Philadelphia's plan for river recreation technical appendix

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

'S PLAN
PHILADELPHIA' TECHNICAL
FOR RIVER RECREATION APPENDIX

TC
425
M67
P55
1984

85-6

Technical
'Philadelphia's Plan for River Recreatlo@@ Appendix
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

W. Wilson Goode, Mayor

PHILADELPHIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Graham S. Finney, Chairman
William W. Batoff
David W. Brenner
Leo A. Brooks
Lee G. Copeland
Richard G. Gilmore
Rosemarie B. Greco
Mamie Nichols
Dr. Bernard C. Watson

Barbara J. Kaplan, Executive Director

C-t
=t-
C.j December, 1984

This plan was financed in part through a
Coastal Zone Management grant from the
Report: William E. Toffey Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources with funds provided by the National
Typist: Karen Walker Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Item 1: Prototypical Designs of Recreation
Access Points

9 Item 2: Public Recreational Access on Private
Lands

13 Item 3: Temporary Recreational Land Use

15 Item 4: Methods of River Beautification

19 Item 5: Monitoring Program for River
Recreation

21 Item 6: Draft Riverfront Zoning District

23 Item 7: Boating and Fishing Projections
Methodologies

39 Item 8: Bibliography and References for the
Plan and Technical Report
IMF

Item 1: Prototypical Designs of Recreation setting and is not unduly affected by
Access Points noise, odor, blight and other nuisances.

6. The site can be improved at a cost' that
Schematic designs have been prepared showing makes it a feasible project, whether paid
the possible treatment of different kinds of for from public or private sources, or by
land areas for recreational access. These a combination of funding sources.
designs include a wide variety of facilities
for supporting recreational activity, and The level of funding for improvements will
hence represent a wide range in construction influence, in a fundamental way, the kind of
costs. It is not possible at this early recreation which a riverfront parcel will
stage in the planning process to identify support. A major recreation project (costing
with any degree of certainty access points perhaps in excess of $1 million) might have
on land which is not presently reserved for the following facilities: paved parking and
public recreational use. walkways, landscape plantings, benches,
picnic facilities, lighting, restrooms, play
The following factors beneficially affect a equipment and fields, concession stand and
site's suitability and desirability for maintenance building. A medium-scale
recreation. recreation project, costing perhaps $250,000,
would have a more limited set of improve-
1. The site is at a location along the ments: paved parking and walkways, landscape
riverfront for which there is an unmet plantings and benches; restrooms would be
demand for recreation. likely portable, rather than permanent, if
provided at all. A small recreation access
2. The site is available for public access
point might have gravel parking and paths,
(whether or not acquired by the public and limited seating. In some cities, neigh-
and is compatible with the long-term borhood groups, utilizing donations of labor
planned use of the land. and material, have managed to accomplish
9ignificant improvements to small riverfront
3. There is adequate land area, car and parcels at costs less than $25,000. Work
pedestrian access, and utility lines to generally consists of site cleaning, inex-
serve the public at expected levels of pensive landscape planting and a few park
usage. benches.
4. The site can be improved in a way which Two other elements of a river access are
makes it safe for public use and protects often in heavy demand, yet are expensive to
adjacent landowners from unwarranted install. A boat ramp with accompanying
intrusion. parking can be fitted into a site as small as
five acres at a cost of $100,000, but a major
5. The site makes use of positive visual and facility could be several times larger and in
environmental qualities of its riverfront excess of a million dollars in cost. Pier

structures for over-the-~qwater access for The expense of land acquit
fishing and river viewing are also costly, major proportion of proje~qc
approximately $100.000 for a relatively extent that this cost is ~qt
simple wooden pier when built to withstand public sector, project fe~qi
ice and flood flows which occur along large enhanced. A discussion ol
rivers. of private I ~'andov~aers in t
recreational access is dis
R~qI~-~0qV~2qe~qI~4qr A~6qcc
~4qP~6qr~6qo~2qt~0qo~2q@~4qy~6qp

F~qi ~qu~qr~6qd~q(~q4

F~qi ~t4~qn~0qe,

of
r
oy
xhuylkill

IW eA
Jf vff@&e-ss
C, sqoof
Vol

e4v
t%rl)A@@ Orid
COI%WlS5Ai4y
pove,@

a
a
00/00*

16r edy)
0001, \%
LA4
AR&CArej A /a wo re-
ve, r

j?avl6re es5

EX 10

Moleukr4

Ft@ k- 31.

.00.
a*L
srot
wzq
IVO-- eat w a

Cli tv#74vO' -OPP

L,%,.A @w

Ito

%
4k
Pa rK

V,
r6

400

(401@ -r-A

TWA
CAL - OW PJM#
0136 cl%4- lease-
;Iklp

OL (e

4001
OVA Tt
C,ow oy)
Land

Item 2: Public Recreational Access on Private Joint recreational and industrial use of
Land riverfront properties must be carefully
Business firms and utilities control 80 approached to provide every assurance to a
percent of the riverfront of the Delaware and business firm that no threat to his operation
Schuylkill Rivers. Private residential land will arise. The business firm will need to
use is rare along the rivers, being confined have satisfactorily answered its concern that
to the short stretches of riverfront at a public presence close to its operation will
upriver reaches of both rivers. And, whereas not impose standards of performances which
bulkheading and landfill have virtually are unreasonable. A firm, by admitting the
obliterated tidal lands, the public trust public to its riverfront, may be exposing
doctrine does have significant application in river users to noise, traffic, odors, and
the City. Significant expansion of recrea- other products of its business activity which
tional access in the decade of the 1990's and it might fear would give rise to complaints
beyond must involve lands that are currently to public officials. However, public
owned by business firms and utilities. officials must continually reassure business
Several important factors will influence the owners that the importance of the firm's
availability of private land for future employment and tax benefits to the City will
recreational use. These factors are not jeopardize its standing with the City.
described below: The firm should also be reassured that, in
view of limitation on liabilities under state
Compatibility Between Industrial and statute 68�477-1 to 8, the City would expect
no effort on the part of a business to
Recreational Activities. Reluctance to make maintain or keep clean its lands used for
riverfrontage available for-recreational use, public recreation.
either formal or informal, is rooted in a
fundamental fear that industrial and Property Security. A second fundamental
recreational activities are not compatible. cause of concern of private landowners is the
Public policy to encourage recreational use security of their property from vandalism,
of the riverfront can be suspiciously thefts and fire. A business firm cannot take
regarded as containing a message to any action which either its management
industrial riverfront property owners that officials or its insurance company might view
public policy no longer ascribes priority as increasing its security or fire risks
importance to retaining industrial firms at Firms differ widely in their vulnerabili;Y to
riverfront locations. Except in the unusual unlawful intrusion. Those with outside
circumstances that a firm is clearly storage of materials, vehicles, and equip-
responsible for unacceptable environmental ment, those engaged in production of flamma-
hazards, this is not the case; business ble or toxic chemical, and those involved
activity is always of preeminent importance. with manufacturing technologically advanced
products may feel particularly threatened by
the risks of unlawful intrusion.

No public policy encouraging use of private The federal tax code provides incentives for
lands should be put forth without an offer to business firm donations of land to public
assist with business security. This could agencies or to non-profit, tax-exempt
take the form of financial assistance toward organizations. A firm may deduct the full
installing fences, gates, alarms, lighting fair market value of its gift of land on its
and other protective devices. It might also federal income tax returns. Although the
be a commitment for increased police surve 'il- total amount of deductions claimed by a firm
lance. The City may also encourage firms to cannot exceed 10 percent of its pre-tax
work with community groups or sportsmen's profits, the balance of deductions may be
organizations using the site so that these carried over to five succeeding years. In
groups assist with security measures. A firm the Philadelphia area, the Philadelphia
might also choose to limit access to a Conservationists and the Eastern Chapter of
recreational site to members of a particular The Nature Conservancy are two organizations
organization, rather than having a site open who can assist firms with participating in
to the general public, as a means Of exerting the tax benefits of land donation. These
control over the risk of vandalism. organization also aid in government
acquisition of valuable lands by holding onto
Benefits to Business Firms. Participation of donated property for a short period of time
businesses in a program to provide recrea- until government can appropriate public
tional access to their riverfronts can be funds.
best promoted through demonstrating the
significant benefits which firms can derive Should a firm choose to restrict its future
from doing so. use of riverfront to solely recreation, a
conservation easement may be be sold to the
Recreational access to the river can be an City. This reduces the potential real estate
employee benefit. Employees could be tax-liability for the property, which is
provided attractive fishing and boating based largely on the land in its industrial
access in a park-like setting at the river's usage. If an easement is donated to the City
edge. This kind of facility.could be used or to a non-profit, tax-exempt land trust,
not only at lunch hours and during other the donation can be deducted as a contribu-
breaks, but perhaps by employees and their tion and can reduce the firm's federal income
families on weekends and holidays. tax liability.

There are public relations benefits possible Policy Consensus on River Recreation. A
to business firms for providing recreation. fourth factor in the participation of private
Where access is provided to a community-based property owners in a program to provide
organization, it serves to extend business public access is the degree to which there is
goodwill into the surrounding neighborhood. consensus on the worthiness of the goal of
In cases where a large constituency is increasing river recreation. A strong case
involved, the preparation of an access park needs to be set forth to a business firm's
can provide metropolitan-vide recognition of
a firm's civic action.

executives that an important public good is and riverfront land use. The public goal for
to be gained by its participation in a public recreational access should be one to which
recreational access program. Each proposal there is common agreement by community,
to a business firm must be drafted so as to business and political leaders of its strong
answer a clear need for recreation in the merits. Such agreement would assure
locality in which the firm is located and so businesses that their participation in a
that it constitutes a sensible project in recreational program would be given the full
terms of its relationship to larger trends recognition and public relations value it
affecting water quality, recreation demand, deserves. It also provides the persuasion
and encouragement to a firm which is often
necessary to accomplish change in corporate
policy and procedures.

Item 3: Temporary Recreational Land Use recreational and cultural activities of lands
planned for different uses. The principal
concern is the risk that future permanent use
Temporary recreational access has been will be compromised by the temporary use.
investigated as a means of providing needed This issue has been raised by the
sites for river enjoyment in cases where Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia in
development of public parks could not be its lease of cleared urban renewal properties
expected to meet the demand for recreation in for community gardens and neighborhood
the foreseeable future. The concept sitting areas. The Redevelopment Authority
originated with the recognition that insists on an annual lease, severable at 30
considerable stretches of riverfront in days notice, because it is concerned that its
public and private ownership, planned for efforts to market the land for redevelopment
eventual commercial industrial or port uses, might suffer from the inability to offer
were for the foreseeable future to remain immediate sale. The Authority also is of the
underutilized. Temporary use of such lands opinion, based on experience, that the longer
for recreation would provide opportunities in a temporary use has been in place at a
advance of the allocation of relatively location, the firmer a community fixture it
scarce public funds for development of becomes and the greater the community
permanent facilities. The concept of resistance to uprooting the use for a
temporary recreational use also grew out of permanent one.
the observation that substantial recreational
activities were being undertaken, on an Temporary use also faces issues regarding
informal and unauthorized basis, on private maintenance and liability. A formally
property. designated, yet temporary, assignment of
private lands for recreation requires that a
No published literature has been located private or public organization assure
which directly examines temporary responsibility for the care, maintenance and
recreational use. The Journal of Leisure security of a site. The Redevelopment
Research, Journal of American Planning Authority's experience with gardens and
Association, and publications of the Wational sitting areas indicates that some groups may
Park Services have been reviewed. Park and be not sufficiently well organized to provide
recreation planners in the Philadelphia adequate care. A formal arrangement for
metropolitan area and in other regions have recreational use by an organization might
been contacted for information pertaining to also require its obtaining insurance to cover
this topic. No published report has been possible accidents. The insurance may be
found which specifically discusses the costly enough as to restrict interest in
sanctioned, temporary use of private lands managing the area.
for recreation in an urban setting.
Temporary use limits the extent to which a
Several concerns have been raised in site will be provided equipment and
interviews regarding temporary use for conveniences to serve the user. Public or

private agencies responsible for a recreation might consist of park benches, pathways and
site will generally only make improvements to landscaping. The cost of electrification and
a site to the extent that the expected life restroom facilities can probably not be
of the improvement does not exceed the terms provided at temporary facilities, and
of the agreement for conrol of the site, or therefore such facility would not serve well
at least the expected tenancy of the site. long-term visitors and families. The limited
When the contract is on an annual basis, services at a temporary facility would
virtually no permanent improvements are provide a constraint to the viability of the
likely to occur, and visitors will have to site.
provide their own chairs and shelter. Trash
receptables, safety railing and a suitable For the reasons set forth above, the concept
parking area should also be provided at the of temporary use of riverfront lands for
most temporary facilities. With recreation has limited applicability for
significantly longer tenancy, improvements Philadelphia.

Item 4: Methods of River Beautification provided funding to set up a new promotional
and advocacy group, named the Keep Phila-
delphia Beautiful Committee. The river
The beautification of derelict riverfront beautification proposal has been submitted to
properties has been set forth as one of the the director of this organization and several
recommendations of 'Philadelphia's Plan for of its board members for its consideration in
River Recreation as a means of complementing establishing priorities for action. The
the improved water quality and recreational river edge beautification proposal in
capacity of the Delaware and tidal Schuylkill Philadelphia's Plan for River Recreation will
Rivers. The plan shows proposed stretches of have the beat opportunity for implementation
the Delaware River where beautification if made part of the agenda of these two
measures would have the most applicability, organizations.
based on the existing riverfront use and on
projected increases in water recreational Methods of river edge screening and beauti-
activity. But other individual properties, fication are similar to methods employed for
both in public and private ownership, may street tree planting and urban park manage-
also be candidates for improvement, although ment and for strip mine reclamation. The
not specifically mapped. literature in these areas is extensive, and
represented by such symposium proceedings at
The broad strategy for accomplishing river "Trees for Reclamation", Lexington, Kentucky
edge beautification is laid out in the plan. (October 27-29, 1980), and the "National
It depends on the initiation of private Urban Forestry Conference," Washington D.C.,
organizations to raise public awareness and (November 13-16, 1978). The Forest Service,
to provide the incentives to property owners of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
to participate. Steps more detailed than maintains annually a summary of forestry
those suggested in the plan will have to research of which issues of urban forestry
await recent significant organizational and land reclamation are prominent. Forest
initiatives for city beautification in Services General Technical Report NE-49,
Philadelphia. Two groups have been Urban Foresters Handbook, summarized in 1978
instrumental in promoting private endeavors re'search on special topics in urban forestry.
for improving the cleanliness of the city. One journal, Urban Ecology, frequently
These are the Pennsylvania Horticultural publishes researoh on improved methods of
Society and the Philadelphia Chamber of city land restoration.
Commerce. The Pennsylvania Horticultural
Society will be making plans for city-wide Based on a review of urban forestry litera-
effort at city beautification, and the river tare, none of which is directly applicable to
edge beautification proposal set forth in the river edge screening, three factors are of
plan has been submitted to the society for primary importance in the use of vegetation
its consideration along with other needs. for riverfront beautification. These are
The principal business organization in the summarized below.
City, the Philadelphia First Corporation, has

Site Preparation. The single most important the soil PH (either the addition of lime to
factor in vegetation survival in the urban treat an acid soil, or a specific formulation
environment is the condition of the soil. of fertilizer to give a lime, basic soil a
All river edges along the Delaware consist of neutral pHj.
fill material, which may vary extremely in
its composition, even within a short stretch Permits requiring the approval of DER's
of riverfront. While the best situation is a Bureau of Solid Waste Management, and
riverfront formed of clean fill, free of possibly other DER permitting bureaus, may be
demolition and scrap material. But most required for projects involving the
river edge areas in need of beautification application of sewage sludge or dredge
are not only likely to consist of coarse, disposal materials to riverfront properties.
non-soil material, but also to be covered by Property owners should contact the Bureau of
the remains of scrap and waste material or Solid Waste, Division of Residual Waste
bulk raw materials. For the most part, these office in Harrisburg or the DER regional
will be unsuitable for vegetative planting, office in Norristown prior to undertaking any
and modification of the land surface at the sewage sludge/dredged spoil application.
river edge will be necessary.
Species Selection and Planting. A second
There are several steps necessary for site critical factor in the success of river edge
preparation. The first step in site beautification is selection of appropriate
preparation is sampling of the fill material plant material and use of proper planting
to determine its suitability for plant techniques.
growth. Where at least two feet of soil or
soil-like medium ispresent on site, no major
modifications will be necessary. If the Substantial research is underway on the
potential root zone is shallower than two development of tree and shrub varieties
feet because of concrete rubble or similar capable'of withstanding urban conditions,
obstructions, the edge will need to be such as poor aeration, extreme soil fertility
modified by removing old fill and replacing conditions, soil compaction, poor drainage
it with a clean soil fill. Sampling and high wind and sun exposure. Street trees
procedures should include testing for the that have proved hardy display resistance to
nutrient status of the fill, which will lead deicing salts, low aeration and calcareous
to specifications for fertilizer amendments. (high PH) conditions. Plants suitable for
In all likelihood, the physical conditions of derelict river areas might also have to deal
the fill should be modified to help assure with low fertility and waterlogged, poorly
adequate soil aeration and drainage. This aerated, depending on topography and the
may be achieved by adding organic material, nature of the fill. Varieties of locust,
such as composted sludge, wood chips, mulch willow, maple (red and silver), sycamore and
or peat, into the surface one-foot layer of ash, as well as trees ubiquitious in the
the soil. The final step of site preparation city, ailanthus and the princess tree, are
CTNA t-hn nf anTno nf tha trPPA whinh havp proved hardv to

the urban environment. Consideration of both dredge spoil basins at the confluence of the
site and soil conditions at a specific Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. Compacted
project location will help ensure the sewage sludge is a soil amendment that can
selection of appropriate kinds of trees. improve soil fertility and structure and can
be made available to property owners at low
Proper planting techniques are critical to or no cost. This material can be obtained
successful vegetation establishment. Care from the Philadelphia Water Department.
must be taken to provide a hole of appropri-
ate dimensions for a tree's root ball, to
utilize good soil material around the ball,
and to thoroughly water and compact the soil
around the roots. Frequent watering during
the first several weeks aids in tree survi-
val. Guy wires, trunk wrapping and rodent
shields may be necessary to protect a young
tree. Trees should also be planted during
the late fall or early season, during periods
of dormancy, so that they are not faced with
immediate needs for water and nutrients.

Another important step in plant establishment
is to assure stabilization of the soil
surface and protection from wind and water
erosion. This can be accomplished by the
sowing of a vigourous ground cover of
grasses, legumes and other herbaceous plants.
A vigorous groundcover requires careful
preparation of the soil surface, adequate
fertility, and a mulch to protect the
seedlings.

Publications are available from several
governmental sources on methods of three
planting and care in the City. Sources
include the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, Bureau of Forestry,
the U.S.D.A Forest Service and the U.S.D.I.
National Park Service. Good fill material
for tree planting is available at low cost
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at its

Item 5: Monitoring Program for River land use characteristics along its length.
Recreation. Counts are made at four hour intervals on
weekends and holidays and on select weekdays
during the boating season. Although the
Substantial changes are taking place to the survey procedure may be subject to
resources supporting river recreation. New considerable error, it should be continued
boating faciities will soon be serving the nevertheless, with perhaps an attempt to make
public -- notably the Frankford Arsenal Boat the data more accurate than in the past by
Ramp, the Tacony Boat Ramp, a ramp in Chester making sampling procedures more regular and
City, and at least four facilities on the New precise.
Jersey side of the Delaware River. Water
quality will also be registering major The Pennsylvania Fish Commission should
improvements, as sewage treatment plants in conduct a creel survey along the Delaware
Phialdelphia and upriver at Trenton become River. The survey could consist of use of
fully operational and make fishing and water standardized survey forms by interviewers
skiing more attractive than in the past. with fisherman at fishing spots along the
These factors promise a significant increase river and with fisherman returning in boats
to the level of boating and fishing. to clubs and launch facilities. The creel
survey would provide a profile of the
The public benefit derived from investment in characteristics of the fishing public, as
pollution control and boating facility well as information on the fish species which
development can be best demonstrated through are being caught.
monitoring, over a number of years, the
growing recreational use of the Delaware Supplementing the two surveys, the Pennsyl-
River. A monitoring program is proposed vania Fish Commission should utilize fish
below which may be able to provide base data license and boat registration data to provide
upon which estimates of benefits can be measures of increased in river-based recrea-
estimated. tion. An examination of boat registrations
have proved a useful index to expanded
The Pennsylvania Fish Commission is boating in counties in which recreational
recommended to take the lead in monitoring reservoirs have been built. Registrations
boating and fishing activity on the Delaware are likely to show a comparable increase in
River. The Fish Commission currently Philadelphia as a result of the opening of
conducts a periodic survey of boating and the two boating facilities. The Fish Commis-
angling use. Waterway patrolmen count power sion might also possibly extract additional
and non-power boats, and fishermen on the information from the registration applica-
shoreline and in boats, and the survey is tions by noting the address and zip code of
supplemented by the area fishery manager's the boater's place of residence, as well as
survey of physical, biological and chemical the location of boat use, so as to demon-
conditions of the stream and of social and strate shifts in the location of boating

activity by those Philadelphians who already recreation expenditures and recreation
own and register boats in Pennsylvania. participation rates which were last published
in 1975. This planning effort should
The Fish Commission can similarly use fishing continue to be repeated on a ten year basis,
license sales to track increased local so as to track changes in recreation
fishing activity. The data now tabulated by activities throughout the state. The State
the Commission, sale of licenses by counties might also purchase the services of private
in which the license is sold, provides a - consultants, such as the A.C. Nielson
rough indication of location at which fishing Company, to obtain information pertinent to
is occurring. It does not, however, provide the state and its recreational regions. The
a record of the home address of the person Division of Coastal Zone Management might
purchasing the license. As with boating provide funding for a study of the type
registrations, the Fish Comission would prepared for Lake Erie on the sport fishing
provide data important for analytical use by potential of the Delaware Estuary so as to
tabulating license sales by both location of create a base of data against which future
sale and by county of residence, and thereby surveys could be compared.
permit analysis of both increased levels of
local fishing, as measured by location of The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
sale, as well as changes to the number of Wildlife-Associated Recreation is an excep-
Philadelphians who fish. tionally useful survey conducted by the
Bureau of the Census and the Fish and Wild-
Other sources of information may be used to life Service. It is conducted every five
infer the economic effects of increased years, and the next should be made in 1985,
fishing and boating participation. The City for publication in late 1987. This survey
of Philadelphia produces an annual listing of should be useful for tracking significant
firms paying wage taxes which may be sorted shifts in fishing by two important classifi-
by zip code and two-digit standard industrial cations for Philadelphia population density
code classification. Firms in sporting and race, as Philadelphia has 80 percent of
goods, fishing tackle and bait, and marine the "big city population" and 60 percent of
supplies can be identified and tracked on an the state's black residents.
annual basis for significant changes to the
City's wage tax received from them, from The Pennsylvania Marine Trades Association
which total employee wages can be imputed. could be called upon possibly to conduct an
New firms may be tracked by the public record annual survey of its members. A survey by
of fictitous names filed .with the state and this organization might yield estimates of
reported in Focus., a regional business sales volumes, numbers of employees and
magazine. wages, by county or by region of the state.
The Pennsylvania Fish Commission or
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Department of Environmental Resources might
Resources, through its recreation planning consider providing some funds to this group
; a !_ -
function, i.5 updating its "--LL"-lYj5- LU Ubb.LUL J.U 0 OULVVY

Item 6: Draft Riverfront Zoning District (b) Area Requirement.

As part of the setback requirements of
The proposed riverfront overlay zoning any underlying zoning district, there
district, similar to a district implemented shall be provided and maintained a
within the City of Pittsburgh, would impose a setback of not less than 30 percent the
requirement for provision of a setback along depth of the lot or fifty (50) feet in
the riverfrontage for all property abutting a depth, whichever is less, along the
river, The major purpose of the riverfront entire riverfrontage of any property
setback requirement is to encourage the abutting a river within the city. No
establishment of landscaped open space building, structure or use shall extend
abutting rivers within the city in conjunc- into a required setback yard along the
tion with new development and with substan- riverfrontage, nor shall-this area be
tial rehabilitation. Activities not used for surface parking, loading or
currently in compliance would not be required open storage. Required riverfront
to take corrective action unless a permit setback yards shall be landscaped and
were sought involving investments in excess maintained in accord with a landscape
of 50 percent of the current value of the plan submitted as part of development or
property improvements. Further, the ordi- rehabilitation documents.
nance advances the intention of floodplain
control ordinances, in that uses which might (c) Waiver of Yard Requirement.
obstruct passage of floodwater, which might
be exposed to flood damages, or which could The requirement that no structure or use
be swept away by floodwaters would not be shall extend into a riverfront yard
permitted close to the river edge. This shall not apply to encroachments and
riverfront yard requirement would pertain, obstructions for which permits have been
unlike floodplain regulations, only to the issued by the Pennsylvania Department of
Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, rather than Environmental Resources; to recreational
also to tributaries. or water-related uses such as parks,
(a) Purpose. marinas, facilities for boating and
fishing; to industrial docks or river
This section imposes a requirement for transportation faciltities; to piers
maintenance of a setback along a river- built between the pierhead and bulkhead
frontage for all uses, lots and parcels lines of the Delaware River; or to
which abut a river within the City of munieipal or public utility water intake
Philadelphia, whether or not such land and discharge facilities.
is located within the 100 year flood-
plain. The purposes of this regulation
is to maintain an open space area along
the banks of the rivers and to improve
the scenic quality of the city's
riverfronts.

Item 7: Boating and Fishing Proiections Every statistic of fishing and boating
Methodology participation by Philadelphians was prepared
for this study by comparing, verifying and
modifying data from several sources, as no
No reliable estimate of boating and fishing single source provided a comprehensive set of
participation by Philadelphians was available reliable numbers. For fishing participation
at the time 'Philadelphia's Plan for River data, the single most troublesome discrepancy
Recreation was researched. Therefore, the was the high participation rate reported by
first step in projecting future participation DER's recreation survey when contrasted to
in water-based sports was to prepare low fishing license sales reported in
reasonable estimates of current participa- Philadelphia by the Fish Commission. For
tion. The following data was available for boating participation, the DER-reported rate
boating and fishing participation: again was far higher than the Fish Commission
boat registration data. A second source of
Pennsylvania Fish Commission -- boat boating and fishing participation, the Kraus
registrations by County (1983); boating and survey, also reported rates of water-based
angling use survey (1982); Jan Caveney, sports that were apparently exaggerated. A
waterways patrolman. principal explanation for the discrepancy was
the participation by Philadelphians in these
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental sports outside the city, in other recreation
Resources -- Pennsylvania Recreation Plan regions. But even this could not completely
(1980); Pennsylvania Recreation Survey explain the wide discrepancy.
(1975).
Fishing Estimates. Fishing participation
Richard Kraus, Temple University -- survey estimates relied on the 1980 National Survey
of recreation participation among as providing the most consistent and
Philadelphians. reasonable source of data. Data specific for
Philadelphia was estimated by extracting from
National Marine Manufacturers the 1980 survey participation reported by
Association -- Boating Statistics 1982 race and by population density. Whereas
(1983). Philadelphia's population is 80 percent of
the reported "big city" fishing participation
A.C. Nielson Company - Trends in and Philadelphia's black population is 60
participation sports (1983). percent of the black population state wide,
participation rates within the city were
U.S. Bureau Census and Fish and Wildlife calculated as directly proportional to these
Service- 1980 National Survey of Fishing, two ratios. It was assumed, further, that
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated all of Pennsylvania's "saltwater-only"
Recreation, Pennsylvania. fishermen were from the Philadelphia
metropolitan area, and the number of

saltwater-only Philadelphia fishermen were Projections of future fishing activity were
taken as a proportion of the metropolitan based entirely on professional judgment, as
population residing in Philadelphia, but was influenced by regional, state and national
set slightly higher than this proportion participation rates. The basic assumption is
because of the c@ty's comparatively closer that participation by city residents would
location to saltwater than are most of its rise to a level not as high as the existing
suburban counties. In a similar fashion, the participation rate among suburban residents,
data for participation among black and white which is almost 60 percent higher than that
youth were taken as direct proportions to, of the city. For this report, the city rate
statistics for fishing youth reported for was projected to rise to a level one-half the
big-city and by race. In addition, the 1980 difference between the 1980 city and suburban
Survey, which reported a significant number rate, or a 30 percent increase in participa-
of City fishermen not purchasing licenses, tion. The total fishing activity that this
was used to revise upward the number of increased rate would create was allocated to
license sales in the city so as to provide an local rivers in a fashion consistent with
estimate of the proportion of resident improved facility availability, the implemen-
freshwater fishermen using local rivers. tation of urban fishing programs and improved
These participation rates were double-checked fishing resources. It assumed, for example,
by comparing rate of salt and freshwater a small, but significant, attraction of some
fishermen residing in Philadelphia and the salt-water only fishermen to the Delaware and
metropolitan area, as estimated by the above Schuylkill Rivers.
described proportional estimates, with the
participation rate in Allegheny County, which Boating Estimates. Estimates of boating
consists of Pittsburgh and surrounding participation by residents and boating
suburban areas. The total fishing partici- activity in local rivers had to confront two
pation rates were in reasonably close factors. First, a very great amount of
agreement. boating participation is undertaken by
Philadelphians at locations outside the city
The location of fishing activity by and in boats which are not owned by them.
Philadelphians relied on Fish Commission Second, a significant proportion of Philadel-
estimates of fishing activity for the phians who are boat owners have their boats
Schuylkill and Delaware River, as modified registered and stored outside Pennsylvania
both by its staff expert, and by the field and the Delaware Estuary. The task of the
experience of the local waterways patrolman. planning analysis was to identify the total
number of Philadelphia boaters and to assign
The Pennsylvania Recreation Plan and the 1980 them to the principal waters in which they
survey were used to assign to the number of engage in this sport.
fishing participants an estimate of total
activity days by Philadelphians, and, where An estimate was made of total boat ownership
this participation could not be reasonably by Philadelphians. This was done by
assigned to local stream and rivers based on examining total boat registrations by states
Fish Commission estimates. it was allocated
to other recreation regions.

in Northeast United States, and identifying The projection of potential boating ownership
an plexcessil of registrations in those states was based on the premise that the rate of
bordering Pennsylvania based on the number of ownership for the metropolitan region would
boats in that state exceeding the average one day approach the average ownership rate
registration in the Northeast and Mid- for rural counties and towns. The metro-
Atlantic regions of the country. It was politan rate would be composed of a suburban
assumed that a large proportion of the and urban components; the urban component
##excess" boats in Maryland, Delaware and New would be a rate one half the suburban rate.
Jersey was attributable to poor boating Based on this projection, the boat ownership
facility availability in southeastern rate for the metropolitan area and for
Pennsylvania, compared to the other metro- Philadelphia would increase 40 percent.
politan areas in these states. Further, the
total rate of boat ownership in metropolitan Projections of boating participation among
Philadelphia was assumed to be equal to that Philadelphians was an extension of the
of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This - projection of boat ownership. It was assumed
provided the basis for allocating to south- that for each additional boat owned by a
eastern Pennsylvania a proportion of the resident and registered in the city that, on
excess boat in neighboring states. The average, fifteen additional residents (guests
allocation of boats to city residents was and relatives) would, at some time in the
made as a proportion to the ratio of suburban year, also use the boat. This is based on
boat registrations to city boat state and national statistics of boat
registrations. registrations versus boating participation.
The projected boating participation was a 30
Total boating partieipation among Philadel- percent average increases over existing
phians was an estimate based on a comparison participation, reflecting the judgment that
of local, state and national surveys, the rate of additional participation might
adjusted downward by a professional judgment not rise as steeply as boat ownership in
that participation reported in surveys response to additional facility development
exaggerated actual participation. This in the city. This participation was
participation was converted into total allocated to different water bodies and
boating activity and peak boating ba 'sed on recreational areas on the premise that local
Pennsylvania Recreation Plan data. Total rivers would gain in attractiveness and
boating activity by Philadelphians was convenience relative to competing locations
assigned to di-fferent water bodies by a as planned facilities are developed.
judgment of the relative attractiveness of Projections of boat ownership and boating
other boating regions and related factors. participation were compared to existing
Boating activity on local rivers was assigned conditions in other states and regions and
on the basis of Pennsylvania Fish Commission were determined to be conservative and within
boating use estimates and surveys for the levels typical in other metropolitan areas.
Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers.

TABLE Al: ESTINATION OF PHILADELPHIA'S FISHING POPULATION

Percentage of
Category of Fishing Total Population Fishermen Total Population_

Adult

White
Fresh; Fresh and Saltwater 23,000
Saltwater Only 59,000
Total White 850,000 82,000 9.6

Black
Fresh; Fresh and Saltwater 11,000
Saltwater Only 22,000
Total Black 480,000 33,000 6.9

Total Adult 1,330,000 115,000 8.6

Youth

White 130,000 32,000 24.6
Black 120,000 13,000 10.8
Total Youth 250,000 45,000 18.0

TOTAL 1,580,000 160,000 10.1

SOURCE: Philadelphia City Planning Commission estimates derived from Pennsylvania Fish Commission, 111981
Fishing License Sales," and the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Interior 1980 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: Pennsylvanj*ae

TABLE A2: FISHING ACTIVITY ON THE DELAWARE RIVER, BY SEGMENT

Water Surface Angling Days/ ADY ADY
County and Segment Length (mile) (Acres) Year (ADY) mile acre

Delaware County
3C 14.6 10,200 5,000 342 .49

Philadelphia
3F 1.3 800 1,000 769 1.3
3J 18.3 8,200 40,000 2,186 4.9

Bucks County
2F 4.4 1,300 5,000 1,136 3.8
2E 19,5 2,600 25,000 1,282 9.6

TOTAL 58.1 23,100 76,000 1,308 3.3

Source: Pennsylvania Fish Camission, Conputerized Inventory of boating and f ishing survey data,
January 13, 1981, modified by Fred Johnson. Philadelphia City Planning Commission,
measurement of water surface area.

TABLE *3: DISTRIBUTION OF PHILADELPHIA FISHERMEN BY WATERS FISHED

Location Adult Youth Total

Delaware River-Shore 1,000 1,000 2,000
Delaware River-Boat 2,000 2,000 4,000
Schuylkill River 15,000 10,000 25,000
Wissahickon Creek 10,000 12,000 22,000
Other Tributaries 1,000 1,000
Ponds 1,000 1,000
Rural Streams 6,000 3,000 9,000
Shore or Bay 81,000 15,000 96,000

TOTAL 115,000 45,000 160,000

Source: Philadelphia City Planning Commission estimates based on 1980 National
Survey of Fishing, Huntinit and Wildlife-Associated Recreation:
Pennsylvania and telephone conversation with Jan Caveney, Pennsylvania
Fish Commission, October 19, 1983.

TABLE A4.- BOATING ACTIVITY ON THE DELAWARE RIVER, BY SEGMENr

Length Water Surface Boating Days BDY BDY
County and Segment mile) (acre) Per Year (BDY) mile acre

Delaware County
3G 14.6 10,200 25,000 1,712 2.5

Philadelphia
3F 1.3 800 5,000 3,846 6.3
3J 18.3 8,200 67,000 3,661 8.2

Bucks County
2E 4.4 1,300 50,000 11.363 3.8
2F 19.5 2,600 7,000 359 2.7

TOTAL 58.1 23,100 154,000 2,651 6.7

Source: Pennsylvania Fish Commission, computerized inventory of boating and f ishing survey
data, January 13, 1981. Philadelphia City Planning Commission, measurement of water
surface area.

TABLE A5: ESTIMATED BOAT OWNERSHIP BY RESIDENTS OF PHILADELPHIA METROPOLITAN AREA AND OTHER GOVERNINENrAL UNITS

TOTAL BOATS REGSTRD REGISTRATION BOATS REGSTRD TOTAL BOAT OWNERSHIP
COUNTY POPULAIATION IN-SIATE Per 1000 ELSEWHERE OWNERS PER 1000

Philadelphia 1,688,200 4,300 2.5 12,700 17,000 10.0

Bucks 479,200 8,100 16.8 1,500 9,600
Chester 316,700 2,700 8.5 3,600 300
Delaware 555,000 3,200 5.8 7,900 11,100
Montgomery. 643,600 6,300 9.8 6,600 12,900

Philadelphia
Suburbs 1,994,500 20,300 10.1 19,600 39,900 20.0

Phladelphi
Metro Ar:a 3,682,700 24,600 6.7 32,300 56,900 15.5

N.J., Suburbs of
Philadelphia 1,342,000 5,960 4.4 15,000 20,960 15.6

Allegheny County 1,450,100 23,100 15.9 0 23,100 15.9
Pennsylvania 11,864,000 197,580 16.7 Not Not Not
Estimated Estimated Estimated

Rural Penna. 5,657,000 126,685 22.4 Not Not NDt
Estimated Estimated Estimated

United States 226,546,000 8,941,217 39.5 Not Not Not
Applicable Applicable Applicable

SOURCE: Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Bureau of Waterway "Boat Registration by County," December 8, 1982.
Philadelphia City Planning Commission estimates of out-of-state boat registrations.

TABLE A6: COMPARISON OF BOAT REGISTRATION AMONG STATES IN NORTHEASTERN UNITED S'IATES

1982 Registration
State Population (1000) Boat Registration Per 1000 Capita

Conneticut 3,108 67,078 21.5
Delaware 594 34,861 58.7
District of Columbia 638 3,786 5.9
Maryland 4,217 137,719 32.7
Massachusettes 5,737 181,699 31.7
New Jersey 7,365 130.922 17.8
New York 17,558 321,881 18.3
Pennsylvania 11,864 197,580 16.7
Rhode Island 947 25,189 26.6
Virginia 5,347 139,694 26.1

TOTAL 57,375 1,240,409 21.6

Source: "Boating," (an annual statistical abstract) National Marina Manufacturing Association.
Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1982-1983. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census.

TABLg A7: ESTIMATES OF BOAT OWNERSHIP AND BOATING PARTICIPATION BY PHILADELPHIANS, COMPARED TO PENNSYLVANIA AND
UNITED 8TATES

Ovnership
Boat per 1000 Boating Participation Participation
Source of Estimate Ownership Capita Participation Per 1000 Capita Per Boat

Philadelphia

Pennsylvania Recreation
Survey 1974 440,000 260
Temple University Survey 295,000 to 174
370,000 218
City Planning Cu. ission
estimate 17,000 10.0 250,000 150 15.0

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Fish Commission;
Pennsylvania Recreation
Plan 197,580 16.7 4,021,896 339 20.4

United States

National Marine Man. Assoc. 8,941,217 39.7 60,711,000 268 6.8
Nielsen Marketing (1982) 52,600,000 232

Source: Pennsylvania Recreation Survey: The Local Point of Viev Ide Associates, Inc. for Comnonwealth
of Pennsylvania, 1975. Richard Kraus, Temple University: telephone conversation with author
July 8, 1983. Pennsylvania Fish Camission, Bureau of Waterways, "Boat Registration by County,
Deceutb'UL 1982. R. J. Halstenrud, A. C. Nielson Company, "Trends in Participation Sports," April
25, 1983. 'National Marine-Manufacturers Association, "Boating," (an annual statistical
abstract).

TABLE A8: ESTIMATES OF ACTIVITY LOCATION BY PHILADELPHIA BOATERS

Percentage
Location Participants Of Participants

In Philadelphia

Delaware River 20,000 8
Schuylkill River 3,000 1

Outside Philadelphia

Delaware River 17,000 7
Lakes and Rivers 10,000 41
Shore and Bay 200,000 80

TOTAL 250,000 100

Source: Philadelphia City Planning Commission estimate, based on Temple University
survey, interview with Joseph Sweeney, Schuylkill Navy member; Pennsylvania
Fish Commission boating activity survey; Pennsylvania Recreation Plan; Bob
Rasmussen, concessionaire at the Strawberry Mansion Boat House; and, Planning
C, ission surveys of yacht clubs.

TABLE A9: PROJECTED BOAT OWNERSPIP IIN METROPOLITAW PHILADELPHIA

Existing Projected
County Registered Registered Registered Registered
At Home Elsewhere Total At Home Elsewhere Total-

Philadelphia 4,300 12,700 17,000 9,000 13,000 239000
Bucks 8,100 1,500 9,600 9,000 10500 109500
Chester 2,700 3,600 6,300 3,200 4,800 7,000
Delaware 3,200 7,900 11,100 6,000 8,000 149000
Montgomery 6,300 6,600 12,900 6,900 69600 13,500,
Wew Jersey 6,000 15,000 219000 89000 15,000 230000

TOTAL 30,600 47,300 77,900 429100 47,900 909000

SOURCE: Philadelphia City Planning Commission estimates based on State statistics and comparison to
ownership statistics of comparable states and counties, 1983.

TABLE A10: PROJECTED ANNUAL BOATING ACTIVITY ON THE DELAWARE AND SCHUYLKILL RIVERS

Existing Projected
.River Boating Days/Year Boating Days/Year

Delaware River

Delavare County 25,000 1005000
Philadelphia 72,000 2009000
Bucks county 57,000 2009000

Schuylkill River 75,000 100*000

TOTAL 229,000 6009000

SOURCE: Philadelphia City Planning Commission estimates, 1983.

-TABLE All: DELAWARE RIVER RECREATIONAL USE SURVEY TACONY PALMYRA BRIDGE TO NESHAMINY CREEK (8 miles)

APRIL AND MAY JUNE TO LABOR DAY POST LABOR DAY

Avg. of Avg. of Avg. of
Avg. of First Avg. of First Avg. of First
Daily Quartile of Daily Quartile of Daily Quartile of
High Count High Counts High-Co'unts High Counts High Counts Hijxh Counts

Weekday

Angling
- Shore 8 11 11 22 9 16
- Boat 1 3 1 3 0 1

Boating
- Power 6 11 14 25 8 14
- Non-Power 2 4 4 8 5 13

Weekend and
Holiday
Angling
- Shore 38 68 32 61 18 32
- Boat 8 18 7 19 8 21

Boating
- Power 33 68 71 146 32 60
- Non-Power 23 60 27 55 27 73

Source: Pennsylvania Fish Coumission raw counts 1981; Philadelphia City Planning Cammissix)n analysis.

TABLE A12: COMPARISOR OF BOAT FACILITY DEMAND WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED CAPACITIES

Total Current Future Projected Current Proposed
Location and Facility Boats Peak Demand Boats Peak Demand Capacity Capacity Deficit

Metropolitan Area

Slips and Moorings 4,500 4,500 5,000 5,000 3,000 3,175 1,825
Boat Launches 25,500 5,100 37,000 7,400 3,100 3,800 3,600

Slips and Moorings 650 650 800 800 200 200 600
Boat Launches 3,650 730 8,350 1,670 200 520 1,150

SOURCE: Based on Planning Commission estimates of boat ownership, participation, peak demand and future
conditions and interviews with operators/ovners concerning proposed capacity additions, 1983.

Item 8: BibliograPhy and References for the Britz, Kenneth. Consultant to the Urban
Plan and Technical Report Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh.
July 20, 1983. Telephone conversation
Ammonsen, Lieuteunant. U.S. Coast Guard, with author on river recreation plans.
Gloucester City Station. July 7, 1983.
Telephone conversation with author on Britz, Kenneth. Consultant to the Urban
safety concerns in estuary. Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh.
July 22, 1983. Telephone conversation
Andrews, James. Penn State Fish and Game with author on Allegheny County Marina
Association. October 20, 1983. Study.
Telephone conversation with author on
the Fall Fishing Festival. Bronx River Restoration. 1980. Bronx River
Restoration Master Plan. The Bronx,
Armbruster, Andre. Harbormaster, Penn's New York.
Landing. June 30, 1983. Telephone
conversation with author on public Brown, Ray. Anchorage Marina. July 25,
events at Penn's Landing. 1983. Telephone conversation with
author on expansion plans.
Belk, Richard. Secretary, Pennsylvania
Marine Trade Association. August 20, Brown, Tommy L. 1983. "Special problems in
1984. Telephone conversation with evaluating urban fishing programs,"
author on boating issues in vicinity of Proceeding of the Urban Fishing
Essington. Symposium, October 5-8, 1983. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: American Fisheries
Binkley, Clark S. and W. Michael Hanemann. Society.
1978. Recreation benefits of water
quality improvement: Analysis of day Buckley, Dorothy. Secretary to the Fairmount
trips in an urban setting. (EPA- Park CommIssion. July 5, 1983.
606115-78-100). Washington, D.C.: Telephone conversation with author
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. about special events in park areas and
fishing festivals.
Bonham, J. Blaine. Pennsylvania
Horticultural Society. December 5, Buckley, Dorothy. Secretary to the Fairmount
1984. Telephone interview with author Park Commission. October 20, 1983.
on potential role of PHS in river Telephone conversation with author on
beautification. concessionaires and other tenants along
Schuylkill River.
Breen, Ann. 1983. "Urban Fishing and
Waterfront Redevelopment," Proceedings Bucks County Park and Recreation Board.
of the Urban Fishing Symposium, October 1971. Recreation and leisure in Bucks
5-8, 1983. Grand.Rapids, Michigan: County. Doylestown, Pennsylvania:
American Fisheries Society. Bucks County Planning Commission.

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Charbonneau, J. John and James R. Lyons.
Commerce. 1982. Statistical Abstract 1980. "Hunting and fishing trends in
of the United States: 1992-1983. the U.S.," In Proceedings 19-80. Vol.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government 1, 121-126.
Printing Office.
Chezik, Michael. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Service. August 21, 1984. Telephone
Commerce. 1981. 1980 Census of conversation with author on
Population and Housing: Pennsylvania environmental effects of dredging for
Final Population and Housing Counts. recreation uses.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Commerce. Cole, Gerald L. 1980. "Changes in
recreation-oriented travel in the
Callaway, Ben. 1983. Philadelphia's northeast between 1972 and 1977," In
Schuylkill Surprise. New York, NY: Proceedings 1980..., Vol. 11, 139-146.
Field and Stream.
Commodore, Quaker City Yacht Club. June 26,
Caveney, Jan. Pennsylvania Fish Commission. 1983. Personal interview regarding his
October 19, 1983. Telephone club's improvement plans and effect of
conversation with author on location of Fish Commission launch.
fishing activity in Philadelphia.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1981.
Cav.eney, Jan. Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Pennsylvania's recreation plan, 1980-
October 24, 1982. Telephone interview 1985. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
with author on fishing activity on Departments of Environmental Resources
Schuylkill River. and Community Affairs.

Caveney, Jan. Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Conolly, Dennis J. 1983. "Integrating
October 27, 1982. Telephone interview fishing with urban development
with author on urban fishing festival. projects," Proceedings of the Urban
Fishing Symposium, October 5-8, 1983.
Caveney, Jan. Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Grand Rapids, Michigan: American
August 16, 1984. Telephone Fisheries Society.
conversation with author on boating in
Upper Schuylkill. Cook, R.T. (Bud). The Nature Conservancy
(Eastern Penna.). December 11, 1984.
Central Waterfront Planning Committee. 1976. Telephone conversation with author on
Waterfront precedents. Toronto: City financial incentives for property owner
of Toronto Planning Board, Central participation in public recreation.
Waterfront Group.

Cook, Zina. Public Economics Research. July Direction Associates. 1981. Otter Creek
27, 1983. Telephone conversation with Marina Feasibility Study. Spring
author on methods of projecting House, Pennsylvania: Direction
recreation demand. Associates for Bristol Borough and
Pennsylvania Department of
Cope Linder Associates. 1982. Penn's Environmental Resources.
Landing Great Plaza Program (mimeo).
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Duffy, Edward. Philadelphia Port
Corporation. August 16, 1984.
Cronin, Cynthia. Philadelphia City Planning Telephone conversation with author on
Commission. July 5, 1983. Interview plans for marine commerce on
with author on community concerns about riverfront.
river recreation.
Ditton, Robert. 1983. "Identifying the
Curran, Paul. Philadelphia City Planning preference of urban anglers$ it
Commission. December 5, 1984. Proceedings of the Urban Fishing
Personal interview with author on Symposium, October 5-8, 1983.. Grand
business firm attitudes in Upper Rapids, Michigan: American Fisheries
Schuylkill district toward Manayunk Society.
Canal Towpath.
Dorbian, Bruce. Borough manager of Marcus
Dannerth, Ted. Montgomery County Planning Hook, Pennsylvania. July 22, 1983.
Commission. September 21, 1982. Telephone conversation on future
Discussion on Upper Schuylkill boating facilities at McClure Park.
waterfront.
Echelberger, Herbert. Northeast Regional
Delta Group. 1981. McClure Park Expansion. Officei U.S. Forest Service. July 8,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Delta 1983. Telephone conversation on
Group for Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. national trends in outdoor recreation.

Direction Associates. 1981. Bristol Environmental Planning and Design Partnership
Township Marina Feasibility Study. and Laventhol and Horwath. 1983.
Spring House, Pennsylvania: Direction Allegheny County Marina Study, Phase
Associates for Pennsylvania Department One. Working Summary. Pittsburgh,
of Environmental Resources* Pennsylvania: Urban Redevelopment
Authority of Pittsburgh.
Direction Associates. 1981. Marina
Feasibility Study, Ridley Township, Environmental Science and Forestry. 1979.
Pennsylvania. Spring House, National urban forestry conference.
Pennsylvania: Direction Associates for Syracuse, N.Y.: USDA Forest Service
Pennsylvania Department of and S.U.N.Y. College of Environmental
Environmental Resources. Science and Forestry.

Eugester, J. Glenn. National Park Service. Francis, Sharon F. and Richard J. DeSanti.
July 25, 1984. Letter to author 1975. Water cleanup and the land:
providing comments on draft technical securing full value on the public
report. investment in water pollution control.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental.
Farrel, Jane. Department of Environmental Protection Agency.
Protection. Memorandum describing Fraser, Loran, Linda Pierce, William E.
riverfront recreation projects in New Shands. 1983. Outdoor recreation for
Jersey. America. Washington, D.C.: Outdoor
Feldsher, Dennis. Fairmount Park Commission. Recreation Policy Review Group.
July 6, 1983. Suitability of
riverfront parks for festivals. Froelich, Lynn T. 1980. Demand for
recreational access to the Lower
Fickes, Roger. Pennsylvania Department of Delaware River. Harrisburg, PA:
Environmental Resources. June 8, 1983. Pennsylvania Department of
Telephone conversation with author on Environmental Resources.
scenic rivers planning. Gentzler, Keith. Division of Statewide
Fickes, Roger. Pennsylvania Department of Recreation Planning, Department of
Environmental Resources. July 16, Environemntal Resources. July 7, 1983.
1984. Letter to author providing Telephone conversation with author on
comments on draft technical report. methods of river recreation and
facility planning.
Figley, William. N.J. Department of Grabowski, Walter, Commodore. Delaware River
Environmental Protection. August 11, Yacht Club. June 26, 1983. Personal
1983. Telephone conversation with interview with author on his club and
author on boat registrations by N.J. other issues affecting boating.
residents on Delaware Estuary.
Finigan, Harold K., Development Officer, Olde Gray, Barbara B. July 1983. Retrieval
Fort Mifflin Historical Society. July report, boating Accidents involving
3, 1984. Personal interview with commercial vessels (computer printout
author concerning Fort Mifflin. by special request). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Coast Guard, Accident Review
Fogg, George E. undated. Park planning Branch, Policy Planning and Evaluation
guidelines, revised. National Staff.
Recreation and Park Association and Halstenrud, Robert J. 1983. Trends in
National Society for Park Resources. participation sport: a presentation to
the Sporting Goods Manufacturers
Association (Mimeo). Northbrook,
Illinois: A. C. Nielson Company.

Halstenrud, Robert J. 1980. Trends in Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service,
participation sports during the decade Northeast Regional Office. 1978.
of the 70s, In Proceedings 1980. Vol. Greenways of the Delaware River Basin,
11, 195-202. (mimeo, prepared for the Delaware River
Basin Commission Level B Study).
Hammer Siler, George Associates. 1983. Erie Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: U.S.
Fishing Development Program. Erie, PA: Department of Interior.
Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port
Authority. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service.
Northeast Regional Office. 1978.
Harrington, Winston. 1981. The distribution Recreation, Phase I Report, Delaware
of recreational benefits from improved River Basin Comprehensive Study (Level
water quality: a micro simulation B), (mimeo prepared for Delaware River
(Mimeo). Washington, D.C.: Resources Basin Commission). Philadelphia,
for the Future. Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of
Interior.
Harrison, William, Director of Philadelphia
Maritime Exchange, and Captain Sam Heritage Conservation Recreation Service.
Skullinger, Chairman, Mariner's U.S. Department of Interior. 1980.
Advisory Committee. August 8, 1983. Urban waterfront revitalization, the
Personal communication with author on role of recreation and heritage.
compatability of recreational boats and Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
commercial vessel traffic. Printing Office. Volume One: Key
factors. needs and goals. Volume Two:
Heckscher, August. 1977. Open spaces: the Eighteen case Studies.
life of American cities. New York,
N.Y.: Harper and Row, Publishers. Hesser, Robert.B. Pennsylvania Fish
Commission. July 3, 1984. Telephone
Heiserman, John. Philadelphia Recreation conversation with author on fishery
Department. February 19, 1982. management in Philadelphia.
Telephone conversation with author on
problems with Linden Avenue boat Hesser, Robert*B. Pennsylvania Fish
launch. Commission. July 23, 1984. Letter to
author providing comments on draft
Heritage Conversation and Recreation Service technical report.
and National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior. 1978. Horowitz, Richard. Academy of Natural
National Urban Recreation Study, Sciences. October 13, 1983. Telephone
Executive Report, Washington, D.C.; conversation with author on toxics in
U.S. Government Printing Office. fish in Schuylkill River.

Howanski, Anne. Manager, Ridley Township. Kern, Jack. Director. Camden County Park
July 25, 1983. Telephone conversation Commission. July 6, 1983. Telephone
with author on potential boat access on conversation with author on use of
Darby Creeks. Wiggins Park.

Ide Associate, Inc. 1975. Pennsylvania Kimmel, Michael. 1983. Go fish.
recreation survey: the local point-of- Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia
view. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Magazine, October 1983.
Pennsylvania Department of Comunity
Affairs. Klingman, Robert E.. Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources. July 18,
Jacobs, Melvin. Rosse' Boat Repair and 1984. Letter to author providing
Storage. August 23, 1983. Telephone comments on draft technical report.
conversation with author on water
quality improvements and siltation. King, Hadley. Philadelphia City Planning
Comission. July 6, 1983. Interview
Jennus, Darryl. New Jersey Department of with author on public access issues at
Environmental Protection. July 20, Penn's Landing.
1983. Telephone conversation with
author on plans for new facilities in Kraus, Richard. Temple University. July 8,
New Jersey. 1983. Telephone conversation with
author on Philadelphia recreation
Johnson, Fred. Pennsylvania Fish Commission. survey results.
February 20, 1981. Telephone
conversation with author on conditions Kurtz, Allen. Rogers, Golden and Halpern.
affecting boating in Philadelphia. October 20, 1983. Telephone
conversation with author on dredging
Johnson, Fred. Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Fairmount Pool.
February 23, 1981. Telephone
conversation with author on potential Lange, Robert E. 1983. "Fishing in the
fishing and boating activity in the Big Apple: a demonstration program for
estuary. New York City," Proceedings of the
Urban Fishing Symposium, October 5-8,
Jones, John. Detroit Parks and Recreation 1983. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Department. June 6, 1983. Telephone American Fisheries Society.
conversation with author on Detroit
riverfront recreation plans. LaRegina, James. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources. Telephone
Kaufmann, Michael. Pennsylvania Fish conversation with author on water
Commission. September 3, 1982. quality in the Upper Schuylkill
Telephone interview with author on district.
habitat conditions and water quality.

Leatherberry, Earl C., David W. Lime and McGovern, Ed, Vice-Commodore, Wissinoming
Jerrilyn L. Thompson. 1980. Trends in Yacht Club. February 8, 1982.
river recreation. In Proceedings Telephone conversation with author on
1980..., Vol. I, 147-lT4. yacht club.
Leighton, Julia. Public Interest Economics. Merriken, Steve. Chester City Planning
June 30, 1983. Telephone interview Department. July 8, 1983. Telephone
with author on projecting recreational conversation with author on new boating
benefits of clean water. facility.
Leonard, Dorothy L., National Marine Meserve, Chuck. Riverside Marina. August
Fisheries Service. October 27, 1982. 22, 1983. Telephone conversation with
Personal communication with author on author on commercial marinas.
urban fishing programs. Michigan Coastal Zone Management Program.
1981. Downriver Industry Visual
Leonard, Dorothy L. 1983. "Attracting Improvement Plan. Wyandotte, Michigan.
potential sponsors to urban fishing
opportunities," Proceedings of the Michigan Coastal Zone Management
Urban Fishing Symposium, October 5-8, Program.
1983. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Miles, Edward H. Delaware County Planning
American Fisheries Society. Department. July 10, 1984. Letter to
Manfredo, Michael J. 1983. "The social author providing comments on-draft
values of an urban fishing experience," technical report.
Proceedings of the Urban Fishing Miller, Edward. Director, Division of
Symposium, October 5-8, 1983. Grand Engineering, Pennsylvania Fish
Rapids, Michigan: American Fisheries Commission. July 27, 1983. Telephone
Scrciety. conversation with author on schedule
Marmo, Albert J. 1980. "National boating for capital improvements at Frankford
trends." In Proceedings. 1980. Vol. I, Arsenal.
135-145. Miller, Edward.. Pennsylvania Fish
Marmo, Albert J.. 1980. National boating Commission. August 23, 1984.
trends. In Proceedings 1980..., Vol. Telephone conversation with author on
1, 135-146. status of PFC boating facility
development.
Mayo, Ronald D. 1983. "Facilities design Miller, Jack. Pennsylvania Fish Commission.
and coonstruction," Proceedings of the August 17, 1984. Telephone
Urban Fishing Symposium, October 5-8, conversation with author on status of
1983. Grand Rapids, Michigan: hydroelectric project at Flat Rock Dam.
American Fisheries Society.

Miller, Kent. Delaware Valley Regional Nails, Robert. Architect with Alesker &
Planning Commission. August 21, 1984. Reiff. August 16, 1984. Telephone
Telephone conversation with author on conversation with author on plans for
status of Camden County pollution marina in Central Riverfront.
control.
Moore, Arthur Cotton, Associates. 197-1. Nails, Robert. Alesker & Reiff, Architects.
Bright Breathing Edge of City Life. December 5, 1984. Telephone
Washington, D.C., Office of Water conversation with author on concerns of
Resource Research and U.S. Department private developers with public access.
of the Interior. National Marine Manufacturers Association.
Morolf, Jeanne. 1983. "Special education 1983. Boating 1982, a statistical
consideration for urban youth, report on America's top family sport.
handicapped and the elderly," Chicago, IL: NMMA.
Proceeding of the Urban Fishing National Marine Manufacturers Association.
Symposium. October 5-8, 1983. Grand 1983. The Importance,of the
Rapids, Michigan: American Fisheries recreational marine industry. Chicago,
Society. IL: NMMA.
Moyat, Robert. Marketing Department, Neiman, Steve. Montgomery County Planning
National Marine Manufacturers Commission. July 22, 1983. Telephone
Association. August 4, 1983. conversation with author about Upper
Telephone conversation with author on Schuylkill boating and-park plans.
economic benefit of river recreation.
Mulfinger, Richard. Pennsylvania Fish Northeast Regional Office, Bureau of Outdoor
Commission. October 20, 1983. Recreation, U.S. Department of
Telephone conversation with author on Interior. 1977. National Urban
status of fish ladders on Schuylkill Recreation Study:
River. Philadelphia/Wilmington/Trenton.
Philadelphia, PA: U.S. Department of
Murray, Tom and Jon Lucy. 1980. Interior.
Recreational boating in Virginia: a Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
preliminary analysis. Gloucester Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration,
Point, Virginia: Virginia Sea Grant U.S. Deparmtent of Commerce. 1980.
Program,'Virginia Institute of Marine Improving your waterfront: a practical
Science. guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing office.

Olson, Harry. June 10, 1983. Telephone Proceedings 1980 National outdoor recreation
conversation about river recreation trends symposium, Volumes I and II.
along Upper Schuylkill. General Technical Report NE-57.
Broomall, Pennsylvania: U.S.D.A.s
Olson, Harry. June 28, 1983. Telephone Forest Service, N.E., Forest Experiment
conversation about potential recreation Station.
activity in Lower Schuylkill district.
Project for Public Space, Inc. 1982.
Orsatti, Joe. Architect to Fairmount Park Managing Fairmount Park: an evaluation
Commission. August 22, 1983. of park use. Prepared for the City of
Telephone conversation with author on Philadelphia, funded by Heritage
riverfront parks. Conservation and Recreation Service.
New York, NY: Project for Public
Ozer, Morris. Fairmount Park Commission. Space, Inc.
July 7, 1983. Telephone conversation
with author on events on River Drives. Radley, Jeff. U.S. Corps of Engineers. May
25, 1983. Telephone conversation with
Pekora, Michael. Owner of Pekora's Marina. author on methods of projecting water-
January 26, 1982. Telephone based recreation.
conversation with author on operations
of marina. Rasmussen, Robert. Concessionaire operator
at Schuylkill River boat house.
Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Bureau of October 20, 1983. Telephone
Waterways. 1982. Boat registrations conversation with author on boat
by county (mimeo). Harrisburg, rentals in Fairmount Pool.
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Fish
Commission. Reidel, Carl H. 1980. Converging social
trends--em*erging outdoor recreation
PennsyLvania Department of Environmental issues. In Proceedings 1980..., Vol.
Resources. Press Release. May 4, 11. 9-14.
1983. Press Release on this issuance
of an advisory on fish contamination. Riordan, Mary. Federal Energy Regulation
Commission. October 20, 1983.
Peterson, George L., David W. Lime, and Telephone conversation with author on
Dorothy H. Anderson. 1980. A method status of hydroelectric proposal at
for explaining trends in river Flat Rock Dam.
recreation demand, In Proceedings
1980 .... Vol. 11, 161-170. Robinson, Jerry. Director of Neshamiuy State
Park. November 13, 1980. Telephone
City of Pittsburgh, Department of Planning. conversation with author on boating
Undated. Untitled Xerox from zoning activity at State marina.
study establishing a riverfront
district.

Robinson, Jerry. Regional Director, Bureau Selzer, Seymour D. Delaware River Basin
of State Parks, Pennsylvania Department Commission. July 12, 1984. Letter to
of Environmental Resources. July 25, author providing comments on draft
1983. Telephone conversation with technical report.
author on future expansion of Neshaminy
State Marina. Sentz, Daniel. Pittsburgh Department of City
Planning. July 9, 1983. Telephone
Rodgers, John. Cope Linder and Associates. conversation with author on methods of
July 7, 1983. Telephone conversation river recreation in Pittsburgh.
with author on program plans for the
Great Plaza. Simmons, John. Bureau of Waterways,
Pennsylvania Fish Commission. July 25,
Sabatini. Dominic. Penn's Landing 1983. Telephone conversation with
Corporation. August 20, 1984. author on proportion of Philadelphia
Telephone conversation with author on boaters registered out-of-state.
recreation and cultural projects in
Central Riverfront district. Simmons, John. Bureueau of Waterways,
Sache, Allen. Recreation Specialist, Pennsylvania Fish Commission. August
3, 1983. Telephone conversation with
Pennsylvania Department of Community author on major reservoir facilities
Affairs. July 25, 1983. Telephone and effect on boating registrations.
conversation with author on state
funding for river recreation. Simmons, John. Bureau of Waterways,
Pennsylvania Fish Commission. August
Sarkis, Kenneth. Philadelphia Water 4, 1983. Telephone conversation with
Department. December 7, 1984. author on Pennsylvania boating
Telephone interview with author on land statistics versus national statistics.
reclamation techniques.
Sinding,.Steve. Pennsylvania Department of
Schedler, Thomas R. and Judith A. Haynes. Environmental Resource. July, 1983.
1983. "Organization and implementation Telephone conversation with author on
of fishing derbies and clinics," water quality in Schuylkill River.
Proceedings of the Urban Fishing
Symposium, October 5-8, 1983. Grand Slack, Lieutenant. Marine Police Unit. July
Rapids, Michigan: America Fisheries 25, 1983. Telephone conversation with
Society. author on safety concerns.
Schilling, Frank. Pennsylvania Fish Sporl, Gene. Director, Bureau of Waterways,
Commission. February 20, 1981. Pennsylvania Fish Commission. July 22,
Telephone conversation with author on 1983. Telephone conversation with
condition of Linden Avenue boat launeb. author regarding Commission's plans for

Stein, Fred. Philadelphia Department of Tetterolf, Carlos. 1983. "Merging habitat
Commerce. July 5, 1983. Telephone and fisheries rehabilitation in Great
conversaiton with author on Lakes urban areas with whole system
attractiveness of riverfront for Fishing Symposium, October 5-8, 1983.
special events. Grand Rapids, Michigan. American
Fisheries Society.
Steinberg, Gary B. Buten Paint Corporation.
November 6, 1984. Personal interview Tierney, Vanyla S. Department of
with author on business firm's attitude Environmental Resources. August 4,
toward informal recreation use. 1983. Telephone conversation with
author on economic benefits of river
Stephan, Thomas. Philadelphia Naval Base. recreation.
Telephone conversation with author on
plans for use of U.S. Naval Shipyard Tierney, Vanyla S., Keith Gentzler, Frederick
property. G. Carlson. 1983. The economic
significance of recreation in
Stynes, Daniel J. and Gene L. Brothers. Pennsylvania. Harrisburg,
1982. Economic impacts of Michigan Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Department
boaters: preliminary results. East of Environmental Resources.
Lansing Michigan: Michigan State
University, Department of Park and Tourine, John. Division of Fish and Game,
Recreation Resources. New Jersey Department of Environmetnal
Protection. July 25, 1983. Telephone
Sweeny, Joseph. Schuylkill Navy. Telephone conversation with author on proportion
conversation with author on events of Philadelphia fishermen who salt
sponsored by the Schuylkill Navy. water fish in New Jersey.

Szambelik, Ed. Commodore, Delaware River Tredinnick/Walt Zinn Associates. 1981.
Yacht Club. April 19, 1982. Telephone Tullytown Borough Recreation Plan.
conversation about yacht club. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources.
Technical Committee of Northeastern Regional
Research. 1979. Changing patterns of Trees for Reclamation Symposium Proceedings,
outdoor recreation participation in 1980. Trees for reclamation.
northeastern United States, Bulletin Broomall, PA: Northeast For. Exp. Stu.
427. Newark, Delaware: Agricultural
E;periment Station, University-of Ulsb, Stephen B.. Pennsylvania Fish
Delaware. Commission. July 10, 1984. Letter to
author providing comments on draft
technical report.

UNIPLAN. 1980. Falls Township, waterfront U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
recreation study. Princeton, New Wildlife Service. 1983.
Jersey: UNIPLAN for Falls Township, Concentrations of environmental
Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania contaminants in fish from selected
Department of Environmental. waters in Pennsylvania, typed draft.
Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh. U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage
1983. Allegheny County Marina study. Conservation and Recreation Service.
Pittsburgh, PA: U.R.A.P. 1979. The third nationwide outdoor
recreation plan, appendix I and survey
Urban Research and Development Corporation. summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
1978. Recreation carrying capacity Government Printing office.
handbook, methods and techniques for
planning, design and management. Ware, Lee. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army. September 13, 1983. Telephone
conversation with author on
Urban Research and Development Corporation. recreational waterways dredging by
1977. Guidelines for understanding and Corps.
determining optimum recreation carrying
capacity. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Walton, Thomas. Philadephia Water
URDC for the Bureau of Outdoor Department. Conversation with author
Recreation, U.S. Department of the on schedule for treatment plant
Interior. completion.
Urban Wildlife Research Center, Inc. for U.S. Williams, Katbaleen. Public Interest
Department of Interior. 1981. Economics. August 16, 1983. Telephone
Planning for urban fishing and conversation with author on boating
waterfront recreation. Washington, activity estimates by Pennsylvania Fish
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Commission.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Undated. Wolf, Michael A. Delaware Valley Regional
Corps of Engineers' program for Planning Commission. August 19, 1983.
construction of navigation projects Telephone conversation with author on A
under authority of Section 107 of the dredging around Essington.
1960 Rivers and Harbor Act, as amended.
Supplied by Philadelphia District Wolf, Michael A. Delaware Valley Regional
Office. Planning Commission. July 20, 1983.
Telephone conversation with author on
U.S. Coast Guard. 1983. Boating Statistics status of recreation facilities in
1982. COMDTINST M16754.1D. coastal zone.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation.

Yarnell, Victor R.H. Director, Schuylkill
River Greenway Association. December
4, 1984. Telephone interview with
author on industrial concerns with
public recreational access on
Schuylkill River.

Young, Larry and Wayne Lottinger. 1983.
"Getting urban legislators involved,"
Proceedings of the Urban Fishing
Symposium, October 5-8, 1983. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: America Fisheries
Society.

Zycinsky, William. Director, Gloucester
County Parks and Recreation Department.
July 13, 1983. Telephone conversation
with author on plans for Red Bank
battlefield area.

US Denartment of commerce
Coastal Snrvices Center Library
South Hoboon Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

3 6668 14101 9945