6 52,794-5 - 1, 413, !!@O .0 26.77 6.2 196T 43,083.3 2 955-1 L6,038.4 - - 29.43 6.4 196B 46,952.1 3:769.4 50,721.5 - - 1,557,269.4 30-To 7.4 1969 51,357.3 3,122-8 54,48o.i - - 1,545,790.1 28.37 5.7 1970 46,35T.8 3,281.2 49,639.0 - - 1,623,235.4 32-TO 6.6 19T1 47,564.1 3,824-3 51,388.4 - - 1, Sol, 43C1.2 35-06 7.4 1972 55,498.o 4,266.4 59,764.4 $i,oo8,994-T $1,173, 119-5 2,182 114.2 $18.3B $2T4.9T 36-51 7-1 53.8% -19T3 69,339-8 4,181-3 73,521.1 1,586,483-5 i,4oT,254.0 2,993,T37.5 22-B8 336-56 4o.72 5.7 47.0 19T4 70,293.5 3,5T8-5 73,872.o 4,511,174-9 1,827,349.9 6,338,524.9 64.:L8 510.65 85-80 4.8 28.8 -19T5 6T,4ii.8 3,349-9 TO,T61-7 4,249,9:L3.5 1,878,2T8.8 61228,192.3 63-04 56o.7o 86.60 4-T 3o.6 19T6 66,T33.9 3,311.6 70,045-5 4,T63,465-0 1,961,293.5 6,724,T5,9.5 71-38 592-25 96-ol 4-T 29.2 1977 68,947.8 3,619-T 72,567-5 8,oD6,6,-,5.i - - 3-10-33 5.0 - Source* DIU%, Tnternational Waterborne Co-.-erce Report average annual rate of increase, 1962 to 1977, was 3.0% per year; between 1971 and 1977, the average annual rate of increase was 6.4% per year. (As already noted, petroleum imports are the determining factor - Table 111-5.) During this same period, general cargo imports increased from a level of about 2.5 million tons per year to 3.5 million tons per year. The highest general cargo tonnages were imported in 1972 and 1973. Over the period, general cargo imports have ranged from about 4.5% to 7.5% of total imports on the basis of tonnage. Prior to the oil price increases, general cargo imports were about 50% of total imports in value. More recently, the value of the general cargo has been about 30% of total im- ports. Between 1962 and 1977, the value of goods imported has increased at an average rate of 14.0%; between 1971 and 1-977, because of price increases and greater tonnages, the value of imports increased at an average annual rate of 28.2%. The changes in total imports in both the tonnage and value are summarized below, constructed from the data of Table 111-4. Annual Increase Annual Increase Years -in Tons - % in Value - % 1970-71 3.5% 11.0% 1971-72 16.3% 21.1% 1972-73 23.0% 37.2% 1973-74 0.5% 111.7% 1974-75 (-4.2%) (-3.3)% 1975-76 (-1.0%) 9.7% 1976-77 3.6% 10.1% Basically, the sharp increase in the value of imports is attributable to the petroleum price increases imposed by the OPEC countries. (Additional price increases subsequently occurred as trading nations either increased the prices of their goods or felt the effects of inflationary pressures.) Table 111-5 gives five major commodity groups of bulk cargo imports - petroleum, ores, crude materials, sugar and molasses, and coal and coke. Petroleum and ores together generally comprise about 95% of bulk imports. (The high level of ore imports in the early 1970's reflects fears of nationalization in Venezuela.) Crude minerals and sugar and molasses together amount to 3 to 4% of bulk imports. While general cargo imports are relatively small in tonnage comparison with bulk imports and since 1972 have evidenced some decline they gener- ally represent high unit values and are important with regard to future planning for port facilities. Table 111-6 provides data on tonnage im- ports of general cargo by six major categories for the period 1972 to 1977. The percentage distribution by significant categories and products is also given for selected years. In total, the category "Manufactured Goods and Machinery" is the most significant a 'nd within that category, iron and steel products are most important. Imported food products ac- count for 15 to 18% of total general cargo imports and, except for meats 111-12 Table 111-5. Bulk Cargo Imports Delaware River and Bay, 1972-1977 Year Classification 1972 Mtiands of Short W5 Coi:nodity Petroleum 42,993.6 53,411.8 51,203.2 48,083.2 54,034.o 58,233.2 Gres 10, 422.2 13,688.5 15;011.2 17,255.8 11,015-7 7,632.2 Crude '!.'-neralsp Gypsum 1,171.0 1,114.9 -1,039-5 821.8 739.9 1,037.0 ougar, Molasses 911.2 1,.124.6 1,030-9 8W.8 880.1 1,294.7 Coal and Coke - 2,OD8.T 448.2 0.5 570.9 Other - - 63.7 179.8 ---@6-,-733-9 9F, 947 - 9 Total 55,4W.-O 70,293.5 67,41 Percent Distribution Co=nodity Petroleum T7.5% 77.0% 72.8% T1.3% 8i.o% 84.5% Ores 18.8 19.7 21.4 25.6 16.5 3.1.1 Crude Minerals, Gypsum 2.1 :L.6 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.5 Sugar, Piolasses 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.9 Coal and Coke - 2.8 0.7 - o.8 Other - - 0.1 0.2 .0% Total 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100 Thousands of Dollars Value $1,008,994.7 $1,586,483.5 $41511,174.9 $4,249,913.4 $4,763,465.1 Average Unit Value Dollars per Ton Average Value $18.18 $22.88 $64.1B $63-04 71-38 Source: DFTA, International Waterborne Co=-ierce Report Table 111-6. General Cargo Imports - Delaware River and Bay, 1972-1977 1972 19TT (nousands of -hor@-7bns) !'tn@-ral Flaels F, LuLricants C,,al o.6 368.3 - - Natural @, '.Ifd. 144.7 c#6.6 109.1 2.9 3.4 3.0 - Other 1.4 - 4.2 2.0 -.-.-0.2 0-1 0.5 Futtotal 146.7 489.1 111.1 3.1 4.3 18.9 3.4 3.1 0.5 Crude '.@aterials Wood, Umber Cork 603.1 552.3 380.3 234.7 362.3 406.9 14.1 io.6 U-3 Crude Fertilizers & Minerals 3-20-1 24o.9 267.3 194.1 80.6 i4o.5 7.5 7.5 3.9 Other 88.6 -130.7 90.9 70.9 84.o 2.7 3-7 2.3 Subtotal 1,038-1 881.8 778.3 519.7 513.8 633.4 24.3 21.8 17.5 Manufactured Goods & !Iachinery H W.od. & Cork manufactures 164.6 155.2 120.0 143.8 190.1 175.6 3.9 3.4 4.9 TIon-'etallic mineral manufactures 148.8 120.5 50.7 33.5 39.6 31.4 3.5 1.4 0.9 Paper and Paperboard 123.0 95.8 30-1 4.6 17.4 35-5 2.9 0.8 1.0 Nonferrous Metals :L24.2 98.1 48.3 45.2 102-5 116.8 2.9 1.3 3.2 Iron and Steel 1,376.7 1,248.o 1,305.9 1,576.6 lo321.0 1,544.o 32-3 36.5 42.6 Tran portation Equipment 25.2 22.5 39.6 T8.7 61.o 101-T o.6 1.1 2.8 Other 156.Z 1 _1@7 --7 169.4 174.7 193-2 _1 __@L7 Oubtotal. 2, LIS .7 1,890.2 1,762.3 2,051.8 11906.@ 2,198.2 49.7 49.2 6o.7 Foodsy Beveraces, Tobacco Meat and Meat Preparations 157.4 159.8 134.2 125.3 135.7 127.8 3.7 3.7 3.5 Fruits and Ver_etables 154.2 156.1 171.0 166.1 188.2 186.2 3.6 4.8 5.1 Coffeep Cocoa, Tea, Spices 28-8.2 252.9 231.2 234.2 259.9 197.7 6.8 6.5 5.5 Other 79.2 130.9 133.5 89.9 87.6 -91.3 --A-8 -17 -1_@ Subtotal 679-o 699.7 669.9 615.5 671.4 603-0 15.9 18.7 16.6 Chemicalso Oils and Fats Chemdcal Elerents & Compounds 191-5 116.7 108.1 86.8 149.9 107.0 4-5 3.0 3.0 Fertilizersp Mfd. 19.7 36.7 77.4 25.5 - - 0-5 2.2 - Other 24.o 26.o 38-1 2o.8 31.4 20.3 o.6 1.1 o.6 Subtotal 235.2 i7g.4 223.6 133.1 181.3 127.3 5.6 6.3 3.6 Misc. Manufactures & Special Transactions 48.7 41.1 33.3 26.7 34.9 38.9 1.1 0.9 1.1 T otal 4,266.4 4P181-3 3,578-5 3,349.9 3,,11.6 3,619.7 200.0 Y)O.O 100.0 Fource: DFYA, InternrAlonal Waterborne Co=aerce @eport and meat preparations, represent tropical or semi-tropical produce such as coffee, bananas and cocoa which are not produced in the United States. Finally under the heading of "Crude Materials," lumber is the most impor- tant imported product. Table 111-7 summarizes total imports by commodity classifications for the six year period 1972 to 1977. The first two groupings, mineral fuels and crude materials, correspond closely with the bulk commodities previously described except for sugar which is included in the food grouping. Again, it may be noted that manufactured goods and machinery with foods, bever- ages and tobacco, generally account for 5 to 6% of total import tonnage. In 1972, before the substantial oil price increases, these two categories represented slightly more than 50% of total imports in value and include high value items such as automobiles. In more recent years, the relative significance of the more sophisticated imports has decreased because of increases in oil prices. At the same time, it can be observed that the inflationary effect of oil price increases has spread to the other import categories. Between 1972 and 1977, the average value per ton of the group "Manufactured Goods and Machinery" increased at an average annual rate of 19.3%; the correspond- ing percentage for "foods, beverages and tobacco" is 9.3%. The Delaware River and Bay area receives imported goods from about 140 countries. These countries have been grouped into 8 major regions. The major regions and the subdivisions within these regions are itemized below. WESTERN HEMISPHERE Canada Mexico and Central America - Mexico, Guatemala, Belice, El Salvador, Honduras Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama Carribbean - Trinidad, Bahamas, Netherlands-Antilles, Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Leeward and Windward Islands, Barbados, and French West Indies South America - Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Surinam, Guyana, French Guyana, Chile, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina EUROPE Scandinavia - Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark Iberian Peninsula - Portugal, Spain and Azores Western Europe - United Kingdom, Iceland, Netherlands, Belgium, France, West Germany, Austria, and Switzerland 111-15 Table 111-7. Total Imports Delaware and Bay Commodity Summary, 1972-1977 1972 19T4 h-f-EILI-Czat -i- 12d _D ___=197 -i-977 - (7""Ws a'ds of Tonsf Uels 43,140.3 5 3, 900 .8 53,323.0 4E,52,4.5 54,03r .8 58,P,43 -8 crude "aterials 12,631.4 15,685-2 16,829.o 1E,597.3 12,26C'I.4 9,3C2.6 I " a e I o f ctur d Goods & Machinery 2,118.7 1,890.2 1,762.3 2,051.8 15@-3 2,198.1 F. . r od , 'e_'r-ra@esj Tobacco 1, 59C.2 1,824.4 1,700.8 1, 41E .3 1,551-L 1,897.8 Che,micals, Oiis, Fats 235.1 179.4 223.6 1,23.1 2L'- .9 2P6.3 V'isc. '@Lnufactures, Spec. TrFnsactions 48, _T 41.1 - 33-3 .7 3e.9 Total Tons 59,T64.4 73,521.1 73,872.0 70,761.7 70,0-'5-5 .72,567.5 Percent Distribution Mineral Fuels 72.2% 73.3% 72.2% 68.6% T7.1t 81.1% Crude Materials 21.1 21.3 22.8 26.3 17.5 12.8 Mcmufactured Goods & Machinery 3.5 2.6 2.4 2.9 2.7 3.0 Foodsp Beveragest Tobacco 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.6 Cherdeals, Oils, Fats o.4 0.2 0-3 o.2 o.4 o.4 Misc. Manufactures@ Spec. Transactions 0.1 0.1- 0.1 0.1 Total 10c).O% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Irmort Value - Thou_-&nds of Dollars Mineral Fuels $ T55,154.9 $1,239,793.4 $3,962,491.5 $3,616,597.1 $4,336,625.2 $5,153,256.0 Crude 11aterials 204,529-5 26c), 10T - T 282,236.7 342,876.o 282,lce.2, 263,693.9 Manufactured Goods & Mi-chinery 549,097.0 587,301.6 902,032.8 1,141,Ce4.3 1,046,521.7 1,379,425.5 Foodsp Beveragesp Tobacco 549,358.1 770,312-5 1,o16,o68.4 691,540.5 883,25C.9 1,023,715.3 Chemicals, OlIss Fats 45,154.4 54,6C)7.7 89,295.0 64,554.6 83,51T.1 85,951.3 Misc. Vanufactures, Spec. Transactions 78,820.3 Bi,614.6 86,40c).2 71,599.8 92,741. -.1 Total $2,182,3.14.2 $21,093,737.5 $6,338,524.9 $6,128,192.3 $6,724,T5S.5 $8, oo6, 605 .1 Percent Distribution of I=nort Values Mineral Fuels 34 41 4% 62-5% 59.0% 6-' 64.3% Crude Materials 9:4 8:Z 4 P 3:1 3;.6 4 I&U@actured Goods & Machinery 25.2 19 141 .6 15.6 :17 Foods, Bevera ,&a, Tobacco 23:2 25 16.o 141 13.1 32.8 Chemicals, 0 , Fats 0 1:9 1.4 1. 1.2 1.1 Misc. Manufactures, Spec. Transactions 3.6 2.7 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.1 Total 3,00.0% :LOO.O% 100.0% 1OO.o% WO.O% U)0.0% Aver-ape Values Do2lars/Ton Mineral Fuels $ 17-50 2 .00 $ 74-31 $ 74.N2 $ 80-25 $ 87-58 Crude ',Iaterials 1.6. 19 19-58 lN7 le. 22 - 20-35 Manufactured Goods & Machinery 2 310-TI 511 5 656 11 54@:�? 62 7. L5 11 422-23 597 1 569.32 5119. Foods, Baveragesp Tobacco MU :4 P:60 Chemicals. Oils, Fats 1@' 06 3!,4 3Z 3>9 - 35 485-01 @41.02 3-X.21 Misc. Manufactures, Spec. Trannacticus 1.6.18:49 5:7 A-6i 2,681.64 2,672-66 _LL - _ 2,5P5.v Total $ 36-51 $ 4o.72 85.80 $ 86.60 $ 915.01 $ 3-10-33 Source: DFPAp International Watortorne Ccr-rjercc Feport Eastern Europe - East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, USSR, and Rumania Mediterranean - Italy, Gibraltar, Malta, Yugoslavia and Greece MIDDLE EAST Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel and Jordan ARABIAN PENINSULA & IRAN Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Yemen Arab Republic, Yemen, Oman and Bahrain ASIA Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Burma, Thailand, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia EAST ASIA Philippines, Macao, China, Outer Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan OCEANIA Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, Western Samoa, French Pacific Islands, Other Pacific Islands AFRICA Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Canary Islands, Cameroon, Senegal, Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Niger, Togo, Nigeria, Gabon, Madeira, Chad, Upper Volta, Dahomey, Angola, Congo (Brazzaville), Portuguese West Africa, Liberia, Congo, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, Ethiopia, French Somaliland, Kenya, Tanzania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Malagasy Republic,French Indian Ocean Area, Republic of South Africa, Zambia, Swaziland and Malawi Table 111-8 provides details of imports in both tonnages and dollar values for the years 1972 to 1977 for Delaware River and Bay ports. The table below, abstracted from Table 111-8, summarizes 1977 imports. 111-17 Imports - Delaware River and Bay Ports Tonnage Dollar Percent Distribution Imports Value Tonnage Value (ThousandsT-- (Percent) Western Hemisphere 16,836 $1,456,151 23.2% 18.2% Europe 4,284 1,031,429 5.9 12.9 Middle East 16 10,451 0.0 0.1 Arabian Peninsula, Iran 18,337 1,495,312 25.3 18.7 Asia 2,296 239,850 3.2 3.0 East Asia 1,492 673,109 2.1 8.4 Oceania 335 196,155 0.5 2.4 Africa 28,972 2,904,145 39.8 36.3 TOTALS 72,568 $8,006,602 100.0% 100.0% In 1977, 72.5 million tons of imports were received in the Delaware River and Bay area; these imports were valued at slightly more than $8.0 bil- lion. Petroleum imports predominate, accounting for about 58 million tons valued at approximately $5 billion. (Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and Iran, and the Western Hemisphere are important sources of petroleum imports.) Import trade in manufactured goods with Europe amounted to over $1.0 billion. III.B. 2. a Imports - Wilmington Harbor Table 111-9 shows imports at Wilmington Harbor by selected commodities for the six-year period, 1972-1977. The abbreviated tabulation below gives total imports at Wilmington (exclusive of crude oil and residual fuel) and the annual percentage change. Total Imports - Wilmington Year Tonnage Imports* Annual % Change 1972 980,144 1973 808,235 (-17.5)% 1974 872,288 + 7.9% 1975 703,728 (-19.3)% 1976 689,383 (-. 2.0A 1977 948,083 +37.5% Six-year Average 833,644 *Exclusive of crude oil and residual fuel. Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United States 111-18 Table 111-8. Total Imports - Delaware River and Bay By Countries and Areas of Origin, 1972-1977 Year Year rountry or Area DM 12M 1974 .19T5 12f@ 1972 i2m -IQT4 -19T5 (Thousands of Tons) (Thc@;7@n@s cf ')ollars) 'Western Hemisphere Crnada 5,050 4,965 4,984 40246 3,580 4,400 $97,508 $106,205 $ 132oG70 -S 90,512 $ 103,176 $ 133,3cl Mexico and Central A.@erica 220 246 24T 365 335 343 34,863 33,951 371092 59,79e 70,994 67,195 Caribbean Trinidad P'818 2,021 2,718 1,703 4834 2,172 42,634 42,71T 191,5341 128,186 148,833 13619, Bahamas 715 io96 205 182 IT7 40T u.484 2o,i62 17,LL3 14,591 i4,2o8 34: -1- 9 Netherlands Antilles 563 1,358 1,454 628 1,143 655 8,518 37,297 99,830 45,890 83,841 2,216 Others 65 60 148 155 180 160 14,421 B'944 51,693 74,o47 44,294 26',226 Subtotal, Caritbean 4,161 4,535 4,525 2,668 3034 3,394 7,057 109,120 360,TTO 262,7:L4 291,176 300, 2,97 South America Venezuela 161,634 16,561 16,460 14,935 8,918 7,121 242,425 270,488 751,910 568,350 379,650 406, Brazil 745 1,910 2,391 2,327 1,944 738 107,583 129,071 265 695 247,212 280,254 343,703 1 614 43T 53,4T5 47, 59,15 50,957 Peru 1,08 1,058 1,05T 9TO 47,625 1632 56,loo 4 Others 389 3-86 243 331 412 403 49,7T5 61,693 -123,31T 81,84o ICL>, 565 153,70.1 Subtotal, South America 18,849 19,715 20,151 15,563 11,888 8,699 453,258 506,877 1,18S,54L 953,502 821,623 955,255 Total, Western Hemisphere 28,280 29,461 29,90T 25,W 19,i3T 16,836 662,686 758,153 1,TI9,076 1,366,520 1,286,969 1,456,151 Europe Scandinavia 186 232 210 345 669 652 32 814 23,092 56,LLI 59,045 6o, bo2 88,631 Therian Peninsula 313 290 31T 102 55 TI 25:861 30,436 49,128 22,258 22,560 29,606 Western Europe United Kingdom 154 241 383 167 146 llow 51,013 61,511 95,187 81,759 67,3T4 159,688 West Germany 160 523 1,685 6.10 129 69T T5,536 110,056 222, 045 201,018 22o,6T4 352,599 Netherlands 12T 473 900 117 178 675 24,371 52,348 8411-55 34,69o 46,437 77,720 Others 461 464 519 274 128 336 go,u4 128,512 186".02 3.02,172 90#003 i24,59P, Subtotal, Western Europe 902 1,701 3,487 1168 581 2,757 241,034 352,42T 585,599 419,639 324,488 T14,605 W-iterranean Tt.aly 1,218 T83 T64 57 208 4T6 50,152 54,T38 125,?,Q-T 27o,431 157,695 157,5%@l Others T5 3.65 19 38 30 130 17,766 20,144 16,566 13,414 2P-,559 2 1, 847 Subtotalv I-L-diterranean 1,293 948 783 615 238 6D6 67,918 74,882 144,--53 283,845 186,254 179,428 Eastern Ekwcpe 159 .236 252 563 125 198 il, qe6 23,261 31,591 45,8o4 17,819 19,159 Total Europe 2"853 3,407 5,049 2,793 1,668 4,284 $379,553 $504,098 86T,5c2 830,591 6!1,923 $1,031,429 Table 111-8. Total Imports Delaware River and Bay By Countries and Areas of Origin, 1972-1977 (Continued) Year '.-ear I'g7 .4 1972 1973 1975 1-976 !@T7 Lry @2r_@-ea I T 1 @.q (TT,o,,;minds Of Ibns) (7h:,.@@hn4s of 'ollars) 1-*i,3dle East 98 139 68 UO 20 16 $ 14, 187 $ 14,419 1* 1@-,c55 20,026 $ 17,581 $ 10,L51 AraLlan Peninsula & Iran :@hudi Arabia 4,284 3,o96 5,095 9,123 1',478 13,005 67,99o 57,185 7, T92 634,559 1,171,078 1, 0'43, S60 !ran 3tO15 2,073 7,359 3,057 @,695 5,013 49 1348 39,o6o -":;5,527 222,957 205,107 4j@,976 Others 3,194 4,362 1,565 1,745 45 319 50,267 83,100 219,528 1-15,035 3,547 28,-186 T3talj Arab. Pen. & Iran 10,493 9,531 14,019 13,925 18,218 18,33T 168,105 179,345 ?:@2,637 972,551 1,379t732 1,495,312 Asia Indonesia 1 183 87o l,qD6 1,825 2,222 1,405 7,916 74,370 154,259 i5o,oI4 195,335 Others 130 .103 86 344 141 T4 33,512 28,036 29,66-P 69,828 36,360 44,515 Total, Asia 131 286 956 2,250 1,966 2,296 34,91T 35,952 10-',038 224,o87 186,3T4 239,850 r-st Asia J&Dan 709 625 691 804 95T 885 224,147 219,413 32-2 979 378,520 381,441 444,675 Korea 101 150 180 151 278 248 20,957 30,285 69:8@44 54,700 91, 870 92,289 Others 418 735 475 250 199 359 109,176 166,5T4 2' C-S, 5 74 132,821 102,519 136,145 Totalp East Asia 1,228 1, 510 1,346 1,205 1,434 1,492 354,28o 416,272 539,319T 566,o4i 575,830 673,109 C-ceania Australia 263 284 138 266 29T 277 i24,14o 164,337 132, L*4 154,960 181,307 12 3, e 16, 48 89 40 49, 110, 022 40,688 40,950 -12,1139 C+bhers 85 32 58 033 IC -4,732 Total, Oceania 33-1 369 22T 3o6 329 335 173,1T3 274,359 23T,156 195,648 222,25T 196,155 Africa Algeria 2,682 1,T58 2,517 6,o2g 9,365 9,079 51,715 42,671 214,321 467,579 &-1,293 0, -4 7, 3 9'-' Libya 3,358 3,415 0 2, 911, 2,734 2,513 68,ogo 67,836 0 219,215 226,916 224,56-4 Nigeria 8,305 12,072 15,347 9,721 11,761 13,478 i62,o26 296,513 1,237,045 783,255 1, 069, 5 15 1,367,930 Gab= 0 0 '(2 1 1,170 651 1,843 16 13 61,550 87,187 51,316 151,475 Angola 509 1,727 1,666 2,876 292 696 9,755 35,947 13?,482 210,457 22,686 59,741 Liberia lsl37 1, 54o 1,723 1,241 968 595 8,841 ll.,o6o lp48O 15,743 14,992 10,137 Republic of South Africa 1-33 38 68 52 133 341 21,61:L 18,294 27,682 19,518 21,773 41,905 Others 245 5,018 166 332 1,369 427 73,159 122s292 224, 107 149,774 235,599 201,097 Tortals Africa :L6, 369 22,052 22,208 24,332 2T,273 28,972 395,213 594,626 1,553,667 1,952,728 2,444,092 2,go4,i45 Other - 6,T98 - - - - - 216,512 - - - Grand Total 59,763 73,553 73,730 70,763 70,045 72,568 12,18P,111- -t,993,736 t,6,------,528 M, lp- 8, 192 M,'(24,75R t 5, CK@ 6, 6@V Source: Dj?A, International Waterborne Co=,erce Feport Table 111-9. Wilmington Harbor Imports of Selected Commoditiessl972-1977 Com.odity Year Percent Distrilution Number Description _572 1973 1974 7 Tons) "1975 1976 1977 0132 E_@-anas and Plantains 69,397 88,685 120,295 101,004 111,676 101,346 5.3% 8.1% 1011 Iron Ore and Concentrates 58,719 - 39,164 - - 51,131 4.5 4.1 1091 Non-ferrous Ores and Concentrates 58,943 47,208 16,500 25,964 __ 30,973 62,758 4.5 5.0 Subtotal, Ores & Concentrates 117.662 47,208 55,664 25,964 30,973 113v889 9.0 9.1 1311 Crude Petroleum 169,227 193,545 191,676 378,580 39,800 83,219 13.0 6.7 2915 Residual Fuel Oil 154,857 452,936 120,576 84,072 342,661 216,304 11.8 17.3 Subtotal, Petroleum & Fuel Oil 324,084 646,481 312v252 4162,652 382,461 299,523 24.8 24.0 1411 Limestone 191,035 151,719 181,945 174,215 167,499 246,057 14.7 19.7 1499 Non-metallic minerals -47,565 76,205 94,084 49,567 - 4,920 3.6 0.4 Subtotal, Limestone and Minerals 238,600 227.924 276,029 223,782 167,499 250,977 18.3 20.1 2011 Meat, Fresh, Chilled, Frozen 53,753 36,283 22,584 15,850 17,090 20,639 4.1 1.7 2421 Lumber 213,739 187,740 177,702 108,010 156.185 158,927 16.4 12.7 2819 Basic Chemicals and Products, Nec. 43,317 12,020 5,587 261 814 - 3.3 - 2879 Fertilizers and Materials. Net. - - - - j5L893 - 4.5 Subtotal, Chemicals & Ferti1i-zers 43,317 12,020 5,587 261 814 55,893 3.3 4.5 3315 Iron, Steel Shapes, Exc. Sheets 34,620 17,789 44,233 36,500 15,593 17,193 2.7 1.4 3316 Iron, Steel Plates, Sheets -74,862 53,272 71,455 59,958 70,466 75,788 5.7 6.1 Subtotal. Iron and Steel 109,482 71,061 115,688 96,458 86,059 92,981 8.4 7.5 3711 Motor Vehicles, Parts, Equipment - - 13,723 51i280 37.796 69,172 - 5.5 Subtotal, Above 1,170.034 1,317,402 1,099,524 1,085,261 990,553 1,163,347 89.6 93.2 Others Not Itemized 134,194 137,314 85,016 81,119 81,291 84,259 10.4 6.8 Total 1,304,228 1,454,716 1,184,540 1,166.380 1,071,844 1,247.606 100.0% 100.0% Total, Excluding Petroleum Fuel Oil 980.144 808,235 872,288 703,728 689,383 948,083 Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United States During the past six years, imports have displayed substantial and erratic annual variations, although it may be noted that port activity in general at all ports declined significantly in the recession year of 1975. By 1977, Wilmington had almost recovered tonnage to the level of 1972. Imports of crude petroleum and residual fuel have also shown substantial annual variations. The following table is based on the data of Table 111-9 and gives annual tonnage changes in the :importation of crude petro- leum and residual fuel for the years 1972 to 1977. Oil Imports - Port of Wilmington Year Tonnage Oil Imports Annual % Change 1972 324,084 - 1973 646,481 99.5% 1974 312,252 (-51.7)% 1975 462,652 48.2% 1976 382,461 (-17.3)% 1977 299,523 (-21.7)% *Crude Petroleum (Comm. No. 13111) and Residual Fuel Oil (Comm. No. 2915) Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United States Tonnage imports at Wilmington by commodity for the years 1972 to 1977 are shown in Table 111-9. Bananas, virtually a monopoly of Wilmington Harbor, in the Delaware Basin have remained above 100,000 tons per year for the last four years and contribute significantly to total import tonnage. Iron ore and concentrates are significant in some years (Phila- delphia is the major port for the receipt of iron ore; Wilmington's im- ports of this commodity amounted to less than 2% of the tonnage at Philadelphia in 1977.) Non-ferrous ores and concentrates contribute significant, if variable tonnage each year. The categories "Limestone" and "Non-metallic Minerals" together represent about 20% of annual im- port tonnage at Wilmington. Frozen meat is a significant import item in terms of value, although tonnage quantities have been low in the most recent years of the analysis. At present, only Wilmington and Philadel- phia receive frozen meats. Lumber is an import commodity at both Wilming- ton and Camden; a subsequent analysis shows the distribution of lumber imports among the ports of Wilmington, Camden and Philadelphia. Iron and steel shapes, plates and sheets account for 7-8% of import tonnages at Wilmington; as is the case with lumber, an additional comparative analysis compares the performance of the three ports with respect to iron and steel imports. Finally, a relatively new import item -- motor vehicles -- has assumed importance at Wilmington. The increasing ton- nage of "Motor Vehicles, Parts Equipment" reflects importation of Volks- wagen and Fiat automobiles. 111-22 As noted, some of the commodities previously discussed are imported in significant tonnage quantities at Philadelphia and Camden as well as at Wilmington. From 1972 to 1977, a six-year period, some 4,980,968 tons of limestone and non-metallic minerals (Commodities 1411 and 1499) were imported at the three ports. Average annual quantities for this period were: Camden-300,000 tons, Philadelphia-285,000 tons and Wilmington- 231,000 tons. Total tonnages and market share by year are given in the table below. Limestone and Non-metallic Minerals* Percent Distribution Tonnage Year Import Philadelphia Wilmington Camden Total 1972 983,769 32.2% 24.2% 43 6% 100.0% 1973 992,957 44.4 23.0 32 6 100.0 1974 910,394 34.1 30.3 35 6 100.0 1975 643@305 39.3 34.8 25'9 100.0 1976 546,771 34.0 30.6 35' 4 100.0 1977 813,772 24.9 30.8 44.3 100.0 Period 34.9% 28.3% 36.8% 100.0% *Commodities 1411 and 1499. **At Philadelphia, Wilmington and Camden. Source: Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. In recent years, Wilmington has assumed a leading role in the importation of automobiles because of contractual arrangements with Fiat and Volks- wagen. Since 1974, most of the motor vehicles imported in the Delaware River and Bay area have passed through Wilmington Harbor, as indicated in the tabulation below. Motor Vehicles, Parts and Equipment* Percent Distribution Tonnage Year Import Philadelphia Wilmington Camden Total 1972 5,776 98.3% 1.7% 100.0% 1973 11,101 99.1 - 0.9 100.0 1974 27,188 44.0 50.5% 5.5 100.0 1975 65,460 18.5 78.3 3.2 100.0 1976 48,533 21.5 77.9 0.6 100.0 1977 87,538 17.5% 79.1% 3.4% 100.0% *Commodity N o. 3711. **At Philadelphia, Wilmington and Camden. Source: Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. 111-23 A similar comparison was prepared for the iron and steel products (sheets, and shapes - Commodities 3315 and 3316). In the six years from 1972 to 1977, a total of 6,863,466 tons of these products were imported at the three ports; average annual tonnages were: Philadelphia7856,000, Camden- 192,000 and Wilmington-95,000. Total tonnages and market shares in per- centages for the three ports, by year, are shown in the table below. Iron and Steel Shapes, Plates and Sheets* Tonnage Percent Distribution ,Year Imports** PhiLadelphia Wilmington Camden Total 1972 1,122,061 77.9% 9.8%. 12.3% 100.0% 1973 1,051,492 75.5 6.8 17.7 100.0 1974 1,105,973 73.6 10.5 15.9 100.0 1975 1,263,058 64.3 7.7 28.0 100.0 1976 1,065,832 78.7 8.1 13.2 100.0 1977 1,255,050 80.0% 7.4% 12.6% 100.0% *Commodities No. 3315 and 3316 **At Philadelphia, Wilmington and Camden. Source: Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. It can be noted that Camden's share of the market in these commodities increased sharply in 1975 at the expense of Philadelphia. This increase is attributable to a longshoreman's strike at 'Philadelphia which resulted in diversion of cargo across the river to Camden. Lumber is a commodity of significance to Wilmington. At the three ports, during the 1972-1977 period, some 2,471,327 tons were imported. Annual tonnage averages at the three ports were: Camden-175,000, Wilmington- 167,000 and Philadelphia-70,000. Market shares for the three ports for the period are given in the following table. Lumber* Tonnage Percent Distribution Year import Philadelphia Wilmington Camden Total 1972 576,796 28.0% 37.1% 34.9% 100.0% 1973 541,791 30.1 34.7 35.2 100.0 1974*** 369,427 17.7 48.1 34.2 100.0 1975*** 229,245 3.8 47.1 49.1 100.0 1976*** 355,400 2.3 43.9 53.8 100.0 1977*** 398,670 2.6% 39.9% 57.5% 100.0% *Commodity No. 2421. **At Philadelphia, Wilmington and Camden ***Lumber not promoted at Philadelphia Source: Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. 111-24 Two factors of importance may be noted from the foregoing tabulation. First, for the analysis period, total importation of lumber has declined, so there is less lumber to be divided among the three ports. Secondly, the decision of management at Philadelphia to de-emphasize or discourage lumber has resulted in diversion of the cargo to Camden and Wilmington. (From 1975 on, Camden has acquired an increasing share of the market.) The situation with regard to lumber indicates the mutual interdependence of the three ports. A final comparison of competing port activity was made for the commodity frozen meats (Meat, fresh, chilled, frozen-Commodity No. 2011.) As in the case of lumber, tonnage imports of frozen meat have declined in re- cent years from the levels of 1972 and 1973. Camden is presently not a factor in the importation of frozen meat. Total tonnage imports of frozen meat and market shares for the 1972-1977 period are shown in the tabulation which follows. Meat, Fresh, Chilled, Frozen* Tonnage Percent Distribution Year Imports** Philadelphia Wilmington Camden Total 1972 133,646 59.8% 40.2% - 100.0% 1973 128,304 70.4 28.3 1.3% 100.0 1974 107,293 79.0 21.0 - 100.0 1975 105,001 84.9 15.1 - 100.0 1976 107,550 84.1 15.9 - 100.0 1977 109,911 79.5% 20.5% - 100.0% *Commodity No. 2011 **At Philadelphia, Wilmington and Camden Source: Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. During this period, Wilmington's position appears to have eroded sub- stantially below the percentage participation achieved in the early years. It is emphasized that Camden does not as yet participate in the importation of this commodity. III.B.3 Exports While exports both in tonnage and total value have been overshadowed by imports of the Delaware River and Bay, a measure of their continuing importance can be derived from their total value in 1977, about $2.0 billion. In this section, total historical exports will be considered, then exports by commodity class will be followed by a discussion of the countries, or areas of destination. Finally, exports by specific port will be discussed. Table III-10 shows total exports from the Delaware River and Bay area for the years 1962 to 1977. Tonnages of both bulk and general cargoes 111-25 .Table III-10. Total Exports - Delaware River and Bay,1962-1977 Tonnage Exports Tonnag4k_VaLues Average Values Year General General General Percent General Cargo - Bulk Cargo Total Bulk Cargo jc@tal kilk -Cargo Total Tonnage Value (Thousands of Short Tons) (Thousands of Dollars) (Dollars per Short Ton) 1962 2,324.6 1,555.6 3,880.2 - $ 384,160.7 - - 99.01 40.1% - 1963 3,823.8 1,861.8 5,685.6 - - 463,627.5 - - 81.54 32.7 - 1964 2,094.9 2,163.2 4,258.1 - - 509,732.1 - - 119.71 50.8 - 1965 1,844.1 1,479.7 3,323.8 - - 485.196.1 - - 145.98 44.5 - 1966 1,490.1 1,479.0 2,969.1 - - 476,573.6 - - 160.51 49.8 - 1967 1,413.4 1,724.0 3,137.4 - - 545,904.9 - - 174.00 54.9 - 1968 1,504.8 1,572.7 3,077.5 - - 553,873.1 - - 179.98 51.1 - 1969 1,171.1 1,885.7 3,056.8 - - 520,853.1 - - 170.39 61.7 - 1970 2,303.7 2.115.0 4,418.7 - - 723,417.1 - - 163.72 47.9 - 1971 1,507.7 1,784.5 3,292.2 - - 664,622.4 - - 201.88 54.2 - 1972 2,376.3 1,829.5 4,205.9 $103,808.9 $ 582.767.5 686.576.4 $ 43.69 $318.54 163.25 43.5 84.9% 1973 3,570.7 2,255.1 5,825.8 269.449.0 804,547.3 1,073.996.3 75.46 356.77 184.35 38.7 74.9 1974 4.622.1 2,348.8 6,970.9 450,515.4 1,439.106.8 1.889,622.2 97.47 612.70 271.07 33.7 76.2 1975 3,922.9 1,941.2 5,864.1 432,345.4 1,901,544.9 2,333,890.3 110.21 979.57 398.00 33.1 81.5 1976 3,830.9 2,053.0 5,883.9 373,300.o 2,027,266.7 2,400,566.7 97.44 987.47 407.99 34.9 84.4 1977 2,685.6 1,520.6 4,206.2 2,018,928.7 - - 479.99 36.2 - Source: DRPA, International Waterborne Commerce Report are indicated, as well as the value of the exports. Bulk exports, on a trend-line basis for the period 1962 to 1977, have increased at the rate of about 120,000 tons per year. Similarly, on a trend-line basis, general cargo exports have increased at the rate of 20,000 tons per year. As is the case with other port activities, year to year fluctuations generally overshadow the long-term trend. The following tabulation , based on the data of Table III-10, shows the annual percentage variations in both bulk cargoes and general cargoes for the period under consideration. Percent Change from Previous Year Bulk and General Cargo Exports Year Bulk General Total 1963 65.5% 19.7% 46.5% 1964 (-45.2) 16.2 (-25.1) 1965 (-12.0) (-31.6) (-21.9) 1966 (-11.1) - (-10.7) 1967 5.1) 16.6 5.7 1968 6.5 8.8) 1-9) 1969 (-22.2) 19.9 0.7) 1970 96.7 12.2 44.6 1971 (-34.6) (-15.6) (-25.5) 1972 57.6 2.5 27.8 1973 50.3 23.3 38.5 1974 29.4 4.2 19.7 1975 (-15.1) (-17.4) (-15.9) 1976 (- 2.3) 5.8 0.3 1977 (-29.9)% (-25.9)% (-28.5)% Table III-11 shows bulk cargo exports for the period 1972 to 1977. It can be seen that grain and soybeans together (-farm products) are the most important tonnage export and accounted for 50% to 60% of all bulk cargo exports during the period. Coal exports are also significant, but the high level of coal exports in 1974 was largely offset by a com- parable tonnage imported (Table 111-5). While recognizing the present and potential importance of coals, it is apparent that farm products are the basic element in maintaining high levels of bulk export tonnage from the Delaware River and Bay area. The exports of general cargo from the Delaware River and Bay area are given in Table 111-12. Over the six-year period, 1972-1977, the commo- dity grouping "Manufactured Goods and Machinery" represented 5,209,000 export tons, an average of about 868,000 tons per year; a second commo- dity group, "Crude Materials," accounted for an additional 3,397,000 export tons, an average of about 566,000 tons per year. These two 111-27 Table III-11. Bulk Cargo Exports, Delaware River and Bay, 1972-1977 Year Classification 1972 1975 M6 19TT (ThouEands of Short Ton7a Co=odity G7,6 in 1,119-T 2,396.o 2x135-5 2,121.1 2,292.0 1,283.6 Soyle@ns 244.7 353.1 4o6.1 336.5 250.7 369.3 Coal and Coke 649-Q 766.5 2,oi5.8 1,346.6 1,056.o 89c).6 Petroleum 313.7 54.6 63.9 u8. 1 232.0 141.3 Ore. 49.3 0.5 0.8 o.6 0.2 0.7 Total 2,376.4 3,570.7 4,622.1 3,922.9 3,830.9 2,685.5 Percent Distribution Commodity Grain 47.1% 67.1% 46.2% 54.1% 59.8% 47.8% Soybeans 10.3 9.9 8.8 8.6 6.5 13.8 Coal and Coke 27.3 21.5 43.6 34-3 2T.6 33.2 6.1 Petroleum 13.2 1.5 1.4 3.0 5.2 OD Ores 2.1 - - - - Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2DO.0% 100.0 100.0% Thous!!nds of Dollars value $103,808.9 $269,449.o $450,515-5 $432,345.4 $3T3,300-0 Average Unit Value Dollars per Ton Average Value $43-68 $T5.50 OTAT $110.21 $97.44 Source: MA, International Waterborne, Con-imerce Report M MO. M. M so M M go 01K am M M Table 111-12. General Cargo Exports - Delaware River and Bay, 1972-1977 Year 71stribution Ll'.-;Sificati 19T4 DM jT6 19TT 1972 12L4 1915 19TT (-mo--Mands of Aart Tons) Mincral 7aels & Lubricants Petroleum Products 254-9 231.8 207.4 1814.1 180.5 152.3 13-9@ E.9% 9.5% 10.0% Other 0.2 - 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - - Subtotal 255.1 P31-8 207.6 184.2 180.7 152.4 13.9 F.8 9.5 10.0 Crude '.1aterials Crude Fertilizers & Mnerals 81.3 55.2 77.4 32.0 58.1 3.6 4.4 3.3 1.6 0.2 Pulp, Waste Paper 3.7 10.3 11-T 7.4 18.1 13-T 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.9 Ores and Scrap Metal 264.4 646.2 372.7 595.0 542.1 442.2 14' .5 15.9 30.7 29.1 Other 20.8 28.6 31.5 31.1 25-7 24.5 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.6 Subtatal 370.2 T40-3 493.3 665-5 644.o 484.o 20.2 21.0 34.3 31.8 'Inufactured Goods & Machinery llm-=etal I%neral Manufactures 34.2 41.8 52.8 41.2 58-1 58.5 1.9 2.2 2.1 3.9 .Iron and Steel Products 699.6 580-9 775.1 161.1 287.0 122.2 35.2 -3.0 8.3 8.0 Is ry chine incl. electrical) 48.7 59.0 105.6 120.0 log.8 96.1 2.7 - 5 6.2 6.3 Transportation Equipment 51-1 48.2 1T3.4 382.6 345.4 266.3 2.8 7.4 19.7 17.5 Other 49.1 80.3 117.7 88.1 89.2 66.1 2.7 5.0 4.5 4.3 subtotal 882.7 810.2 1,224.6 793.0 889.5 6og.2 49.3 52.1 40.8 4ox Foodsx Beverages@ Tobacco 42.3 83.1 75.0 30.2 49.0 47.1 2.3 3.2 1.6 3.1 Chemicalso Oils rand Fats Anl@l Oils & Fats 4T.6 37.2 35.4 31-3 21.7 20.0 2.6 1.5 1.6 1.3 Chemical Elements & Compounds 91-T 192-3 150-7 123.9 133-1 T8.4 5.0 6.4 6.4 5.2 S@mthetic riesins & Plastics 4T-2 52.2 56.9 38-0 52.2 42.1 2.6 2.4 2.0 2.8 Misc. Chemical Products 46-7 43.5 62.9 39.8 42-T 41.1 2.6 2-T 2.0 2-T Other 3T.0 56-6 33.4 27.2 31.2 37.8 2.0 IA 1.4 2.5 subtotal 2TO.2 381.8 339.3 26o.2 280.9 219.4 14.6 14.4 13.4 14.5 I-Iisc. Manufactures & Spec. Transactions 9.0 T-9 9.0 8.0 8.9 8.5 0.5 c.4 o.4 o.6 Total 1,829-5 2,255.1 2,348.8 1,941.1 2,053-0 1,52o.6 loox-f ix.0% lon.0% 100.0% Source: DIPA, International Waterborne Co=.,erce F-eport groupings totalled 72% of all export tonnage of general cargo during this period. Within the "Crude Materials" category, scrap metal is the most significant single-item; transportation equipment-motor vehicles- and iron and steel products are the most important items in "Manufac- tured Goods and Machinery." Chemicals and chemical products have also contributed significantly to export tonnage, as have petroleum products to a somewhat lesser extent. A summary by commodity groupings for both bulk and general cargoes is provided in Table 111-13. Manufactured goods and machinery, which in 1977 represented only 14.5% of exports by tonnage accounted for 67.1% of total export value. On the other hand, while mineral fuels (oil and coal) were 28.2% of tonnage exports in 1977, they represented only some 4.8% of total export value in that year. Table 111-14 was prepared to show the major countries and regions to which cargoes were exported from the Delaware River and Bay area during the six-year period ending in 1977. Tonnage exports to the different regions of the world are shown below both in actual amounts and as a percent of total. Exports* Region Tons" Percent Value Percent Western Hemisphere 817 19.4% 490.7 24.3% Europe 2,148 55.9 475.6 23.6 Middle East 110 2.6 71.6 3.5 Arabia and Iran 206 4.9 493.3 24.4 Asia 56 1.3 60.0 3.0 East Asia 476 11.3 191.2 9.5 Oceania 65 1.5 120.6 6.0 Africa 129 3.1 115.9 5.7 TOTAL 4,207 100.0% $2,018.9 100.0% *Thousands of Tons -Millions of Dollars As a general comment, high-value manufactured goods such as motor vehicles are exported to the wealthier oil exporting countries. As can be seen in the foregoing table, while tonnage exports to Arabia and Iran amounted to only 4.9% of total, in terms of value the -percentage was 24.4. For Europe, the tonnage percentage was 55.9; the 'value percent was 23.6. (Among other commodities, Europe imports large quantities of wheat.) Other regions vary between these two extremes. There are, of course, variations within regions. Venezuela, for example, imports high value equipment, although the average value for the Western Hemisphere is only slightly above the overall world average. 111-30 man MMIMMM M wmvft@mmmm Table III-13.2otal Exports Delaware River and Bay Commodity Summary, 1972-1977 Year Classification 1972 1973 !TThou-,ards of Tlo2nyff 1976 Mineral Fuels 1,217.8 1,052.8 2,287.2 1,648.9 1,468.7 1,184.3 Crude ' Materials 664 1 io94.o 900-g 1,002 9 591 0 Manufactured Goods & Machinery 882:T 83.o.2 1,224. T93:1 M-5 860 :2 Foods Beveoriges, Tobacco 1,A2 o 2 1 2,210 6 2,21M:2 2,2318,01:1 1,130.8 Chemicals, a, Fats 2TO:2 0T1:8 339:2 2 9 19.4 Misc. Manufactures, Special Transactions 9.0 T-9 9.0 8.o 8.9 8-5 Total Tons 4,205.8 5,825.8 6,970.9 5,864.o 5,884.0 4,2M.2 Percent Distribution Mineral Fuels 29 18.1% 32.8% 28.1% 25-0% 28.2% Crude Materials 15:9% 18.8 12.9 17.1 15-2 20.3 Manufactured Goods & Machinery 21.0 13:9 17.6 1 5 15-1 14 Poodsp Beweragesp Tobacco 2T.6 42 3 31-T 39:T 39-8 311 Chemicals, Oils, Fats 6.4 6.6 4.9 4.4 4.8 5.2 Misc. Manufactures, Special Transactions 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 Total 10O.op, 100.0% 100.0% lco.'A 100.0".1 100.0% Export Value - Thousands of Dollars Mineral Fuels $ 41 051.1 $ 4,0091:6 $ 14 1, @03:6 $ 121 383.6 $ n4,943..7 $ 97 018.9 Crude Materials 578-9 1 , 58 0 181, 4 IM 031.5 140,T37-9 145 863.2 5T 11 11 i Manufactured Goods & Machinery 372,032.3 471,377.7 926,107.7 1,486,083.1 1,575,767.4 1,355,573.9 Foods, Beverages, Tobacco 79,TOO-5 215,95T.4 345,287.1 31o,648.2 283,663-0 157,375.4 Chemicals, Oils, Fats 118,693 5 186,218 8 263,629.9 213 60g.1 245,743.3 22o.653.8 Misc. Manufactures, Special Transactions 17,120:1 22,285:8 310213.6 3653 .8 39,T13-3 42,438.5 Total $686,5T6.4 $1,OT3,996.3 $1,889,62L> .3 $2,333,890.3 $2,400,566.6 $2,018,928-T Percent Distribution of Ext)ort Values Mineral Fuels 6.0% 3.5% 7-e 5.21% 4.8% 4.8% Crude Materials 8.4 13.0 9. T 1 5 2 54.2 43.9 WO 3 T 5 T:1 Manufactured Goods & Machinery 6 : 6 :9 67 Foods, Beverages, Tobacco li.6 20.1 18.3 13.3 11.8 T.8 Chemicals, Oils, Fats 1T .3 17.3 14.0 9.2 10.2 10.9 Misc. Manufactures, Special Transactions 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.5 1-T 2.1 Total 100.04, 100.0% 100.01% 100.0 100.0% 100'0% Mineral Fuels Average s - DollRrs/T::n - - $ J3-Tl $ 36.19 $ 62 08 $ Z53 61 $ 78.26 $ 81.?02 Crude Maturials 7.30 i28.o2 201:49 3 :60 157.27 170. Manufactured Goods & Machinery 421AT 581-80 T56.25 l'8R -TT 1,T71-52 222 54 Foods, Beverages, Tobacco 68-52 87-11 156.2o 1 .41 121:817 118:26 Chemicals, Oils, Fats 439.2d 48T.74 T77.21 82o.93 874 4 1,005-74 Misc. Manufactur(.@;, Special Transaction-- 1,902.23 2,820.99 3,468.18 4,517-35 4,462,17 4,qcv2-76 Total $ 163.25 $ IB4.35 $ 2Tl-OT $ 392.00 $ 4OT-98 $ 479.99 Source, DRPA Table 111-14. Total Exports - Delaware River and Bay By Countries and Areas of Destination, 1972-1977 Year Year Count ry /krea 1972 1974 19Tb6---- i 1974 i2m IT( 7 12:5, L6 77 (Thoucands of Tons) n@in@s of Dollars i l2 1977 Weste-n Femfsphere Canada 355 379 355 3@(2 456 423 4, 986 E,,14 44,43o 60 489 34,990 23,194 ,.:e ico and Central Ai:,erica 25 41 38 20 22 22 15,647 51 24,941 19:184 17,832 20,965 Carille n Trinidad 2 2 2 2 1,482 3 3 1, 2:. I,F70 1,956 2,141 2,939 Eehs.-P-s 57 0 0 0 0 0 1,003 155 0 4 0 323 !@etberlands Antilles 4 4 5 4 3 6 1,S92 2,---56 3,4o6 2s939 2,668 4,329 Others 32 7 12 6 4 6 5,569 5,25 9.709 8,859 8,527 -- 9.P26 Subtotal, Caribbean 96 13 19 12 9 15 9,946 4?9 14,985 13,758 13,336 17,317 South America Venezuela 229 182 230 193 235 144 66,741 -F,0T3 154,72o 257 342 257,948 2 30, 104 Brazil 108 86 60 1 127,468 92P352 198 320 95 36,150 65,8T3 136,957 87,890 Pera 24 58 167 84 39 67 13,862 !6,L24 29,576 25,711. 20,291 13,o65 Others 152 322 213 73 69 ----@L6 64,725 95,ol4 98,375 73,793 93,735 Subtotal, South America 513 56o 930 498 438 357 181,478 194,23o 416,267 469,318 479,500 429,256 Total, Western Hemisphere 989 993 1,342 902 925 817 212,057 227,744 500,623 562,749 545.658 490,732 Europe Scandinavia 114 76 29 158 55 75 23,844 11,353 21,329 32,896 2o,641 19,771 5 255 845 1,20-8 1,132 .11 - - Iberian Perjin5ula 010 40,2-10 S3,316 165,554 138,954 105, 468 '(2 o 775 Western R=ope United Kingdom 464 744 638 443 598 247 47,962 @c,224 136,763 94,92T 320,310 74,562 West Germany 313 540 377 126 63 206 37,562 r-, 095 64,719 44,817 46,449 53,545 retherlands 372 549 451 486 384 271 35,006 67,393 75,295 70.362 65,834 56,210 Others 374 261 323 281 572 203 50,349 74, i,,)l 93,258 85,856 138,797 92,81-1 Subtotal, Western Europe 1,523 2,o94 1,789 1,336 1,6l7 927 170,879 310,013 370,035 295,962 3T1,390 2TT,128 Mediterranean .Italy 153 306 255 335 453 375 17f,490 3? 1194 94,673 45,3o6 6o,788 64,430 Others 249 92 61 69 44 53 17,714 15,297 22,137 161887 18,578 10,245 D&total, Mediterranean 402 398 316 404 4197 428 35,204 47,L91 116,81o 62,193 79,366 74,675 Eastern Europe 65 334 172 400 700 248 4,756 331,558 28,115 66,515 81,910 31,291 Total, Europe 2,61g .3,747 3,514 2_430 3,730 2,348 274,953 4"-701 701,843 596,520 658,775 475,64o, Table 111-14. Total -Exports - Delaware River and Bay By Countries and Areas of Destination, 1972-1977 (continued) Year Year L972 -1972 19T3 1974 1975 v 1977 @-tr, @nea iyu-aff-i- -imL 2-1@ - (Thoumnds of Tons) (T@mlzands of @033,ars) Viddle Past 63 44 83 U3 155 110 32,c32 !4, lo6 26,P68 70,228 A6,490 71,5T6 Arablan Peninsula Iran 1 89 1". 2223 8,733 9,647 4-,),12o. 168, 3BO 349,597 27o,403 Saudi Arabia 29 18 32 Iran 28 32 33 87 56 5 23P095 15,915 33,203 221,776 64,493 12, 4@68 Others -7 6 2.3. -@Lno- 5,876 24, 349 16@,2 a :t5P, lo6 210, 3o6 Subtotal, Amb. 'Pen. & Iran 64 56 78 257 268 2o6 2T,833 34,438 97,672 555,921 572,198 493,287 As la Indonesia 4 9 T 7 14 12 1,201 4,06L> 11,796 5,055 21.914 11,111 Others 107, 6 3T4 38, 738 96- IOB 130 ST 44 24, SuIttotal, Asia 111 305 115 137 101 56 25,T09 32,9T3 62,01B 50,5u4 56,285 60,029 &at Asia Japan 147 323 1PO55 304 244 235 26,679 69.405 149,320 97, 026 66,091 68,524 Korea 42 21 19 68 99 154 4,430 51108 23,P38, 17,62o 44 229 54, ill Others 53 239 34T 237 61 87 _gqaT4 @47 U10, 6ce 104,330 .72: 919. -6@1591 Total, Fast Asia 242 583 1,421 609 404 476 53,483 138,992 2T3,760 218,976 203,239 igi,226 Oceania Australia 31 82 104 45 61 54 27, 195 69,321 ice, 667 75,825 103,8516 Z3,914 Others 7 l6 19 32 -!& @-1-lao-1-9--a8,46,; i-P, 377 15,244 l6,674 Total, Oceania 38 98 123 5T 76 65 33,844 79,340 121,130 88,202 UT, 100 220,588 Africa Algeria 0 is 61 31 14 0 229 2,069 15.o45 T, 419 8,737 140 Libya 0 1 0 0 1 1 443 5,071 103 1,252 1,3V I'm NiCeria 2 3 12 ll 22 1.6 1,853 1,425 3,606 i4,iiT 61,214 17,W Gabon 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 132 103 211 2 U 13 Angola 6 2 T 0 0 1 2,395 2,366 1,49e 122 0 609 Liberia I 1 1 3 3 3 618 5o6 788 1,559 1,786 5,150 Republic of South Africa 22 33 48 34 21 18 1906T9 26,415 51,543 75,328 4.1,338 28,503 Others 45 140 335 -280 164 21,503 4,681 3_3, 62 3 9C,, 945 62.49o Total Africa T6 198 264 359 225 229 46,675 62,645 106,303 3.90,753 158,820 115,853. Others 0 0 Grand Total 4,202 5,824 6,940 5,864 5,884 4,20T 686,586 l,c7L-029 I,T@@9,637 2,3333.893 2,4oo,568 .2,oiP,929 III.B.3.a Exports - Wilmington Harbor Tonnage exports from Wilmington Harbor are given in Table 111-15 for the years 1972 to 1977. Summarized below, from Table 111-15, are total ex- ports exclusive of crude petroleum transfers. Total Exports Year Jons Percent Change 1972 29,616 1973 17,904 (-39.5)% 1974 43,333 142.0% 1975 77,255 78.3% 1976 138,249 79.0% 1977 114,780 (-17.0)% During the 1972-1977 period, as shown above, exports increased substan- tially at Wilmington. The single most important factor in these in- creased exports has been the export of motor vehicles; the vehicle export tonnages are compared with total tonnage exports (exclusive of crude petroleum) in the following abbreviated table. Vehicle Vs. Total Exports Total Exports Vehicle Exports Vehicle Exports Year (Tons) (Tons) (Percent) 1972 29,616 - - 1973 17,904 4 1974 43,333 10,638 24.5% 1975 77,255 21,527 27.9 1976 1381,249 71,552 51.8 1977 114,780 78,806 68.7 4-Year Totals 373P617 182,523 48.9% Source: Waterborne Commerce of U.S. During the last four years almost half the total tonnage exports from Wilmington have been motor vehicles. In view of the importance of this item, exports from Wilmington were compared with those from Camden and Philadelphia and the "market shares" of the three ports were computed. The results of this comparison are given in the table which follows. 111-34 Table 111-15. Wilmington Harbor Exports of Selected Co modities, 1972-1977 CO=Odity Year -R=ber 19V im 06- 1121 coal and Lignite 16,384 1311 crude Petrolex= 18T,T40 85,C-150 14921 Sulphur, Dry - .16, UT - 282-9 Basic Chemicals & Prod. Nee. 4,681 11,811 9,831 3,039 919n %071 2891 Miscellaneous Che.-Ical Products 1,350 - - - 7,994 - 3313 Coket Petrole= Aspbalts, Solvents IS, 53@ 21,953 51,709 14,999 23,801 3411 Fabricated Metal Products - 4,OM 1 3 23 - 3711 Mator Vebicles, Parts, ikuipmeot - 4 io,638 21,52T T1,552 T8,806 Subtotal 24,563 3-5,83T 42,423 76,278 324,760 196,728 Otber 5,M 2,o6T 910 97T I@V209 3,Ue Total 29,6,16 IT1904 43,333 77,255 325,989 199,830 Percent Itemized 97.9% 98-TO 99.6% In 82.9% 88.5% 98.4% Source- Usterborne Con-t-erce of the United States Motor Vehicles, Parts, Equipmen Tonnage Percent Distribution Year Export** Philadelphia Wilmin,,ton Camden Total 1972 44,450 99.6% 0.4% 100.0% 1973 46,401 99.7 0.3 100.0 1974 170,621 88.1 6.2,0.? 5.7 100.0 1975 376,299 64.8 5.7 29.5 100.0 1976 334,579 45.2 21.4 33.4 100.0 1977 256,214 38.1% 30.8% 31.1% 100.0% *Commodity No. 3711 "At Philadelphia, Wilmington, Camden Source: Waterborne Commerce of U.S. Wilmington's percent participation in the export of motor vehicles has increased steadily. In the last four years (11374 to 1977), Wilmington's vehicle exports have accounted for 16% of total exports from the three ports. The commodity classification "Coke, Petroleum Asphalts, Solvents" has been an important and relatively consistent export for Wilmington. Philadelphia is the major exporter as shown in the table below. Coke, Petroluem, Asphalts, Solvents Tonnage Percent Distribution Year Exports Philadelphia Wilmington Camden Total 1972 142,746 86.9% 13.0% 0.1% 100.0% 1973 183,890 99.8 - 0.2 100.0 1974 118,662 81.3 18.5 0.2 100.0 1975 207,558 74.6 24.9 0.5 100.0 1976 244,534 93.4 6.1 0.5 100.0 1977 352,433 93.2% 6.8% - 100.0% Source: Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. As in the case with imports, Wilmington exports cargoes in competition with both Philadelphia and Camden, the level of tonnage handled will depend on competitive actions at the other ports as well as the facili- ties and other incentives offered at Wilmington. 111-36 III.B.4 Coastwise and Internal Commerce Coastwise and internal receipts and shipments represent important compo- nents of total activity at the ports and harbors of the Delaware River and Bay area. The terms "coastwise receipts and shipments" apply to domestic traffic between United States ports, including Puerto Rico. "Internal receipts and shipments" refer to movements within an internal body of water, in this case the Delaware River and Bay. It is readily evident that petroleum and petroleum products -- residual fuel, distillate fuel and other refined products such as gasoline -- are the principal product's distributed by water. For the total Delaware River and Bay ("Trenton-to-the-Sea"), coastwise shipments have been sum- marized in Table 111-16 for the years 1972 through 1977. This table shows, for the year 1977, that three petroleum products, gasoline and distillate and residual fuel oil, totalled 73.3% of total tonnage; crude petroleum contributed an additional 8.2%. (In recent years, direct im- portation of crude petroleum has become much more important than coast- wise receipts.) Basic chemicals, caustic soda and sulphuric acid are among the important non-petroleum commodities moving in coastwise commerce. In general, coastwise traffic consists of petroleum products and other bulk commodi- ties which have a high weight to value ratio and can be shipped most economically by water. Internal shipments follow the same pattern as coastwise movements with some significant differences. Movements of crude petroleum are much more important in internal traffic than in coastwise shipments. The tonnages shown in Table 111-17 represent the barge lightering operations from lower Delaware Bay to destinations upstream. (This lightering operation will be discussed in detail in another section of this Report.) Very low value materials such as sand, gravel, and crushed rock are also more important in "internal" tonnage than in coastwise traffic; simi- larly coal, sulphuric acid, residual fuel, and scrap are more signifi- cant in internal than coastwise movements. Basically, internal cargo movements serve to distribute bulk commodities within the Delaware River and Bay area. In addition to the lightering of crude petroleum and the movement of petroleum products, basic indus- trial chemicals, construction materials, and scrap are shipped from point of production within the area to points of consumption or consoli- dation in the River and Bay. At Wilmington Harbor, coastwise receipts and shipments have played only a minor role in total tonnage handled. Table 111-18 gives a summary of foreign, domestic and internal commerce at Wilmington for the period 1965 to 1977. During this period, internal receipts have generally been the single most important tonnage category, although in 1976 and 1977, this preeminence has been lost to imports. (The decline in internal receipts reflects decreases in petroleum products and crude oil received 111-37 Table 111-16. Trenton- to- the-Sea Coastwise Cargo Movements, 1972-1977 Ccr.T'5111ty Year Ferzenta--e of -@tal :.'x:ber DescrIntion 19T2 1974 RM 1972 lW5 ([email protected] of Tons) 1121 Coal & LiCnite 8 TT I - O.C4 C X4 13U C-u3e Fetroleur. 11,507 6,529 6,OrP1 3,612 2,;98 2,20T 32.6 13.7 5.2 1493 rulphur, 7 lquid 210 211 247 81 81 T7 0.6 0.3 0-3 Po6i QuCur - 19 35 62 85 12 C.C 0.2 0.0 2421 Ixrrber .108 49 44 35 8 7 0.3 0.1 0.0 2010 Soli=. Hyiroxide 2M IB5 191 185 542 222 0.6 0.7 0.8 2@n Crude %r, Oil, Gas Frolucts 1?9 181 110 105 107 132 0 .5 o.4 0.5 2833 Alcohols 129 16T 114 85 89 94 o.4 0.3 o.4 281T Benzene and Toluene 236 86 213 212 281 153 O-T 0.8 o.6 2828 Sulphuric Acid .133 152 103 59 69 50 (%.4 0.2 0.2 2819 Basic Chemicals and Prod., Nee. 4Tl 525 63T 565 a3 573 1.3 2.1 2.1 29U Gasoline 6,981 7,675 8,6og T,738 8,529 7,683 19.9 29.4 29.4 2912 Jet Fuel 258 392 349 264 5n 405 0.7 1.0 1.5 2913 Kerosene 119 325 2PI 152 288 237 0.3 o.6 0.9 2914 Distillate Fuel Oil 6,3TT 7,322 5,783 5,953 5,084 6,li6 18.1 22.6 22.8 2915 Residual Puel Oil 5,147 3,856 5,302 4,854 T,03-1 5,652 14.6 18.4 21.1 2916 Lubricating Oils and Greases 906 1,209 l,OT9 1,054 964 900 2.6 4.o 3.4 291T Vaphtha, Petroleum Solvents 283 170 12T 175 579 511 0.8 O-T 1.9 2918 Asphalt, Thr and Pitches 1,018 T57 665 443 801 841 2.9 1.7 3.1 1 2991 Petroleum and Coal Prod., Nee. 269 lT4 105 148 iT6 108 0.8 o.6 '0.4 W 3314 Iron and Steel Frinm7 Form 99 94 Tr 16 3 0.3 0.0 0.0 OD 3319 Iran and Steel Products, Nec. 1 6 4 82 90 2 0.0 0.3 0.0 4ou Iron and Cteel Scrap - 1 56 9 1 T 0.0 0.0 0-.0 4m Cocam-4ities, rec. 5 lT5 253 100 156 161 0.0 0.4 o.6 Suttotal 34,654 30,13T 30,453 25,989 28,493 26,353 98.2 98.6 98.3 All Others 659 551 875 345 87 456 1.8 1.4 1.7 Total 35013 3o,688 31,328 26,334 28,580 26,8og 1W.0% 100.0% 100.0% % Itemized 98.1% 99.2% 97.2% 98.7% gg.T% 98.3% gource: Witerborme Co.--3erce of the United States Table 111-17. "Trenton-to-the Sea" Internal Cargo Movements, 1972-1977 Cornodity Yeai T'w*.er Descr:!Rtlon 1972 i2n 1974 2_W6 19TT (Thowands of Short TMS) 1321 Coal and Lignite 1,220-T 1,736.o 1,707.8 1,524.6 948.8 842.9 1311 Crude Petroleum 4,955.3 6,796.1 9,C68-5 9,993.0 9,846.7 il,o44-5 1442 Fand, Gravels Crushed Rock 2,3i4.T 2,lT5.1 1,694-T 4553-3 726A 654.3 26u Pulp 133.9 3-51.5 134.9 139.4 135-1 104.4 2810 Sodim- F3rdroxide 125.8 177-5 141.8 68.1 48.o 26a 2813 Alcohols 68-3 38-5 1.0 - - - 281T Benzene and Toluene i48.o 179.4 99.2 T6.i 155.2 136.5 2818 Sulphuric Acid 6T9.o 673.2 755.0 416.1 372.1 469.3 2819 Basic Chemicals and Prod., Wee. 38.3 140.3 90.4 167-9 396.8 195.9 2913. Gasoline 3,753.9 2,976.6 3,029.7 2,329 1 2,3T6.o 1,946.2 2922 * at Fuel 856.8 BT1.4 859-5 565:6 486.o 532.5 2913 * Kerosene 235-8 249.1 200-5 154.4 2o6.7 241.6 2914 * Distillate Fuel Oil 3,503-4 3,872.6 4,814-T 4,:L2o.8 3,341.8 3,445-3 2915 * Residual Fuel Oil 8,709-5 7,709-3 7,263.4 6,441-5 8,634.5 8,579-5 2916 * babricating Oils and Greases 78.3 11T.1 134.9 63.2 136.6 173.6 2918 * Asphalt, Tars Pitches 320.2 M-9 343.6 23T.0 282.8 296.7 2991 * Petroleum and Coal Prod. Nee. 154.2 220.3 225-T 1TT.1 87.9 107.4 3322 Slag - - - 6o.8 W29 Waste and Scrap, Nee. 442.9 500A 6o5.o 6D3-T 6T5 -T 518.9 4= Co=aoditiesp Nee. T-1 81.8 98.5 100.1 141.8 T9.1 Subtabal 27,746-1 29,038.1 31,268.8 28,731.0 28,998.9 29,455.5 All Other 138.0 181.1 163.4 130.6 186.4 23T.5 Total 27,884.1 29,23.9.2 31,432.2 28,861.6 29,185.3 29,693.0 Percent Ttemized 99.5% 99.4% 99.5% 99.5% 99.4% 99.2% *Petrolet= & Products - Tons 22,56T.4 23,iB4.4 25,940.5 24,o8l.T 25,399.0 26,36T.3 % of Total 80.9% T9.3% 82-5% 83.4% 8T.0% 88.8% Scureet ILaterborne, Co=erce of the United 'States Table 111-18. Wilmington Harbor Foreign and Domestic Cargo Movements, 1961, 1965,to 1977 T@[email protected] rercent %strilutist-.- iql.-r Total Dyilnris --l-An"LwIst- Tutc-rnnl Local Forciem - .. .... . - --- --- 1;@t=q -tl-!!-r TC't R-1 T@ C- CLjPjL5 -MT @nts EiLrislk!Ls -!ent-s (Tonal 1961 2#154,99T 281,226 29,089 1T3, 881 185 1,554,9,;p7 115,639 - 14.4% 8.1% TT.5% - 3,00.0% 1962 1963 1964 1965 2 391, T3.6 6T6,934 16,4TS 34 IT6 52 1, 550, 56T 113,393 n6 29.0 1.4 .69.6 - 100.0 1966 2,346,203 628, T06 22, 1TO 40:508 215 1,564,567 90,03T - 2T-T 1.8 TO .5 - M.0 196T 2,523,29T 603,200 5, 94T 26, 9T5 T6 1,843,449 43,650 - 24.1 1.1 T4.8 - 100.0 1968 2,536,T38 753,690 5,925 40,211 322 1, 6To, 998 65,792 - 29.9 1.6 68.5 - 100.0 1969 2,695,491 684,o32 10,588 75 T39 30 1, 889, BT6 34,956 - 25.8 2.8 TI .4 - 100.0 .1970 2,T60,568 706,270 13,789 44:519 3,028 1,930,825 62,137 - 26.1 I-T 72.2 - Im.0 19T1 2,967,223 615,218 55,212 16,750 666 2,033,953 45,424 - 29.3 o.6 70.1 - ICX).O 1972 3 602,395 1,304,228 29,616 49*628 - 2,2o6,427 12 496 - 3T.0 1.4 61.6 - 100.0 19T3 4:ool,8i6 1,454,716 voo4 691997 - 2,441,189 18P,010 - 36.8 1.8 61.4 - 100.0 19T4 3, 688, m 1,24,540 43,333 60,433 - 2,564,35T 32,449 3, T36 31.6 1.6 66.7 0.1% 100.0 19T5 3o226,559 1,166,38o TT,255' 226,iol - 1,836 43o 20,393 38.5 3.9 5T.6 - 100.0 IqT6 2, 6538259 1,OT1,844 325P989 244,623 - 1,008:496 2,3DT 52.7 9.2 38.1 - 200.0 19TT 2,917,7T4 1,247,6o6 199,83o 3T1,018 250 1,078,024 21,045 49.6% 12.7% 3T.7% - Im.0% Source: Waterborne Commrce or the United States at Wilmington.) Generally, internal receipts at Wilmington follow the same patterns as those displayed at the other ports of the Delaware River and Bay. III.B.5 Future Trends This section discusses significant future trends which will affect com- merce in the Delaware River and Bay. After reviewing the prospects of containerization and trends in the commodity flows, the specific outlook for both Wilmington Harbor and the lightering operation in lower Dela- ware Bay will be examined. III.B.5.a Containerization The widespread and expanding use of containers with the associated changes in facilities and equipment to accommodate them is an established trend throughout the shipping and related transportation industries. Major advantages of container systems over conventional breakbulk general cargo handling methods are: � More efficient cargo handling and vessel loading which permits decreased port times and higher vessel produc- tivity. � Faster door-to-door transit or delivery times for ship- ments due to improved handling, faster vessels, and coordinated inland transportation and documentation. 0 Reduced pilferage and cargo damage due to water leakage, poor handling or stowage, lack of climate controls, and other hazards. Specific factors affecting container usage at a particular port include: the volume of cargo destined to or originating in, overseas ports on a single trade route; the availability of regular containership service; the availability of container facilities at overseas cargo destinations or origins; the cost, speed and overall service quality of inland trans- portation connections; the balance of container imports and exports so that large volumes of empty containers will not have to be handled; the unit value of cargo offered and shipping rate levels; and the suscepti- bility of the commodities being moved to various types of damage. Philadelphia began 'handling containers in substantial numbers in 1972; data on container movements for the most recent four-year period (fur- nished by the World Trade Division of the DRPA) are given in the table below for the Packer Avenue Terminal and the Tioga Marine Terminal. 111-41 Total Container Movements, Packer and Tioga Terminals, Philadelphiak Year Packer Tioga Total Annual % Change 1975 56,469 29,679 86,148 1976 64,066 36,821 100,887 +17.1% 1977 42,535 45,906 88,441 (-12.3)% 1978 61,597 64,896 126,493 +43.0% *In TEUs (20-foGt equivalent units); both export and import. During the last four years, Philadelphia's container movements have averaged 100,000 TEU's per year. Using a general measure of 11 metric tons per container (12.125 short tons per container), it is possible to calculate the approximate container tonnages handled and compare them with foreign general cargo tonnages in total (see below). Tons* Containers Year Import Export Total Tons % of Total 1975 3,350.0 1951.1 5301.1 104.45 19.7% 1976 3,311.6 2053.0 5364.6 1222.3 28.8 1977 3,619.7 1520.6 5140.3 1072.3 20.9% 1978 - - - 1533.7 - *Thousands of short tons. If future container traffic is to increase in the Delaware River and Bay, the local ports must attract cargo now using other ports and/or achieve a greater share or new container tonnage than in the past. While there appears to be considerable "potential" for such additional tonnage, significant marketing efforts will have to be made to achieve increased container throughput. III.B.5.b Commodity Flows In many respects, future growth in waterborne commerce can be forecast as an extension of the historic performance of traditional commodities. Although present study objectives and scope do not require specific projections, we have examined overall growth trends with particular emphasis on general cargo movements and have reviewed the work of other consultants who have made such projections. One such report, Port Faci- lities Study, City of Philadelphia, was prepared by Tippetts-Abbett- McCarthy-Stratton (TAMS) and dated May 25, 1978. This report contained a forecast of general cargo movements through the Ports of Philadelphia, which is shown on the following page (Table 111-19). Our review is in basic agreement with the general cargo import and export forecasts of TAMS, shown graphically on Exhibit 111-5. (This projection does not 111-42 Table 111-19. Forecast General Cargo Through Forts of Philadelphia; 1978, 1983, 1990 (000's Short Tons) 1975 (Existing) 1978 1983 1990 Lm2orts Primary Metals (excl. Cokes, etc.) 1,859 2,050 2,350 2,700 Food Products (excl. Sugar and Molasses) 251 335 502 706 Lumber and Wood 340 400 450 500 Farm Products 337 385 400 415 All Others 272 292 330 392 Subtotal 3,059 3,462 4,032 4,713 Exports Scrap Metals 592 600 600 600 Transportation Equipment 361 250 275 300 Primary Metals (excl. Cokes, etc.) 187 190 200 215 Chemicals and Allied Products 181 @221 296 415 All Others 426 496 630 855 Subtotal 1,747 1,757 2,001 2,385 Total Imports Plus Exports 4,806 5,219 6,033 7,098 Domestic Scrap Metals 565 -- -- -- Chemicals and Allied Products 373 All Others 1,109 - -- Subtotal 2,047 2PO47 2,047 2,047 GRAND TOTAL 6,853 7,266 8,080 9,145 Source: Tippets-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton 10.0 GENERAL CARGO IMPORTS AND EXPORTS 9.0 THROUGH THE PORTS OF PHILADELPHIA 8.0 HISTORIC 40, 7.0 .100, 6.0 z ole i0o, 0 400, "Op. U. 0 4e 5.0 4e *01 4op op .00, OP 4.0 3.0 TROD 2.0 1.0 0.01 1 a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1960 1967 1974 Y E A R 1981 1988 3 q9r- Exhlbft lll.-5 111-44 include the two million tons of domestic general cargo included in the TAMS forecast.) Thus, a reasonable expectation is that the Ports of Philadelphia will handle six to eight million tons of general cargo in 1990. Regarding individual commodities, the TAMS forecast is reasonable although it is general,ly acknowledged in all forecasting that the level of accuracy of components is usually less than the total. A similar forecast of bulk cargo, exclusive of petroleum, was also prepared by TAMS. This forecast, reproduced as Table 111-20 below, also appears to be realisticin light of past experience and is suitable for planning purposes. Table 111-20. Forecast of Bulk Cargo Commerce Through the Ports of Philadelphia: 1978, 1983, 1990 (000's Short Tons) 1975 1978 1983 1990 Imports Metallic Ores 10050 6,180 7,165 8,810 Cokes, etc. 291 313 354 420 Sugar & Molasses 786 850 950 1,050 Non-metallic Minerals 655 760 950 1,365 All Others 63 70 90 120 Sub-total 12,145 8,173 9,529 11,765 Exports Grains 2,400 2,600 3,000 4,000 Coal 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 Cokes, etc. 208 235 285 374 All Others 95 ill 145 191 Sub-total T,903 4,246 4,830 6,065 Total Imports + Exports 16,048 12,419 14,359 17,830 Domestic Non-metallic Minerals 13039 Coal 479 All Others 106 Sub-total T,624 1,624 1,624 1,624 GRAND TOTAL 17,672 14,043 15,983 19,454 Source: Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton III.B.5.c Wilmington Harbor A subsequent section of this Chapter (III.D. "Port Facilities") describes the present facilities at Wilmington. This section outlines future developments at Wilmington as forecast by the Development Planning Divi- sion of Frederic R. Harris and contained in a three-volume report pre- pared for the Department of Planning and Development, City of Wilmington, under title of Port of Wilmington Delaware, Investment Strategy.1 !Draft Final Report, May 1979. 111-45 The Harris report recommends the earliest possible procurement of a multi-purpose crane and related civil works as Phase I of a port devel- opment program for Wilmington. A second step, after the implementation of Phase I would, as recommended, be a master plan study leading to selection of a port expansion program. Two alternatives were considered of which the $12 million "bulk cargo development plan is currently recom- mended." Table 111-21, Table 6-2 of the Harris report, is reproduced to show the capital costs of the projected investments. Table 111-21. Estimated Capital Costs for New Port Services* Port of Wilmington, Delaware (in 1979 -Dollars) Phase 1 - Replace Bulk Crane with Combination Bulk/Container Cfane Cargo Handling Equipment $4,100,000 Civil Works Relocate autos, lumber, roads, fences, etc. as required 150,000 Paving and drainage 150,000 Conveyor and revisions 250,000 Truck scale and gate revisions 150,000 Additional shed requirements 350,000 Engineering Services 260,000 $5,410,000 *The Phase I development is equivalent to Alternate I. Phase 2 - Port Expansion. Add new Berth and Facilities Alternative II Alternative III Cargo Handling Equipment $7,500,000 $ 5,400,000 Civil Works 9,700,000 6,000,000 Engineering Services 800,000 600,000 Total $f-8-,000,000 $12,000,000 Source: Port of Wilmington, Delaware Investment Strategy, Volume III - Draft Final Report, Frederic R. Harris, Inc. 111-46 The Harris forecast envisions substantial container activity at Wilming- ton with the addition of the new combination crane. Tonnage throughput taken from Table 3.3 of the Harris report is shown below. (The first year of new crane operation is forecast as 1981; the notes are from the Harris report.) Bulk Container Year Tonnage* Tonnage** 1981 733,000 455,000 1982 741,000 482,000 1983 748,000 511,000 1984 755,000 542,000 1985 763,000 574,000 1986 770,000 609,000 1987 778,000 645,000 1988 786,000 684,000 1989 794,000 725,000 1990 802,000 769,000 *"Based on 1% growth rate/year from 1980 estimated with bulk tonnage of 726,000 tons." ""Assumes 70% of 1978 Least-Cost Potential of tons in first year of operation (1981), then 6% growth rate/year." Source: Table 3.3 of Harris Report. With the new crane, the Port of Wilmington is expected to be able to handle the forecast tonnage. III.B.5.d Lower Delaware Bay With the increasing size of tankers, the forty-foot channel depth of the Delaware River has prevented the larger vessels from delivering cargo directly to terminals and oil refineries along the River. To accommodate this situation, extensive lightering operations have developed in the deepwater anchorage in lower Delaware Bay. This operation consists of the partial unloading of tankers into smaller craft in the Bay off Big Stone Beach so that the tankers can then meet channel draft limitations and proceed to the refineries upriver. The smaller craft, lighters, also transport their loads to the refineries. The following tabulation shows total tonnages handled in the lightering operation. 111-47 Lower Delaware Bay, Delaware Year Total Tons Imports Internal Shipments Other 1968 2,565,643 496,604 1,780,550 288,489 1969 2,649,091 350,178 1,886,581 412,332 1970 2,845,298 919,194 1,549,460 376,644 1971 3,196,381 842P246 2,050,018 304,117 1972 9,451,732 4,101,595 4,955,813 394,324 1973 11,726,303 5,510,179 5,860,604 355,520 1974 12,903,735 3,683,177 8,665,719 554,839 1975 15,031,984 4,450,145 9,734,044 847,795 1976 15,729,033 4,428,938 10,575,765 724,330 1977 18,299,866 6,3223,872 11,62.4,403 352,591 Includes Exports, Coastwise Receipts & Shipments, Internal Receipts and Local Movements, if any. These categories are generally much less significant than "Imports" and "Internal Shipments." Source: Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. "Imports" have been described as the tonnage of petrole um which remains on the tanker after lightering; the "internal shipments" are the light- ered tonnage. Some additional perspective on tonnage activity in the lightering operation of the Lower Delaware Bay can be gained by converting the tonnage statistics to barrels per calendar day. (There are approxi- mately 6.8 42-gallon barrels of 360 API Crude per short ton.) These figures are listed below. Year Total ActivitZ Barrels/Year (Barrels/CD) (Millions) 1968 48,000 17.4 1969 49,000 18.0 1970 53,000 19.3 1971 60,000 21.7 1972 176,000 64.3 1973 218,000 79.7 1974 240,000 87.7 1975 280,000 102.2 1976 293,000 107.0 1977 341,000 124.4 *Figures rounded to nearest thousand. 111-48 Basically, a deepwater oil transfer operation has developed in the lower Delaware Bay. This operation has grown consistently year by year over the analysis period without interruption. The ultimate level of this activity will depend on refinery capacity in the area. III.C TRENDS IN VESSEL USAGE In recent years, two general trends in vessel usage can be discerned. First, particularly for tankers, but also for other types of vessels, the average vessel size has been increasing to obtain economies of scale; secondly, specialized cargo vessels have been developed to more efficiently handle specific types of cargoes and commodities or to serve major trade routes. These two often complementary trends have caused technical problems for ports and harbors; the increased vessel size requires deeper channels and greater depths alongside piers and wharves, and the specialized cargo vessels demand suitable handling facilities in the ports. III.C.1 Vessel Types In the Delaware River and Bay, it is possible to discern some definite trends. For the period 1969-1978, overall vessel arrivals have declined rather steadily, a decline that is not a result of reduced commerce. The principal vessel category responsible for the overall decrease in arrivals is breakbulk (non-containerized general cargo). In 1969, there were 2,387 breakbulk vessels arrivals, but in 1978 these arrivals amounted to 1,135. This substantial decrease can be attributed, at least in large measure, to the initiation of containership service in 1972. Bulk cargo vessel arrivals were high in the three year period 1973 to 1975 because of ore shipments. Oil tanker arrivals have de- creased in number, but the average size of the tankers has more than offset the decline in units. In the most recent four year period, auto transporters have increased dramatically -- one in 1975, 74 in 1976, 117 in 1977 and 197 in 1978. In recent years, RO/RO (Roll on-Roll off) and LASH (Lighter Aboard Ship) vessels have appeared in the Delaware River and Bay; but, their numbers have been insignificant relative to the other categories. A graphical presentation showing these trends -- based on information obtained from the Philadelphia Maritime Exchange -- appears as Exhibit 111-6. In order to obtain a numerical indication of the growth in vessel size, the following tabulation was prepared from the data of the Philadelphia Maritime Exchange. In this tabulation average net registered tonnage for selected vehicle categories is shown for the years 1969 through 1978. Vessel size and cargo capacity -- as indicated by net registered tonnage -- have increased significntly for all vessel categories, with tankers and containerships demonstrating the greatest increases. 111-49 6000 DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY VESSEL ARRIVALS 5000 TOTAL 4000 C0 w 0) cl) w > LL 3000 0 cc w co 2 M z 2000 TANKER BREAKBULK 1000 BULK CONTAINER TO 0 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 Exhibit 111-6 111-50 Average Net Registered Tonnage Year Breakbulk Container* Bulk Tanker All Groups 1969 4701 6632 12265 8085 1970 4161 8750 14097 8764 1971 4133 11152 12592 8694 1972 5056 8169 8347 15210 9583 1973 4783 7951 8786 15470 10248 197 4 4878 10169 9575 16135 11047 1975 5257 11436 10437 17200 11462 1976 5479 11207 10152 18487 12261 1977 5557 10995 10640 18605 12719 1978 5921 13569 10171 20453 13464 1969/1978 % Inc. 26.0% 66.1% 53.4% 66.8% 66.5% *Period 1972-1978. **Includes categories not itemized in the tabulation. III.C.2 Inbound Vessels Wilmington Harbor In general, the average size of vessels as measured by draft requirements has been increasing at Wilmington. The trend is most noticeable in the case of tankers as shown in the following table, which is based on data in Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. Inbound Tankers - Wilmington Harbor Draft in Feet - Year 18f and Less 191 to 241 25' to 30' 31' plus Total (Number in Vessels) 1970 68 1 8 4 81 1971 115 2 10 2 129 1972 109 3 4 2 118 1973 105 2 4 4 115 1974 89 1 5 3 98 1975 96 1 3 8 108 1976 11 3 5 21 40 1977 3 6 7 26 42 Over this period, the number of tanker arrivals has declined sharply and in the last two years of the analysis period most arrivals have been larger vessels. A similar tabulation shows trends in draft requirements for passenger and dry cargo vessels. Again, the basic data has been taken from Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. These data indicate a defi- nite shift from the shallower draft vessels; unlike the tanker trends, it appears that the shift has been to medium draft vessels rather than to deeper draft ships. 111-51 Inbound Passenger and Dry Cargo Vessels Wilmington Harbor Draft in Feet Year 18' and Less 191 to 301 31' plus Total (Number of Vessels) 1970 75 159 14 248 1971 67 132 31 230 1972 53 189 26 268 1973 23 200 29 252 1974 32 201 18 251 1975 13 204 12 229 1976 15 185 21 221 1977 16 208 19 243 III.C.3 Future Vessel Trends Increasing vessel size has been a well established trend over the past ten years. In the future the following trends are anticipated. Tankers: Future construction of crude oil bulk carriers will emphasize two size groups. By the year 2000, the larger size may be characterized by 700,000 DWT and 85 foot draft designed to unload at offshore termi- nals. The smaller tanker types would range between 69,900 DWT and 80,000 DWT with drafts of 38 to 42 feet. The latter ships would be particularly common on shorter trade routes such as from Venezuela and the Carribbean to Delaware Bay. They also are expected to find increas- ing employment in the Mid-East trade due to the reopening and probable deepening of the Suez Canal. The present lighterage operation in Dela- ware Bay is expected to continue to service tankers largely between the foregoing tonnage ranges and of sizes up to about 150,000 tons, parti- cularly since no offshore terminal is presently foreseen for the Delaware Bay Area. Dry Bulk: The most important development in dry bulk carriers is in- crease in size. However, there are characteristics of the bulk trade market which tend to restrict the size of bulk carriers such as wide variations in trade routes, commodities and cargo volumes; vessels need to remain small enough to be suitable for different types of service. In addition, the vessel is captive to the port and land transshipment arrangements of the bulk cargo industrial consumer. Two significant innovations may become important, the development of large shallow draft bulk carriers and the increased use of self-unloading shipboard equip- ment to achieve greater productivity. Neobulk: Neobulk shipping provides a service which fills the gap between liner and tramp services with respect to general cargo commodities which can be handled efficiently in large shipment sizes, often with special- ized equipment. Ship service may be as frequent as liner service but 111-52 rates are closer to those offered by tramps. The chief economic advan- tages of neobulk carriers are the elimination of special preparations required for mixed cargoes and the use of large hatches and heavy speci- alized lifting gear to speed cargo handling. As world population and commerce continue to grow, more commodities will be carried in suffi- cient quantity to be handled as neobulk cargo. Characteristics of neo- bulk shipping are slow to medium service speeds, flexible scheduling and cargoes of medium value and lot size. Commodities which are now carried as neobulk on certain trade routes are lumber, newsprint, iron and steel products, cars, trucks, tractors, sugar and fruit. Neobulk carriers are usually specially designed to carry a particular commodity. Conventional General Cargo: Despite the large projected increase of world commerce, the number and size of general cargo vessels carrying breakbulk cargo may increase very slightly and the portion of the total trade carried may decline. As the commodity volume increases, it goes to neobulk shipping and as its value increases, it goes to containerized shipping. Breakbulk vessels will continue to carry heavy weight, awk- ward commodities which require a heavy lift and will service these trade routes where a low value, low volume market exists. Breakbulk carriers may service the ports of South America and Africa although RO-RO ships will penetrate into this market. To maintain flexibility in the diverse breakbulk market, conventional cargo ship dimensions will be limited to a 700-foot length, 90-foot beam and 30-35-foot draft. The handling of cargo in port constitutes a major element in total sys- tem operating costs so the largest technological advance will be to increase the cargo handling rate. This has led to the development of capital intensive ships such as container.ships, roll on-roll off and barge carrying which are discussed later., Because of the nature of the cargo handled, the productivity increase for conventional cargo vessels will be much less than for other general cargo ships. Containership: Containerships typically carry medium to high value cargo which is easily unitized. Containers have increased the annual production capability or cargo handling capacity of vessels and related systems by a factor of 10 over the conventional general cargo ship. This increase can be attributed to an increase in speed, ship capacity, and cargo handling rate. At the present time a speed of 33 knots and a capacity of 3,000 containers have been achieved. The maximum future projected horsepower is 200,000 SHP which would permit a speed of about 37-40 knots depending on ship size. It is doubtful this amount of power would be installed by 1985 unless fuel cost increased so much that nuclear power became an attractive alternative to fossil fuel. Con- tainer ship beams and length will show some future increase so by 1985 ships carrying 4,000 containers will be operating. The draft will not increase significantly. As larger and faster container ships come into operation, they will operate on the highest volume trade routes with the most modern cargo handling facilities. These vessels will call only at 111-53 central distribution ports, perhaps just one at each end of the trade route and cargo will be shipped by a feeder system to other ports. Large marshalling areas will be required to effectively handle the increase in cargo throughput. Second generation container ships which are currently operating will be servicing the smaller, lower commodity volume ports so modernization of container facilities at these ports will also be required. The cost of handling containers to and from the ship and movements inland account for 80% of the total system costs. One way to reduce handling cost is to reduce the pool/slot ratio (total number of containers in the pool or set of containers used by a particular ship divided by spaces available on the ship). A lower ratio means a lower number of containers to be acquired and maintained. A 2% reduction in freight rate is possible with a 17% decrease in the pool/slot'ratio. This is achieved principally by reducing the port turn around time which in turn is dependent on the cargo handling rate. Increasing the handling rate from 50-75 containers/ hour would reduce the freight rate another 5%. Container handling equip- ment may be improved by using multiple cranes and by moving several con- tainers for each lift. Roll On-Roll.Off: RO-RO ships carry cargo which is rolled on and off the ship, frequently under its own power. Some ships also reserve space for containers or bulk cargo which is lifted -off to increase flexibility of operation. RO-RO service offers many distinct advantages over other services particularly for regions such as the Middle East with heavily congested ports or South America and Africa which have limited cargo handling facilities and unskilled shoreside labor. The shipper iis pro- vided with fast service directly to the destination. Cargo carried on RO-RO vessels is of high value and easily unitized. The most significant technological advances in RO-RO vessel design will be to increase the utilization of available cubic capacity and improve- ments in unloading arrangements. The size of the ships will be limited by two factors. Most RO-RO vessels operate in short trade routes, in congested port areas with limited facilities. Secondly, short term overtonnage is expected to exist by 1980 because 38% of the projected fleet is now on order and by 1975 the tonnage ceiling was already reached on the North Sea and Mediterranean. Ports in the Middle Eastern countries are developing faster than previous projections indicated. The market for RO-RO service from the North East U.S. to Florida appears to be particularly promising because the service schedule nearly matches that for truck and rail but the freight rates are much lower. Only a 1% penetration into the truck/rail service would permit break-even on opera- tion of the RO-RO service. In addition there: would be reduced congestion of highways and reduced air pollution and energy consumption. Barge Carrier: Barge carrying ships generally load/unload their barges either by lifting them over the stern (LASH) or by using a stern elevator (SEABEE). Barge carrying ships typically provide feeder service between flexpress" ports and have the advantage of quickly dropping off barges at 111-54 these ports while keeping the capital intensive carrier ship in opera- tion. Barges can then be moved by tug via inland or intra-coastal water- way. Since air cargo and containerships are expected to capture the higher value cargo commodities, more shipowners are going to LASH and SEABEE vessels to handle lower value bulk commodities which can be uni- tized. To accommodate barge carriers, ports must provide marshalling areas for barges. The original intent of the LASH concept was that ships be able to operate in small ports transferring the barges to a tug outside the harbor, if necessary.. Like RO-RO ships, many barge carrying ships also carry containers so they now need to utilize docks to unload. Tub-Barge: Tug-barge units offer a service similar to the barge carry- ing ships in that they carry commodities of low value and the capital intensive tug unit is not subject to delays from unloading/loading the barge unit. They carry cargoes of larger lot sizes than the LASH ships on trade routes where neobulk carriers are not required. In the past most integrated tug-barge units have operated on inland waterway and coastal trade routes. An important recent development is a large increase in tug-barge deadweight and the operation of such com- bination vessels on trans-ocean routes. Changes in port facilities of the DRBA region will be required to meet future needs of ship owners and operators, new types of facilities and technical advances provided by competing ports and requirements of the various types of ships calling at the ports. Based upon the study analyses and reviews, however, it appears that planned improvements and development of the port and ter- minal facilities in the Delaware River and Bay Area should be adequate to satisfy these future needs. III.C.4 Navigational Considerations The high capital and operating costs of modern vessels require their optimum utilization if economic viability is to be realized. Such requirements place emphasis on the need not only for fast turn-around time in port, but also on the assurance of ready and safe access to ports through adequate channels and fairways marked with appropriate buoyage and other navigational aids. The main ship channel between the Philadelphia and Trenton area and the sea provides principal access to the major ports of Wilmington, Phila- delphia and Camden and to the numerous marine terminals operated by private industry in the area. The Federally established project depth of this channel is 40', which is adequate for most current ocean going vessels, with the notable exception of larger tankers. These can enter the tanker anchorage off Big Stone Beach with drafts up to 55 feet, but must reduce such drafts to about 38 feet by lightering before proceeding up the main channel to refinery berths. Such lightering of bulk petroleum is not unusual and is regularly con- ducted in many other areas where channel or harbor approaches are of 111-55 insufficient depth to accommodate the larger tankers at their full load draft. A typical example may be found in New York Harbor, when deep draft tankers transfer part of their cargoes to barges in the Gravesend Bay area with both the barges and lightened vessels then proceeding up- river to refineries in the Bayonne, New Jersey Area. In the Gulf of Mexico VLCC's:partially offload to specially configured tankers for delivery to refineries in the Houston, Texas area; in the Caribbean crude petroleum destined for the Hess Oil Refinery on the island of St. Croix is transferred from VLCC's anchored offshore to large tank light- ers; on the West Coast oil from the North Slope fields moving south in large tankers is transferred at the Pacific Ocean approaches to the Panama Canal to smaller tankers capable of transiting the Canal for delivery to East Coast ports; and in the English Channel, VLCC's with oil destined for Milford Haven partially discharge into smaller vessels before proceeding to berth. From available information it does not appear 'Likely that the channel will be deepened beyond 40' in the foreseeable future. Physical con- straints such as the presence of underlying aquifers and a limestone base that could seriously impede dredging, together with higher costs, environmental aspects and permitting all are limited factors to pros- pects of any extensive deepening of this channel. Other improvements, however, are planned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which has responsibility for maintenance of navigational waterways. These in- clude: � Deepening of the Mantua Creek Anchorage from 37 feet to a project depth of 40 feet. This anchorage is located near the entrance to the Schuykill River and is frequented by general cargo vessels. This improvement is authorized but is not funded. � Development of a.turning basin at the Tioga Terminal in Philadelphia with an authorized project depth of 36 feet. � Restoration of the access channel to the Delaware Break- water to its 15 foot project depth. A Congressional study resolution has not yet been funded. � Dredging of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal to the original construction depth of 35 feet. This project, which was implemented following the resolution of prob- lems regarding disposition of dredge spoils is expected to be completed within two years. The main navigational channels in the Delaware River and Bay are charac- terized by generally long straight legs uncomplicated by severe turns or bends. Buoyage, lights and beacons are in accordance with standards for U.S. deepwater ports and are provided and maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard also engages in ice clearance operations and has installed some ice buoys in an endeavor to insure reliable channel 111-56 .11 1 markers under severe winter conditions (ice buoys, of the thin profile span type, are designed to be overrun by ice flows and emerge on sta- tion, while standard buoys, with frame structures are prone to being dragged off station as well as to damage by ice). Consideration has been given to the installation of a vessel traffic system (VTS) in the Delaware River and/or Bay. Such systems, operated by the Coast Guard, are designed to reduce collisions through radar surveillance and strict monitoring of vessel movements from a central shore based station. Generally their costs are justified only in areas of high density vessel traffic, such as in the San Francisco Bay area, where a VTS has been in successful operation for several years. While the Coast Guard has undertaken to provide a full range of navi- gation aids within its budgetary limits, there is concern on the part of operators, pilots and others that further improvements are needed. In- cluded are buoys, range lights and structures and the installation of transponders for improved radar identification of specific markers. III.D PORT FACILITIES In the Delaware River and Bay region, port facilities have been devel- oped to handle a wide range of general cargo and both liquid and solid bulk shipments. The public general cargo ports are at Wilmington, Cam- den and Philadelphia and these ports are also equipped both to receive and ship liquid and bulk commodities. Because of extensive petroleum refining and chemical and steel manufacturing in the region, there are additional piers, wharves and storage facilities dedicated to specific bulk commodities for private industrial organizations. While these latter facilities are usually not considered in assessing port require- ments, they are necessary to the commercial activity in the area and its continuing development. At the present, the major container handling operations in the region are at Packer and Tioga Terminals in Philadelphia. (Containers are also handled at Northern Shipping Co. in Philadelphia.) It is expected that container operations will be initiated at Wilmington in the near future. Containerized handling began rather late in the Delaware River and Bay region (such operations commenced in Philadelphia in 1972) and the region lags behind other comparable East Coast ports such as Charleston, Balti- more and Hampton Roads. (Containerization has been discussed in Section III.B.5.a.) General cargo shipments, depending on the type and value of the parti- cular commodity, require different types of intermediate storage. Some low value commodities, as well as high value items such as motor vehicles, require considerable acreage of open storage. Warehouse space must be provided for other commodities and temperature-controlled storage areas must be available for frozen meats and produce. 111-57 Ideally, the port should have a balanced mixture of equipment and faci- lities to handle efficiently the cargoes offered. This section of the Report describes the port facilities in the Delaware River and Bay region with particular emphasis on the Port of Wilmington and the River and Bay to the south. In view of the interdependence of ports in the area, present and planned facilities at Camden and Phila- delphia also will be reviewed. III.D.1 Wilmington The port of Wilmington is located immediately to the north of the Dela- ware Memorial Bridge, approximately four hours by ship from the sea buoy at the entrance to the Delaware River and Bay. The Port does not have regular, scheduled vessel or liner service, but substantial movement of spot cargoes results in frequent vessel calls. Ships range in size from small refrigerated ships of about 220 feet in length to lumber and dry bulk carriers of 700 feet in length or more. Principal cargoes include lumber, iron and steel products, bananas, motor vehicles, gypsum and petroleum coke. There is a tanker berth at Wilmington operated jointly by the Delaware-Terminal Company, Inc. and the Sico Company for the shipment and receipt of petroleum products. Total storage tank capa- city amounts to over one million barrels. As a measure of acti vity at the tanker berth, the following tonnages were handled in 1974, a peak year,..an.d--the most recent year 1977. 1974 1977 (Short Tons) Crude Petroleum 984,991 168,269 Gasoline 5099284 295,877 Kerosene 27,255 19,134 Distillate Fuel Oil 591,620 574,530 Residual Fuel Oil 470,777 747,119 Totals 2,583,927 1,804,929 Source: Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. In the two years cited, the tanker berth handled between 12 and 18 mil- lion barrels of petroleum and products. In addition to the tanker berth, the Port of Wilmington has seven other berths,.one of which is a 515-foot floating roll-on berth consisting of three permanently moored steel barges which are aligned in marginal wharf configuration with shore access via ramps. The remaining six marginal berths have a total length of 3006 feet; the depth alongside is 35-feet at mean low water. 111-58 The six marginal berths are served by two transit sheds totalling 47,000 square feet, and four warehouse areas designated A, B, C, D which pro- vide 340,000 square feet of dry storage area and over 1,000,000 cubic feet of convertible space which is available for refrigerated and frozen storage. In addition to the warehouse space there are 90 acres of paved and unpaved open storage with an additional area for the storage of gypsum rock at the Georgia Pacific plant* (Much of the open storage area is used for the import storage of Fiat automobiles.) Materials handling equipment includes a bulk unloading tower and a 75-ton receiving hopper; a.conveyor system for the storage of gypsum rock; two diesel-electric revolving cranes; and one 140-ton diesel mobile crane. Supplementing the heavier equipment are about thirty fork-lift trucks. The Port of Wilmington is served by Conrail and the C&O and B&O rail- ways, and, via Terminal Avenue, connects with Interstate Highway 95, 295 and 495. In general, the port may be considered adequate in terms of facilities, buildings, upland area and equipment to handle its existing commerce. Over the last five years, some $12 million has been spent on refurnishing, improving and modernizing warehouses and wharves. In- cluded in these improvements have been the installation of the floating berth, new roofs, new siding and warehousedoors and new wharf surfaces and foundations. Overall, the facility has been well developed. to handle existing demand. Berth utilization is approximately 35 percent, a good average working utilization for facilities serving ocean-going vessels. A general appraisal indicates that current throughput of one million tons (dry bulk and general cargo) is well below the capacity of existing facili- ties. This throughput could probably be increased by as much as 50 percent before berth congestion and delays could be expected. Present plans call for the installation of a multi-purpose crane, the provision of additional warehouse space, and the development of a con- tainer storage area. These new improvements are expected to cost about $5.4 million and increase port capacity to about 1.8 million tons per year. The container capability will add to the Ports' attractiveness, but container handling is not expected to be a major port activity.1 Other port development possibilities in the area include a future coal facility on property adjacent to the Port. The status of this project is unclear at this time. Exhibit 111-7 on the following pages gives the description of facilities at the Port of Wilmington included in Port Series No. 8 (Revised 1978), prepared by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. lFuture plans at Wilmington are outlined in Section III.B.5.c. 111-59 Exhibit 111-7, Tiers, Wharves, Docks and Storage Warehouses Wilmington, Delaware Piers, Wharves and Docks of Wt1mtn4t-, r.ne Te-ina in3ton, Mai Port- __ , - ---- - -, - -i- _f@r"T@al7TPort_o- Wil=_Lnjt@m, I' ort of Wilm Tank- Bert',. floating Berth. Wharf, 'Berth, 1-6. iA@LRi-@0-,-r--------Soit-th---aie-e-of entranoe-to C-hris-tin-a River, approxL.- rl' tina li-r, ppr-,.t- River. mateLy 750 feet abo-,e entrance. inately 3,000 feet above entrance. BRy United St-te, City of City of Wil.Lngi:- 7PCRATE.DBY Delaware Te-inil Co., Inc., and City of Wilmington, Department of City of Wilmirgtoo, Depar-7enc of Ccm- The Si co Co. Consnerce. a,arce, and Wilmington Launch Service, let. HICH USED- Rare@pr of petrcle- products. Re -ipt and hL;--t ,f general 113. cargo and automobtl- in foreign and _e s- an 't _,bIin f , an and dc-stic tic trades. trades; receipt and/or ship:.nent of bananas, wo-1-1p, I-be -, grps-- rock, and i,c.11 a_c, 'i'@, and -QUIK -Iterials; -ring -mpaoy, own Q@. iyk mNsT-aumli@ -,,`hr-jepji-_-._..m._--. Upper cmcr@te-deck@d: offah,,re plafform moored steel barip! ' 'It." 110- by :nd,p -flll@d, steel pipe pile, with two 10- by 35-Ecot, Pont--- _ hon :rt concrete f;,Cnt , section: b-it -i, "" hIr bre., "n, do1ph ins I I" face, SO- by 15-foot. hinged. tim;[email protected], 800-f.."t Zocrelta ret Laing wall with fronted by rub"'r -cushton-4. timb@r steel ramp at inner end. .. ph.lt.;.rlaced so lid fill on part tL- f..,jor _ t@7;; row f 13 .-1 heec bar and part concrete ,,relieving plarfom, - supported parzly by _,her and part y y 1,, cellular, .-, 2 st-1 pile. 1 b iLC -de, :kc=,r'-) steel LI- DESCRIPZION Face Low- -id, Upp- sid, Face L- side i Upper side Face Upper aide lyi @Wn I I 1@ n Feet pin 50 40 1_ 34- 515- I__ 35 215 3,_6166 186- id, t -i --r i4 - - - - - 35 @_-w --Do ---L 5 'I e Berthkng Spa- Do._ 1,000 ./d.lph. 515 3,060 Widooi [email protected] DD- -0 _n. e P---- __Op n 27 and open _Heigh@ of De,.k A101le Mill Do. 12 J_ 12 1@. o_ C"@r y par Sq.yt. __ (Lbs. Ujhtej_ur w.-fig-h-t-ed Lighted. Lighted. Lighted. None. None. frar- ore - stee I frame, part bri k wells; roncrete, aetal- cooccrete floor. c.,.redA & glass b1c,ck* I @wn@- Shed o. She No. 2 Length -and Width (Feet)l 400 by 20 _420bL8.0-@-See jtemar@s) He i gh t I n- je 17 20 for Cara-, (Sq'Ptj- i4,OD0 12-.406 ix;_.d C --y __ - - -- ___ ___ - --- , ---- - - P.cit _per AI.F.t.,(Lb..) L500 500 Ea C Doors (Fee t) Eljlic.@n IS--- - I--- @ny -IT -by-IF. by 16. Others: one, 12 by irteen, 12 by 12. ails; concrete floor. ILIT one 8-i.ch, Twenty-even 2- to 7-ton, a.. on ie __ ir@j, bulk- kfC.4TNTcn Hm)L IES _T-wo-_I2- a.d-- cli-le- e d set-electric, trave, and LP@gas, fork lift truc- _j unt-ding tz,er with 100-foot, hinged- ------- cantilevered boom equipped with 9@- cubic yard, clar,shell bucket, and 75-ton. receiving hopper; unloading rate 310to 5 00ton. per hour. Bulk material, other than gypsum rock, is loaded directly into rail cars or trucks from the hopper; gypsum rock is stockpiled viaa22-inch, elevated, electric, belt-con-yor system extending along rear of face, and to Georgia-Pacific Corp., Gyps= Division plant. One 100- and one 20,ton. diesel electric, revolving, full-portal, gantry cranes with SO- and 60-f..t b.-., re.p..tively. One 140-t-, diesel, -bile crane with SO- foot boom. Cranes have ose of one 52-inch, electric magret and SiA clamsh@ll b ket3 ranginain apacity from 1 3/4- to 14-cubic yards. Use .ffork lift Mc ks des crlbd unc- Ref. No. 11. IFAILWAY C0,N.N6CT'0N-S____ _N_-_e ------ Three surface tracks at real If fall Two , rf-e tracks - lower and upper joLn additional te-inal trac'. eIsec tiL, ofap ron, jo InamI'.. .f ornect with Con-lidared Rail Corp., additional trackage at teminal in cch..a,..Ic an,' Ohl, Railway, and re at; connect with Consolidated Rail Saltim.r. an, Dhi n RaIIt"d. Corp., Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, and Basli,Lrore and Ohio Rjailtrad. HIGHNAY CONNECTIONS Via driveway. asphalt, varied widths, from Chr"ttna and Avenues, asphalt, 24 and 40 feet wide, respectively; Te minal Aveau-e connects with Interstate Highways 4os. 95, 295, and 495. VA@i SUPPLY ou- gh 2-k-linch cm-zrion_._.___ - Thro,&h 2@-inch cono-tions. (Alaillble to Ye-ei,) ___ ___ _ ___ [ -None (Available to ve, NsejN) A.C., 110 volt,i, single-phase, 60- S- as Ref. No. 11. cycle; A.C., 220 volts, 3-phase, 60- 7 Rr --TF.C F167-- cycle; D.C., 250 and 350 volts. 7 PP.0 (Other th- City) mIcarts and hand extin- One_75,_0_0_O_-ga11on_- -er _t@-er-,th-ree g.i.he:. . 1,000-g.p... P-P.,"tuir. and watch- -cm--c 're Ee- -c -ap p eI -mnWrG _g -ao-l Ft@@n s_-a c -frm wharf rear of face, conre-r d by . 4-foot, to 2 steel iie.rag,r ta.ka at -at, per- tLm r and steel catwalk which con- ated by ICI United State., Inc., total ti=s 1100 feet to shore. capacity 3.000.000 gallons. Approxf- and me 10-inch, aiately.80dac tea of Pavedd0 act,, en at. :n lt on 30 two 12 of unp ve , op rage re rear; slZged lines extend from -wharf to addttimal open storage area for approx- the following storage tanks: iniatel, 300,000 tons of gypsum rock is Delaware Teminal Co.: 2 heated, located at Georgia.Pacific Corp. plant steel, storage tanks, total capacity in rear. Rear section of Transit Shed 50. ,000 b. rrels; and 3 unheated, No. 2, designated Warehouses A Ind B steel at orage tanks, tOC&L capacity (S.W. Ref. No. 1), and Warehous e. C and 219,000 barrel.. D (S.W. Ref. Mo.. 2 and 3. respectively). 7h. Sic. Co.: 24 steel storage tanks, are also located at ceminal in rear. tot. I ca PacLt Y,357,150 barrel.. 111-60 Exhibit 111-7. Piers, Wharvesj Docks and Storage Warehouses Wilmington, Delaware (Continued) Storage Warehouses OPE?@70R AND ADORZ5S The Port of Wilmington Marine Terminal TheoPort of Wilmington Marine Terminal 7h. Port .1 Wil@lr.,@-- -.1ne T.-In.1 P. 0. Ban No. 1191 P. Bo No. 1191 B- No. 1191 Wi i gt DE 19899 Wi ingt% , DE 19899 DE 19899 Loc ArTos -@st- D. At foot of Christir.4 Aver-- (P.W.D. At foot of Christina Avenue (P.W.D. At fro t of Christina Aven- (P.W.D, Sef- 2. K IN-5 0 Dr Rf..No. 121._ Z.f. No D cold. D_U - ORED -REY! Gener:l merchandise and perishable General -- Genena- LSUALLYTT food o=,odtties. @ - - -g7- frame, @bbildin st.el frw-,, brick steel fr-, part concrete, par tal- Steel part con ct,re, part -,,I- Type of Construction c t 1'. walls; concrete floor over d and part glass block walls, covered walls; conor. f r. concrete floor. Nuc@b_ [email protected] TIJ921@9--- -_One, -h- Clear Iteight for Storalie geet).:-, - -- - -- Fi[st Fjcor-....-,..,..-j7_dry stor.,@LJ2L coldstora,@e-__ Floors .... LZ Tirst Floor ..... 566 :500 7 -- ---- - ----- Otner F loors XSP(TiFF - -- -f- Xa- DRY STORAGE OLD 0 ILA@, AM--- LFHUC RALL- _YYLS t0jfg@E 00 L D s 0 ? COUi STO@@k@E I DRY SILO@Alj OL Lsq--Ttol_ .60-000 144_000 oa.t... Bonded. - - - ---Conl,r F1.) space. -.-(Cu.Ft.)_ Space.-(CL.Ft.), t, CONNECHONS Four platform-level tracks between on. 330-f..t surface t RAHWAY 'rack at-& One 250-foot, carfloor-level track ,a,,h,, 16 car side, =,dnone 350-soot. pl1tfoc:,.1e,,'1 .,,a 150- and one 360- 1 t 'N""y , g t c out tot. city If. t total Join ad diti-, r. kn. a- n @er- r .1 g h ide, at me ve tracks along ' th foo tf 1:o @inaL;ro.n.ct with Consol idared Rail 13 cars, join addLtional trackai,,,,e jsidk and one 360. t, pla om- ve' Corp.. Chesapeake and Ohi 0 ta , lway, and tng terminal; connect with the a@Z@ trc along north side, join additional Baltimotle iqld o d.@ described urd e Ref __Qhi Itrackage (C51ntinua@undare-@ _Ralltoa_ _ - ._ - ... . ... !_ - _ U_7 Approx imtejl_ 4 2, e ar h._ _ _ _ __ - - . -[5- en._, A imaL@70. t2 .1. Twenty-seven, 2- to 7-ton. HANDLING EqUTP@EN LP,gas, foriKlUse of equiprent de-rib@i under Ref. Was of equipment described under Ref. lift t-,ks. N- 1. -75 66C - - C - - -- -----Tprinkler system, one S rt f@ 4 ame as Ref. No. 1. FUE RQfECTION "110' a .at at tower' hose' hand e.c@nKiher,, and w-chen. JS Freon refrigeration Y.te f tem; :nr,,,,re a n ;uco tfwith.the 3 nd:ne, -F. to O-F. in r e- I e i d r Re No 1. range -10 150 F. to 'OOF. n c-1 Cold torde P!c. Is :1111 U.S. Cu. C11. Bone.d. Source: U.S. Corps of Engineers, "Port Series No. 8" 111-61 III.D.2 Other Facilities, Wilmington-to-the-Sea The major commercial facilities south of Wilmington on the Delaware River are those of Getty Oil Company at Delaware City (opposite Pea Patch Island), the liquid caustic receiving and shipping operation of Diamond Shamrodk Corporation, and, on the eastern or New Jersey side of the River, the wharves of DuPont's Chambers works. As a measure of the tonnage activity at these commercial facilities, the following table shows total.tonnage handled for the year 1977 (data from Waterborne Commerce of the United States). Total Tonnage - 1977 New Castle, Del. and Vicinity 10,994,355 (Principally Getty) Penns Grove, Carney's Point, N.J. 454,451 (Principally DuPont) TOTAL 11,448,806 Additional facilities include two timber pile piers operated by Delaware Bay Launch service, Inc. and Delaware Bay Ship Chandlers ' Inc. at Slaugh- ter Beach in Sussex County. This mooring serves launches which transfer pilots, crew, and ships' stores from vessels at anchor. Two facilities, one on Pea Patch Island opposite Delaware City and the other in Delaware City, are under construction to serve excursion vessels operating be- tween the two points and are owned by the State of Delaware. There is also a public wharf in Delaware City. About one half mile north of the twin spans of the Delaware Memorial Bridge on the Delaware side of the River there is Conrail's Pigeon Point Transfer Bridge for the transfer of rail cars to and from car floats. These car floats operate to DuPont's Transfer Bridge on the New Jersey side of the River. At the entrance to the Bay on the New Jersey side are the Terminal facilities of.the Cape May/Lewes Ferry. On the Delaware side the ferry terminal is located at Lewes behind the Delaware Breakwater. III.D.3 Philadelphia Philadelphia is the major port in the Delaware River and Bay region and has the most extensive facilities for cargo handling. Philadelphia ap- pears to be a port in transition from the older, traditional cargo handling methods -- a large number of finger piers serving small vessels by labor-intensive techniques -- to fewer marginal wharf configurations with modern automated handling methods. Some of the older finger piers have been allowed to deteriorate without repair or replacement -- a form of passive disinvestment -- and others have been converted in a creative, imaginative manner to alternative PUblic uses. The attractive Penn's Landing project is in the center of the commercial waterfront and is an effective reminder of the Port's maritime heritage. Immediately south of Penn's Landing is Pier 305 (operated by Pier 30 Associates) which provides eight indoor tennis courts in'a single deck shed. 111-62 General cargo facilities in the Port of Philadelphia extend from the confluence of the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers at Gerard Point north to the berths of the Northern Shipping Company, about 1.3 miles above the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge. Of particular interest are the Packer Avenue and Tioga Avenue Marine Terminals and the Northern Shipping Marine Ter- minal. The Packer Avenue Marine Terminal, a Philadelphia Port Corpora- tion propertyl leased to Lavino Shipping Company, is located immediately adjacent to and south of the Walt Whitman Bridge. This terminal covers 104 acres and has a marginal wharf 3,100 feet long. Container crane rails along the whar 'f have been extended to 1,923 feet to handle in- creasing container trade in longer containerships. At Packer Avenue, the world's first container/heavy-lift crane with a lifting capacity of 375 tons has been installed. This crane will increase port flexibility in handling these types of cargo. In addition to this new crane, there are two container cranes with all purpose capability, three truck cranes (up to 200 tons capacity) and a 75-ton mobile Le Tourneau crane. Stor- age facilities include three transit sheds totalling 270,000 square feet, two warehouses (200,000 square feet) and a refrigerated warehouse of 1,500,000 cubic feet. Packer Avenue also has an 817 foot roll on- roll off berth. Approximately 64 acres of paved, open storage are available at the terminal. The Tioga I Marine Terminal is also a Philadelphia Port Corporation propertyl and is operated by ITO Corporation. It is located about one mile below the Betsy Ross Bridge. The marginal wharf face is 3,172 feet long, the roll on-roll off berth is 725 feet long and there is a lower slip berth 610 feet long. The Tioga I Marine Terminal also has two 45-ton container cranes, a 300,000 square foot transit shed and ninety-five acres of asphalt-paved open container storage. (In addi- tion to breakbulk and containerized cargo, this facility is used to receive fuel oil and ship tar for the Philadelphia Gas Works.) The Tioga II Marine Terminal is immediately south of Tioga I and is operated by ITO Corporation's Sea-Land Service, Inc. and DRT Industries Inc. Berth I (Sea-Land) was built for container service and has ten acres of open storage in the rear. Berth 2 has pipeline facilities for receiving and shipping petroleum products and other bulk liquids. The Northern Shipping Company Terminal is located about 1.4 miles above the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge, and has nine berths for the receipt and shipment of general cargo and some bulk materials. This facility has approximately 120 acres of open storage, a transit shed area of 180,000 square feet, and is equipped with diesel, electric and mobile cranes. While many of the finger piers are expected to retain their utility in future years, the wharves described represent the facilities most likely to play an increasing role in the future of the Port of Philadelphia. lOwned by the City of Philadelphia, administered by Philadelphia Port Corporation. 111-63 As part of its planning process, and as previously noted, the City of Philadelphia authorized a port facilities study to be performed by the consulting firm of Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Si:ratton (TAMS). Associ- ated with TAMS in the preparation of the report was the Regional Science Research Institute of Philadelphia. The Final Report, Port Facilities Study of Philadelphia, was submitted on July 25, 1978. The following conclusions quoted from that report are pertinent to the present study. � There is adequate break-bulk handling capacity in the City to meet.forecasted 1990 requirements. The principal development need in the port is additional container hand- ling capacity, totalling 1.4 million tons annually, by 1990. � This can be provided most economically through further de- velopment of the City's existing two container terminals, and this recommended expansion program will satisfy demand for container cargo through the year 1990. During the course of their study TAMS also evaluated the need for, and the actions the City should take, with regard to bulk handling facilities, whichincludes facilities for the handling of grains, coal and ores. At the present time, they concluded that no major actions are called for by the City. III.D.4 Camden As of April 30, 1979 the South Jersey Port Corporation owned and oper- ated or leased three major marine terminals at Camden. They are the Beckett Street Terminal and the Broadway Terminal which are located in the City and County of Camden, and the Holt Terminals which is located in Gloucester City. All three facilities have good highway and rail access. The Beckett Street Terminal (formerly'Camden Marine Terminals), founded in 1931, was owned and operated by the South Jersey Port Com- mission, a State agency, which was dissolved in 1968 with the passage of the Act establishing the South Jersey Port: Corporation, its succeed- ing State Agency. Title to facilities of the Commission was transferred to the South Jersey Port Corporation (SJPC) pursuant to the Act, with the State assuming the financial obligations of the Commission. The purposes for the establishment of the South Jersey Port Corporation was to increase the economic development of the region and to initiate those improvements necessary to enable the Port to become viable. The principal properties of the Beckett Street Terminal consist of ap- proximately 58 acres of which 34 acres are used for open storage. At present the terminal is operated as a three-berth pier. Buildings on the property include two transit sheds and three warehouse sheds. The terminal is equipped with normal marine and'rkiaterials handling facili- ties. While the terminal is quite old, it appears to have had sufficient maintenance over the years so that it is generally in good condition. 111-64 In 1970 expansion was undertaken with the purchase of the 175-acre north yard of the New York Shipbuilding Corporation and renamed Broadway Termi- nal. On July 1972 SJPC entered into a lease with International Operating Company of America, Inc. (ITO) to provide port services as an agent for SJPC. The graving dock was converted into two new piers. Fifteen acres of upland area were graded, drained and paved and a transit shed was built. East of Broadway, in Gloucester City approximately 19 acres has been leased to Holt Terminals. This is all of the Gloucester City land owned by SJPC. In addition, the City of Camden has expressed interest in the development of the Petty's Island back channel. A Congressional study resolution has been passed, but the study is not funded. In 1968, initial cargo tonnage was 541,989 tons and the increasing trend has continued with cargo handled in 1978 totaling 1,450,000 tons. Plywood, lumber, scrap, dry bulk, vehicles and general cargo, are the major commodities handled by the port. The South Jersey Port Corporation has made considerable progress during its brief existence. The need for expansion at Beckett Street is press- ing as the facilities at this location already have exceeded the maximum throughput capacity. It now plans to move forward with a program of expansion to be financed through an $11.83 million bond issue. The pro- posed expansion would substantially enhance SJPC opportunity for con- tinued growth by providing facilities needed to attract and accommodate this growth. Another agency concerned with waterfront activities is the Camden Muni- cipal Port Authority (CMPA). This organization was created by the City of Camden by an ordinance adopted in February 1978 to promote and imple- ment the development of waterfront facilities in the Camden area (so long as such facilities are not in competition with the South Jersey Port Corporation). The CMPA currently does not operate any marine facilities. It is, however, active in the construction of a refrigerated-freezer warehouse on property leased from the SJPC. A further discussion of the maritime aspects of this study will be found in Chapter V, Sections "B" and "C." Section "B" covers Cargo Port Devel- opment, including the adequacy of present facilities, future improvement needs and agencies with jurisdiction. Section "C" is concerned with Deep Water (VLCC) Port Development and covers present conditions, attitudes regarding deep water facilities, and agencies with jurisdiction. 111-65 Exhibit 111-8 1 of 2 TERMS FOR KIND OF TRAFFIC The terms applied to the kinds of traffic as found in these publications are explained as follows: Pertaining to Ports Imports and exports. - These terms apply to traffic between the United States and foreign ports, including the Canal Zone. Traffic of U.S. Great Lakes ports with Canada is sup- plemented by the t e r m"Canadian" to differ- entiate it from overseas traffic. Coastwise receipts and shipments. - These terms apply to domestic traffic receiving a carriage over the ocean, or the Gulf of Mexico, e.g., New Orleans to Baltimore, New York to Puerto Rico, San Francisco to Hawaii, or Puerto Rico to Hawaii. Traffic between Great Lakes ports and seacoast ports, when having a carriage over the ocean, is also termed "coastwise." The Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound are internal bodies of water; therefore, traffic confined to these areas is "internal" rather than "coast- wise." Lakewise receipts and shipments. - These terms apply to traffic between United States ports on the Great Lakes System. The Great Lakes System is treated as a separate system rather than as a part of the inland system. Internal receipts and shipments. - These terms apply to traffic between ports or landings wherein the entire t,,iovement takes place on inland waterways. Also termed internal are movements involving carriage on both inland water ways and waters of the Great Lakes; inland movements that cross short stretches of open waters which link inland systems; marine products, sand and gravel taken directly from beds of the oceans, the Gulf of Mexico and important arms thereof; and movements between offshore installations and inland waterways. Local. - Movements of freight within the confines of a port whether the port has only one or several arms or channels, except car-ferry and general ferry, are termed "local." The term is also applied to marine prod ucts, sand, and gravel taken directly from the Great Lakes. Intraterritory receipts and shipments. These terms apply to traffic between ports in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Is'lands, U.S.A., which are consideredas a single unit. 111-66 Exhibit 111-8 2 of 2 Pertaining to Rivers, Federal and Private Canals, Connecting Channels, and Intracoastal Waterways The terms "imports," "exports," "coastwise receipts," 11 coastwise shipments," "internal receipts," and "internal shipments" are used as at ports. Upbound and downbound. - These terms are applied to movements within the confines of a river, intracoastal waterway, canal, or a segment of,one of these channels as described in the "Section included" for each channel. Inbound and outbound. - Traffic moving from one waterway into another is termed "outbound" in the case of the shipping waterway and "inbound" with respect to the receiving waterway. Through traffic. - Traffic moving through a waterway to and from points on other waterways is termed "through traffic." General Terms Freight reported under the terms "car ferry" or "general ferry" is not directly included in the port or channel tonnage, but is separately stated and tabulated. 111-67 IV. INSTITUTIONS, PLANNING AND REGULATIONS Preceding chapters review the history of the Bay, economic trends which have affected development of the Bay and its resources, uses of land along its shore, characteristics of current or planned ports, and trends in transportation. Government agencies have had a significant effect on these development trends. Federal dollars for interstate highways spurred auto and truck traffic and the demand for facilities to cross the Bay. Ports along the Delaware estuary have been built and moderniz- ed by public and private operators. The U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, keeps the Delaware River channel open to shipping through near constant dredging. The role of public institutions in the development of Delaware Bay is rapidly expanding. Regulatory agencies now articulate and enforce the new public concern for environmental quality. Public agencies have been created both to spur and to restrain growth and development. Innovative uses of the Bay may not offer the immediate profits which would attract the private entrepreneur, and numerous proposals have been advanced to spur these innovations with public initiatives. Because public institu- tions will play such an important role in determining the future course of Bay development, this chapter is devoted to an analysis of the insti- tutions and their policies. Section A summarizes governmental activities, including the most signi- ficant programs encouraging or controlling development of the River and Bay. In Section B, the most important regulatory agencies are examined in depth. The discussion of each agency includes information on: * statutory authority e agency jurisdiction (geographic and substantive) * current organization e controls or permits administered by the agency o coordination with the activities of other agencies o criteria for project approval o critical problems for a project developer Section C examines the governmental or quasi-public agencies actually chartered to build or operate port or transport projects in the Delaware River and Bay. For each agency, the text reviews agency charter and source of authority, geographic jurisdiction, and current operations and planned developments. IV-1 An abstract analysis of policies and jurisdications of different agen- cies would be a dry and often misleading work. A better understanding can be achieved by studying ways in which different agencies would react to a specific project in the Bay. Section D identifies a range of projects which have been suggested for the Bay in recent years and analyzes the expected interaction of different: institutions in develop- ing or controlling these projects. For each project, the analysis ex- amines: � the agencies which could assert jurisdiction to operate the project � the relationship between the project and land use and planning goals articulated by the States and federal government � permits required for development of the project � conflict with current policies of permitting agencies � expected bureaucratic overlap and disagreement � changes which would be necessary for the project to proceed This analysis leads to the identification of potential or needed improve- ments in the institutional structure. In some cases, a project is infeasible because it violates clearly stated policies of one or both States and the federal government. However, any recommendation for change in these policies is beyond the scope of this report. Therefore, Section E, Improving Institutional Coordination, identifies ways in which the charters, regulations, or operating procedures of different agencies might be improved to facilitate developments which are consistent with existing State and federal policies. IV.A THE INSTITUTIONAL SETTING FOR PROGRAMS 'IN THE BAY AREA IV.A.1 Part and Waterway Facility Programs IV.A.l.a Ports Four port agencies are chartered to operate ports in the Bay area. The Delaware River Port Authority created by New Jersey and Pennsylvania covers the counties on the New Jersey shore of the Bay but operates no port facilities anywhere in.its jurisdiction. The Sourth Jersey Port Corpor- ation created by the State of New Jersey includes Salem, Cumberland, and Cape May Counties in its jurisdiction but currently operates facilities only in the Port of Camden. The Port of Wilmington, operated by the City of Wilmington, provides the only publicly-owned port facilities within the study area. The Delaware River and Bay Authority, created by IV-2 Delaware and New Jersey, is empowered to operate transportation and terminal facilities in the Bay area but has not done so to date. IV.A.l.b Dredging The U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, is responsible for the planning and maintenance of channels and navigation improvements in the Delaware River and Bay. It currently maintains a 40-foot channel from the ocean to the Ports of Camden and Philadelphia. It also maintains the 35-foot access channel to the Port of Wilmington on the Christina River. Num- erous smaller access channels for ports along the Bay are designated as Corps of Engineers projects, thus permitting the Corps to maintain the stated depths, but none is funded at this time. Disposal of over 4 million cubic yards of spoil produced each year by dredging of the existing Delaware River Ship Channel is a major politi- cal and environmental problem. One large area is now being used as the site for four nuclear power reactors in Salem County, New Jersey. The Corps must acquire new spoil disposal sites to meet needs after the exhaustion of current sites in 15 to 20 years. In Salem County, the existing commitment of river-front land to spoil disposal is an active planning issue. The Corps' Philadelphia District is currently conduct- ing a dredged spoils disposal study. Environmental constraints also appear to prevent further deepening of the Delaware River Channel north of Wilmington. Cutting of a deeper channel would threaten salt water pollution of the aquifers which provide drinking water for much of the population of southern New Jersey. In addition to dredging, the Corps controls all private dredging and the placement of dredge d spoils, piers, bulkheads, or other obstructions in all navigable waters and adjacent wetlands. Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Corps regulates placement of dredged or fill material in U.S. waters and adjacent wetlands. The Corps reviews permit applic- cations for effects upon navigability, environmental, economic, aesthetic, flood prevention, land use, recreation, water supply, water quality, and other factors. Federal environmental agencies--Fish & Wildlife Service (F&WS), the National Marine Fisheries Service. (NMFS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--perform an environmental review of permits pending before final decision by the Corps. Any project opposed by these agencies on environmental grounds will not be approved by the Corps without resolution of the dispute at successively higher levels of the federal government. IV.A.l.c Marinas and Launching Ramps The State of New Jersey through its Department of Environmental Protec- tion currently operates four public marinas, including one on the Delaware Bay at Fortescue. The State of Delaware operates no public marinas, but it has acquired a site originally designated for marina IV-3 development at Indian River inlet, south of Cape Henlopen. Each State maintains small boat launching ramps at sites along the Bay shore. Ex- pansion of publicly-owned marinas is not contemplated at this time, and funds for expansion of launching ramps are limited. IV.A.l.d Deepwater Offshore Ports Under the Deepwater Ports Act of 1974, the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transpor tation, has jurisdiction over oil ports or terminal facili- ties on the Continental Shelf outside the three-mile limit of State jurisdiction. To be approved, any project must meet a number of economic and environmental criteria. First preference in construction and opera- tion of any deepwater port is to be given to an agency of a State govern- ment. Consent by adjoining States is required before a project can proceed. Numerous proposals for deepwater ports offshore or in lower Delaware Bay have been advanced in the last decade. Both New Jersey and Delaware oppose a port in the Bay, and New Jersey is now (October 1979) initiating a study with the Port of New York Authority of a single off- shore port to supply refineries in New York 'Harbor and the Delaware Valley. IV.A.l.e Commercial Fishing Prospects for the commercial fishing industries have improved greatly with the establishment of the 200-mile limit for American fisheries. The reduction of pollution in the Delaware River has improved oyster crops and fish catches on the Bay and makes possible more intensive production through mariculture techniques already being tested by re-- search institutions in Delaware and New Jersey. No single public agency promotes the fishing industries in the Bay or offshore. Bay fisheries are managed by State fish and shellfish agencies, while the catch in offshore fisheries is regulated by the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Council. The Delmarva Advisory Council (an economic development agency) has recommended fisheries development on the Delmarva Peninsula, and legis- lation has been introduced in the New Jersey Legislature to provide support for the expansion of the fishing industry in that State. To date, no funding source has been designated by either State or the federal government to provide financial assistance for all aspects of fisheries development in the region. IV.A.2 Environmental Protection Programs IV.A.2.a Protecting the Air The Delaware Bay area is downwind (under normal summer conditions) of major air pollution sources in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area. In addition, prevailing westerly winds carry air pollutants gen- erated further west over this area. The Wilmington area, including New Castle County, is subject to a number of environmental controls designed to protect air quality. Information on the quality of the air in the lower Bay region is more sketchy, but there is evidence that air quality IV-4 may reach unacceptable levels during peak summer traffic periods on the Jersey Shore. The State implementation plan submitted by New Jersey on December 29, 1975, in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act reported that the entire State of New Jersey had attained federal stan- dards (both primary and secondary) for concentrations of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Standards for ozone concentration were generally not attained throughout the State. Carbon monoxide concentration requirements were also violated in at least 16 major business districts. Suspended particulate levels met the federal primary (health) standard, but exceed the secondary (welfare) standard in the industrial corridor on the west side of New York Bay and in the cities of Camden and Bridge- ton.1 Because of the dominance of problems with ozone and carbon monoxide con- centrations, the New Jersey implementation plan tries to reduce vehicle emissions and increases use of public transit. New Jersey already requires annual inspection of automotive pollution control devices and is considering a requirement that auto sales be restricted to vehicles with "California type" emission control systems. High traffic volumes along the ocean corridor do create air quality problems, and the State plan includes recommendations for improved public transit to beach resorts to reduce private vehicle usage. Improved public transit is emphasized particularly for the increasing number of visitors to Atlan- tic City casinos. New controls on industrial emissions of volatile organics are included. as part of the New Jersey strategy to reduce ozone concentrations. While this could affect the costs of the petroleum and petrochemical industries in the Delaware Valley, air pollution conditions in New Jersey do not impose extraordinary requirements on industries not found in other pol- luted industrial areas. The State is reluctant to require new industry in non-attainment areas to do more than meet national emission standards for fear of further loss in the State's industrial base. The State has been aggressive in urging EPA to take steps against upwind pollution sources (Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia) which increase pollution concentrations in the air blowing across New Jersey. Air quality in Delaware is also adversely affected by pollutants generat- ed outside State borders. Photochemical oxidants (ozone) exceed federal standards where they are monitored, and Delaware is assumed, like most of the Northeast, to require measures to reduce these concentrations. Air quality data from Kent and Sussex Counties are limited, but the State Implementation Plan of 1978 assumed that no new actions were necessary to reduce concentrations of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, or nitrogen dioxide. Because of problems with the location of monitoring devices, 1 The Bridgeton problem is thought to be a localized effect resulting from a single plant. IV-5 parts of Wilmington and Newark were "unclassifiable" with respect to suspended particulates and might require further remedial actions. Emphasis in the State Implementation Plan is placed on'the need to reduce photochemical oxidants, particularly in New Castle County. Im- proved public transit, vehicle emission control inspection, and controls on industrial sources of volatile organics (including petrochemical plants and uses of volatile coatings) are elements of the recommended control strategy. Although the economic impact cannot be determined without considering a particular plant, these controls may increase the cost of petrochemical plants when compared with location in an area without a petrochemical oxidant problem. Since the ozone problem is widespread throughout the Northeast and occurs elsewhere--Metropolitan Philadelphia, for instance--such controls should have little effect on local siting decisions. IV.A.2.b Protecting Water Quality Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the U.S. government main- tains a nation-wide program of permits limiting the amount of pollutants which can be discharged from any point source into any waterway of the United States. In the State of Delaware, the administration of this program is delegated to the State government. In New Jersey, however, the State has not yet assumed administration of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, so any pollution source in New Jersey requires permits separately issued. by the federal government and the State government. The ability of the Delaware River and Bay to dilute or accommodate pol- lutants is limited. The Delaware River Basin. Commission, as the inter- state agency responsible for management of water quality in the Delaware Basin, allocates pollution loads. All new treatment plants which dis- charge 50,000 gpd of treated wastes or more are reviewable by DRBC. Major facilities located on the River and Bay, must meet standards set out in the DRBC water quality plan and in federal. and State regulations. The water quality standards for segments of the River and Bay within the DRBA region are shown in the attached Table IV-1. Evaluation of the effect of water pollution controls on future develop- ment is difficult. As can be seen, the River and Bay are expected to support natural fish populations and permit water-contact recreation below mile 59.5. Any new industry will be required to install the pol- lution control technology called for in National EPA guidelines for the particular industry. If the residual discharge after application of this technology would cause the water body to exceed the water quality objectives (or prevent reduction of pollution to these levels), the new plant may be required to install additional controls or it may be denied a discharge permit. Either action could kill. the proposed development. IV-6 Table IV-1 Selected DRBC Water Quality Standards Dissolved Fecal Coliform Protected Oxygen (Maximum geo- River Segment Uses (Min. 24 hr. Average) Temperature pH metric average) Pennsylvania- Industrial water 3.5 mg/I Delaware line supply after (mi. 78.8) to treatment Liston Point Maintenance of 86. F max. (mile 48.2) resident fish Passage of ana- No more than 6.5-8.5 770 per dromous fish 4. F above 100 MI Maintenance of ambient Sept.- shellfish May 1.5 F Recreation Navigation Wildlife Below mile 70.0 Propagation of 4.5 mg/I above ambient resident fish June August Below mile 59.5 Recreation 6.0 mg/I 200 per 100 MI Delaware Bay- Same uses as listed for 6.0 mg/l 85 F no more 6.5-8.5 200 per Liston Point to first river segment than 4 F above 100 MI Atlantic Ocean ambient Sept.- May; 1.5 F above ambient June- August Source: Delaware River Basin Commission Whether or not additional industry can locate along the River and Bay depends on the amount and type of effluent released after treatment and the success of upriver polluters in controlling discharges so that the ambient water quality will not exceed the objective. While the petro- chemical industry in the Delaware Valley has substantially reduced dis- charges to the River, major municipal polluters, such as the City of Philadelphia, are lagging behind in meeting clean-up requirements. The ability of the River above Liston Point to absorb the effluent from new industry will depend on the progress made upstream in controlling pollu- tion. Any prospective development must be analyzed individually to determine the effect of residual pollution on water quality after appli- cation of control technologies. Most of the Delaware Bay below Liston Point Currently meets the water quality objectives--fish and shellfish are resident and do propagate. Any plant or new municipality with a treated discharge large enough to threaten these water quality goals in part of the Bay may be unable to obtain an NPDES permit. For most industrial facilities on the Bay, the effective limits to plant location are imposed by coastal siting and wetlands laws, not by water pollution control regulations. IV.A.2.c Protecting All of the Environment The National Environmental Policy Act requires an environmental impact statement for federalprojects including those requiring permits that significantly affect the human environment. Any project affecting the waters or lands abutting the Bay would require two or more federal per- mits and would undoubtedly be subject to the requirements of the Act. Under regulations for environmental impact statements issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, the Corps of Engineers is most likely to be named the lead agency for Delaware Bay developments other than a bridge or offshore part, for which the U.S. Coast Guard would be named lead agency. IV.A.2.c.1 Protecting the Bottom of the Bay Each State has direct control over use of the underwater lands lying within State boundaries. This control is directly traceable to early English common law, which gave the States sovereign control over under- water tidal lands. Under this power, States are able to lease the bottom for oyster beds or other uses. In both Delaware and New Jersey, any project which will use or disrupt underwater lands requires the permission of the State. IV.A.2.d Protecting Wetlands and Shorelines Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, placement of dredged or fill materials in aquatic areas or wetlands requires a Corps permit because of the effect such alteration would have on water quality. In New Jersey and Delaware, the control over wetlands alteration or destruc- tion is much more direct. Each State has passed a Wetlands Act which IV-8 directly regulates encroachment upon tidal wetlands. Without a permit issued by the State environmental agency, any filling,.construction, or other alteration of wetlands is illegal. Each State has adopted a regulatory policy which places a very heavy burden of proof upon a devel- oper to show that a development is totally dependent upon use of the particular wetland and that environmental effects will be minimal. In general, any project which could be built elsewhere will not be approved in a wetland. This policy is paralleled by the federal environmental agencies which comment on Corps of Engineers' permits for wetland alter- ation.1 The Delaware River Basin Commission has adopted policy regula- tions on wetlands protection which are generally supportive of State legislation. IV.A.2.e Protecting the Beaches Both Delaware and New Jersey have programs for the restoration and pre- servation of beaches. These programs include planting of beach grass and other efforts to stabilize dunes, public-works programs to control beach erosion in storms, and efforts through planning to prevent devel- opments which would threaten barrier beaches. Storm damage on the Atlantic Coast of both States and on the lower bay shore in Delaware has been accentuated by construction of second homes and other structures which breach the integrity of the barrier dunes. Delaware's Beach Preservation Act of 1972 specifically controls private development along the beachfront. A building line is established by the Department of National Resources and Environmental Conservation (DNREC) along the landward toe of the primary dune. New buildings on the seaward side of this line are prohibited unless the plot was subdivided prior to the effective date of the Act and contains insufficient space to construct the building inland of the building line. Any structure such as a jetty, bulkhead, or groin which may affect beach erosion requires a permit from DNREC. Buildings crossing the line are permitted on small plots sub- divided prior to the law only with the approval of DNREC. Although some Atlantic Coast resorts have been badly damaged in past storms, Delaware has been reluctant to enter into the large scale beach protection public works program proposed by the Corps of Engineers. Initial cost is estimated at $32 million, but State analysts have con- cluded that the project may cost as much as $200 million to maintain over a 50-year lifetime. They prefer to control erosion through build- ing limitations and low-cost programs such as planting of stabilizing grasses. A small experiment is underway in three Delaware Bay beaches to compare the effects of limited erosion control programs in these areas with the erosion of three other beaches not included in the experi- ment. 1The policies detailed are a part of the Corps' regulation and applied by the Corps in deciding on permit issuance or denial. IV-9 New Jersey does not have a direct statutory control such as the Beach Preservation Act in Delaware, but it does have a Shore Protection Pro- gram within the Division of Coastal Resources, Department of Environ- mental Protection. This office administers a $20-million, 5-year bond issue approved by New Jersey voters for shore protection in 1977. Property owners receiving assistance under the bond issue must provide public access to the protected beach. State policy articulated in the Coastal Zone Management Plan prohibits expanded or rebuilt development on barrier beaches unless the development is publicly funded or has no prudent or feasible non-beach location. This policy is similar to Delaware's, but enforcement will be indirect. The State will deny a CAFRA (coastal facility siting) permit or riparian permit to any project which proposes beachfront structures in violation of this policy. The control is incomplete, because individual private homes which do not cross the tide line with bulkheads, docks or other structures would not require either permit. IV.A.2.f Protecting Wildlife Large areas on either side of the Bay, particularly the wetlands in the middle Bay, are owned by the State and federal. governments and operated aswildlife refuges. The federal agency which controls U.S. wildlife refuges (the Fish & Wildlife Service) is also one of the key environ- mental agencies in commenting on federal permits. In reviewing any development in the Bay, the agency can be expected to react negatively to a development which would threaten these wildlife preserves, which are a key link for migrating waterfowl on the Atlantic flyaway. Much friction has been generated in recent years by the conflict between certain development projects and the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The presence of endangered species in the Delaware Bay, notably the bald eagle found in the national wildlife refuges and cer- tain species of sturgeon has been noted. Any significant development would have to be located to avoid the nesting, spawning, and feeding areas of these species. IV.A.3 Land Use Planning IV.A.3.a Coastal Zone Management New Jersey and Delaware both have Coastal Zone Management Programs fund- ed under the Coastal Zone Management Act (PL 92-583). In Delaware, the entire State has been designated as a coastal zone planning area. This decision was made by the State government because so much of the State is clearly in the coastal zone, and an independent State land use plan would largely overlap the coastal zone plan. New Jersey will have two separate coastal zone plans. One for the ocean and Bay north to Penns- ville is completed. A second plan for the River north of Pennsville and for the industrialized area of the Raritan Bay and New York Harbor will be developed from a report on options for-the developed coast published in 1979. IV-10 Each coastal zone plan emphasizes the need to preserve the Delaware Bay wetlands and the quality of the recreational opportunities at Atlantic beaches. In neither State does the Coastal Zone Management Plan become a control in itself; each uses its plan to guide development, relying upon wetlands permits, dredge and fill permits, riparian or subaqueous lands control, coastal facility siting permits, and local zoning to control development. The policies and priorities stated in the coastal zone plans should be reflected in the decisions made in these permit programs. Each plan seeks to concentrate development in pcpulated areas north of the Delaware Bridge and in inland population centers such as Vineland, Millville, Salem, and Dover. Destruction of wetlands or fill- ing of shallow waters for industrial projects is contrary to the coastal zone plan in each State. IV.A.3.b Controlling the Siting of Coastal Facilities Each of the Delaware Bay States has passed legislation controlling development in the coastal zone. In Delaware, this law (Coastal Zone Act) applies to the entire coastline with certain excertions for the Port of Wilmington. Because the Delaware State line extends to the eastern bank of the river within a 12-mile radius of New Castle, the Delaware Coastal Zone Act affects development in portions of Gloucester and Salem Counties in New Jersey. The New Jersey law (Coastal Area Facilities Review Act) exempts the Delaware Bay shoreline north of Penns- ville. Restrictions in the Delaware law are absolute. Bulk terminal facilities (except in the Port of Wilmington) and heavy industry are barred in the coastal zone. Additions to existing industrial facilities or new light industry in the coastal zone require a permit showing that the project is not inconsistent with the Act. The New Jersey law is both more extensive and less restrictive. In addi- tion to industrial developments, the Act requires permits for large non- industrial development, such as sub-divisions and major highway improve- ments. On the other hand, it does not absolutely bar heavy industry in the coastal zone, although the statutory purposes of the Act make it clear that the Legislature wished to discourage industrialization of the coastal zone. Coastal siting permits are required of any project in the coastal zone meeting the statutory criteria and are independent of wet- lands, subaqueous land use, and dredge and fill permits. IV.A.3.c Statewide Land Use Plans These plans are not regulatory mechanisms per se but are intended to guide State policy in administering other regulatory programs and in distributing State funds for investment in public infrastructure (e.g., sewers and highways). IV-11 In Delaware, the Coastal Zone Management Plan is the State Land Use Plan. In addition to emphasizing preservation'of the wetlands of the Bay in a natural state, this plan channels industrial development pri- marily to the north of the State, with limited industrial development allowed at Lewes and in the small urban centers in the south, such as Georgetown. The regulatory authorities discussed previously and the Coastal Zone State Land Use Plan are supplemented by three additional statutes. The Land Use Planning Act of 1978 is discussed below under local controls. Enforcement of the Erosion and Sediment Control Act is delegated to localities. The Natural Areas Preservation Systems Act specifies procedures for designating irreplaceable natural areas to be protected. Along the coast these areas are already defined and pro- tected by existing State controls (wetlands, subaqueou4 lands, coastal facility siting). The New Jersey State Development Guide Plan is a statewide document which explicitly states priorities for future development. This Plan clearly indicates the desire of the State to concentrate new industry in areas where population and public infrastructure already exist, rather than investing State funds in developing public services for industry and housing in undeveloped areas. The plan designates areas for growth and limited (low) growth. Along the Delaware Bay, only the northern region around the Delaware Memorial Bridge is designated as a growth area. The major cities in Cumberland, Salem, and Cape May Counties are also designated for growth, but the Plan specifically dis- courages growth in the agricultural areas surrounding these cities. While providing for preservation of the Delaware Bay wetlands, the State Development Guide Plan also reflects New Jersey's recent concern with preservation of the Pine Barrens. Most encroachment upon the Pine Barrens has come from the north (Ocean County),, and future pressure will undoubtedly be heaviest from the east, with development of resort gambl- ing in Atlantic City. Governor Byrne's recent moratorium on Pinelands development and passage of the Pinelands Preservation Act by the New Jersey Legislature have indicated the State's intent to preserve the heart of the Pinelands in its natural state. IV.A.3.d City and County While State development plans provide overall guidelines for State 51 regulatory and spending programs, they have no binding authority on local land use decisions. State statutes create mun fcipal governments and grant them zoning authority over local land use. These local 1In New Jersey, townships cover the entire area Of the State, so zoning is essentially done at the local, not the county, level. In Delaware, county governments provide whatever planning orzoning controls which exist for land not incorporated into towns. IV-12 decisions are made by the county or town zoning commissions without any required approvals from State government. For most State permit pro- grams, appropriate local zoning,of a site is a pre-requisite to State approval. New Jersey has recently moved to require greater conformity between local planning and zoning decisions. It cannot override a local decision to approve a particular development for failure to com- ply with the priorities in the land use plan. Localities may use zoning to encourage or discourage development. An interesting example of local attempts to use zoning to discourage development occurred in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware in 1976 when the electorate voted to annex to the town 60 square miles of Delaware territorial waters from Delaware Bay out to the three-mile limit. This initiative has not yet been tested in court and might not survive judicial scrutiny, but the attempt to annex this underwater land was clearly inspired by a local desire to prevent the location of an oil port anywhere in Delaware coastal waters. In 1978, Delaware passed a Land Use Planning Act to improve State and local coordination in reviewing new developments. The law does provide for notice and comments to other local governments and State agencies affected by a major local planning or zoning decision. If a dispute arises over a proposed development, the law provides a procedure for resolving intergovernmental disagreements. Several major projects have already been reviewed under the new statute, and one project (a high rise in Sussex County) which did not follow the necessary notice pro- cedures is being sued by the State for failure to adhere to the law. The permutations and combinations of local controls affecting a specific type of development, in a specific town (or unincorporated area of a county), on a specific site are too numerous to detail in this analysis. Parameters controlled by local zoning laws, building codes, and licenses include: * type of permissible use e density of development * height, setback, and land coverage ratios * hazardous activities * method of construction (building code) * fire rating of structure e location of flood plain 9 access to sewage systems or permit for on-site disposal * curb cuts and highway access 9 fire rating of structure. IV-13 IV.A.3.e Regional Planning The only general regional planning agency operating in the Bay area is the Wilmington Metropolitan Area Planning Council (Wilmapco), which covers Wilmington (New Castle County) and Salem County, New Jersey. South of this metropolitan area, all detailed planning is done on the county or local level. There is no formally--constituted agency for planning across the Bay for projects affecting Cape May, Cumberland, and Salem Counties as well as Kent and Susses Counties in Delaware. IV.A.4 Other Significant Programs IV.A.4.a Navigation Controls The U.S. Coast Guard controls are important aspects of Bay development. Its control over navigation, including navigational aids, mooring areas, and use of Bay channels has an important impact upon commerce in the Bay area. The lightering area off Big Stone Beach is specifically recognized under Coast Guard regulations. The lightering area was in- creased from 3.2 to 5 square miles in 1974 in response to the five-fold increase since 1968 in the volume of oil lightered. A further increase to 13 square miles was proposed in 1978, but has not been issued.as a final regulation. If the Coast Guard were to terminate permission for the lightering activity inside the Bay, oil companies would be required to import all oil in smaller tankers, unless a deepwater port could be developed offshore. The Coast Guard also administers the authority assigned to the Depart- ment of Transportation to approve bridges over navigable waterways. Any crossing of the Delaware Bay, whether a bridge or a tunnel, or some combination, would require Coast Guard approval. Because of the large volume of traffic in the Bay, the Coast Guard. would undoubtedly require a large span or tunnel crossing the ship channel. IV.A.4.b Energy The controls exercised by the federal government over offshore oil development could have an important effect on the future of the Bay area. The right to drill for oil offshore is controlled by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior. Oil companies bid on the right. to explore the offshore lands controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, whose jurisdiction runs out to the edge of the Continental Shelf'. Environmental constraints imposed on offshore oil leases can be an important factor in determining the course of oil and gas development. Pipeline and terminal facilities developed to receive oil or gas pro- duced in any offshore oil field would also require approvals from the U.S. Department of Energy. If a strike offshore were sufficiently large to justify a pipeline to Delaware Bay refineries, or if oil were piped onshore from a deepwater port, such pipelines would require federal IV-14 approval.* In addition, New Jersey has a Department of Energy with the power to coordinate and control the siting of most energy facilities within the State. The Delaware Energy Act of 1977 established an Energy Facility Siting Liaison Committee to assist in the resolution of siting disputes. IV.B OPERATION OF MAJOR PROGRAMS, PLANNING, AND REGULATING ACTIVITIES IN THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY IV.B.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers IV.B.l.a Statutory Authority The Corps of Engineers has traditionally been the primary federal agency responsible for construction and maintenance of public works on American waterways, including channels, locks, dams, levees, and other flood con- trol and navigation projects. In addition to its responsibility for dredging channels in navigable waterways, the Corps was given authority under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 to control the actions of private parties which would affect the navigable waters of the United States. The purpose of the 1899 Act was to keep the navigable waters free of private encroachments and open to public navigation. Under Section 10 of the Act, a permit from the Corps is required for work and structures such as piers, bulkheads and breakwaters, as well as for dredging and filling. Any activity which affects the navigable capacity of a waterway requires a permit, even if it takes place outside the navigable channels. District Engineers previously administered the permit program under �10 by establishing pier and bulkhead lines on navigable waterways. In general, any structure (pier, landfill, etc.) which did not cross the established line would receive a Corps permit. The only test applied to projects seeking Corps approval was the effect upon navigation. A project which did not restrict navigation was automatically approved. In the late 1960's the Rivers and Harbors Act was revived as an instru- ment of federal policy to clean up the nation's waterways. Pollution discharges, including the discharge of dredge spoil, were defined as the dumping of refuse into a navigable waterway, thus requiring a permit from the Corps under the terms of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Environ- mental criteria were added to navigational considerations in reviewing permits for structures, dredging, and filling in navigable waterways. *Including the Delaware River Basin Commission if the pipeline crossed the Delaware Bay or River or its tributaries. IV-15 Administrative and legal difficulties soon led to the replacement of the Rivers and Harbors Act as the prime federal mechanism for water pollution control. Passage in 1972 of the Federal Water Pollution Con- trol Act (FWPCA) included 9404, regulating dredge and fill operations in the waters of the United States. A permit is to be issued for such operations by the Corps through application of guidelines developed with EPA. The Administrator of EPA may prohibit the specification of any site as.a dredge spoil disposal site whenever he determines that the discharge will have "an unacceptable adverse effect" on.muricipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery, wildlife, or recreational areas. Under �401 of the Act, any permit for the discharge of dredge spoil under �404 is subjected to certification by the State government that the proposal is not inconsistent with State water quality objectives. The controls on dredge spoil disposal contained in �404 of the FWPCA are extended seaward by the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (the Ocean Dumping Act). The ocean dumping of dredged material requires a permit from the Corps of Engineers under �103 of the Act. tvaluation of a permit request is to be made by the Corps using the same criteria developed by EPA to guide the issuance of EPA permits under the Act for the ocean dumping of materials other than dredge spoil (such as sewage sludge or hazardous chemicals)- Creation of the �404 permit program under the FWPCA and the Ocean Dump- ing Act did not eliminate the requirement for a permit under �10 of the .Rivers and Harbors Act for construction and dredging in navigable waters. The language of the FWPCA as amended in 1977 by referring to "the waters of the United States" clearly extends controls on placement of fill and dredge spoil to most waters and wetlands of the United States, except for a very limited exception for certain isolated lakes and inland wet- lands not connected, directly or indirectly, to navigable waterways. All of the Delaware River and By are subject to these controls: � All piers, bulkheads, and other structures, and all dredge and fill activities require a permit under �10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. � The discharge of dredge spoil or placement of fill in the Delaware Bay or any of its adjoining wetlands requires a permit under �404 of the Federal Water -Pollution Control Act. � Ocean dumping of dredge spoils removed from any project in the Delaware Bay requires a permit under �103 of the Ocean Dumping Act. IV-16 IV.B.l.b Jurisdiction and Current Organization The Corps of Engineers is the only major federal agency handling environ- mental permits which has a single district office for the Delaware River and Bay area. The Philadelphia office processes all permit applications in the area of this study. However, the Corps office must coordinate comments from the following agencies on these permits: � Environmental Protection Agency - Region II (New York) for projects on the New Jersey side; Region III (Phil- adelphia) for projects in Delaware and Pennsylvania. � Fish and Wildlife Service - Annapolis, Maryland, field office for Delaware; Absecon, New Jersey, for New Jersey. Comments on endangered species come out of the Boston office. � National Marine Fisheries Service - Oxford, Maryland, and Sandy Hook, New Jersey. & State Governments of Delaware and New Jersey. � Coast Guard (Governor's Island, New York) on the effect of proposed projects on the safety of navigation. The Coast Guard also specifies any markings or other navi- gational aids which must be included on structures permitted in navigable waters. IV.B.l.c Current Organization The District Office of the Corps currently provides a single application form, instructions, and environmental questionnaire for any project seek- ing a permit under �10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, �404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or �103 of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act. After the Corps determines that the appli- cation is complete, a public notice must be issued within 15 days. A 30- day public comment period is allowed, butthe Corps usually allows all parties to comment up to the 75-day limit given to other federal agencies. Applications to the Corps can usually proceed in parallel to application for necessary State permits. While some attempts have been made to unify permit reviews and public hearings with the Delaware wetlands permit program, the federal review is usually conducted separately from consid- eration of State permits. However, the Corps will not issue a permit until it has received notice that the necessary State permits have been issued. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act and �401 of the FWPCA, a federal permit cannot be issued if it is not consistent with State policy. Denial of a wetlands, subaqueous lands, or coastal siting permit is proof that the proposed project is inconsistent with State policy. In New Jersey, a water quality certificate under �404 is issued by the Division of Water Resources separately from the State permits IV-17 which the Corps also requires as pre-requisite (wetlands, coastal siting, subaqueous lands) to a �404 (FWPCA) and �10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) permit. While State rejection of a project will prevent issuance of a Corps per- mit, opposition by the federal agencies does not necessarily preclude issuance of a permit. If another federal agency formally objects to a permit, the District Engineer initially responsible for permit issuance cannot issue the permit. A series of appeals beyond the District-level is provided for the resolution of such interagency disputes. If the District Engineer finds that a project is in the public interest but is opposed by EPA, the F&WS, or the NMFS, he refers the case for resolution at successively higher levels of the bureaucracy. The issue can eventu- ally reach the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Interior, or the Administrator of EPA. Such review procedures require great effort for the District Engineer and can receive only little attention from those at higher levels of authority. As a result, opposition by any federal environmental agency that cannot be resolved by negotiation or changes in the project effectively amounts to a veto, except in unusual circum- stances where the development has strong political support at higher levels.1 To avoid confrontation during the permit process, the Corps encourages those who will need permits to discuss major projects early in the planning phase, before specific plans are drawn. The Corps will convene the responsible federal environmental agencies for this meeting so that the potential applicant may learn of the criteria which will be applied to the project. Also discussed at such a preliminary meeting are the questions which must be addressed if the project is of sufficient scope to require an environmental impact assessment under the National Environ- mental Policy Act. Certain projects have minimal environt nental impact, and have been allowed pursuant to permit regulations. These activities do not require any permit application. Included are: aids to navigation placed by the U.S. Coast Guard e marine life harvesting devices such as crab and lobster pots e repair of any currently serviceable structure constructed prior to the requirement for a �10 permit (no change in structure) 9 structures in artificial canals, if the canals have previously been approved 9 scientific surveys and instruments 1The Secretary of the Army is currently acting as the final arbiter of an interagency dispute over creation of a new oil refinery in lower Chesapeake Bay. IV-18 The regulations implementing Corps authority also provide for issuance of nation-wide permits to allow certain types of projects to proceed under limited conditions without the necessity of an individual permit review.. Included in this permit class are dredge and fill and, structural work ancillary to construction of a bridge approved by the Coast Guard, util- ity lines, bank stabilization work, repair of existing fills, and minor road crossing fills. Any development process of any size occurring on the Bay or its fringing wetlands will undoubtedly require a full permit review by the Corps, the federal environmental-agencies, and the State pursuant to the general policies for evaluating permit applications contained in 33CFR320.4. For many of the development projects discussed below, the Corps will be the lead federal agency in preparing an environmental impact statement. IV.B.l.d Criteria for Project Approval The language governing the approval of permits calls for a careful weigh- ing of competing interests. Factors to be considered in determining whether or not a project is in the public interest include: conservation e navigation economics * recreation aesthetics * water supply general environmental concerns e water quality historic value e energy needs fish and wildlife values * safety flood damage prevention o food production land use e needs and welfare of the people No project will be approved unless it is in the public interest. The regulations give priorities which the Corps will apply in evaluating the public interest. Particularly important is the review of alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the structure or work. Each proposal must be analyzed in relation to the cumulative effect of existing and anticipated activities in the area. Unnecessary alteration or destruction of wetlands is deemed contrary to the public interest by the regulations. The District Engineer cannot approve any project altering wetlands unless he concludes that benefits outweight the damage to the wetlands resource, and alteration of the wet- lands is necessary to achieve the benefits, i.e., no alternative upland site or program could achieve the benefits. IV-19 The District Engineer is also instructed to give "great weight" to the views of the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries- Service on fish and wildlife considerations and views of the EPA on water quality. Any permit may be conditioned on measures to mitigate damages to fish and wildlife or toprotect water quality. IV.B.l.e Critical Problems for a Developer For most projects in the Delaware Bay, other than a bridge or continuing source of air and water pollution, a permit from the Corps is the single most important federal approval. Administration of the two key permits --under �10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and �464 of the FWPCA--has been integrated by the Corps. Because of the requirements for State certifi- cation under the Coastal Zone Management Act and 9401 of the FWPCA, State approval is essential before any permit will be issued. While the Corps can nominally override an objection from the federal environmental agen- cies, these agencies can effectively tie up approval of a projOct (with rare exceptions), and a developer should be prepared to meet the condi- tions imposed by these agencies before he can build or dredge and fill in the waters and wetlands of the Bay. IV.B.2 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) IV.B.2.a Statutory Authority The NMFS performs two functions of importance to the Bay. It is the federal agency charged with research on ocean fishes, including estimates of the current stocks and maximum sustainable yield for most important food fishes. These estimates are used by the Regional Fisheries Manage- ment Councils in setting catch quotas and allocating unused stocks to foreign fishermen. This process, managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Council for fishing off Delaware and New Jersey, is crucial to the devel- opment of an expanded American fishing industry. Since the most desir-. able species of table fish for the American market are already fished to the limit, American fishermen must move into the species caught directly for foreign markets or develop new markets for underutilized species in order to expand significantly. The catch allocation, influenced by NMFS data and State Department pressures, will be an important influence on the future growth of fishing ports at the mouth of the Bay. Of more immediate concern is the second role of the NMFS, commenting on federal permits, particularly Corps of Engineers permits. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act gives this role to the NMFS for all waters below the head of tide. Thus, the effects on the fish and shellfish of the Bay are evaluated by the NMFS, and their comments are given to the Corps. The NMFS is also responsible for implementation of the Endangered Species Act for all marine fishes and mammals. IV-20 IV.B.2.b Jurisdiction and Current Organization Comments on Delaware Bay projects are handled by the Oxford, Maryland, laboratory and Sandy Hook, New Jersey offices of NMFS-and sent to the District Engineer in Philadelphia. While the Oxford laboratory does research on crabs, oysters, and other bay species, fish of the open ocean are studied by the Woods Hole and Sandy Hook labs. Catch statis- tics for use in monitoring harvests and projecting yields are managed out of the NMFS laboratory in Gloucester, Massachusetts. Despite the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, there is significant overlap between the environmental review agencies in the federal govern- ment. Theoretically, the only overlap should come with anadromous fish which migrate between tidal (NMFS) and non-tidal (F&WS) waters. How- ever, salt water wetlands inundated by the tide are important bird habitats, so both the F&WS and NMFS are involved. EPA's mandate to re- view water quality effects extends to waters and wetlands within the purview of NMFS and the F&WS. As a result, all three agencies review the full range of effects on waters and wetlands in a tidal estuary like the Delaware Bay. IV.B.2.c Controls or Permits in Effect/Relationship to Other Agencies For projects in the Delaware Bay, the NMFS exerts its control through environmental review of permits issued by other agencies--not through permits of its own. While the service has a limited ability to do environmental impact research, the acquisition of any environmental data on a proposed project is the responsibility of the developer or sponsor. This is true whether or not the project requires an environ- mental impact statement. For certain small projects, NMFS may make environemtnal comments based upon past experience with similar projects. Otherwise, it provides available data to the developer and consults on the information which the permit applicant must develop before an NMFS recommendation will be provided to the Corps. IV.B.2.d Criteria for Project Approval Several endangered species of whale and turtle are occasional visitors at the mouth of the Delaware Bay, but foreseeable development projects would probably not be a threat to these species. Of more concern is the short-nosed sturgeon--a once profitable commercial species which is now designated as endangered. It survives in the Bay in small numbers. Young sturgeon have been found in cooling-water intakes at the nuclear power plant at Artificial Island. If the sturgeon spawning grounds are ever identified, the NMFS is likely to insist upon their protection from future development. Any project which threatens the spawning and rearing grounds for a sig- nificant commercial species will be opposed by NMFS. The Delaware Bay marshes are an important link in the food chain leading to oysters, crabs, and commercial finfish, and any encroachment on the marshes is IV-21 opposed. NMF$ normally opposes any project which affects significant beds of submerged vegetation or shellfish beds. This priority parallels 40CFR230.5 b (.2(1), EPA guidelines for 404 permits, which states that disposal sites for dredged material shall not be designated in areas of concentrated shellfish production (see Exhibit IV-1). The NMFS is normally opposed to any filling of subaqueous lands, even in industrialized sections of the river, if the land is being filled for purposes which are not dependent upon being on or adjacent to water or wetlands to serve its primary purpose. For this reason, the Service opposes the 200-acre fill on the Delaware River proposed by the Port of Wilmington. NMFS analysts are not opposed. to expansion of the Port onto the riverfront but see no reason to fill land for storage space and warehouses which could be built on existing dry land. The necessary berths, NMFS analyst claims, could be obtained with a combination of pilings and floating piers without filling; the underwater lands. NMFS seeks to force the disposal of dredge spoil on uplands wherever possible and requires that any dredging project provide a guaranteed spoil disposal site. Where any encroachment on wetlands is permitted because an important activity must be located at the water's edge, the NMFS attempts to condition the permit on mitigating or compensating measures such as the restoration of previously degraded wetlands. IV.B.2.e Critical Problems for a Developer It is clear that the NMFS will normally oppose a permit for any project which threatens shellfish beds or spawning grounds or takes any wetland or subaqueous land for a purpose which is not entirely dependent on waterfront access. Any project should be designed and sited with these restrictions in mind. Marine structures should be floating or built on piles, so they disrupt the ebb and flow of the tide to a minimum extent. Significantly, NMFS analysts noted that Lewes might be a reasonable candidate for waterfront development because dredged material would be sand with minimal industrial contamination, and the dredge spoil could be disposed on upland sites or used in beach restoration projects and need not be disposed in wetlands. IV.B.3 Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS) IV.B.3.a Statutory Authority Responsibilities of the F&WS parallel those of the NMFS. The F&WS scrutinizes all activities which could affect birds, land mammals, or freshwater fish. Their concern extends to estuarine wetlands and species of fish which migrate across the tidal zone. The endangered species of most concern to the F&WS in the Bay region is the bald eagle. A few nests have been identified on the Bay in the past, and any major project which would create a risk for an active nest would undoubtedly be opposed, just as the Eastport, Maine, oil refinery has been blocked because of the threat to eagles nesting around Passamaquoddy Bay. IV-22 ISTON 1 0 0 BRIDGETON PT. . MILLVILLE Arnold 31 Pt. Bed Arnold Pt. Shoall Middle 0 Bad Cohansey 417 NantUxOnt Creek Ship John Bennies Hawks Nast Beds PORT NORRIS Bed . . . . Formcue Creek 0 low ew* _.. t:. edil- at valve 3 av 5 3 Ben 0 51 Pt. Shoa@ Boadors EAST PT. Bed Tongers Beds W C 9 ,.oo @p 0 OYSTER PLANTING 3 (D (D (E) @ GROUNDS eadmanShoal L ht 1 'y Legend: 29680 Leased Acres 0, 1 2 3 4 S IN- MILCO Tongers Beds Brandywine Shoal Natural Oyster Beds Light E3 - (Scattering Growth) - Natural Oyster Beds (Dense Growth 0 - Salinity Sampling Station CAPE MAY EXHIBIT IV-1 DELAWARE BAY OYSTER BEDS ON NEW JERSEY SIDE IV-23 The F&WS is also designated as the prime agency for commenting on any action receiving federal funds or permits which would affect any of the lands managed by the Department of the Interior, including national parks, national monuments, and wildlife refuges. IV.B.3.b Jurisdiction The Ecological Service which handles all environmental comments within the F&WS has biologists stationed in Annapolis, Maryland, and Absecon, New Jersey. IV.B.3.c Current Policies or Development Extensive guidelines for the review of projects requiring Corps of Engineers' permits were published in the Federal Register by the Fish and Wildlife Service in December, 1975 (40 Federal Register #231). The goal of the F&WS is to "protect and preserve fish and wildlife resources, and protect public trust rights of use and enjoyment in and associated with navigable and other waters of the United States." The F&WS encour- ages developers to use every "possible means, method, and alternative (including non-development) to prevent harmful environmental impacts and degradation, and to restore habitat and increase opportunities for public use through proper development and land use control." Any struc- ture approved should be water dependent and the least ecologically damaging alternative. Minimum disruption and reasonable mitigation and compensation measures are required. Perhaps most important, the F&WS places the burden of proof on the per- mit applicant to demonstrate that the proposal is environmentally sound and in the public interest. In meeting this burden, the applicant for a permit must undertake any studies, sampling programs, or investiga- tions necessary to meet his burden of proof. The F&WS guidelines em- phasize the importance of early consultation between the agency and the developer. Reviewing biologists seek to have the developer explore a full range of options before committing to any project design. Biolo- gists who review permit applications are concerned about the incremental effect of successive projects an both the -productive wetlands and shallow.waters and the quality of the recreational experience. Comments on a proposed project are usually coordinated wit h State fish and game agencies. At this time, joint environmental analysis with affected State agencies is not a standard procedure, and State officials are not included in conferences with permit applicants in which the scope of an environmental impact statement is outlined or permit condi- tions are negotiated. IV.B.3.d Critical Problems for the Developer Despite the overlap which exists between the F&WS and the NMFS, the message for any development is clear: IV-24 e no destruction of wetlands or filling of shallow waters will be permitted without overwhelming proof of public benefit e no structures or fill will be permitted for projects which do not depend on water access e no filling or dredging will be permitted which endangers spawning grounds or shellfish beds * no construction of marinas will be permitted in dredged dead-end basins or on channels which will require exten- sive maintenance dredging and disposal of spoil on wet- lands or in Bay waters IV.B.4 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) IV.B.4.a Statutory Authority The Administrator of EPA exercises a statutory oversight function for dredge spoil disposal permits issued by the Corps of Engineers under �404 of the FWPCA. EPA also reviews water quality effects of all pro- jects in navigable waters requiring a permit under,�10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. EPA has overall responsibility for improvement in the nation's water quality under the FWPCA. This includes funding of the sewage systems and municipal treatment plants which are beginning to improve water quality in the Delaware River. The agency also sets effluent guide- lines for all pollution discharges, municipal and industrial. When combined with water quality standards developed by the States, these regulations determine the dmount of pollutants which can be discharged by a single source. The permit required for each discharge is issued and monitored by EPA under �402 of the FWPCA, unless a State is desig- nated to perform this function. Most states have water pollution control laws and permit programs which predated the passage of the FWPCA in 1972. Many have elected to admin- ister the Federal (NPDES) discharge permit program to simplify the administrative process for dischargers in the State and to maximize the amount of State control available within EPA guidelines. Some States have chosen not to assume the extra burdens associated with the NPDES program and continue to administer sepafately a state discharge permit program while EPA issues NPDES permits. 1At the time the report was written, the NPDES program had not yet been delegated to New Jersey, but the state intends to assume responsibility for the program in the future. IV-25 Any project which disrupts the bottom of the Bay or its wetlands will require a permit from the Corps, and EPA is one of the prime federal agencies commenting on the environmental effect of this permit. If the project will also produce a continuing discharge of pollutants into the Bay once in operation (for example, a fish processing plant), the operator must obtain an NPDES permit for this discharge. IV.B.4.b Jurisdiction EPA Region III (Philadelphia) handles the review of all projects reauir- ing Corps permits-on the Delaware side of the Bav. Certain NPDES permits for major installations, although written by Delaware, are subject to review by the EPA Region III office and cannot be issued if the Region- al Administrator rejects any of the terms of the permit. Disputes between Delaware and EPA are relatively infrequent and have been resolved through State acceptance of the modifications required by Region III. The EPA Region IIOffice covering New Jersey is in New York City. This office comments to the Philadelphia District Engineer on Corps permits. NPDES permits for continuing pollution discharges in New Jersey are issued from the Region II office. The observer should note the number of federal offices which must be coordinated in an environmental impact statement for a major project. For a truly interstate project, such as another crossing of the Bay, two different regional offices for EPA and for the Fish and Wildlife Service must work together. Designation of lead agencies for the analysis could take some time in such a situation. An additional agency to consider in reviewing governmental responsibil- ity for water pollution control is the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). This interstate compact agency (discussed in more detail below) is responsible for water quality planning in the Delaware River Basin. As part of this plan, it has adopted water quality standards for each segment of the Delaware and its tidal tributaries. Given the assimilative capacity of a stream, only limited quantities of pollutants can be dumped into each stream segment if water quality standards are not to be exceeded. IV.B.4.c Current Policies on Development Effluent requirements for an NPDES permit -vary by type of source and are too diverse to review in this document. Any chemical or petroleum facility must develop a spill prevention, -containment and control plan, in addition to reducing its regular discharge to acceptable levels. Spills of petroleum and hazardous chemicals are subject to fines under �311 g of the FWPCA. EPA policies applied to the review of Corps per- mits are essentially the same as those applied by the F&WS and NMFS. The degradation or destruction of aquatic resources by filling opera- tions is considered the most severe environmental impact arising from a project requiring a permit under �404. IV-26 Any developer considering a project which will produce a continuing pollution discharge (industrial waste or sewage) must determine if he can dispose of his wastes with pre-treatment in a municipal sewage system. If a direct discharge to the waters of the River and Bay is indicated, the developer must determine EPA effluent guidelinei for the discharge, water quality standards for the stream segment, and the availability of a wasteload allocation sufficient for the necessary discharge. IV.B.5 United States Coast Guard (Department of Transportation) IV.b.5.a Statutory Authority The U.S. Coast Guard serves many functions of importance to the future of the Delaware River and Bay. Coast Guard stations at Lewes and Cape May provide rescue services for mariners in the Bay. The Coast Guard builds and maintains all the aids to navigation which assist recrea- tional and commercial traffic on the River and Bay. Under its powers to regulate navigation, the Coast Guard establishes traffic rules, including separation lanes for ocean shipping approaching the entrance to the Bay. Lightering activities off Big Stone Beach and the size of the lightering area are controlled by Coast Guard regulations. Ships entering American ports are now subject to some Coast Guard inspections, and U.S. registered vessels are subject to much more extensive controls on design, construction and operation. Coast Guard cutters enforce the new 200-mile limit protecting American fishermen. If an oil spill should occur, the Coast Guard would be responsible for supervising the clean-up efforts, perhaps using its mobile pollution strike force. Funds for any publicly supported clean-up would come from the contin- gency fund managed by the Coast Guard under �311k of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Of particular interest to planners considering the future of the Dela- ware Bay area are two additional controls which the Coast Guard administers over bridges and offshore ports. The power to control bridges over navigable waters was transferred from the Corps of Engi- neers to the Department of Transportation in 1966. The Coast Guard now administers these controls. Plans for the bridge must be approved, and a bridge operator is required to change his plans so as not to "unrea- sona*bly" obstruct navigation. Tolls on the approved bridge are subject to approval of the U.S. Department of Transportation, unless the bridge is wholly within a State, or the tolls are prescribed by a contract with a State or municipality. These controls (33USCA�491 et.seq.) make the Department of Transportation and its Coast Guard the lead agency in reviewing any new crossing of the 1See water quality standards for Zone 6, "Water Management Plan for the Delaware Basin." Waters must permit propagation of fish and shellfish. IV-27 Delaware River or Bay. The crossJng must be designed to provide ade- quate horizontal and vertical clearance in existing channels to satisfy the Coast Guard that navigation is not endangered. Under the terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, the new crossing will require a full environmental impact statement, supervised by the Coast Guard. U.S. environmental agencies will be offered a chance to object to the harmful environmental effects of the construction and operation of the bridge and may be successful in persuading the Coast Guard to condition the bridge-permit on specific siting or construction techniques. The environmental impact statement may lead to the conclusion that the. potential public benefits from the crossing are outweighed by the en- vironmental and navigational risks.1 Under the Deepwater Ports Act of 1974, the Coast Guard acquired respon- sibility for regulation of offshore ports located on the continental shelf outside State territorial waters--beyond three miles from the outer beaches. Congress passed the statute to regulate the location, ownership, construction and operation of deepwater ports. The Act carefully acknowledges the rights of States and communities to regulate growth, determine land use, and otherwise protect the environment. However, any deepwater port must obtain a Coast Guard permit, which amounts, in effect, to a franchise in a given area. A deepwater port is defined as a fixed or floating manmade structure, other than a vessel, used or intended for use as a port or terminal for the loading, unloading and further handling of oil for transportation to any State. A licensed deepwater port cannot be used for transshipment of oil to other nations without the approval of the Secretary of Trans- portation. The commercial implications of a deepwater port are considered in as great detail as the environmental consequences. The Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission must determine that a deepwater port will not restrain trade. The impacts and benefits of a deepwater port must be compared with the impacts and benefits of ports within a State, proposed or existing. First preference in operating a deepwater port is given to an agency of State government or a multi-state agency. The Act specifically authorizes, in advance, interstate compacts to create deepwater ports. Second preference in operating a port is given to any person or corporation which is not affiliated with anyone engaged in producing, refining, or marketing petroleum. The last option for oper- ation of a deepwater port would go to an oil company or consortium of oil companies. To protect against the damages from an oil s-ill at a deepwater port, .P the Act imposes liability without fault of $150 per ton up to a maximum 1Vessels have collided with the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel and Lake Ponchatrain Bridge in recent years, causing serious damage and injury. IV-28 of $20 million for spills from vessels using a deepwater port. A clean- up fund of $100 million is established by the Act for spills occurring at deepwater ports. The fund is supported by a 2(,%/barrel tax on oil transferred through a deepwater port. Complaints that the Deepwater Ports Act would create an additional en- vironmental review were met in drafting the Act with a statement that application for a Deepwater Ports license would be deemed an application for all necessary federal permits. The Coast Guard will coordinate distribution of the necessary information to other federal permit agen- cies. The Act does-not pre-empt the power of coastal States to regulate shoreside facilities connected with the deepwater port. Adjacent States may charge the deepwater port operator a fee, subject to federal approv- al, to compensate for the economic cost attributable to the on-shore effects of the construction and operation of a deepwater port. The Governor of an adjacent coastal State can also veto a deepwater port under the terms of the Act. IV.B.5.b Jurisdiction All of the Delaware Bay and the Delaware River to Trenton lie within the Third Coast Guard District, which is based on Governor's Island in New York Harbor. Location of an offshore port, however, is an issue which will undoubtedly involve Coast Guard officials in Washington, D.C., because of the need to determine the service area in which the deepwater port would obtain an exclusive franchise. Would such a facility fore- close the possibility of a similar facility off New York Harbor or Norfolk, Virginia? What effects would the deepwater port have on existing onshore ports? What will the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission say about the anti-competitive effects of a deepwater port off the mouth.of the Delaware Bay? These questions are difficult to answer, because deepwater ports have moved beyond the preliminary planning stages only in the Gulf of Mexico.1 A port built within Delaware Bay or anywhere inside a line three miles offshore of the Delaware - New Jersey coast and the line between the Delaware Capes is not subject to the Deepwater Ports Act, regardless of the depth alongside the terminal. Construction of such a facility would be regulated primarily by the Corps of Engineers, although the Coast Guard would prescribe navigation safety regulations for the facility and would regulate anchorage and lightering associated with the facility.2 The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) has received a deepwater ports license and is under construction. A final environmental impact state- ment has been published for Seadock, Inc., off the Texas coast, but development is in doubt. 2In response to the Coast Guard's proposed expansion of the lightering area off Big Stone Beach, Federal Register, January 26, 1978, comments were received suggesting that the action was of sufficient consequence to require an environmental impact statement under the terms of the National Environmental Policy Act. IV-29 The project would be subject to all the coastal development controls in the State where it is located. Deepwater ports escape these coastal zone controls, but the States will regulate any onshore terminus of a pipeline from the deepwater port, and the Governor of-an adjacent State can effectively veto a deepwater port which Ls contrary to State policy (for economic or environmental reasons). IV.B.5.c Agency Operation and Policies Projects of this magnitude--a cross-bay bridge or a deepwater port--are very infrequent occurrences. Much will depend uponthe particular site, and the environmental impact statement. Both New Jersey and Delaware must be strongly committed to a project if it is to survive inevitable opposition. The Coast Guard is unlikely to approve a project which is not strongly favored by both States. A proposed deepwater port off of one State could be killed by veto of the Governor of the adjacent State. A strong coalition between the States must be mounted before seeking Coast Guard permits for a bridge or deepwater port. IV.B.6 Delaware River Basin Commission IV.B.6.a Statutory Authority Following extensive litigation between the States of New York and Penn- sylvaniz over water rights in the Delaware River watershed, all States with lands in the Delaware Basin joined with the U.S. governemnt in a Compact which created the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). The Federal-interstate Compact between New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and the United States government was approved by Congress in 1961. Although the greatest stimulus for the Compact was the need to plan collectively for distribution of waters of the Delaware River to the member States, Section 3 of the Compact provides that the Commission shall "develop and effectuate plans, policies and projects relating to the water resources of the basin. It shall adopt and promote uniform and coordinated policies for water conservation, control, use and management in the basin." Under this authority, the Commission has developed a water code for the basin which sets water quality targets for 22 separate segments of the Delaware River system. In order to assure that these targets are met, a variety of projects which could affect the concentration of pollutants in the river are subject to re- view by the DRBC. IV-30 Projects requiring DRBC review include: a. the construction of new water impoundments with a capacity exceeding 100 million gallons; b. withdrawals from groundwater or surface water exceed- ing 100,000 gallons p er month; c. construction of a municipal sewage treatment plant exceeding 50,000 gallons per day in capacity; d. direct industrial discharges to ground or surface water exceeding 50,000 gallons per day; e. dredging of new channels on the main stem of the Delaware River and its tributaries; f. a change in ground cover affecting groundwater infil- tration over an area of 3 square miles or more; g. liquid petroleum products pipelines operating at pressures over 150 pounds per square inch passing under, in, or across a stream in the Basin; i. draining, filling or altering marsh or wetlands 25 acres or more in extent. These reviews overlap Corps of Engineers, NPDES, or State permit reviews in many areas, although the threshold of concern for the DRBC is higher than thar for more federal or State permits. Federal agencies may forward projects requiring a DRBC approval directly to the Commission .for review. Although the Commission works with environmental planning agencies in the member States, applications for approval by the DRBC must be made separately from applications for State permits. Commis- sion approval is withheld until the necessary State permits have been issued. In addition to its direct project approval responsibilities and role in commenting on federal environmental permits, the DRBC allocates waste- water discharge loads for each stream segment to the States which ad- join the stream. -These allocations are based upon models of the River's capacity to assimilate pollutants without exceeding water quality targets. Thus, the DRBC indirectly affects the issuance of State water pollution permits by setting the water quality standards and distributing allowable wastewater loads. IV.B.6.b Jurisdiction The DRBC is responsible for water quality planning in all lands which drain into the Delaware River and Bay. The extent of this drainage basin-and stream segments for purposes of water quality planning are IV-31- shown in Exhibit IV-2. All of the Bay below Liston Point is in one water quality planning zone. River segment 5 covers the main stem of the Dela- ware from Liston Point to the Delaware/Pennsylvania State line. IV.B.6.c Agency Operation and Policies The DRBC rarely leads the review of a project under the National Environ- mental Policy Act, preferring to defer to the Corps of Engineers or the Coast Guard in these matters. When a Commission approval is required, it can usually be issued within two months after the environmental impact statement is completed and the requisite State permits are issued. If the DRBC is required to prepare the environmental impact statement, lead time for the permit issuance runs from six months to two years from submission of complete data by the applicant. Some potential conflict with State coastal plans is inherent in the Com- mission's position on the siting of power plants and facilities which discharge inorganic salts. The DRBC planners would prefer to see these facilities located on tidewater because of the reduced effect on fresh- water quality. This might result in a preference for siting on the Bay shore designated for preservation under State plans. However, actual conflict is unlikely, because the DRBC, as a matter of policy, does not approve a project if the State where the facility is located opposes the project. DRBC staff are concerned about the effects of channel dredging on the freshwater aquifers which underlie the River and Bay. Any deepening of the channel above Wilmington is not likely to receive DRBC approval. Even in the lower Bay, the DRBC would require extensive testing of the underlying aquifer before it would consider any dredging of a channel to supertanker depths. Control of tidal wetlands by the DRBC is not as extensive as that by the Corps of Engineers and State governments irt@the coastal areas.1 The Commission generally supports the EPA and F&WS in protecting virgin wet- lands, although projects in degraded wetlands located in developed areas might receive more favorable treatment in a DRBC analysis. IV.B.7 Delaware Coastal Zone Act IV.B.7.a Statutory Authority In February, 1971, a task force on Marine and Coastal Affairs appointed by Governor Peterson recommended that industries incompatible with high environmental standards should be barred from the coastal zone of Dela- ware. Legislation based on this finding was introduced and passed 1Control over the filling of freshwater wetlands (25 acres or more) by the DRBC is greater than that in the laws of Delaware and New Jersey. IV-32 W11 DEI WVARE I BOONE ULS'TER SUSQUEA 1ANNA ULLIVAN - - - - - - I--- WAYN z ;F, ANGE PV<-- 1C SUSSEX MONROE CARBON % Af; a R R5 -IUYI SERKS L'@ ANON (L0 CHEF, ER URU SALF-1A X 0'tI nT Q Y flkm ,,I; z Source: Delaware River Basin Commission. EXHIBIT IV-2 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN INTERSTATE ZONES TV-33 shortly after submission of the task force -report, and Governor Peterson signed the Coastal Zone Act on June 28, 1971. In its statutory purpose, the Act declares that it is intended to safe- guard the use of the bays and coastal areas primarily for recreation and tourism, and to control the extent, location, and type of industrial development in Delaware's coastal waters. The Act seeks to "prohibit entirely the construction of new heavy industry in coastal areas, which industry is determined incompatible with the protection of the natural environment." Offshore bulk transfer facilities are found to represent a significant danger of pollution to the coastal zone and generate pressure for indus- trial plants in the coastal zone. New heavy industry and bulk tranfer facilities are prohibited by the law. Other industrial activities may proceed if permits from the State are obtained. Prohibited heavy indus- tries include those with a capacity to pollute "if mechanical malfunction or human error" occurs. Examples cited in the statute include oil refin- eries, pulp mills and chemical plants. Docking facilities for the exclusive use of a pre-existing industrial or manufacturing facility are permitted, despite the prohibition of bulk terminals. In 1979, the Act was amended to clearly exclude from the definition of prohibited heavy industry factlities of less than 20 acres which are used for the support of offshore research and exploration, including warehouses, storage areas, equipment repair shops, and similar support. activities. Tank farms are still prohibited. Continuing changes at existing non-conforming heavy industries created a problem in the administration of the Coastal Zone Act. To resolve the confusion, the State clarified the law by defining the expansion of existing users which would require a permit. Expansion or extension was defined to mean a change in existing "processes, facilities and building which significantly increases the production capacity, land use area or environmental impact." Repair and modernization projects which do not meet this definition of extension or expansion do not require a coastal zone permit. An applicant unclear about the status of a project may obtain an opinion from the Office of Management, Budget and Planning on whether a coastal zone permit is required. IV.B.7.b Jurisdiction The Coastal Zone Act is administered by the Environmental Policy Section of the Delaware State Office of Management, Budget and Planning (OMBD). One staff member is assigned to process coastal zone permits. The Dela- ware Coastal Zone Management Plan (under U.S. P.L. 92-583) is also drawn up by staff in the Environmental Policy Section of OMBP. Comment on the environmental impact of a proposed project is solicited from wetlands program, fish and shellfish, beach erosion and water pollution offices within the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (DNREC). iv-34 The coastal zone covered by the Act runs from the limits of the State's territorial waters (the New Jersey State line or three-mile limit) in- land to a line defined by the statute using State road maps. In general, the zone extends inland across wetlands to the first significant State highway and includes all significant beaches. The Port of Wilmington is excluded. The attached map (Exhibit IV-3) shows the geographic limits of the coastal zone. Prohibitions on bulk transfer facilities do not apply within the Port of Wilmington. Because the Delaware State line extends to the east bank of the Delaware River from some sections of New Castle County, waterfront projects on this section of the New Jersey shore are subject to review under the Delaware Act. This fact has caused considerable friction between States, and Salem County planners feel par- ticularly aggrieved and disadvantaged by lack of cooperative interstate planning of New Jersey waterfront lands in Salem County. An applicant aggrieved by denial of a coastal zone permit by the OMBP may appeal his case to a special Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board. This board has five appointees of the Governor. Members are balanced by party and county of residence. The Secretary of Natural Resources and Environ- mental Conservation, the Secretary of Community Affairs and Development, and the Chairman of the Planning Commission in each of Delaware's three counties also sit on the Board. The Board may overrule the original determination of the Director of OMBP, but it cannot approve a-use pro-.. hibited under the Coastal Zone Act. The Board also approves regulations used in the administration of the Coastal Zone Program. IV.B.7.c Program Operation From June 1971 to December 1979, 115 projects were reviewed under the Coastal Zone Act. Ten permits for new manufacturing operations and 14 permits for expansion or extension of existing operations were granted. Seventy of the projects were determined to lie outside the authority of the Act and did not require a permit. One heavy industry project which reached the application stage was rejected. Nine applications for bulk transfer facilities were submitted. As of December 1, 1979, three were still under review. Interest in the bulk transfer facilities prohibited by the Act continues, and the Attorney General of Delaware has offered the opinion that a deep- water oil port outside the State's territorial waters would not be illegal if the shore facilities (storage tanks, etc.) were located inland of the coastal zone. The pipeline crossing the coastal zone would not be a pro- hibited bulk transfer facility, although it would require permits for use of subaqueous lands or if it crossed wetlands or barrier beaches. Granting of a coastal zone permit for an industrial use not banned by the statute involves the weighing of the economic benefits and environmental costs of the project. Benefits in terms of Jobs and economic growth are projected by the applicant, and the State usually takes these benefits at face value because OMBP has no independent capacity for economic analysis of the application. The assessment of environmental losses is based upon IV-35 US 113 Wilmington New Castle are CitV Odessa' Legend: Land Water WM New Castle Cou nty Pl-.. tKen't County P Leipsic, .......... "VE A E@ Dover 41 . . . . ...... M Up, -in Al -P us 113 , 2U@ -- - --` .', @; " I -,vE tl@@ent!101-1 _2 'Sussex County an h 0 5 10 Scale in Miles Millsboro iew Dagsboro TN DEL. k Island MD. EXHIBIT IV-3 COASTAL ZONE OF DELAWARE IV-36 the comments of State environmental agencies and the experience of the planner assigned to coastal zone permits. The principal objective of the Coastal Zone Act--prohibition of new heavy industry--has been achieved. Heavy industry may have been deterred from shorefront locations for reasons other than the strict controls im- plemented by the Act, but no heavy industry has been built on the shores of Delaware Bay since 1971. The Getty refinery at Delaware City, which predates passage of the bill, is the southernmost facility of the Delaware River petrochemical complex. Some clean, light industry, the kind desired by Governor Peterson's task force, has located in the coastal zone. The Maalox plant at Lewes is an example. Although Coastal Zone Act administration is coordinated with coastal zone planning within the OMBP, the links to other State permits required in the coastal zone are more limited. Proof of appropriate local zoning is re- quired before a coastal zone permit is approved. Environmental agencies are asked to comment on the permit applications. However, application forms and project review are still separate from DNREC permit reviews (wetlands, subaqueous lands, beach erosion) and Corps of Engineers permits. IV.B.8 Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) New Jersey IV.B.8.a Statutory Authority Passed in 1973, two years after the Delaware Act, the New Jersey Coastal Area Facilities Review Act represents a significantly different approach to the control of development along the coast. No facility is barred completely from the coastal zone, but a much wider range of facilities is subject to regulation, and the law is more specific in defining these regulated activities. In the preamble to the bill, the New Jersey Legislature stated that it is "in the interest of the people of the state that all of the coastal area should be dedicated to those kinds of land use which promote public health, safety and welfare, protect public and private property, and are reasonably consistent and compatible with the natural laws governing the physical, chemical, and biological environment of the coastal area." The Legislature wished to "encourage development of compatible land uses in order to im- prove the overall economic position of the inhabitants of that area within the framework of a comprehensive design strategy which preserves the most ecologically sensitive and fragile area from inappropriate development and provides adequate environmental safeguards for the construction of any facility in the coastal area." Any development included within the categories defined by the Act requires a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection. Developments covered by the Act include:l ISummary list - statute is even more detailed. iv-37 � power generating stations; � food (including fish) processing facilities; � large waste incinerators; � paper mills; � major public works (roads, landfills, sewage treatment plants, airports); � housing developments of 25 units or more (includes hotels and motels); � organic chemical production; � production of inorganic chemicals and salts; � other chemical processes; � storage and transfer facilities for oil and gas; � metallurgical facilities (steel mills, aluminum smelters, etc.); � marine terminal and cargo handling facilities. Nuclear power plants are barred unless the Department finds that waste disposal will be safe and will comply with federal regulations. How- ever, all plants currently planned for the Bay or ocean shore of New Jersey have received CAFRA permits. The applicant for a CAFRA permit must submit an environmental impact statement which indicates the effect the project will have on the en- vironment, unavoidable adverse effects, steps the applicant will take to minimize the adverse environmental effects of the project, and al- ternatives to the project with reasons for their acceptability or rejec- tion. A subsequent State court decision limits the alternatives to siting options, and does not require the developer to review fundamental pol- icy changes beyond the developer's control. To grant a CAFRA permit, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection must find that the project: � has the requisite local zoning; � conforms with air, water, and radiation emission stan- dards and quality criteria; iv-38 � prevents pollutant discharges in excess of the dilu- tion/recovery capability of the surrounding environ- ment; � produces the minimum feasible degeneration of under- ground aquifers; � interferes with life processes of plants, animals, fish and humans to the minimum extent feasible; � is located and constructed so that the project does not endanger human life or property or otherwise impair the public health, safety and welfare; � will cause the minimum practicable degeneration of irreplaceable land types, historical or archaeological areas, and existing scenic and aesthetic attributes; e will handle waste and litter properly to minimize adverse environmental effects and the threat to the public health. In addition to using these criteria, the Commissioner may also' deny a CAFRA permit by referring to the intent of the Legislature stated in the Act. The legislation requires the Department of Environmental Protection to make an environmental inventory of the coastal area, in- cluding identification of existing facilities and land uses. This study is expected to estimate the ability of the coastal area to absorb man-made stress and lead to alternative management strategies and the delineation of areas appropriate for different types of development. The 1973 CAFRA Act gave four years for this study and the selection of environmental management strategies. Much of the required work is contained in the coastal zone plans created under the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is now being completed. IV.B.8.b Jurisdiction The New Jersey CAFRA Act specifically excludes the heavily developed areas of the State's waterfront from the requirement for a CAFRA permit. The boundary of the controlled coastal zone is shown in Exhibit IV-4. The Delaware River coast excluded from CAFRA control extends northward from Pennsville. The CAFRA Act also attempts to streamline regulatory controls by exempt- ing from the requirement for a CAFRA permit coastal wetlands controlled under the Wetlands Act. This exemption does little for a project covered by CAFRA which is to be sited partially in wetlands. This project would require both CAFRA and Wetlands permits. The CAFRA Permit Program is managed by the Bureau of Coastal Project Review, Division of Coastal Resources, New Jersey Department of iv-39 SUSSEX PASSAIC BEsGFN WARREN fVjORFuS I[HUDSON UNION HUNTERDON k + MERCER MONMOUTH BURLINGTON WILMINGTON 0j. SALEPA ATLANTIC CITY ATLANTIC UMB LAND Jul J, wly CAPE MAY Seem: State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection. EXHIBIT IV-4 NEW JERSEY CAFRA INLAND BOUNDARY IV-40 Environmental Protection. This Bureau also has authority over Wetlands Act and riparian permits. A hearing is provided on the proposed appli- cation within 60 days of acceptance of a completed application. The permit decision is supposed to follow within 60 days of the public hearing. Pending CAFRA permit applications are listed in the weekly bulletin issued by the Department of Environmental Protection. On March 7, 1979, 14 applications were pending. The oldest had originally been filed in May 1978, but had been returned twice for additional information. All pending projects involved residential and commercial rather than industrial development. An applicant aggrieved by denial of a CAFRA permit, or individuals or groups aggrieved by the award of a permit, may appeal the decision to the Coastal Area Review Board, composed of the Commissioners of Community Affairs, Environmental Protection, and Labor and Industry. This Board may rule on the basis of the existing record without granting a new hearing to the appellants. On May 7, 1979, 11 CAFRA projects had appeals pending. Many projects requiring a CAFRA permit require additional permits for continuing pollution discharges and alteration of wetlands or submerged lands. The environmental review of large scale projects requiring multiple permits would be coordinated by the Office of Environmental and Historical Review, which reports to the Assistant Commissioner for Science and Research, Department of Environmental Protection. IV.B.8.c Current Policy and Operations Between the passage of the CAFRA Act in 1973 and May 3, 1979, a total of 222 CAFRA permit applications were reviewed. Only 22 projects had been denied, while another 27 were cancelled. Despite the relatively small denial rate, the law appears to have slowed the pace of development in sensitive coastal areas and increased the sensitivity of ecological decisions in the approvals. Residential and commercial projects which do not use up ecologically valuable areas and can be supported by exist- ing infrastructure are usually appjroved. Permits have been granted for the first big casino projects in Atlantic City, although at least one approval was appealed by local environmental groups. Examples of CAFRA decisions can be cited from a recent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) publication. An 82-unit subdivision on undeveloped land in Cape May was denied a permit because it did not fill in existing development areas to reduce the need for additional infra- structure investment. The development was sited on agricultural land, and the State seeks to discourage the residential development of farm acreage. In another decision, DEP rejected a CAFRA permit application for 75 single-family homes on a 23-acre tract because the project would destroy an intermittent stream running through the land. The applicant was encouraged to redesign the project to consolidate the structures and protect the environmentally sensitive intermittent stream bed. IV-41 Since September 1978, CAFRA permit applicstions have been reviewed according to the location, use and resource policies contained in the Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean_Shore Segment. Residential and commercial developments will likely be permitted within existing built-up coastal towns if they do not take wetlands or other sensitive areas. Major industrial developments and commercial and residential projects which produce further sprawl will be discouraged. Projects affecting wetlands, beaches, and underwater lands will be reviewed skeptically along the same lines used by federal environmental agencies --no project is likely to receive a CAFRA permit in these areas if there is any alternative upland site. New oil refineries are specifically excluded from the Bay area south of Pennsville by the Coastal Zone Management Plan, and new tank farms are to be located away from the coastal zone and populated areas. Review of energy facilities in the coastal zone is provided under the terms of an interagency agreement between the Department of Energy and the Department of Environmental Protection which seeks to harmonize the energy facilities siting author- ity held by the Department of Energy with the CAFRA Permit Program. IV.B.9 New Jersey Wetlands Law IV.B.9.a Statutory Authority The New Jersey Wetlands Act became effective November 5, 1970, predating the Delaware Wetlands Act by approximately three years. Full enforce- ment of the provisions of the Act was delayed until 1972, when the DEP adopted the basic procedural rules for the program. By passage of the Wetlands Act the New Jersey Legislature sought to pre- serve the "ecological balance of the area" (estuarine zone) and prevent its further deterioration and destruction by regulating the dredging, filling, removing, or otherwise altering or polluting of coastal wet- lands. Any activity in a designated coastal wetland requires a permit from the DEP. Certain limited activities such as mosquito spraying and salt hay production do not require permits. In considering an applica- tion for altering wetlands, the DEP must consider the effect on public health and welfare, marine fisheries, shell fisheries, and the protec- tion of life and property from flood, hurricane and other natural disasters. Any acitivity in a designated wetland (other than the brief list of exceptions in the statute) requires a permit. 'The Commissioner of DEP may also issue a general Wetlands order restricting or prohibiting dredging, filling, or other alteration of specified-wetlands tracts. In passing the Wetlands Act, the Legislature was sensitive@to the charge that a strict Wetlands preservation program might constitute an unconsti- tutional taking of property from the owners of coastal marsh lands. For this reason, the statute contains a section which authorizes judicial relief if the court finds a Wetlands order or permit action to be an "unreasonable exercise of the police power." If the court makes such a finding, the order or permit action shall not apply. There is no inter- mediate appeals body created in the statute, and a wetlands owner IV-42 aggrieved by a permit decision by the Commissioner of DEP may appeal directly to the State Court. In important test cases, the New Jersey courts have upheld the Commissioner's power to impose rather broad development restrictions under the terms of the Act. In the leading case (Sands Point Harbor vs. Sullivan , the New Jersey Appeals Court found that the restrictions applied to the plaintiff's land did not constitute a "taking," because the only activities absolutely prohibited by the Wetlands order affecting the property were the dumping of solid waste, the discharge of sewage, and the storage and application of pes- ticides. In at least two other test cases, the New Jersey Courts have upheld development.restrictions on wetlands as a valid exercise of the police power. IV.B.9.b Jurisdiction The New Jersey Wetlands Act applies only to coastal wetlands. The legis- lation is predicated on the finding that the "estuarine zone"--the area between the sea and the land--is one of the most vital and productive areas of the natural world. The Act covers all lands now or formerly connected to tidal waters, whose surface is at or below an elevation of one foot above extreme high water. The land must grow, or be capable of growing, some of 14 types of marsh plant listed in the statute. The statute covers coastal marshlands on the Delaware River and Bay, as well as Atlantic coastal bays and rivers and the inland waterway. Property subject to the control of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission is excluded from the jurisdication of the Act. All coastal marshlands north of Raritan Bay along the developed shore of New York Harbor are also excluded. Administration of the Wetlands Program has been delegated by the Commis- sioner of Environmental Protection to ihe Bureau of Coastal Project Review, Division of Coastal Resources. This section maintains detailed maps based on aerial photographs which show the exact location of all coastal wetlands subject to the requirements of the law. IV.B.9.c Program Operation and Policies In the first two months of 1979, the DEP issued decisions on seven wet- lands permits, a level of activity far lower than that in the riparian permit program (see below) where 71 decisions were completed in the same period. There is little question that the combination of State and federal permits controlling encroachment on coastal wetlands has been effective in stopping shorefront residential community developers from altering wetlands. Builders have been deterred from proposing develop- ments in coastal marshes, and this shift explains the relatively low 1A separate Bureau in the Division of Coastal Resources is responsible for the enforcement of permit conditions after issuance. iv-43 volume of permit activity in the Wetlands section. Because the Division of Coastal Fesources manages CAFRA, wetlands and riparian projects, project review is coordinated, although separate permits are issued to comply with the terms of each law. For a major development, the CAFRA analysis would dominate, and a negative decision on issuance of the CAFRA permit would determine the result for wetlands or riparian permits. New Jersey has a "90-day law" which requires issuance of a decision on' wetland and other environmental permits within 90 days after required information has been submitted. This deadline is generally met. Wet- lands permits are divided into two categories to further streamline filing of applications for minor projects. Expertise in evaluating the effects of a proposed project comes from the staff in the Wetlands Office, as well as specialists in the Division of Shellfisheries and other units of DEP. The general policies applied to Wetlands permit decisions are very similar to those applied by the feder- al government under �404 of the FWPCA and are incorporated in the Coastal Zone Management Plan. Policies applying particularly to wetlands are as follows: "In general, development of all kinds is discouraged in wetlands, unless DEP can find that the proposed devel- opment meets the following four standards: W requires water access or is water-oriented as a central purpose of the basic function of the activity (for marshes on waterways); (ii) has no prudent or feasible alternative on a non- wetland site; (iii) will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment of natural tidal circulation; (iv) will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment of natural contour or the natural vegetation of the wetlands." The ability of the State to enforce these development restr ictions is now clear, and a developer must show that there are no alternative methods of achieving the proposed public benefits before a permit for alteration of wetlands will be issued. IV.B.10 Delaware - Wetlands Act IV.B.10.a Statutory Authority Passage of the Delaware Wetlands Act occurred in 1973, two years after the Coastal Zone Act was passed. In the preamble, the Delaware Legisla- ture determined that "the coastal areas of Delaware are the most critical IV-44 areas for the present and future quality of life in the State, and the preservation of coastal wetlands is crucial to the protection of the natural environment of the coastal area. It is declared to be the public policy of the State to preserve and protect the productive pub- lic and private wetlands to prevent their despoliation and destruction consistent with the historical rights of private ownership of land." The statute reflects concern that the court might view some wetlands restrictions as a taking of private property, and the law allows two years for the State to acquire title or a conservation easement on,wet- lands if the court finds a regulatory rul&6g unduly restrictive. If the Secretary, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Conser- vation initiates an attempt to acquire the wetlands or an easement within two years, an additional stay may be granted for negotiations. If no action is taken to acquire the land by the end of the two-year period, the developer who obtained the court ruling ma y begin construc- tion of the project. Certain minor non-destructive uses of wetlands are permitted by the statute--duck blinds, bird nesting boxes, the harvesting of salt hay. Any other project which would disrupt a wetland requires a permit from the DNREC. A permit applicant must show that he has proper local zoning. Staff at the DNREC then evaluate the application considering environ- mental factors, aesthetics, state, county and municipal plans for development and conservation, employment and tax effects. Court deci- sions have made it clear that the wetlands law does not permit Delaware to bar all development in certain marsh lands. Instead, the judgment must be based on an evaluation of competing environmental and economic interests. IV.B.10.b Jurisdiction The Delaware Wetlands statute applies development controls to all lands covered by the ebb and flow of the tide, or less than two feet above mean high water, which grow, or are capable of growing, some species of wetland plants.1 Freash water bogs are covered by the law only if the land exceeds 400 acres in extent, is not currently used for agriculture, is covered by standing fresh water most of the time, contributes to ground water recharge, and would require artificial drainage for agri- cultural crops. The law requires the DNREC to officially map and designate all wetland areas which meet the statutory definition and are.protected by the law. Official maps are published by the State. The wetlands so designated are slightly less extensive than those covered by �404 of the FWPCA because Delaware has excluded previously filled wetlands and some fringe marshes along stream banks. 1The species are listed in the statute. IV-45 Persons aggrieved by DNREC decisions on Wetlands Permits may appeal to an Appeals Board created specifically by the Wetlands Act. The Appeals Board is composed of seven Delaware voters, at least two of whom must come from each of the State's three counties. The statute further pro- vides for diversity in the Board's membership by requiring appointment of at least one farmer, one developer, one member engaged in recrea- tional activities, and one member representating conservation interests. The Appeals Board must hold a public hearing on any appeal except for State-owned lands, and must issue a decision within 90 days if it is to reverse the determination of DNREC. IV.B.10.c Current Policy and Operation The Delaware Wetlands program is administered by one official in the DNREC, who also administers the State subaqueous lands program. Envi- ronmental evaluations of proposed wetlands alterations are received from other units of DNREC such as the Fish and Shellfish Division. The Wetlands program director reviews environmental impact statements re- quired for the �404 (FWPCA) permit by the Corps.of Engineers. Estimated economic benefits from the proposed project are generally based upon the permit applicant's claim, because the DNREC has no in- dependent staff for economic analysis. The regulations briefly summa- rize the biological productivity of coastal wetlands. These marshes produce nine tons of organic matter per acre each year, compared to 1 1/2 tons in a wheatfield. One thousand pounds of the phytoplankton that thrive in coastal marshes are necessary to produce one pound of a sport and food fish like the striped bass. Despite these assertions about wetland value, the program director reports that it is most dif- ficult to compare the economic benefits of undisturbed marshland and proposed developments when reviewing a permit application. A few alterations of designated wetlands are specifically prohibited in the regulations. These include: � dredging of any channel through wetlands deeper than the existing or controlled depth of the connecting channel in a navigable waterway; � dredging of dead end channels, unless such channels are equipped with an aerator or other means of meeting water quality standards; � dreding of channels with a slope steeper than 1:3 (unless bulkheading is required); � deposit of any spoils or other materials on wetlands, unless the project is approved by DNREC as part of an effort to restore or create wetlands; IV-46 0 bulkheads higher than the surface of the natural land; a use of wetlands for any activity unless it: - - requires water access or water for the central purpose of the activity; - has no alternative on the adjoining non-wetland property of the owner. This last restriction, the requirement for a water-dependent use, is similar to the restrictions imposed on permits for wetlands use by the U.S. and New Jersey. To protect the environment, the DNREC may impose conditions on an ap- proved permit and may require a security bond from the proposer, if project cost exceeds $10,000, to guarantee the fulfillment of permit conditions should the applicant fail to comply. Environmental condi- tions on permits guaranteed by such a bond might include aeration of channels, interconnection of channels and lagoons, and proper slopes on dredged cuts. The Wetlands Permit Office has taken a number of steps to simplify the review of permit applications. Two types of applications are speci- fied; the simpler form is reserved for projects involving less than one acre of land and excluding new structures. Joint public hearings on some major projects have been arranged with the Corps of Engineers. Under a cooperative arrangement with the beach erosion program at DNREC, a permit application involving alteration of beaches and wet- lands will be reviewed by the program most significantly affected. The decision on this "lead" permit will determine the result for the parallel beach or wetland permit. Where a single project involves wetlands and subaqueous lands, the review is simplified because a single official is responsible for both programs. Coordination with review of the coastal zone siting permit is somewhat more limited, and the Office of Management, Budget and Planning usually waits for DNREC to decide on wetlands, beach erosion, and subaqueous land permits be- fore deciding on a coastal zone siting permit. The effectiveness of the Delaware Wetlands Program is hard to measure because of the interacting affects of the Delaware coastal facility siting program and the new environmental emphasis in the administration of federal permits 010 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, �404 of the FWPCA). The rate at which wetlands have been destroyed along the Dela- ware shore has certainly decreased since these programs became effective in the early 1970's. IV-47 IV.B.11 Subaqueous Lands - Delaware IV.B.1l.a Statutory Authority The lands beneath Delaware Bay, the Delaware River and tributary streams (if navigable) belong to the State governments, which also control under- water lands in a three-mile strip along the coast. Underwater lands to seaward of this strip are controlled by the federal government. State ownership of underwater (subaqueous) lands is derived from English law, under which the King owned the tidewaters and the lands thereunder. Although Parliament placed restrictions on the King's control of the underwater lands, the Sovereign took title to the underwater lands in the newly discovered American colonies. This title passed to the States in the American Revolution, as the Supreme Court affirmed: "when the Revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign; and in that character hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters and the lands under them for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the Constitution to the general government." (Martin V. Lesse of Waddell 41US367,410 (1842)] The power of a State to develop or dispose of its underwater lands is limited by the federal government's power to control navigation and navigable waters. Delaware law (7�6151) provides that the Governor and the Secretary of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation shall have exclusive jurisdiction to: 11convey a fee simple or lesser interest, to lease or grant permits or easements in or over any parts of the public lands.of the state lying beneath the waters of the state (including the beach or shore to the mean high water level)." No use of such lands may be undertaken except pursuant to a permit or grant. Even if another State agency seeks to use underwater lands, it is required to obtain approval from the DNREC under this provision. Leasing of underwater mineral rights and oyster beds are handled under separate provisions of law but are traceable to the same roots as in State ownership of underwater lands.1 The authority even extends to 1In 1978, 13 leases totalling 7,960 acres had been granted for oyster cultivation. Iv-48 private lands which are permanently flooded by the sea. Under the implementing regulations, land which is created by filling State sub- aqueous lands remains the property of the State, and the developer is only a leasee, unless the State chooses to sell the developer a fee simple title to the newly made land. .Delaware regulations clearly identify possible uses of public subaqueous lands and require prior approval by the DNREC for any project on these lands. Projects listed include: * the erection of any structure (docks, bulkheads, bridges, etc.) 9 the dredging or filling of such lands 9 the excavation of any channel, lagoon, turning basin or ditch on public or private lands which will make connec- tion with public subaqueous landsl 9 the filling in of lands adjacent to public subaqueous landsi e the laying of any pipeline, or telephone or electrical. transmission line IV.B.1l.b Jurisdiction Control of subaqueous lands in Delaware is administered by the official in the DNREC who also administers the wetlands program. He is, in effect. administering two different programs traceable to the State's title to underwater lands: a lease of public lands and a control of any altera- tion of underwater lands to protect the environment (including tidal waters). Lease fees are not charged for structures (such as breakwaters) which are erected for the public benefit and protection. Structures erected on underwater lands for the private benefit and convenience of a land owner do pay a lease fee. All structures and alteration to subaqueous lands require a permit, even if the project is carried out by a State agency for a public purpose. All of the underwater lands within the study area on the Delaware side of the River and Bay up to three miles into the Atlantic are within the jurisdiction of the Act. Private parties may own the bottoms of small non-navigable streams, but all lands beneath tidal and navigable waters belong to the State. IThis gives the State another control over alterations of coastal wet- .lands in 4ddition to the Wetlands Act, although there has been some @dispute about the legality of the claim. IV-49 No separate appeal is provided from decisions on the disposition of subaqueous lands. A dissatisfied party must go directly from the DNREC to the State courts. The State has argued that its refusal tosell a lease on underwater land is not reviewable by the courts in most circum- stances, since the State as property owner may simply refuse any offer for the use of its land. IV.B.1l.c Current Policy and Operations The Subaqu eous Lands Act is clearly used by Delaware as a lever in pre- venting unwanted shorefront development and pollution of tidal waters. Projects must have a minimum detrimental effect on water quality, navigation, fish and wildlife, and public and riparian rights. The subaqueous lands regulations lay down specific steps to be taken in any dredging project to protect water quality. Decisions on leases and permits clearly reflect Delaware's desire to.limit development of the Bay shoreline. However, a project approved under the Coast Zone and Wetlands Acts and consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Plan would likely receive a subaqueous lands lease or permit unless very unusual environmental effects are associated with the use of the under- water lands. IV.B.12 Underwater Lands - New Jersey IV.B.12.a Statutory Authority New Jersey's title to lands beneath the Delaware Bay and its tributaries is also traceable to the English Kings, replaced as sovereign by the State governments during the American Revolution. Two separate but re- lated controls arising from the title to underwater lands are exercised by the state. The granting of leases to private parties is approved by the Natural Resources Council.1 Permit for any alteration or develop-: ment of underwater lands (whether or not a lease is required) is the third coastal permit issued by the Division of Coastal Resources. The tidal lands owned by New Jersey extend to the mean high water line. The New Jersey courts have held that the State cannot arbitrarily and absolutely bar a shorefront property owner from use of State-owned under- water lands and must show some environmental harm in denying a request for use of the lands. The Coastal Zone Management Plan now offers a detailed review of the acceptability of different projects on underwater lands. IV.B.12.b Jurisdiction On inland streams, disruption or alteration of underwater lands is con- trolled by a stream encroachment permit. Within the Delaware River and 1A twelve-member body appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the State Senate. v-50 Bay area, all alterations of underwater lands are controlled by a 11riparian" permit required for development of lands below tidal waters. Riparian permits are issued by the Bureau of Coastal Project Review,. Division of Coastal Resources, Department of Environmental Protection. A separate staff in the Bureau of Tidelands prepared lease recommenda- tions for the Natural Resource Council. An applicant can submit infor- mation once to obtain both a riparian permit and any necessary lease. Even if a lease is approved by the Natural Resources Council, a project can be blocked by the Commissioner of DEP if he refuses to approve the action of the Natural Resources Council. In a situation where an appli- cation already has a lease on the underwater land, only the riparian development permit would be required for a new project. No intermediate appeals board is provided by State law. Appeals from the DEP on ripar- ian permits and the Natural Resources Council on leases are taken directly to the courts. IV.B.12.c Current Operation and Policies In the first two months of 1979, DEP took action on 79 requests for riparian development permits. Fifty-two more applications were awaiting decision. Most involved docks and bulkheads at commercial and residen- tial property. Because of the New Jersey law requiring action on permits within 90 days after the applicant has submitted complete information, riparian permits are now being issued subject to issuance of a necessary lease by the Natural Resources Council, which is not bound by the 90-day limitiation. Policies governing the issuance of riparian permits and recommendations to the Natural Resources Council are stated in the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Plan. The same general policies apply to the Atlantic shore and the Delaware Bay Shore below Pennsville.1 Bulkheads and retaining walls are discouraged, unless they are necessary to protect life and property. Docks and piers are conditionally acceptable in areas intensively used for coastal recreation if the need cannot be satisfied by existing facil- ities. The docks should cause minimum feasible disruption of natural flow. Floating docks or pilings are preferred to solid construction. While maintenance dredging is accepted if adequate spoil disposal is provided, new dredging is discouraged unless a proven need exists, the area is adjacent to areas used for recreational and commercial boating, and the dredge area causes no significant disturbance to intertidal flats or subaqueous vegetation. Dredging to create new lagoons for residential development is prohibited. Any proposed use of underwater land must be consistent with other coastal zone policies, particularly those protecting water quality and shellfish beds. Location policies encourage concentration, rather than sprawl, of Rules for a state-wide coastal management program are to be issued in 1980. IV-51 waterfront development. Administration of the riparian permit program reinforces the restriction imposed by the Wetlands and CAFRA Acts and the permits issued by the Corps of Engineers. IV.B.13 Land Use Planning IV.B.13.a Statutory Authority Landuse plans at the State level in New Jersey and Delaware do not create new regulatory controls. They are an important influence on the way in which regulatory controls, including those described earlier in this section, are administered. Land use plans are drawn up under State statutes and under the authority of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583). In Delaware, the State government has de- cided to make the Coastal Zone Management Plan the land use plan for the entire State, because a substantial proportion of the State would be included in any Coastal Zone Management Plan. In New Jersey, the State has published a Development Guide Plan for the entire State. This plan designates growth and limited growth areas, primarily to guide State infrastructure investments (sewer, highways, etc.). A separate Coastal Zone Management Plan has been prepared for the New Jersey shore. It is divided into two segments; one covering the Atlantic Coast and Delaware Bay, the area covered by the CAFRA Act, the other covering the upper Delaware River and New York Harbor. These plans establish priorities for coastal land use, define incompatible uses through environmental analysis and lay out rather detailed siting criteria which are reflected in the policies of the different coastal permit pro- grams discussed above. IV.B.13.b Jurisdiction The Delaware Coastal Zone Management Plan was prepared by the Statets OMBP. In New Jersey, the Coastal Zone Management Plan was developed by an office within the DEPts Division of Marine Services. This Division also administers the CAFRA, wetlands, beach erosion and riparian develop- ment. permit programs. The boundary of the Bay and ocean shore segment of the plan is shown in Exhibit IV-5. The area along the Delaware River to be covered by the plan for the developed coast is shown.in Exhibit IV-6. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, a State's coastal zone plan is subject to approval by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. An environmental impcat state- ment on the plan is reviewed by NOAA prior to approving the plan. The plan could be rejected if the State does not have sufficient legal authority to implement the plan, if the plan fails to achieve the goals of the Act, or fails to provide for the national interest in siting facilities in the Coastal Zone. Once the plan is approved, all federal actions in the Coastal Zone, including federal licenses or financial assistance to development projects, must be consistent with the Statets Coastal Zone Management Plan. IV-52 SUSSEX ,'PASSAIC 01 % BERGEN WARREN MORRIS HUDSON/ UNION H, UNTERDON t % MERCER MONMOUTH PHILADELPHIA*,/0'*' % % BURLINGTON C% @t A 4 . % D x. % WILMINGTONY: Oc, ClIt SALE M \% % % ATLANTI NTIC CITY CUMBERLAND k Ul 0 0 10 2 MILES Source: State of New Jersey, Depar m nvironmental Protection. EXHIBIT IV-5 NEW JERSEY BAY AND OCEAN SHORE SEGMENT - COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN IV-53 MERCER Burlington Mercer Region OCEAN Camden Region Gloucester Salem Region BURLINGTON CAMDEN 40, 0 GLOUCESTER IR SALEM . ........ .... ATLANTIC 4. CUMBERLAND . .. ......... N@@ A ............. '.iJ.*.'-'%'-'.-'.-*.-& -P -kip, V A Legend: -State Boundary 0 5 10 DELAWARE -----County Bou ndary .4 ********-CAFRA Boundary BAY Miles Bay and Cicean Shore Plan Plan for the Developed Coast Source: State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection. EXHIBIT IV-6 PROPOSED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN BOUNDARY DELAWARE RIVER AREA OF NEW JERSEY (March 1979 - Subject to reVision) IV-54 New Jersey's Development Guide Plan is prepared by the Division of State and Regional Planning, Department of Community Affairs. The current edition was published in September 1977. It is not as closely integrat- ed into regulatory programs as is the Coastal Zone Plan. Local zoning decisions are not required to conform with the State plan. State investments in highways, sewers, and other public services are to be distributed according to the priorities set out in the plan. By with- holding investments for expansion in limited growth areas, the State hopes to channel growth in the directions specified in the plan without state-wide land use controls. The State Planning Office also reviews subdivision plans affecting more than 150 acres of land or proposing more than 500 dwelling units. State planners comment to the local zoning or planning board on the consistency of the proposed subdivision plan with the Development Guide Plan. Final approval or rejection lies with the local'zoning board, but the State can refuse to provide the infrastructure investments necessary for a subdivision deemed inconsistent with the State plan. An exception to the rule that New Jersey does not seek to impose general land use controlsi is the Pine Barrens. This area of central New Jersey is designated for use as public open space in the Development Guide Plan. The area designated for preservation exceeds the 1Tnd currently held by the State, local and federal governments. Governor Byrne's Pinelands Review Commission published a report on the planning and management of the Pinelands in October, 1978. The report reviews the threat to the Pine Barrens from uncontrolled development, and the unique ecology of this undeveloped land so close to New York, Philadelphia and Atlantic City. State and federal funds are being committed to purchase large tracts of land in the Pine Barrens. As a result of fears that public acquisition cannot proceed fast enough to stop development in the Pine Barrens, Governor Byrne issued an executive order in February, 1979, declaring a moratorium on development in a 576-square-mile preservation area in the heart of the Barrens. A bill was introduced in the State Legislature at the same time to formally establish this preservation area and a larger 925-square-mile protection area which overlaps the coastal zone in south- ern New Jersey (see Exhibit IV-7). This Bill was approved by the State Legislature at the end of the 1979 session ans has been signed by the Governor. Litigation testing the development controls in the new Pinelands law may well occur. Court decisions may produce some adjustment in the develop- ment control, but the trend is clearly established for the preservation 1Coastal permits apply only to particular projects (industry, large developments) or sites (wetlands). IV-55 ........... New Elizabeth Perth e Amboy PINELANDS NATION L Trenton RESER E Philadelphia PA. *Camden Preservation Protection Are Camden Vr- 'Zo Bridg0ton S@ Atlantic City Cape May 0 9 18 Miles EXHIBIT IV-7 AREA OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS - NEW JERSEY PINELANDS IV-56 of an area in the Pine Barrens more extensive than current public hold- ings. IV.B.13.c Current Operations and Policy Coastal zone plans in both States contain similar priorities: � concentration of industrial development in existing industrial areas (from the Memorial Bridge northward in the Delaware estuary); � limitation of sprawling residential development along the coast; � dedication of the Bay and ocean shoreline to recrea- tion and conservation; � preservation of wetlands, barrier beaches and areas of special environmental interest; � protection of shellfish beds, spawning grounds, and other fish and wildlife habitats. Specific siting policies are discussed in more detail under each coastal permit program. The goals of the New Jersey Development Guide Plan are stated more broadly to include maintaining the quality of the environment, preserv- ing the open space necessary for an expanding population, and providing space and services for an expanding economy and population. Space and services for an expanding population, the plan concludes, can be provid- ed most efficiently by concentrating growth in already developed areas. Public capital investment per person or unit of output is reduced be- cause services such as water, sewers, and highways already exist in these areas. Surplus labor is available in many urban areas. Scarce energy resources are conserved if development is concentrated, and concentration of development preserves agricultural land for food production and open space for recreation. Working from these premises, the plan designated growth or development areas in regions which are already developed (see Exhibit IV-8). Limit- ed growth areas, agricultural lands, and public open space are designated in other areas of the state (see Exhibit IV-9, IV-10). As a result, most of the study region is not designated for growth. The nearest growth centers are the Delaware Valley industrial complex above the Memorial Bridge, the cities of Salem, Bridgeton, and Millville-Vineland (with a total of 33,808 acres suitable for development), and the Atlantic City area. The industrial zone at Cape May Airport will be an exception to the limited growth designation for the rest of Cape May County. IV-57 KAWAY CORRII CLINTON CORRIDOR@ .... . . .. CENTRAL CORRID- ROUTE 9 CORRIDOR BURLINGTON CORRIC) y2 PHILADELPHIA ',MD N 'AIVIDEN. 'E C, PA DE'i SOUTH JERSEY CORRIDQ- 0 SALEM ooBRIDGETON LANTIC CITY AREA 0 MILLVILLE t APE -MAY 0 9 is LEE= MILES Source: New Jersey State Development Guide Plan. EXHIBIT IV-8 DESIGNATED NEW JERSEY GROWTH AREAS IV-58 000 000 09 . 90 0 0. o.* 00,000 00 00...'0000 00 00 00 0 0,0 0 :0000. 00 0 .0 oo 0* 0000, 00 . .00 o0000 00000 0:000 0 0.00 00 00 0000 0000000.. 0000.0 .0 4 11 0,0,00.0 00 .1 0 0 o o 0 000.00 0.0 00a 0. 0.0 00 000. 00. *0 0 0. 0000 000 00 000 0.01 00 0 00000000 00000 000 coo. 0*00%Q 00 0 00 0. PHILADELPHIA 0oo CAMDE-14 PA > D 00 000 000 000 0 *0 .0.0 0 0 000 * 0 00 SALEM 0*0.000. 0 0 0 00 000 0 000 0. 10 0 a OB IDGETON, 0 -.0 00 000. 00% 0.I LVI k oATLANTIC CITY 0 0000 a00010 0 00 [email protected] 00 0. .0 0 [email protected] , 00-00.0 "0* 0 0 0 00. 0000 00000 0 Go 0 0. 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 APE MAY VEMEWirmM MILES Source'. New Jersey State Development Guide Plan. EXHIBIT IV-9 DESIGNATED LIMITED GROWTH AREAS NEW JERSEY iv-59 ............ FO ?1-1111 PA DEL . ......... SALM Legend: C@Aos TOM V + ATLANTIC CITY Public Open Spa6ve *MILLVILLE t Agricultural Lan s and Limited Growth rea Growth Area V % APE MAY RIN MILES Source- New Jersey State Development Guide Plan. EXHIBIT IV-10 PROPOSED LAND USE NEW JERSEY ,IV-60 Economic projections must take the Development Guide Plan into account. The public infrastructure investments guided by the plan can be a powerful stimulus to growth. Refusal by the State to make such invest- ments in limited growth areas can seriously hamper private development. Some sites may be sufficiently attractive that a residential or indus- trial developer will fund all the necessary public services for a project. Pressure will undoubtedly continue for the recreational use of prime shorefront land. -However, the combination of coastal zone controls and the priorities stated in the.Development Guide Plan make it unlikely that rapid growth will occur along the New Jersey shore of Delaware Bay. IV.C PUBLIC AUTHORITIES UNDERTAKING PORT OR TRANSPORT PROJECTS IN THE DELAWARE BAY AREA IV.C.l Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA) IV.C.l.a Charter and Source of Authority The DRPA was created by an interstate compact between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, replacing a predecessor, the Delaware River Joint Commission. Because it is an interstate compact, the DRPA charter required'approval of the U.S. Congress under Article 1 �10 of the Constitution. The drafters of the Constitution sought to limit the consolidation of States into more powerful entities which could challenge the federal government. As a result, each interstate compact for joint port, transport, water resources or other development requires Congressional approval. The DRPA is authorized to: � operate the bridges built by the predecessor toll bridge commission; � build and operate new bridges or tunnels across the Delaware River between New Jersey and Pennsylvania; � operate railroad or other transit facilities across DRPA bridges; � construct or acquire real property and improvements for port purposes; � promote the Delaware River as a port, and study port operations; � construct and operate mass transit facilities between New Jersey and Philadelphia. The DRPA is authorized to cooperate with other governmental agencies in carrying out these purposes. Each Governor retains a veto over any action by the Authority. IV-61 IV.C.l.b Jurisdiction The charter authorizes the DRPA to operate in a port district which includes seven counties in New Jersey (Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Ocean, and Salem) and two counties in Pennsyl- vania (Delaware and Philadelphia). The extent of the port district is shown in Exhibit IV-11. The DRPA's jurisdiction potentially extends. from Trenton down the Delaware River and Bay around Cape May and north beyond Atlantic City to Manasquan. On the Philadelphia side of the river, the port dis'trict runs from the northern city line of Philadel- phia to the Delaware State border. IV.C.l.c Operations The DRPA does not actually operate any ports, despite its name and the objectives in its charter. State legislation to permit actual opera- tion of port facilities by the DRPA was defeated in 1967 and 1968. Publicly-owned port facilities within the DRPA jurisdiction remain in the hands of the Philadelphia Port Corporation and South Jersey Port Corporation; some local legislators were apparently unwilling to surren- der these facilities to a multi-state authority. The World Trade Division of the DRPA actively promotes the use of all Delaware Valley Ports (collectively christened Ameriport). Offices were maintained (in 1977) in Bogota, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Brussels, Teheran, New York and Chicago. The DRPA rates it success in terms of the share of the North Atlantic market served by Ameriport - 34% in 1977. The DRPA now owns and operates four bridges across the river; three at Philadelphia and one (Commodore Barry) at Chester. The newest of these bridges, the Betsy Ross, was opened in 1976. A wholly owned subsidiary, the Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO), now operates the Lindenwold rapid (rail) transit line, which the DRPA built between South Jersey and center City Philadelphia. The DRPA points with pride to the fact that 11 million passengers paid 89% of the operat- ing costs of the line in 1977. The DRPA annual report for 1977 noted that the pace of development for the Authority would be slower with the completion of the Commodore Barry and Betsy Ross Bridges and the Lindenwold High Speed Line. Nevertheless, the Planning Division completed a Mass Transit study for the Philadelphia- Camden area in 1977. Financial consent to DRPA rail transit extension in southern New Jersey was obtained from the Governors of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Emphasis and effort at DRPA is placed on transit improvements. The Authority has no present plans to acquire or construct port facilities. -IV-62 >1I --APE MAY 'g, EXHIBIT IV-11 DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY - SERVICE AREA IV-63 IV.C.2 South Jersey Port Corporation IV.C.2.a Charter and Source of Authority This agency is a public corporation created by act of the New Jersey Legislature, effective in 1968. The authorizing legislation designated the new Corporation as the sole agency for port development in South. Jersey, replacing the predecessor South Jersey Port Commission. Opera- tion.of the Camden Marine Terminal (Beckett Street) was declared to be an appropriate State responsibility. Unlike the Delaware River Port Authority, the South Jersey Port Corpor- ation is a single-purpose agency empowered to acquire, construct, and operate marine terminals, including railroad connections, buildings and other facilities "necessary or convenient to the accommodation of steam- ships or other vessels and their cargo or passengers." The Corporation has an independent seven-member board but is adminis- tratively located within the State's Department of Labor and Industry. The Governor can veto any action of the Corporation so long as he acts within ten days of a Board vote. Language in the authorizing statute permits the Corporation to"'enter into contracts and agreements with the Delaware River Port Authority or any other regional agency concerned with marine purposes providing for joint participation by the parties in any undertaking for marine term- inal purposes." Subject to agreement with bondholders, the Corporation is authorized to lend, lease, convey, merge, or consolidate its opera- tions with another regional agency concerned with marine terminal purposes. However, any such consolidation or transfer would require the approval of both houses of the New Jersey Legislature in a concurrent resolution. To date, the Corporation has not merged or disposed of any of its facilities. IV.C.2.b Jurisdiction The area covered by the South Jersey Port Corporation charter is shown in Exhibit IV-12. Included are Mercer, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester. Salem, Cumberland, and Cape May Counties. This jurisdiction is smaller than the DRPA Port District, lacking Atlantic and Ocean Counties to the east, but including Mercer County to the north, upriver from the DRPA Port District. The dominance of upriver interests is expressed in the composition of the Corporation board. Two members must come from Camden County, with three members from Burlington and Mercer Counties. Cape May, Salem and Cumberland Counties share one member. The seventh member is appointed from Gloucester County. IV.C.2.c Operations Current operations are limited to two facilities in the City of Camden. In addition to the Beckett Street terminal acquired from its predecessors, IV-64 PA@ L, YORK riTy A ti I N 1, to N tAPF. MAY _z^ NORFORK EXHIBIT IV-12 SOUTH JERSEY PORT AUTHORITY - SERVICE AREA iv-65 the Corporation purchased the old New York Shipbuilding property in 1970. This property has been developed into the Broadway Terminal, which houses marine-oriented industrial tenants. Ten berths are located at the two terminals. The Corporation acquired 17 acres of land adja- cent to the Beckett Street terminal in 1.975 for a 740-foot wharf expan- sion. The Beckett Street terminal is operated directly by the Corpora- tion. At the Broadway terminal, the Corporation leases space to terminal operators and steamship lines. At the present time, the C-rporation has no apparent intention of expand- ing its operations to sites outside the Port of Camden. Payments to City and County governments in lieu of taxes are authorized by the enabling legislation and subsidized by the State of New Jersey. The State provided the full amount of $721,000 in these payments in 1977. In addition to subsidizing payments in lieu of taxes and assuming the debts of the old South Jersey Port Commission, the State of New Jersey also subsidizes the debt service on the Corporation's bonds, even though these are technically. revenue bonds. The subsidy commitment is, in effect, a State guarantee of the Corporation's bonds. This subsidy required to restore the debt service reserve was $544,000 in 1977. Between 1972 and 1977, the State contributed $2,496,804 to the debt service reserve fund, effectively . underwriting an equivalent loss when operating costs and debt service are subtracted from revenues. IV.C.3 Philadelphia Port Corporation IV.C.3.a Charter and Source of Authority The Philadelphia Port Corporation is a non-profit corporation closely tied to the government of the City of Philadelphia. It was created in 1965 for the purpose of administering the port facilities owned by the City of Philadelphia and to plan, construct, extend, and improve the facilities of the Philadelphia waterfront. The Board of Directors of the Corporation (33 members) are drawn from City (9) and State (2) governments, the Phila- delphia Chamber of Commerce (9), and the general public (13). Two Directors are appointed by the Delaware River Port Authority. The origin- al mandate for the Philadelphia Port Corporation provided for transfer of its facilities to the Delaware River Port Authority at some future time with the consent of the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Mayor and City Council of Philadelphia and the President of the Chamber of Commerce. This option has not yet been exercised. Rapid conta inerization of the general cargo trade in the North Atlantic provided the impetus for creation of the Corporation. Philadelphia officials feared that the piers owned by the City could not be modernized fast enough to accommodate the rapidly expanding container trade. IV.C.3.b Jurisdiction The Philadelphia Port Corporation operates solely in the City and County of Philadelphia. IV-66 IV.C.3.c Operations Two marine terminals--Tioga and Packer Avenue--are the core of Corpora- tion operations. Each is operated by a private terminal operator holding a lease with the Corporation. Smaller Corporation facilities for handling general cargo, coal, and oil are located along the City's waterfront. Abandoned city piers are being used as warehouses, and the Corporation converted an old railroad yard as back-up space for finger piers that would otherwise be outmoded. Reuse of piers for new purposes has been permitted by the Corporation, e.g., Pier 30 houses a tennis facility. The 1978 annual report of the Corporation calls attention to the new urban waterfront at Penn's Landing, with its historic ships and floating restaurant. Philadelphia now has a foreign trade zone in its port. In 1978, the Corporation announced the first operation in the foreign trade zone, a French manufacturer who will process imported molasses into yeast for molasses. Although the Corporation pays rent to the City of Philadelphia, both the City and the State of Pennsylvania pay operating subisides to the Corporation. Each contributed $1,000,000 per year in fiscal.1977 and 1978. By a 1966 vote, the Port Corporation Board resolved to withdraw the annual request for appropriated subsidies at the time the Corporation achieved a continuing annual surplus from operations. From 1965 through June 30, 1978, the City of Philadelphia and the State provided $20,000,000 in subsidies to the Corporation. Another agency concerned with waterfront activities is the Camden Muni- cipal Port Authority (CMPA). This organization, created by the City of Camden by ordinance adopted in February, 1978, to promote and implement development of waterfront facilities in the Camden area, currently does not operate any marine facilities. It is, however, active in the con- struction of a refrigerated-freezer warehouse on property leased from the SJPC. IV.C.4 Wilmington Port IV.C.4.a Charter and Source of Authority The Wilmington Port is a municipal facility, owned and operated by the City. Originally built in the 1920's with assistance from DuPont Company engineers, the Port was operated by a Board of Harbor Commissioners until 1967. Since that time the Port has been an operating division of City government. Cost of operation, including debt service on bonds issued by the City for Port improvements, has been met from operating revenues in recent years. The Port has returned a small surplus to the City treasury, although it does not pay taxes or a contribution in lieu of taxes, and pension obligations for port employees are met from the general budget. IV-67 IV.C.4.b Jursidiction The Port of Wilmington operates a single facility on the south bank of the Christina River at its confluence with -the Delaware River. The Port could acquire and operate other terminals within the city limits, as city ordinances give the Port jurisdiction over all port operations in Wilmington. It has not exercised any regulatory control over the private terminal operators in the area. Present plans for enlargement and modernization are limited to the'area adjacent to the current site. The Port has proposed to fill behind a new bulkhead line on the Delaware River and move primary berths from the Christina River to the new Delaware River frontage. The Port Direc- tor has made preliminary application for the dredge and fill permit necessary for this expansion. The permit request has met substantial opposition from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, who are requesting compensating environmental improve- ments. At the same time, the Commerce Department is attempting to assemble a package of State, federal (Economic Development Administra- tion) and City funds to purchase a new container handling crane. IV.C.4.c Operations The Port of Wilmington is not strictly a loading and unloading operation. Space has been leased for the storage of imported automobiles offloaded in Wilmington. A manufacturer converts imported gypsum to wallboard in a factory on land leased from the Port. Delivered tonnage has been sig- nificantly expanded in recedt years by a private bulk oil terminal on land leased from the Port. Additional unused or underutilized space is available on Port property. In 1974, a special study commission reported@to Delaware Governor Tribitt that the current institutional arrangements for the Port of Wilmington were unsatisfactory. The Port contributed to regional commerce, particu- larly the wider New Castle County area. However, Port costs were assumed entirely by the City. As a relatively small city, Wilmington was unwill- ing to issue the general obligation bonds necessary for Port improvements. Deterioration of wharves at the Port was attributed to dependence on Wilmington for financial support. The special study commission recom- mended that responsibility for the Port be assumed by a Port Corporation (the South Jersey Port Corporation was cited as a model). This Corpora- tion could then finance Port imporvements through revenue bonds. Its board would represent the wider region and, if necessary, operating subsidies could be collected from governments in the broader region benefitting from Port development. The recommendations of Governor Tribbitt's study commission have not been implemented. The City still operates the Port through the Commerce Department. New management has improved maintenance of Port facilities. However, the Port is still dependent upon City financing for improvements. Industrial revenue bonds have not been used, and the.installation of a IV-68 new container crane will be dependent upon the City's ability to raise federal grants and local tax money to supplement the Delaware commitment of $1.25 million. IV.C.5 Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA) IV.C.5.a Charter and Source of Authority On September 20, 1962, the U.S. Congress gave its consent to the Compact between Delaware and New Jersey creating the Delaware River and Bay Authority. The two States pledged to each other their faithful coopera- tion in the effectuation of the Compact and "the planning, development, financing, construction, operation and improvement of all projects entrusted to the Authority." The Authority was designated to function as an agency of the governments of the two States for the following gen- eral public purposes: � operation of crossings between the States of Delaware and New Jersey across the Delaware River and Bay, together with approaches or connections required to make adequate and efficient connections between such crossings and any public highway; � operation of any transportation or terminal facility (within those areas of both States which border on or are adjacent to the Delaware River or Bay) which is re- quired for the sound economic development of the area; and * the performance of such other functions as may be hereafter entrusted to the Authority by concurrent legislation expressly in implementation thereof. These powers were expressly limited by the requirement that any project, flother than a crossing," requires approval by concurrent legislation in each State. Any action of the Authority is subject to veto by the Governor of either State, but projects other than crossings require the express consent of both Legislatures. Formation of the Delaware River and Bay Authority followed. a long his- tory of litigation and negotiation between the two States. Disputes over boundaries and fishing rights in the upper bay and river were re- solved by the Supreme Court in 1934. The Court declared that the Dela- ware State boundary extended to the low water mark on the eastern side of the Delaware River at all points within a 12-mile radius of the town of New Castle. As traffic increased on the New Castle-Pennsville ferry in the 1930's and 1940's, D@laware looked for a way to construct a fixed crossing. A private company made a proposal in 1936, but the State soon assumed responsibility for planning. A joint venture with New Jersey could not be negotiated, and the first span of the bridge was built by the iv-69 Delaware State Highway Department with revenue bonds floated by the State of Delaware. Both towers stand on Delaware territory at the bottom of the river. New Jersey granted Delaware permission to construct the eastern approaches of the bridge on New Jersey soil, but did not join in the financing. However, the New Jersey Turnpike, built at the same time as the bridge, was planned to connect with the new span. The Dela- ware Memorial Bridge opened to traffic on August 16, 1951. Traffic continued to build rapidly through the 1950's. Under the terms of the approvals obtained from the United States for the crossing,l tolls on the bridge would be ended when the bonds were paid off. Delaware did not want to assume responsibility for bridge maintenance costs with State tax dollars. Perhaps more important, traffic growth indicated that an- other span would be necessary. Delaware did not want to commit its limited highway resources to the construction of a second span when only a fraction of the users were Delaware citizens (estimated at 10%). Cooperation was sought from the State of New Jersey. Quick agreement on a cooperative effort was not possible, in part because New Jersey sought to eliminate tolls on the bridge as soon as the bonds were paid off. Formal negotiations between the two State highway departments began in 1956. When they failed to produce results, the Governors of each State designated conferees to negotiate an agreement between the States on problems of mutual interest governing the Delaware River and Bay. The conferees met first in December, 1958; issues for discussion included the need for additional crossings, including a Cape May-Lewes ferry, the need for continuing tolls on the existing bridge, and "the feasibility and practicability of a bi-state agency to administer the area's needs."2 Drafts of an interstate compact were prepared and negotiated through 1959 and presented to the Governors of both States by the conferees on October 29, 1959. Following approval by the two State Legislatures and the U.S. Congress, the Delaware River and Bay Authority was formed and. assumed responsibility for operation of the existing span of the Delaware Memorial Bridge and pla nning for the second span. IV.C.5.b Jurisdiction The DRBA is authorized to operate crossings of the Delaware River and Bay at any location south of the boundary line between the State of Delaware and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as extended across the river to the New Jersey shore. Transportation and terminal facilities may be operated Obtained from Congress and the Department of Defense. The function is now vested'in the Department of Transportation. 2Governor Caleb Boggs in his opening remarks to the conferees. IV-70 in the areas of both States which "border on or are adjacent to" the Delaware River or Bay south of the Pennsylvania/Delaware line. Thus, the DRBA's jurisdiction may be said to encompass the River and Bay and adjacent shores between the Delaware/Pennsylvania line and Cape Henlopen and Cape May. This area arguably extends to the limits of State terri- torial waters immediately seaward of the line between Cape May and Cape Henlopen. IV.C.5.c Operations The operation of th e spans of the Delaware Memorial Bridge is-now a financially sound and stable operation, with a revenue of $12.1 million in 1977 generated by over 18,000,000 cars and trucks. The operation of a ferry between Cape May and Lewes, started in 1964, was very much a part of the agreement reached by the compact negotiators, and was predi- cated on the use of some bridge revenues to offset costs. The original ferries, retired from service across the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay by the bridge-tunnel, have since been replaced by newer, shallow draft boats. The Authority has improved terminal facilities at Cape May and Lewes, including construction of a breakwater. Negotiations are in progress for acquisition of a five-acre parcel of land immediately adja- cent to the Lewes terminal for possible future expansion of parking or. terminal facilities. Ferry revenues now cover operating costs, although capital investment in boats and facilities is still covered by excess bridge revenues. The Cape May-Lewes Ferry and the Delaware Memorial Bridge are the only operations of the Authority at this time. The DRBA has never undertaken a project under its second public purpose, the operation of "transporta- tion or terminal facilities." The definition of such facilities in the charter is broad and extends to any structure or facility "adapted for public use ... in connection with the transportation of persons or property, including railroads, motor vehicles, watercraft, airports and aircraft, docks, wharves, piers, slips, basins, storage places, sheds, warehouses, and every means of vehicle transportation now or hereafter in use for the transportation of persons and property or the storage, handling or loading of property, as well as appurtenances, and equipment related thereto." Although the.Authority has yet to build or operate any transportation or terminal facilities, the intent of the charter has been hotly debated in recent years. A proposal for the State of Delaware to build or indepen- dently franchise a deepwater oil terminal off the Delaware Capes was met with opposition by the Authority. In a lengthy legal memo, counsel to the DRBA argued that the New Jersey-Delaware Compact gave the DRBA the sole authority to develop any such superport. The logic may be para- phrased as follows: IV-71 PA, Ew YORK TRENTON CAMDEN MID TLANVC CITY WA$HiNGTON APE MAY so NORFOPK VA. NO@ CAR@ EXHIBIT IV-1-3 DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY SERVICE AREA IV-72 1. An offshore port beyond the Delaware Capes is a port facility for the Delaware Bay. 2. The DRBA has been designated by each State ia the compact as an agency of the State for purposes of the compact. 3. Transportation and terminal facilities intended for public use are one of the State purposes for which the DRBA was created. 4. The DRBA is therefore an agency of the State of Dela- ware for the operation of terminal facilities for the Delaware Bay. 5. Delaware and New Jersey pledged faithful cooperation in implementing projects entrusted to the Authority. 6. A deepwater oil port off the Delaware Capes is a terminal intended for public use within the DRBA charter. 7. Therefore, Delaware is obligated by its commitment in the DRBA Compact to use the DRBA as the appropriate state agency for development and planning any offshore port. In support of this argument, counsel for the Authority cited a 1970 opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Delaware which found that a port constructed on an artificial island in Delaware Bay would be a task for the Delaware River and Bay Authority. "The State of Delaware alone may not plan and construct facilities that fall within the purposes and purview of the Delaware-New Jersey Compact..." The argument is also supported in the report of the conferees who nego- tiated the DRBA Compact, which states: "The Conferees have envisioned a single agency whose underlying objects would encompass the full breadth and scope of their inter-related aspects. It is their thought that this agency should be the only bi-state authority of the States of Delaware and New Jersey which will serve as the conduit or medium through which the two states may at all times act with respect to all matters of common interest to them.... The Conferees are of the view that the two states should avoid endless multiplication of separate agencies to deal with single problems as they arise." IV-73 .Supporters of the independent Delaware proposal argued that Delaware had not surrendered its right to independently develop port facilities, particularly a superport not contemplated by the authors of the DRBA compact, and located beyond the Delaware Capes. Restrained by bond covenants and the requirement that both State Legislatures consent to a transportation or terminal development, the Authority has not initiated planning for any port facility. In arecent conversation, the former secretary of the Delaware Conferees indicated that the Authority was definitely intended to serve as the forum for planning any major terminal development on the Bay. Competi- tion and independent maneuvering by the two States over the bridge issue convinced many of the Conferees that an interstate agency should serve as a forum for resolution of differences over development projects in the River and Bay. These remarksi support the contention that the Dela- ware River and Bay Authority was granted an exclusive charter by each State to undertake any development of transportation and terminal facil- ities intended for public use on the River and Bay. While the existence of the Port of Wilmington might seem inconsistent with this mandate, the facility is owned by the municipality, and thus not a State undertaking. As such, its existence separate from the Delaware River and Bay Authority was tacitly accepted by the Compact language. Extensive direct attempts by the State of Delaware (including assumption of control), to extensively upgrade the Port of Wilmington might be met with the same arguments directed at the superport proposal. Indirect subsidies to the municipal port operation would appear to be consistent with the tacit acceptance of continued independent Port of Wilmington operation in the DRBA charter. IV.C.5.d Financial Resources of the Delaware River and Bay Authority Toll schedules at facilities of the Authority are required by the Trust Agreement to be established at an appropriate level to obtain the toll revenues necessary to pay off the bonded debt incurred for facility con- struction and to maintain the facilities in an acceptable operating con- dition. Specific items of cost to be covered by toll revenues, as noted in the Trust Agreement, include routine and special maintenance, opera- tions, interest payments, principal amortization, reserve requirements, and coverage requirements. It is the intent of the Trust Agreement and other directives binding upon the Authority that its financial and opera- tional practices follow prudent business principles and procedures. Operating and maintenance expenses of the Authority have risen in recent years, as hawe costs incurred by other public and private agencies, and tolls were increased in late 1979. The basic rationale for determining appropriate toll increases and new schedules remains, according to the 1Judge Jam es Latchum, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware and formerly Secretary of the Delaware conferees, in a private interview. IV-74 Trust Agreement, the establishment of rates sufficient to cover debt service and operating costs. This approach to the establishment of toll schedules and levels is not followed by many agencies operating toll facilities. This is particu- larly true when the owning or operating agency has been given other responsibilities and mandates for involvement in activities which are not financially solvent. Examples of this situation include the Tri-m borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in New York City, which has tolls set very substantially in excess of the levels required to pay off its bonds. Surpluses generated are regularly turned over to the agency responsible for operating the New York City subway system. Another example, also in New york, is that of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Many of its activities, ranging from mass transit sytems to port facilities and office buildings, are not self-sustaining, and reve- nuesoftoll bridges and tunnels are used to finance those activities. Authorities and agencies throughout the United States engage in similar transfers of funds from solvent toll facility operations to less finan- cially viable activities which require support and may provide broad public benefits. In cases where toll levels are not established solely to generate reve- nues to cover debt service and operating costs associated with the toll facility, toll schedules at higher levels may reflect user costs via competitive facilities and alternative routes. Schedules and experience elsewhere on similar facilities also influence what can be considered an acceptable toll level. In such cases the level of the toll schedules adopted is based in part on an assessment of the nature and magnitude of the public benefits which might be obtained by diverting of toll revenues to other purposes. In the event that government officials at various levels and other con- cerned parties should consider it appropriate to use Authority toll revenues as a source of funds for purposes other than the operation of existing crossings and the associated debt amortization, then two ques- tions must be addressed. First, what is the general magnitude of the funds which could be made available from earnings of the present facili- ties of the Authority and be applied to such other purposes as were thought to be in the public interest and worthy of Authority financial support? Second, what procedures would have to be followed to comply with existing bondholder agreements and still make available some funds for purposes other than those presently existing? IV.C.5.e Additional Potential Authority Bonding Capacity To develop a preliminary estimate of the additional financing capacity of the Authority (over and above its present obligations), two "possible" future toll schedules for the Delaware Memorial Bridge were analyzed. These "possible" toll schedules are characterized by rates that are sig- nificantly higher than both existing tolls and revised tolls recently implemented by the Authority. However, these possible rates are not IV-75 appreciably out of line from those currently in effect on similar facil- ities elsewhere. Table IV-2 presents traffic and toll schedule data for the Delaware Memorial Bridge and nine other major crossings in the eastern United States. For the Bridge operated by the Delaware River and Bay Authority, four toll schedules are shown: the existing rates, an increased rate put into effect by the Authority in September, 1979 (based upon URS/* Coverdale & Colpitts' report of May, 1979), and.the two schedules devel- oped for this analysis titled Schedule "A" and Schedule "B." Eachof the crossings included in the table had a total annual volume of more than 10,000,000 vehicles in fiscal year 1978:, with two exceptions. The facilities with lower volumes are the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which had a volume approaching 10,000,000, and the Commodore Barry Bridge, which is shown because it is the Delaware Memorial Bridge's chief competitor. As can be seen from the table, the existing rates for all classes of vehicles on the Delaware Memorial Bridge are lower than those currently in effect on eight of the nine comparable facilities. Under the new toll schedule, the cash passenger car toll is increased to $0.60, equal to the level of the rates on the DRPA crossings, and the commuter rate is increased to $0.30. Under the Schedule "A" and Schedule "B" toll rates, the cash passenger car tolls are assumed to increase to $0.75 and $1.00 respectively. Tolls for commuters are increased commensurately. These rates are not inconsistent with those on five of the other facili- ities included in the table. At present, rates for heavy commercial vehicles using the Delaware Memor- ial Bridge are low in comparison to the rates on other facilities. They are also low compared to the cash passenger car toll on the Bridge. Under the new toll schedule, these discrepancies are partially rectified since the increase in truck rates is greater than the increase in passen- ger car rates. However, the higher rates shown for the possible toll schedules would not be out of line with those charged on other facilities. A rate of $0.75 per axles assumed in the Schedule "A" toll rates is in effect on the DRPA facilities. A rate of $1.00 per axle assumed in the Schedule "B" toll rates is commensurate with the $1.00 cash passenger car toll. In order to compare annual toll revenue levels under the existing, revised and possible toll schedules, estimated loss of traffic attributable to the toll increases was based on competitive factors and on the impacts of past toll increases on similar facilities. Estimated toll revenues were cal- culated for representative near-term years biased on likely traffic growth trends. Table IV-3 presents estimatesofadditional annual toll revenues resulting from the implementation of higher toll schedules than the one now in force at the Delaware Memorial Bridge. IV-76 mmm M M M mm@lmm M mm@ M = Table IV-2 Comparison of Tolls on Delaware Memorial Bridge with Tolls on other Similar Facilities Annual Percent of Total Traffic Tolls Volume Psgr. Cars & Light Comm. Veh. Heavy Comm. Psgr. Cars & Light Comm. Veh. Heavy Comm. Veh. FY 1978 Cash Commuter Vehicles Cash Commuter Rate per AxlS Delaware Memorial Bridge 18,584,000 70.9% 10.3% 18.8% Existing Tolls $ .50 $ .20 $.33 to $.375 Revised Tolls* .60 .30 .50 Schedule "A" (Possible) .75 .40 .75 Schedule "B" (Possible) 1.00 .50 1.00 Newburgh-Beacon Bridge** 10,269,000 69.4 15.3 15.3 .25 .15 .25 to .33 Delaware River Port Auth. .60 .40 .75 Commodore Barry Bridge 4,857,000 68.0 22.3 9.7 Walt Whitman Bridge 32,572,000 63.5 30.5 6.0 Ben Franklin Bridge 39,562,000 67.6 27.2 5.2 George Washington Bridge** 39,562,000 .75 .50 Baltimore Harbor Tunnel 22,460,000 71.7 15.7 12.6 .75 .35 .50 Tappan Zee Bridge 13,488 3.7 .75 .25 Verrazano Narrows Bridge 43,449,000 1.00 1.00 Chesapeake Bay Bridge 9,833,000 75@3 14.3 10.3 1.25 .60 .90 *Effective 9/l/79 **Tolls collected in one direction only. Toll shown is one-way rate. Classification not based on number of axles. Table IV-3. Estimated Additional Annual Toll Revenues* Additional Increase over Revised Amount Toll Schedule Toll Schedule ($ Millions) ($ Millions) Revised 3.2 Schedule "A" 6.5 3.3 Schedule "B" 8.8 5.6 *Average values for 1979-1983 period. As indicated, the revised toll schedule implemented in September, 1979, will produce an average of approximately $3.2 million annually in addi- tional toll revenues over the next several years. These funds will be required to cover increased expenses of the Authority as presently en- visioned. As further shown in the table, were the possible Schedule "A" or Schedule "B" to be implemented shortly thereafter, additional revenues estimated at $3.3 million or $5.6 million annually over those realizable under the revised schedule could be obtained. For this analysis, increased tolls were not considered for the Cape May- Lewes Ferry, since the revised tolls are probably a maximum at this time. Further, they account for only a limited portion of the Authority's total revenues, and an increase would not result in significant additional revenues. In order to prepare "order-of-magnitude" estimates of the Authority's additional bonding capacity which could result from the implementation of the possible toll schedules, the following basic assumptions were made: 1. The bonds will be issued on January 1, 1985, at a 6.5% interest rate and will be repaid over a 30-year period. 2. The revised toll schedule will be in effect before 1985. Therefore, for this analysis the additional net revenues available for supporting additional bonds are considered to be the annual differences between the anticipated revenues under the revised toll schedule and the "pos- sible" toll schedules. 3. The Authority will be required to covenant that addition- al annual net revenues will be sufficient to cover 110% of required interest and amortization requirements. This coverage requirement is low but is based upon the assump- tion that concerned government agencies will provide some form of substantial support to the bond-issue so that this reduced coverage 'Can be obtained. Since all IV-78 prospective activities of the Authority would be in the public interest and must have the concurrence of New Jersey and Delaware as well as other governmental units, this assumption is appropriate. Based upon the foregoing, it is estimated that the additional bonding capacity of the DRBA which could be derived by further toll increases and utilized for other purposes than the debt amortization and opera" tion of existing crossings is approximately $40 million if Schedule "A" or a similar one is implemented and approximately $70 million if the higher Schedule "B".or a comparable schedule is established at the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The total amount which could be bonded for a new project could be higher if the project generated operating revenues sufficient to guarantee payment on debts in excess of these amounts. IV.C.5.f Legal Requirements Regarding the Use of Authority Funds for New Purposes The January 1, 1964, Trust Agreement securing the balance outstanding of the $103 million revenue bonds issued by the Authority in 1964 permits the issuance of additional bonds on a parity with the outstanding bonds for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of any bridge or any tunnel or any bridge and tunnel project across,the Delaware River or Bay between the two States or any addition or improvement to, or any enlargement or replacement of, any part of the present bridge project, the present ferry project or any bridge or any tunnel or any bridge and tunnel project. The Trust Agreement does not permit the issuance of additional parity bonds for purposes other than a crossing. However, net revenues of the present projects in excess of debt service and reserve requirements may be deposited to the credit of the General Fund which, under the provisions of the Trust Agreement, may be used for certain other purposes. These purposes include paying for the cost of construct- ing transportation and terminal facilities which the Authority may be authorized to own and operate; they may also be pledged to pay the inter- est and amortization on any obligations of the Authority issued to pay such cost. The pledge of the revenues of the Authority to these obligations would be subordinated to its pledge of revenues to its outstanding revenue bonds or to any additional parity bonds that might be issued. . If the Authority desired to issue bonds for transportation and terminal facilities on a parity with its other bonds, it would be necessary to refund the outstanding revenue bonds. IV.D INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHETICAL PROJECTS Eight types of projects are analyzed below. Each has been proposed or discussed by one or more parties in recent years as a potential use of the Bay and its resources. Most have both supporters and opponents among IV-79 officials on both sides of the Bay interviewed in the course of this study. The projects are: � fixed crossing of the Bay � expansion of conventional port facilities � deepwater port development � development of fishing ports � marina development (recreational boating) � other shoreline development � dredge spoil disposal � aquaculture At the beginning of each analysis is a brief description of the type of development project to be considered. Possible illustrative locations may be suggested, but this does not constitute a recommendation for a specific project or site. Specifics are provided solely so the reader may get a better understanding of the regulatory or institutional issues which would surround such a development. The specificity of definition does not imply any commitment of interest by the Delaware River and Bay Authority, nor does it constitute a recommendation from the consultants. Following a project description, the analysis is divided as follows: e agencies which could assert jurisdiction to operate the project; � relationship between the project and land use planning goals of the federal and State governments; � permits required for project development; � conflict between the project and the policies of permit- ting agencies; � bureaucratic overlap and possible conflict; * changes in policy which would be necessary for the project to proceed. IV-80 IV.D.1 Fixed Crossing IV.D.1-a Project Description If an additional crossing were to be proposed across the Delaware Bay, it would most likely be a bridge connecting with the Garden State Park- way and Routes 9, 1, and 14 in Delaware. This bridge would replace the existing Cape May-Lewes Ferry. The structure would be a trestle (not a causeway) across all existing water areas, with a hi:gh-rise span or a tunnel at the ship channel wide enough to accommodate two large ships passing in the channel. It is assumed that newly constructed approaches to the bridge would disrupt some wetlands and beaches on either side of the Bay. IV.D.l.b Jurisdiction to Operate The Delaware River and Bay Authority is the only public agenc"y chartered to build crossings of the River and Bay below the Pennsylvania State line and would clearly be the agency to build an additional crossing. IV.D.l.c Relationship to Land Use Planning Goals Any mid-Bay or lower-Bay crossing which produced substantial pressure for development of the wetlands or agricultural land on either side of the Bay would be contrary to current State land use planning goals. A cross- ing at the mouth of the Bay would undoubtedly increase development pressure on the Atlantic coastal beaches, already heavily developed. While some development at the Cape May airport and in Lewes is consider- ed desirable by State governments, a substantial increase in development pressures along the South Jersey coast would exacerbate the currently intense demand for public services resulting from casino gambling in Atlantic City and would be contrary to the current designation of most of Cape May County as a low-growth area in the New Jersey plan. IV.D.l.d Permits Required Any bridge or tunnel would require the full range of environmental permits. On each side of the Bay, the bridge would require State permits for use of wetlands, use of State-owned subaqueous lands, and quite probably a beach erosion permit on the Delaware side. The bridge itself would not require a coastal zone permit in Delaware, but such a permit would be required for the necessary approach roads in Cape May County. A permit from the Coast Guard would be required for the bridge itself and would specify the steps necessary to protect navigation in the Delaware Bay ship channel. The project is of sufficient scope that it would require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. The lead agency for such a review would probably be the Coast Guard. While the bridge would not constitute a point source of air or water pollution once completed, any service facilities for the bridge would re- quire either a point source permit for pollution or a permit to tap into IV-81 municipal sewage systems. The bridge would undoubtedly be subject to a critical review under the New Jersey State Air Pollution Control Plan because of the contribution from increased traffic to the high levels of ozone experienced during peak summer periods along,the Jersey shore. IV.D.l.e Conflict with Policies of Permitting Agencies To the extent that the bridge and associated-road encourage increased development pressure in the coastal communities on either side of the Bay, the project would conflict with plans for low to moderate growth and the preservation of remaining wetlands along the Atlantic shore. Access roads would have to be routed so as -to minimize any disruption of wetlands. The Coast Guard would undoubtedly require a central span of sufficient length to permit unobstructed passage of shipping in the channel. Federal dredge and fill permits and State permits for use of subaqueous lands would probably be approved if the other environmental aspects of the bridge were acceptable to State and federal governments. Nevertheless, federal agencies would undoubtedly require that the bridge be built in such a way as to minimize the disruption of bottom sediments. The bridge would also need to be routed so as to avoid any substantial oyster beds or spawning areas. It does not appear that there are any endangered species which would be threatened directly by the construc- tion of a bridge at the mouth of the Bay'. IV.D.l.f Overlapping Authorities Determination of the acceptability of the bridge to the federal govern- ment would depend upon the environmental impact statement which would be required' The Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers, and environmental agen- cies commenting on the permit issued by each of these agencies, would attempt to coordinate their reaction to the bridge proposal. A parallel negotiation with State environmental authorities on either side of the Bay would be necessary to determine State imposed siting criteria or limitations on bridge development. In New Jersey, independent comment upon federal dredge and fill permits by Water Resources staff could fur- ther complicate planning efforts. However, New Jersey does have a special DEP office to coordinate environmental review of massive projects such as a bridge crossing, and this agency would be the focus in New Jersey of efforts to obtain a comprehensive analysis of the bridge. IV.D.l.g Changes Necessary to Implement the Project The attitude of the New Jersey State government, as expre ssed in the Development Guide Plan and coastal resources; development policy, would have to change if any proposal for a crossing of the lower Bay were to be supported at policy-making levels. Designation of most of Cumberland and Cape May Counties as a limited growth area is inconsistent with a massive investment in a crossing of the lower Bay. No other environmental or land use policy explicitly excludes a crossing, but a very strong case for the need for a bridge would have to be made to override concerns about IV-82 the disruption of wetlands, beaches, or underwater lands in the Bay, and the concern for an increase in the danger of shipping accidents due to constriction of traffic by the crossing. IV.D.2 Expansion of Conventional Port Facilities IV.D.2.a Project Description Construction of improved cargo handling capacity at ports already handl- ing deepwater commerce has often been proposed. At the Port of Wilming- ton this might include reorientation of the wharves from the Christina to the Delaware River. It would involve dredge and fill operations but not the destruction of virgin wetlands. The development would occur in a populated area with existing infrastructure and labor supply. A second type of port development could be possible at Cape May or Lewes for moderate draft ships (15-20 feet) of the offshore oil or fishing industries. The fishing port option is discussed more fully below. The Lewes port addition would be subject to most of the institutional con- straints discussed with respect to a Wilmington Port Project, as well as to environmental constraints due to dredging impacts. Environmental con- flicts would depend on the size and siting of any project, as well as the population growth projected to follow such a development. IV.D.2.b Jurisdiction to Operate While four public agencies are chartered to operate ports or transporta- tion and terminal facilities in the Bay area--the Delaware River Port Authority, the South Jersey Port Corporation, the Delaware River and Bay Authority, and the Port of Wilmington--only the Port of Wilmington is currently operating any facility on or near to the Bay. Delaware is not a member of the Delaware River Port Authority or the South Jersey Port Corporation. New Jersey is a partner in both the Delaware River Port Authority and the Delaware River and Bay Authority, and the State created the South Jersey Port Corporation by statute. IV.D.2.c Relationship to Land Use Planning Goals Expansion of the Port of Wilmington or creation of additional port facil- ities north of the Delaware Memorial Bridge is consistent with the plans of both New.Jersey and Delaware if the project is an expansion of exist- ing facilities. Both States wish to encourage industrial growth north of the Bridge. A small port development in Cape May or Lewes would also be consistent with State land use planning goals. IV.D.2.d Permits Required Any expansion of existing port facilities would require the usual pack- age of marine permits. This would incude a wetlands permit, if any saltwater marshes are to be affected, and a subaqueous lands permit from the State in whose waters the port is built. Appropriate local zoning of the land would also be required. iv-83 In New Jersey, any port development south of Pennsville would require a coastal facility siting permit. Docking facilities in the Port of Wil- mington are exempt from the Delaware State Coastal Facility Siting Law, but expanded dockside operations in Lewes would require a coastal facil- ity siting permit. Improvements in existing piers or channels would not require such a permit. Permits from the Corps of Engineers would be required for the bulkheads, piers, and any dredging necessary to add to existing port facilities. IV.D.2.e Conflict with Policies of Permitting Agencies In general, the government of either Statewould7be expected to be recep- tive to an expansion of existing ports which does not greatly change the scale of these ports. The greatest potential conflict would come in the actual siting and method of construction. Federal environmental agencies commenting upon permits issued by the Corps could be expected to request a port developer to take compensatory measures, even in an industrialized area, to improve wetlands and marine environment. A heavy burden of proof would be placed upon the port developer to justify the need for any filling of shallow waters, and the filling of wetlands not already de- graded would not likely be approved. In general, permitting agencies would prefer to see ports built on piles or floating structures connected to existing dry land, rather than on iill in shallow water or marshland. IV.D.2.f Overlapping Authorities Since the Port of Wilmington is the only operating public port on the lower River and Bay, there need not be any direct conflict with other agencies in expanding this port. However, the Port of Wilmington com- petes, at least in part, with the Port of Philadelphia (run by the Phila- delphia Port Corporation) and the Port of Camden (run by the south Jersey Port Corporation). Since both of these port corporations are subsidized by their respective State governments, these governments may oppose any major transfer of funds from the Delaware River and Bay Authority or other interstate agencies to subsidize expansion of the Port of Wilming- ton. If such a subsidy were to occur, it should probably occur in the context of a larger regional port plan which would permit specialization of the Ports of Camden, Philadelphia, and Wilmington and reduce fears of direct competition. At the moment, none of' the agencies chartered for port development is exercising this coordinating function-for the entire Delaware River and Bay. IV.D.2.g Changes Necessary to Implement the Project There is nothing in the policy of Delaware or the federal government to discourage expansion of the Port of Wilmington. Recent evidence suggests, however, that federal environmental agencies might impose certain reqdire- ments for port construction which are contrary to the original plans of the Port of Wilmington. Closer conformity of environmental and land use planning policies might simplify expansion of the existing Port. IV-84 In Cape May or Lewes, small scale port expansion would be consistent with State and federal policies, but actual approvals would depend upon the site of the project and the amount of environmental disruption in- volved. IV.D.3 Deepwater Port Development IV.D.3.a Project Description Two hypothetical options for a deepwater port are reviewed in the fol- lowing discussion: � A monobuoy unloading facility located beyond State terri- torial waters outside the Delaware Capes, with a pipeline connection to a tank farm onshore (behind the immediate coast) with a connecting pipeline to upriver refineries. � An artificial island built on Lower Middle Shoal abutting the ship channel in the lower Bay, inside the Capes. Such a project might include storage tanks for LNG and/or crude oil, but does not include dry cargo or industrial facilities.1 Pipelines would take the oil to existing refineries further up the River, and the terminals would not be expected to generate major new employment after construction is completed. Either project would be expected to end the lightering of oil off Big Stone Beach. No crude oil would be transported upriver by tanker, but existing channel depths would be maintained for dry bulk and general cargo ships. IV.D.3.b Jurisdiction to Operate A deepwater port on the New Jersey side of Delaware Bay would appear to be within the charters of the South Jersey Port Corporation, Delaware River Port Authority, and Delaware River and Bay Authority. However, most of the deep water in the bay is located on the Delaware side, where the Delaware River and Bay Authority is the only multi-state agency chartered for port development. The Delaware River and Bay Authority has previously expressed the legal opinion that its charter makes it the sole agency for port development on both the New Jersey and Delaware sides of the Bay. There is some evidence that this exclusive responsib- ility was the intent of the drafters of the DRBA Compact, although the 1 Inclusion of dry cargo, container handling, and industrial facilities on an artificial port island has been proposed in a paper by the Col- lege of Marine Studies, University of Delaware. The more limited con- cept of a port island for oil/LNG delivery is examined here. iv-85 Delaware River Port Authority and the South Jersey Port Corporation are clearly empowered to act as port agencies for the counties of southern New Jersey (Salem, Cumberland, and Cape May). The jurisdictions of the South Jersey Port Corporation and Delaware River Port Authority run around Cape May and northward on the Atlantic Coast, within State territorial waters. Thus, these institutions are, candidate public agencies for the operation of a deepwater port outside New Jersey.territorial waters. The Delaware River and Bay Authority has argued that its jurisdiction extends outward to the three-mile.limit of State territorial waters, and that it is also the appropriate agency for construction of an offshore port beyond State territorial waters off the Delaware Capes. Some interest has been expressed in the State of Delaware in a privately sponsored offshore oil port. The State of New Jersey has expressed no opinion as yet on the agency to take the lead if a deepwater port is built but has requested the Port of New York and New Jersey Authority to undertake a study of an offshore port which would receive all imported crude oil for the Delaware River and New York Harbor refineries. Under the Deepwater Ports Act of 1974, an agency of the State (including a bi-state compact agency such as DRBA) has the first right of refusal in creating a deepwater port. IV.D.3.c Relationship to Land Use Planning Goals A deepwater port is not entirely inconsistent with coastal zone and land use plans in Delaware and New Jersey. A deepwater port within the Bay would be contrary to Delaware law and is not currently favored by New Jersey policy. An offshore port feeding the Delaware River refineries might be acceptable, but the shore-side facilities would have to be planned to minimize the effect on coastal communities. New Jersey may prefer to have any oil pipeline come ashore near Atlantic City, where it would proceed up the Atlantic City Expresswa- corridor to an inland tank y farm, avoiding the environmentally sensitive Pinelands Preservation Area. In Delaware, some State officials have indicated that the State might permit a pipeline coming ashore from a terminal in the open sea off Cape Henlopen, but the community of Rehoboth is actively opposed, and Lewes has not strongly endorsed such a proposal. IV.D.3.d Permit Required Constructed in the Bay, a deepwater port would require the same permits listed for expansion of a conventional port. If located outside of State territorial waters beyond the mouth of the Bay, the port would also require a permit from the U.S. Coast Guard under the terms of the Deep- water Ports Act. In addition, a pipeline serving the Delaware River refineries would require approval of the Department of Energy. IV-86 IV.D.3.e Conflict with Policies of Permitting Agencies A deepwater port in the Bay is barred by Delaware's.Coastal Zone Act and is inconsistent with the goals of the coastal zone management plan in New Jeraey. If a port was to be built, both States would reportedly prefer to see it located outside the Bay. This reflects the prevailing view that an oil spill within the Bay would be an ecological disaster. for the beaches and wetlands, while a port well offshore would minimize the risk of grounding and collision, and any spills would be swept to sea by prevailing offshore winds. Shore-side facilities for an offshore large tanker port would be subject to the same environmental concerns discussed under conventional ports. Both States could be expected to require any tank farm to be located inshore of the immediate coastal zone and to require that such a facil- ity be built-on dry land, not on marshland. The State of Delaware has offered a tentative opinion that a pipeline crossing the coastal zone from an offshore facility to an inland terminal would not be prohibited under the State Coastal Zone Act, which bars new bulk terminals in the coastal zone. IV.D.3.f Overlapping Authorities If a deepwater port is to be built in the Delaware Bay area, the overlap between port authorities would have to be resolved. Delaware and New Jersey would have to determine whether each State reserved the right to independently develop public ports when the Delaware River and Bay Auth- ority was created. Since the approval of either State will be necessary under the Deepwater Ports Act for a port located off the Delaware Capes and constructed by the other State, a strong argument could be made for the construction of such facility through a bi-state authority. IV.D.3.g Changes Necessary to Implement the Project Any deepwater port in the Delaware Bay replacing the current lightering operation off Big Stone Beach would require amendment of the Delaware Coastal Facilities Siting Act and a change in the coastal zone manage- ment plan in New Jersey. Inasmuch as the lightering area is not a facility, it cannot be considered a "port" in terms of either the siting Act or the plan. Furthermore, it cannot be construed as a .11port" in terms of other regulatory programs, such as for wetlands, underwater lands, bottom lands, and dredge and fill operations. If it were expand- ed with fixed facilities, it would no doubt become a "port." For a po ,rt to be constructed off the Delaware seacoast, a change in the opposition from residents of coastal resort communities would be necessary. IV-87 IV.D.4 Fishing Port Development IV.D.4.a Project Description In recent years, there have been proposals for development at Lewes and/or Cape May of the channels, docks, unloading facilities, and cold storage needed for expanded fisheries production. The project might include a processing plant for frozen fish products. The facility would accommodate more fishing craft of deeper draft than presently use the ports, dependent upon expanded exports or processed fish production. The site is assumed-to require minor alterations in the shoreline but no extensive filling of existing wetlands. IV.D.4.b Jurisdiction to Operate Any one of the port authorities (Delaware River Port Authority, Dela- ware River and Bay Authority, South Jersey Port Corporation) which are chartered to operate ports in the Bay might potentially operate a fishing port in Cape May. The DRBA might also operate a fishing port in Lewes. Under the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976, the federal government manages fisheries within the 200-mile limit through a series of regional Fisheries Management Councils. Foreign fleets may only take that part of a fish harvest not captured by American-boats. Mortgage insurance up to 87.5% of value is available for the purchase of new American fishing boats. However, the: federal government does not have a program to develop shoreside facilities for fishing boats. Neither State has yet created a specific fisheries authority for the development of commercial fishing operations, although New Jersey has proposed some forms of subsidy for the expansion of shore facilities for-commercial fishing. IV.D.4.c Relationship to Land Use Planning Goals Expansion of the fishing industry in Lewes and Cape May is consistent with current State land use and coastal zone! management plans. The specific site and scope of the project would determine the acceptability under existing environmental policies. IV.D.4.d Permits Required The package of marine permits discussed under conventional ports would, be required for a fishing port development which includes fish process- ing operations. These permits are: � state coastal zone permit � wetlands permits (if any wetlands are affected) � riparian (New Jersey) and subaqueous lands (Delaware) permits IV-88 9 dredge and fill permits from the Corps of Engineers (Chapter 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) Any change in existing operations would have to be consistent with local zoning, but both harbors do have waterfront zoned for commercial purposes. If a fish processing plant were to be built at the port, the processor could be required to obtain a NPDES permit for the dis--@ charge of wastes or a permit for an industrial connection to the municipal sewerage system. In Delaware, the permit would be issued by the State. In New Jersey, the fish processor would be required to obtain the NPDES permit from the U.S. EPA and a separate permit from the New Jersey DEP. IV.D.4.e Conflict with Policies of Permitting Agencies There is no inevitable conflict with the policies of either State in developing or expanding a fishing port in Cape May or Lewes. Specific problems would revolve around the site and scope of the project, par- ticularly the discharge of any fish wastes into restricted waters, the effect of the necessary dredging upon benthic organisms, migrating fish, and shellfish, and the destruction of any wetlands which might occur as a result of fishing port development. IV.D.4.f Overlapping Authorities Neither State has a specific agency for the development of fisheries support. Port authorities might consider themselves having this responsibility, consistent with their charters for the operation of 11port" or "terminal and transportation" facilities, so long as State governments accept this initiative. IV.D.4.g Changes Necessary to Implement the Project Outside of environmental limitations on specific sites, it appears that there are no bureaucratic barriers to the creation or expansion of fishing ports. The major problems are the exploitation of the appropri- ate new fish markets and the raising of the necessary capital for the expansion. IV.D.5 Marina Development IV.D.5.a Project Description Marina proposals have been made in the past and are likely to continue in the future. As a hypothetical project we have selected creation of a new marina with 300 slips or more with draft to 10 feet and accommo- dating boats from 20-100 feet in length with additional dry storage and launching capacity. The facility could be built anywhere in the lower Bay but would be sited so it did not claim existing wetlands. The marina would be built inside breakwaters in existing open water north of IV-89 Cape May or at Breakwater Harbor in Lewes adjacent to the existing ferry terminal. A new marina might also be part of an artificial island created from dredge spoil in a shallow area of the bay. Only. limited additional dredging would be necessary for'such projects. While development of smaller marinas along the shallow creeks in the, central Bay is a possibility, more conflict with wetlands laws and more extensive dredging would be required to provide access for larger boats. IV.D.5.b Jurisdiction to Operate New Jersey operates four public marinas through the Division of Parks and Forestry, Department of Environmental Protection. These facilities, including the marina leased to a private operator at Fortescue on the Delaware Bay, were constructed by the State or acquired from municipal- ities. The State has no plans to expand these facilities or construct new marinas. Delaware has no public marinas, although Delaware's DNREC does pro- vide shoreline launching ramps. A Commission on Marine tourism appoint- ed by the Governor has been studying waterfront facilities this year. One of their objectives is to increase access to State waters without an increase in the number of boat trailers clogging highways on summer weekends. If a marina is defined as a transportation and terminal facility, then marina development fits within the charter of the Delaware River and Bay Authority. Although theoretically a form of port, it is unlikely that the South Jersey Port Corporation or the Delaware River Port Authority would assert jurisdiction to develop marinas; in the Delaware Bay. IV.D.5.c Relationship to Land Use Planning Goals Development of additional marinas or expansion of existing marinas would be consistent with the dedication of the Atlantic coastal area primarily to recreational use. Development of marinas of any size in the mid-Bay marshlands would be inconsistent with the Current environmental and land use policies, although small marinas on creeks already dredged and con- taining boat handling facilities could be consistent with the low growth designation of these areas. The most important restrictions on marina development deal with the specific site of the project, not with the general desirability of promoting public access to the Bay and Atlantic coastal waterways. IV.D.5.d Permits Required Any marina would require the package of marine permits listed in the discussion of port facilities. Land where a. marina is located would have to be properly zoned under local planning ordinances to obtain the necessary permits. State funds for significant expansion of sewer or highway links to a new marina would be unlikely. In Delaware, a marina IV-90 could be developed without a coastal zone permit, but a marina of any size might be defined as a marine terminal and could require a coastal facility siting permit under New Jersey law. If combined with signi-. ficant new roadways or housing and hotel developments, in excess of 25 units, a marina would definitely require a coastal facility siting permit in New Jersey. IV.D.5.e Conflict with Policies of Permitting Agencies Any marina which disrupts existing wetlands would be opposed by both federal and State environmental agencies. Similar resistance would be encountered if the marina were to require any extensive initial dredg- ing or constant maintenance dre dging. This means that a large marina located in any of the shallow creeks on either side of the central Bay would likely be resisted. Federal environmental officials have indi- cated that they flatly oppose any marina created in dredged wetlands with dead-end basins or similar characteristics which prevent proper tidal flushing. A marina would be most acceptable if located in open water (perhaps protected by breakwaters, if such breakwaters did not threaten beach erosion) with adequate tidal flushing, and with minimum disruption of subaqueous lands or marshlands during construction. IV.D.5.f Overlapping Authorities The problem here is not one of overlap, but of clear designation of any agency to develop marinas, if either State believes that marina develop- ment is an appropriate public task. State of New Jersey officials have indicated that boating represents a relatively high income activity whose needs should be met by private capital. While it is true that existing marina rates suggest that a market may exist sufficient to re- imburse the cost of investment in new facilities, the uncertainties in- volved in obtaining an environmentally acceptable site and necessary permits have apparently discouraged new private investment. Designation of a public authority to plan for a marina development which is actually carried out with private capital could be an appropriate solution. IV.D.5.g Changes Necessary to Implement the Project As discussed in the concluding section of this chapter, there is a need for marina development to be facilitated, and such projects are more likely to be designed in an environmentally acceptable manner if a public or quasi-public agency assumes planning and preliminary develop- ment responsibilities. Unification of.various coastal/marine permits could also permit the private entrepreneur to negotiate more efficiently for an environmentally acceptable marina site in the lower Bay. IV.D.6 Other Shoreline Development IV.D.6.a Project Description Development of access to water, including beaches, promenades, fishing facilities and historical points of interest could be integrated with IV-91 marina or fishing port development. It could occur anywhere in the Bay area except existing wetlands. At Lewes, a waterfront historical park could be established adjacent to the ferry terminal.. Included in the, expanded facilities would be the his rical lightship.currently owned by the Lewes Historical Society and a museum dep ting the long and colorful history of the Delaware Bay pilots who are stationed at Lewes. Pier facilities would be provided for charter fishing and excursion boats, perhaps with a finger pier extending far enough into the bay to permit fishing and observation of traffic in the ship channel. The great wetland wildlife refuges of the Bay do not attract the public interest which they might. Improvements (perimeter roads, ecological exhibits) might be provided to encourage more area citizens to learn about the ecology of the Bay. While mass access is not compatible with refuge purposes, improved pathways and shallow water access for guided tours might also be provided. IV.D.6.b Jurisdiction State parks and wildlife refuges are located on both sides of the Bay. There are no national parks in the Bay area, but the federal government operates extensive wildlife refuges here through the Fish and Wildlife Service. Some monies from the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation have been used only for land acquisition and the development of very limited public access to the areas acquired. IV.D.6.c Relationship to Land Use Planning Goals The network of wildlife refuges in the center of the Bay is an integral part- of the approach to preservation of this area taken in State land use and environmental plans. Public beaches such as at Cape Henlopen State Park are part of the attraction for tourists offered in the Atlantic coastal segment. Some further development of recreational opportunities is not inconsistent with the general designation for low to moderate growth and the emphasis on tourism and recreation. Coastal zone plans in each State focus heavily on assuring public access to beaches and the waters of the ocean and Bay. IV.D.6.d Permits Required Construction of an artificial island, fishing piers, or similar enhance- ments to underutilized beaches on the Bay, such as those north of Cape May, would require various marine permits depending upon the actual project. Wetlands, subaqueous lands, and Corps of Engineers permits would probably be required for most such plans. In Delaware, a beach erosion permit would be required for any structure crossing the dune line. IV-92 IV.D.6.e Conflict with Policies of Permitting Agencies No inevitable conflict in expanding recreational opportunities is apparent, unless the expected load of visitors would place undue burden upon existing public services, highways, or threaten wetlands and spawn- ing grounds through land fill or decreased water quality. IV.D.6.f Overlapping Authorities Some conflict between Fish and Game agencies managing wildlife refuges and more intensive development of abutting shoreline areas for tourist use could be expected. However, the largest barriers to any enhance- ment of existing beach resources are the lack of available public land and the lack of capital. IV.D.6.g Changes Necessary to Implement the Project States would have to indicate if they wish to see any further develop- ment of specific sites with specific kinds of investments such as fish- ing piers, artificial islands, or similar improvements. If any capital intensive project is desired, then the States would have to designate a public agency with financial authority to perform such work. IV.D.7 Dredge Spoil Disposal IV.D.7.a Project Description Provision of an environmentally sound area for the disposal of dredge spoil produced in the maintenance of the Delaware Bay shipping channel has also been considered. Creative use of the spoil might be included in development of the other port, waterfront, shoreline and recreational options. The Port of Wilmington is proposing the use of dredge spoil to construct a pier-front on the Delaware River which would ultimately replace existing facilities on the Christina River and enable the Corps of Engineers to stop dredging the Christina River channel to a 35-foot depth. The nature channel in the Delaware River, prior to dredging, permitted a maximum draft of only 17 feet to Philadelphia. Dredging to maintain the current channel of 40 feet from the ocean to Philadelphia produces an estimated 4.0 to 4.3 million cubic yards of dredge spoil each year. Between 1836 and 1968, the Federal government dredged an estimated 863 million cubic yards from the Delaware River to maintain or improve navigability. A large portion of the dredging required to maintain the 40-foot channel to Philadelphia occurs in a relatively small number of locations. The Marcus Hook range produces the largest single dredging requirements. The other segments of the channel requiring extensive maintenance dredg- ing are Mantua Creek, Bellevue, Cherry Island, Deepwater Point, and New Castle. IV-93 Dredging costs rise sharply if spoil must be transported over long distances for disposal. The Corps of Engineers has recently relied on the use of a few major disposal sites on dry land or in diked areas near the major dredging operations. The two largest spoil sites in current use are at Pedricktown and Kiloohook. The Corps has been un- able to obtain any major additional spoil disposal sites in the last decade because of environmental opposition -to the filling of wetlands and in-water disposal and the high price of dry land sites which might also be suitable for industrial development. Disposal capacity in the sites currently in use has been increased b- raising the height of the Y containment dikes, and existing sites are thought to be adequate, with added height, for another 15 to 20 years of maintenance of the 40-foot channel. After that, other solutions will be necessary or more lands pre-empted for spoils disposal and--perhaps---creative site developments. IV.D.7.b Jurisdiction to Operation The Corps is responsible for obtaining dredge spoil disposal sites for all spoil produced during Corps operations to maintain the ship channel below Philadelphia and other approved projects. Major disposal sites for maintenance of the main channel are currently owned or controlled by the Corps, but future arrangements might allow for use by the Corps of a site already owned by an agency, such as the Port of Wilmington, which would plan subsequent use of the land. Any individual or State agency wishing to dredge must prove to the Corps that it has control of an environmentally acceptable disposal site for initial and maintenance dredging. Acquisition of the disposal site is a prerequisite for approval of a dredging permit by the Corps. Any disposal site where continued spoil deposition would harm shellfish and other aquatic organisms or significantly degrade water quality is not likely to be approved. The shortage of acceptable disposal sites suggests the importance of coordinating any dredging projects with near- by development efforts which might use the spoil. IV.D.7.c Relation to Land Use Planning Goals Deposition of spoil in areas designated for environmental preservation, particularly the mid-Bay marshlands, is clearly contrary to State policy. Some of the disposal sites currently used by the Corps were reclaimed from wetlands, but the capacity of existing areas is limited and similar sites for later use are not likely to be released by other federal agen- cies holding land along the River and Bay. Currently the cost of trans- porting spoil long distances to the open sea is considered prohibitive. Large spoil disposal beds in the tourist areas on the Atlantic Coast are unlikely to be acceptable either to tourist, fishing, or shellfishing interests.' This places a great premium on creative use of disposal sites. One possibility might be an artificial recrational island built behind dikes in some of the shallow water of the Bay. Another possib- ility might be use of the spoil for industrial development on subaqueous lands or degraded wetlands in the upper segment of the river and Bay. IV-94 IV.D.7.d Permits Required Spoil disposal requires a Corps permit, and federal and State environ- mental officials closely scrutinize the spoil disposal plan to deter- mine its affect on shellfish, fish, and water quality goals for subaqueous waters, as well as the effect on aquifers. A State sub- aqueous lands or wetlands permit will also be required, except for upland disposal sites. IV.D.7.e Conflict with Policies of Permitting Agencies As noted in the case of the Wilmington Port expansion plan, federal environmental agencies are opposed to any new filling of subaqueous land or wetlands, particularly if the ultimate purpose can be achieved without filling. Burden is placed upon any party proposing dredging and spoil disposal to minimize environmental damage and to prove conclusively that his project is inevitably water-related and cannot be accomplished on existing dry land. IV.D.7.f Overlapping Authorities The Corps is clearly the primary authority, with the commenting environ- mental agencies at the State and federal level establishing the limits on allowable spoil disposal. No agency is clearly chartered to harmonize the need for spoil disposal with development projects such as the expansion of the Port of Wilmington. IV.D.7.g Changes Necessary to Implement the Project Some fbrm of environmental zoning to permit greater environmental encroachment in the up-river zone designated for industrial development might provide greater opportunities for creative use of dredge spoil. The greatest need for maintenance dredging occurs in the industrialized portions of the river above New Castle, so location of spoil disposal/ development projects in this area would also minimize disposal costs. If an artificial island or other project on filled land appears feas- ible, the two States would have to consider which agency with financing capability would be designated to take responsibility for creation of this facility from dredge spoil. A contribution from the Corps of Engineers or the private dredger disposing of these spoils might be a partial source of funding for the development project. IV.D.8 Aquaculture IV.D.8.a Project Description Financial and technical assistance in bringing to commercial self- sufficiency the techniques for growing shellfish or fish under con- trolled conditions in the waters of the Bay has also been considered. Such a project might include venture capital, shore facilities, and allocation of appropriate sites to avoid conflicts with the natural IV-95 ecology. It could include provision of technical advice through the existing research programs at the University of Delaware (Marine Science complex at Lewes) and Rutgers University (Port Norris facilities). Shallow waters on both sides of the Bay could provideideal sites for this type of development. IV.D.8.b Jurisdiction to Operate Both Rutgers University and the University of Delaware, College of Marine Studies--are active in aquaculture research. The College of Marine Studies maintains a substantial research facility at Lewes. Rutgers has a smaller research operation at: Port Norris. Each State has traditionally regulated the catch of shellfish in Bay waters. This is done through the Division of Shell Fisheries in New Jersey's DEP and through the DNREC in Delaware. These agencies have controlled the take of oysters from Bay beds by establishing open seasons, catch limits, and other regulations. New Jersey has required return of a proportion of oyster shells to the beds so that new genera- tions of oysters will have a place to "set." While the growing on certain leased beds may be considered a form of aquaculture, supervising agencies have generally functioned in the same manner as a fish and game department setting regulations for the catch of wild creatures. b IV.D.8.c Relationship to Land Use Planning; Goals With proper environmental safeguards, almost any form of aquaculture in shallow waters in the central and lower Bay, would appear to be consis- tent with current State land use policies. Problems could be expected only,if the operation were so extensive as to damage the nature ecology or require the filling of land for shoreside support. IV.D.8.d Permits Required Under �318 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, aquaculture projects are subject to the requirements of' the NPDES program, which would be applied to some operations involving forced feeding or the discharge of heated or polluted waters. If' the operation involves enhanced production of species normally present in the Bay, such as oysters or crabs, special exceptions may be required to the regulations normally imposed upon the catch of these species. Use of the Bay bot- tom would require a subaqueous lands lease from the State controlling the bottom lands. Other marine permits would be required only if the aquaculture operation requires dredging or alteration of wetlands. If the aquaculture operation were of sufficient scale to require a major processing plant for the product, this plant would likely require a coastal facility siting permit and an NPDES permit of its own as well as a separate State discharge permit in New Jersey. IV-96 IV.D.8.e Conflict with Policies of Permitting Agencies Aquaculture operations should not conflict with permitting policies unless such operations threaten to harm water quality.and the existing ecology in the Bay or require shoreside facilities of sufficient mag- nitude to encroach upon wetlands or beaches. Fixed facilities such as tanks, piers, floats or other items would require a Corps permit, since they would be located in navigable waters, but if located in the large expanse of.shallow water and suitably marked with navigational warnings, there should be no objection to the placement of facilities in the.Bay. IV.D.8.f Overlapping Authorities Some problem can be anticipated if aquaculture operations develop on both sides of the Bay and are subject to different regulations from each State despite the similarity of the operation and the ecology of the Bay on each side of the ship channel. There is no competition at this time between public agencies who are prepared to go beyond the research stage in encouraging aquaculture development. If a public agency does move in to assist in this innovation, some conflict might occur between the agency encouraging development and agencies which currently regulate the natural production of the Bay. IV.D.8.g Changes Necessary to Implement the Project Each State bordering the Delaware Bay would have to answer three ques- tions before a more extensive aquaculture program were to proceed: 0 Does aquaculture have the potential for significant future development? 9 Is assistance in commercializing aquaculture research a proper role for State agencies? * What public or quasi-public agency is most appropriate to take the lead to expanding aquaculture on the Delaware Bay? IV.D.9 Comparison of Projects and Controlling Agencies The information presented in the discussion of each development project is summarized in Table IV-4. Each major State and federal agency in- volved in the approval of developments is listed. Significant permits issued by each agency are identified. If a P is shown in the column, the agency has permit authority, and approval of the permit is required before the project can proceed. An S indicates that the agency has secondary authority--to review and comment or coordinate the action of the other agencies--but does not actually issue a permit required for the development. An asterisk indicates that the agency may be involved depending on the site which is chosen for the project. The list does not include local approvals (zoning, sewerage) or approvals particular IV-97 Table IV-4 Agency Permit Authority DEVELOPMENT PROJECT New Cross Expansion of New Waterfront Dredge Bay Conventional Deepwater Fishing Port Recreation Spoil Bridge rorts Port Development Marinas Facilities Disposal Mariculture United States U.S. Army �10 - Rivers & Harbors Act P - inshore Corps of Engineers �104 Federal Water S P S - offshore P P P P Pollution Act U.S. Coast Guard Deepwater Ports Act P - offshore Bridges 33USCA491 P S S - inshore S S Dept. of Interior Fish & Wildlifd Service S S S S S S S S Dept. of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service S S S S S S S S Environmental Federal Water Pollution P-(N.J.)* S (right to P-(N.J.) Protection Agency Control Act-NPDES Permits S, S S S-(Del.) S S reject) S-(Del.) Delaware River Interstate Compact, Basin Commission** Approved by Congress S S P - inshore S S S P S State of New Jersey Department of Envi- ronmental Protection Division of Coastal Area Facilities P - inshore or P-depends on P-depends Marine Service Review Act (CAFRA) P P terminal size and on scope 10 00 facilities scope Wetlands Permit P** P** P*-shore facility P** P** P** P** Riparian Lands Act P P - inshore or P-dependss pipeline P P on scope P P Division of P/S-depends Water Resources Water Pollution Permit S S S P* S S-if dredging on size State of Delaware Office of Management P (except illegal P (if more Budget & Planning Coastal Zone Act Wilmington) 1,nshore than'dock Dept. of Natural Resources & Environ-. P-if connections mental Conservation Beach Erosion P** P** cross beach P** P** Wetlands Permit P** P** P-if connections cross wetlands P** P** P** P** Subaqueous Lands P P P-inshore or connections P P P** P** P State Pollution P/S-depends Discharge Permit P* on size *If processing plant discharge directly to water **Does not issue permit per se, but many large projects fall into categories requiring DRBC review and approval. to a single industry, such as those that would be associated with energy development. IV.E. IMPROVING INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION Common themes can be traced in the analysis of these eight possible development projects for Delaware Bay. While modification of State and federal policies to permit a particular development is beyond the scope of this study, some changes in agency charters, regulations, and opera- tional procedures may facilitate the development of projects which are consistent with the existing State and federal policies. Presented here are four changes in the institutional structure governing the Bay area which are suggested by the analysis of potential development proj- ects. IV.E.1 Closer Integration of Land Use Plans and Environmental Permits State an d federal agencies should consider modification of policies and review procedures to reflect land use priorities developed by each State. The preference for industrial development in populated areas--stated in New Jersey's Development Guide Plan and Delaware policy--also serves an important environmental goal: the preservation of.large areas.of virgin wetland along the shores of the Bay. By encouraging development in the industrialized northern sector of the DRBA region, these policies re- lieve the pressure to create new industries in the marshes in the center of the DRBA region. Unfortunately, most State and federal environmental policies have not been,fully meshed with these 'land use plans. The New Jersey State Coastal Zone Management Plan does handle the industrialized upper Dela- ware as a separate district, and the State Coastal Facility Review Act applies only to the coast downriver from Pennsville. In Delaware the Coastal Zone Act exempts the Port of Wilmington from its prohibition on bulk terminals in the coastal zone. Other important permits required for waterfront development do not so clearly differentiate between in- dustrialized and non-industrialized areas. Permits in this group include: � state wetland permits o state subaqueous lands (riparian) permits � federal dredge and fill permits (under �401 and �404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) A strong argument can be made that these permits should be "zoned" in their application, in the same way that coastal zone siting permits are zoned. The New Jersey Coastal Zone Plan has been prepared separately for the industrialized segments of the Delaware River and New York Harbor and Raritan Bay. To zone the application of marine permits does IV-99 not mean that environmental concerns would 'be abandoned, but rather that a different set of criteria would be applied to development proj- ects in industrial areas. A similar approach is taken with water quality standards, where effluents permitted in the'industrialized Delaware Valley would be prohibited in a trout stream or source of un- treated drinking water. An example of the problem is seen in the attempts by the Port of Wilmington.to create berths along the Delaware River on filled land. In addition to possible port growth, this project would provide a . useful spoil disposal area and ultimately reduce the need for dredging in the Christina River. In general, virgin wetland would not be affected. It appears that the Port of Wilmington may not have planned in advance for the necessary environmental studies. The application for the dredge and fill permit from the Corps is being resisted by EPA, .P the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice. Among the possible conditions that would be imposed on the Port- of Wilmington would be compensation or restoration of habitats already damaged in the Wilmington area. Projects which required waterfront space will be a necessary part of future growth in the Delaware Valley, even if this growth is much slower than the growth experienced in the last thirty years. Location of this development in the area north of the Delaware Memorial Bridge will serve State development policies (by concentrating growth where population and infrastructure are already located) and federal and State environmental policies (designed to preserve the virgin marshes of the Bay). If port developments and other developments requiring water access are to be located in the area above the Memorial Bridge, they should be encouraged by policies which modify the environmental barriers imposed lower in the Bay. The offices responsible for coastal zone planning in New Jersey and Del- aware could meet with each of the significant federal agencies (Corps of Engineers, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service) and with State officials responsible for marine-related permits (wetlands, subaqueous lands) to coordinate growth and environmental policies. The environmental agencies might produce a distinct set of criteria to be applied to permits in the industrialized areas; criteria which would provide assurances for significant environmental goals (maintenance and improvement of water quality, passage of anadromous fish, preservation of virgin wetlands) while reducing the requirements imposed on projects which reuse industrial waterfront land or concen- trate development without threatening fundamental environmental goals. The environmental agencies concerned now make some de facto adjustments in the criteria they apply to waterfront projects in developed areas; nevertheless, a review of the criteria applied to these permits, and a clear statement of future allowances to be made for waterfront projects in the growth area, could serve both growth and environmental protection policies in the Delaware River and Bay. IV-100 IV.E.2 Consolidation of State Permits for Waterfront Development Each State should consider consolidation of different programs con- trolling waterfront development into a single permit process. A single waterfront project could require the following state approvals: coast- al siting, wetlands, riparian (subaqueous lands), certification of federal dredge and fill permits, and beach erosion. All of these con- trols are designed to serve one broad purpose--the protection of the coastal environment. Because of the way in which the controls developed, with separate implementing statutes, the permits are currently adminis- tered as separate controls. New Jersey has improved coordination of these environmental permits; wetlands, riparian use, and coastal siting controls as well as tideland leases and coastal planning are all administered from the Division of Coastal Resources of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec- tion. A single Bureau of Coastal Project Review has authority over CAFRA, Wetlands and riparian permits. In Delaware, a single program director is responsible for the wetlands, and subaqueous land Acts. He has developed a working relationship with the beach erosion program which enables the dominant program to take the lead in examining a project which affects beaches and subaqueous lands- The Coastal Zone Act is administered separately, through the OMBP, which must defer to various branches of the DNREC for advice on the environ- mental effects of the proposed prdject. The 1978 Land Use Planning Act required the State to study the consolidation of permit processes, and such a study is now (Fall 1979) being funded through the Coastal Zone Management Program. Based upon legislative history, and recognizing the need to protect different elements in-the environment, the current mix of coastal pro- tection programs is understandable. Viewed from the standpoint of the developer, however, the different programs look like a deliberate attempt to complicate approval of a proposed project. A development project--a marina, fishing port, shorefront industry--will alter an identifiable piece of the coastal environment. Why cannot the developer obtain a single reading from the State on the acceptability of the proposed project or the conditions which the project must meet to pro- tect the environment? Why should not the State assume the responsibility of integrating the analysis of the project in conformance with the different environmental statutes affecting the coastal site and give the developer a single response? These questions lead to a suggestion for consideration by the States of Delaware and New Jersey. Can existing permit programs in the coastal zone (including State certification of Corps permits) be handled through a single application? Exceptions would be made for projects having c6n- tinuing air or water pollution discharges after construction is complet- ed. These projects would be required to separately obtain the same discharge permits required of any similar pollution source in the State. IV-101 A unified application process would apply in a specified zone--perhaps the areas used for federal coastal zone planning in New Jersey. In Delaware, the boundary would be somewhere inland of the current coastal, facility siting law boundary, but probably not including the whole State, which is included within the current federal Coastal Zone Manage- ment Plan. - waters within this area Anyone seeking to build or alter the land oi. could be required to file a preliminary pro-ect description with the State. Projects which are currently exempted from all coastal environ- mental controls could be clearly identified and listed, and notifica- tions would not be required from these projects. Based upon the description, the State could identify the permits required by the proj- ect. Information required to evaluate the project against criteria for each permit could be requested of the applicant in a single package. The State could be responsible for pulling together the analysis of the project by each permit program and giving the applicant a single notifi- cation of: e the reasons (under State law and regulation) why his project is unacceptable or o the environmental conditions which must be met if the project is to receive the necessary package of permits. Most of this "one-stop shopping" approach to coastal permits could be achieved administratively or through minor statute changes. A more significant set of statutory changes would be necessary to provide an integrated appeal if one or more permits are denied. Note, for instance, that'Delaware has separate appeal boards for Wetlands and Coastal Facil- ity Siting permits, and essentially no appeal short of the judiciary for denial of a subaqueous land permit. Unification of the coastal permit process does not mean that the develop- er will require only one permit. As noted, continuing air and water pollution discharges require separate permits--and, in New Jersey, fed- eral (NPDES) and State water pollution permit programs are still separately administered. Local zoning and development permits will still be required, often as a prerequisite for State permits. Permits from the Corps will be required for dredge and fill, dock and bulkhead activities, and the federal environmental agencies can be expected to continue a process of independent comment on these permits. However, inclusion of State certification of Corps permits in.a unified State coastal permit process would be a definite service to permit applicants. Those concerned with preserving the environment of the Bay may ask if this suggestion is "pro-development" or "anti-environment." It need not be on one or the other. In the short run, confusing permit processes may be a useful barrier to unwanted development. In the longer run, however, two effects set in: IV-102 � applicants become more sophisticated in dealing with the permit bureaucracy, and the best funded have the best chance of success (thus placing the emphasis on big developments) � confusion over the requirements of the permit process generates opposition to environmental programs among many who would approve, or at least accept, the basic environmental goals. Frustration over complicated procedures is a powerful weapon for those who seek to get environmental protection programs. Preferable to prolonged delay in the permit process is a clear-cut decision on a project incorporating all of a State's environmental con- straints. A denial, or a restrictive environmental condition, should be properly founded on State statutes and based upon clear and defen- sible environmental policies. If decisions are clearly written and properly supported, there is no reason for an environmentalist to fear such a unified coastal permit process. Both States have taken important steps toward improved management of coastal permit programs. New Jersey has introduced time limits for decisions on many coastal permits and issues a regular bulletin track- ing the progress of each application. Coastal permits are now combined in a single Bureau. Delaware is studying the permit process. There are several precedents which suggest the feasibility of this initiative. The Corps of Engineers has successfully consolidated proj- ect approvals under the Rivers and Harbors Act (�10) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (9404) into a single application process. The Deepwater Ports Act specifically designates the Deepwater Port and License application as a single application for all federal permits: the Coast Guard is charged with coordinating the response of other federal permit agencies. Delaware might benefit from consolidation of controls into a single coastal siting permit. New Jersey could simplify the application process still further by combining State certification of federal permits issued by the Corps of Engineers with processing of coastal permits required under State law. IV.E.3 Clarification of Port Jurisdictions if port development is to occur in Delaware Bay, the charters of the public agencies affected should be modified to clearly place responsib- ility for port development in a single agency. The State of New Jersey has chartered three agencies to develop port facilities on its side of the Delaware River and Bay. Only one of these agencies--the South Jersey Port Corporation--actually operates port facilities in New Jer- sey at this time. This Corporation is the only one of the three agencies which is entirely a creation of the State. Two agencies created by interstate compact--the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA) and the Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA)--are empowered by their charters IV-103 to develop and operate port facilities in the same areas as the South Jersey Port Corporation (SJPC). On the Delaware Bay, each of these three agencies is chartered to operate port facilities in Salem, Cumber.- land, and Cape May Counties. . . I The overlap issue may be moot if no port facJ'lities are to be developed on the New Jersey side below the Pennsylvania/Delaware line (although the DRPA, the SJPC, and the Philadelphia Port: Corporation overlap in the upper river). However, if facilities are to be developed by agen- cies of either Delaware or New Jersey at Wilmington, Lewes, or Cape.May --or if a grass roots port for public use is considered anywhere in the Delaware River and Bay--the overlap between the different authorities must be addressed. The two agencies which are actually running ports--the SJPC and the Philadelphia Port Corporation--have no other sources of revenue and receive annual State subsidies. The two agencies created by interstate compact--the DRPA and the DRBA--have other revenues from their bridge operations, but do not operate port facilities. The remaining publicly- owned port in the Delaware Valley--the Port of Wilmington--is a municipal agency which to date has received neither State subsidy nor the benefit of bridge revenues realized by the bi-state compact authorities. Unlike the bridges and other crossings, ports do not necessarily require interstate cooperation for development. Nevertheless, a coordinated interstate approach to port planning could reduce total public expendi- tures and permit the use of interstate bridge revenues to assist in port financing, thus reducing the need for direct tax subsidies. A tri-state Committee on Regional Development recommended combination of port and transport agencies in 1971. The recommendation was offered to enhance airport development (particularly expansion of Philadelphia Internation- al) and was never approved. An equal distribution of port benefits between the Delaware Valley ports may be hard to achieve and stands in the way of consolidation. Nevertheless, if -port development--for fish- ing, general cargo, bulk, or possibly even marinas--is contemplated by either New Jersey or Delaware, State officials should review the charters of existing public authorities and cooperatively decide which agency is to take the lead in such development. If an interstate agency currently designated for port development is not to take the lead in building or expanding port facilities, perhaps the language of the compact should be modified to remove this responsibility from the agency's charter.1 1Interstate authorities often have extremely broad purposes--exceeding the current intentions of the signatory States--in order to avoid the necessity for future Congressional approval of an expanded mandate for the interstate agency. IV-104 IV.E.4 A Planning and Development Agency for the Delaware River and Bay Designate a public agency to conduct the preliminary economic and environmental planning for projects desired by both States in the Dela- ware Bay area. Throughout this study, we ha-M noted a number of clear parallels on the New Jersey and Delaware sides of the River and Bay: e geography--on each side, the developed higher land to the north quickly gives way.to a broad expanse of un- developed marsh and shallow water in the center of the Bay. At the southern end, the sandy'beaches of the Atlantic Coast are very similar at Capes May and Hen- lopen. o development--intensive industrial development in the north; farming, fishing and a slower paced rural econ- omy at the center of the Bay; fast growing recreation and tourism in the south. The pattern is strikingly similar in each State. e growth policy--each State seeks to concentrate future industrial and population growth at the northern end of the region. o environmental policy--each State seeks to preserve the fringing wetlands of the Bay in a natural state and prevent excessive development which would destroy the quality of recreational opportunities along the Atlan- tic Coast. Despite these parallels within each State, there is no interstate agency currently planning for the future of the Bay. All planning below New Castle and Salem Counties is done at the county or State, not the regional level. Coordinated Bay region planning might ease come current ten- sions, such as the anxiety expressed by Salem County officials over differential treatment of potential developments by the coastal zone plans of New Jersey and Delaware which govern a single waterfront proj- ect along the shoreline where the Delaware state boundary extends to the New Jersey side of the river. Perhaps more notable than the lack of a single Bay area planning agency is the lack of any suitable agency to guide necessary and desirable developments in the Bay area. Environmental constraints appear to have discouraged private entrepreneurs from the development of projects for which there is a demonstrable need--such as marinas. State agencies are understandably reluctant to spend public money on such projects when a private market should exist. But the necessary environmental planning, the long lead time, and the need to be flexible in locating a project where it will have minimal environmental effects still discourages private entrepreneurs. IV-105 Perhaps there is another approach to those developments which will meet public needs and preserve and emphasize the importance of the Bay environmeni. An interstate agency, or cooperative committee of State officials, could develop an agreed.list of priority projects for the Delaware Bay. Working from this list of needs, this agency or commit- tee could meet with federal and State environmental officials to iden- tify the scope and site for such projects which would minimize undesirable environmental effects. This agency would then proceed to acquire the necessary sites and permits for development. If develop- ment by a public agency were clearly in the public interest, the project would be assigned to a State or interstate agency with the necessary financial capacity. If development by private capital were feasible, a private entrepreneur would be franchised to develop the project in strict compliance with the conditions of the environmental permits. The uncertainties for the private investor would be greatly reduced by the planning and permit negotiations already completed by the public agency or committee. This model of a cooperative public-private development has traditionally been applied to large capital intensive projects (such as an airport) or to the renewal of urban areas (redevelopment authorities). Application to smaller scale projects designed to harmonize with the environment is a newer idea, but its time may have arrived on Delaware Bay, as the public accepts the policy direction established by each State in pre- serving the Bay and its wetlands. To achieve the public benefits from the preservation of the Bay, it may be desirable to designate a single public agency to plan, obtain permits for, and develop where necessary the smaller scale projects such as marinas, fishing ports, or aquacul- ture which complement the new emphasis on preservation of the Bay. imaryland and Virginia signed a formal agreement in 1979 specifying procedures for cooperation on Chesapeake Bay problems between the environmental agencies of the two States. IV-106 V. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS AND CONCE PTS Chapter I presented a broad range of background information on the Dela- ware River and Bay Region and outlined in general terms the types of development which have present and possibly future potentials for the' area. Chapters II and III examined the transportation systems of the Region and the basic need for additional crossings. Chapter IV examined the regulatory and other governmental agencies with responsibilities in the Study Region. This chapter builds on the foregoing work to identify and assess development potentials and concepts which could be appropri- ate for the Region and should be subsequently addressed in further de- tail. The specific development potentials and concepts presented here are: 0 Fixed crossings of the Delaware Bay; * Conventional port development; e Deepwater port development; * Fishing port development and commercial fisheries; e Recreational boating marinas; Aquaculture; Other shoreline development potentials; and, Delaware Bay-oriented bi-state planning and development functions. The purpose of discussions and findings contained here is to outline needs in the Region which are not necessarily, at this time, being fully addressed by any responsible agencies or interests. These regional needs may be of a physical economic, regulatory or other institutional nature. It is not necessary, of course, that these needs be addressed by the Delaware River and Bay Authority, although its broad mandate, financial resources, and bi-state focus could make its involvement appropriate if done in a manner consistent with State policies. To make the discussions of development potentials and concepts as useful as possible and fulfill the above noted purpose, the following consider- ations are addressed: development potentials and needs, locational con- siderations of significance, existing public policies affecting possible decisions in each area, and the institutional environment that will af- fect development proposals. V-1 Three points are pertinent to the potentials and concepts discussed:- There are no specific recommendations; in this,chapter; only the identification of potentials; which appear to be consistent with overall policies of the States of New Jersey and Delaware and are clearly worthy of fur- ther study. Throughout the study and in the formulation of the development -potentials and concepts there is a full recognition of the existing activities in the River and Bay Region and a full appreciation of the need to maintain and enhance these activities.. e The development potentials and concepts identified and proposals forwarded with respect to their implementa- tion are set forth within the context. of established coastal zone management plans and other land use ordi- nances, policies and regulations of the States of Delaware and New Jersey. V.A CROSSINGS A water crossing and most other types of major highway improvement may be found feasible or attractive for any of three general reasons. First, it may provide needed additional traffic carrying capacity. Second, it:' may provide a new route which reduces the travel time (and cost) of many potential users with respect to existing; alternative longer rout- ings. Third, it may stimulate desired economic development with resulting benefits to the areas made more accessible by the improvement. Section V.A.1 outlines traffic aspects of general crossings locations which could conceivably be practical based upon traffic volumes and travel time savings. Section V.A.2 describes the study approach re- quired to ascertain the magnitude of the economic benefits which might result from the construction of a Bay crossing. Section V.A.3 briefly outlines bridge location and cost factors 'of interest,* since economic and other benefits which may be realized front the construction of a crossing must be weighed against these costs and environmental and other impacts associated with the construction and operation of the facility. V.A.1 Locations of Possible Crossings There are many possible locations for an additional crossing, but the :most likely would be: in the area of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, roughly midway between that Bridge and Capes May and Henlopen, and at the mouth of the Bay in the area of the Cape May-Lewes ferry, replacing the ferry. V-2 The first location is totally infeasible on all three of the above counts: there is no need for added capacity in the area of the Delaware Memorial Bridge; there will not be any significant travel time or ser--@ vice improvements for most trips across the River or Bay; and such a crossing would not stimulate further development in the area. The second and third locations would provide additional localized crossing capacity, would provide improved travel times for some trips and might,, as discussed below, stimulate development in those areas. V.A.l.a Mid-Bay Crossing In 1962 and 1963, Arthur D. Little, Inc., conducted an economic impact study of the proposed Delaware Bay Crossing between Cumberland County, New Jersey and Kent County, Delaware. Major conclusions were: 9 The transportation cost savings of highway freight ship- ments in Southern New Jersey would be insufficient to cause any revision in motor carrier rate structures. These savings would also be insufficient to stimulate any significant degree of industrial expansion in, Southern New Jersey. * There would be no measurable employment benefits other than those of the bridge operation itself. * The proposed Bridge would be flanked by two major north- south routes and would function mainly to interconnect two similar, competitive and sparsely populated penin- sular economies. It would not likely become an essential north-south highway link. In 1969 a traffic study was performed by Coverdale & Colpitts for a similar crossing between these two counties. Major conclusions were: 9 The larger traffic movement using the Delaware Memorial Bridge, about 63% of the bridge traffic, is not potential to the proposed bridge. These are the trips between Baltimore or Wilmington and the New York Metropolitan Area. 0 Trips between the Delmarva Peninsula and the New York Metropolitan Area., long distance trips between Virginia, the Carolinas and points south to New York and New Eng- land, and other local trips (37% of the bridge traffic) may be potential users of the proposed bridge. * Of the potential traffic about two-thirds would use the proposed bridge. This represented 25% of the Delaware Memorial Bridge traffic. V-3 About 21% of the trips on the Delaware Memorial Bridge would eventually divert to other facilities such as 1-951495 and the Commodore Barry Bridge. Although these trips have no bearing on the proposed new bridge, they represent a loss to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Some of this diversion to other facilities occurred in 1974 upon the opening of the Commodore Barry bridge, as men- tioned in Chapter II-C. About 25% of. the Cape May-Lewes Fern, traffic would be diverted to the proposed bridge. The proposed bridge, if provided with connecting toll- free highways, might have carried about 4.6 million vehicles in 1975 and produced $3,000,000 in toll reve- nues. However, almost all of this toll revenue would not be new revenue to the Authority since almost all the traffic would be diverted from existing Delaware River and Bay Authority-operated crossings. After deducting maintenance and operating expenses, the net revenue would be so small that the proposed bridge 'could not support a significant sum of revenue bond debt. The traffic estimates in the 1969 study relied heavily on the completion of adequate connecting roads in Delaware and New Jersey. The major New. Jersey connecting road was to be a toll-free expressway-type highway extending from the bridge northward across central Mew Jersey, running almost parallel to the New Jersey Turnpike, and connecting with the Turn- pike in the area of Woodbridge, Mew Jersey. Since then the State of Mew Jersey has reduced considerably its program of new highway construction and does not include this expressway in any future plans. Major cost as well as environmental considerations further reduce the possibility of such a highway connection. Under these circumstances traffic using a Mid-Bay crossing might only be of the order of two and one-half million vehicles per year. Because of the lack of connecting highways, lower traffic growth at the Delaware Memorial Bridge and other crossings than forecast in "pre-energy crisis" times, and the availability of other crossings to serve major movements efficiently, a Mid-Bay crossing cannot be justified on the basis of traffic volumes, economic development impacts or travel time gains. V.A.l.b Mouth-of-Bay Crossing This crossing would be in the general area of the Cape May-Lewes Ferry. Such a crossing would replace the existing ferry and would carry addi- tional traffic diverted from the Delaware Memorial Bridge and possibly other crossings as well as traffic induced or generated by the existence of the new facility. However, the diversion from the Delaware Memorial' Bridge of possibly three million vehicles per year would be less than V-4 that estimated for the Mid-Bay crossing, and virtually none of this traf- fic would represent added revenue to the Authority. The crossing at this location thus would have to depend on large volumes of generated traffic, since ferry traffic has only amounted to somewhat over 200,000 vehicles per year. The amount of generated traffic developed by a new crossing or highway facility may vary widely, ranging from 10% to 20% of the traffic volumes diverted to the new facility to over 100%. Among the factors determin- ing generated traffic levels are the types and intensities of land use and economic development in the areas served by the new crossing and whether there is a significant potential for increased or induced eco- nomic growth. With respect to a "mouth-of-Bay" crossing and the order of magnitude of the generated traffic which may utilize such a facility, the following considerations apply: 9 the resort areas on both sides of the Bay have similar land use and traffic generation characteristics -- thus the nat- ural traffic interchange which might ensue if such uses were complementary (i.e., one heavily year-round residential-and the other oriented towards industry or other employers) will not occur to any appreciable extent. 0 the potential for induced economic growth on both sides of the Bay is constrained by existing, often intensive, resort development, natural preserves and environmentally sensitive areas, and zoning, coastal zone management and other insti- tutional prohibitions; 0 overall levels of existing development intensity are not of a type oi magnitude to produce substantial volumes of auto trips on a per-square-mile basis because of the acreage de- voted to conservation and wetlands and the lack of signifi- cant urbanized areas; - 9 the lack of traffic-carrying capacity during peak periods on the Garden State Parkway and Routes 18, 28 and 13 (U.S.) south through Delaware and the Delmarva Peninsula will substantially constrain generated and other traffic volumes potential to a mouth-of-Bay crossing; while the New Jersey Highway Authority has plans to increase the capacity of the GSP in Cape May County, limited peak hour capacity to the north and in Delaware will probably prevail for an extended period of time; * the traffic generated by the Atlantic City casinos is sub- stantial; however, as depicted in Chapters I and II, the bulk of it, quite understandably is travelling to and from the heavily populated urban areas such as Philadelphia, New York and Baltimore; a mouth-of-Bay crossing would not lie on V-5 any of the routes connecting Atlantic City with major urban- ized areas within reasonable auto-travel distance; and much of the traffic generated'by the shore areas which would be most directly served by a mouth-of-Bay crossing are of an extremely seasonal nature; thus while hourly and daily traf- fic volumes may be high and require high capacity roadways to properly handle them during the recreation/resort season, average annual volumes and toll revenues would not be compar- able to these seasonal levels. Due to the foregoing considerations, it is highly unlikely that gener- ated traffic attracted to a mough-of-Bay crossing will amount to more than 10% to 30% of the diverted traffic which might use the facility. Thus the total traffic potential to a crossing at the mouth of the Bay, diverted and generated traffic and that now using the ferry, will not justify a bridge. V.A.2 Regional Economic Analysis of Development Potential While traffic projections and related considerations do not justify a major crossing, it is possible that such a facility could produce suf- ficient economic growth and benefits, such as additional income and employment, to merit closer investigation of the nature and magnitude of such broad economic benefits. The specific objective of such a study would be the determination of the gross and net regional economic growth and development attributable to a crossing and the consideration of the crossing facility as both a public capital/operating investment and as a change in the region's transportation cost/access structure. The economic growth and development analyzed may be measured in terms of sales, employment, housing, transportation costs, population, income, and new business investment. It is essential that both gross and net concepts be addressed, since a portion of the economic growth attribu- table to the crossing facility will be attracted from other parts of the region and only part will be new economic growth. Our review of the economies of the coastal subregions of Delaware and Southern New Jersey indicates that these economies are similar, with no significant net economic impact due to local savings in travel time and cost. Evaluations of longer distance transportation cost savings also point to relatively minor savings not sufficient to generate substantial net economic gains for the region. However, longer term growth rates for the surrounding counties could be affected and there would also be significant local effects due to a new bridge. Should these appear to warrant more detailed assessment and be mandated by political decisions, then the study of broad secondary benefits resulting from a crossing would be appropriate. A variety of analytical techniques could be employed to estimate the magnitude, location and components of economic growth and development V-6 referred to above. These may include regional economic time series analyses, together with National and possibly regional input/output models, so that dollar flows may be traced among the various economic activity sectors included in the input/output matrix. Such matrices generally include sector detail for government, trade, services and manufacturing for given levels of regional output. A study of this nature could produce the following specific outputs which would permit the overall economic benefits, direct and indirect costs, and economic.impacts attributable to a crossing to be ascertained and judgments as to whether net benefits justify project development: 0 methods by which public investment may be utilized to promote different kinds of economic development; 0 the effect on various economic sectors of the improved access provided by the proposed crossing; * analyses and estimates of the gains in output, income and employment in key economic sectors, including tour- ism, and of changes in population, housing and income for geographic areas in time-periods; 0 changes in State and local income, sales and property tax revenues which may be anticipated as a result of crossing; change in tax revenues over the forecast period will also provide an indicator of the importance of the proposed regional public investment per se; and, 9 the overall cost effectiveness and economic feasibility of the crossing, considering and comparing bridge con- struction and maintenance costs and infrastructure and other community costs with the net regional economic gains developed. V.A.3 Bridge Location and Cost Factors As a rough indicator of the magnitude of economic benefits which must be realized to justify costs of a fixed crossing at the mouth of the Bay, an order-of-magnitude construction cost estimate was developed. One alignment would be to have bridgeheads at Cape May Point at the north end and in the vicinity of the western boundary of Cape Henlopen State Park at the southerly terminus. The north approach would have an alignment curving to the west and north of the built-up portions of Cape May itself and would connect to the south end of the Garden State Parkway. The south approach would extend from the bridgehead to U.S. Route 9 and State Route 14. The horizontal alignment of the bridge structure would have a south- westerly bearing from Cape May Point over the Cape Nay Channel to the V-7 area of Middle Shoal. It would then curve to a more southerly bearing in the area of the Overfalls Shoal to take advantage of the lesser water depths'there and then bear southwesterly again over the Pilot Area. This alignment would then cros 'a the Cape Henlopen spit about a half mile south of its point and extend over the easternmost portion of Lewes Harbor to the landfall or.bridgehead location. The vertical alignment would include a clearance of about 175 feet over the main deep-draft navigation channels near the Pilot Area as well as a high level crossing of the Cape May Channel. Over the shoals low- level trestle construction with clearances of the order of twenty-five feet may be practical. Transition sections at an appropriate highway grade would be utilized between high- and low-level bridge sections. The low-level trestle could consist of 100-foot span lengths using repe- titive design and construction methods. Transition and high-level spans other than main spans could be of girder or truss design with spans in the 300-foot to 500-foot range. The main span over the deep-draft water- way would have to be a suspension span, in all likelihood, to obtain a safe horizontal clearance for that heavily travelled channel, the char- acter of its vessel traffic, and adverse weather conditions. The main span over the Cape May Channel could be of a cantilevered truss or cable-stayed girder design. Approximate lengths for the various types of bridge construction could be as follows: Low-level trestle construction 6.2 miles Transition sections 3.2 High-level spans (including main spans) 4.4 Approach roadways 7.7 21.5 miles Detailed engineering studies considering-SUCIL.factors as soil conditions, alternative foundation and pier designs andcosts, alternative super- structure types and costs, advanced construction techniques, and environ- mental effects would undoubtedly modify the foregoing preliminary bridge description somewhat -- as well as the costs noted subsequently -- and could find that a tunnel under the Pilot Area was a viable alternative. The cost of the bridge crossing outlined above with four lanes and in- cluding approaches would be of the order of $650 million in 1979 dollars. Assuming an average annual long-term construction cost escalation factor of 6 1/2%, the cost of the crossing would be roughly $950 million in 1985 and $1.3 billion in 1990. Were a two-lane crossing constructed, these costs could be reduced by about 20% to $750 million and $1.0 bil- lion, respectively. V.A.4 Ferry Service The financial non-viability of another bridge: across the Delaware Bay seems clear. However, ferry service is practical, is in operation, and is capable of providing expanded service as this becomes warranted. v-8 This section outlines present services offered by the Cape May-Lewes Ferry; basic characteristics of the transportation demand it serves; present plans to increase its traffic-carrying capacity; and further capacity improvements which could be implemented with respect to the Ferry operation. The Cape May-Lewes Ferry has until recently consistently maintained a. volume of 400 to 450 vehicles per day since the beginning of its oper- ation in 1964. Even after numerous toll increases were instituted, the' volumes of passenger 's and vehicles remained fairly constant until 1978 when an increase of 20% in vehicles and 10% in passengers was recorded. As described in Chapter II, the volumes of passengers and vehicles using the ferry are estimated to increase to 676,000 and 281,000, respectively, by 1983, representing increases of 13.9% and 22.7% over the 1979 volumes. It is most likely that the seasonality of the traffic will remain un- changed and that summer traffic in 1983 will be about 2,000 vehicles per day on the ferry with peak days during weekends reaching approxi- mately 2,400 vehicles. The annual average daily traffic in 1983 will be 770 vehicles per day. Recent summer volumes are 1,500 vehicles per day with peaks of 1,800 vehicles per day, and the annual average daily traffic is 580 vehicles per day. These annual average daily traffic volumes, summer average daily volumes, and average peak day volumes and their relationships to each other indicate the degree of seasonality of the traffic. Average peak day volumes are more than three times the annual average daily volumes and an average day in the summer is about two and a half times the annual average day. The months of July and August carry more than 40% of the total traffic for the year. These seasonal characteristics are also evident at other toll facilities along the shore areas of New Jersey. In particular, the Atlantic City Expressway and the southern portion of the Garden State Parkway have almost identical seasonal variations. The peak hours during July and August at the Atlantic City Expresswayand at the Garden State Parkway (southern section) are almost as high as the average daily traffic in the winter months of January and February, with the average daily traf- fic in the winter only 13% higher than the peak hour summer traffic. As noted, a fourth vessel will increase.capacity of the ferries and re- duce headways to less than one hour during peak summer months. With present schedules and capacities of 100 vehicles, peak hour volumes cannot exceed 200 vehicles, and peak traffic is about 2,000 vehicles per day (in the summer). The additional ferry will provide for peak flows of about 260 vehicles per hour, depending on vessel speeds, and shorter headways at peak hours of approximately 45 to 50 minutes. If the seasonality of the traffic remains unchanged, the fourth boat will provide the capacity needed for the traffic estimated through the mid-1980's and will handle peak flows of about 260 vehicles per hour with peak days of 2,600 to 2,700 vehicles. Annual average daily traffic corresponding to these conditions could be about 840 vehicles per day. V-9 The addition of two or more vessels for a total of six vessels would increase hourly capacity to between 350 and 370 vehicles with compar- able peak daily volumes being between 3,700 and 3,800 vehicles. This' would provide capacity through the later 1980's, based on a growth of 8% per year. However, if most of the increase is due to greater activity in Atlantic city, it is likely that the seasonal variations will not be as pronounced as at present. Traffic increases resulting from increased casino gambl- ing in Atlantic City have been higher percentage-wise during the winter months than during the summer months.1 Future increases will thus tend to reduce the extreme differences in volumes.betweensummer and winter, and this may reduce the need for additional -vessels to handle the pro- jected growth through the late 1980's and the 1990's. Also, by that time, faster vessels which could decrease the present 70-minute cross- ing time and which probably will have higher per ferry capacities may provide the added service required. Extending operations through . earlier morning and later evening hours and ultimately to 24-hour ser- vice may further increase the daily capacity of the ferry service. By comparison, the Chesapeake Bay Ferries, which provided a north-south- crossing between Norfolk, Virginia and the Delaware Peninsula, operated .six vessels until June 1964 with a total of '90 crossings from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Minimum headways were 36 minutes, with crossing times of 85 minutes for the 21-mile crossing. These shir carried an annual average daily traffic of 1,900 vehicles in 119W when the Bridge and Tunnel District was issuing bonds for the purpose of financing the con- struction of a bridge-tunnel vehicular crossing of the lower Chesapeake Bay. As indicated above, when the annual average daily traffic across the lower Chesapeake Bay approximated 2,000 vehicles per day, the Chesa- peake Bridge and Tunnel District initiated the construction of a fixed crossing. The Official 8tatement for the sale of bonds for the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Crossing estimated traffic volumes of 5,027 vehicles per day for the first full year of operation in .1964 as compared to an estimated 2,189 vehicles per day for the last year of operation of the Ferries in 1963. It was thus estimated that the bridge-tunnel crossing would carry more than double the traffic carried by the ferries. How- ever, as of 1978, fourteen years after the opening of the Bridge-Tunnel, 1URS/Coverdale & Colpitts Letter Report to New Jersey Expressway Authority, February 20, 1979. 2official Statement of the Chesapeake Bay bridge and Tunnel District dated July 1, 1960. V-10 annual average daily traffic was only 4,859 vehicles per day,l still less than the traffic projected for the first year of operation. The volumes of 3,500 to 3,700 vehicl6s per day which Are estimated for the Cape May-Lewes Ferry for the late 1980's or early 1990's are the peak summer flows. Annual average daily volumes corresponding to this summer traffic would be about 1,150 to 1,200 vehicles per day, well below the 2,200 vehicles per day carried by the Chesapeake Ferries when they.were replaced by the Bridge-Tunnel. Annual average daily traffic in excess of 2,200 may not be reached at the Cape May-Lewes Ferry until. after the year 2000. By then, there undoubtedly will be significant changes in motor vehicle usage, fuel costs and vehicle and ferry char- acteristics which will require the complete re-examination of the feasi- bility of both expanded ferry service and a fixed crossing. A final consideration is the use of advanced design vessels, such as hovercrafts and surface effect ships, as ferries. A study sponsored by the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission in May, 1976, entitled Long Island Sound Ferry Study - Technical Supplement, explored the costs and performance of various types of ferry vessels. These costs, capacities, and other pertinent information are listed in Table V-1. This table provides.a useful comparison for present study purposes of conventional.: and advanced design vessels. The surface effect ships and hovercrafts are advanced design vessels that use low pressure air generated beneath the ship to lift it above the water surface. These ships are able to attain high speeds as they ride above the water on a "cushion" of air. The main difference between these two vessels is the type of skirt which surrounds the lox4er portion of the craft. On a hovercraft the entire skirt is flexible (bendable), thus enabling the vessel to run up over land. The skirt on a surface effect ship, however, is inflexible on the sides and cannot be run up over land. An interesting aspect of the hovercraft is that they can readily oper- ate over certain types of ice conditions. If substantial benefits are anticipated from the establishment of ferry service which would not be interrupted during periods of ice flows and build-up in the Delaware Bay, then the use of such vessels should be investigated. . Although hovercraft and surface effect ships cost more per auto to oper- ate than conventional ferries, they are significantly faster. Depending on the vessel, these ships can cruise at speeds 2 to 4 times greater than conventional ferries. This fact might make this type of vessel more attractive to a prospective patron even though the ferry cost charged to him might be higher. lAnnual Report, Commonwealth of Virginia, Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District, Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1978. V-11 Table V-1. Comparison of Conventional & Advanced Design Ferry Vessels Capacity Cruising Cost per Cost per Turnaround Capital per vessel Speed Hour Under Operating Time Cost (autos) (knots)_ Way ($)(A) Hour ($)(B) -(Min.) ($ 000) 200 Vehicle Displacement 200 20 213 185 20 150200 (Double Ended) 100 Vehicle Displacement 100 17 80 120 25 7,480 Used Steam 100 14 80 120 30 1,500 (Diesel Conversion) 50 Vehicle 'T Boat' 50 15 31 64 20 19375 Surface Effect Ship 40 40 540 135 20 10,700 Hovercraft (SRN4) 30 60 530 170 20 159400 (A) - Cost includes cruise fuel (not including auxiliary fuel) and maintenance. (B) - Cost includes crew; scheduled maintenance; fuel for lights, ventilation, etc. Source: Long Island Sound Ferry Study Technical Supplement, Tri-State Planning Commission; 'Ray 1976. Considering the information presented in Table V-1, estimates of cross- ing times, the number of crossings during a peak period which each type of vessel could make, and ferry costs per vehicle transported, the rela- tive cost-effectiveness of the various ferry vessel types was assessed. This evaluation indicated that hovercraft and surface effect ships were roughly two to three times less cost-effective than conventional dis- placement ferry vessels of a 100 to 200 vehicle capacity. This lack of economy with respect to conventional vessels would be miti- gated somewhat by th *e increased attractiveness to prospective users' noted above; further technological developments may also make advanced design vessels more cost-competitive. At this time, however, there is only rather limited justification for their consideration. V.A.5 Existing Public Policy and the Institutional Environment Construction of a fixed crossing below the Delaware Memorial Bridge appears to be inconsistent with existing development plans in both Dela- ware and New Jersey. opposition from existing State governments is likely, particularly if State funds would be necessary tosubsidize the difference between costs and toll revenues. The government of Delaware is encouraging industrial expansion in the Wilmington area, where popu-@- lation and infrastructure already exist, and is unlikely to commit large amounts of State funds to a bridge which might divert industry from the northern part of the State. In New Jersey, the Delaware Bay Shore coun- ties (Cape May, Cumberland, Salem) have been designated as moderate growth areas, except for development areas at Cape May Airport, and around the cities of Salem, Millville, Vineland and Bridgeton. Areas that are not designated as development areas receive a low priority for State infrastructure investment, State policy encourages preservation of agricultural land and wetlands in the Delaware Bay counties, and development pressure from a new bridge could imperil the preservation of these areas. Local support for a fixed crossing of the Bay is mixed. In Susses County there is very little active support for a bridge from local leaders. Some officials interviewed, such as the Mayor of Rehoboth Beach, are actively opposed to any investment, such as a bridge, which would accel- erate the pace of development along the Sussex County shore. In Cape May County, several business and civil leaders interviewed actively supported the construction of a bridge to encourage economic develop- ment, although other officials displayed no active interest in the pro- posal. Expansion of the existing ferry service to meet additional traffic demands is clearly consistent with State development policies and local interests. Improved ferry service would facilitate gradual growth in Cape May and Sussex Counties, but would not require significant State subsidies, and would not threaten communities such as Rehoboth Beach which are trying to preserve their existing character. V-13 While additional ferry service would not require any new permits unless terminals are expanded at Cape May and Lewes, a bridge would require a bridge construction permit (issued by the U.S. Coast Guard), State sub- aqueous land permits, and dredge and 'fill permits f6r,bridge approach roads (issued by the Corps of Engineers). In New Jersey, the approach roads would require a coastal facility siting permit. While a coastal siting -permit would not be required in Delaware, an alignment across the Cape Henlopen split would require a beach ero- sion permit from the State. Depending on the exact route, wetlands.per- mits would likely be required in one or both States. Whether or not federal highway funds are used to build such a bridge, the federal permits required by a project of this magnitude will require a full environmental impact statement. A comparable multi-agency review will be conducted in New Jersey. Issues of particular concern include effect on safety of shipping in the channel (including any resulting increased risk of oil spills), effect on shellfish beds and fish spawnin .g grounds (the bridge alignment must avoid any significant areas), destruc- tion of wetlands by bridge construction, induced pressures for develop- ment of coastal wetlands, and effect of increased traffic volume on air quality in shore resorts during peak summer weekends. If State policy in New Jersey and Delaware were to favor bridge construc- tion, environmentally sensitive design could minimize many of the risks evaluated in the environmental impact statement. At present, State development policies and environmental concerns both tend to support expansion of the ferry service rather than construction of a fixed cross- ing. V.A.6 Role of the DRBA If a study of the economic development impact: of a fixed crossing is deemed desirable by the States of Delaware and New Jersey, the Delaware River and Bay Authority is the appropriate*agency to conduct such a study because it is chartered for the "pl nning, financing., development ... I and operation" of crossings of the Delaware flay. Expansion of the exist- ing Cape May-Lewes Ferry is also a DRBA responsibility. V.B CARGO PORT DEVELOPMENT This report has analyzed past cargo movements in waterborne commerce, considered likely future trends, examined port capacities at the major ports of Wilmington, Camden and Philadelphia, and reviewed future expan- sion plans for these ports. Summarized below are planned improvements and assessments of the future adequacy of existing and planned port facilities. Also discussed are other development concepts for port- related activities in the region. *emphasis added. V-14 V.B.1 Planned Improvements V.B.l.a Port of Wilmington Present plans for expansion of this port as recently studied by the firm of Frederic R. Harris, Inc. include the installation of a multiple pur- pose bulk materials and container handling crane with attendant upland impr-ovements intended to develop container traffic and substantially ex- pand bulk cargo activities. This first phase expansion, estimated at approximately $5.4 million, would be fo llowed by further expansion,of facilities, including possible berth development parallel to the Dela- ware River, at costs estimated at $12 million and $18 million, depending upon the Alternatives selected. This program is intended to signifi- cantly increase the Port of Wilmington's share of the maritime commerce market in the Delaware River and Bay Area. V.B.I.b Philadelphia A report of the consulting firm of Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton completed in 1978 on Philadelphia port facilities concluded that the principal development need of the port is additional container handling capacity of some 1.4 million tons annually by 1990 and recommended that such capacity could be provided most economically through further devel- opment of the existing Tioga and Packer terminals. Estimated costs for such expansion, to take place subsequent to 1984, would be of the order of $22.4 million. The report also noted the possible need for an addi- tional container terminal after 1990, depending upon traffic growth. Estimated construction costs for that facility, exclusive of land acqui- sition, were $45 million. V.B.I.c Camden The principal port facilities at Camden are owned or operated by the South Jersey Port Corporation (SJPC). The maritime commerce volume at' this location has increased to the point where SJPC facilities are oper- ating above theoretical maximum capacity. To accommodate both this demand and forecasted tonnage, SJPC has proposed an expansion program of approximately $12 million which will extend berthing areas, expand upland storage and provide a modern multiple purpose crane. An initial portion of this program was completed earlier this year. V.B.2 Future-Adequacy of Existing and Planned Facilities In our analysis, attention has been focused on conventional general cargo and container shipments with some discussion of bulk and similar special- ized commodities. While crude oil and petroleum products have been and will remain the most important commodities in the Delaware River and Bay Region, these commodities are handled by the major oil companies which are capable, in terms of planning, engineering and financing, of develop- ing the facilities necessary for their continuing operations. It there- fore is most likely that the companies concerned will continue to provide V-15 facilities adequate for the handling of bulk petroleum. Similarly in the case of other bulk commodities, private interests are generally capable of developing the particular or'unique facilities required for their . I movement. However, public bodies may.play important roles, catalytic and financial, in encouraging bulk and other cargo movements which stimulate port activity and confer derivative economic benefits. Other general points related to the overall assessment of the adequacy of Delaware Region's ports are the need to address long-term trends rather than short@-term commerce flow variations and the strong interrelationships between the ports of the Region. With respect to the first point, yearly variations in tonnage movements have often been greater in magnitude than the expected annual increase in tonnage based, on a longer term growth trend. Thus the capacity of a particular port, which might be deemed adequate on a long-term trend basis, could become strained in one or more years.because of abnormally high activity in those years. (Conversely, there are periods of significant under-utilization.) Regarding the second point, in actuality if not in form or organization, the major general cargo ports of Wilmington, Camden and Philadelphia together form a 11port complex" which provides more flexibility than is immediately apparent when only the capacities of the individual ports are considered. In the analysis of cargo activity at Wilmington, it was pointed out that many of the commodities handled there were also handled at Camden and/or Philadelphia. While one port may be preferred for one reason or another, it is apparent that there are opportunities for significant diversions within the "complex" as well as considerable capacity to handle periods of abnormally high activity. V.B.2.a Factors Affecting Adequacy Port facilities may be considered to be "adequate" when both their over- all cargo handling capacity and the type and condition of the specific facilities provided are sufficient to efficiently accommodate the amount and nature of forecasted commerce. The principal factors adversely af- fecting adequacy are physical deterioration, technical/economic obsoles- cence, lack of proper handling equipment, lack of suitable access, and insufficient vessel berthing space and cargo storage areas. In many instances these specific limitations overlap; a technically obsolete or redundant pier may be allowed to succumb to physical deterioration since the reasonably expected activity does not justify increased maintenance costs. In making appraisals of both present and future adequacy, this report uses expertise of Consultants who have studied certain of the Region's ports and formulated plans and recommendations to assure the adequacy of these ports to serve prospective cargo to 1990. At Philadelphia, some of the existing piers have deteriorated or have been destroyed by fire and others are expected to reach the end of their useful lives in the early.1980's. These facilities are not required to handle future tonnages. The major terminals at Philadelphia -- Packer Avenue, Tioga and Northern Shipping Co. -- together with the major re- maining finger piers will be the principal facilities utilized. The TAMS V-16 Report foresaw a need for additional container capacity in the early 1980's and recommended a development program looking to the expansion of the existing container terminals which could provide Philadelphia with. adequate capacity as regards containers. With resp6ct,to general cargo requiring open and covered storage, the TAMS report indicated that there would be sufficient capacity to handle projected tonnages through 1990. At Wilmington, the new multipurpose container and bulk crane and other recommended expansion measures and alternatives of the F.R. Harris study, in addition to giving that port efficient container handling capabili- ties, should enable -the existing facilities to serve anticipated levels of commerce to 1990. At Camden, present plans contemplate a $12 million dollar bond issue to finance port expansion. These expansion plans have been formulated to enable Camden to handle future potential tonnage at least to 1990 and possibly beyond. V.B.2.b Overall Assessment of Adequacy The general cargo ports of the region -- Wilmington, Camden and Philadel- phia -- have developed individual expansion plans which would enable these ports to handle forecast tonnages through 1990. Inevitably there will be a diversion of the forecast or potential tonnages among the ports. However, based upon the analyses performed in the course of this study and reports of other Consultants, as a group or "complex" these ports can be expected to adequately serve both traditional general cargo and containerized waterborne commerce of the Delaware River and Bay at least through 1990. The adequacy of existing ports planned expansion depends on a continuation of historical trends in waterborne commerce and continuing maintenance of the same share of cargo handled on the Atlantic Coast by the Delaware Valley ports. V.B.3 Existing Public Policy and the Institutional Environment Expansion of existing ports at Camden, Philadelphia, and Wilmington is clearly encouraged by State policies which seek to attract industry to these developed areas. Creation of any grass roots cargo port below Wilmington would be inconsistent with these policies, but projection of cargo volumes from current trends suggests that there is no need for major new cargo facilities in the study area beyond the planned expansion of existing ports.1 At present, the three operating ports in the area compete, directly or indirectly, for cargo. Two multi-state agencies in the area are chartered to operate port facilities. They also operate bridge crossings, which generate funds that could finance port expansion. The Delaware River Port Authority does not operate any ports, although it does promote use of all Delaware River ports. The Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA) may develop transportation and terminal facilities other than crossings, but only with the consent of the New Jersey and Delaware Legislatures. lExcludes oil and bulk commodities (coal, iron ore). V-17 Coordination of port expansion projects might allow a more efficient ex- pansion of regional cargo handling capacity. The U.S. Maritime Adminis- tration has proposed a broad-scale study of all the Delaware River ports. Integration of public ports with multi-state, multi--:purpose agencies such as the DRPA and DRBA offers some potential for the use of bridge revenues to subsidize port development. For a number of reasons, these steps have not been taken. Each city's port is reluctant to enter into an arrange- ment where it might lose business or employment to other ports. The DRPA has devoted.its efforts in the development of mass transit in the Phila- delphia metropolitan areas. A proposal to merge port agencies in the tri-state area in order to facilitate export expansion, submitted in 1971 by the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware Committee on Regional Develop- ment, was never implemented. Although expansion plans developed individually by each of the three pub- lic port authorities in the region appear adequate to meet projected needs, there are two possible advantages to coordination of port develop- ment through a multi-state agency: greater flexibility in the use of existing resources to meet changing cargo demands at a lower total cost, and possible use of bridge revenues, rather than direct state tax revenue, to subsidize port development. Environmental constraints on development of ports in existing industrial locations are not as great as those which would be encountered by a new port built on wetlands or shallows in the Delaware Bay. A coastal facility siting permit is not required. However, a dredge and fill permit from the Corps of Engineers and a subaqueous lands permit from State govern- ment would be required for dredging or pier construction. A wetlands permit would also be required if existing wetlands are taken. Experience with the Port of Wilmington's recent application for a federal permit to fill land for a new pier on the Delaware River front suggests that federal environmental agencies will oppose any filling of shallow waters for port functions which could be performed on existing uplands, and any destruc- tion or degradation of remaining wetlands. In addition, the reviewing agencies will request maximum use of floating structure or pilings rather than fixed bulkheads, and compensating restorative measures such as the creation or restoration of marshland previously degraded. V.B.4 Role of the DRBA The Delaware River and Bay Authority is one vehicle available for inter- state cooperation in port development. At the moment, the only public port within the DRBA area is the Port of Wilmington. Assistance to the Port of Wilmington by the DRBA might appear to compete with sponsorship of the South Jersey Port Corporation (Camden) by the State of New Jersey. Cooperation between all Delaware River ports would require a tri-state agency covering Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Useful guidelines for regional port development by a multi-state. agency could be obtained by reviewing the experience of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. V-18 V.C DEEPWATER PORT DEVELOPMENT In summary, offshore deepwater port development has been proposed on numerous occasions in the DRBA region, but its future,potential and via- bility will depend on the region's re'fining capacity, on the volume and composition of crude oil imports to the region, and on the comparative costs and environmental risks of lightering and offshore ports. The Texas and Gulf areas are now felt to be in a much stronger position vis- a-vis the oil industry, and one offshore port is already being built by the industry in the Gulf, and another may be developed with State support off the coast of Texas. While the area immediately inside and outside the Delaware Capes has been felt by many to be ideally suited to offshore port development, the industry is reportedly satisfied with the current lightering, and any offshore port in the region would probably require significant levels of public investment. Public policy on such offshore port development is unclear, although both States have generally been opposed to the more economically viable in-Bay proposals. Should such offshore port development become feasible or desirable in the future, the bi-state Delaware River and Bay Authority may be one of the most ideally suited institutions to direct or coordinate such development. V.C.1 Development Potentials When considering deepwater port potentials in the DRBA region, one is talking primarily about oil port development. As discussed in Chapters I and III, the volume of crude oil imported through the Delaware Bay has increased by more than 35% between 1972 and 1977, with an increasing proportion being imported in deeper draft tankers. These deeper draft tankers need part or all of their oil transshipped to shallower draft barges in order to be delivered to the Delaware River refineries. This has led to a'major lightering operation (a de facto offshore oil port) off Big Stone Beach in Lower Delaware Bay. The volume of lightering increased more than fivefold between 1971 and 1977, and the tonnage lightered in 1977 was more than 1/3 the tonnage handled in Philadelphia Harbor that year and more than six times the tonnage handled at the Port of Wilmington for that year. With this rapidly growing lightering oper- ation, there has been increased interest on the part of the oil industry, the government, and environmental groups in the feasibility and desir- ability of a more formalized offshore port development. 0 The oil industry has been principally interested in the development potential of several Lower Delaware Bay oper- ations for a Deepwater Port -.- generally on the Delaware side of the Bay between Big Stone Beach and Cape Henlo- pen. However, the oil industry is now also reported to be generally satisfied with the existing lightering oper- ation and its capacity to handle projected crude oil imports in Delaware Bay. It is building a port off the coast of Louisiana. V-19 The federal government has been interested in the devel- opment potential and lower landed costs of oil ports and has analyzed several alternatives in the area off the Delaware Capes or in the area off the northern New Jersey coast. The State governments of New Jersey and Delaware have looked at both in-Bay and ocean development potentials, but both States are still officially opposed to any in- Bay port development. The New Jersey Department of Energy is now evaluating the ocean deepwater port scenarios - one in the North off Raritan Bay and one in the South off Delaware Bay. Either would be assumed to eliminate the lightering activity within the Delaware Bay. Environmental groups, while reportedly concerned about the oil spill risks of the current lightering activities, are also concerned about the possibly greater oil spill risks of oil port development. Previous studies have found a deepwater port off the Delaware Capes to be financially unattractive in comparison to the existing lightering operation, due to high construction costs of an Atlantic Ocean site and high operating costs due to the problem of weather. Despite this, many feel that a deepwater port in the region will become much more viable in the near future. Factors which are likely to be most critical in determining this future development potential are: � The future volume of crude oil impo-ts in the Delaware Bay. Although crude oil imports in the Delaware Bay increased from 43 million to 58 million short tons be- tween 1972 and 1977, they are not projected to increase substantially more unless there is an expansion in Del- aware Basin refinery capacity. Most experts believe that refinery capacity will be expanded in the Texas Gulf area and elsewhere and not in the Delaware Basin. Although there have been recent rumors of refinery expansion in the Delaware Bay, there has been no in- vestment in major expansion in the past five years. Federal policies are also against increased crude oil imports and, in fact, now call for a. 50% reduction by 1990. but general'uncertainties in the national energy picture still make the long-term future of crude oil imports unclear. � The future composition of crude oil ipports in the Del- aware Bay. About 1/3 of the crude oil imported into Delaware Bay was involved in lightering in 1977, com- pared to less than 1/10 in 1972. However, future in- creases in the proportion of oil imports which require lightering are not likely to be as substantial. This V-20 is due to increasing use of the Suez Canal and the di ffi- culty or lack of economic rationale for using deep draft tankers for oil imported from Nigeria and Venezuela. New oil discoveries in Mexico and Canada may,Also reduce domestic dependence on Middle Eastern crude. The future economic or environmental attractiveness of lightering as ompared to a more rigid deepwater port operation. The current cost of lightering is estimated to be 1/3 to 1/2 the cost per barrel of handling oil through an offshore deepwater port. Furthermore, these operations have the attractive advantage of flexibility, without heavy capital investment, to expand, contract or otherwise,modify these activities to meet changing demands. As long as lightering can accommodate demands with mini- mum environmental risks and as long as no differential public subsidies are involved, these comparisons are likely to hold. However, if restrictions are more strin- gent, or requirements more costly for the lightering operations, these relative costs could be altered. Gov- ernmental subsidies or investments could also affect this comparison. V.C.2 The Development Needs Given the oil industry's reported satisfaction with the current lighter- ing operations and current economic factors.working against industry financing in the DRBA'region, major public involvement would be needed to encourage offshore port development. The Texas Deepwater Port Auth- ority has tentatively accepted a federal license for development off the Texas coast to keep the State competitive with Louisiana, where the industry is now building an offshore port. However, in the DRBA region, public support in terms of port and pipeline construction would probably have to be significantly greater due to the higher development costs, the lower level of projected throughput, the greater environmental regu- lation, and the general uncertainty of the region's future as a major and growing refining and petrochemical center. V.C.3 Existing Public Policy and the Institutional Environment The Delaware Coastal Zone Act specifically bars construction of any new bulk terminal in Delaware waters outside the Port of Wilmington. No deepwater port could be built on the Delaware side of the Bay, or in Delaware waters on the Atlantic coast, without a change in this law. New Jersey's coastal siting law (CAFRA) does not absolutely bar a deep- water port in State waters, but any such facility would require a State permit. Recent coastal zone plans do not favor a deepwater port within the Bay, and State officials have indicated more interest in offshore unloading facilities off northern New Jersey, or feeding the Delaware River refineries through a pipeline along the Atlantic City Expressway corridor. V-21 A deepwater port beyond State territorial waters does not require a State coastal facility siting permit, but any tank farm or other facility at the beach head would require such a permit. The U.S. Deepwater Ports Act which controls all bulk terminals outside of State coastal waters gives State agencies the first option to construct a deepwater port and gives the governments of adjoining States a role in licensing a deepwater port. Three existing public agencies have a charter which could permit them to construct a deepwater port under the first option offered to State govern- ments by the Deepwater Ports Act of 1974. The South Jersey Port Corpora- tion and the Delaware-River Port Authority may build ports in waters under New Jersey jurisdiction and might be extended to the building of facilities offshore from Cape May or Atlantic Counties. The Delaware River and Bay Authority could build marine transportation and terminal facilities in the Bay and might be a vehicle for construction of a deep- water port off New Jersey or Delaware. Without change in existing laws and statutes, no deepwater po rt will be built within the Bay. Environmental policies; of both State governments dictate that any deepwater port be built outside the Delaware Capes. If a deepwater port is to be built within the Bay, two changes must first occur: � the relative costs of lightering versus construction and operation of a fixed deepwater port must change; � convincing proof must be offered to refute the current belief that lightering operations (at: current levels) pose a smaller ecological threat than a fixed deepwater port handling larger volumes of oil. Proof of these changes would likely be required before the Delaware Coastal Zone Act is amended and coastal zone plans in both States are altered so that the necessary permits would be issued for a deepwater port within Delaware Bay. Even with a change in State policies, Federal agencies commenting on the necessary dredge and fill permit from the Corps of Engineers would critically review any increase in risk to the wetlands, shellfish beds, and spawning grounds of the Bay. V.C.4 Role of the DRBA Water depths dictate that a true deepwater port can be constructed only in Delaware Bay or offshore. The channel above Wilmington cannot be deepened because of the threat to the underground water supply in South- ern New Jersey. Potential sites for a deepwater port are within the DRBA area or offshore in the ocean where no State or interstate agency has an unequivocal mandate for port development. Because of the size of a deepwater port and its widespread effects, any project will be of concern to both States. The Deepwater Ports Act specifically gives adjoining coastal States a role in approving a deepwater port license. V-22 If the feasibility of a deepwater port off Delaware Bay is to be reviewed at all, this study should be done by a bi-state agency which can reflect the concerns of both Delaware and New Jersey. The Delaware River and-Bay Authority is an appropriate bi-state agency to undertake such planning. The drafters of the DRBA charter expected that the agency would serve this role in planning large scale regional development projects. if a deepwater port should ever become economically feasible and acceptable to both States, the DRBA could proceed to develop the facility under the transportation and terminals portion of its charter. V.D COMMERCIAL FISHERIES In summary, commercial fisheries have considerable promise, but as yet unproven potential, as the result of the newly instituted 200-mile limit. Cape May and Lewes are ideally suited to support this potential in the Middle Atlantic region, but new processing plants and storage facilities, expanded dockage and harbor facilities, and the development of an export capability would be needed to realize the industry's potential. Public policy in both States support expansion of the industry, but neither State has been able to establish an effective institution to aggressively promote and support such expansion. While the DRBA does not currently have such a mandate, its charter would clearly permit such activities if enabled by bi-state legislation, and the Authority's bi-state nature as well as development capabilities may make it well-suited to a development role in this area. V.D.1 Development Potentials As noted in Chapter I, the domestic commercial fishing industry has sub- stantially increased development potential as the result of the newly instituted 200-mile limit and the rapidly increasing worldwide and domes- tic demand for fish products: 0 Worldwide consumption of fish increased by over 50% be- tween 1963 and 1975, accompanied by a severe over-fishing of some stocks. 0 U.S. per capita consumption of fresh and frozen finfish has increased 3.9% annually since 1967. a 44% of fish caught in U.S. coastal waters north of Cape Hatteras were caught by foreign fishermen in 1974. * The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 now gives preferential American access to all of fishery re- sources within the 200-mile limit; however, some species such as squid and hake are not currently attractive to U.S. fishermen. Unless they become attractive, the most efficient method of harvest may be via permits to foreign fishing fleets. V-23 The increased potential for domestic commercial fishing may be particu- larly significant for the DRBA region: � Cape May, New Jersey and Lewes, Delaware have the best harbors for accommodating ocean fishing vessels south of New York City and north of Norfolk, Virginia. � The domestic Middle Atlantic Fish Catch (New York, New jersey, Delaware) was over one billion pounds in 1956, of which over 50% was accounted for by landings in Lewes and Cape May -- historically the center for the Middle Atlantic fishing industry. Although the Middle Atlantic Fish Catch has declined to about 207of its 1956 level, this was due primarily to the depletion of the menhaden resource and the closing of the two fish processing plants in Lewes and Cape May. � There has already been a substantial resurgence in fish landings with poundage increasing by about'20% and with the dockside value of these landings increasing by about 200% since 1974. � The average dockside price per pound rec e-eived for landings in the DRBA region has increased from about $0.10 perpound in 1967 to about $0.55 per pound in 1978, or at about two and one half times the rate of inflation of the consumer price index during this period. � Almost all fishermen and industry representatives inter- viewed by the Delmarva Advisory Council in 1978 were 11positive" that there were sufficient fish and shell- fish resources off the Mid Atlantic Coast to warrant increasing the size or number of their vessels. � Although surfclams and menhaden are reportedly being fished near or beyond their sustainable yield, the National Marine Fishery Service reports significant underfishing for many. species. � The species having the greatest potential for ex panded Middle Atlantic catches by the domestic fishing fleet are squid, mackerel, hake and herring -- which are now 90% harvested by the foreign fleet. The exploitation of much of this potential would, however, require entry, into the export market -- a difficult task. � The shellfish industry should not be significantly af- fected by the 200-mile limit, and necessary quotas may in fact reduce landings. V-24 V.D.2 The Development Needs In order to take advantage of opportunities for expansion, the domestic commercial fishing industry in the DRBA region has'several reported needs: � Fish and shellfish processing plants are needed to stabi- lize the market and take advantage of increased demand. A recent study by Arthur D. Little, Inc. in Middle Township of Cape May County found that a facility with a capacity of 12 to 20-million pounds per year could be supported by the whiting and hake resource and the domestic market. � An expanded por t capability is neede d to permit the domes- tic fishing industry to take advantage of the large mackerel, squid and herring resource now harvested by foreign fisher- men off the Middle Atlantic Coast. � Fishermen indicate that depths in excess of 15 feet would be preferable, a controlling depth of 12 feet at low tide seems to be a realistic minimum. Areas protected from storms are essential. � Dockside freezer capacity is needed to help stabilize prices and may be needed to support export potential. 0 Larger vessels are needed to take advantage of offshore fishing resources and to enhance the feasibility of fish processing plants. � Inlet dredging and/or dockage facilities are needed to accommodate longer and deeper draft fishing vessels. � For a medium size fishing processing plant (12-20 million pounds per year), 200 feet of dock space with 12'-15' of water depth is needed for off-loading, and a site of about 3 acres is needed for the plant. V.D.3 Locational Considerations Shallow inlets, shoaling and overcrowding restrict Middle Atlantic Coast expansion of commercial fishing ports except near Cape May, New Jersey and Lewes, Delaware: Although fishermen want to live near their home port, they are reasonably flexible as to where they off-load their catch; they report that they will go "wherever the buyers or plants are." V-25 � The DRBA region's commercial fishing industry is currently based in Cape May/Wildwood, where there is a fleet of ap- proximately 50 vessels; however, the harbor is' now some- what congested, and many of the potential sites are too small or too shallow for signifiCaLnt expansion. � The edges of the Cape May Canal cannot be developed for commercial fishing. 0 Most oceanside sites in Cape May County are severely re- stricted by wetlands regulation; a bayside site.near the Cape May Canal may have excellent potential but it would require new breakwaters and might best be part of a multi- purpose waterfront development. Lewes, Delaware once supported a substantial commercial fishing industry, and 70% of the Delmarva Peninsula fishermen surveyed by the Delmarva Advisory Council reported that they would locate or land in Lewes if there were sufficient loading facilities and buyers. The eastern portion of Breakwater Harbor at Lewes (near the former menhaden plant) is rapidly shoaling and projected to fill in without constant dredging. Some dredging in this area will be carried out in 1980. The western portion of Breakwater Harbor and Roosevelt Inlet (where there is an operating clam processing plant) have adequate depths and few dredging problems. V.D.4 Existing Public Policy and the Institutional Environment The Governor's Office of Policy & Planning recently prepared a 11proposal .for the development of the New Jersey Fisheries Industry" recommending: 9 The State should assist in the development of new pier and processing facilities and other support services needed to modernize the fishing industry. * The State should assist the private sector in exploration of the export potential of fish caught and processed in the State. 9 The State should investigate potential for a wholesale fish market and distribution center and for large scale integrated fish processing distribution and marketing facilities. V-26 The State should encourage and assist in waterfront development projects which integrate aspects of the fishing industry with new recreational and commercial development. The Delmarva Advisory Council is the Federally recognized Economic Devel- opment District Agency for the Delmarva Peninsula and recently published a Delmarva Ocean Fishery Port Survey (December, 1978) recommending: "The State and community need to become more involved in-financing improvements in landing facilities, parti- cularly dockage." "Lewes is in a particularly strong position for a major fish handling facility." "With improvements in groin protection devices, dockage and storage capabilities,.Lewes could very well become one of the better fishing ports along the entire Middle Atlantic Coast." There is as yet no State agency or public authority recognized or char- tered to plan, promote or finance fishery development or various support for the commercial fishing industry: DRBA, DRPA and the South Jersey Fort Corporation have potential jurisdiction to build port facilities. The New Jersey Economic Development Authority is becoming involved in providing financial support for some aspects of the commercial fishing industry in New Jersey; New Jersey has recently been considering re- organization of the State's management of fishery resources. The Del- marva Advisory Council is the U.S. Department of Commerce sponsored Economic Development district Agency for the Delmarva Peninsula. This Council's Seafood Committee is committed to the improvement and expan- sion of the Peninsula's commercial fishing industry. The U.S. Economic Development Administration represents a major funding source for sup- porting both capital investments and operating expenses in the commercial fishing industry; other Federal sources of development assistance include the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Maritime Administration and the Small Business Administration. Permits which would likely be required to provide expanded support for the commercial fishing industry include wetlands permits, Corps of Engi- neers dredge and fill permits, water pollution permits, and coastal facility siting permits. V-27 V.D.5 Role of the DRBA Construction of the dock and terminal facilities necessary to support an expanded fishing industry could be an appropriate task for the DRBA. Fishing ports are a "terminal" within the contemplation of the DRBA charter. The Authority's experience in financing and development could be used by the States to acquire shorefront sites for unloading, pro-. cessing, and storage, dredge access channels, construct piers and bulk- heads, apply for the permits required for facilities, prepare the site for storage and processing plants, and negotiate a lease, sale, a more innovative arrangement for the construction and operation of storage or processing plants by private operators or a cooperative venture. V.E. AQUACULTURE V.E.1 Development Potentials As noted in Chapter I, aquaculture (or marine farming) is a rapidly developing industry worldwide with an as yet undetermined future in the Delaware Bay. � Domestically aquaculture has grown rapidly over the past 10 years but its contribution to the total domestic fishery harvest is still less than one-half of what it is worldwide. � Although still largely in its early research and develop- ment phases viable commercial enterprises have been estab- lished for trout, salmon, crabs, lobster, shrimp, oysters, abalone, kelp, seaweed, and other marine life along the Atlantic and Pacific shorelines. � In the Delaware Bay the only major commercially viable marine farming activity is for oysters, which are only now recovering from their near elimination by disease in the early 1950's. There were more oysters planted in the Delaware Bay last year than in any other year, but harvests are still limited by natural predation and other factors. The expansion of oyster farming has. not yet met expectations and its future as a major Bay in- dustry remains in question. � The establishment of important marine research and devel- opment facilities at Lewes (The College of Marine Studies) and at Bivalve and Cape May should help determine the via- bility of expanded oyster farming activities as well as other aquaculture development. V-28 V-E.2 Development Needs Most of the research needs in the aquaculture industry have generally. been met by colleges and universities, often with special federal fund- ing. However, the development needs of the industry, which are just now becoming known,l have not generally been met by this source, and most existing commercial ventures have been started on a shoestring or with very high risk venture capital. As the development needs of the industry become better known they will probably reflect a need for both public and private investments as well as joint public-private activities. The nature of the resource and the need for public land leases, etc., is. likely to require major public involvement if this industry continues its rapid development in the future. V.E.3 Existing Public Policy and the Institutional Environment Expansion of commercial aquaculture in the shallow waters of Delaware Bay would appear to be an economically productive innovation entirely consis- tent with existing development and environmental policies in both States. As the natural productivity of the Bay increases with decreased pollu- tion, aquaculture could generate new income from the Bay without threat- ening wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas or interfering with recreational uses of the Bay. It would not generate pressure for the development of coastal land. Processing plants would provide jobs in smaller shoreside towns. Regulatory restrictions on expansion of aquaculture are not insurmoun- table. Depending an the size of the operation, approval may be necessary to assure that water quality goals are not adversely affected. Process- ing plants will require discharge permits. Use of the Bay bottom will require State approval under Subaqueous Lands Acts, and in-water struc- tures such as holding tanks or pens may require a Corps of Engineers permit, So long as naturally occurring marine life is not displaced, environmental agencies should be willing to approve these permits. V.E.4 Role of the DRBA At the moment, no State agency has a clear mandate to encourage aquacul- ture on the Bay. Rutgers University and the University of Delaware are conducting research on marine farming techniques, but assistance to com- mmercial venture would come only from the Small Business Administration or State economic development agencies which consider investments in all industries. If New Jersey and Delaware wish to lend support to develop- ing aquaculture projects, the DRBA is one public agency which could con- struct support facilities or even provide limited investment capital for some new operations. Such a task is a departure from the Authority's past involvement in bridge and ferry operations, but the DRBA is the only quasi-independent State agency with a direct focus on Delaware Bay development. lAn EDA study is now investigating the capital requirements of the U.S. Aquaculture Industry. V-29 V.F RECREATIONAL BOATING MARINAS While recreational boating marinas have conventionally been developed. privately, current demands are reportedly not now being effectively met in the private market place -- largely due. to increased environmental regulation and development risk. Although, the Delaware Bay shoreline in the vicinity of Cape May and Lewes may offer the most attractive sites, development of these sites could require the involvement of art agency such as the DRBA with potentially strong deve,lopment and coordi- nating capabilities. V.F.1 Development Potentials As discussed in Chapter I, marinas have expanded rapidly in the DRBA region over the last 15 years -- particularly along the inland waterway. This development has occurred concurrently with the national expansion of recreational boating activity and with the dramatic increases in recreation and tourism along the Atlantic shoreline. While recreational boating continues to increase along with the demand for recreational marinas, environmental restriction and higher development costs.have begun torestrict the ability of the private sector to expand boating facilities -- particularly in the extensive areas dominated by protected and environmentally sensitive wetlands. One indirect result has been substantially higher berthing rates at existing marinas and a larger volume of trailering which has increased summer traffic congestion. While most boating interest in the last 15 years has been focused on the Atlantic shoreline and the inland waterway, there has recently been an expansion of interest within Delaware Bay -- particularly for fish- ing-oriented boaters. This newly expanding interest is due in part to improved water quality and fishing within'the Bay and in part to in- creased congestion along the inland waterway. The result of continued expansion of boating interest in the Bay will increase the development potential for marinas along those limited segments of the Bay shore which are not dominated by wetlands. V.F.2 Development Needs Although there are numerous public boat launching ramps, recreational boating marinas have been conventionally developed by private operators. In New Jersey, however, the Parks Department owns and operates,three public marinas and leases a fourth to private operators (Fortescue on the Delaware Bay). While neither State has specific plans for develop- ment or operation of additional marinas, there does appear to be growing interest in facilitating private development at appropriate locations. There also appears to be some perceived need for joint public-private development of combined.recreational boating and commercial fishing development in the Cape May and Lewes areas. V-30 V.F.3 Locational Considerations Most areas along the Bay are protected wetlands infeasible for recrea-. tional boating development. There are, however, thkee.specific areas .which may have potential for major new marina development, if locally supported and accompanied by appropriate infrastructure development and environmental protection: the Delaware Bay shoreline of southern Cape May County, New Jersey; the Delaware Bay shoreline of Sussex County, Delaware; and Breakwater Harbor at Lewes, Delaware. These areas appear to have potential due to their good road access to major population centers, their potential for complying with environ- mental regulations and policy, and their access to reasonable water depths. In addition, the Delaware River shoreline of Salem and New Castle Counties may have additional development potential, although the demand appears to be less. V.F.4 Existing Public Policy andthe Institutional Environment Construction of additional marina capacity is not inconsistent with coastal zone plans in New Jersey and Delaware. A coastal facility sit- ing permit is not required in Delaware and might not be required in New Jersey, unless the marina had substantial accompanying development, such as housing or hotels. Nevertheless, a new marina would require the Corps of Engineer dredge and fill permit, State subaqueous land permit, and State wetland permit (if any wetlands are altered or filled). Policies imposed by environmental permit agencies would include: 0 restriction of filling or bulkheading to those activities which must have water access (no use of filled land for boat storage, housing, commercial properties, etc.) 0 preference for piling and floating docks which do not hinder tidal flow 0 prohibition of dead end basins and other configurations which are not purged of pollutants by tidal action 0 siting which minimizes the need for maintenance dredging$, and assures sites for dredge spoil disposal 0 avoidance of any degradation or pollution of spawning grounds and shellfish beds In addition, coastal zone plans would discourage-marine developments which encroach on undeveloped shorefront or increase the density of water usage to the point where water quality and the quality of the recreational experience are affected. Preferred sites for marina devel- opment would be on the fringe of areas which are already developed. V-31 With these limitations, it is understandable why private marina develop- ment has decreased in recent years, even though an active market exists for yacht berths. The uncertainties in obtaining an environmentally acceptable site and securing the necessary permits apparently are suf- ficient to deter the investment of private capital which has tradition- ally funded marina expansion. V.F.5 Role of the DRBA Despite the existence of four public marinas in New Jersey, marina devel- opment has generally been considered a private sector function. With the decrease in construction of private marinas in recent years, some interest in public sponsorship has been expressed. The Governor's Com- mittee on Marine Tourism in Delaware has investigated approaches to increasing boat berthing facilities in order to limit traffic congestion caused by boat trailering. A public agency might contribute to solution of the marina shortage by undertaking the environmental planning, site acquisition and permit application tasks which make marina development a time-consuming and risky business. An approved environmentally accep- table site could then be sold or leased to a developer who would raise private capital to construct and operate the marina. If the State gov- ernments favor this approach, the DRBA could readily provide the tech- nical capacity to manage the early stages in site planning and acquisi- tion. V.G SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL V.G.1 Development Potentials The shoreline of the lower Delaware River and Bay has remained largely undeveloped -- due in large part to the extensive stretches of wide wetland areas. With the growing interest in environmental preservation, these wetland areas have been increasingly recognized as important breed- ing and nesting grounds for both birds and marine life. Consequently, large areas have become designated as State or Federal wildlife pre- serves, and coastal zone management plans and facility siting acts have strictly regulated or prohibited virtually any other kind of develop- ment in these areas. For the non-wetland stretches of the shoreline (principally along the lower Delaware River, along the Lower Delaware Bay, and along a few scattered beaches in between) identified develop- ment potentials other than those previously outlined in this chapter include: e Beach restoration and development - Beaches along the Del- aware Bay enjoyed considerable popularity prior to the ex- tensive development of the Atlantic coast beaches. With crowding and beach erosion now becoming serious problems along the Atlantic, and with the prospects of cleaner Bay waters, these beaches may enjoy renewed potential. V-32 Dredge spoils disposal - Maintenance dredging of the Delaware River channel and of the numerous harbors and smaller rivers along the shoreline generates'large volumes of dredge spoils which must be disposed of under increasingly stringent regulations. Extensive areas along the Lower Delaware River have already been set aside for Corps of Engineers dredge spoils dis- posal, but the limited capacity of these sites, when compared to the volume of spoils being generated, means that additional sites or alternative methods of disposal will be needed. Po rt Oriented Industrial Development - Recent years have seen substantial development of industrial districts at major seaports of the United States, and such develop- ment could be considered for the Port of Wilmington. Often such developments are on port-owned land, leased to tenants, with the capital requirement of industrial tenants often financed by industrial revenue bonds. Carefully planned industrial development can result in marked benefits to a port community. Foreign Trade Development - Under such a zone, foreign and domestic merchandise may move for storage, exhibi- tion, manipulation, manufacture or other processing with definite advantages to users, including reduced custom duties. Specialized Bulk Facilities - For several years the con- cept of a'modern coal shipping terminal has been under investigation and discussion for the Port of Wilmington. With the increasing urgency for utilization of alternative energy sources worldwide, it appears appropriate that fur- ther thoughts be given to this project, including reviews of its contribution to the economy and the port area, benefits to the balance of payments, economic feasibility and possible financing alternatives. Consideration also should be given to other specialized bulk facilities which may be feasible but which may require financing assistance or other inducements for their development at Wilmington. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Support - Both the Port of Wilmington and the Lewes area may have potentials for the development of OCS support facilities. To the extent that offshore oil drilling in the Baltimore Canyon progresses, supplies, material and personnel will require transport to and from drilling sites. The nature of the vessels involved can range from shallow draft crew boats to pipe laying barges and tug supply vessels, and berthing, main- tenance and storage areas for these operations will be V-33 required on-shore. Although other areas are actively interested in this trade, the attributes of both Wilming- ton and Lewes with ready access to drilling.areas, pro@ tected harbors, available land and overland transport may offer competitive advantages and should warrant fur- ther investigation. V.G.2 Development Needs While most of the development potentials identified above have active sponsors or proponents, all seem to share the need for more coordinated and comprehensive development programs. Current sponsors or proponents tend to be special interest groups or single-purpose entities not charged .With or capable of a more comprehensive development effort. V.G.3 Public Policy and Role of the DRBA Planning for shoreline development is currently undertaken by New Jersey and Delaware under the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the coastal zone plans of each State provide a guide to determination of acceptable devel- opment. Coastal Facility Siting Laws, Wetland Acts, and Subaqueous Land Acts in each State provide the regulatory controls to assure conformance with these development policies. In some cases pr .ivate capital and existing State programs may not produce the kind of positive development envisioned by the Coastal Zone Plans. To the extent carefully controlled public development is desired but not forthcoming, the DRBA may provide a useful mechanism for planning and financing such.projects. V.H BI-STATE DELAWARE BAY-ORIENTED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FUNCTIONS In the course of the study it became evident that "institutional gaps" existed and that a bi-state, Bay-oriented planning and development func- tion is needed to fill these gaps. Basic goals to be accomplibhed would be to coordinate bi-state efforts to conserve the natural resources of the Bay area and to stimulate economic development within the region consistent with the Coastal Facilities Siting Acts of Delaware and New Jersey, other policies and regulations of' the States, and the desires of local governmental units and populations. Specific planning functions of such an agency might include: 1. The coordination of State policies and regulations affect ing 9 the Bay Region; 2. The identification of specific conservation and development projects which are consistent with State and local goals; 3. The preparation and periodic updating of a comprehensive shoreline conservation and development program focusing on dredge spoils, beach restoration, ports and harbors, and shoreline recreation; V-34 4. The monitoring of activities in and uses of the lower River and Bay and preparation of a plan for conserva- tion and development of the lower Delaware River and Bay addressing waste discharges, dredging, boating, aquaculture, marine navigation and waterborne commerce. Specific development functions to be performed for the Bay might include: 1. The detailed formulation of identified conservation and development projects; 2. The execution or supervison of detailed market and feas- ibility analyses for such projects; 3. Location and acquisition of environmentally acceptable sites for developments which prove to be feasible and are endorsed by State and local interests; 4. The identification and contacting of possible users and/or lessees for projects found to be feasible and desirable; 5. The preparation of applications for all necessary Government approvals and permits; 6. The obtaining of necessary legislative approvals, and the development of information required to fulfill this ob- jective; 7. Development activities, including solicitation of and negotiation with users, similar to those undertaken by a private developer so that identified projects can be implemented; 8. The monitoring and control of users and lessees to insure that the original objectives of the project are achieved. In the exercise of all planning and development functions the concerned agencies of both New Jersey and Delaware must be kept fully informed and the technical and other resources of these agencies utilized to the fullest possible extent. In addition, permanent advisory committees of representatives of local government and of citizens at large should be established to insure that local feelings are fully reflected in the actions of any group or office addressing the function outlined herein. Funds for such an agency would be required to maintain a staff to ful- fill planning and development responsibilities; finance and construct infrastructure improvement required to implement development plans; and support users/lessees by means of loans or other types of financial sup- port other than direct grants, where private capital is not available. V-35 Given that the DRBA is the only bi-state New Jersey-Delaware agency dealing with the issues concerning the Delaware Bay region, it may very well be an Appropriate agency to perform some or all of the functions described above. V-36 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I I I I I I I I I I I Table I-I Change in Permanent Eo_R_ulation 1950-1970 Percentage Change DRBA Counties 1950 1960 1970 1950-1970 New Castle 218,879 307,446 385,856 +76.3 Salem 49,508 58,711 60,343 +21.9 subtotal U8,387 366,157 446,199 +66.3 Kent 37,870 66,651 81,892 +116.3 Cumberland 88,597 106,850 121,374 +37.0 subtotal 126,467 173,501 203,266 +60.7 Sussex 61,336 73,195 80,356 +31.0 Cape May 132,399 160,880 175,043 +32.2 Atlantic 372131 48,555 55,554 +49.6 subtotal 230,866 282,630 310,953 +34.7 TOTAL DRBA REGION 625,720 821,288 964,418 +54.1 Middle Atlantic 36,945,000 42,446,209 47,082,507 +27.4 Northeast 46,260,000 52,955,576 58,929,752 +27.4 U.S. 151,325,798 179,323,175 203,235,298 +34.3 Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing 1950, 1960, 1970 A-1 Table 1-2 Change in Number of Housing Jnits 1950-1970 Percentage Change DRBA Counties 1950 .1960 1970 1950-1970 New Castle 62,901 94,684 120,683 +91.9 Salem 15,582 19,208 19,598 +25.8. subtotal 78,483 113,896 140,281 +78.7 Kent 12,242 19,915 25,242 +106.2 Cumberland 27,793 35,297 40,005 +43.9 subtotal 40,035 55,212 055,247 +63.0 Sussex 21,870 29,122 34,287 +56.8 Cape May 32,233 47,377 53,152 +64.9 Atlantic 48,604 64,601 73,848 +51.9 subtotal 102,707 141,100 161,287 +57.0 TOTAL DRBA REGION 221,225 310,208 366,815 +65.8 Source: U.S. Census of Housing, 1950, 19,60, 1970 A-2 Table 1-3 Change in Total Employment 1950-1970 Percentage Change DRBA Counties 1950 1960 1976 1950-1970 New Castle 87,901 116,028 152,997 +74.1 Salem 18,404 21,505 23,203 +26.1 106,305 137,533 176,206 +65.7 Kent 15,068 20,163 33,386 +121.6 Cumberland 35,512 41,509 46,942 +32.2 50,580 61,672 80,328 +58.8 Sussex 23,804 27,041 33,011 +38.7 Cape May 11,773 15,059 18,667 +58.6 Atlantic 50,757 60,057 65,462 +29.0 86,334 102,157 117,140 +35.7 DRBA REGION 243,219 301,362 373,668 +53.6 U.S. 58,920,000 65,778,000 78,627,000 +33.4 Source: U.S. Census 1950, 1960, 1970 A-3 Table 1-4 Changing Composition of Regional and National Employment Percentage Change DRBA Region 1950. 1960 1 970 1950-19 70 Agriculture & Fisheries 21,704 15,753 9,967 -54.1% share of total 8.9% 5.2% 2.7% Manufacturing 71,997 84,954 106,061 +47.3%, share of total 29.6% 28.2% 28.4% Wholesale & Retail Trade 43,555 53,775 72,871 +67.3% share of total 17.9% 17.8% 19.5% Government 26,761 share of total NA NA 7.2% NA Services & F.I.R.E. 108,014 share of total NA NA 28.9% NA Other 49,994 share of total NA NA 13.4% NA U.S. Agriculture & Fisheries 7,160,000 5,458,000 3,462,000 -51.6% share of total 12.2% 8.3% 4.4% Manufactur ing 14,467,000 16,150,000 18,090,000 +25.0% share of total 24.6% 24.6% 23.0% Wholesale & Retail Trade 10,742,919 12,1306,315 15,607,900 +45.3% share of total 18.7% 18.5% 19.7% Government (excl. schools) 3,559,254 5,1011,739 6,207,929 +74.4% share of total 6.2% 7.5% 7.8% Services & F.I.R.E. 12,223,474 17,1003,423 24,140,658 +97.5% share of total 21.3% 25.6% 30.4% Other Employment 10,767,353 9,848,523 11,799,393 +9.6% share of total 18.3% 15.0% 14.9% Source: U.S. Census 1950, 1960, 1970 A-4 Table t-5 Change in Agricultural & Fisheries Employment 1950-1970 Percentage Change DRBA Counties 1950 1960. 1970 1950-1970 New Castle 2,414 2,263 1,413 -41.5 Salem 2,754 1,741 960 -65.2 5,168 4,004 2,373 -54.1 Kent* 3,107 2,041 1,262 -59.4 Cumberland 4,605 3,166 1,807 -60.8 7,712 5,207 3,069 -60.2 Sussex 5,831 4,448 2,907 -50.1 Cape May 657 357 452 -31.2 Atlantic 2,336 1,737 1,166 -50.1 8,824 6,542 4,525 -48.7 DRBA REGION 210704 15,753 9,967 -54.1 U.S. 7,160,000 5,458,000 3,462,000 -51.6 Source: U.S. Census 1950, 1960, 1970 A-5 Table 1-6 Change in Farm Acreage 1950-197CI (1,000 Acres Percentage, Change DRBA Counties 1950 1960 1970 .1950-1970 New Castle 179 130. 113 -36.8 Salem 123. 121 105 -14.6 302 251 218 -27.8 Kent 282 252 220 -22.0 Cumberland 136 118 95 -30.1 418 370 315 Sussex 390 381 341 -12.6 Cape May 29 20 16 -44.8 Atlantic 42 46 31 -26.2 461 @47 388 -15.8 TOTAL DRBA 1,181 1,068 921 -22.0 Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture A-6 Table 1-7 - Change in Value of Farm Products Sold ($1,000) Percentage Percentage, Change Change 1949-1969 1949-1969 Actual Constant DRBA Counties 1949 1959 1969 Dollars Dollarsl New Castle 7,582 10,276 16,079 +112.1 +35.4 Salem 13,015 16,060 36,915 +183.6 +81.1- 20,597 26,336 52,994 +157.3 +64.3 Kent 11,949 17,242 36,141 +202.5 +93.1 Cumberland .21,182 27,263 40,118 +89.4 +20.9 33,131 44,505 76,259 +130.2 +47.0 Sussex 56,469 58,482 175,436 +210.7 +98.3 Cape May 2,159 1,676 3,271 +51.5 -3.3 Atlantic 8,992 14,679 22,678 +152.2 +61.0 67,620 74,837 201,385 +197.8 +90.1 DRBA REGION 121,348 145,678 330,638 +172.5 +74.0 U.S. 22,217,000 30,493,000 45,609,000 +105.*3 +31.1 Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1950, 1959, 1969 1Adjustments for constant dollars were made by using the U.S. consumer price index for all items. This index was 70.0 in 1949 and 109.8 in 1969. A-7 -nible 1-8 - Change in Manufacturing Employment 1950-1970 Percentage DREA Counties Change 1950 1960 1970 1950-1970 New Castle 31,336 43,469 46,592 +48.7 Salem 8,028 10,010 10,391 +29.4 Subregion Subtotal 39,364 43,479 56,983 +44.8 Kent 3,687 4,492 6,802 +84.5@ Cumberland 14,067 17,969 19,483 +38.5 Subregion Subtotal 17,754 22,461 26,285 +48.1 Sussex 6,631 7,866 9,876 +48.9 Cape May 1,526 1,921 2,123 +39.1 Atlantic 6,722 9,227 10,794 Subregion Subtotal 14,879 19,014 22,793 +53.2 TOTAL DRBA REGION 71,997 84,954 106,061 +47.3Z U.S. 14,467,000 16,150,000 18.090,000 +25.0% Source: U.S. Census 1950, 1960, 1970 A-8 Table 1-9 - Manufacturing Employment by Place of Residence, 1970 Chemicals and Food & Kindred Textiles Transportation Glass Allied Products Products Apparel Equipment Clay ProductsA Other Total New Castle 20,307 1,121 1,830 7,119 650 15,024 46,051 Salem 4,849 631 604 455 2,500 1,352 10,391 Sub-region sub-total 25,156 1,752 2,434 7,574 3,150 .16,376 56,442 Share of sub-region 44.6% 3.1% 4.3% 13.4% 5.6% 29.0% 100.0% Kent 634 1,841 1,650 193 .2,304 6,712 Cumberland 633 2,102 3,740 652 9,000 3,356 19,483 Sub-region sub-total 1,267 3,943 5,390 845 9,090 5,660 26,195 Share of sub-region 4.8% 15.1% 20.6% 3.2% 34.7% 21.6% 100.0% Sussex 2,706 3,245 1,222 77 90 2,483 9,823 Cape May 67 289 294 152 150 1,171 2,123 Atlantic 427 790 3,266 757 1,800 3,754 .10,794 Sub-region - sub-total 3,200 4,324 4,782 986 2,040 7,408 22,740 Share of sub-region 14.1% 19.0% 21.0% 4.3% 9.0% 32.6% _LOO.O% DRBA Region Total 29,623 10,019 12'606 9,405 14,280 29,444 105,377 Share of DRBA Region 28.1% 9.5% 1;.0% 8.9% 13.6% 27.9% 100.0% Source: U.S. Census, 1970 A Arthur D. Little, Inc. estimate based on 1970 Census and 1974 County Business Patterns. Table I-10 Manufacturing Values 1970 Value Added By Value of Industry Manufacture Shipments DRBA Region Counties (million $) (million 0 New Castle 702.9 1,854.8 Salem 272.2 519.1 subregion subtotal 975.1 2,373.9 Kent 203.7 403.0 Cumberland 267.4 457.7 subregion subtotal 471.1 860*7 Sussex 164.6 Cape May A 38.0 56.0 Atlantic 188.3 subregion subtotal 390.9 711.9 DRBA REGION TOTAL $1,837.1 $3,946.5 Source: U.S. Census of Manufactures, 1970 ACape May County not included in census data, Arthur D. Little, Ipc- estimates based on prevailing ratio of employment to value and value- added. A-10 Table I-11 - Change in Services & Finance, Insurance & Real Estate EMloyment 1950-1970 Percentage Percentage DkBA Region Change Share of 1970 Counties 1950 1960 1970 1950-1970 Employment New Castle n/a n/a 49,206 n/a 32.2 Salem n/a n/a 4,948 n/a 21.3 subregion subtotal 54,154 30.7 Kent n/a n/a 7,368 n/a 22.1 Cumberland n/a n/a 10,392 n/a 22.1 subregion subtotal 17,760 22.1 Sussex n/a n/a 7,756 A/a 23.5 Cape May n/a n/a 6,534 n/a 35.0 Atlantic n/a n/a 21,810 n/a 33.3 subregion subtotal 36,100 30.8 TOTAL DRBA REGION n/a n/a 108,014 n/a 28.9 U.S. 12,223,474 17,003,423 24,140,658 30.4 Source; U.S, Census 1970 A-11 Table 1-12 - ChanRe in Wholesale & Retail Trade Employment 1950-1970 Percentage Percentage Change Share of . I DRBA Counties 1950 1960 1970 1950-1970 1978 Employment New Castle 14,584 19,703 29,593 103.6 19.4 Salem 2,402 2,887 3,549 +47.8 15.3 Subregion Subtotal 16,986 22,590 33,242 +95.7 18.9 Kent 2,490 3,646 5,357 115.1 16.0 Cumberland 5,424 6,221 7,573 39.6 16.1 Subregion Subtotal 7,914 9,867 12,930 +63.4 16.1 Sussex 3,540 4,424 6,039 70.6 18.3 Cape May 2,561 3,182 4,353 70.0 23.3 Atlantic 12,554 13,712 16,307 29.9 24.9 Subregion Subtotal 18,655 21,318 26,699 +43.1 22.8 TOTAL DRBA REGION 43,555 53,775 72,871 67.3 .19.5 U.S. 10,742,919 12,306,315 15,607,900 45.3 19.7 Source: U.S. Census 1950, 1960, 1970 A-12 Table-I-13 - Retail Sales 1967-1972 ($1,000) 1972 Sales Per Capita DRBA Region Counties 1967 1972 - (1970 population)_- New Castle $ 668,323 $1,048,793 $2,718 Salem 85,025 110,915 1,838 Subregion Subtotal 753,348 1,159,728 2,599 Kent 134,154 243,687 2,975 Cumberland 202,652 303,290 2,498 Subregion Subtotal 336,806 546,977 2,691 Sussex 114,438 187,904 2,338 Cape May 131,410 214,493 3,602 Atlantic 371,275 494,976 2,828 Subregion Subtotal 617,123 897,373 2,849 TOTAL DRBA REGION $1,707,277 $2,604,078 $2,711 Source: U.S. Census of Retail Sales 1967, 1972 A-13 Table 1-14 Change in Resident Population 1970-1977 DRBA Region April 1, July 1, Percentage Net Migration Counties 1970 1977 Change 1970-77 Number Percent New Castle 385,856 397,800 + 3.1 - 6,700 - 1.7 Salem 60,343 62,700 + 3.9 + 200 + 0.3 Subregion Subtotal 446,199 460,500 + 3.2 - 6,500 - 1.5 Kent 81,892 93,700 +14.4 + 4,900 + 5.9 Cumberland 121,374 130,800 + 7.8 + 2,600 + 2.1 Subregion Subtotal 203,266 224,500 +10.4 + 7,500 + 3.7 Sussex 80,356 90,200 +12.3 + 7,100 + 8.8 Cape May 55,554 76,100 +37.0 + 18,200 +32.8 Atlantic 175,043 189,800 + 8.4 + 13,800 + 7.9 Subregion Subtotal 310,953 356,100 +13.1 + 39,100 +12.6 TOTAL DRBA REGION 964,418 1,040,100 +8.0 + 409100 + 4.2 Middle AtlanticA 47,082,507 47,565,000 +1.02 -203,000 - 0.4 NortheastB 58,929,752 59,821,000 +1.51 -168,000 - 0.3 U.S. 203,235,298 216,383,000 +6.47 +3,185,000 + 1.6 Source: U.S. Census 1970, U.S. Census estimates 1977. ANew York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia BThe Middle Atlantic plus New England A-14 Table 1-15 POPULATION PROJECTIONS (NEW JERSEY). AND FORECASTS (DELAWARE) 1977-85 1985-95 New Castle & Salem Counties + 29,900 6.5% + 56,300 11.5% Kent & Cumberland Counties + 48,600 21.6% + 36,600 13.4% Sussex, Cape May and Atlantic Counties +127,000 36.0% + 80,400 16.7% TOTAL +205,500 19.8% +173,300 13.9% t-n Source: Delaware Population Consortium, Delaware Population Growth, prepared by Division of Urban Affairs, University of Delaware, 1975. New Jersey Department of Communicy Affairs, State Development Plan, 1977 based on Seris II Population Projections 1980-2020 New Jersey Department of Labor & Industry, March, 1977. Table 1-16 Estimated Direct EMEloyment in -the Agricultural Sector in the Counties of the DRBA Region, 1969-1974 Employm nt Farm Empl. Farm Over Empl. Food Oper- 150 .1 25-149 Pro- ators'. Days Day=s e n Total Kent 69 1,073 378 1,000 1,847 4,298 74 976 377 855 2,947 5,155 Cumberland 69 733 1,695 2,600 2,102 7,130 74 580 1,102 1,758 3,003 6,443 Sussex 69 - 2,121 908 2,300 3,245 8,574 74 - 1,992 1,177, 825 4,489 8,483 Cape May 69 - ill 59 100 289 559 74 - .81 50 91 298 520 Atlantic 69 - 422 715 1,700 790 3,627 74 - 372 497 1,488 934 3,291 New Castle 69 - 516 286 500 1,121 2,423 74 - 432 342 386 1,135 2,295. Salem 69 - 702 1,055 1,500 631 3,888 74 - 601 603 1,733 1,270 4,207 DRBA Region 6'9- 5,678 5,096 9,400 10,019 30,193 74 - 5,034 4,148 7,136 14,076 30,394 Sources: (1) Bureau of Census, 1974 Census of Agr.culture. (2) 1969 data for food processing is from U.S. Bureau of Census ulation Census (by place of residence), 1974 data is from U.S. Bureau of Census County Business Patterns (by place of employment). A-16 Table 1-17 Farmland Harvested Cropland, by County 1969-1974 DRBA Region Land in Farms Harvested Cropland and % of All Land and % of Farmlands 1969 1974 1969 1974 Kent 219,788 196,410 141,110 142,288 % 57.8 51.7 64.2 72.4 Cumberland 95,492 81,231 53,588 57,299 % 29.9 25.4 56.1 70.5 Sussex 340,856 334,023 213,974 238,381 % 56.1 54.9 62.8 71.4 Cape May 15,863 11,@95 7,509 7,114 % 9.3 6.6 47.3 63.0 Atlantic 31,478 30,151 14,299 14,587 z 8.6 8.3 45.4 48.2 New Castle 113,251 100,172 67,900 71,083 % 40.4 35.7 60.0 71.0 Salem 104,755 99,347 58,236 66,154 % 44.8 42.5 55.6 66.6 Total 921,483 852,729 556,616 596,906 z 39.1 36.2 60.4 70.0 Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture A-17 Table 1-18 Major Harvested Crop Acreage and Poultry Sales by County- in the DRBA Region 1969-1974 Harvested Crop Average Corn Soybean Wheat other Hay Vegetables. Poultry Sales Grains of Broilers Hens & Chickens Kent 69 - 48,471 52,917 6,627 12,472 8,063 11,436 2,968,168 110,589 74 - 40,049 66,252 13,355 10,272 6,720 14,169 4,488,405 133,179 Cumberland 69 - 3,144 2,323 2,063 3,209 3,144 30,154 37,026 410,457 74 - 3,549 7,135 5,676 1,443 5,648 24,334 - 404,565 Sussex 69 - 105,198 72,513 3,372 13,129 39,833 24,217 109,530,283 396,201 74 - 97,692 112,274 18,426 16,280 4,672 17,643 119,959,046 586,616 Cape May 69 - 324 127 190 93 667 3,893 60 74 - 445 105- 705 7 499 3,078 170 29,286 00 Atlantic 69 - 352 0 8 60 561 4,485- 13,266 74 - 2 187 0 0 199 --4,669 - 10,997 New Castle 69 - 26,684 17,281 7,378 3,757 7,467 3,581 352,500 117,012 74 - 20,914 31,451 9,435 2,048 6,459 1,910 100 69,596 Salem 69 10,620 3,870 2,630 4,557 8,671 26,077 17,200 395,143 74 11,400 16,380 7,399 4,462 7,939 21,490 192-,867 350j556 DRBA Region 69 - 194,793 149,031 22,268 37,277 32,406 103,843 112,905,237 1,117,121 74 - 174,051 233,788 54,996 34,512 32,136 87,293 124,640,588 1,584,795 (20,742) +84,757 +32,728 (2,765) -(270) .(16,550) 11,735,351 467,674 Change 69-74 % (10.6) +56.8 +147.0 (7.4) (0.8) (15.9) +10.4 +41.9 Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture, 1969, 1974 MMOWMMMM MMM MMWMIM man M-IM Table 1-19 Market Value of Raw Agricultural Products (excluding farms with sales of less than $2,500) -(In 000's) Other Vege- Other Live- Poultry tables Grains Crops stock Total Agricultural. Kent 69 - 4,591 4,980 12,501 6,035 8,034 36,141 74 - 7,504 10,733 26,123 7,791 7,595 59,746 Cumberland 69 - 7,688 22,482 759 6,763 2,426 40,118 74 - 3,698 24,593 3,705 6,147 2,126 40,629 Sussex 69 - 138,230 6,831 20,951 1,122 8,302 115,436 74 - 178,913 6,404 50,080 1,082 11,766 248,245 Cape May 69 - 685 1,732 56 381 417 j,271 74 - 455 1,699 145 492 329 3,120 Atlantic 69 - 5,631 4,633 4 12,230 180 22,678 74 - 2,453 6,739 58 13,992 215 23,457 Rew Castle 69 - 1,777 1,009 5,911 1,670 59712 16,079 74 - 892 915 16,243 1,346 5,222 24,618 Salem 69 - 5,261 17,598 1,056 2,192 10,808 36,915 74 - 5,913 17,857 6,835 2,475 10,466 43,546 DRBA Region 69 - 163,863 59,265 41,238 30,393 35,879 330,638 74 - 199,828 69,300 103,189 33,325 37,719 443,361 % Change 69-74 - +21.9 +16.9 +150.2 +9.6 +5.1 +34.1 Source: U.S. Department.qf-Agriculture, 1974 Census of Agriculture translanted by Arthur D. Little, Inc. into constant 1978 $. Table 1-20 Employment in Food Processing Ind stries (SIC _20) in the DRBA Relion, 1974-1976 DRBA Region Total Meat Fruits & Other Food Counties Employment Products Vegetables Seafood Processing Kent 74 (March) 2,947 991 148 175 1,633 76 (March) 2,453 742 325 - 1,386 Cumberland 74 3,003 452 1,881 401 269, 76 2,569 480 1,521 294 274 Sussex 74 4,489 1,212 1,469 750 76 4,171 1,472 1,452 525 7.22 Cape May 74 298 298 76 266 266 Atlantic 74 934 325 1509 76 807 325 @.482. New Castle 74 1,135 .252., 883 76 927 210. 717 Salem 74 1,270 353 225 692 76 376 60 175 141 DRBA Region 74 14,076 3,008 4,300 1,624 5,144 76 11,569 2,754 1,085 3,722 74 Percentage Change -76 -17.2 -8.5 .-6.8 -33.2 -27.6 Source: U.S. Census County Business Patterns, 1974 and 1975. A-20 MM am M Am M M@ M M M man M M M W MM Table 1-21 - LANDINGS IN SELECTED COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY & DELAWARE, 1967, 1974, 1978 FINFISH 1967 SHELLFISH TOTAL NEW JERSEY Pounds Value $ Pounds Value $ Pounds Value $ Atlantic Co. 3,102,604 625,745 1,689,100 688,695 4,791,704 1,314,440 Cape May Co. 35,351,800 1,633,177 18,925,700 2tO5O,853 54,277,500 3,684,030 Cumberland Co. 473,600 48,111 1,727,200 1,002,672 2,200,800 1,050,783 Salem Co. 23,400 3,720 55,000 7,151 78,400 10,871 DELAWARE Kent Co. 95,600 14,626 345,600 66,623 441,200 81,249 Newcastle Co. 13,300 2,230 750 135 14,056 2,365 Sussex Co. 106,900 13,420 303,000 162,008 409,900 175,428 TOTAL DRBA 39,167,204 $2,341,029 23,046,350 $3,978,137 62,213,554 $ 6,319,166 REGION (78 4,026,570 (78 6,842,396 (78 $) 10,858,965 1974 NEW JERSEY Atlantic Co. 2,135,000 526,235 7,685,600 1,923,450 9,820,600 2,449,685 Cape May Co. 14,307,500 2,213,960 14,269,700 2,510,291 28,577,200 4,724,251 Cumberland Co. 378,200 58,325 .2,839,600 1,450,276 3,217,800 1,508,601 Salem Co. 11,400 2,154 404,900 96,715 416,300 98,869 DELAWARE Kent Co. 283,700 72,929 1,515,100 431,563 1,798,800 504,492 Newcastle Co. 34,300 3,473 844,100 166,678 878,400 170,151 Sussex Co. 440,500 113,069 6,096 500 940,108 6,5373,000 1,053,177 TOTAL DRBA 17,590,600 $2,990,125 33,655,500 $ 7,518,581 51,246,100 $10,5095226 REGION (78 $) 4,048,629 (78 $) 103,180,158 (78 145228,787 1978 NEW JERSEY Atlantic Co. 8135500 5345050 3,9035500 2,082,511 4,717,000 2 616,561 Cape May Co. 175116,500 4,634,438 31,721,400 20,552,856 485837,900 25,187,294 Cumberland Co. 3385000 56,934 2,038,500 2,1995745 2,376,500 2,256,679 Salem Co. -0- -0- 263,100 111,304 2635100 111,304 DELAWARE Kent Co. 408,500 134,016 703,900 212,956 1,1125400 346,972 Newcastle Co. 100,600 46,490 825900 37,704 183,500 84,194 Sussex Co. 430,100 157,810 1865800 160,120 616,900 317,930 TOTAL DRBA 19,207,200 $5,563,738 38,900,100 $25,3575196 58,107,300 $30,9203,934 REGION (78 $) Source: National Marine Fisheries Service Department of Commerce for 1914 and 1978 figures; U.S."Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of Interior for 1967 figures. Table 1-22 TOTAL FISH CATCH IN THE U.S. ATLANTIC-NORTH COASTAL WATERS BY SPECIES, 1974 (KETRIC TONS) Total U.S. U.S./U.S. @Foreign/U.S. Catch Catch Foreign + Foreign (E) Tuna 1,178 1,030 87.4% 12.6% (E) Smelts 19,726 31 .2 99.8 (E) Herring 204,424 45,174 22.1 87.9 (I) Menhaden 257,378 257,288 99.9 0.1 (E) Halibut 76 46 60.5 39.5 (E) Sole/Flounder 41,867 40,924 97.7 2.3 (E) Cod 36,826 27,232 73.9 26.1 (E) Hake 167,425 20,514 12.2 87.8 (E) Haddock 5,121 3,289 64.2 35.8 (E) Pollack 12,393 5,731 46.2 53.8 (E) Groupers 4,772 4,772 100.0 0.0 (E) Croakers 7,198 7,198 100.0 0.0 (E) Atlantic Redfish 10,611 8,677 81.7 18.3 (E) Mackerel 294,962 1,079 0.3 99.7 (E) Mullets 279 279 100.0 0.0 (S) Crabs 37,362 37,362 100.0 0.0 (S) Lobster 11,330 11,152 98.4 1.6 (S) Shrimp 8,615 8,615 100.0 0.0 (S) Oyster 199,808 119,808 100.0 0.0 (S) Scallops 76,197 25,263 33.1 66.9 (S.) Clams 289,719 289,719 100.0 0.0 (E) Squid 55,878 2,422 4.3 95.8 Other 60,954 17?.068 1,804,099 1,016,698 56.3% 43 .7% Notes: Atlantic-North coastal waters extend northward from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to the U.S.-Canada border. (E) Indicates an edible finfish (I) Indicates an industrial finfish (S) Indicates a shellfish Source: The U.S. Commercial Fishing Industry - Present Condition and Future of Marine Fisheries, Controller General of the United States, 1976 (CED-76-130). A-22 an M Table 1-23 Manufacturing Employment and Output in the Counties of the DRBA Region-1970-1976 (including Manufacture of Food and Kindred Products) Value Added Value of Industry by Manufacture Shipments Production Non-Production Total (constant 1978 dollars)' (constant 1978 dollars) Workers Workers Employees 000,000 000,000 New Castle 1970 21,600 30,800 52,400 1,209.0 3,190.3 1976 19,700 29,900 49,600 1,228.4 4,270.2 Salem 1970 8,000 3,200 11,200 468.2 892.9 1976 7,400 2,400 9,800 440.6 983.2 Subregion 1970 29,600 34,000 63,600 1,677.2 4,083.2 Total 1976 27,300 32,300 59,400 1,669.0 5,253.4 Kent 1970 6,000 2,400 8,400 350.4 693.2 1976 5,100 1,800 6,900 331.1 775.8 Cumberland 1970 18,800 3,600 22,400 459.9 787.2 > 1976 15,000 3,600 18,600 476.8 12003.0 W Subregion 1970 24,800 6,000 30,800 810.3 1,480.4 Total 1976 20,100 5,400 25,500 807.9 1,778.8 Sussex 1970 7,900 2,200 10,100 283.1 642.2 1976 7,300 2,300 9,600 294.7 869.0 Cape May 1970 - - - 1976 - - 900 A n.a. n.a. Atlantic 1970 10,000 2,300 12,300 323.9 485.9 1976 7,600 1,800 9,400 323.7 468.1 Subregion 1970 17,900 4,500 22,400 607.0 1,128.1 Total 1976 14,900 4,100 19,000 618.4 1,337.1 DRBA 1970 72,300 44,500 116,800 3,094.5 6,691.7 Region 1976 62,100 41,800 103,900 3,095.3 8,369.3 Net Change 1970-1976 -14.1 -6.1 -11.0 0.0 +25.1 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Annual Survey of Manufacturers, 1970, 1976. ACape May Coiinty Figures are from County Business Patterns, 197-5. Table 1-24 Change in Manufacturing Indicators for the Middle Atlantic Region and Other Parts of the U.S. 1970-1976 Value Total Added by *Value of Non- Manufac- Manufac- Industry Produc- Produc- turing ture Shipments tion tion Employ- (Constant (Constant Workers Workers ment _ 1978 $s) 1978 S's) Virginia 1970 273.0 81.1 354.1 1976 288.9 88.4 District of Columbia 1970 10.5 10.8 21.3 1976 8.6 9.3 17.9 Maryland 1970 191.2 81.2 272.4 1976 164.4 78.4 242.8 Delaware 1970 35.6 35.2 70.8 1976 32.2 33.8 66.0 New Jersey 1970 563.6 295.2 858.8 1976 458.4 277.3 735.7 Pennsylvania 1970 1,084.6 429.4 1,514.0 1976 915.7 394.5 -1,310.2 New York 1970 1,173.6 654.6 1,828.2 1976 906.9 548.4 1,455.3 MIDDLE ATLANTIC 1970 3,332.1 1,587.5 4,919.6 1976 2,775.1 1,430.1 4,205.2 Net Change 70-76 -16.7 -49.9 -14.5 NEW ENGLAND 1970 1,025.3 454.0 1,479.3 1976 901.2 438.1 1,339.3 Net Change 70-76 -12.1 -3.5 -9.5 BALANCE OF U.S. 1970 9,170.6 2,720,.0 11,890.6 1976 9,375.7 3,832.8 13,208.5 Net Change 70-76 +2.2 +40.9 +11.1 U.S. 1970 13,528.0 4,761.5 18,289.5 516,390 1,091,051 1976 13,052.0 5,701.0 18,753.0 598,421 1,387,269 Net Change 70-76 -3.5 +19.7 +2.5 +15.9 +27.1 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Annual Survey of Manufacturers, 1970,. 1976 A-24 Table 1-25 Composition of Manufacturing EmployMent in the DRBA Region by County-1976 Chemicals, Petroleum & Glass & Food & Allied I Textiles & Clay Kindred Products Transportation Apparel Products Products DRBA Counties (SIC 28,29) Equipment (SIC 22,23) (SIC 32) (SIC 20) Other Total New Castle 27,861* 8,565* 1,185 422 927 12,787 51,687 Salem 6,494 - 606 1,750 376 343 9,569 subregion totals 34,355 8,5@5- 1,791 2,172 1,303 13,130 61,256 Kent 60* - 680* 91 2,453 3,549 6,833 Cumberland 289 750* 22927* 8,668 2,569 2,673 17,876 subregion totals 349 750 3,607 8,759 5,022 6,222 24,709 Sussex 3,643* - 605 66 4,171 1,823 10,300 Cape May - - - 175 266 489 930 Atlantic 789 750* 2,902 1,755 807 2,082 9,085 subregion totals 4,432* 750* 3,507 1,996 5,244 4,394 20,323 TOTAL DRBA REGION 39,136 10,065 8,905 12,927 11,569 23,746 106,288 % 36.8% 9.5% 8.4% 12.2% 10.9% 22.2% 100.0% U.S. TOTALS 1,000,297 1,679,119 2,108,016 580,512 1,480,577 18,965,344 % 5.3% 8.9% 11.1% 3.1% 7.8% 100.0% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns, 1976 1 DRBA region totals for this sector include Administration & Auxiliary Category (headquarters and research) * Estimates based on some data available in ranges only. Table 1-26 - United States Petrochemical Demand PRODUCT VALUE OF SHIPMENTS--$ BILLIONS (1970) ESTIMATED GROWTH RATES* SECTOR 1964 1970 1975 1980 1985 2000 64/70 70/75 75/80 80/85 85/2000 organic Chemicals $ 4.3 $ 7.4 $11.4 $16.8 $24.0 $ 65.0 10.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 6.5 Plastics 2.5 4.3 6.6 9.7 14.3 43.0 9.5 9.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 Fibers 1.4 2.8 4.4 6.6 9.7 28.0 12.5 9.5 8.5 8.0 7.5 Elastomers 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 > Other 1.3 3.1 4.8 6.7 9.3 25.5 15.5 9.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 TOTAL $10.3 $18.6 $28.5 $41.5 $59.3 $165.0 10.5 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 *All growth rates have been rounded. SOURCE: Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Potential Onshore Effects of Deepwater Oil Terminal-Related Industrial Development," Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C., October 1973. 'M (MI ;M, M gal we M Table 1-27 Volume of Oil Imports Involved in Lightering Total Activity Barrels/ Million Year Calendar Day Barrels/Year 1968 48,000 17.4 1969 49,000 18.9 1970 53,000 19.3 1971 60,000 21.7 1972 176,000 64.3 1973 218,000 79.7 1974 240,000 87.7 1975 280,000 102.2 1976 293,000 107.0 1977 341,000 124.4 A-27 Table 1-28 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACT - MID-ATLANTIC REGION Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey CUMULATIVE Impacts Impacts High-Level Crude Imports Low-Level Crude Imports(baseline) 1985 2000 1985 2000 (1) New Refinery Capacity (M B/D) 3,655 4,855 460 1080 (2) No. of New Petrochemical Complexes 25 39 6 11 (3) Value of New Production (millions 1970 S) 33,806 52,497 6,750 13373 a. Primary 14,276 21,000 2,795 5487 b. Suppliers 8,590 12,988 1,675 3286 c. Induced 10,940 18,509 2,280 4604 (4)New Permanent Operating Employment (thousands) 515.8 666.5 107.7 175.7 a. Primary 111.8 132.6 25.9 36.9 b. Suppliers 182.8 241.0 35.7 61.0 c. Induced 221.2 292.9 46.1 77.8 (5) Value of New Earnings (millions 1970 $) 5,834 10,927 1,215 2505 a. Primary 1,635 2,966 374 825 b. Supplies 2,011 3,857 385 976 c. Induced 2,188 4,094 456 1082 (6) Impact Multipliers 2.8 a. Production (3/3a) 7.2 b. Permanent Employment (4/4a) (7) Additional Employment (thousands) 50.0 50.0 13 a. Construction 30.0 30.0 8 b. Equipment Producers 20.0 20.0 5 (8)Total Employment Impact (thousands) 565.8 716.5 120 1. Excludes temporary (imported) construction employment and construction employment for new housing Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., Potential Onshore Effects of Deepwater oil Terminal Related Industrial Development, Volume II, East Coast. Table 1-29 CUMBERLANDiCAPE MAY COUNTIES SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACT CUMULATIVE Impacts Impacts High-Level Crude Imports Low-Level Crude I mports 1985 2000 19951 20001 (1) New Refinery Capacity (thousand B/D) 1,600 1,900 - 12) No. of new Petrochemical Complexes 9 13 (3) Value of New Production 2 $9,351 $12,772 (millions 1970 $) a. Primary 5,569 7,423 b. Supplies 2,061 2,747 c. Induced 1,721 2,602 (4) New Permanent Operating Employmen t2 *3 130 150 (thousands) a. Primary 40 44 b. Supplies 42 c. Induced 47 52 (5) Value of Now Earnings $1,555 S 2,315 (millions 1970 $) a. Primary 623 995 b. Supplies 507 695 c. I nduced 425 625 (6) Impact Multipliers4 a. Production (3/3a) 1.8 2.0 b. Permanent Employment (4/4a) 3.1 5.2 I .Small economic impact resulting from the terminal and the construction and operations of terminal storage facility. 2. Totals may not add due to rounding. 3. Construction employment excluded from impact analysis because of seasonality, mobility and/or non-permanent nature (see Cumberland/Cape May heading - Additional Impacts and Mid-Atlantic Chapter). 4. Two impact multipliers have been calculated, one for pr6duction, the other for employment. They serve as an indication of the production and employment generating strength of the primary activity in this region which, in this study, is petroleum refining and petrochemical operationL Thus for each $1.00 of final output produced in petroleum refinery-petrochernical activity during 1980-19135 an additional $0.80 worth of output, on the average, is generated in all other industries located in Cumberland/Cape May counties, The employment multipliers are all interpreted in similar fashion. Note that these multipliers do not capture all impacts completely. We have omitted from this cal- culation the additional economic activity generated in and by the actual construction of the physical plants and the manufacture of all required capital equipment (see Additional Impacts). Since the latter two impacts are not necessarily realized upon expansion of output in the petroleum refining and petro- chemical industries, we have omitted them in this segment of our analysis and from the calculation of the multipliers. Thus, the multipliers more accurately represent impacts expected under conditions of some excess capacity which is more in keeping with the traditional meaning of impact multipliers. Source: Ibid A-29 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B List of Contacts Delaware River and Bay Authority Study Dean William Gaither., University of Delaware, College of Marine Studies Mr. N.C. Vasuki, Delaware Solid Waste Authority Mr. Robert Ruggio, Kidde Consultants, Inc., Newark, Delaware Mr. William F. Moyer, Director of Wetlands Division, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation Mr. Ronald Donovan, City Manager, Lewes, Delaware Mr. Robert Bernard, Industrial Development Coordinator, Sussex County, Georgetown, Delaware Mr. Roy Miller, Biologist, Division of Fishery, Department of Fish and Wildlife Mr. Nathan Hayward, Director, Delaware Office of Management, Budget and Planning Mr. Alfieri, Director, Wilmington Port Authority Mayor Marion Howard, Mayor of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware Mr. Lawrence I. Turner, City Manager, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware Mr. Robert O'Brien, Kent County Planning Director Mr. Lawrence Liggett, Wilmington Department of Planning and Economic Development Mr. Eliott Galinkoff, Wilmington Department of Planning and Economic Development Ms. Phyllis Rabb, University of Delaware, Division of Urban Affairs Mr. Jeff Light, New Jersey Governor's Counsel Mr. Tom Hall, New Jersey Governor's Office, Policy/Planning Mr. D.C. Agrawal, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Policy Analysis B-1 Mr. Don Linky, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Planning Mr. Paul Arbesman, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Mr. Rocco Guerrieri, New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry Mr. Bruce Stewart, Delaware River Basin Commission Mr. Cecil Hull, Delaware River Basin Commission Mr. David Hugg, Delaware Office of Management, Budget and Planning Ms. Helen Gelof, Delaware Office of Management, Budget and Planning Mr. John Sherman, Delaware Office of Management, Budget and Planning, Coastal Facility Siting Ms. Dorothy Sbirglia, Delaware Department of Community Affairs, Division of Economic Development Mr. John Babiarz, Wilmington Department of Commerce Mr. Bob Wrede, New Castle County Executive's Office, Industrial Develop- ment Specialist Ms. Jill Hoover, Delaware Economic Development Division, Sussex County 208 Plan Office Mr. Bernard Dworski, Division of Water Resources Planning, New Castle County Mr. Bob O'Brien, Kent County Land Use and Zoning Mr. Charles Lasser, Delaware Division of Fisheries Dr. Robert Lipson, National Marine Fishery Service, Oxford Lab Mr. Tim Goodger, National Marine Fishery Service, Oxford Lab Mr. Ron Gatton, National Marine Fishery Service, Oxford Lab Mr. David Smith, Ecological Assessment Branch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis Mr. David Everett, Delaware River Basin Commission Mr. Herb Howlett, Delaware River Basin Commission Mr. John Bryson, Director, Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Council Mr. Ed Spear, Delmarva Power and Light Co., Wilmington B-2 Mr. Frank Cianfrani, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia Mr. Randy Ponponio, Wetlands Branch, EPA Region III Mr. Bill Maier, Wetlands Branch, EPA Region III Ms. Andrea Tapper, Office of Coastal Zone Management, DEP, State of New Jersey Mr. Bill Yoskin, Office of Coastal Zone Management, DEP, State of New Jersey Mr. Allan Campbell, Office of Coastal Zone Management, DEP, State of New Jersey Mr. Stephen Schweiz, Division of Water Resources, DEP, State of New Jersey Mr. Charles Geter, Division of Tourism, Department of Economic Develop- ment, State of New Jersey Mr. Lee Jennings, Department of Community Development, Salem County, New Jersey Mr. Jim Ogilvie, Public Relations Department, Cumberland County, New Jersey Mr. Louis Dalbert, South Jersey Economic Development Council, Atlantic City, New Jersey Mr. William Brey, National Marine Fishery Service, Oxford, Maryland Mr. Mahoney, National Marine Fishery Service, Statistics Division, Gloucester, Massachusetts Mr. Robert Meyers, Cape May County Planning Department, Cape May Court House, New Jersey Mr. Ed Filipski, Cape May County Planning Department, Cape May Court House, New Jersey Mr. Dereksen, Sussex County Planning Department, and Governor's Commis- sion on Marine Tourism, Georgetown, Delaware Mr. Robert Henry, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environ- mental Control, Soil & Water Division, Dover, Delaware Mr. Jim Wheatley, Division of Travel and Tourism, State of New Jersey Mr. Gary Rice, Tourist Information Center, Cumberland County, New Jersey B-3 Mr. Elwood Jarmon, Planning Director, Cape May County, New Jersey Mr. Jim Waldron, Office of Industrial Development, Department of Labor and Industry, State of New Jersey Ms. Virginia Parker, Office of Economic Development, City of Cape May, New Jersey Mr. Lou Rodin, Public Affairs Coordinator, Cape May County Mr. Charles Thomas,'President, Chamber of Commerce, Wildwood, New Jersey Mr. Ed O'Donnell, Planning Department, New Castle County, Delaware Mr. Paul Dentiste, Planning Department, New Castle County, Delaware Mr. Fred Rudkin, Supervisor of Marinas, Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Mr. Ray Mellanfan, Wilmapco Mr. Steven Walsh, Wilmapco Mr. William Whipple, Institute of Water Resources, Rutgers University Lt. Col. John Calaghan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, District Office, Pennsylvania Mr. Charles D. Worthington, City Executive, Atlanti c City, New Jersey Ms. Bernice Paul, Director of Economic Development Division, County Executive Office, New Jersey Mr. John R. Galloway, President, Delaware Bay Transportation Company Mr. Howard Seymour, College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware Mr. Joseph Conaway, Administrator, Suffolk County, Delaware Mr. Gerald M. Thornton, Freedholder/Cape May County, New Jersey Mr. Donald Kelly, Director, Industrial & Economic Development Agency, Cape May County Mr. Austin P. Olney, Secretary, Department: of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Delaware Mr. O.F..Biondi, Attorney, Council for Delaware River and Bay Authority Mr. William Gemmel, Commissioner, Delaware River and Bay Authority B-4 Mr. Walter Maack, Commissioner, Delaware River and Bay Authority Mr. John Vinci, Commissioner, Delaware River and Bay Authority Mr. Barnard, Commissioner, Delaware River and Bay Authority Mr. McCormick, Commissioner, Delaware River and Bay Authority Mr. Keith Rosser, Director, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Planning and Research Mr. Bob Engle, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Division of Comprehensive Transportation Planning Mr. George Thomas, New Jersey Department of Transportation Mr. R. D. Bewick, Acting Secretary, Delaware Department of Transportation Mr. Bill Elgie, Office of Planning, Delaware Department of Transportation Mr. John Sipple, Chief, Office of Planning, Department of Transportation Mr. Jim Ho, Office of Planning, Department of Transportation Mr. Jim Haas, Office of Planning, Department of Transportation Mr. K.A. Katz, Delaware Bureau of Traffic Mr. Alex Castro, Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff Mr. Vetter, Corps' River & Harbors Board, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia Mr. Henry Watson, Assistant Director, New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry, Office of Business Economics Mr. Dick Ginman, New Jersey Community Affairs - Planning Mr. Joe Kanda, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Bureau of Data Resources Mr. Whiteley, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Bureau of Data Resources Mr. Wolfe, Delaware River and Bay Authority, Office of Comptroller Mr. James R. Kelly, Delaware River Port Authority Mr. John T. Sexton, Delaware River Port Authority Mr. William A. Harrison, The Philadelphia Maritime Exchange B-5 Mr. William Bennington, Delaware River Port Authority Mr. John P. Gaffingan, Delaware River Port Authority Mr. John Malone, Philadelphia Port Corporation Mr. Samuel Hudson, J.E. Brenneman Co., Philadelphia Mr. Ray Heingelman, Frederic R. Harris, Inc., Lake Success Mr. Marvin Searles,- Mobil Oil Corporation B-6 I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I 111 1@ vi I I 111111 1 3 6668 00000 7320 - - -1 -