Philadelphia North Delaware River Greenway Ecological Assessment and Prioritization Report

November 2009

Final Report for Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program, Grant Number 2007PS.05

Includes Additional Assessment Work Underway for Partnership for Delaware Estuary’s Blue Print for Delaware Estuary Urban Water Front Case Study

Completed by Pennsylvania Environmental Council with Support of Urban Water Front Case Study Workgroup

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 1 of 34 Executive Summary

PEC initiated work on this Philadelphia North Delaware River Greenway Ecological Assessment and Prioritization Report project in October of 2007 under a Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Grant. At that time, PEC received partial funding for CZM North Delaware Ecological Restoration Project Grant 2007PS.05. The goal of the grant was to inventory and prioritize sites for ecological restoration, and to distribute these findings so that future development can be aligned with watershed goals.

PEC and its partners have completed the site assessment and prioritization work along approximately 8 miles of Delaware River shoreline in the North Philadelphia area, from the Betsy Ross Bridge upriver to Poquessing Creek. PEC has and will continue to integrate the findings of this work into regional and local initiatives focused on land revitalization, recreation, and ecological restoration.

PEC worked with many local, state, and federal partners to gather information and develop an ecological assessment and prioritization approach. Activities and findings were accomplished through the active participation and contribution of the stakeholders identified in this report.

This report consists of the following sections:

Section 1-Regional Perspective: PEC incorporated this urban waterfront ecological assessment work into several regional initiatives. These initiatives are focusing on ecological restoration, greenway, water trail, and brownfield revitalization efforts, including: • The Partnership for the Delaware Estuary’s (PDE) Regional Restoration Blueprint, an initiative focused on establishing a registry of ecological restoration projects across the estuary. • The East Coast Greenway and the North Delaware Riverfront Greenway, initiatives focused on establishing multi-use trails and associated recreational opportunities. • The Tidal Delaware River Water Trail, an initiative focused on increasing recreational boater activity along the tidal sections of the river. • The Delaware Estuary Watershed Project sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of Response and Restoration, an initiative focused on the redevelopment and revitalization of estuarine communities including urban brownfield sites.

Section 2-City of Philadelphia Perspective: PEC has coordinated this urban waterfront ecological assessment work with several City of Philadelphia initiatives and programs including: • A City of Philadelphia legislative bill that created a greenway-zoning overlay. • Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) efforts to identify restoration opportunities within the City. • Potential wetland mitigation requirements associated with Philadelphia International Airport expansions.

Section 3-Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Grant: This section summarizes the goals, tasks, and deliverables associated with the North Delaware Ecological Restoration Project (CZM grant 2007PS.05). The CZM grant, associated matching funds, and additional U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NOAA funding supported the ecological assessment

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 2 of 34 and prioritization tasks summarized in this report. The matching funds were provided through PWD and PDE in-kind technical support, as well as William Penn Foundation support for PEC staff and contractors.

Section 4-Identify Stakeholders and Ecological Screening Criteria: PEC engaged a variety of stakeholder groups in this project ranging from government agencies and non-profit groups, to private consultants and landowners. PEC led an urban restoration case study workgroup and engaged the broader stakeholder community. These workgroup members and stakeholders contributed to data gathering, and supported the development of ecological restoration assessment and prioritization criteria.

Section 5-Gather Existing Data and Fill Data Gaps: Considering site-screening criteria, PEC sought out existing data such as inventories and surveys that would support the ecological restoration assessment effort. Several key data gaps remained following initial data collection efforts. These data gaps were filled towards the end of the project period via bathymetric and benthic substrate surveys. PEC maintains GIS layers for the data types listed in Table 2 of Section 5.

Section 6-Types of Ecological Restoration Projects Anticipated: The urban case study restoration work group defined several types of ecological restoration techniques that could be applied along this upper Delaware Estuary reach. Restoration techniques were identified based on their location on the river front gradient; ranging from upland and riverbank areas to intertidal and subtidal areas.

Section 7-Ecological Assessment and Prioritization Method: With the proposed restoration techniques, screening criteria, and associated data on hand, the restoration workgroup developed a site assessment and prioritization method. The workgroup developed a Basic Restoration Matrix approach that includes habitat, site-wide, and recreational assessment categories. Scoring criteria for each assessment category were identified.

The workgroup also considered a Value Added Restoration Matrix that considers the value of various ecosystem services recovered or enhanced because of restoration activities. The workgroup identified provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem service categories. The workgroup went a step further and quantified the uplift in one ecosystem service (primary productivity) that would result from the conversion of armored shoreline to more natural shoreline.

In addition, the workgroup compiled a list of wildlife species that will benefit from wetland and riverbank restoration, and initiated work on a landscape conductivity model that will evaluate how habitat restoration in the study area fits into and improves broader regional habitats.

Section 8-Site Assessment and Prioritization Results: The urban restoration workgroup considered each parcel located within the study area. Combined basic restoration matrix site scores were developed for each parcel. That is, habitat, site-wide, and recreational sub-scores were calculated, and then combined to arrive at a total before and after site score for each parcel. Scoring results are described for each sub-score category as well as for the total score. Differences between before and after site scores were also analyzed, focusing on sites with the greatest potential for restoration “uplifts”. Simple restoration concepts derived from Google

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 3 of 34 Earth aerial photographs are presented for higher-ranking sites. See Section 8 to review results and conclusions.

Section 9-Conduct Landowner Outreach: PEC and other partners are pursuing ecological restoration projects at emerging opportunity sites within the CZM study area reach. Early landowner outreach leading to the start up of restoration design work in the project area has occurred at two Bridesburg area parcels (PAID and National Grid). PEC has also worked closely with Delaware River City Corporation on a broader landowner outreach program.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 4 of 34 Section 1-Regional Perspective:

PEC has worked at both a regional and a local scale during the course of this CZM project. At the regional level, PEC has incorporated this urban waterfront ecological assessment work within the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary’s (PDE) Regional Restoration Blueprint. PEC has also aligned ecological restoration goals with ongoing efforts to develop regional sections of the East Coast Greenway - North Delaware Riverfront Greenway Section and the Tidal Delaware River Water Trail. PEC has also coordinated closely with the Delaware Estuary Watershed Project sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of Response and Restoration. Summaries of these initiatives are as follows:

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary Blueprint: In their 2009 draft Blue Print for the Delaware Estuary Regional Restoration Initiative, PDE proposes the development of a regional approach for prioritizing restoration, protection and enhancement projects in the Estuary. The Regional Restoration Blueprint emphasizes the need to broaden stakeholder involvement and incorporate a science-based approach to setting Estuary restoration priorities. Methods for assessing and ranking restoration projects are under development, with the goal of compiling and updating restoration project registries.

The Regional Restoration Blueprint is developing a two-track process to address stakeholder driven and science based priorities. The PDE is engaging key stakeholders, decision makers, and funders to identify restoration priorities and the top tier projects that best support those priorities (Track 1). Concurrently, the PDE is facilitating a Regional Restoration Workgroup that is utilizing science-based tools to identify and prioritize restoration projects (Track 2), and inform the stakeholders.

The primary goal of the Regional Restoration Workgroup is to develop science based decision- making tools. These tools will be used to identify high value restoration activities, and to rank priority projects to maximize the natural capital outcomes from investments. Tools under development include 1) basic decision-making matrices linked to a project registry to compare signature or ecologically important natural resources with protection and enhancement opportunities and 2) advanced decision-making matrices that incorporate natural capital values to identify and compare high value activities and select priority projects.

The Regional Restoration Blueprint has initially identified four priorities that include: • Tidal Marshes • Urban Waterfronts • Signature Estuary Species • Forested Riparian Corridors / Headwaters

PEC’s work under this CZM project now serves as the urban waterfront case study of PDE’s Regional Restoration Blueprint. Regional Restoration Workgroup members have helped to develop criteria for ranking potential ecological restoration projects. These criteria have been applied to the CZM study area, with the longer-term goal of seeing them applied at other urban waterfront restoration initiatives in the Delaware River Estuary.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 5 of 34 East Coast Greenway - North Delaware Riverfront Greenway Section: The long-term goal of this CZM project is to advance the restoration of tidal wetlands, shoreline and riparian habitat along the future North Delaware River Greenway. A major new greenway along 8 miles of Philadelphia’s Delaware riverfront, the North Delaware River Greenway has been a focus of PEC and of the Delaware River City Corporation for many years. It will eventually connect to additional trail and greenway segments in Bucks County and in the Central Philadelphia riverfront, thus completing also a major segment of the 3,000-mile Maine-to-Florida East Coast Greenway thru Pennsylvania. In addition to serving as a regional recreational corridor, the trail will offer opportunities for local communities to re-connect with the riverfront.

Construction of the recreational trail will also offer an important opportunity to undertake adjacent ecological restoration activities in the riparian, littoral and inter-tidal zone. Although the trail is a critical element of the greenway, it occupies a very narrow swath (15 ft wide) through the landscape. Much of the land on either side of the trail will be restored and managed for its natural resource value and benefit, as well as for public recreational benefits such as fishing, bird watching, walking, and more.

The diversity of the riparian edge demands that at places the trail will be close to the River and at others significantly removed. Referenced specifically in the 2005 North Delaware Riverfront Greenway: Master Plan and Cost Benefit Analysis Plan is the intention to restore the natural resources of the riverbank. The intent is to create new habitat for birds and wildlife, to replant the riparian area with native trees and shrubs, and to restore tidal wetlands and flats. Due to the urban nature of this reach of the Estuary, natural areas are fragmented and sites in restorable condition are at best “stepping stones” scattered along the way. Both birds and fish would benefit from the expansion and enhancement of these areas as shelter and protection.

This North Delaware Greenway Plan is moving into the implementation phase, with groundbreaking activity for several segments scheduled for late 2009 or 2010. Hence, PEC is interested in moving forward expeditiously with ecological restoration projects along the riverfront which complement the greenway construction. Our CZM project work has contributed greatly to this effort through our assessment and prioritization of restoration sites.

The North Delaware River Greenway study area, the focus on this CZM grant work, is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 6 of 34 Tidal Delaware River Water Trail: In additional to developing recreational access to the river on the landside, PEC and our partners are working to increase recreational boating opportunities along the tidal Delaware River. PEC collaborated with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, boating/paddling organizations, environmental groups, and safety agencies to create the Tidal Delaware Water Trail map and guide (see http://www.tidaltrail.org/). This water trail map covers 50+ miles of river between Trenton and Marcus Hook, showing boaters how to access the river and stay safe. It also highlights historical, cultural, and ecological points of interest. The goals of this Tidal Delaware River Water Trail initiative are to 1) connect boaters, sailors and kayakers to the Tidal Delaware River and tributary resources, 2) increase recreational use of the river, and 3) develop and enhance river-based tourism.

The CZM ecological restoration work directly supports this initiative. We have considered recreation an important assessment and prioritization criteria for the restoration work. We anticipate the ecological restoration projects will create and enhance recreational boating opportunities such as fishing, bird watching, and environmental education.

NOAA’s Delaware Estuary Watershed Project: NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Land Revitalization Program lead the Delaware Estuary Watershed Project. The initiative supports regional and local efforts to redevelop and revitalize estuarine and coastal zone communities in the Delaware Estuary. The project offers database and mapping information on coastal habitats, natural resources, and sources of contamination. It helps identify restoration opportunities critical to maintaining a healthy estuary. A significant feature of project is its recognition of the urban Delaware River waterfront and associated habitats as a regional "Brownfield" area. Specific ways in which NOAA and EPA have supported the North Delaware Greenway ecological assessment work include: • NOAA staffers are serving on the PDE Regional Restoration Initiative, with several representatives participating on the urban waterfront case study workgroup. • SRA International Inc. mapping services were provided to the ecological assessment project through a NOAA application for EPA land revitalization funding. SRA mapping services included gathering and compiling natural resource, land use, and environmental GIS data layers, and conducting specific GIS mapping analyses. • Work by the Watershed Project to plan and implement compensatory restoration projects associated with Natural Resource Damage Assessments resulted in tools that have supported the ecological assessment project. Specifically, NOAA staffers utilized compensatory mitigation assessment tools developed for the Athos Oil Spill (which took place in the project area), and applied them to the study area reach to identify ecological service uplifts resulting from urban shoreline restoration (see Value Added Ecological Restoration Matrix under Section 7 below). • Overall, the Watershed Project and follow on efforts conducted by the NOAA Office of Response and Restoration are addressing the information needs, techniques, and challenges of shoreline restoration along urban waterfronts.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 7 of 34 Section 2-City of Philadelphia Perspective

PEC has integrated this CZM grant restoration work with City of Philadelphia initiatives and programs. PEC has tracked and promoted City of Philadelphia legislative efforts to create a greenway-zoning overlay. PEC has also worked closely with Philadelphia Water Department efforts to identify restoration opportunities within the City. More recently, we have explored opportunities to match restoration projects with wetland mitigation requirements, such as those associated with proposed Philadelphia International Airport expansions. Summaries of the above- noted initiatives are as follows:

Greenway Zoning Overlay: In June 2009, the City of Philadelphia passed a bill that establishes a Delaware River Conservation District. The bill establishes special use rules for development along the North Delaware River, requiring a 50-foot shoreline buffer area dedicated to recreational trails, and parks and open space for recreational purposes. The buffer is defined as 50 feet west (inland) either from the designated bulkhead line, or in the case of erosion behind the bulkhead, the top of the bank.

This conservation district provides regulatory control over land development activities along the North Delaware River. The conservation district promotes both the development of the greenway trail and the establishment of park and open space areas. PEC views this conservation district as an opportunity to promote ecological restoration activities that will attract fish and wildlife species and associated recreational uses such as fishing, birding, and environmental education.

Philadelphia Water Department: The Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) is an active participant in this effort to identify ecological restoration opportunities along the North Delaware River. PWD has undertaken its own initiative to identify restoration sites as documented in a 2007 Upper Delaware Estuary Wetland Creation and Enhancement project report (excerpts from this PWD report are included in the following paragraphs).

The goals of PWD’s project include (1) wetland creation/enhancement, (2) increased wildlife habitat, (3) community accessibility to the waterfront and (4) water quality improvement. The PWD report identifies the following key issues related to ecological restoration and the importance of wetlands: • The Delaware River has designated uses by warm water and migratory fish. • The upper Delaware Estuary remains threatened by the heavy development and industrialization that surrounds it. • Only small remnants of once continuous freshwater tidal wetlands remain on the Pennsylvania side of the river (Kreeger 2005). • Wetlands, including small wetlands, play an important role in regional biodiversity. The simulated loss of small wetlands results in a significant increase in the regional extinction rate of small mammals, small birds and turtles (Gibbs 1993). • In the Delaware River, the decline of available spawning habitat (e.g. wetlands) has been historically linked to changes in the abundance of anadromous fish species (CCMP 1996). • Wetland creation is necessary to increase the benefits provided by existing wetlands. While extensive wetland restorations have occurred in the Delaware estuary over the past decade, an overwhelming majority of these projects have occurred in the middle or lower Delaware estuary (Kreeger 1995). Wetland creation has been largely absent in the upper Delaware estuary.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 8 of 34 PWD assessed the upper Delaware estuary, within Philadelphia County, for existing wetland areas, potential wetland enhancement areas, and potential wetland creation areas during July 2007. PWD identified and mapped 187 acres of existing wetland area during low tide conditions. PWD’s assessment concentrated only on marsh areas that are regularly inundated during high tide. Of this existing wetland acreage, 27 acres were identified as potential enhancement sites. Enhancement sites were classified as such if vegetation was present but not covering a majority of the area.

Sixty-one acres of potential wetland creation areas were also identified and mapped. The assessment completed by PWD was meant to be a rapid evaluation resulting in a list of potential sites requiring further study. Classification as a wetland creation area was based mainly on water depth and to a lesser extent observed land use surrounding the area (land ownership was not taken into account). Areas with a maximum low tide water depth of approximately 4ft were considered appropriate for wetland vegetation introduction. These areas range in size from 0.6 to 11 acres. No vegetation was found growing in creation areas, either exposed on mudflats (if present) or submerged in deeper water. Wetland creation in these areas could consist of planting appropriate wetland vegetation, constructing structures to dampen wave action (if appropriate), and taking measures to increase public access to the waterfront (if appropriate).

Nuphar advena (spatterdock) is the dominant emergent aquatic vegetation (EAV) in the study area. Other emergent species reported to a lesser extent include Pontederia cordata (pickerelweed), Sagittaria sp. (arrowhead), Carex sp. (sedge), Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife), and Phragmites australis (common reed). Vallisneria americana (freshwater eel grass) was the dominant submerge aquatic vegetation (SAV) and generally found growing in water depths of approximately one foot to 4 feet during low tide conditions. Other vegetation found growing near V. Americana includes Elodea Canadensis (waterweed), Potamogeton sp. (pondweed), and Ceratophyllum demersum (coontail). It was not the intent of PWD to document all vegetation present at these sites and only those species readily visible were recorded.

Data from PWD’s project was incorporated in PEC’s CZM project, most significantly Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping showing the locations of the shoreline wetlands and potential wetland restoration projects in the CZM study area.

Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Wetland mitigation opportunities in the CZM study area are being examined as PEC considers both landowner outreach and potential sources of project funding. For example, the Philadelphia Airport may face a potentially large wetland mitigation burden as it considers runway expansion. PEC has made preliminary contact with airport representatives, informing them of wetland mitigation opportunities along the north Delaware Riverfront.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 9 of 34 Section 3-Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Grant for North Delaware Ecological Restoration Project (CZM: 2007PS.05).

PEC initiated work on this North Delaware Ecological Restoration Project CZM grant in October of 2007. PEC engaged a variety of regional and Philadelphia area stakeholders, leading to significant stakeholder input in the form of technical and financial contributions as the work progressed. Goals, tasks, and deliverables associated with this ecological restoration assessment work are as follows:

Project goals: • Assess and map ecological resources along the North Delaware River Greenway Corridor, using existing information and collecting additional information as necessary. • Correlate ecological inventory with parcel ownership to identify ecological restoration and enhancement opportunities. • Contact landowners to identify viable projects, and develop schedule/pathway leading to design and implementation of restoration activities.

Project Tasks: • Identify stakeholders • Identify ecological screening criteria • Gather existing data from stakeholders and associated databases, then identify and fill data gaps • Identify types of feasible ecological restoration projects • Develop ecological assessment and prioritization method • Apply method to assess and prioritize sites • Conduct landowner outreach • Pursue ecological restoration design and construction actions

Project deliverables: • Map of ecological resources, land ownership, and other features relevant to ecological restoration. • List of priority restoration projects based on assessment of ecological resources and land ownership. • Contacts with willing landowners, confirmation of viable projects, and identification of project planning and implementation steps.

These goals, tasks, and deliverables are summarized in the remainder of this report.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 10 of 34 Section 4-Identify Stakeholders and Ecological Screening Criteria

PEC stakeholder outreach is summarized below. A variety of interest groups were engaged ranging from government agencies and non-profit groups, to private consultants and landowners. This led to considerable stakeholder involvement and input during the CZM grant period.

Urban case study workgroup: PEC has gathered and facilitated a regional restoration work group since the inception of the CZM grant. A stakeholder kick-off meeting was held in December 2007, followed by the formation of an upper estuary restoration workgroup in January 2008. This group coordinated via a series of meetings (approximately 12) and teleconferences (approximately four) throughout the grant period, and evolved into the urban case study subgroup under the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary’s Regional Restoration Blueprint initiative. The group focused first on the identification of data needs and resources for conducting ecological restoration assessment work, followed by the development of criteria for prioritizing ecological restoration projects. Current and past work group members are listed on Attachment A.

Broader stakeholder community: The restoration workgroup reached out to other stakeholders with ecological restoration expertise. The work group first contacted stakeholders to inquire about data needs. This broader stakeholder survey effort led to the identification of 11 general ecological restoration site-screening criteria (see Table 1). The criteria provided direction for what data were required to set up an ecological restoration site assessment and prioritizing method.

Table 1: Ecological Restoration Site Screening Criteria 1. Bathymetry and benthic classification 2. Shoreline type (engineered/natural) 3. Wetlands (freshwater tidal) 4. Species and habitat (fish, birds, other) 5. Vegetation 6. Site access (for restoration and public) 7. Contaminant proximity (CSO’s, hazmat, invasive) 8. Disturbance from wakes and currents 9. Operation/maintenance issues 10. Presence of cultural resources 11. Willing land-owners

The restoration workgroup continued, first with data gathering and second with the development of assessment and prioritization tools. A draft prioritization approach was presented at a December 12, 2008 conference to which the broader stakeholder community was invited (see Attachment B broader stakeholder community list).

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 11 of 34 Section 5-Gather Existing Data and Fill Data Gaps

The restoration workgroup sought out existing data such as inventories and surveys that supported the ecological restoration assessment effort. Individual stakeholders also contributed direct technical assistance to the CZM project. For example, EPA Region III was able to fund SRA contractor resources for compiling and analyzing existing GIS data layers.

Following the initial data collection effort, several key data gaps remained. A primary data gap was knowledge of the bathymetry and the benthic substrate type of the study area. Late in the project, PEC was able to fund a Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) boat survey during which bathymetric and benthic substrate data sets were collected. A short description of DNREC’s survey methods is included in Attachment C. A formal survey report is forthcoming from DNREC.

A summary of the GIS data sets compiled during the CZM grant period is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Stakeholder Resources Description of Resource Source of Resource Data Resource Point sources, outfalls, and intakes PWD Wetlands PWD and National Wetland Inventory Flood plains FEMA Land use Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Zoning Philadelphia Planning Commission Topographic contours Philadelphia Mayors Office of Information Services Important Bird Areas Audubon Pennsylvania Preferred birding areas Frank Winfelder, Delaware Valley Ornithological Society General survey of habitat and Western PA Conservancy 2008 ecological restoration potential Fish and wildlife habitat maps NOAA Environmental Sensitivity Index Birds and other terrestrial wildlife US Fish and Wildlife Service habitat maps Navigation map NOAA Shoreline (natural versus engineered) Several federal data bases including Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, and National Geodetic Service Salinity NOAA’s Coastal Geospatial Data Project Soils U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service Landownership by parcel PEC Vegetation maps PEC via Patricia Quigley 2001 Bathymetric data DNREC survey Bottom substrate data DNREC survey

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 12 of 34 In addition to the above data collection effort, the restoration workgroup also conducted field visits via foot and boat in the study area. This included two instances in which PWD provided a boat through which workgroup members could access the study area shoreline. The following categories of data were collected during the field visits:

• Photographs • Presence of shoreline structures such as bulkheads and riprap. • General types of shoreline vegetation such as mowed grass, meadows, or riverbank forests. • Wildlife observed • Bottom substrate type such as mud, sand or gravel

Other information used by the workgroup to support this work included: • Site analyses using Google earth • Various analyses of GIS data layers (see Section 7 for details)

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 13 of 34 Section 6-Types of Ecological Restoration Projects Anticipated

The restoration work group defined several types of ecological restoration techniques that could be applied along this upper Delaware Estuary reach. These techniques were identified by workgroup members and through consultation with reference documents such as: • Renovating Post-Industrial Landscapes: The North Delaware Riverfront, prepared by Field Operations in 2001 • A conceptual ecological restoration design prepared by Biohabitats for nearby Lardner’s Point Park • Wetland Creation and Restoration, The Status of the Science, compiled by Island Press, 1990.

Restoration techniques were identified based on their location on the river front gradient; these techniques are listed in Table 3.

Table 3: Types of Ecological Restoration Projects Anticipated Location on River Front Gradient Type of restoration Upland and river bank • Planting • Regrade and plant Off channel aquatic • Wetlands in upland matrix • Floodplains • Backchannels and associated wetlands Intertidal shoreline • Enhance tidal wetlands (low to high marsh) • Regrade/soften bank • Excavate (e.g. wetland coves) • Create marsh sill or breakwater to protect wetlands from higher energy wakes and currents. Subtidal • Enhance structure and diversity

Figures 2 (a and b) and 3 adopted from Biohabitats and from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science show conceptual schematics of this “living shoreline” across the upland to subtidal gradient.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 14 of 34

Figure 2a: Biohabitats Typical Restoration Cross Section

Figure 2b: Biohabitats Restoration Concept for Lardner’s Point Park

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 15 of 34 Figure 3: From Burke Environmental Associates as posted by Virginia Institute of Marine Science Center for Coastal Resources Management at http://ccrm.vims.edu/livingshorelines/index.html

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 16 of 34 Section 7-Ecological Assessment and Prioritization Method

With the proposed restoration techniques, screening criteria, and associated data on hand, the restoration workgroup developed a site assessment and prioritization method. The workgroup integrated the science-based decision making framework proposed by the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary’s Regional Restoration Blueprint. This framework includes basic and advanced restoration matrices. For the CZM project work, a basic restoration matrix was fully developed and is presented below. Work was initiated on the advanced restoration matrix, with the goal of using natural capital valuations (sometimes referred to as ecosystem services) to identify and compare high value activities and select priority projects. Preliminary value added matrix conclusions are also presented.

The Regional Restoration Blueprint also incorporates a living resource category (e.g. fish, birds, mammals, invertebrates) into the basic restoration matrix. The restoration workgroup considered living resources, but did not incorporate these resources into the basic restoration matrix developed for the CZM project. A separate discussion of how living resources are being evaluated is provided below following the basic and value added matrix discussions.

Basic Restoration Matrix: The basic restoration matrix includes habitat, site-wide, and recreational assessment categories. Scoring criteria for each assessment category were identified. A low-medium-high scoring system was derived each criteria.

Ecological restoration opportunities can be identified and prioritized by considering the overall site score, or by considering the difference between current and post-restoration conditions. Sites that score higher than others regardless of pre and post scores were first prioritized. Sites with a considerable potential for restoration “uplift” were then considered to understand what factors drive the potential for restoration “uplift”.

Habitat Scoring Criteria

The restoration workgroup assigned scores for each river front habitat feature ranging across the upland to sub tidal gradient. For some of the habitat criteria (that is, presence of wetlands, width of intertidal zone, and type of substrate), the same score was assigned for both pre- and post- restoration conditions. For the remaining criteria, separate scores were assigned for pre- and post- restoration conditions, under that the assumption that these variables are more subject to change through restoration (e.g., you can excavate, you can remove riprap, and you can plant a wider riparian buffer). By making these changes, your goal will be to increase the amount of vegetated shorelines and intertidal wetlands.

The habitat features and associate scoring criteria are described on Table 4.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 17 of 34

Table 4: Habitat Scoring Factors

Location Habitat Feature on River Front Gradient Scoring Criteria score of 1 score of 2 score of 3 Additional scoring factors

width of riparian turf grass (0.5x score) buffer zone (feet) <25 25-60 >60 Areas with 5 Areas with 0 Mowed Turf Excavation to 10 feet of to 5 feet of Currently 5 Assign 0 if area has requirement to excavation excavation (run) to 1 (rise) greater than 10 feet of Meadows-Open Field achieve 5 to 1 slope requirements. requirements or gentler excavation requirements. Moderate Extensive tree Non- Scrub-Shrub River bank forest tree cover cover along Tidal coverage (native sparse tree along bank and upland of Riparian trees) cover edge river bank. Canopy Trees (river bank forest) Patchy vegetation, Diverse, multi- mix of native species Non-Tidal Wetland Complexity/diversity monoculture natives and (forest and of species or invasives invasives meadow) if no wetland, score of zero non-tidal wetland (% 2x score for any wetlands of site) 1 to 10 11 to 20 >20 present Intertidal Wetland on High Marsh Vascular Plants part of Wetland along 2x score for any wetlands such as cat tails (Typha Tidal wetland on site none on site shoreline full shoreline present Width of intertidal species) and wild rice zone (feet) >50 (slope of if no intertidal (e.g. deep (Zizania aquatica) 1-3% is water bulk head) , score 1 to 30 30 to 50 optimal) of 0

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 18 of 34 low to moderate high Low Marsh Succulent Plants armoring marsh such as Spatterdock-Nuphar (e.g. 25 to 75 Shoreline armoring % armoring, system lutea, Pickerel weed- smaller Pontederia cordata, and (e.g. bulkhead, rip rap, natural) Heavy riprap that Arrow arum-Peltandra armoring allows virginica (e.g. 75 to connection 100 % between Low armoring bulkhead or upland and (e.g. 0 to Non-vegetated Intertidal large riprap) intertidal) 25%)) (mud, cobble, or sand) Protection from currents/wakes moderate protection Well protected (e.g. wave in cove, side deflection by channel, or by nearby on-site Exposed structures) structures. Subtidal Soft Bottom thriving (SAV (open prefers 3-5 Submerged aquatic small foot depth 2x score for any wetlands water) Hard Bottom (complexity, vegetation Minimal pockets range) present vertical relief)

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (e.g. eel grass- Zostera marina, wild celery - Vallisneria Ameriana) complex: Highly rocks, vertical Substrate type organic/mud sandy/gravel relief, diversity

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 19 of 34 The following considerations were made for each scoring criteria:

• For riparian buffer zone, a score of 1, 2, or 3 was assigned, unless there was impervious development right up to the water’s edge (whereupon a score of zero was assigned). The width of the post restoration buffer was estimated based on the distance to impervious development from the water’s edge. • For the excavation requirement, the restoration workgroup considered a 5 to 1 or gentler slope as the best starting point for bank restoration. Sites that required greater than 10 feet of excavation to achieve this slope received a score of zero (see Attachment D). • For presence of tidal and non-tidal wetlands, the same score was assigned for both pre- and post-restoration conditions. The potential for future expansion of wetlands is addressed under other criteria (e.g. excavation requirement, width of intertidal zone, protection from currents/wakes). • For the width of intertidal zone, the same score was assigned for both pre- and post- restoration conditions. The potential for future expansion of intertidal wetlands is addressed under other criteria (e.g. excavation requirement, protection from currents/wakes). The bathymetry data collected by DNREC was used to interpolate the width of the intertidal zone. The intertidal zone is defined as the area between mean high water (MHW) and mean low low water (MLLW). The MHW line is used because the mean high high water (MHHW) line is mostly shown as over the top of the bank; this area has been extensively filled so there is a sharp elevation gradient between MHW and MHHW, with MHW a more accurate indicator of the upper tidal zone boundary. The entire parcel did not have to meet the scoring criteria (Data used to interpolate intertidal zone width shown in Attachments E and F). • Shoreline armoring scores were estimated from field observations; no linear measurements of shoreline armoring were made. • Protection from currents/wakes scores were estimated from field observations, with some confirmation provided by presence of existing wetlands that are buffered from high-energy environment. • The pre-restoration submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) score was assigned using DNREC survey where presence of SAV was confirmed. SAV was confirmed visually via bottom grab sampling. The extent of SAV was estimated by the Roxann sonar survey. Sites were given post restoration SAV scores based on their overall potential for tidal wetlands. The width of the area between the shoreline and ~4 feet or less of water at MLLW was calculated using the DNREC data. Widths greater than 50 feet received a score of 3, those between 30 and 50 feet a score of 2, and those less than 30 feet a score of 1 (See Attachment F). • Bottom substrate type was determined during the DNREC boat survey. A Roxann sonar survey instrument was used to predict the type of river bottom substrate (e.g. clay, silt, sand, gravel, SAV). Roxann survey data were backed up by grab samples analyzed in lab to confirm grain size and organic content. A Chirp sonar survey performed at the same measured the sub- bottom profile. The Chirp survey looks at variations in the type of sub-bottom materials (e.g. as compared to what the Roxann device records for the river bottom substrate). Overall, the Chirp sonar did not show changes in substrate from what was found on the river bottom. Sands predominated closer to the shoreline, with some near shore areas showing silt and silt- clay bottom substrates. Since bottom substrates are predominately sands and this type of substrate is amendable to the establishment of vegetation, no post restoration scores were assigned for this criteria (See Attachment G) • Weighting factors were used in some cases to boost or reduce scores. The following scaling factors were used:

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 20 of 34 o The riparian buffer zone score was reduced by a factor of 0.5 if the site consisted of turf grass. o Sites with existing wetlands had the wetland scores increased by a factor of two, based on the severe deficit of wetlands (particularly intertidal freshwater wetlands) in the upper Delaware Estuary. SAV scores were also increased by the factor of two.

Site-Wide Scoring Criteria

Scores were also developed for site-wide characteristics. The same score was assigned for both pre- and post-restoration conditions. Site-wide scoring criteria are described on Table 5. Before and after scores were not estimated for the site-wide factors, as for the most part these factors are more static (though we do hope that factors such as landowner willingness can change through education and outreach). The following considerations were made for each scoring criteria: • The willingness of landowner score was estimated based on PEC’s and Delaware River City Corporation’s interactions with site owners. This includes general knowledge of landowner willingness as well as specific instances where landowners have expressed an interest in restoration or in selling land for the trail and riverfront greenway. • The proximity to contamination factor score was driven by the PWD provided GIS layer that shows location of potential point sources such as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites and stormwater discharges. For the most part scores for this factor are driven by the presence of combined sewer-stormwater overflow discharge points. The Metal Banks Superfund site is also located in this reach. Contaminated soils and sediments associated with brown fields are presumed to be present in the study area, but no databases documenting such contamination are known to be available. Data collected during future trail development and ecological restoration design work will contribute to more accurate scoring and decision- making. • Linear feet of shoreline is viewed as a physical factor, with longer and thus potentially larger habitat areas scoring higher. We based our scoring criteria on PWD’s city wide assessment of ecological restoration sites (see Attachment H)

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 21 of 34 Table 5 Site Wide Scoring

Site Wide Scoring Criteria score of 1 score of 2 score of 3

Willing Landowner with appropriate zoning little interest medium interest high interest

Proximity to Contaminants (including Present with adverse impacts occurring or likely to occur (e.g. Moderate potential for CSO’s, brownfields, chemical point documented contamination contaminant impacts sources, trash collection points, outfalls above adverse effect levels, at (e.g. adjacent brownfield and intakes, and/or invasive plants). CSO discharge point) or CSO) urban background Accessibility to restoration crews and equipment (DIFFICULT, MEDIUM, EASY) Moderate/Medium access (e.g. can prepare Easy access (e.g. drive Difficult access (e.g. steep slope) drive-on access) on) Availability of follow-up O/M and stewardship.

Private site with O/M Public site with O/M staff Isolated site, little O/M resources staff and Friend's of Group

Linear feet of shoreline: Based on shoreline lengths of 42 tidal mudflat sites along the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers identified as candidates for preservation/restoration. Selected "mean - 1 standard deviation" and "mean + 1 standard deviation" as scoring brackets. less than 440 feet 440 to 1,380 feet greater than 1,380 feet

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 22 of 34 Recreational Scoring Criteria

Recreational opportunities were also integrated into the scoring system based on the recreational trail and urban riverfront revitalization aspects of this project. Separate scores were assigned for pre- and post-restoration conditions based on the status of land ownership (e.g. assumed the potential to increase recreational opportunities on public lands). Recreational use scoring criteria are presented in Table 6, with the scoring considerations defined within the table.

Human recreational use along the North Delaware River waterfront area of Philadelphia is significant factor to consider when identifying ecological restoration opportunities. As previously noted, the East Coast Greenway trail (eventually to run from Maine to Florida) will traverse the North Philadelphia waterfront area. Trail design work in this area is underway, and trail construction along specific reaches is scheduled for 2009 (e.g. the K&T right of way from Frankford Arsenal north to the Tacony Boat Launch). Green street connections from densely populated Philadelphia neighborhoods are being designed to facilitate easier public access to the riverfront and trail. PEC views human use of the riverfront as a driving factor in this ecological restoration initiative. In additional to improving fish and wildlife habitat, ecological restoration will improve recreational opportunities for a sizable urban population. Examples of recreation include fishing, bird watching, hiking/biking, and nature study, along with more passive uses/enjoyment of natural river views. Because of the importance of recreation in urban environments, a weighting factor of seven incorporated into the recreational assessment (e.g. score of 1 = 7, score of 2 = 14, and score of 3 = 21).

Table 6: Human Recreational Use Scoring (7x factor) Human Use Opportunities Score No current use or future recreational opportunities 0 Limited current and/or future use (e.g. walk by, limited 1 observation/sitting areas) Moderate current and/or future use (e.g. park with mix of 2 passive and active amenities such as fishing or beach combing). High current and/or future use (e.g. park with multiple passive 3 and active uses including fixed facilities such as boat launch or public event staging area).

Value Added Ecological Restoration Matrix

The Delaware Estuary Regional Restoration Blueprint calls for a value added ecological restoration matrix. The goal of the value added matrix is to calculate the value of various ecosystem services recovered or enhanced because of restoration activities. Working with the larger Regional Restoration Blueprint stakeholders, the urban case study restoration workgroup initiated work on calculating ecosystem services gained because of shoreline restoration.

The restoration workgroup identified provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem service categories (See Table 7). These categories were derived from the National Research Council Committee on Mitigating Shore Erosion Along Sheltered Coasts’ 2007 report. The restoration workgroup initially cross-referenced these services with habitat features and management actions to identify which restored habitats can provide High Service, Intermediate Service, or Low

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 23 of 34 Service ecosystem values (see Table 8). As the table indicates, actions such as wetland restoration and shoreline tree planting provide a high service value across a variety of ecosystem services.

Table 7: Ecosystem Services Ecosystem Service Category Type of Service Provisioning • Habitat • Biodiversity • Productivity Regulating • Nutrient Uptake/Cycle • Sediment Stabilization • Wave Attenuation • Gas Regulation Cultural • Recreational • Aesthetic Value

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 24 of 34

Table 8: From: Hahn, S., Davarskas, A., Bodnar, J., Racette, P., Kreeger, D. Whalen, L. and Butler, L., Regional Restoration Planning in the Delaware Estuary: Ecosystem Evaluation Along an Urban Waterfront (Philadelphia Pa). Poster session presented at Delaware Estuary and Science Summit 2009 Jan 11-14: Cape May, NJ.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 25 of 34

The restoration workgroup went a step further and quantified the uplift in one ecosystem service (productivity) that would result from the conversion of armored shoreline to more natural shoreline. Using natural resource damage assessment data collected in the Delaware Estuary in response to the Athos oil spill, the group calculated productivity based on shoreline type as measured by the unit of discounted service acres per year. What this means in more simpler terms is that as the shoreline is restored to a more natural condition, primary productivity will increase due to increase interchanges of water, nutrients, sediment, and plants. This enables more plants to grow in the intertidal area, providing a boost in the food/energy available at the base of the food chain, which in turn can support a variety of other aquatic species. Productivity increases as shoreline is converted from armored (e.g. bulkhead or riprap) to more natural are shown on Table 9.

Additional ecosystem service valuations will be calculated for the four regional restoration Blueprint categories including the urban case study.

Value Added Restoration- Productivity Uplift

Habitat Equivalency Shoreline type DSAY Analysis Bulk head 4

Rip rap 68 Discounted service- acre years (DSAY) Gravel beach 70

From Athos NRDA data Steep vegetated 51 bank Marsh 332

Table 9: From: Hahn, S., Davarskas, A., Bodnar, J., Racette, P., Kreeger, D. Whalen, L. and Butler, L., Regional Restoration Planning in the Delaware Estuary: Ecosystem Evaluation Along an Urban Waterfront (Philadelphia Pa). Poster session presented at Delaware Estuary and Science Summit 2009 Jan 11-14: Cape May, NJ.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 26 of 34 Consideration of Living Resources:

The restoration workgroup has primarily addressed living resources of the Delaware Estuary by considering general habitat needs. The group recognized that only small remnants of once continuous freshwater tidal wetlands remain in the study area (Kreeger 2005). Urbanization has resulted in the filling of these wetlands and the corresponding loss of riverbank forests. Thus, efforts to restore wetlands and riverbank forests will provide habitat for many wildlife species.

The restoration workgroup compiled a list of wildlife species that will benefit from wetland and riverbank restoration by consulting the following sources: • A primary list of wildlife species was derived from the Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan, (Version 1.0a, compiled and edited by Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, May 2008 update). A species list was generated based on species of concern identified in the plan that may occur in Tidal Delaware reach, with a specific focus on Priority species associated with emergent wetlands/marshes in Pennsylvania. • The restoration workgroup also consulted the Habitat Project #323, Delaware Estuary Program, Identification of Non-Aquatic Priority Habitats, December 2002 (prepared by A.D. Marble & Company for Delaware Estuary Program). A species list was generated based on those organisms that would be present in main-stem Delaware River upper estuary shoreline reaches. • Other species of concern added by restoration workgroup members.

A list or representative species was generated for the project area (see Table 10).

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 27 of 34

Table 10: Representative Species Fish using the edge and tidal Wading Birds Raptors creeks Hickory shad Great Blue heron Osprey American shad Egret Bald eagle Stripped bass Green heron Peregrine falcon Shortnose sturgeon American Bittern Red tailed hawk Alewife Virginia Rail Bluebacked herring Black-crowned Night- Mammals Heron White perch Great Egret Muskrat Yellow perch King Rail Raccoon Eastern silvery minnow Least Bittern River otter Mummichog Yellow-crowned night Fox heron American eel Solitary Sandpiper Opossum Banded Sunfish Wilson's Snipe Ironcolor Shiner Threespine Stickleback American brook lamprey White Catfish Freshwater mussel Song birds Tidal water mucket (Leptodea Marsh wren ochracea) Eastern floater (Pyganodon Northern bobwhite cataracta) Invertebrates Water Fowl Blue crab Cormorants Asia Clam (Corbicula fluminea) Mergansers Amphibians Black Tern New Jersey Chorus Frog Green-winged teal Coastal Plain Leopard Frog American Black Duck Northern Leopard Frog American Coot Striped Chorus Frog Common Moorhen Red Bellied Turtles Pied-billed Grebe

Species in bold are those listed in Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan, (Version 1.0a, compiled and edited by Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, May 2008 update)

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 28 of 34 As note above, the restoration workgroup will focus restoration design efforts on habitat features, with the goal of establishing a relatively heterogeneous habitat template (i.e. a mix/combination of deep/pelagic areas, shallow littoral zones vegetated with native emergent vegetation, and adjacent shorelines vegetated with forest and meadows complexes). Our goal is to see the species of interest begin to inhabit these sites. While individual decisions may be made during ecological restoration design to target the habitat requirements of specific species (e.g. a nesting box), our emphasis will be in general habitat requirements and templates.

Additional landscape conductivity modeling is being performed to evaluate how habitat restoration in the study area fits into and improves broader regional habitats. Integral Consulting has been tasked by the PDE to conduct a Landscape Conductivity Model. This model will rate potential restoration projects, considering their size, quality, and distance from other habitats. The model predicts how a restoration project: 1. Benefits neighboring habitats 2. Contributes to wildlife dispersal (e.g. movement in the local area) 3. Contributes to wildlife traversability (e.g. movement across the wider gradient such as migrating along a river’s edge flyway).

This model is utilizing wildlife habitat mapping conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others in A Gap Analysis of Animal Species Distributions in Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey, 2006 Final Report. Mapping from the gap analysis extends in the Pennsylvania study area. Modeling results are not yet available.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 29 of 34 Section 8-Site Assessment and Prioritization Results

For this CZM project, the basic restoration matrix was utilized to assess and prioritize potential restoration sites in the study area. The additional value added restoration matrix work is used to document further the value of conducting ecological restoration within this urban case study area.

The urban restoration workgroup considered each parcel located within the study area. Combined basic restoration matrix site scores were developed for each parcel. That is, habitat, site-wide, and recreational sub-scores are calculated, and then combined to arrive at a total before and after site score for each parcel (see Table 11 – see separate file).

The scoring results can be considered in several ways:

Habitat restoration higher-ranking sites: The higher-ranking parcels for both pre- and post- restoration conditions were those that exhibited the most potential for intertidal wetland restoration (i.e. National Grid, Pennypack Park lagoons, mouth of Pennypack Creek, Saint Vincent’s, Lardner’s Point, and Pleasant Hill Park). Sites with the potential for narrower fringe wetland restoration scored just behind the top parcels (that is, Newman, Dodge, and Bradford).

Habitat restoration considering the highest uplift potential: The largest changes between pre- and post-restoration scores fell into the 9 to 12 point range. A couple of these sites also fell into the higher-ranking site category (i.e. Bradford and Dodge parcels). Others scored lower overall in habitat restoration potential, but appear to have the most potential for restoration uplift. Rationale for this uplift relates back to the bathymetry data that shows potential for shoreline fringe wetlands at these sites. At least one of these sites (i.e. Waste Transfer) also has some protection from currents/wakes as well as a potentially willing landowner. However, many of other “high uplift potential sites” score lower under the other ranking categories, reducing their overall restoration potential.

Site wide scoring: There was some consistency between the higher habitat restoration ranked sites and the site wide scoring (i.e. Pennypack Park lagoons, mouth of Pennypack Park, Pleasant Hill Park, and Lardner’s Point). This is because these are publically owned sites with a higher potential for landowner interest and stewardship. All but Lardner’s Point are also not located next to combined sewer overflow pipes. Other sites that score higher in the side wide category are Newman’s, the two Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission sites, and the PWD Baxter Water Treatment site, once again because they are either publically owned sites or a site with an interested landowner.

Recreational scoring: As expected, the sites scoring highest for this category are publically owned properties that already offer a range of recreational opportunities (i.e. Pennypack Park lagoons, mouth of Pennypack Park, Pleasant Hill Park, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission sites at Frankford and Tacony, and Lardner’s Point). As the greenway trail is developed, those parcels with the most area for enhanced recreation (e.g. River’s Edge Memorial, PIDC, and the mouths of Poquessing and New Frankford Creek) score the next highest. While it is just a single scoring criteria, a weighting factor of seven is used in the total site scoring based on the importance of recreation in urban environments.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 30 of 34 Total site scoring: As expected, sites identified under the previous sub-scoring categories end up with the higher total site scores (e.g. Pennypack Park lagoons, mouth of Pennypack Park, Pleasant Hill Park, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission sites at Frankford and Tacony, National Grid, Lardner’s Point, Saint Vincent, and Newman’s). While the site scores are driven by the intertidal wetland restoration, willing landowner, and recreational use categories, the other scoring criteria play a lesser but still important assessment role. A number of the criteria affect the intertidal wetland excavation potential (e.g. width of intertidal zone, need for excavation, shoreline armoring, protection from wakes, and accessibility to restoration crews). As projects go forward into ecological design phases, the potential for soil contamination has also become a major factor in landowner decisions to move forward.

Simple restoration concepts derived from Google Earth aerial photographs are presented in Attachment I for higher-ranking sites.

Value Added Restoration Matrix: PEC and its partners have already started to apply the basic restoration matrix scores in decisions to move ahead with restoration designs. Our preliminary value added restoration matrix assessments have indicated that actions such as wetland restoration and shoreline tree planting provide a high service value across a variety of ecosystem services. The quantification of productivity uplift (see Table 9 and related discussion above) further supports decisions to create more natural, “living shorelines” which can support a broader variety of plant and animal communities. The workgroup plans to evaluate other Table 7 ecosystem service parameters such as sediment stabilization and recreation.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 31 of 34 Section 9-Conduct Landowner Outreach

This CZM project included a landowner outreach task for pursuing ecological restoration design and construction actions. The overall outreach deliverable was to contact landowners, confirm viable projects, and identify the next project planning and implementation steps.

PEC and other partners are pursuing ecological restoration projects at emerging opportunity sites within the CZM reach. Early landowner outreach leading to the start up of restoration projects in the project area include:

Lardner’s Point Park: PEC has supported the Delaware River City Corporation with efforts to develop ecological restoration design plans for Lardner’s Point Park. This parcel of land just downriver from the Tacony Palmyra Bridge is being developed into a unit of Fairmount Park. A conceptual restoration design has been developed for both intertidal wetland and upland meadow and forest areas. See Figures 2a and 2b.

Bridesburg sites: The National Grid site at Bridesburg ranked high for ecological restoration based on the potential to enhance and restore wetlands within a protected cove. The PAID site is directly adjacent to National Grid. Landowner interest and the potential for wetland restoration triggered a successful grant application to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) for a preliminary ecological restoration design at these two parcels. An RFP for restoration design work was released on November 24, 2009. A major obstacle associated with this design initiative is landowner liability concerns related to environmental sampling and excavation.

PEC has been coordinating with the Delaware River City Corporation on a broader landowner outreach program. The goal of this strategy is two-fold. First, develop a site control strategy for the area, such as the identification of an entity that can hold easements or fee simple land purchases either temporarily or forever. Concurrent with this has been a DRCC-led effort to contact landowners along the North Delaware Greenway Trail regarding trail right of way and trail-to-river access. Table 12 (see separate file) summarizes landowner interest regarding trail and river front restoration on their property.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 32 of 34 Attachments

• Attachment A: Regional Restoration Workgroup • Attachment B: Broader Stakeholder Community • Attachment C: Description of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control’s survey methods • Attachment D: Estimation of excavation needs to achieve 5 to 1 slope • Attachment E: Estimation of intertidal zone width between shoreline (mean high water) and mean low low water - corrected to NAVD • Attachment F: Estimation of emergent and submerged wetland vegetation zone width between shoreline and 4 foot below mean low low water • Attachment G: Bottom substrate types determined during DNREC boat survey • Attachment H: Estimation of parcel shoreline lengths (map and table) • Attachment I: Simple restoration concepts on Google Earth aerials

Figures

• Figure 1: The North Delaware River Greenway study area, the focus on this CZM grant work. • Figures 2a and 2b: Conceptual designs for intertidal wetland restoration at Lardner’s Point by Biohabitats • Figure 3: Conceptual “living shoreline” ecological restoration principles from Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Citations

• Blue Print for the Delaware Estuary Regional Restoration Initiative • 2005 North Delaware Riverfront Greenway: Master Plan and Cost Benefit Analysis Plan • 2007 Upper Delaware Estuary Wetland Creation and Enhancement, Watershed Project Initiation Form, Philadelphia Water Department, 1/16/07 o Kreeger, D. 2005. Signature Ecological Traits of the Delaware Estuary: tidal freshwater wetlands. Concepts in Delaware Estuary Science and Management, No. 05-01. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary. http://www.delawareestuary.org/scienceandresearch. o Gibbs, J.P. 1993. Importance of Small Wetlands for the Persistence of Local Populations of Wetland-Associated Animals. Wetlands. 13:25-31. o A Management Plan for the Delaware Estuary (CCMP).1996. Battelle Ocean Sciences. • Renovating Post-Industrial Landscapes: The North Delaware Riverfront, prepared by Field Operations in 2001 • Wetland Creation and Restoration, The Status of the Science, compiled by Island Press, 1990. • National Research Council Committee on Mitigating Shore Erosion Along Sheltered Coasts’ 2007 • Regional Restoration Planning in the Delaware Estuary: Ecosystem Evaluation Along an Urban Waterfront (Philadelphia Pa). Hahn, S., Davarskas, A., Bodnar, J., Racette, P., Kreeger, D. Whalen, L. and Butler, L., Poster session presented at Delaware Estuary and Science Summit 2009 Jan 11-14: Cape May, NJ.

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 33 of 34 • Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan, (Version 1.0a, compiled and edited by Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, May 2008 update) • Habitat Project #323, Delaware Estuary Program, Identification of Non-Aquatic Priority Habitats, December 2002 (prepared by A.D. Marble & Company for Delaware Estuary Program) • A Gap Analysis of Animal Species Distributions in Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey, 2006 Final Report • A Natural Heritage Inventory of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, December 2008, by Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

Paul Racette| Pennsylvania Environmental Council | e. [email protected] | www.pecpa.org | Page 34 of 34 Table 11: Basic Restoration Matrix Site Scoring

Table 12: Landowner Interest in Ecological Restoration