United States
Environmental Protection
Agency ,
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta. GA 30365
EPA 904/6-85-132
April 1985
COASTAL MARINA
ASSESSMENT HANDBOG
-------
^COASTAL "MARINAS; ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK
April 1985 . ,
,- Prepared by1
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV,. Atlanta, Georgia 30365
The .Coastal Marinas Assessment is a handbook of informajtion
and gui'rfande for .the environmentally sound development-and
regulation of coastal mar-inas. The handbook-.provides assistance
and identifies options for the resolution of 'environmental,
institutional and,engineering issues associated .with coastal
marina development. The document provides state'-of-the-art
information and is designed- to be periodically updated.
Comments or inquiries should be forwarded to:
- Edward T. Heinen," Chief...
E n v i r-o.nme n t a L. As's e$ sme n t B r^a n_c h
Environmental;Protection Agency
345 Court-land "Street, 'N, E.
Atlanta,.Georgia."30365
. (404).. 881-3776
t;
-------
COASTAL MARINAS" ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK
APRIL 1985-
Prepared by
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV - ATLANTA
With Assistance from
APPLIED BIOLOGY, INC.
GANNETT FLEMING CORDDRY AND CARPENTER, INC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
!on
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Much of the information in this handbook was obtained through the
generous support and cooperation of the following:
National Marine Fisheries Service
State Regulatory, Environmental and Shellfish Sanitation Agencies
State Sea Grant Programs
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USFDA Regional Shellfish Experts
The participation and thoughtful comments from members of the
Interagency Coordination Committee, the Technical Resources Committee and
other interested individuals are gratefully acknowledged.
Inquiries regarding information in this handbook should be made to
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Assessment
Branch, 345 Courtland Street, Atlanta, Georgia, 30365.
DISCLAIMER
The mention of trade names or commercial products in this handbook
is for illustration purposes and does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert B. Howard
Robert Lord
W. Bowman Crum
Project Officer
Project Monitor
Project Monitor
Applied Biology, Inc.
Nancy W. Walls, Ph.D.
Larry Neal
Alyse Gardner
David Herrema
Sue McCuskey, Ph.D.
William Rhodes
Kenneth Stockwell
Project Manager
Project Director
Environmental Scientist
Biologist/Ecologist
Environmental Scientist
Bi ologi st/Ecologi st
Water Resources Specialist
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Thomas M. Rachford, Ph.D.
K. Fred Updegraff
Stuart Miner
Wayne Schutz
Lynn Rezak
Project Manager
Engineer
Institutional Analyst
Engineer
Institutional Analyst
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables iv
List of Figures viii
Table of Acronyms x
Variables used in Equations xi
Metric-English Conversion Table xiii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Use of the Handbook 1-3
2.0 MARINAS IN THE COASTAL ZONE 2-1
2.1 Marina Benefits 2-1
2.2 Marina Demand 2-1
3.0 SITING 3-1
3.1 Overview 3-1
3.2 Marina Location 3-1
3.2.1 General Site Locations 3-1
3.2.2 Environmental Impact Considerations 3-2
3.3 Marina Development Process 3-4
3.4 Coastal Marinas Screening Checklist for Site Planning 3-6
3.4.1 Part One - Project Description 3-6
3.4.2 Part Two - Potential Permitting Issues 3-17
3.5 Summary 3-26
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES 4-1
4.1 Overview 4-1
4.2 Water Quality Impacts 4-2
4.2.1 Flushing Characteristics of Marina Sites 4-3
4.2.2 Sediment Deposition and Shoaling 4-8
4.2.3 Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal 4-19
4.2.4 Shoreline and Protective Structures 4-25
4.2.5 Pollutant Concentration 4-34
4.2.6 Boat Operation and Maintenance 4-67
4.3 Ecological Impacts 4-69
4.3.1 Aquatic Habitat Resources 4-69
4.3.2 Terrestrial Habitat 4-77
4.3.3 Wetland Habitat 4-80
4.3.4 Protected Species 4-94
4.4 Other Impacts 4-94
4.4.1 Historical or Archaeological Resources 4-94
4.4.2 Navigation 4-98
4.5 Impact Assessment 4-98
4.5.1 Approach 4-99
4.5.2 Specific Concerns 4-103
4.6 Summary 4-110
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS: IMPACT MITIGATION
5.1 Overview
5.2 'Environmental Impact Solutions Through Mitigation
5.2.1 Definition of Mitigation
5.2.2 Migitative Concepts
5.2.3 Extent of Mitigation
5.2.4 Marina-Related Mitigative Measures
5.3 Marina Location
5.4 Marina Design and Construction
5,4.1 Water Quality Mitigative Measures
5.4.2 Ecological Mitigative Measures
5.4.3 Other Mitigative Measures
5.5 Marina Operation and Maintenance
5.5.1 Water Quality Considerations
5.5.2 Ecological Considerations
5.5.3 Other Considerations
5.6 Summary
6.0 REGULATION
6.1 Overview
6.2 Agency Functional Roles in Regulation
6.2.1 Federal Agencies
6.2.2 State Agencies
6.2.3 Review Agencies
6.3 Regulatory/Planning Responsibilities for Specific
Coastal Resource Impact Categories
6.3.1 Water Quality Resources
6.3.2 Groundwater Resources
6.3.3 Aquatic Habitat Resources
6.3.4 Terrestrial Habitat Resources
6.3.5 Wetland Resources
6.3.6 Socioeconomic Resources
6.3.7 Navigation Resources
6.3.8 Aesthetic Resources
6.4 Desirable Features of Regulatory/Planning Programs
6.4.1 U§f of Desirable Features in USEPA Region IV
6.5 Marina Permitting in USEPA Region IV
6.5.1 Federal Agencies
6.5.2 State Agencies
6.5.3 Analysis of Differences Between State Permit
Programs
6.5.4 Local Agencies
6.6 Summary
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-3
5-4
5-4
5-7
5-44
5-56
5-57
5-58
5-59
5-60
5-61
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-4
6-5
6-8
6-9
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-14
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-16
6-16
6-19
6-20
6-21
6-29
6-88
6-88
6-91
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 7-1
8.0 GLOSSARY 8-1
APPENDICES:
A - Measurement Techniques for Impact Areas
B - Slipside Wastewater Collection Systems, Assumptions and
Costing Examples
C - Controlled Purification of Shellfish
D - Ordinances Regulating Marina Activities
E - Correspondence Regarding Shellfish Harvesting and
Antidegradation
F - Principal Federal and State Permitting, Certification and
Review Agencies
G - Examples of Permit Application Materials
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1-1 Major concerns and initial key factors pertinent
to coastal marinas 1-2
2-1 Marina facilities and services within USEPA
Region IV 2-3
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
Coastal marina screening checklist
Marina services and facilities
Hydro! ogic soil groups
Runoff curve numbers (RCN) for urban and
suburban areas
Definition of antecedent moisture conditions
Factors for converting RCNs to antecedent
conditions I and II
Runoff (inches) for selected runoff curve numbers
Characteristics for estimating amount of
sediment disturbed by structure emplacement
Toxicity and bioaccumulation concentration factors
of heavy metals in marine organisms
Estimated concentration of soluble aromatic
fractions of oil which are toxic to marine
organisms
Lethal concentrations of pesticides in selected
marine crustaceans
Representative constituent concentrations for
urban runoff
Estimated pollutant contribution from boats
Representative reaction coefficients
Solubility of oxygen in water
Sediment oxygen demand
Classification of shellfish growing areas
3-8
3-14
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-31
4-37
4-38
4-40
4-43
4-44
4-46
4-49
4-50
promulgated by National Shellfish Sanitation
Program 4-58
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
TABLE
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-24
4-25
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
Allowable number of boats in shell fishing areas
Concentration of coliform expected from given
numbers of boats
Water quality specifications for marine
santitation device discharges
Noise levels of tug boats and associated barges at
100 feet from channel
Noise levels emitted from construction equipment at
50 feet
1982 and 1981 oyster landings presented by state
and ranked by total value
A summary of the relative success of marsh plant
and animal recoveries following sediment burial
to several depths
Locations in USEPA Region IV utilized by sea
turtles
Public and private sources of information
Technical structure of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' dredged material research program
Descriptions of several mechanical dredges
(dipper, ladder, and bucket) and hydraulic
dredges (pipeline and hopper)
Characteristics of marina wastewater
collection systems
Capital costs (construction and equipment)
Annual per slip costs (amortized construction
costs, and operation and maintenance)
Summary of major characteristics of available
collection systems
Summary of seagrass restoration
Response to U.S. Food and Drug Administration
4-60
4-62
4-63
4-78
4-79
4-84
4-89
4-96
4-101
4-104
5-13
5-36
5-37
5-38
5-39
5-47
questionaire regarding state policy on marinas
and closure of shellfish areas 5-53
5-8 Shellfish harvesting seasons in open grounds
for USEPA Region IV states 5-55
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-16
6-17
6-18
6-19
Functional roles of permitting agencies
General permit evaluation criteria
Corps of Engineers permit evaluation criteria
Summary of USEPA evaluation criteria for projects
proposing discharge of dredged or fill material
under Section 404(b)(l) of the CWA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria for
marina siting evaluation
National Marine Fisheries Service guidelines for
wetland alteration
State of North Carolina permit evaluation criteria
State of North Carolina water quality criteria
applicable to marina siting areas
State of North Carolina dredge and spoil
requirements
State of North Carolina examples of marina permit
conditions
State of South Carolina marina permit evaluation
criteria
State of South Carolina water quality criteria
applicable to marina siting areas
State of South Carolina dredge and spoil
requirements
State of South Carolina examples of marina permit
conditions
State of Georgia marina permit evaluation
criteria
State of Georgia water quality criteria applicable
to marina siting areas
State of Georgia dredging requirements
State of Georgia examples of marina permit
conditions
State of Florida marina permit evaluation criteria
and dredge and spoil requirements
6-3
6-22
6-26
6-28
6-30
6-32
6-37
6-38
6-41
6-42
6-46
6-48
6-51
6-52
6-57
6-58
6-60
6-61
6-65
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
6-20
6-21
6-22
6-23
6-24
6-25
6-26
6-27
6-28
6-29
State of Florida water quality criteria applicable
to marina siting areas
State of Florida examples of marina permit
conditions
State of Alabama criteria for siting of activities
in the coastal area
State of Alabama water quality criteria applicable
to marina siting areas
State of Alabama dredge and fill requirements
State of Alabama examples of marina permit
conditions and mitigation measures
State of Mississippi marina permit evaluation
criteria
State of Mississippi water quality criteria
applicable to marina siting areas
State of Mississippi dredge spoil requirements
State of Mississippi examples of marina permit
6-66
6-69
6-73
6-74
6-76
6-78
6-82
6-84
6-85
conditions 6-86
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
Environmental impacts, sources and primary solutions
Proportion of shoreline, numbers of marinas along the
Intracoastal Waterways and registered boats in Region
IV coastal states
Marina development process
Major factors for site evaluation
General requirements of marinas by boat type and
boating activity
Coastal marina layout illustrating facilities and
services
Desirable and undesirable site characteristics
Representative semi -enclosed marina basin
Alongshore sediment transport
Particle diameter vs. settling fall per tidal cycle
(12.3 hrs) under quiescent conditions
Approximate settling distance for sphaerical particle
with density of 2.0 g/cm3 and diameter of 2 x 10-2 mm
Approximate settling distance for sphaerical particle
with density of 2.0 g/cm3 and diameter of 2 x 10-3 mm
A profile of a shoreline wetland area comparing a
natural productive environment with an altered
condition following bulkhead construction
Shoaling associated with detached and shore-
attached solid breakwaters
Typical pleasure boat basin breakwater types
Side view of a typical sheet pile bulkhead
Profile of a revetment
Refuges used by the West Indian Manatee
1-4
2-2
3-5
3-7
3-11
3-15
3-29
4-4
4-9
4-10
4-26
4-27
4-29
4-30
4-32
4-33
4-35
4-95
VT n
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
FIGURE
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
Comparison of the flushing potential of several
marina configurations
Marina cross sections showing differences in
marina flushing
Use of sediment curtains when dredging in
different areas
Examples of bulkhead and revetment structures
A sanitary holding-tank pumpout facility
Representation of the various elements of the
ENVIROVAC marina system
The center of the ENVIROVAC system, the vacuum
central station
Automatic vacuum pumpout stations
Typical marina boat hookup for a vacuum sewage
collection system
Interface values installed below decking
Examples of deck connections
Examples of through-hull connections
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting process
North Carolina marina permitting process
South Carolina marina permitting process
Georgia marina permitting process
Florida marina permitting process
Alabama marina permitting process
Mississippi marina permitting process
5-9
5-10
5-15
5-18
5-26
5-27
5-29
5-30
5-31
5-32
5-33
5-34
6-24
6-35
6-45
6-55
6-63
6-71
6-80
IX
-------
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
AEC - Area of Environmental Concern
ATM - Atmosphere
BCnC - Bay Conservation and Development Commission (San Francisco)
BMR - Bureau of Marine Resources (MS)
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BPC - Bureau of Pollution Control (MS)
CAMA - Coastal Area Management Act (NC)
CMPC - Coastal Marshlands Protection Commission (NC)
CMPC - Coastal Marshlands Protection Commission (GA)
COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand
COE (Corps); USACOE - United States Army Corps of Engineers
CRC - Coastal Resources Commission
CRD - Coastal Resources Division (GA-DNR)
CWA - Clean Water Act
dBA - Decibels adjusted to the A - scale compatible with human hearing
capabilities
DCA - Department of Community Affairs (FL)
DCNR - Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (AL)
DEM - Department of Environmental Management (AL)
DEM - Division of Environmental Management (NC)
DER - Department of Environmental Regulation (FL)
DHEC - Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC)
DNR - Department of Natural Resources (GA, FL, MS)
DNRCD - Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NC)
DO - Dissolved Oxygen
DOT - Department of Transportation
DRI - Development of Regional Impact
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
EPA; USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPD - Environmental Protection Division (GA)
F&W; USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service
FAC - Florida Administrative Code
FDA - Food and Drug Administration
FONSI - Finding of No Significant Impact
MPN - Most Probable Number
MSD - Marine Sanitation Device
NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPP - Net Primary Production
NSSP - National Shellfish Sanitation Program
OCM - Office of Coastal Management (NC)
OCZM - Office of Coastal Zone Management
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
POC - Public Oyster Ground
PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyl
PVC - Polyvinyl chloride
SOD - State Docks Department (AL)
SHPO - State Historic Preservation Office (AL)
SOS - Secretary of State (MS)
SSCA - State Shellfish Control Agency
SCCC - South Carolina Coastal Council
TOC - Total Organic Carbon
USCG - United States Coast Guard
USGS - United States Geological Survey
-------
VARIABLES USED IN EQUATIONS
First used
Symbol Definition in equation
Tf Flushing time (hrs) 1,2
Tc Tidal cycle, high tide to high tide (hrs)
A Surface area of marina basin (m2)
D Desired dilution factor
R Range of tide (m)
b Return flow factor
I Non-tidal freshwater inflow (m3/hr)
L Average depth at low tide (m)
H Average depth at high tide (m)
V[_ Volume of marina at low tide (m3) 3
VH Volume of marina at high tide (m3)
Vp Volume of marina tidal prism (m3)
Sw Sea water salinity (ppt) 4
Si Mean salinity in segment (ppt)
Vj Volume in segment (m3)
I River discharge (m3/hr)
n number of segments
FB 0.024-converts units to kg/day 5
Ss Suspended load sedimentation rate (kg/day)
Vm Volume of marina at mean depth (m3)
TSS Total suspended solids in waters draining into marina
(mg/1)
Vr Volume of runoff (liters) 6
Ur Unit runoff (in)
A(J Drainage area (acres)
i Subdivision of drainage area used to determine soil
group and RCN
FS 102802 - converts units to liters
RCN Runoff curve number
ST Runoff sedimentation rate (g/day) 7
Vr Average daily Vr (I/day)
Fv l x 103 - converts units to gm/day
TSS Total suspended solids (mg/1)
Rs Shoaling rate (m/year) 8
Fg 3.65 x 104 _ converts units to (m/year)
PB Bulk density of sediments (g/cm3)
TSSj Total suspended solids increase due to dredging (mg/1) 9
VD Volume of sediment disturbed (m3)
r Resuspension factor for sediment type
Wd Dry weight of sediment (g/m3)
Vm Mean volume of marina waters (m3)
FIO 1 x 10~6 _ converts units to m
S Shoaling as a result of redistribution (m) 10
Ct Concentration of pollutant at time t (mg/1) 11
CA Ambient concentration of pollutant prior to addition
of discharge (mg/1)
M Mass of pollutant discharged into basin (mg)
k Decay rate for non-conservative pollutants (dayl)
t Time (days)
1000 - converts units to mg/1
N Number of tidal cycles - 24 /Tc
C Concentration of pollutant (mg/1) 12
xi
-------
VARIABLES USED IN EQUATIONS
(continued)
First used
Symbol Definition in equation
Mr Mass flow rate of pollutant into basin (mg/day)
^12 4.17 x 10~5 _ converts units to mg/1
j Tf/24 13
DOR Approximate [DO] remaining (mg/1) 14
DOA Ambient [DO] of water flushing into marina (mg/1)
DOS Saturated [DO] (mg/1)
D0|_ Dissolved oxygen concentration in marina at low tide
(mg/1)
ki Reaeration coefficient (day1)
B Sediment oxygen demand (mg/m2/day)
CB Biochemical oxygen demand mass discharge (mg/day)
Fi4 1000 - converts m^ to 1
CN Nitrogenous oxygen demand (mg/1)
C0 Cross sectional average concentration in segment (mg/1) 15,16,17
Cd Concentration of the pollutant down-estuary at a
distance x (mg/1)
Cu Concentration of the pollutant up-estuary from the
marina at distance x (mg/1)
Qp Mass of pollutant discharged per tidal cycle (mg)
Is Sum of freshwater Q into estuary per tidal cycle
(m3)
Sx Salinity in segment at distance x (ppt)
W Discharge rate of pollutant (mg/day) 18,19
Ax Cross sectional area of estuary at point x (m2|
U Freshwater flow velocity near discharge (m/day)
FIS 1 x 10-3 - converts units to mg/1
E Dispersion coefficient (m^/day)
X Distance from marina (m)
"S Tidally and cross sectional ly averaged salinity in
vicinity of marina (ppt) 20
AX Distance from marina at which salinity measurements
were made (m)
SX+AX Salinity at distance x down the estuary (ppt)
SX-AX Salinity at distance x up the estuary (ppt)
D0[) Dissolved oxygen deficit (mg/1) 21
k2 BOD decay rate 22
W|_ BOD from discharge plus background BOD (mg/1)
Z2 U2 + 4lqE
Cx Concentration of pollutant at point x downstream (mg/1) 23,24
XR Distance downstream of marina (m)
Q Volumetric river flow rate (m3/day)
Hr Depth of flow (m) K 9
Di Diffusivity of oxygen in water = 7.53 x lO'Whr at
20°C
Uv River velocity (m/hr)
G Number of boats 25
P 2.5 x 109 coliforms/boat
^25 1 x 104 - converts units to MPN/100 ml
-------
c
V
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1-1
Initial Concerns and Key Factors 1-1
Guidance Development 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Use of the Handbook 1-3
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000002WL\tiff\20007ZT0.tif): Saving image to "C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000002WL\tiff\20007ZT0.T$F.T$F" failed.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In 1983, the USEPA Region IV Environmental Assessment Branch ini-
tiated an environmental assessment of the development and operation of
coastal marinas. The study responded to existing resource-use conflicts
between shellfishermen and marina developers in Region IV coastal states
and addressed the growing regulatory concerns for balancing the develop-
ment and operation of coastal marinas with the need to conserve and pro-
tect coastal resources. The objective of the assessment was to:
identify pertinent environmental concerns and issues, and to provide
guidance for environmentally sound coastal marina development and
operation.
Initial Concerns and Key Factors
Concerns and issues were identified through site visits and
discussions with regulatory agencies, marina developers and operators,
shellfishermen and other interested parties. Background information in
the environmental, engineering and institutional areas pertinent to
coastal marinas was provided in the Inventory of Existing Conditions and
Key Factors Task Report. Two project committees were formed to serve as
a resource and to guide project development through review and comment on
documents. This report identified the principal concerns for marina-
related problem areas and the key factors for which guidance was deve-
loped (Table 1-1). These concerns were:
Projecting Environmental Impacts
Direct Habitat Alteration
Natural Resource Impacts
Water Quality Impacts
Socioeconomic Impacts
Effectiveness of Decision-Making Processes
Compliance with Standards and Regulations.
Guidance Development
The overall objective of guidance development was to provide speci-
fic users with succinct information for use in dealing with marina-
related problems. The key factors identified from the Inventory were
evaluated to select those of particular relevance for guidance develop-
ment. The selection was based on the relative importance of concerns
and/or issues of recognized importance. The number of key factors was
restricted to prevent dilution of effort. This process resulted in six
key factors: impact assessment techniques, siting, shellfish buffer
zones, pollutant control, permit process and monitoring and compliance.
These key factors were finalized into four key factors for guidance
development:
. Siting
. Impact assessment techniques
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1
MAJOR CONCERNS AND INITIAL KEY FACTORS PERTINENT TO COASTAL MARINAS
Concerns
Impact
assessment
Siting
Marina
Design
Regulation
and public
education
Pol lutant
control
Monitoring
and
compllance
Regional
planning
Permit
process
Performance
standards and
specifications
Impact projections
Direct habitat
alteration
Natural resource
Impacts
Water qua I Ity
impacts
Socioeconomic
Impacts
Effectiveness of
decision-making
processes
Compllance with
standards and
regulations
-------
INTRODUCTION
Impact mitigation
. Regulatory/planning processes.
Shellfish resource issues, including buffer zones, were addressed under
the siting and regulatory/ planning processes key factors. Pollutant
control was addressed under impact mitigation. Permit process and moni-
toring and compliance were addressed under regulatory/planning processes.
The first task in deve
categories, specific impactsj
checklist for guidance devel
categories and sources of
respective chapters of the G
oping guidance was to identify major impact
and sources of these impacts to serve as a
opment (Figure 1-1). These major impact
impacts provided the basis for discussions in
jidance Handbook Task Report.
1.2 Purpose and Use of the Handbook
The information and gui
Handbook Task Reports were
Marinas Assessment Handbook.
Region IV coastal states,
applicable nationwide.
dance presented in the Inventory and Guidance
refined and combined to produce the Coastal
Although developed specifically for the EPA
much of the information in the Handbook is
The Handbook
development:
. Siting
. Environmental
. Environmental
. Regulation.
examines the major aspects of coastal marina
Impact
Soluti
Handbook organization provi
environmentally sound marina
siderations through
operation.
The Siting chapter is d
serve as a site planning
federal permit applications.
provided. This checklist
and Environmental Solutions
screening checklist should
of the advantages or poten
marina sites and facilitate
include:
Marina development p
Environmental and entii
Advantages and disad'
Identification of po
COASTALV
INTRO-3
des the user with a stepwise approach to
development and regulation, from siting con-
enviroijimental solutions applicable during marina
signed for the potential marina developer to
guide for use before initiating state and
A screening checklist for site planning is
is keyed to subsequent Environmental Impacts
chapters. Reference to and use of the
assist the developer in obtaining an overview
ial problem areas associated with proposed
optimum site selection. Topics discussed
•ocess
,ineering considerations for site planning
rantages of potential marina sites
.ential permitting issues
1-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
Water Quality 1 Ecological 1 Other
Impact Source
Considerations
Marina Location
MorlM *lio * Sarvlcaa
Drodglng
Spoil Diapoaal
Filling
Grading A Clearing
Hydrologlcal Modification
Structure*
Point Waatowator Dlichargo
Boat Oparatlon
Boat Dlachargoa
Spllla
Boat Malntananco
Llltar
Nolaa
s
s
s
c
D
D
D
E
S
S
S
D
D
D
E
S
S
C
D
D
D
E
E
D
D
D
E
S
S
D
D
D
S
S
D
D
O
O
S
D
D
O
S
S
D
D
O
C
D
D
E
S
S
S
D
D
D
S
S
S
S
D
D
E
E
S
S
S
c
D
0
O
S
S
S
D
D
O
S
S
S
S
D
D
D
E
E
0
O
S
s
s
D
O
S
S
S
S
0
E
S
S
S
s
D
D
D
E
S
S
S
s
D
D
E
O
S
s
s
c
D
D
S
S
S
C
D
D
E
E
O
E
O
S
s
D
D
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Primary Environmental Solutions
S - Environmentally Sound Marina Site Selection
D ; Design of Marina with Environmental Considerations
C = Environmentally Guided Marina Construction Techniques
O- Proper Operation and Maintenance of Marina Systems and Boats
E = Enforcement of Rules and Regulations and Education of Marina
Users in the Environmental Impacts or Their Actions
Figure 1-1. Environmental impacts, sources and primary solutions
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Impacts chapter presents predictive assessment
techniques for potential problem areas identified through use of the
screening checklist. The chapter is designed for use by developers and
regulatory agencies in evaluating problem areas pertinent to marina deve-
lopment. Assessment techniques are provided for water quality, ecologi-
cal and other impacts. Methods are presented for estimating:
. flushing time
. sediment deposition and shoaling
. pollutant concentrations
. waste contribution from boats
Guidance is given on how to consider these impacts.
The Environmental Solutions chapter presents optional mitigative
measures that the engineer or planner may use or regulatory agency may
recommend to reduce or eliminate specific impacts from marina construc-
tion and operation. Mitigative measures for water quality, ecological,
and other impacts are presented for marina design and construction acti-
vities and for operation and maintenance activities.
The Regulation chapter describes the authority and responsibilities
of pertinent regulatory/planning agencies concerned with the various
major impact categories. A matrix is provided to concisely identify
those agencies that are concerned with specific coastal resources and
their main functional roles. Desirable features of regulatory/planning
processes are described and their use within USEPA Region IV is
discussed. Permit evaluation criteria are summarized for federal and
state regulatory agencies.
The Handbook also provides a detailed bibliography and appendices
containing sample permit application forms, examples of measurement
methods for marina environmental assessment and example of ordinances
that regulate coastal marina activities.
1-5
-------
-------
2.0 MARINAS IN THE COASTAL ZONE
2.1 Marina Benefits 2-1
2.2 Marina Demand 2-1
-------
-------
REVISION 1 (5/85)
2.0 MARINAS IN THE COASTAL ZONE
The six coastal states in USEPA Region IV provide almost 18,000 miles
of shoreline that invite exploration by recreational boaters (Figure 2-1;
NEAI, 1985). Presently there are approximately 930 coastal marinas in
Region IV.
A survey of rnarina and facility listings in the Mid-Atlantic and
Southern Waterway Guides (Taylor, 1983) revealed 587 coastal marinas
operating along the Intracoastal Waterway within the six Region IV coastal
states (Table 2-1). The greatest concentration of marinas occurs in
Florida and North Carolina, which account for 90 percent of the marinas
listed (Figure 2-1). Most of the marinas are open year-round and serve
both sail and power boats. These marinas offer the opportunity for over-
night docking. or permanent liveaboards. Services offered include engine,
propeller and hull repair, fuel, electricity, sanitary services and food.
Both gasoline and diesel fuel are available at 63 percent of these marinas
and 50 percent of the marinas offer engine repair services. Approximately
50 percent of the marinas also provide either propeller or hull repairs.
Pumpout stations for sanitary wastes are available at approximately 13 per-
cent of these marinas. However, the guide notes that some pumpout stations
may not be operable because of infrequent use.
2.1 Marina Benefits
In addition to providing protected areas for mooring boats, marinas
provide many social and economic benefits within the coastal zone.
Launching ramps provide points of access to coastal waters for recreational
boaters. Marinas also may serve as focal points for community activities
by providing picnic areas, children's playgrounds or swimming pools.
Attractive marinas are aesthetically pleasing and may serve as a focus for
planned development of restaurants, shops and residences.
Marinas provide direct and secondary economic benefits. Local com-
munities may benefit through tax revenues. The marina owner and the
broader marina industry benefit through sales of boats, marine engines,
marine electronics and accessories, and through servicing these items and
supplying raw materials for their manufacture. Gift shops, restaurants and
motels provide revenue and employment opportunities. Marina operation also
may benefit marine insurance companies and financial institutions that
finance facilities and equipment.
From the perspective of environmental management, marinas concentrate
boating activities, allowing for more effective management than could be
attained with numerous private docks. However, some potentially adverse
environmental effects also are associated with marina construction and
operation and with boating activities. These effects may be exacerbated
through improper marina siting, design or management.
2.2 Marina Demand
The spread of diverse developments within the coastal zone has inten-
sified the management concerns of agencies responsible for protecting
coastal environmental resources. Although the policy to protect natural
resources is in the public interest, there is increasing need for a
2-1
-------
2%
53/607 AL MS 44/359
1350/8426
301/3375
187/2876
N/N= coastline/shoreline "***——-^100/2344
Proportion of shoreline
in Region IV Coastal States
N = number of boats
(X1000)
N = number of
coastal marinas
Figure 2-1. Proportion of shoreline, approximate number of coastal
marinas and registered boats in Region IV coastal states
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1
MARINA3 FACILITIES AND SERVICES WITHIN USEPA REGION IVb
Number of 'Marinas Offering
North
Type of Service Carolina
Open: year round
seasonal
Facility:
sail
power
both
No. of transient
berths0
Fuel : gas
diesel
both
Handling method:
railway
lift
t ravel i ft
ramp
Engine repairs:
gas
diesel
both
Repairs:
propel ler
hull
Electricity available
Sanitary needs:
shower
1 aundry
pump-out
stationd
Food: restaurant
snack bar
108
6
2
14
101
1,090
14
0
68
17
22
21
47
12
0
46
40
47
110
64
25
5
37
42
South
Carolina'
31
0
0
2
31
356
1
3
27
• 6
7
6
11
0
0
27
19
15
33
27
17
7
14
10
Georgia
10
0
1
0
9
138
1
0
8
3
4
2
1
1
1
5
6
6
9
9
6
1
3
4
Florida
417
0
4
34
376
4,141
86
4
251
59
164
108
150
66
4
201
231
206
419
263
148
57
178
143
Services
Alabama Mi
9
0
1
1
8
53
0
0
9
1
2
2
4
0
0
8
6
7
11
5
4
2
7
6
ssissippi
6
0
0
0
11
50
1
0
7
2
6
7
4
2
0
9
6
8
11
6
5
3
7
4
a A marina is defined as being able and willing to accept cruising boats of a
minimum of 25 feet and have at least minimal facilities.
b Taylor, 1983
c Number of slips available for transient use.
^ Pump-out stations may not be operable since some are used infrequently.
2-3
-------
COASTAL MARINAS
balanced management approach. Increasing population and increased demand
for recreational use of coastal waters is evident in the USEPA Region IV
coastal states. In North Carolina, for example, population density in
coastal counties increased by 18 percent, while the number of registered
boats increased by 86 percent between 1973 and 1983. Demand for marinas,
which provide the access to coastal waters, also has increased. From 1980
to 1985 the number of coastal marinas in South Carolina increased from 12
to 35, with 24 permits pending approval. In Florida, demand for coastal
berthing facilities is projected to increase by 63 percent between 1982 and
2005 (Bell and Leeworthy, 1984). It is important that agencies responsible
for marina development disseminate information and provide positive deve-
lopmental guidelines. This will lead to more effective resource management
and help developers avoid excessive costs from pursuing unacceptable
options. The challenge is to meet this demand through prudent application
of environmentally sound principles in the siting, design, construction and
operation of coastal marinas.
2-4
-------
3.0 SITING
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Overview
Marina Location
3.2.1 General Site Locations
Estuaries
Riverside Sites
Embayments
Lowl ands Areas
Open Shorelines
3.2.2 Environmental Impact Considerations
Coastal Ecology
Aesthetics
Marina Development Process
Coastal Marinas Screening Checklist for Site Planning
3.4.1 Part One - Project Description
Location
Type of Marina
Intended Use
Size
Types of Boats
Services and Facilities
Hydrographic Conditions
3.4.2 Part Two - Potential Permitting Issues
Dredging
Filling
Dredged Material Disposal
Structures
Flushing
Water Qual ity
Protected Areas
Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species
Shellfish
Grassbeds
Historic, Archaeological and Scenic Areas
Local Opinion
Consistency with Coastal Zone Management, Local Permits
and Approval s
Public Access
Obstruction to Navigation
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-4
3-6
3-6
3-10
3-10
3-12
3-12
3-12
3-13
3-13
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-19
3-20
3-21
3-21
3-22
3-22
3-23
3-24
3-24
3-25
3-25
3-25
3-26
3.5 Summary 3-26
-------
-------
3.0 SITING
3.1 Overview
Proper siting of a coastal marina is probably the single most impor-
tant aspect of developing the marina in an environmentally sound manner.
A well chosen marina location that meets the developer's needs and at the
same time minimizes environmental impacts should be the most cost-
effective to develop and will likely receive the quickest approval by
regulators.
This chapter provides information and guidance on coastal marina
site evaluation and selection. The discussion is an overview of the
advantages and problem areas associated with certain marina sites and an
introduction to topics of marina development impacts discussed in more
detail in later chapters.
Section 3.2 presents a discussion of general site locations for
coastal marinas and environmental impact considerations related to marina
locations. The marina development process is summarized in Section 3.3.
Central to this chapter is presentation of the Coastal Marinas Screening
Checklist in Section 3.4. The checklist was designed for use in site
description and planning and can be used to identify areas of environmen-
tal concern that could result in permitting problems. An item by item
discussion of the Screening Checklist provides information and guidance
in using the checklist for site evaluation. The checklist also is useful
for identifying areas where additional information on a marina project
may be needed.
The Coastal Marinas Screening Checklist is keyed to subsequent sec-
tions of the Handbook that describe the environmental impacts of marina
development, impact assessment techniques and environmental solutions to
potential impact problems. This chapter concludes with a summary of the
desirable and undesirable features of certain marina sites.
3.2 Marina Location
3.2.1 General Site Locations
Small craft harbors are usually located in estuaries, bays, inlets
or coves. Open shorelines are also used. Marinas also have been
constructed in intertidal lowlands and salt marshes. Due to recent
environmental interest in preserving wetland areas, development in
wetlands has diminished. The engineer should consider sites with maximum
natural protection that minimize alterations to the natural topography.
Estuaries
River mouths or estuaries have certain advantages as a marina site.
The area on either side of the estuaries is usually protected from ocean
waves and the effect of river currents is minimized. The river has
usually scoured a channel for navigation. Tides, when present, improve
circulation in the marina basin. Freshwater river flow also decreases
the activity of fouling organisms. The site, however, may be subject to
occasional flooding and sedimentation.
3-1
-------
SITING
Riverside Sites
Tidal rivers provide excellent water courses for small cruising
craft. Marinas are often located along or just beyond a river bank.
Protection from floating debris and fluctuations in the water level may
be required. In some instances canals and basins may have to be exca-
vated into uplands behind the river bank.
Embayments
Natural embayments, coves, and inlets are considered excellent
marina sites, provided the entrance to open water is sufficiently small
or protected by islands to minimize the effects of wave action and sen-
sitive environmental resources are not adversely affected. The embayment
should also be small enough so that undesirably large wind-generated
waves are not produced within the bay.
Lowlands Areas
Lowland areas adjacent to ocean and lake areas also are used as
marina sites. Because they are low, marshes and intertidal lands serve
as natural barriers against storm floods and hurricanes. The vegetation
cover and low gradient act to dissipate wave energy and serve as recep-
tacles for surplus storm-tide waters. Alternative marina construction
techniques and effective use of dredge spoil can create a marina that is
compatible with the marsh environment (Giannia and Wang, 1974).
Open Shorelines
Open shorelines areas can be suitable for marinas if breakwaters or
artificial harbors are constructed to protect against wave action. These
facilities require a more detailed design and can be more costly to
construct than those in more natually protected locations.
3.2.2 Environmental Impact Considerations
Major environmental considerations in the siting and design of
marinas are loss of habitat from dredging and construction of shoreline
structures, the effects of stormwater runoff and discharge from boats on
water quality and the effect on coastal aesthetic values. Marinas are
designed to provide safe, protected moorings for boats and so are usually
located in calm waters on protected shorelines. These calm, sheltered
areas generally support wetlands and submerged seagrass beds. Thus, the
potential for habitat loss or alteration of these productive habitats is
a major consideration in marina siting and design, unless the marina is
excavated from an upland area.
3-2
-------
SITING
Coastal Ecology
Loss of wetland and submerged vegetation may result from a variety
of construction activities, although dredge and fill operations have
historically been the most destructive. The amount of habitat lost
through marina development has been relatively low when compared with
losses to coastal housing and industrial developments, causeway construc-
tion and navigational dredging. Although most individual marina projects
result in relatively small total impacts on the coastal ecosystem, the
cumulative effect of many marinas together with other coastal development
has eliminated vast areas of coastal wetland vegetation.
The importance of plant communities such as mangroves, salt marsh
grasses and seagrass beds lies in the vital functions that they perform
in the aquatic ecosystem. First and foremost is their role in converting
sunlight and nutrients into food usable by animals, thus forming the base
of the aquatic food chain. Odum (1971) estimated that the richest
coastal marshes produce 3.7 metric tons per hectare (10 tons per acre) of
plant material per year, or more than six times the average amount of
wheat produced per acre. Relatively little of this plant material is
eaten directly by higher animals. Instead, it is broken down into detri-
tus by microorganisms and consumed by small crustaceans and other animals
which are, in turn, eaten by large animals and so on up the food chain.
In addition to serving as a food source, wetland and submerged vege-
tation provide shelter and nursery areas for the young of many economi-
cally important species such as shrimp, seatrout, mullet and red drum.
Although many species do not spend their entire lives within the
estuaries, it is estimated that nearly 70 percent of the most valuable
Atlantic coast fish species are directly dependent on the estuaries
during some stage of life (Clark, 1967).
Another important function of vegetation is to trap silt and absorb
pollutants and excess nutrients resulting from surface runoff. In this
way vegetation buffers the coastal ecosystem from upland sources of
pollutants (Maloney et al . , 1980b) . Vegetation also protects upland
areas by stabilizing coastal sediments and preventing erosion. Finally,
natural vegetation increases the aesthetic appeal of the coastal zone.
Oyster beds are another habitat requiring consideration during
marina siting and development. In addition to their direct economic
value to man, oyster beds or reefs provide spawning and nursery areas,
substrates for attachment for many organisms, and food for invertebrates,
fish and mammals. Oyster reefs physically influence the marsh-estuarine
ecosystem by modifying current velocities, changing sedimentation pat-
terns and actively augmenting sedimentation through biodeposition (Bahr
and Lanier, 1981) .
3-3
-------
SITING
Oyster beds could be affected by physical disruption of habitat
during marina construction or by changes in water quality resulting from
marina operation or boating activities. A poorly sited or designed
marina has the potential to degrade water quality so that oysters are
unfit for human consumption. Other inhabitants of the aquatic environ-
ment also may be affected by changes in water quality, which at times
include nutrient enrichment and low dissolved oxygen resulting from
sewage and upland runoff, hydrocarbons from boat exhausts and fuel
spills, heavy metals from antifouling paints and other pollutants.
Aesthetics
Marina location also influences the effect a marina will have on
shoreline aesthetic value because introduced sights, sounds and smells
will be different from the natural environment (Chmura and Ross, 1978).
Poorly maintained marinas will further degrade aesthetic values (Rose,
1976). Aesthetic values are subjective and difficult to measure.
Marinas located in a pristine area may lessen aesthetic appeal, whereas
marinas located in a developed area may enhance the aesthetic appeal and
quality of the water front (Chmura and Ross, 1978).
3.3 Marina Development Process
A comprehensive marina development process involves five steps: 1)
analyzing the market; 2) developing a market strategy; 3) identifying
the marina site; 4) performing feasibility analyses and preliminary
design and 5) performing final design and developing the marina (Figure
3-1). These five steps occur in two phases, an initial broad screening
evaluation and a detailed site-specific evaluation.
The initial broad screening evaluation is used to identify those
sites that warrant a more detailed evaluation and to eliminate those
sites that are unacceptable for further consideration. Unacceptable
sites may be those located in areas where sufficient demand cannot be
demonstrated or where access is unacceptable. Analyzing the market is
often the first step taken by a developer in the initial broad screening
evaluation. Need and demand for the marina and types of services to be
provided are investigated through user surveys and evaluations of
existing marinas, boat,sales and recreational water use. The market ana-
lysis is usually followed by formulation of a market strategy and refine-
ment of the original marina concept, including type of services to be
offered and number, size and type of boats to be accommodated. The cru-
cial third step in the marina development process, completing the initial
broad screening evaluation, involves identification of the most accep-
table marina site.
Some marina developments follow a somewhat different process in the
initial phase. In these cases marinas are developed in conjunction with
a larger project. The larger project will generate the market and thus
determine the market strategy. In these cases the determination of the
marina site is highly dependent on other aspects of the overall project.
3-4
-------
1. ANALYZE THE MARKET
Consider the area's economy
factor in demand
Factor in supply
Assess current market conditions
2. DEVELOP A MARKET STRATEGY AND MARINA CONCEPT
Determine services to be offered
Define boat sizes and mix
Specify number of wet slips and dry storage spaces
Identify funding sources
Calculate fees
Estimate cash flow
3. IDENTIFY THE SITE
Initial
Broad Screening
Evaluation
OJ
I
cn
Detailed
Site-Specific
Evaluation
Compile and map data
Scrutinize development potential factors ,
Select several alternatives
Investigate state and federal policies
controlling proposed uses at site
Select a superior site
Take an option on land
4. PERFORM FEASIBILITY ANALYSES AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Assess financial feasibility in depth
Determine preliminary design and technical
feasibility
Address local zoning and building permits
Analyze cash flow
5. DESIGN AND DEVELOP THE MARINA
Draw up detailed construction plans
File for and obtain permits
Secure local approvals
Obtain construction bids
Secure construction loan from funding
source
Exercise land option
Figure 3-1. Marina development process (Adapted from Rogers, Golden and Halpern, 1982)
-------
SITING
Because this chapter is designed to provide assistance in iden-
tifying environmentally sound marina sites and in developing the marina
facility in an environmentally sound manner, the rest of this chapter
focuses on the last three steps of the marina development process. The
detailed site-specific evaluation is undertaken following the initial
site identification. This phase involves in-depth feasibility analyses,
preliminary marina design and consideration of applicable regulations.
Major considerations during this phase of marina planning are illustrated
in Figure 3-2. The detailed site investigation includes consideration of
the existing natural features that may be used for marina development.
Maximum use of natural features can decrease the amount of site modifica-
tion required. This will help to minimize potential impacts and possibly
lessen development costs. Modifications to the site, such as those
resulting from dredging or construction of a breakwater, must be con-
sidered with respect to potential environmental impacts. If the impact
is considered to be adverse, evaluation of mitigative measures may be
required or, if mitigation is not practical, the site may no longer
justify consideration. The limitations of potential sites often can be
overcome by making modifications to the site. However, the environmental
impacts of the modifications and the cost of mitigation will determine
the overall acceptability of the site. If development of the site is
considered to be feasible with respect to potential need for the faci-
lity, development costs and environmental and permitting issues, then the
preliminary marina design is finalized and the permit application process
is initiated.
3.4 Coastal Marinas Screening Checklist for Site Planning
Developing a marina facility requires detailed evaluation of poten-
tial site locations during the planning stage. Every site presents uni-
que problems in relation to providing adequate recreational boating
facilities at a reasonable cost to the developer while minimizing nega-
tive environmental effects and promoting positive ones. The Coastal
Marina Screening Checklist (Table 3-1) provides the marina developer,
planner or design engineer with a means for initial identification of
environmental and permitting issues that may be pertinent to the site.
The checklist may be used to obtain an initial overview of the relative
merits and disadvantages of multiple sites or to provide information for
use in the early planning stages for marina development at a single site.
A discussion of the elements and use of the checklist follows.
3.4.1 Part One - Project Description
Information for Project Description Items 1 through 7 of the
Screening Checklist is generally developed during the initial broad
screening evaluation of the marina development process and is refined in
preparation of the final design. Detailed project descriptions are
required as part of the marina permit application. Examples of infor-
mation requirements by individual states may be found in the permit
application materials in Appendix G. These materials are provided as
examples only. The developer should contact appropriate federal and
3-6
-------
DEVELOP MARINA SITING CRITERIA j (
Type of facilities and services
. boat size and mix
. number of slips
<> Access from population centers and to
boating waters
Adequacy of land area and channel depths
. Degree of protection
. Availability of public utilities
Land, labor and material costs
. Need for facility
COMPILE DATA AND IDENTIFY PUBLIC AND FACILITY-
RELATED CONCERNS
Water level fluctuations
Amount of dredging
Availability of disposal sites
Proximity to unique or sensitive species
or habitats -shellfish, wetlands
Existing water quality
Compatible uses
Local ordinances and policies
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS THAT COULD RESULT IN
CONFLICTS BETWEEN PUBLIC AND FACILITY-RELATED CONCERNS
Resource use conflicts
Limiting public access
Demand on existing public utilities
Change In land and water use
Aesthetic Issues
Inadequate disposal areas
Traffic
Impacts to water quality and aquatic, wetland or
terrestrial resources
SELECT HOST FEASIBLE SITE [
Maximum natural advantages
. Minimum alteration required
Resolution of permitting issues or other conflicts
possible
ARRANGE PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE [
Discuss permitting issues
Discuss options for resolving any conflicts
Figure 3-2. Major factors for site evaluation.
3-7
-------
TABLE 3-1
COASTAL MARINA SCREENING CHECKLIST
Project Description
1. Location: municipality county
body of water latitude/longitude
state water quality classification
2. Type of marina: open water dredged basin locked harbor
3. Intended use: commercial recreational: public private
4. Size: upland area (ha/ac) submerged area (ha/ac)
number of slips range in slip size (m/ft)
5. Type of boat: sail power both
6. Services and facilities:
A. Services: fuel ^ pumpout launching ramp/hoist
engine repair ^^^ hul I repair propeller repair
electricity water dry dock storage'
B. Other Facilities: ship's store residential
hotel development
restaurant ZZIZHIIZIIZ access road/utT I ities
boat construction seafood processing
Hydrographic conditions:
A. Tidal Range (m/ft):
B. Natural depth of waters at site (m/ft at MLW): minimum maximum
C. Completed project depth at marina (m/ft at MLW): minimum maximum
Screening Checklist
In completing the following checklist, all aspects of the project as addressed above should be
considered. Checks in the "Yes" column indicate potential permitting issues. Checks in the
"Unknown" column indicate that additional information should be obtained.
Yes No Unknown
1. Will dredging be required for: access channel?
boat basin? ^^ ^^
2. Will filling be required: on wetlands?
i n open water? ^^ ^^
3. Will dredged material disposal at locations other than currently
permitted public disposal areas be required?
Is the disposal area adequate for the life of the project?
4. Will structures such as bulkheads, revetments, etc. be required?
5. Will the water body at the site be characterized by low flushing rates
(dead-end channel or canal, upper reaches of estuary or tidal creek,
low tidal range or low net flow)?
6. Does the water body presently fail to meet state water quality
standards for existing use classifications?
7. Is the site located within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a designated wildlife
refuge, wilderness area or other area specially designated for the
protection of fish or wildlife?
3-8
-------
Page 2 of 2
Screening Checklist
(continued)
Yes No Unknown
8. Are any rare, threatened, endangered or otherwise designated unique
or outstanding aquatic or terrestrial species or their habitats
known to be present at the site? (Contact state wildlife agency,
US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service).
9. Do shellfish beds occur within 600 m or 2000 feet of the site or within
300 m or 1000 feet of access channels?
10. Are grassbeds located within 300 m or 1000 feet of the marina or
access channels?
11. Is the site In an area of recognized historic, archaeological or
scenic value? (Contact State Historic Preservation Officer).
12. Are local residents or landowners opposed to the project or unaware
of the project?
13. Will any proposed activity be Inconsistent with state coastal zone
management plans or local management plans, ordinances or zoning
requirements? (Contact state and local coastal zone management
offices and local planning office).
14. Will the project obstruct public land access to navigable waters?
15. Will the project require structures which would extend Into or
otherwise obstruct existing channels or will the project require
placing structures closer than 100 feet to a federally-maintained
channel or basin?
3-9
-------
SITING
state permitting agencies for the most current materials that may contain
modifications or changes in information requirements. Unnecessary delays
in the permit review process may be avoided by submitting a detailed and
complete project description as part of the application.
Item 1 - Location
In selecting a marina site, two access requirements must be met
regardless of the type of marina or where it is to be located. The site
must provide safe navigational access to cruising waters and have ade-
quate land access for boat owners to reach the marina (Dunham and Finn,
1974). Precise location of the site is important for identifying poten-
tial difficulties related to land, water or utility access or potential
regulatory issues related to conflicts with state or local management
plans, ordinances, zoning requirements or natural resource management
policies. Proximity of the site to population centers, accessibility of
the marina from the land side and easy access to desired water use areas
are important evaluation factors. Many people are unwilling to drive
longer than one to one and a half hours to get to a marina unless the
drive also reduces the boating time necessary to gain open water access.
The marina site should be located within safe and convenient use of a
waterway. Winding channels, hazardous routes, and long travel distances
to the water use area are generally considered unacceptable. Distance is
even more important because most recreational boats will travel on the
order of 16 kph (10 mph; C. Chamberlain, 1983). Ideally, the site should
have two all-weather access roads suitable for automobiles, fire fighting
equipment, trucks and boat trailering (Chaney, 1961). Site feasibility
is severely limited without electrical or telephone service and fuel
deliveries. Available water and sewer lines will decrease capital and
maintenance costs and may shorten the time required to obtain permit
approval. Certain general requirements based on the types of boats and
boating activities appropriate to the marina concept also must be con-
sidered in selecting the marina location (Chamberlain, 1983; Figure 3-3).
These considerations relate to the type of water body, water access needs
and minimum channel depths required.
Item 2 - Type of Marina
The type of marina proposed directly relates to the potential for
environmental impacts. Open marinas in well-flushed tidal creeks or
estuaries may minimize the potential for water quality impacts that could
result from the buildup of pollutants in poorly flushed dredged basins.
Locked-harbor marinas dredged from upland areas also may lessen impacts
to aquatic and wetland resources by limiting submerged area use require-
ments and modifications to aquatic and wetland habitats. Locked-harbor
marinas also provide the option of protecting water quality in the event
of a spill by isolating marina waters during cleanup procedures. The
type of marina proposed may directly affect potential water quality or
habitat resource permitting issues related to environmental protection.
Methods for predicting flushing rates for open and semi-enclosed marinas
are available in Section 4.2.1. Mitigative measures to facilitate
3-10
-------
OJ
I
Boat Type and Activity
Commercial fishing and
deep sea charter dock
Long-distance
powerboat cruising
Long-distance
sailing
Estuarine fishing
Local
powerboat cruising
Day sailing© and
racing©
Water-skiing and
water sports
WATER
BODY
TYPE
rH
cd
(3
n)
o
.
J_|
CU
•rl
.
^
K*~t
cd
pq
0
•
^
4-1
CO
cd
o
u
0
0
WATER
ACCESS
NEEDS
£*•»
cd
CO
M cu
0 rH
•H
Pi 0
cd
0) u->
a
0 C
•rl
PI fi
01 4-1
P.-H
O !s
CO
M
CU
4-1
cd
M
a
•rl (fl
rC 0)
CO rH
•rl *rj
MH 0
01 IT)
rH
i/*i fj
cd -H
•M rC
•rl 4J
3 -H
en |3
•
CO
CU
J-l rH
0 -rl
m 0
CO O
0) CN
r^
0 pi
Cd -rl
0) fi
•rl
** Jj
CO
Pi too
cd cd
H M
CO O
•rl 03
CJ
- a
co cd
4-1
cu cu
Pi cd
H CD
CO
01
rl rH
0 -rl
m 0
CO O
0) rH
rj
o a
cd -H
o) ,d
rd 4J
•rl
•^ Jj
CD
T3 0)
Pi 60
nj trj
rH M
CO O
•H J3
O
» Pi
CO Cd
4J
01 cu
. _ I tjt
pi cd
M CO
9
9
yt
CU
cd
^
PI
cu
ft
0
0)
rH
n
cd
4-1
•H CU
3 rH
CO -H
0
o
co a
CO -rl
0) ,c!
CJ 4J
O -H
< 12
0
4-1
CO
cd
CU
rH
4-1
cd
H
01
PI
Pi
cd cu
.a -a
O -H
Is
rl
O 0)
rH
XJ *rl
C 0
0
PM H
Cl
01
4J
O
ex
»>^
r— j
01
£>
•rl CO
4J M
Cd 0)
r-l 4-1
0) cd
CU
a
•H
rH
a)
O CO
,C X)
co H
cd
S N
o) cd
0
Figure 3-3,. General requirements of marinas by boat type and boating activity.
-------
SITING
flushing are presented in Section 5.4.1. Assessment techniques for pre-
dicting ecological impacts are discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 and
mitigative measures are presented in Sections 5.4 and 5.5.
Item 3 - Intended Use
The intended use of the marina may affect permit approval, par-
ticularly in coastal areas where public access is limited. Mitigative
measures pertinent to public access are discussed in Section 5.4.3.
Projects that allow public access to coastal waters are typically viewed
as a positive factor in the permit evaluation process.
Item 4 - Size
The size of the marina is dictated by the number, size and type of
boats to be accommodated. Land area requirements depend on the harbor
function and the facilities necessary to support that function (Lee,
1969). Marinas typically require one acre of upland area for each acre
of submerged area. An ideal marina site would have adequate upland area
available for the necessary shoreside facilities and for nonessential
facilities such as picnic areas and playgrounds. The site should provide
adequate area for future expansion of the marina facility. To obtain
permit approval, it may be necessary to provide land for wastewater
treatment facilities, solid waste disposal, stormwater retention and
runoff control and dredge material containment. In some USEPA Region IV
coastal states, the size of the proposed marina determines the complexity
of the permit review process and the amount of information required to
support the permit application.
Item 5 - Types of Boats
The various types and sizes of boats to be accommodated will affect
the choice of marina location and marina design considerations. The type
of mooring also influences the size of mooring area required. Deeper
access channels and harbor depths are required for larger power boats and
sailboats with fixed keels. Sailboats also require wider channels that
should be oriented perpendicular to prevailing winds to allow for tacking
(Rogers et al., 1982). Reasonable proximity to open waters, relatively
straight access channels with broad turns and few shoreline hazards are
considerations for safe navigation for sailboats and larger power boats.
Turning areas within the harbor can be smaller for double screw power
boats and sailboats because these need less room to turn than single
screw powerboats. These considerations will affect the amount of
dredging and submerged area use required for the marina, factors that are
directly related to evaluation of potential impacts during the marina
permit review process (see Section 4.2.3 for impact assessment techniques
pertinent to dredging and Sections 5.4 and 5.5 for mitigative measures).
3-12
-------
SITING
The mix of boats to be serviced or accommodated at the marina can
affect permitting concerns for potential impacts to water quality and
aquatic resources from waste discharges and for potential impacts to
aquatic and wetland habitats from boating activities. Impact assessment
techniques for predicting pollutant concentrations are discussed in
Section 4.2.5. Pertinent mitigative measures are presented in Sections
5.4 and 5.5.
Item 6 - Services and Facilities
The marina concept may include a wide array of services and facili-
ties (Table 3-2). Suitable water and land areas are essential to suc-
cessful marina development. The marina should be able to handle
transient traffic in addition to the regular users. Additional land area
also may need to be considered to accomodate any projected future expan-
sion. The particular services and facilities proposed may pose benefical
and adverse environmental impacts that could affect permit approval.
Facilities for fueling and boat repairs are of particular concern to
regulatory agencies because these activities have the potential for water
quality and shellfish sanitation problems. Many of the facilities and
services that can be found at a coastal marina are illustrated in Figure
3-4.
Impact assessment techniques for pollutants affecting water quality
and for predicting the effects of sanitary waste discharges from boats
are discussed in Section 4.2. Mitigative design measures pertinent to
these activities and mitigative measures during marina construction and
operation are discussed in Sections 5.4 and 5.5
Item 7 - Hydrographic Conditions
Tidal range, natural water depth at the site and the projected
completed project depth at the marina are hydrographic considerations
necessary for evaluating the natural circulation of the area and the pro-
jected flushing rate of the marina basin. General offshore hydrography
to the 10 to 15-meter (30 to 50-foot) depth may be obtained from U.S.
Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Department of Commerce. From 15-meter
(50-foot) depths to shore, new surveys may be required because of changes
caused by siltation, erosion, marine clay deposits, and shoaling. Bottom
movement can be determined by the use of LANDSAT satellite images,
available through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Images of the area over a period of time can, in some cases, reveal move-
ment of sand bars and changes in the coastline (Blades, 1982). During
the hydrographic survey, it is also important to note the locations of
underwater hazards or obstructions and to review the past history of the
bottom in terms of siltation rates, marine life, bottom growth and
shoaling.
3-13
-------
TABLE 3-2
MARINA SERVICES AND FACILITIES
MARINA SERVICES
Water Related
Boat launching
Mooring service
Water taxi service
Transient boat service
Waste collection
Fuel ing
Boat towing
Fire and rescue services
Navigation and weather
information
MARINA FACILITIES
Water Related
Open and covered mooring
Boat launch ramp
Marine railway
Crane lift
Drydock
Fueling pier
Anchorage areas
Marine service station
Entrance and exit channels
Swimming area
Water skiing course
Basin flushing system
Storm and wave protection
Land Related
Boat sales
Boat repairs
Marina supply sales
General supply sales
Trailer storage
Parking
Overnight accomodations
Food service
Concessions
Utility service
Recreational services
Land Related
Boat building and repair
Boat dry storage
Trailer storage
Restaurant
Motel
Picnic areas
Convenience store
Boat washing
Parking
Swimming pool
Camping
Beach area
Club room
Marine supply sales
Public toilets and showers
Recreational facilities
Bait shop
Seafood sales
3-14
-------
Transient
lle-u
DOCK FUEL
MA8TE
OJ
I
RR - Raatroom*
Vegetation:
natural upland
wetland
iiu. —nu. j* »• r^.j*" r\*^V«t
Figure 3-4. Coastal marina layout illustrating facilities and services.
-------
SITING
Other hydrographic considerations necessary for effective site eva-
luation include:
. Bottom conditions
. Wave action
. Tidal conditions
. Sedimentation patterns
. Shoaling conditions.
Consideration of wave characteristics is important in marina siting.
Waves are generated by a variety of sources. Larger waves are generated
in large water bodies by offshore storms and other waves are generated by
winds, boat traffic and tides. Waves can also generate additional waves
by reflecting and resonating off waterside structures. Refraction and
diffraction diagram analysis or hydraulic modeling are useful in eva-
luating these conditions.
Most coastal marina site development must consider sea swell con-
ditions. Habor planning must reduce wave action from entrance and
interior bains to acceptable heights. Wave heights for any wave episode
should not exceed 0.5 to 1 m (2 to 4 ft) in the entrance channel and 0.3
to 1 m (1 to 1.5 ft) in the berthing area, depending on the type of water
craft. Sites with natural entrances in a sound or shielded by islands
provide natural wave attentuation.
Large harbor areas can experience troublesome, short-period waves
that are generated within the harbor confines by strong winds or power
boat wakes. The combination of these waves with tides and outside waves
penetrating the harbor can create turbulence in the berthing areas.
Turbulence can also be magnified by marina structures such as vertical
bulkhead walls and rectangular basins. Sites located where wave heights
are decreasing as the wave approaches the shore are most ideal. These
locations are characterized by shallow shorelines which gradually deepen
towards the entrance. Smooth contours and widening entrances will dissi-
pate wave energy and reduce refraction (ASCE, 1969). Shoreline vegeta-
tion is also a good wave energy dissipator as well as a preventer of wave
induced erosion. Boat wakes can be controlled by proper marina orien-
tation and boat traffic speed and route regulation.
In addition to hydrographic considerations, physical considerations
at the site include assessment of the topography and soil geology. The
nature, extent, and cost of the substructures necessary for the site must
be determined. Test piles and direct soil evaluation tests are two com-
monly used methods for determining the resistive quality of subsoils
(Chaney, 1961; Chamberlain, 1983). Landside topography should be
suitable for protecting the marina from strong winds, tidal and river
flow, flooding, heavy water traffic, floating debris, erosion, and
changing water levels. Soil conditions should provide suitable foun-
dation support and wastewater treatment capacity, if existing sewage
facilities are not available. Local weather conditions must also be eva-
luated because severe conditions can impact suitability of the site for
development.
3-16
-------
SITING
Generally, there are few locations where tidal conditions render the
use of a marina impractical. The planner must, however, consider addi-
tional changes due to winds in shallow areas. The location of the
extreme and normal tidal ranges influence the site depth requirements and
the design elevation of waterside structures and mooring lines.
Adequate identification and mapping of these parameters will facili-
tate selection of the best site and allow for maximum use of existing
natural conditions during design of the marina. This, in turn, may help
minimize or avoid water quality or dredging-related permitting issues. A
technique for predicting flushing rates is presented in Section 4.2.1.
Methods for predicting sediment deposition and shoaling rates are
discussed in Section 4.2.2. Mitigative measures for potential flushing-
and dredging-related problems are presented in Section 5.4.
3.4.2 Part Two - Potential Permitting Issues
After development of the marina concept and identification of poten-
tial sites, responses to the Screening Checklist, Part Two, Questions 1
through 15 will identify potential permitting issues or indicate where
additional information should be obtained. This should provide
assistance in final site selection, site feasibility analyses and marina
design.
Federal involvement in the coastal marina permitting process derives
primarily from Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 10 authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE) to regulate virtually all work including dredging,
filling and construction of any structure in, over and under navigable
waters of the United States. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authori-
zes the USACOE to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill
materials into U.S. waters. Individual states are authorized to issue
401 water quality certifications for permits as required under Section
404. The 401 water quality certification certifies that the proposed
discharge(s) will not affect water quality so as to violate any state
water quality requirement for navigable waters into which the
discharge(s) will occur. These state water quality requirements as
described in the Clean Water Act involve:
Effluent limitations
Attainment and maintenance of water quality
Performance standards
Toxic pollutant effluent standards.
Most USEPA Region IV coastal states also administer state dredge and fill
permit programs independently or jointly with the Section 10/Section 404
program.
3-17
-------
SITING
Evaluation factors considered in the permit review process include:
Conservation . Shoreline protection
Economics . Recreation
Aesthetics . Land use
General environmental concerns . Water supply
Wetlands . Water quality
Fish and wildlife values . Navigation
Flood damage prevention . Energy needs
Welfare of the general public . Safety
Cultural and historic values . Food production.
Regardless of the permitting authority involved, this review process pro-
vides for consideration of water quality issues and impacts to fish,
shellfish and recreation. A complete discussion of federal and state
regulatory/planning processes and permitting programs is presented in
Chapter 6.0, Regulation.
Question 1 - Dredging
Dredging activities may impact water quality, aquatic and wetland
habitat resources by altering water circulation patterns, increasing tur-
bidity or siltation, decreasing dissolved oxygen, releasing pollutants
from sediments and increasing erosion or shoaling rates. Because of the
variety and nature of impacts that may result, preferred marina sites
would be those requiring little or no dredging. Such sites would include
those located on existing channels or upland areas located adjacent to
deep water 2 to 3 meters (6 to 8 feet) or greater. Acceptable marina
sites must be located within areas that provide safe, easy and convenient
access to waterways. The site also should provide an area of sufficient
depth to permit safe access and moorage for boats. Sites on long,
winding channels or with shallow water or bottom conditions that hinder
safe navigation may require extensive modification and should be avoided.
Straightening winding channels can affect basin water circulation pat-
terns, tidal flows and sedimentation characteristics. Areas with known
high siltation or shoaling rates also should be avoided because con-
siderable maintenance dredging may be required. Where dredging is
necessary, preferred areas would be those where shellfish, other benthic
invertebrates or seagrasses would not be affected. Impact assessment
techniques pertinent to dredging activities and shoaling rates are
discussed in Sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.5.2.
Dredging activities require a Section 10 permit. Section 404 review
and a Section 401 water quality certification also are required when
dredged material is discharged into waters of the U.S. including
wetlands. Dredging of vegetated wetlands or seagrass areas is considered
undesirable by most regulatory agencies. Minimal alteration of wetland
areas may be allowed if the applicant can demonstrate that no other
alternatives exist. When unavoidable loss of wetland habitat occurs,
creation of new wetland areas may be considered acceptable mitigation.
However, this type of mitigation can be prohibitively expensive and may
3-18
-------
SITING
preclude the feasibilty of site development. Mitigative measures for
dredging-related impacts are discussed in Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2.
Question 2 - Filling
Filling activities may cause temporary impacts to aquatic habitat
resources through increased siltation .and to water quality resources
through increased turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen or release of
pollutants from the fill material. However, the principal concerns for
adverse impacts from filling are related to the modification or loss of
shallow aquatic areas or wetlands. These areas are highly productive and
serve as nursery areas. Because of the significance of adverse impacts
to these resources, preferred marina sites would have adequate upland
area for marina development and future expansion and present natural
characteristics conducive to eliminating or minimizing fill requirements.
Impact asessment techniques are discussed in Section 4.3.3. Mitigative
measures applicable to minimizing habitat losses are discussed in Section
5.4.2.
A Section 404 permit, administered by the USACOE to regulate
discharges of dredged or fill material and a Section 401 water quality
certification are required for filling activities in navigable waters of
the United States, including wetlands. If filling is associated with
dredging and/or other construction activities in navigable waters, a
Section 10 permit also is required. Filling of shallow water areas or
wetlands is considered unacceptable by regulatory agencies and should be
avoided when any alternative exists. Unavoidable modification of these
areas may require mitigative measures to compensate for habitat loss (see
Section 5.4.2).
Question 3 - Dredged Material Disposal
Dredged material disposal can be a significant issue. Open water
disposal is generally not viable because of cost. Disposal on wetlands
is unacceptable because of environmental reasons. Therefore, the pre-
ferred marina site would be located near a currently permitted upland
disposal area. The potential impacts from dredge material are essen-
tially the same as those for dredging activities.
A dredging activity in navigable waters with disposal at an upland
site or near the marina site would require a USACOE Section 10 permit if
the sediments are nontoxic and the dredge material is contained. A state
401 certification also can be required. Upland disposal of hydraulically
dredged material would require the additional Section 404 review and
Section 401 water quality certification because of the discharge from the
disposal site to waters of the United States. Early consultation with
the District Engineer would facilitate marina planning.
3-19
-------
SITING
Adequate disposal areas for initial and all maintenance dredging
should be secured and designated for the life of the project. Upland
areas are preferred dredged material disposal sites for initial and main-
tenance dredging because metals, hydrocarbons or other pollutants that
have accumulated in the spoil sediments are less likely to reenter the
water. Also, upland sites typically result in the loss of resources of
lesser significance. In localities where pollutants in the sediments may
be insignificant, the dredged material may, in certain instances, be used
for beach nourishment or to create spoil islands suitable for waterbird
nesting rookeries. Productive use of dredged material may be viewed as a
positive factor in permit application evaluation. Mitigative measures
for dredged material disposal are discussed in Sections 5.4 and 5.5.
Question 4 - Structures
Protective structures such as bulkheads and breakwaters may impact
water quality and habitat resources through alteration of natural areas
or water circulation patterns, or by increasing turbidity, shoaling or
erosion. Some sites may require modifications to the shoreline to either
create additional land area or stabilize shore erosion. Bulkheads and
revetments are commonly constructed for this purpose. Because they are
constructed at the land/water interface and may disrupt the flow of
water, detritus and biota into or out of a wetland, care must be exer-
cised to minimize impacts to both aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
Breakwaters, which may be required to create a safe moorage area with
minimum wave and surge action, also may disrupt water flow or migration
of organisms. Where littoral drift or shoaling is present, jetties or
groin construction may be necessary to control beach movement or maintain
access to open water. However, groins and jetties may accelerate or
induce accretion or erosion problems on the adjacent shoreline. Proper
design is needed to permit littoral bypass around the entranceway.
Preferred marina sites would be those affording good natural protection,
which could eliminate or minimize the need for protective structures such
as bulkheads, revetments and breakwaters.
Construction of any structure in navigable waters of the U.S.
requires a Section 10 permit from the USACOE. Impacts from structures
proposed in conjunction with marina development are considered in the
Section 10/Section 404 permit review process. Design and placement of
structures to promote water exchange, minimize habitat loss, shoaling and
erosion, and allow migration of organisms is preferred. Impact assess-
ment techniques related to the placement of structures are discussed in
Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.3 and 4.5.2. Mitigative measures are discussed in
Section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2.
3-20
-------
SITING
Question 5 - Flushing
Pollutants may enter marina waters in discharges from marine sanita-
tion devices and bilges. These pollutants may adversely affect water
quality through decreasing dissolved oxygen concentration and increasing
turbidity, coliform bacteria levels and nutrient, metal or hydrocarbon
levels. The potential for water quality problems is higher in areas with
low flushing rates such as dead-end channels or canals and the upper
reaches of estuaries or tidal creeks, which may be characterized by low
tidal range or low net flow. Preferred sites are those on open water or
near the mouths of tidal creeks or tributaries. For sites on open water,
convex shorelines are preferable to concave shorelines. Within the pro-
tection of barrier islands, preferred sites would be near inlets where
tidal flushing is high. Marina design should maximize natural cir-
culation to reduce sedimentation and maximize dispersion of pollutants.
Methods for evaluating impacts from pollutants are discussed in Section
4.2.1 and mitigative measures are discussed in Section 5.4.1.
Question 6 - Water Quality
The Clean Water Act requires that states adopt water quality stand-
ards in order to protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality of
water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. A water quality
standard defines the water quality goals for a particular water body by
indicating its use and by setting criteria necessary to protect that use.
The water quality standards program through the antidegradation policy
requires that existing uses be maintained. Existing uses are those uses
that actually have been attained since 1975. Existing uses are deter-
mined by the states who have responsibility for identifying uses and when
they are actually attained. A more detailed discussion of the antidegra-
dation policy is found in Section 6.3.3 under "Marinas, Shellfish
Harvesting and Antidegradation."
The water quality standards program is designed to protect
designated and existing uses. In marina permitting actions (Section 404
and certain Section 10 permits), states are asked to certify (Section
401) that marina projects will not violate established criteria or
preclude existing uses of the area's waters. This certification is
required for a permit to be issued. Denial of Section 401 certification
results in denial of a federal permit.
Buffer zones have been used in Region IV to protect public health.
Shellfish harvesting for human consumption is closed within the boun-
daries of buffer zones. These buffer zones have been used when attain-
ment of applicable water quality standards is dependent on certain waste
treatment facilities (such as marine sanitation devices). This concept
has also been used to protect public health surrounding marinas.
Applicable water quality standards and criteria remain in effect within
buffer zones.
3-21
-------
SITING
Each of the above elements of the water quality standards and public
health protection programs affects the permitting of marinas. Where a
marina is proposed in waters that are currently used for shellfish har-
vesting or primary contact recreation, bacterial contamination can become
a significant issue. Control of bacterial sources and proximity to the
actual use area are the important factors in determining whether the
marina is to be permitted.
Obtaining permits for marinas in marginal water quality areas or in
sensitive areas where maintenance of water quality is critical for pro-
tecting natural resources such as shellfish or grassbeds may require
extensive design modifications, including extensive and expensive pollu-
tant control mitigative measures. Impact assessment techniques are pre-
sented in Section 4.2 and mitigative measures are discussed in Sections
5.4.1 and 5.5.1.
Question 7 - Protected Areas
Fish or wildlife in designated wildlife refuges, wilderness areas or
other specially designated protected areas can be affected by marina
construction and operation. The potential for adverse impact is directly
related to the proximity of the marina to these areas. Protected areas
may be readily identified through contacting state wildlife agencies, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Impact assessment is discussed in Section 4.3.4.
Impacts to the fish and wildlife in protected areas are considered
in the Section 10/Section 404 permit review process. A proposed marina
near a protected area may require mitigative measures in order to obtain
a permit. These measures may include design modifications, seasonal
construction scheduling or seasonal modifications in operational activi-
ties to ensure the avoidance of adverse impacts. Mitigative measures are
discussed in Sections 5.4.2 and 5.5.2. This potential permitting issue
can be avoided during the site selection process.
Question 8 - Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species
Birds are the primary group of endangered species that may be of
concern in marina siting. Many waterbirds, such as pelicans, ospreys,
terns and herons are on state and federal lists of protected species.
The West Indian manatee is an endangered aquatic species of significant
concern particularly in Florida. This generally slow moving mammal con-
centrates in springs, power plant discharges and other warmwater areas in
Florida during the winter. Impacts on manatees or the habitat necessary
to support them may result from marina construction, operation or boating
activities. Impact assessment techniques are discussed in Section 4.3.4.
Manatee concentration areas may be conveniently identified through
contacting state wildlife agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Proposed marina sites should
avoid these areas.
3-22
-------
SITING
Potential impacts to rare, threatened, endangered or otherwise
designated outstanding or unique species or habitats are considered as
part of the Section 10/Section 404 permit review process. Significant
impact to any of these areas or species would be unacceptable. Circum-
stances may arise when mitigation of potential impacts would be accept-
able. Potential mitigative measures are discussed in Sections 5.4.2 and
5.5.2. However, sites where potential impacts could occur would ideally
be eliminated from consideration.
Question 9 - Shellfish
Changes in water quality can result from marina construction and
operation and from boating activity. Changes that have the potential to
impede shellfish growth and propagation include increased turbidity,
siltation, water turbulence and pollutant levels. Sanitary waste
discharges can contaminate harvestable shellfish such as oysters and
preclude commercial harvesting of this resource without depuration of the
contaminated oysters (depuration is achieved by holding oysters in clean
water for specified periods of time to cleanse them of pollutants; see
Appendix C). Locating marinas away from areas used by sport or commer-
cial interests will reduce the potential for both environmental impacts
and resource-use conflicts. Impact assessment techniques that may be
used in evaluating the potential adverse effects from dredging operations
and direct discharge of sanitary waste are discussed in Sections 4.2.3
,/• ^ • and 4.2.5.
V s
Potential impacts to shellfish resources are considered in the
Section 10/Section 404 permit review process, 401 water quality cer-
tification and in state permitting programs when separate programs exist.
Most USEPA Region IV coastal states prohibit shellfish harvesting within
specified distances from marinas. The majority of state shellfish sani-
tation agencies establish these buffer zones on a case-by-case basis.
Public health concerns are the basis for closures. South Carolina uses a
radius of 305 meters (1000 feet) although other distances may be
approved. The size of buffer zones in other states is variable.
Criteria used to determine closure areas are established by the states
and include consideration of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
National Shellfish Sanitation Program "Approved Area" criterion (USFDA,
. 1972). State criteria and policies are discussed in Section 5.4.2.
Marina sites within 610 meters or 2000 feet of shellfish beds have
the potential to raise public health issues affecting permit approval.
The state closure policies for shellfish beds in the vicinity of marinas
also may result in resource-use conflicts with shell fishing interests
because commercial and private harvesting is prohibited in closed areas.
These conflicts have been avoided by restricting marina development
within specified distances of viable shellfish beds. Within USEPA Region
IV, Mississippi does not permit marinas within 1000 feet of shell fishing
areas. The state of Maryland uses variable distances based on the sur-
vival time of coliform bacteria and the size of the marina. Marinas with
/-. less than 50, 51 to 100 and more than 100 boats may not be located closer
i
V ;
3-23
-------
SITING
than 201, 402 and 805 m (660, 1320 and 2640 ft), respectively, to
shellfish beds. A detailed discussion of the application of the anti-
degradation policy to marinas proposed in shellfish harvesting waters is
found in Section 6.3.3 under "Marinas, Shellfish Harvesting and
Antidegradation."
Locating access channels near shellfish beds also may result in
issues related to environmental impacts from boating traffic. Intertidal
oysters are largely restricted to a relatively narrow vertical range mid-
way between mean low water and mean high water. This is the same area
where breaking waves impart maximum energy to the shoreline. Power boats
operated in a manner that produces large wakes can disturb the oyster
shells with newly attached spat (oyster larvae) and can damage fragile
shells of the spat. Wave action can also seriously affect adult oysters
and their habitat. Wake action increases the energy imparted to the
shoreline, often resulting in removal of the fine-grained substrate
suitable for oyster habitat. Coarse-grained, sandy substrates are not
suitable for oysters. The net result of increases in boating activities
can be the destruction of the intertidal oyster resources. Sloping
shorelines paved with old oyster shells are a common sight along well-
traveled waterways. Marinas should not be located where increased boat
traffic would damage the production of intertidal oysters. Mitigative
measures are discussed in Sections 5.4.2 and 5.5.2.
Question 10 - Grassbeds
Increased turbidity, pollutants and physical damage from boats may
damage grassbeds. Seagrasses are considered to be sensitive resources
because of their role as nursery areas and their slow recovery following
impacts. Marina sites in locations where disruption of highly productive
nursery areas such as seagrasses, marsh grasses and mangroves will not
occur are preferred. Techniques applicable to estimating impacts are
discussed in Section 4.2.3.
Potential impacts to grassbeds are considered in the Section
10/Section 404 marina permitting process. The dredging of access chan-
nels through grassbeds is unacceptable to regulatory agencies. Obtaining
permit approval for marinas near grassbeds will required close con-
sideration for potential impacts and may require mitigative measures
which can affect the financial feasibility of the project. Mitigative
measures are discussed in Sections 5.4.2 and 5.5.2
Question 11 - Historic, Archaeological and Scenic Areas
Proposing a marina development in a recognized area of historic,
archaeological or scenic value is a factor considered by permitting agen-
cies. A finding of significant impact may cause a Section 10/Section 404
permit to be denied. As part of the permitting process the USACOE con-
siders impacts to these resources that may result from marina develop-
ment. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, State
Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) have responsibilities for reviewing
3-24
-------
V.
SITING
proposed developments to determine possible adverse impacts. The marina
developer or site planner can readily identify these areas by contacting
the SHPO. The SHPO can identify sites that could give rise to signifi-
cant permitting issues or recommend an appropriate professional with
knowledge in the local area who may be consulted. Impact assessment
techniques are discussed in Section 4.4. If the proposed marina location
is in a critical area, mitigative measures discussed in Section 5.4.3 may
be acceptable.
Question 12 - Local Opinion
An important consideration in site planning is the opinion of local
landowners. Identification of adjacent property owners is a required
part of the marina permit application. Early consultation with local
residents and landowners may be important to project success. Informed
residents who have the opportunity to participate in shaping the proposed
development can be an asset to the marina developer. Other mitigative
factors that can serve to enhance public opinion are discussed -in
Sections 5.4.3 and 5.5.3.
Issuance of a Public Notice is required in the USACOE permit review
process. The purpose of this notice is to allow regulatory agencies,
individuals and special interest groups to comment on the proposed deve-
lopment. Public opposition to the project may lead to public hearings,
require significant project modifications or ultimately result in permit
denial.
Question 13 - Consistency with Coastal Zone Management, Local
Permits and Approvals
After the best of the candidate sites has been selected, early eva-
luation of consistency with state and local coastal zone management plans
and local ordinances and zoning requirements is important in determining
site feasibility. The USACOE permit review process requires a deter-
mination that the proposed project is consistent with state coastal zone
management plans. State and local requirements can be identified by con-
tacting respective coastal zone management offices and local planning
offices. Failure to obtain all necessary regional and local permits and
approvals may result in costly delays in obtaining marina permit approval
or result in permit denial.
Question 14 - Public Access
As discussed under Intended Use in Section 3.4.1, considerations for
public access affect permit approval. Regulatory agencies look more
favorably on a public marina or a private marina that would allow public
water-use access (boat ramps or other facilities) than on a proposed
marina that would exclude any public use. Provisions to provide or
enhance public land access to navigable waters would be viewed by USACOE
and state permitting agencies as a positive factor in evaluating permit
applications. Projects that obstruct public access could be considered
3-25
-------
SITING
detrimental to the public interest and not approved as proposed.
Mitigative measures that might facilitate permit approval are discussed
in Section 5.4.3.
Question 15 - Obstruction to Navigation
Structures that extend into existing channels have the potential to
obstruct boat traffic. Although it is important that boating activity is
or will be sufficient to support the marina, the marina should be sited
in such a manner that the marina itself or boats moving to or from the
marina will not interfere with traffic along established navigation chan-
nels or routes. An acceptable marina site would provide adequate open
water for safe navigation. Assessment of impacts to navigation is
discussed in Section 4.4.2 and mitigative measures are presented in
Section 5.4.3.
Construction or placement of any structure in navigable waters
requires a Section 10 permit from the USACOE. If marina development
requires placing structures closer than 30 m (100 feet) to a federally-
maintained channel or basin, the permit application may be denied or
require design modifications before approval, if the structure placement
was considered to pose a hazard to safe navigation. These same con-
siderations would apply to potential obstructions to navigation in any
existing channel.
3.5 Summary
The typical marina development process encompasses two phases: 1)
an initial broad screening evaluation in which market analysis, develop-
ment of market strategy and marina concept and identification of possible
sites occur and 2) a detailed site-specific evaluation in which the pro-
posed site is selected, site feasibility and preliminary marina design
are determined, final marina design is completed and development is ini-
tiated.
The initial broad screening evaluation of candidate marina sites
should consider the anticipated need and demand for the marina. Sites
should provide adequate water and land area; water, land and utility
access; and aesthetic surroundings. Sites that meet these conditions may
then be considered for detailed site-specific evaluations to determine
existing site conditions favorable for marina development in an environ-
mentally sound manner. The Coastal Marinas checklist can be used to
identify desirable/undesirable site characteristics. Responses to
questions in Part Two of the checklist will identify potential permitting
problems. This approach leads to site selection and marina design that
allow maximum use of existing conditions while minimizing site modifica-
tions. This, in turn, will help eliminate or reduce environmental
impacts and permitting issues.
3-26
-------
SITING
Collective environmental and engineering needs at a given marina
site are rarely met and alterations are usually required to make the site
suitable. The most appropriate marina site would be one requiring as
little modification to the site environs as possible. Desirable and
undesirable site selection characteristics include:
Desirable Site Characteristics
Easy access to open waters, population centers, utilities,
public sewer and water lines
Accessible from existing roads and waterways
On sheltered waters providing adequate storm protection with
deep waters close to shore
Near existing state or federally maintained channels
Near currently permitted public areas for disposal of dredged
material
High tidal range or flow and high flushing rates, such as near
the mouths of estuaries or tidal creeks, near inlets or on
convex shorelines
Compatibility with existing land and water uses
Away from shellfish beds used for harvesting for human consump-
tion.
Undesirable Site Characteristics
Too shallow or with inadequate water or land area for intended
use, requiring extensive dredging or filling
Low tidal range or flow and low flushing rates, such as dead-end
channels or canals or the upper reaches of tidal creeks
In a location with poor water quality, marginally meeting state
water quality standards
Near specially designated fish or wildlife protection areas or
near shellfish beds or grassbeds
Location where rare, threatened, endangered or otherwise
designated unique or outstanding aquatic or terrestrial species
or habitats are found
In an area of recognized historic, archaeological or scenic
value
3-27
-------
SITING
Location where development would obstruct public access to navi-
gable waters or hinder safe navigation by requiring structures
that would extend into existing channels
On or adjacent to recognized historic, archaeological or scenic
resources.
The two sites in Figure 3-5 illustrate several desirable/undesirable
factors in site planning considerations. Proper siting of the marina may
be the single most critical factor for environmentally sound coastal
marina development. Adequate attention to environmental, engineering and
permitting concerns during site planning can avoid costly environmental
solutions to development impacts and delays in detaining permit appro-
vals.
3-28
-------
Figure 3-5. Desirable and undesirable site characteristics.
3-29
-------
-------
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
4.1 Overview 4-1
j
4.2 Water Quality Impact^ 4-2
4.2.1 Flushing Characteristics of Marina Sites 4-3
Semi-Enclosed Marinas 4-3
Open Marinas 4-7
4.2.2 Sediment Deposition and Shoaling 4-8
Suspended and Bed Load Sediment Transport 4-8
Semi-Enclosed Marinas
Open Marinas
Runoff 4-12
Shoaling Rate 4-18
4.2.3 Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal 4-19
Turbidity Increase
Dissolved Oxygen Reduction
Pollutant Resuspension
Quantity of Suspended Sediments 4-23
Sedimentation Within Marina Basins 4-24
Sedimentation in Adjacent Areas 4-24
4.2.4 Shoreline and Protective Structures 4-25
Physical Impacts
Chemical Impacts
4.2.5 Pollutant Concentration 4-34
Dilution Methods 4-42
Semi-Enclosed Marinas
Dissolved Oxygen
Open Marinas
Dispersion Methods 4-51
Estuaries
Rivers
Sanitary Wastes from Boats
Empirical Methods
Dye Study
Impact Evaluation
4.2.6 Boat Operation and Maintenance 4-67
Pollutants from Boat Operation 4-67
Pollutants from Boat Maintenance 4-69
4.3 Ecological Impacts 4-69
4.3.1 Aquatic Habitat Resources 4-69
Pollutant Impacts 4-69
Sanitary* Wastes from Shoreside Facilities 4-73
Impacts'Of Boat Operation 4-74
4.3.2 Terrestrial Habitat 4-77
4.3.3 Wetland Habitat 4-80
Habitat Loss 4-82
Habitat Modification 4-85
Turbidity
Siltation
4.3.4 Protected Species 4-94
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.4 Other Impacts 4-94
4.4.1 Historical or Archaeological Resources 4-94
4.4.2 Navigation 4-98
4.5 Impact Assessment 4-98
4.5.1 Approach 4-99
Initial Evaluation and Ecological Characterization 4-99
Study Design Criteria 4-100
Baseline Studies and Monitoring Programs 4-102
4.5.2 Specific Concerns 4-103
Dredging and Spoil Disposal 4-103
Water Quality 4-105
Ecology 4-106
Shoreline and Protective Structures 4-107
Sanitary Wastes and Runoff 4-108
Boat Operation and Maintenance 4-109
4.6 Summary 4-110
-------
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
4.1 Overview
The design, construction and operation of coastal marinas and asso-
ciated boating activities have the potential for undesirable environmen-
tal impacts to the marine and coastal ecosystems in which these
activities occur. The potential for environmental impacts and their
significance will not be the same for every marina.
This chapter provides the Handbook user with information on the
types of impacts that can result from coastal marina development and
operation and describes ecosystem responses to these impacts. While many
of these impacts can occur from any coastal development and at times may
be more significant for developments other than marina projects, the
focus of this chapter, and this Handbook, is on coastal marinas, and the
impacts are discussed in this context. Also provided in this chapter are
basic environmental assessment methods for predicting potential impacts
to water quality (Section 4.2), coastal ecology (Section 4.3) and other
coastal resources (Section 4.4). These areas of impact are not distinct
but can be closely interrelated. An activity having a water quality
impact, for example, may likely have ecological impacts as well. Thus,
some overlap and repetition in the discussion of impacts in this chapter
was intentional.
Some of the impacts assessment methods presented in this chapter,
particularly some of mathematical descriptions, are simplifications of
more sophisticated techniques. The Handbook user is encouraged to exa-
mine the original sources for these techniques as necessary. However,
these techniques presented can provide reasonable approximations for
screening potential impact problems when site-specific data are not
available. The techniques also can be used by decision-makers when eva-
luating marina permit applications.
The last section (4.5) describes the overall approach to environ-
mental impact assessment, in addition to specific areas of concern
related to:
Water qua!ity
Stormwater runoff
Dredging and spoil disposal
Shoreline and protective structures
Sanitary wastes from boats
Boat operation and maintenance
Ecological impacts.
4-1
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Supporting appendices for this chapter include Appendix A, which presents
measurement techniques for impact categories, and Appendix F, which lists
further contacts for information.
4.2 Water Quality Impacts
Many factors work to determine the eventual impact a marina will
have on the water quality within the immediate vicinity of a marina and
areas of the adjacent waterway. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, initial
marina site selection is one very important factor. Selection of a site
with favorable hydrographic characteristics and which requires the least
amount of modification can do a great deal to reduce potential water
quality impacts.
For marinas with enclosed or semi-enclosed basins, the basin con-
figuration is another important factor. Marina basin size and shape are
two significant features of basin configuration. The size and shape of
marina basins are functions of
Natural advantages at the site
Mooring facility requirements
Required degree of protection from weather and waves
Land and water area limitations
Economics.
In such basins, circulation or flushing characteristics play important
roles in the distribution and dilution of potential contaminants.
Circulation and flushing can be influenced by the natural or dredged
basin orientation. The final design is usually a compromise that will
provide the most desirable combination of marina capacity, services and
access, while minimizing environmental impacts, dredging, protective
structures and other site development costs.
Numerous marina-related development and operation activities are
also significant factors impacting water quality. Dredging and dredged
material disposal, wastewater disposal, fueling operations, stormwater
runoff and boat maintenance and repair are some of these. Discharges
from marina sanitation devices and bilges can also impact water quality
in the marina waters. In inadequately flushed basins, discharges from
these sources have the potential to reduce dissolved oxygen supply and
increase turbidity, coliform bacteria concentrations, nutrient, metals or
hydrocarbon levels.
Descriptive methods for estimating the impact of these factors
fol 1ow.
4-2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.2.1 Flushing Characteristics of Marina Sites
Flushing and circulation are important physical characteristics of
a marina site that should be considered in marina planning. Precise
information on flushing and circulation usually is not readily available
during the marina site selection and design process. However, methods
exist for providing estimates of expected flushing capability.
The method chosen to estimate expected flushing from a marina site
depends upon the hydrographic characteristics of the siting location.
Marinas anticipated to be located within a confined area with one or two
relatively narrow openings would have flushing characteristics con-
siderably different from marinas located directly on larger bays or
estuaries or along river shorelines. Two openings may imporove flushing
in semi-enclosed marina basins. Two lock-controlled marinas on Hilton
Head Island, SC (Windmill Harbour and Wexford Plantation) use inlet and
outlet wiers and pipes located at opposite ends of the marina to flush
the basin by natural tidal forces. Methods that may be used to enhance
circulation and reduce the potential for buildup of pollutants are
discussed in Section 5.2.1.
Semi-Enclosed Marinas
Flushing time for a marina site within a semi-enclosed area can be
estimated using simplified dilution calculations. A number of assump-
tions are required for applying such a simplified solution and these will
be listed following presentation of the method. The parameters required
for the estimation are:
. Average marina depth at low and high tide following completion
of dredging, based upon the representative tidal range for the
area
. Volume of non-tidal freshwater inflow into the marina
. Surface area of the marina
. The percentage of discharged water returning to the basin on the
following tidal cycle.
Representing the semi-enclosed marina as a basin such as depicted
in Figure 4-1, the flushing time can be approximated by the following
equation:
4-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(1)
r
'f =
where:
Tf =
T =
A =
D =
R =
b =
I =
L =
H =
/AL + bAR - IT
Log _ c
y AH
Time of flushing (hours)
Tidal cycle, high tide to^high tide (hours)
Surface area of marina (m )
Desired dilution factor
Range of tide (m)
Return flow factor (dimension! ess)
Non-tidal freshwater inflow (nr/hour)
Average depth at low tide (m)
Average depth at high tide (m).
The parameter "b" represents the percentage of the tidal prism ("AR" in
Equation 1) that was previously flushed from the marina on the outgoing
tide and is expressed as a decimal fraction. For example, if the river
depicted in Figure 4-1 had a relatively low flow rate, water discharged
from the marina at the completion of one tidal cycle may still exist in
proximity to the marina inlet and portions may flow back into the marina
on the incoming tide. This water mass portion would not be considered as
aiding flushing for water quality considerations.
Non-tidal freshwater inflow from runoff or stream discharge into
the marina basin can be estimated using techniques described under
Runoff. Frequently this number is small compared to tidal flushing. If
"ITc" is much less than "AL + bAR," this component of the equation can be
ignored and the simplified equation is as follows:
(2)
_ c
TLogD
Log.
AL + bAR
AH
where: parameters are as defined previously.
One assumption of Equations (1) and (2) is that the physical marina shape
includes relatively vertical sides, particularly from the low to high
water marks. If this is not the accepted case, Equation (2) is repre-
sented as the following:
4-5
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(3,
where: Tf) T b and D are as defined previously
V = volume of marina at low tide (m
_
VH = Volume of marina at high tide (m )
Vp = Volume of marina tidal prism (V^ -
This simplified approach to estimating flushing incorporates the
following assumptions:
. The tidal prism volume completely mixes with basin waters
. The pollutant concentration decreases with each tidal dilution
but will never completely flush
. The marina basin is fairly uniform with relatively vertical
sides (Equations 1 and 2)
. The influx of non-tidal freshwater serves to decrease the
polluted volume without affecting the level of tide
. The majority of flushing is due to tidal flow.
The most difficult parameter to determine may be the value of "b",
the return flow factor. This value may be determined by dye tracer tests
for the actual marina or it can be estimated based upon the circulation
characteristics of the affected water bodies. For openings into rivers
such as depicted in Figure 4-1, values of "b" may be greater than 0.5 for
low flow rivers or less than 0.5 if the river flow is high or receiving
water circulation is fast. Without definitive field data, subjective
estimations would have to be made. For example, if ebb flow is at least
50 percent faster than flood flow, flushing should be fair and a value
for "b" would probably be less than 0.5. The value for "D" should be
chosen depending upon the amount of flushing desired. If complete
flushing is desired, a very low value of "D" can be selected, such as
0.01. Since the remaining pollutant concentration will be diluted by
each tidal cycle, complete flushing will be approached asymptotically, so
a reasonable cutoff value for dilution must be chosen.
Based on the previous equations, the estimated flushing time for a
marina is an approximate value. Many characteristics of the marina site,
including location relative to other water bodies, ambient water quality,
biological activity, total volume and expected marina activity, and type
and volume of discharge, would all affect flushing time. For most cases
a two to four day flushing time is satisfactory while longer flushing
times may not be acceptable (Boozer, 1979). Evaluation of the buildup of
particular toxic pollutants or the decrease in dissolved oxygen would be
4-6
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
required to better evaluate the adequacy of flushing for enclosed marina
sites.
Open Marinas
Marinas that are located directly on rivers, bays or estuaries and
are not entirely enclosed by protective barriers would have flushing
characteristics generally similar to those for the water body.
Characterization of the actual flushing potential of a specific
area within a large body of water such as a river, bay or estuary cannot
be determined without detailed knowledge of the specific site and
surrounding areas. However, estimates of area flushing times can be made
using one of a number of available models for estuary flushing and com-
puting the individual segment flushing time for the area in question. An
example of such a model is the fraction of freshwater method (USEPA,
1982).
This method assumes that as fresh river inflow enters the estuary
an equal amount of estuary water is discharged and this freshwater flow
is the primary flushing vehicle. The estuary being studied is divided
into segments. The choice of segment size is determined by salinity gra-
dients. The higher the gradient, i.e. the more rapid the salinity change
over distance, the smaller the segment size. The total flushing time for
the estuary, or part of the estuary, is found by summing the individual
segment exchange times within the estuary, or within parts of interest,
as follows:
(4) Tf =
s
w
(USEPA, 1982)
where: Tf = Flushing time of total water body (hours)
S = Sea water salinity (ppt)
Si = Mean salinity in the segment (ppt)
V- »= Volume in segment i (m )
I = River discharge (rrr/hour)
n = Number of segments.
In order for the marina planner to use this flushing estimation
method for evaluation of a particular site in an estuary or river, some
field data are required. Salinity values must be established both for
the computations using Equation (4) as well as for decisions regarding
the segmentation of the water body. In addition, representative values
of river discharge into the estuary are required. Generally, the
flushing time should be calculated using a representative low-flow
situation for the river, as this would provide a conservative "worst
case" type of situation for flushing.
4-7
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Some of the assumptions used in this method are:
Uniform salinity throughout the segment
During each tidal cycle a volume of water equal to the river
discharge during one tidal cycle is moved through each segment,
displacing the same amount of water
The water in the segment is completely mixed instantaneously
following displacement
Localized stagnant areas are not considered to exist.
Another computational method which does not require knowledge of
salinity distribution in the estuary is the modified tidal prism method.
However, this method requires more detailed information on the physical
characteristics of the estuary so that various segment volumes can be
determined. This method is not described' in detail because it requires
that calculations be made for the entire estuary rather than selected
segments. Details of this method are provided by USEPA (1982).
4.2.2 Sediment Deposition and Shoaling
A variety of factors influence the amount and location of sediment
deposition in a-marina area. Since marina sites are generally chosen or
designed to be relatively quiescent, they become efficient sediment
traps. Sediments can be transported into the marina through suspended or
bed load hydrodynamic transport or by upland storm runoff. Shoaling at
harbor entrances can occur when breakwaters or entrance channels affect
normal littoral drift of sediments (Figure 4-2). Sediment control
measures such as groins or jetties may be required at some sites where
suspended load or bed load sediment transport is high.
Suspended and Bed Load Sediment Transport
Semi-Enclosed Marinas
Estimates of suspended load sedimentation in a semi-enclosed marina
basin can be obtained-through the use of two characteristics, the total
suspended solids of the water being carried into the marina basin and the
percentage retention of these solids within the basin. Sedimentation
within the basin due to biological activity is not considered. Using
Stokes Law for 'determining the terminal velocity of a particle settling
in a fluid and making some assumptions concerning the particle and fluid
allows determination of the relationship presented in Figure 4-3. The
assumptions used are that the particles are spherical and the density of
the fluid throughout the water column is uniform. Dispersion, advection
and interference of settling are jiot considered. The density of the par-
ticle is assumed to be 2.0 gm/cm3. This is a representative value for a
particle between the density of sand and inorganic detritus (USEPA,
1982). Most variations from these assumed conditions would result in a
lower predicted sedimentati-on rate.
4-8
-------
t
Downdn ft
Direction
Updnft
Direction
I
TYPICAL SUSPENDED
SEDIMENT MOVES WITH
THE ALONGSHORE CURRENT
WAVE
BREAKING WAVE
WATER'S EDGE
Figure 4-2. Alongshore sediment transport (Adapted from USACOE, 1982a)
4-9
-------
I
(—'
o
0 5 10 15 20
FALL DISTANCE PER TIDAL CYCLE (FT.)
25
h-
_J
CO
Q
CO
>
\-
_J
CO
O
>•
h-
00
o
>-
Q
<
CO
30
Figure 4-3. Particle diameter vs. settling fall per tidal cycle (12.3 hrs.)
under quiescent conditions (spheres with density 2.0 gm/cnP)
(Adapted from USEPA, 1982).
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Based upon the information provided in Figure 4-3, it can be esti-
mated that most of the suspended sediment load with particle diameters
greater than the lower limits of silty clay and sandy clay, about 4 x
10~3 mm, would be deposited in an enclosed marina during one tidal cycle
of about 12.3 hours. For a conservative estimate of suspended load sedi-
mentation in the marina basin, a retention of 100 percent can be assumed.
The estimated sedimentation rate of the suspended load within the marina
basin can be determined by:
(5) S = F,- VmTSS/T
s 5 f
where: Sg = Suspended load sedimentation rate ( kg/day)
Vm = Volume of marina at mean depth (m3)
TSS = Total suspended solids in waters flushing into
the marina basin (mg/1)
Tf = Flushing time (hours)
Fg = 0.024 (converts units to kg/day).
Open Marinas
Sedimentation of the suspended load for marinas located on more
open areas of an estuary, bay or river would be affected by local con-
ditions. In estuaries, sedimentation of suspended load will be greater
in the upper estuary near the point of river influx because the water
velocity decreases at this point and many of the suspended particles will
settle out. This also occurs at tide nodal point. Sedimentation also
will be greater near the point of freshwater-saltwater interface in the
estuary where rapid change in salinity causes flocculation of the
suspended particles. Marinas sited near these locations would be subject
to high sedimentation rates. Available records can be reviewed to deter-
mine historic and therefore expected sedimentation in these areas.
Bed load transport is the descriptive term for sediment which is
moved along the bottom by currents. This sediment movement is a complex
process that is affected by particle size, channel or bottom geometry,
relative layering of various particle sizes, bottom growth or other
obstructions, near-bottom current velocities and suspended particle com-
position of the near-bottom currents. Simple methods for estimating bed
load transport are not available. For rivers, however, it is commonly
five to 25 percent of the suspended sediment movement, although it may be
much higher (Linsley and Franzini, 1979).
For marinas that are semi-enclosed with entrance channels perpen-
dicular to rivers, bed load transport may be significant in filling the
dredged entrance channel. For natural entrances and for marinas located
on rivers or in bays or estuaries, the bed load transport would probably
not create a buildup of sediments unless structures were added that
significantly altered bottom flow patterns.
4-11
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Runoff
Stormwater runoff can carry particles into the marina basin. These
particles would add to the total amount of sedimentation expected.
Upland runoff characteristics result from complex interactions between
rainfall frequency and intensity, ground characteristics such as vegeta-
tion, type of soil, relative compaction of soil, slope of the land,
impervious and pervious surfaces and other obstructions.
Without detailed information on the marina site, only a gross esti-
mate of sediment concentrations derived from runoff into the marina basin
can be made. The results of a study on urban runoff indicate an average
suspended solids concentration of 227 mg/1 (Weibel et al., 1966). This
concentration of total suspended solids is high, and would represent a
high estimate of what would be expected for the marina area. Assuming
that this suspended sediment would be retained within the marina basin,
estimates can be made for sediment addition to the marina basin from
runoff. These estimates require determining the volume of runoff
expected for the area.
An estimate of the expected volume of runoff based upon rainfall
and physical characteristics of the drainage basin can be made by
following the steps outlined below.
1) Determine the hydro!ogic soil group from Table 4-1 wh'ich most
closely represents the drainage area around the marina site.
Subdivide drainage area into different groups, if necessary.
2) Determine the Runoff Curve Number (RCN) from Table 4-2 which is
an indicator of the runoff potential based on physical charac-
teristics of the area. Subdivide drainage area, if necessary.
3) Apply factors for conversion of RCNs for different antecedent
moisture conditions. RCNs listed in Table 4-2 are based upon
Condition II defined in Table 4-3. Factors for conversion of
RCNs for other moisture conditions are listed in Table 4-4.
4) Determine unit runoff in inches from Table 4-5 based upon RCN
. determined in Step 3 and amount of rainfall expected.
Rainfall information will have to be determined from local
records for the proposed marina siting area.
5) Convert unit runoff in inches to volume of runoff by:
4-12
-------
TABLE 4-1
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUPS
SOIL GROUP
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL
High infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted;
mainly deep, well to excessively drained sand and/or
gravels; high rate of water transmission and low run-
off potential.
Moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted;
moderately well to well drained soils with moderately
fine to moderately coarse textures; moderate rate of water
transmission and a moderate runoff potential.
Slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted; moderately
fine to fine textured soils or soils with a layer that
impedes the downward movement of water; slow rate of
transmission and a high runoff potential.
Very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted; clay
soils with a high swelling potential; soils with claypan
or clay layer near the surface; soils with a high permanent
water table; shallow soils over nearly impervious materials.
Very slow rate of water transmission and a very high runoff
potential.
Source: USDA, 1969
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-2
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (RCN) FOR URBAN AND SUBURBAN AREAS
Land Use
Lawns, parks, golf courses,
cemetaries Good*
Fair**
Commercial and business areas,
paved parking lots, roofs,
driveways, etc.
Streets: paved with curbs and
storm sewers
paved with open ditch
drainage
gravel
dirt
Residential:*** % Impervious
Average lot size
1/8 acre or less 65
1/4 acre 38
1/3 acre 30
1/2 acre 25
1 acre 20
Meadow or idle-good hydro! ogic
condition
Woods: good hydro! ogic condition
fair hydro! ogic condition
Newly graded area:
A
39
49
98
98
82
76
72
77
61
57
54
51
30
25
36
81
Hydro! ogic
B
61
69
98
98
89
85
82
85
75
72
70
68
58
55
60
89
Soil Group
C
74
79
98
98
92
89
87
90
83
81
80
79
71
70
73
93
D
80
84
98
98
94
91
89
92
87
86
85
84
78
77
79
95
* Good grass cover on about 75% of the pervious area.
** Good grass cover on about 50% of the pervious area.
*** Curve numbers are computed assuming the house and driveway runoff if
directed toward the street with a minimum of roof water directed to
lawns when additional infiltration could occur. Lawns are considered
to be in good hydro!ogic condition.
General note: Antecedent moisture Condition II.
Source: USDA, 1969
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-3
DEFINITION OF ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITIONS
5-day antecedent rainfall
in inches
Condition
I
II
General Description
Optimum soil condition
Average value for annual
Dormant
0.5
0.5-1.1
Season
Growing
1.4
1.4-2.1
III
f 1 oods
Heavy rainfall or light
rainfall and low tem-
peratures within
5 days prior to the
given storm
1.1
2.1
Source: USDA, 1969
4-15
-------
TABLE 4-4
FACTORS FOR CONVERTING RCN's TO ANTECEDENT
CONDITIONS I AND III*
CURVE NUMBER FOR FACTOR TO CONVERT CURVE NUMBER
CONDITION II FOR CONDITION II TO
CONDITION I CONDITION III
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.62
0.67
0.73
0.79
0.87
1.00
2.22
1.85
1.67
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.21
1.14
1.07
1.00
Source: Barfield and Haan, 1972.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-5
RUNNOFF (INCHES) FOR SELECTED RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS
RAINFALL
(INCHES)
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0 -
10.0
11.0
12.0
CURVE NUMBER (RCN)
60
0
0
0
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.17
0.33
0.76
1.30
1.92
2.60
3.33
4.10
4.90
5.72
6.56
*To obtain runoff
in this
65
0
0
0.02
0.05
0.09
0.14
0.30
0.51
1.03
1.65
2.35
3.10
3.90
4.72
5.57
6.44
7.32
depths
70
0
0.3
0.06
0.11
0.17
0.24
0.46
0.72
1.33
2.04
2.80
3.62
4.47
5.34
6.23
7.13
8.05
for 'RCNs
table, use an arithmetic
75
0.03
0.07
0.13
0.20
0.29
0.38
0.65
0.96
1.67
2.45
3.28
4.15
5.04
5.95
6.88
7.82
8.76
and
80
0.08
0.15
0.24
0.34
0.44
0.56
0.89
1.25
2.04
2.89
3.78
4.69
5.62
6.57
7.52
8.48
9.45
other rai
85
0.17
0.28
0.39
0.52
0.65
0.80
1.18
1.59
2.46
3.37
4.31
5.26
6.22
7.19
8.16
9.14
10.12
90
0.32
0.46
0.61
0.76
0.93
1.09
1.53
1.98
2.92
3.88
4.85
5.82
6.81
7.79
8.78
9.77
10.76
nfall amounts not
95
0.56
0.74
0.92
1.11
1.30
1.48
1.97
2.44
3.42
4.41
5.40
6.40
7.39
8.39
9.39
10.39
11.39
shown
interpolation
Source: USDA, 1969
4-17
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
where: Vp = Volume of runoff (liters)
Up = Unit runoff (inches)
A^ = Area of drainage (acres)
i = Subdivision of drainage area used to determine soil
group and RCN
n = Total number of subdivisions
F6 = 102,802 (converts units to liters).
6) Determine an average daily V based upon monthly or annual pre-
cipitation and then determine the runoff sedimentation rate by:
(7) Sr = Vr TSS
F7
where: Sp = Runoff sedimentation rate (g/day)
vr = Average daily Vr (I/day)
TSS = Total suspended solids (mg/1). If TSS is unknown,
estimate using 227 mg/1.
Fy = 1000 (converts units to g/day).
This process estimates runoff over various types of physical sur-
faces. Gain or loss of pollutants from routing of runoff through canals,
ditches, swales or gutters has not been specifically addressed. Adjust-
ment for the portion of runoff that does not drain into the marina basin
should by considered.
Shoaling Rate
The shoaling rate, and hence the amount of maintenance dredging
which may be required, can be determined by:
4-18
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(8) Rs =
where: RS = shoaling rate ( m/year)
S = Suspended load sedimentation rate
(g/day; converted from Equation (5)
Sp = Runoff sedimentation rate (g/dayj
PB = Bulk density of sediments (g/cnr3)
A = Area of marina basin (m2)
Fg = 3.65 x 10~4 (converts units to m/year).
Convert Ss from Equation (5) to g/day. If "pB" is unknown, esti-
mate using 1.5 gm/cnH as this would represent a sandy silt type of sedi-
ment. This procedure estimates shoaling due to suspended load and runoff
within a semi-enclosed marina basin and assumes uniform distribution of
sediments throughout the basin. This procedure does not apply to
shoaling within entrance channels due to bed load transport.
4.2.3 Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal
Impacts from dredging and construction activities may be environ-
mentally significant, depending upon the physical and biological charac-
teristics of the surrounding water body. The degree of impact depends on
the quality of the existing environment; the character of site-specific
habitats, wildlife, water quality, adjacent developments; and the manner
in which the dredging and disposal is conducted.
Turbidity Increase
Turbidity, which can be both natural and man-induced, refers to the
amount of suspended solids in the water column and the corresponding
decrease in light transmittance. Stern and Stickle (1978) have defined
turbidity as "...an expression of the optical properties of water that
cause light to be scattered and absorbed rather than transmitted in a
straight line."
Dredging may increase turbidity by resuspending silt or introducing
spoil material into the water column (Hirsch et al., 1978). Wave action,
erosion of unstabilized dredged canal banks, and leaching of uncon-
solidated spoil mounds also can increase turbidity (VSWCB, 1979).
Agricultural runoff after a rainfall increases turbidity that may be
enhanced by currents, tides and wind or manmade effluent flows (Stern and
Stickle, 1978).
Natural turbidity may be relatively high due to sediment from rivers
(Windom, 1976). Chapman (1968) reports that most of the Gulf of Mexico
and south Atlantic estuaries can be characterized as either naturally
turbid or comparatively clear. The Mobile Bay area (Chapman, 1968) and
4-19
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
the Apalachicola-Cuspate Delta area, along the Florida panhandle
(Beccasio et al., 1982), are examples of turbid water zones. The effects
of turbidity increases should, therefore, be interpreted in the context
of ambient turbidity levels. In areas where turbidity is naturally high,
an increase in turbidity from dredging would have less impact. Only 90
meters (300 feet) from a hydraulic dredge discharge pipe, turbidity was
diluted to levels occasionally observed in a naturally turbid Louisiana
bay (Chapman, 1968). A comparable dredging discharge in a clear water
estuary would produce a turbidity plume that would presumably require a
much greater dispersion distance before ambient turbidity levels were
reached. A dispersion distance of 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) has been
reported for the Tampa Bay area (Taylor, 1973).
Elevated turbidity levels can be temporary and localized. Many
investigators feel that temporary, localized turbidity increases due to
dredging are not significant because estuaries typically experience tem-
porary turbidity increases as a result of tides and because some
estuarine organisms, such as fish, can actively avoid these areas. The
dredge-related effects of siltation, however, can have a prolonged and
serious impact through seagrass destruction, shoaling and circulation
changes, and burial of organisms. Open water unconsolidated spoil banks
and unstabilized dredged canal banks can be eroded and agitated by wave
action and boat prop wash so that turbidity levels remain elevated over
long periods. Taylor (1973) relates that fine sediments "are easily
resuspended by abnormally strong currents and moderate-to-heavy wave
action."
Dissolved Oxygen Reduction
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations near dredging sites have been
reported to be lower than concentrations measured away from dredging
operations. This may be due to resuspension of bottom sediments that
increases turbidity, settleable and suspended solids, and biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD; Brown and Clark, 1968). Increased turbidity may
reduce the DO content of water surrounding an active dredge by 16 to 83
percent below normal, while increasing the BOD eightfold (Simon and Dyer,
1972 in Johnston, 1981).
High BOD values were present near the surface of Chesapeake Bay 600
feet from a dredge discharge and high BOD values were found near the bot-
tom of Mobile Bay about 1,700 feet from dredging operations (Taylor,
1973). During dredging, the length of time that sediment is exposed to
the water column determines the amount of oxygen demand exerted (Windom,
1976). Chmura and Ross (1978) reported that oxygen levels were from 16
to 33 percent below normal during the dredging of a tidal waterway.
Conversely, another study reviewed by these authors indicated that
measurements for several water quality parameters, including DO and BOD,
made before, during, and after dredging of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway were not significantly different between dredged and control
areas. Sediment studies in Wassaw Sound, Georgia, suggest that the oxy-
gen demand of sediments is capable of removing over 500 times its volume
4-20
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
of oxygen from the water column (Frankenberg and Westerfield, 1968).
These studies suggest that site-specific measurements, rather than
generalizations, often are necessary for assessing effects on dissolved
oxygen. DO values at dredge sites are affected by the ambient DO level,
circulation, and the amount of oxidizable organic material that is
resuspended during dredging (Taylor, 1973). For example, the resuspen-
sion of sediment-trapped organics, such as sewage or partially-decayed
plant material, would lower dissolved oxygen in the water column more
than the resuspension of clean sand.
Dredging canals, particularly dead-end finger (Venetian) canals, can
decrease DO in the water column since such canals do not flush well.
Anaerobic areas can occur at the base of the canal banks when banks are
not sloped to promote flushing. Canal sides cut at essentially right
angles to the bottom will have poor flushing potential. Similar anaero-
bic areas may result if the marina basin or entrance channels are dredged
several feet deeper than the nearest existing channel or where stratifi-
cation of the water column occurs. Anaerobic waters create a sump for
pollutants and organics resulting in stagnant, sulfide-odorous and slow
decaying (due to low DO) conditions. Dredging of no more than one foot
deeper than the nearest channel has been recommended (VSWCB, 1979). Some
overdredging, however, may reduce the number of times maintenance
dredging is required, which would minimize the frequency of dredging and,
therefore, potentially reduce adverse effects.
Maintenance dredging of poorly circulated areas may produce spoil
containing malodorous free sulfides. Disposing of such spoil in
estuarine sites may have adverse ecological effects on the local flora
and fauna not only through siltation, but also in terms of water quality,
since free sulfides are toxic to estuarine life (Williamson et al.,
1977). Wright (1978) studied the effects of open water disposal offshore
of Galveston Bay and determined few effects. Impacts included some
increase in manganese and ammonium-nitrogen and the presence of distinct
spoil mounds, the finer fractions of which were being eroded. The
benthic community did change in abundance but similar changes occurred in
control (reference) areas during the time of the study.
Pollutant Resuspension
Pollutants trapped in sediments can be resuspended during dredging
(Taylor, 1973; Boozer, 1979; VSWCB, 1979 and others). These include
pathogenic bacteria and viruses, heavy metals (mercury, copper, lead,
chromium, zinc, arsenic, cadmium, and nickel), hydrocarbons (pesticides),
oil and grease, hydrogen sul fide, methane, organic acids, ketones and
aldehydes, etc., and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Although
pollutants can be removed from the water column by flocculation, adsorp-
tion, and deposition, they can be temporarily available to local pelagic
(swimming) organisms and ultimately to benthic (bottom) organisms, par-
ticularly those attracted to spoil dump sites for food or colonization
(Taylor, 1973). This is of particular concern in areas inhabited by com-
mercial species or the prey of commercial species. Shellfish and other
4-21
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
filter feeders concentrate pollutants (Clark, 1974). Therefore,
resuspension of sewage bacteria, pathogens, and heavy metals near
shellfish could damage the quality of these organisms as a fishery
resource.
Results of studies of the release of pollutants associated with
dredging activities have been inconsistent. Dredging need not change the
concentrations of heavy metals (Williamson et al., 1977; Chmura and Ross,
1978), hydrocarbons (Williamson et al., 1977), or nutrients (phosphate:
Chmura and Ross, 1978) in the area. Due to the geochemistry of heavy
metals iji estuaries, it is not likely that metals would be released
during dredging except under unusual conditions (Windom, 1976). After
metals accumulate in estuarine sediments, post-depositional changes in
sediment pH and oxidation-reduction potential may lead to an increased
solubility of some metals. Although this will increase the mobility of
metals in sediments, release is unlikely to result. Metal levels typi-
cally remain constant after reaching equilibrium with the sediment
(Windom, 1976). May (1974) found that metal levels in water samples
collected from the effluents of spoil disposal areas did not differ
significantly from ambient concentrations in Mobile Bay. Similar results
were found in a dredging study of Savannah, Charleston, and Brunswick
Harbors (Windom, 1976). However, some studies have shown potentially
significant increases (Williamson et al., 1977; Rosenberg, 1977).
Rosenberg (1977) reports that benthic fauna in a Swedish estuary exhi-
bited overall increases in mercury, cadmium, zinc, copper, lead and
nickel after dredging. Concentrations decreased appreciably one and a
half years after dredging was terminated.
Addition of nutrients can be potentially beneficial or detrimental
to an estuary. For nutrient-limited estuaries (usually nitrogen limited;
Williamson et al., 1977), the resuspension of nutrients, such as nitrogen
in the form of ammonia, from sediments may enhance primary productivity
(Taylor, 1973). Windom (1976) reported in his dredging study that the
concentration of ammonia in the water decreased with time. This may have
been due to adsorption on particulate matter, direct uptake by phy-
toplankton, bacterial nitrification, or straight chemical oxidation. In
more nutrient-rich estuaries, nutrient addition could cause eutrophica-
tion in the form of algal blooms. Eutrophication could result in the
release of algal toxins and a decrease in DO due to algal death and
decay.
Initial dredging and periodic maintenance dredging of the marina
site will increase the level of suspended solids in the water column and
will result in sedimentation of these resuspended particles over a larger
area. Mitigative measures for dredging are discussed in Sections 5.4 and
5.5.
4-22
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Quantity of Suspended Sediments
In order to determine the area of impact for dredging it is
necessary to estimate the amount of dredging that would be required ini-
tially and for subsequent maintenance. The initial volume of dredging
depends upon the specific design of the marina and the pre-construction
condition of the site. The volume of maintenance dredging anticipated
would depend upon sedimentation at the marina site.
Once determination has been made of the expected volume of dredged
material to be removed, the quantity of increased suspended solids can be
estimated. The increase in total suspended solids from dredging can be
estimated by:
(9)
where:
Vr
TSSd =
V
m
= Total suspended solids increase due to dredging or
construction (mg/1 or g/m3)
VD = Volume of sediment disturbed (dredged or displaced)
(m-3)
r = Resuspension factor for sediment type
W^ = Dry weight of sediment (g/m )
o
"m = Mean volume of marina waters (m ).
The resuspension factor is the estimated percentage of disturbed sediment
volume that is resuspended as a result of the disturbance. In the
absence of more definitive information assume r=0.30 for bucket dredging
or other disturbance of fine sediments and r=0.10 for hydraulic dredging
of fine sediments. For coarse (sandy) sediments assume r=0.10 for bucket
dredging and other disturbance and r=0.05 for hydraulic dredging (Carstea
et a~l., 1975). The dry weight of sediment may be estimated as 545
m6 (Panuzio, 1963).
The assumptions applicable to this method are that the sediments
are of relatively uniform consistency and complete mixing within the
marina basin takes place.
The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering
(1973) recommends the following maximum concentrations of suspended sedi-
ments for protection of aquatic communities (Carstea et al., 1975):
4-23
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
. High level of protection 15 mg/1
. Moderate protection 80 mg/1
. Low protection 400 mg/1
. Very low protection over 400 mg/1
Loosanoff (1965) reported the following relationships between eggs
and larvae of oysters and concentrations of suspended material:
Concentration of suspended Reduction of eggs survival
material (mg/1 ) _ and development to _
250 ^ 73%
500 30%
100-2000 about 0%
A concentration of 750 mg/1 of suspended sediment had adverse
effects on growth of oyster larvae. The larvae of oysters experienced
virtually no growth when the sediment reached concentrations of 1,500
mg/1.
Sedimentation Within Marina Basins
One assumption used for the earlier determination of sedimentation
from suspended load (Equation 5) was that the semi -enclosed marina had
about 100 percent trapping efficiency. If this was the case, sediments
resuspended from dredging in such a marina would resettle within the
marina basin and the net effect would be a redistribution of sediments
throughout the basin. The increase in shoaling from this redistribution
can be estimated as follows:
, Vm
S = - - x F1Q
PB A
where: S = Shoaling as a result of redistribution (m)
All other parameters as defined previously in
Equations (8) and (9)
F10 = 1 x 106 (converts units to m) .
Sedimentation In Adjacent Areas
The result from Equation (10) can be used to determine the depth of
benthic blanketing as a result of dredging within the marina basin.
Deposition of silt and clay accumulating to 27 cm (10.5 inches) was
reported at a distance of 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from a spoil disposal site in
Tampa Bay (Taylor, 1973). Chapman (1968) reported that silt was depo-
sited as far as 396 m (1,300 ft) from a dredge operating in a shallow bay
in Louisiana and approximately 274 m (900 ft) from a hydraulic shell
dredge in a Texas bay. Sediment depositions from a hydraulic dredge
working to construct the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway accumulated to 22 cm
4-24
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(8.7 inches) in one week and 33 cm (13.0 inches) in 18 months (Chapman,
1968).
The effects of turbidity and siltation on adjacent areas can be
strongly influenced by prevailing tides and by the direction and velocity
of currents. A change in tidal cycle can reverse the direction of a tur-
bidity plume, resulting in expansion of the area of impact but reduction
in the degree of impact.
Small-diameter particles such as silt and clay typically settle
slowly. Marine waters have a high electrolyte content which neutralizes
surface charges on small particles. This causes fine particles to aggre-
gate into larger particles that settle faster (Windom, 1976). Settling
rates in estuaries and the open ocean would be increased by agglomeration
and flocculation processes (Stern and Stickle, 1978), but would be
decreased by the presence of currents and possibly salinity and tem-
perature gradients.
The marina site may be situated such that currents would be
expected to move the resuspended sediments to be deposited elsewhere.
One method for estimating the distance from the source that sedimentation
would occur is to estimate average directional current velocity using
Figures 4-4 and 4-5. This method allows estimates to be made of the
maximum distance downcurrent where settling would occur. Particle size
distribution of resuspended sediments can be used to determine the rela-
tive volumes of various sediments that would settle between the source of
the disturbance and the maximum distances shown in the figures. Basic
assumptions for the figures are:
. Particles settle within the parameters of Stoke1s Law
. Particles are spherical and have a density of 2.0 g/cm3
. Settling is under quiescent conditions
. Fluid density is uniform.
The potential for flocculation and subsequent faster settling rate is not
considered. Therefore, a greater amount of settling of resuspended sedi-
ments may occur nearer to the disturbance source than would be indicated
by the figures. Measures to reduce the impacts from siltation are
discussed in Section 5.4.
4.2.4. Shoreline and Protective Structures
Marinas use shoreline and protective structures to retain their
developed shores, to protect against waves generated by wind and moving
watercraft, and to provide public access to navigable water. Several
authors have reviewed marina structures including Bara, et al. (1977),
Chmura and Ross (1978) and Mulvihill et al. (1980). The latter review is
a complete summary of the impacts from minor shoreline structures with
numerous references.
4-25
-------
o
®
V)
0.6-
0 ei-
U-°
0.4-
o
0.3H
LJJ
>
I- 0.2H
z
LLJ
o-
O
0.0
i i i
468
MAXIMUM DISTANCE (X 103m)
r
10
FINE SAND: Particle diameter = 2 X 10-2mm
Settling velocity = 2.2 X 10~2cm/sec
Figure 4-4. Approximate settling distance for spherical particle
with density of 2.0 g/cm^ and diameter of 2 X lO'^mm,
(Mysels, 1959).
4-26
-------
0.6-
*o
w 0.5-
1
> 0.4-
O
O 0.3H
LU
t 0.2-j
z
in
c 0 1-
QC U '
ID
O
0.0
200 400 600 800
MAXIMUM DISTANCE (X 103m)
1000
SILT: Particle diameter = 2 X "I0~3mm
Settling velocity = 2.2 X 10~4cm/sec
Figure 4-5. Approximate settling distance for spherical particle
with density of 2.0 g/cm3 and diameter of 2 X 10~3mnij
(Mysels, 1959).
4-27
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The shoreline and protective structures relevant to marinas include:
. Piers and piles
. Jetties, groins, and breakwaters
. Bulkheads, revetments, and ramps.
Development of marinas usually involves dredging and construction of
shoreline structures, access roads, and shop and supply buildings. These
operations typically alter existing habitats which may include productive
areas such as wetlands and estuaries. Figure 4-6 (adapted from Odum,
1971), for example, illustrates some of the environmental changes that
result from bulkhead construction in wetland areas. Although the
construction of pilings, docks, bulkheads, breakwaters, rip-rap revet-
ments, vegetated revetments, jetties, and other shoreline structures do
afford new habitat for marine and terrestrial animal colonization, they
do not replace the habitat that is lost by dredge and fill and construc-
tion activities or altered through secondary effects.
Physical Impacts
Physical alteration can be caused by certain shoreline structures.
Alterations frequently involve changes in siltation, circulation, tur-
bidity and erosion. Solid breakwaters, for example, change circulation
patterns and may cause shoaling. Typical areas of shoaling for shore-
attached solid breakwaters are primarily along the shoreline at the
updrift angle of the breakwater shore attachment (Figure 4-7). For
detached breakwaters, accumulation is often along the shoreline on the
lee side of the breakwater. Such shoaling can cause downshore erosion.
Areas downshore of groins may also be deprived of littoral drift sedi-
ments and consequently scoured. Erosion and the resulting sediment accu-
mulation .elsewhere may require maintenance dredging. For example,
although the primary purpose of a jetty is maintenance of a navigable
channel depth, the inlet channel may require dredging due to sediment
accumulation. Dredging around other structures, such as solid break-
waters, may also be necessary.
The volume of sediment disturbed for structure emplacement can be
estimated from Table 4-6 and the quantity of resultant suspended sedi-
ments can be estimated using Equation (9). Resultant shoaling within the
marina basin and sedimentation in adjacent areas can be estimated by
Equation (10) and Figures 4-4 and 4-5 as described in Section 4.2.3
Other physical changes are related to alteration of tidal, current,
or wave patterns. The presence of shoreline structures can produce
secondary waves that reflect off the structure. Breakwaters (Figure 4-8)
can reflect waves produced by boats traveling on the protected lee side
between the breakwater and the shore. Vertical bulkheads (Figure 4-9)
can reflect waves that cause erosion of the foreshore, since the energy
of incoming waves is often not adequately dissipated by the bulkhead
facing. Erosion of adjacent areas may also occur until a new
geohydraulic equilibrium is reached. The base (toe) of the bulkhead may
4-28
-------
SCRUB FOREST
S10H
NURSERY GROUND
MEADOW SALT MARSH
MEAN MEAN
HIGH TIDE LOW TIDE
50
100
DISTANCE FROM SHORE IN FEET
Figure 4-6. A profile of a shoreline wetland area comparing a natural
productive environment (top) with an altered condition
(bottom) following bulkhead construction (adapted from
Odum, 1971).
4-29
-------
DETACHED EMERGENT BREAKWATER
DIRECTION OF NET
TRANSPORT
BREAKWATER
ADDITIONAL
Figure 4-7.
ATTACHED BREAKWATER
Shoaling associated with detached and shore-attached
solid breakwaters (Source: excerpted from Mulvihill,
et al., 1980).
4-30
-------
TABLE 4-6
CHARACTERISTICS FOR ESTIMATING AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT
DISTURBED BY STRUCTURE EMPLACEMENT
Structure
Type
Riprap
Bulkhead
Length
(m)
AR
AR
Average
width (m)
1.5
0.3
Depth in
Sediment (m)
0.15
0.6
Comments
3
0.6m disturbed
for
each pile and for
sheeting
Groins
Pi ers
AR
AR
1.5
NA
0.3
NA
For about every
2m
of pier length esti'
mate 0.1 m of
disturbed sediment
AS = As required
NA = Not applicable
4-31
-------
-fi
C3
^- S/ape vanes from
I on I, to / on 2
each side
F>U
Q rove /,
t>r Stone
ML.W.-j
-Wood, Steel or
Concrete Sheet
Piles
Shee
TYPE "A"
RIPRAP MOUND
uore
IVof Ms 'IV'/or /yfts A 5 ant/ D,
to be ct-Tfi/'ogesif upon gross hcighfa
'Wand thf tvia/jh of tvatcr s
of tva/f
TYPE "B"
FILLED SHEET PILES
S'- O'
TYPE "C"
SINGLE ROW PILES -BRACED
,-Liqhl
i V- SO' Minimum |
Concrfft Cap—-^ '
(Capstone
Seaward ">
Sheet
Be^dmg Material tfreiM for fitter ocf-an
—"*
Bottom of Slip
TYPE *D"
TIMBER CRIB WITH CONC CAP
TYPE "E"
PIER WITH SHEET PILES
TYPE "F*
LOG BOOM
TYPIC&L PLEASURE BOAT BASIN
BREAKWATER TYPES
SCALE NOT TO SCAie
DRAWING NO 19
Figure 4-8. Typical pleasure boat basin breakwater types (Chaney, 1961).
-------
SHEET PILE
ORIGINAL SLOPE
i
CO
OJ
DESIGN WATER LEVEL
Figure 4-9. Side view of a typical sheet pile bulkhead. Dimensions and details to be determined by
particular site conditions. (Mulvihill et.al., 1980)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
also be scoured and undermined unless protected by a revetment.
Revetments (Figure 4-10) can also produce reflectance waves, however,
these are generally of lower energy because the irregular and/or sloped
facing of revetments are more efficient in absorbing wave energy.
Altering a high energy area to a low energy one, or vice versa, sub-
sequent to the shoreline placement of structures, will change the com-
position of the substrate, since silty fine sediments typify low energy
areas and coarser sediments exemplify high energy bottom habitat. These
changes in circulation and sedimentation will alter existing habitat.
Chemical Impacts
In addition to dredging-related water quality alterations during
construction, shoreline structures may produce other water quality
changes. Pilings and other wooden structures are frequently treated with
preservatives such as creosote, copper napthenate, or other zinc and
copper salts (Chmura and Ross, 1978) to slow the settling of fouling and
boring organisms and to increase the life of the structures. Chemicals
do leach into marina waters and can affect the water quality and non-
target organisms (Nixon et al., 1973).
The presence of certain shoreline structures can also exacerbate
degraded water quality conditions. Solid breakwaters, for example,
reduce the wave action on their lee side and can inhibit natural flushing
so that decreased water quality and changes in temperature and salinity
regimes may result (Mulvihill et al., 1980). Degraded water quality can
also occur in finger (Venetian) canals in marinas that have been dredged
and bulkheaded and do not flush sufficiently (Chmura and Ross, 1978;
Mulvihill et al., 1980). Mitigative measures for structure emplacement
are discussed in Section 5.4
4.2.5 Pol 1utant Concentration
Runoff from marinas may introduce pollutants that can degrade the
quality of adjacent waters. During marina construction, natural vegeta-
tive cover is usually replaced by impermeable surfaces such as buildings
or parking lots, that reduce the area available for stormwater per-
colation. Without proper design, stormwater runoff can increase and'
pollutants may be washed from a marina into the water. These pollutants
may include sediments, pesticides, oil and road dirt, heavy metals, and
nutrients.
During periods of heavy rainfall, storm sewer systems designed
simply to channel stormwater away from parking lots, walkways, roofs and
other collection points may carry a variety of pollutants that are
capable of degrading water quality. Not only may these substances be
toxic to marine organisms at certain concentrations, but they may have
sublethal effects which 1) reduce the ability of some marine organisms
to survive predation or competition; 2) reduce their ability to
reproduce; 3) give some organisms competitive advantages over other
organisms; or 4) cause anatomical anomalies (Smith, 1981). Organisms in
4-34
-------
FILTER
LAYER
-F*
GJ
FILL MATERIAL
BEACH SLOPE
Figure 4-10. Profile of a revetment. Construction materials, dimensions and details are determined by
particular site conditions. (Mulvihill et.al., 1980)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
the earlier stages of life are usually more susceptible to pollution than
are adults of the same species.
One of the immediate effects of runoff is a temporary reduction in
the availability of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water (Soule and Oquri,
1977). Normally, oxygen concentrations in water are between 5.3 and 8.0
ppm which is sufficient for fish to grow and reproduce. Lower con-
centrations can be lethal for most species, especially if DO is reduced
to 1.25 ppm within a 24 hour period (United Nations, 1982a). Reduction
of the DO level in water represents a risk to marine life and could
trigger severe shifts in community composition and abundance. Waters
with low exchange rates have naturally lower DO concentrations and, con-
sequently, are more susceptible to deoxygenating pollutants than are
rapidly exchanged waters.
Heavy metals such as zinc, mercury, lead and cadmium in their pure
state usually are not particularly hazardous to marine life. However,
these metals easily combine with other compounds, particularly organic
ones, to become quite toxic. Every organism has a certain tolerance
level for heavy metals, and metal concentrations as low as 0.5 ppb may be
toxic to some organisms (Table 4-7). Although metals can settle out very
rapidly in marina waters (Chen et al., 1972), they may be redistributed
in the marina by propeller wash stirring up bottom sediments. Shellfish
and other marine organisms are capable of concentrating dissolved metals
by factors hundreds or thousands of times greater than that of the
concentration present in water (Table 4-7). Metals such as copper are
frequently found in anti-foul ing paints applied to or scraped off boats
at a marina and, therefore, can become part of runoff.
Petroleum products may be present in marine waters as a result of
runoff from automobile oil from parking lots, fuel spills and perhaps
bilge drainings. USEPA and Coast Guard regulations prohibit the
discharge of oil or oily waste that causes a visible film or sheen on the
water's surface (Chmura and Ross, 1978). The regulations are difficult
to enforce, however. Certain fractions of oil or petroleum products have
been established as being toxic to marine life (Table 4-8) and are
discussed in Boat Operation and Maintenance, Section 4.2.6.
Pesticides used at marinas and their associated developments also
may be washed into marina waters by runoff. Much has been written about
the harmful effects of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides, par-
ticularly the organo-chlorine and organophosphate compounds such as DDT,
dieldrin, endrin, malathion, parathion, and fenthion. Few data exist on
newer kinds of pesticides like carbamates or juvenile hormone analogs.
In many instances, pesticides or their decomposition products enter the
biogeochemical cycles of the estuarine environment and are toxic to or
are accumulated by shellfish, fish, shrimp and crabs. These animals may
then be consumed by humans.
4-36
-------
TABLE 4-7
TOXICITY AND RIOACCUMULVriON CONCENTRATION FACTORS
OF HEAVY METALS IN MARINE ORGANISMS3
Metal
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Chromium
Lead
Arsenic
Antimony
Molybdenum
Vanadium
Cobalt
Silver
Toxicity (ppb)
fish 30 - 90
crustaceans 14 - 200
algae 0.5 — 5
minimal risk 20
fish 4.5 - 6.5
crustaceans 0.33 - 29.5
fish 0.8 -125
crustaceans 100 - 300
oysters
(embryo) 1.19
fish 33 - 100
crustaceans 200
oysters 10.3
(embyro)
fish 0.34-188
fish 8.4
oyster (embryo) 7.5
worms 25
algae 54
algae 2
algae 10 - 20
algae 0.5
algae 0.05
fish 0.01 - 0.04
molluscs 0.0006
Bioaccumul ation
concentration
factor5
fish
oysters
phytoplankton
zooplankton
fish
oysters
phytoplankton
zooplankton
fish
oysters
phytoplankton
zooplankton
fish
oyster
phytoplankton
zooplankton
fish
oysters
phytoplankton
zooplankton
fish
oyster
oyster
fish
fish
oyster
phytoplankton
zooplankton
fish
oyster
fish
oyster
phytoplankton
zooplankton
fish
phytoplankton
zooplankton
mol luscs
crustaceans
phytoplankton
zooplankton
fish
mol luscs
1,600 - 2,100
150,000-290,000
113
1,000
130 - 660
24,000 - 35,000
38
437
125
100
41
149
200
500
34
65
6,000-10,000
7,000-100,000
2,087
15,500
77 - 100
432 - 810
300
100
100
100
10
20
10,000
10,000
10
200
100
200
500
190
365
1,000 - 5,000
1,000 -5,000
98
117
100
200
Remarks
Emetic dose for man is 675 ppm
Emetic dose for man is 500 ppm
Lethal oral dose is Ig/kq body
weiqht
Drinking water standard 0.05 ppm
Continuous inqestion of shellfisl
from highly contaminated areas i1
a human health hazard
Arsenic concentrations are not
magnified by food chains.
Fatal dose for humans is 120 opm
Lethal dose for rabbits is 700 mi
kg body weight.
United Nations, 1982a.
Bioaccumulation concentration factor is the number which indicates the concentrative effectiveness of the type or
m'sms named; i.e., if the concentration of a metal in water is 3 ppb and the orqanisn has a concentration factor i
200, then it is possible for that organism to have 600 pph concentration of that metal in its tissues.
4-37
-------
TABLE 4-8
ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION OF SOLUBLE AROMATIC
FRACTIONS OF OIL WHICH ARE TOXIC TO MARINE ORGANISMS'3
Class of organisms Toxic concentration (ppm)
Flora 10-100
Finfish 5-50
Larvae (all species) 0.1-1.0
Swimming crustaceans 1-10
Snails 1-100
Bivalves 5-50
Bottom-dwelling crustaceans 1-10
Other bottom-dwelling organisms (worms, etc.) 1-10
aUnited Nations, 1982a.
4-38
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pesticides are used to eliminate noxious or harmful insects and,
consequently, these chemicals are usually harmful to non-target species,
particularly crustaceans which are related to insects (Table 4-9).
Elimination of non-target species has led to the banning of some pestici-
des, such as DDT and mi rex, in recent years. The sublethal effects of
pesticides include elevation of metabolic levels, prevention of matura-
tion or molting, reduced ability to osmoregul ate, reduced ability to
endure temperature and salinity changes, and lethargic behavior (Hart and
Fuller, 1979). All of these sublethal effects reduce the ability to
avoid predation. Pesticides are generally insoluble in water but are
readily adsorbed on particulate matter. Uptake of pesticides by
estuarine organisms may take place by injestion of particulate matter,
from water passing over the gills or by diffusion through the skin or
exoskeleton (Hart and Fuller, 1979). The amount of pesticide and her-
bicide use associated with marinas has not been quantified. Studies per-
formed by USEPA (1975b) of finger-fill canals in the Southeast showed no
significant pesticide accumulation in the sediments.
Other potentially harmful runoff products include sediments,
detergents and excessive nutrients. Sediment runoff leads to increased
turbidity, the effects of which were previously discussed. Detergents,
including oil dispersants, are discussed in Boat Operation and
Maintenance (Section 4.2.6). One result of nutrient or organic enrich-
ment is to increase the productivity of the benthos (Hart and Fuller,
1979) or seagrass beds (Zieman, 1982). With the continued input of
excessive nutrients, however, the number of species and individuals pre-
sent will be reduced. A zone of reduced productivity is then created
near the source of excessive organic enrichment. This zone will grow
larger as input is continued, and the areas closest to the input source
may become devoid of life. This reduces the amount of dissolved oxygen
available for biotic respiration, stimulates algal blooms that can
further reduce the supply of dissolved oxygen, changes the texture of
bottom substrates which may make an area unsuitable for some species and
stimulates the growth of nuisance plants.
Sanitary pollutants can enter marina waters in wastewater directly
discharged as untreated or macerated fecal waste from marine sanitation
devices (MSDs) aboard boats or from improper functioning or poorly
located septic systems that allow sewage effluents to leach into marina
waters. Both of these wastewater sources cause an increase in the
nutrient supply of adjacent waters as well as an increase in chemical
oxygen demand. In addition, local shellfish beds may be affected by the
introduction of disease-causing viral or bacterial organisms (pathogens)
found in sewage. Oysters and other bivalves concentrate enteric bacteria
and viruses from the surrounding water as they feed.
4-39
-------
TABLE 4-9
LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS OF PESTICIDES IN SELECTED MARINE CRUSTACEANS'
Group of organisms
Pesticide
Lethal concentration (ppb)
Commercial shrimp
Chlordane 0.4
DDT 0.1
Dieldrin 0.9
Endrin 0.28
Heptachlor 0.11
Hexachlorobenzene 25.0
Lindane 0.17
Mirex 1.0
Toxaphene , 1.4
Crab larvae
Sevin
Malathion
Malathion
DDT
10.0
17.0 (mud crabs)
50.0 (blue crabs)
0.5
'Hart and Fuller, 1979.
4-40
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Large quantities of raw or improperly treated sewage from inade-
quate or overloaded treatment facilities, seepage from septic tanks and
excessive stormwater runoff enter southeastern estuaries every day.
Marinas and boating activities contribute a relatively small amount to
the total pollutant loads into the waterways compared to other sources.
It is the location of marinas near sensitive areas that increases the
significance of their impact (Ervin et al., 1980). The effect of sewage
on estuarine organisms is dependent upon many factors, such as the amount
and degree of treatment, the location, and the depth, as well as the par-
ticular hydrographic conditions at the point of discharge. Because of
these varying factors, each discharge is relatively unique and should be
considered separately. Some generalities may be made, however. Small
quantities of sewage may be discharged into adjacent waters provided that
water circulation patterns are adequate for dispersal. In such cases,
sewage discharge will have little or no impact on the environment and may
even enhance the bottom-dwelling community in terms of numbers of species
and biomass (Zieman, 1982; Hart and Fuller, 1979). However, a given
locality can assimilate only so much organic matter before the biota
begins to deteriorate (Hart and Fuller, 1979).
Surface runoff may contribute significantly to water quality degra-
dation at marina sites. Surface runoff accounted for the majority of the
contamination during periods of moderate to heavy rainfall at Surf City,
North Carolina (Shiver and Register, 1978; USEPA, 1975b). Surface runoff
also was reported to be a major factor in the closing of shellfish waters
in the vicinity of Hilton Head, South Carolina (USEPA, 1983). Shiver and
Register (1978) and USEPA (1975b) concluded from studies of total and
fecal coliform contamination originating from septic tanks on finger-fill
canals at Surf City, North Carolina that total col i form bacteria and
other pollutants were transported into shellfish waters indirectly by
runoff during periods of significant rainfall and directly through
groundwater. Direct transport accounted for less than 3 MPN/100 ml for
both total and fecal coliform, and indirect transport or surface runoff
of contaminated waters resulted in total coliform ranging from 22,100 to
240,000 MPN/100 ml and fecal coliform from 330 to 13,000 MPN/100 ml in
shellfish waters immediately adjacent to the runoff. Therefore, it was
concluded in these studies that conventional septic tanks appeared to
adequately filter out bacteria from the septic tank leachate under normal
conditions.
Expected pollutant concentrations in marina basins and adjacent
waters can be estimated by evaluating the type and quantity of pollutant
loadings expected and the dilution and transfer of such pollutants by
various flushing mechanisms. For semi-enclosed marinas an appropriate
estimate can be made by using a dilution formula for a conservative or
non-conservative pollutant. Pollutant concentrations for marinas located
on rivers, bays or estuaries also may be estimated by dilution type solu-
tions, but a better estimate may require a more complex dispersion type
solution such as that discussed later in this section.
4-41
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In order to assess the water quality impacts of marina-derived
pollutants on the environment using the methods discussed in this sec-
tion, certain pollutant loading values must be available for use. If
actual values for various loadings are not available, estimations can be
made using Tables 4-10 and 4-11. Assumptions for Table 4-11 are outlined
in Carstea et al. (1975) and summarized as follows:
. Average persons per boat is three
. Average per capita discharges of coliform bacteria and BOD are
2 billion and 75.6 g respectively
. Half of the people on board contribute fecal material in
24-hours
. Coliform bacteria populations do not increase
. A boat in use spends one hour in the marina
. 25 to 40 percent of boats present are in use and evenly
distributed
. An average boat has a 2-cycle 30 hp outboard motor, consumes
4.458 liters of gasoline per hour, operates at 1000 rpm and the
fuel consists of 50:1 gasoline to oil
. Density of waste fuels is 0.7 g/ml.
Mitigative measures to reduce impacts from marina and boat-derived
pollutants are discussed in Sections 5.4 and 5,5.
Dilution Methods
Semi-Enclosed Marinas
Estimates can be made of pollutant concentrations for a non-
continuous addition of pollutant in a semi-enclosed marina basin. In the
following equation, an input of a pollutant over a short period of time,
is treated as if it were discharged all at once.
Ct ={ . —} [- jexp (-kt) + CA exp (-kt)
/AL + bAR - ITC yi / M \
VAH) \FiiVL/
where: C^ = Concentration of pollutant at time t (mg/1)
C. = Ambient concentration of pollutant prior to addition
of discharge (mg/1)
M = Mass of pollutant discharged into basin (mg)
4-42
-------
TABLE 4-10
REPRESENTATIVE CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
FOR URBAN RUNOFF
Parameter Concentration (mg/1)
Suspended solids 227
BOD 17
Nitrogen 3.1
P04 (hydrolyzable) 1.1
Source: Carstea et al., 1975
4-43
-------
TABLE 4-11
ESTIMATED POLLUTANT CONTRIBUTION FROM BOATS
Boats
Total
Boats
Use
in
BOD
(g/hr)
Col i form Bacteria
(billions/hr)
Non-Volatile
Oil (g/hr)
Volatile
Oil (g/hr)
Phenol
(g/hr)
Lead
(g/hr)
1
5
10
20
1
2
3
5
4.54
9.08
13.62
22.70
0.13
0.25
0.38
0.63
66.7
133.5
200.1
333.5
37.8
75.6
113.4
189.0
0.8
1.6
2.4
4.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
2.0
Source: Carstea et al., 1975
4.44
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
• k = Decay rate for non-conservative pollutants (day"1)
t = Time (days)
N = Number of tidal cycles (24t/T )
\*
F^ = 1000 (converts units to mg/1).
All other parameters as previously defined in Equations
(1) and (3).
Representative values for k are provided in Table 4-12.
This formulation includes all of the assumptions presented for
Equation (1). In addition it is assumed that the pollutants remain in
solution and loss to the marina sediments is minimal. The result of
these assumptions is that concentrations obtained would probably exceed
actual concentrations measured. It is also assumed that the pollutant
decay is first order. Values for k are critical for accurate estimates.
Therefore, the k values in Table 4-12 should be used only if actual
values cannot be obtained for the site under consideration. These values
are generally determined empirically and are specific to a temperature of
20°C and the set of physical conditions existing at the time of measure-
ment.
For a continuous discharge of pollutant into the marina basin, a
conservative estimate of long-term concentrations may be obtained by:
(12)
C = T- OA
'm
where: C = ~Concentratio~n of pollutant (mg/1)
Mr = Mass flow rate of pollutant into basin (mg/day)
All other parameters as defined previously in Equations
(3) and (11) g
F12 = 4-17 x 10~ (converts units to mg/1).
This method will give estimated concentrations that are much higher
than actual concentrations because buildup of pollutant through the
entire residence time is assumed. If results using Equation (12) indi-
cate excessive levels of pollutants, a closer approximation may be
obtained by the following:
4-45
-------
TABLE 4-12
REPRESENTATIVE REACTION COEFFICIENTS
Pollutant Typical k Value (day -1)
BOD 0.25
Total Nitrogen 0.1
Total Phosphorus 0.12
Coliform 1.2
*k = decay rate for non-conservative pollutants.
SOURCE: USEPA, 1978
4-46
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(13)
j
t=l
r/ \ 24t / \ 1
/AL + bAR - IT \ T / M \exP(-kt)
1 II 1
I A" ) U'J J
+ CA exp(-kt)
where: j = Tf/24
M = Mass of pollutant discharged in one day (mg)
All other parameters as defined in Equations
(1) and (11)
FH = 1000 (converts units to mg/1).
Equation (13) approximates the continuous dilution of a pollutant
discharged into the marina basin resulting in a lower cumulative con-
centration over the flushing time than would be estimated using Equation
(12). Therefore, if Equation (12) produces results that are acceptable,
such as an indication that the pollutant concentration will be low, the
more complex Equation (13) will be avoided.
Dissolved Oxygen
The discharge of pollutants to the marina basin may impose a
biochemical oxygen demand that can be combined with estimated sediment
oxygen demand to provide an estimate of oxygen depletion in the basin.
This estimate requires a variety of assumptions. The approach to
dissolved oxygen (DO) considerations is to conduct a DO mass balance over
one tidal cycle and determine whether significant DO reduction occurs.
If it does, this would represent a point of concern for planning pur-
poses. The equation to use is as follows:
(14)
-kTCT
BAT
D0
where:
Vl4
DOR = Approximate dissolved oxygen remaining (mg/1)
DO^ = Ambient dissolved oxygen of water flushing into marina (mg/1)
DO^ = Dissolved oxygen level in marina at low tide (mg/1)
V = Tidal prism volume (m )
L; = Flushing time (hours)
4-47
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
V|_ = Volume of marina at low tide (nr)
TC = Tidal cycle (hours)
DOs = Saturated dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/1)
kj = Reaeration coefficient (day"-'-)
Q
B = Sediment oxygen demand (mg/m^/day)
CB = Biochemical oxygen demand mass discharge (mg/day)
A = Surface area of basin (m^)
F14 = 1000 (converts cubic meters to liters).
This equation gives DO conditions at high tide. It assumes'all the oxy-
gen demand is exerted completely within the cycle. To determine sub-
sequent tidal cycle DO values, run the equation again using the new value
of DOR in place of DO,. Initially, the value of DO, is set equal to DOA,
which is assumed constant over the period of analysts. Reaeration due to
mixing, photosynthesis or other sources is not considered. Loss of DO
due to nitrification also is not considered.
Values for "k," should be determined for the specific site con-
sidered. If these Voilues are not available, an approximate solution may
be obtained using k, = o.2 day". Dissolved oxygen concentrations at
saturation can be obtained from Table 4-13 which represent values for
water saturated air at standard pressure. Values for "C " are estimated
by use of Equation (13) with "M" equal to the average daily discharge of
BOD and the value for "k" being the BOD reaction rate given in Table
4-12. The value for "B", the sediment oxygen demand, can be estimated
from Table 4-14.
It is assumed that there is no increase in oxygen levels within the
basin due to biological activity, that dissolved oxygen carried in by
tidal flushing is retained within the basin, and that benthic oxygen
demand is uniform throughout the basin. .
Open Marinas
Pollutant concentrations from marinas located on rivers or
estuaries can be estimated by various estuary or river dilution or
dispersion equations. The fraction of freshwater method discussed pre-
viously for flushing (Section 4.2.1) allows estimation of a conservative
pollutant concentration from a marina located on an estuary. Assuming
that the marina site acts as a point source outfall, the following can be
used to estimate pollutant concentration throughout the estuary (USEPA,
1982):
4-48
-------
TABLE 4-13
SOLUBILITY OF OXYGEN IN WATER
Temp.
in
°C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
•>-»
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Chloride Concentration
0
5,000
10,000
in Water - mg/1
15,000
20,000
Dissolved Oxygen - mg/1
14.60
14.19
13.81
13.44
13.09
12.75
12.43
12.12
11.83
11.55
11.27
11.01
10.76
10.52
10.29
10.07
9.85
9.65
9.45
9.26
9.07
8.90
8.72
8.56
8.40
8.24
8.09
7.95
7.81
7.67
7.54
7.41
7.28
7.16
7.05
6.93
6.82
13.72
13.35
12.99
12.65
12.33
12.02
11.72
11.43
11.16
10.90
10.65
10.40
10.17
9.95
9.73
9.53
9.33
9.14
8.95
8.77
8.60
8.44
8.28
8.12
7.97
7.83
7.69
7.55
7.42
7.30
7.17
7.05
6.94
6.82
6.71
6 61
6.51
12.90
12.56
12.23
11.91
11.61
11.32
11.05
10.78
10.53
10.29
10.05
9.83
9.61
9.41
9.21
9.01
8.83
8.65
8.48
8.32
8.16
8.00
7.85
7.71
7.57
7.44
7.31
7.18
7.06
6.94
6.83
6.71
6.61
6.50
6.40
6.30
6.20
12.13
11.81
11.51
11.22
10.94
10.67
10.41
10.17
9.93
9.71
9.49
9.28
9.08
8.89
8.71
8.53
8.36
8.19
8.03
7.88
7.73
7.59
7.45
7.32
7.19
7.06
6.94
6.83
6.71
6.60
6.49
6.39
6.29
6.19
6.10
6.01
5.92
11.41
11.11
10.83
10.56
10.30
10.05
9.82
9.59
9.37
9.16
8.%
8.77
8.58
8.41
8.24
8.07
7.91
7.78
7.61
7.47
7.33
7.20
707
6.95
6 83
6 71
6 60
6.49
6 38
6 28
6.18
6.08
5.99
5 90
5 81
5.72
5 64
Source: APHA, 1980.
4-49
-------
TABLE 4-14
SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND
Type of Bottom Typical Value (g/m2/day)
Estuarine mud 1.5
Sandy 0.5
Mineral soils 0.07
Source: USEPA, 1978
4-50
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(15)
where:
C
o = Cross-sectional average concentration in the segment
(with the marina at point of discharge (mg/1)
C
d = Concentration of the pollutant down-estuary from the
marina at a distance X (mg/1)
r
u = Concentration of the pollutant up-estuary from the marina
at a distance X (mg/1)
Qp = Mass of pollutant discharged per tidal cycle (mg)
Is = Sum of freshwater discharges into estuary over one
tidal cycle (nr)
S., = Sea water salinity (o/oo)
W
S.. = Salinity in discharge segment (o/oo)
Sx = Salinity in segment at distance X (o/oo).
This method is most appropriate for approximating concentrations of
conservative pollutants. Non-conservative pollutants would exhibit lower
concentrations than would be computed by this method. A dispersion type
equation can provide a more accurate method of predicting pollutant con-
centrations from a marina in an estuary.
Dispersion Methods
Estuaries
A one dimensional dispersion equation can be used to provide esti-
mates of pollutant concentrations without the aid of a computer. Such an
equation is represented as follows (USEPA, 1982):
4-51
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(18) F W
C . -
° A (U2 + 4kE)!/2
A
(19) F18w
U Ax(y2 + 4kE)1/2
exp
exp
u (i
u L
x (
4*
+ Jl +
-
4kE \
"2 ' ".
4kE \
1 X
U2 /
where:
and C are as defined previously
W = Discharge rate of pollutant (mg/day)
Ax = Cross-sectional area of estuary at point X (nr)
U = Freshwater flow velocity near discharge (m/day)
24I
U =
k = Reaction rate coefficient for pollutant (day )
E = Dispersion coefficient (m2/day)
X = Distance from marina (m)
F}g = 1 x 10-3 (converts units to mg/1).
If values for the dispersion coefficient are unknown, they can be esti-
mated by the following:
(20)
E =
2US AX
X+AX
X-AX;
where:
p
E = Dispersion coefficient (nr/day)
U = Freshwater velocity in vicinity of marina (m/day)
S = Tidally and cross-sectionally averaged salinity in
vicinity of marina (o/oo)
AX = Distance up or down estuary from marina at which salinity
measurements are made (m)
X+AX
X-AX
= Salinity at distance AX down the estuary (o/oo)
= Salinity at distance AX up the estuary (o/oo).
4-52
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Use of Equations (18) and (19) requires assumptions that the pollu-
tant decay reaction rate is first order, the cross-sectional area of the
estuary is relatively constant over distance, and the estuary is relati-
vely long and completely mixed. Shorter estuaries will probably not
attain equilibrium required by this method and pollutants would probably
flush out rapidly. For these conditions use of Equations (15), (16) and
(17) would probably be appropriate with the assumption that all pollu-
tants behave conservatively.
Estimations for dissolved oxygen depletion as a result of BOD
imposed from the marina may be obtained as follows (USEPA, 1982):
(21) DOR = DQS - D0d
where:
= Final concentration of dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
DOS = Concentration of dissolved oxygen at saturation (mg/1)
D0
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
where:
Cx = Concentration of pollutant at point X downstream (mg/1 )
W = Discharge rate of pollutant (rag/day)
Q = Volumetric river flow rate (m3/day)
k = Reaction rate coefficient for pollutant (day"1)
XR = Distance downstream (m)
Uv = River velocity (m/hr).
This computation assumes complete mixing from the marina location
downstream, relatively uniform channel widths and depths, first order
decay of pollutant, and relatively constant flow rate.
Estimations of downstream dissolved oxygen concentration as a
result of biochemical oxygen demand imposed by the marina can be computed
as follows:
(24 / -k-X,
DOD = DO -D0n exp
K S A
lR
24UV/ Q(k _k
1 2
where:
-kX
- exp
1AR
24UV/ \ 24U,
WL = Discharge rate of BOD (mg/day)
&OA = Initial dissolved oxygen concentration in the river
(mg/1)
All other parameters are as defined previously.
The reaeration rate, k., for rivers will change along the river
depending upon various river characteristics. However, an estimate of
ki may be obtained by the following equation (O'Conner and Dobbins,
(DLUV)1/2 24
k =
1 H 3/2
where:
kj = Reaeration coefficient (day"1)
DL = Diffusivity of oxygen in water = 7.53 x 10"6 m2/hr at 20°C
Uv = Flow velocity (m/hr)
Hr = Depth of flow (ft).
4-54
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Sanitary Wastes From Boats
One pollutant source of major concern is the discharge of sanitary
wastes from boats in marinas or adjacent waterways. Boat sewage can be
visually repulsive (Chmura and Ross, 1978) and may contribute to
increased biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in receiving waters (OCZM,
1976). BOD is a measure of the dissolved oxygen required to stabilize
the decomposable matter present in a water body by aerobic biochemical
action. When BOD increases, there is a consequent reduction in dissolved
oxygen available for respiration by aquatic organisms. Resulting DO
estimates can be calculated using Equations (23) or (24).
The most serious effect of discharging fresh fecal material is the
potential for introducing disease-causing viruses and bacteria
(pathogens). Problems may occur if boat sewage is released in the vici-
nity of shellfish (clam or oyster) beds or into enclosed waterways with
limited flushing. Shellfish require clean water to be microbiologically
safe for human consumption, regardless of whether they are eaten raw or
partially cooked. Fecal coliform bacteria, other bacterial pathogens,
and viruses found in water and sediments are concentrated by shellfish,
depending upon temperature, density of pathogens, salinity, currents,
depth, water chemistry, and shellfish feeding activity (Van Donsel and
r-^ Geldreich, 1971; Metcalf and Stiles, 1968). Once concentration of patho-
\_, gens has occurred, microorganisms will not necessarily be flushed at the
same rate (Janssen, 1974; Kelly and Arcisy, 1954). Known enteric patho-
gens associated with feces-contaminated shellfish include typhoid fever,
dysentery, gastroenteritis, and infectious hepatitis (NSSP, 1965).
Currently, total and fecal coliform bacteria counts are used as
indicators of fecal contamination because these bacteria are always pre-
sent in the human intestinal tract. An increase in the density of patho-
gens is indicated by higher coliform counts. However, recent
investigations reveal that fecal coliform counts in surface waters do not
reflect the level of viral contamination of shellfish (Ellender et al.,
1980; Sobsey et al ., 1980; Gerba et al ., 1980; Vaughn et al ., 1980).
Viral epidemics attributed to shellfish ingestion most frequently involve
hepatitis virus type A.
Estuarine sediments are being examined for their role in the patho-
genic contamination of shellfish. Studies demonstrate that indicator
bacteria and bacterial pathogens do not survive for extended periods in
estuarine sediments (Chang et al., 1971 and Gerba et al., 1980).
However, indicator bacteria survive longer in seawater to which sediment
has been added than in seawater alone (Ellender and Cook, 1982). Viruses
bind to sediment particles by covalent bonds or electrostatic forces,
apparently increasing the long-term survival of virus in sediment. The
relationships of viruses in shellfish to viruses in estuarine sediments
have yet to be clearly defined.
4-55
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Several studies have reported an increase in col iform counts in
water and shellfish due to the presence of boats. In a brief summer
study, Udell (1956) showed that sampling stations associated with heavy
boat use showed higher levels of fecal contamination than stations out-
side of anchorage areas. Udell (1957-1963) conducted field studies on
several areas subject to boat wastes and concluded that where tidal
exchanges were large, no detectable increases in pollution level attribu-
table to boats were apparent. Further, the degree of pollution in con-
fined coves was directly proportional to the number of boats anchored or
docked. Since the boat population varied, pollution levels were not con-
sistent. Udell further concluded that bacterial densities did not exceed
shellfish classification standards at all times. It should be noted that
this study predated more restrictive Coast Guard standards for marine
sanitation devices.
Watercraft concentrated in marinas or in coves or bays for several
days can have noticeable short-term effects on the number of enteric bac-
teria in the aquatic environment (Furfari and Verber, 1969). During the
summer, the primary source of col iforms in water and shellfish in a Rhode
Island cove was reported to be boat waste. A positive correlation bet-
ween the number of boats in the Rhode River estuary (Chesapeake Bay) and
fecal coliform concentrations has also, been reported by Faust (1982).
The bacteria levels in the water decreased when the boats departed after
a holiday weekend. Faust (1982) recognized that the pollution generated
per boat is dependent on the degree of dilution in moving water. Barbaro
et al. (1969) found that, during the summer boating season on a
Mississippi reservoir, marina waters contained higher coliform counts
than non-marina waters. In another study, it was shown that coliforms in
water and shellfish increased in direct relation to the small boat popu-
lation of a New York estuary on a holiday weekend (Cossin and Frenke,
1971). Mack and D'ltri (1973) found that fecal coliforms increased in
the marina slips used most frequently by yachts. Similarly, an increase
in fecal coliform or fecal streptococci bacteria was found to be asso-
ciated with areas frequented by boaters (Kidd, 1975; Mack, 1971; Bowerman
and Chen, 1971; Seabloom, 1969).
Studies of boat wastes, however, can be confusing and inconclusive
because coliform counts vary with temperature, turbidity, boat densities,
tides, day of the week, season of the year, and the number of persons
aboard each boat (Furfari, 1968; Faust, 1982). Researchers have found
that water quality in some areas is so variable that the effect of pollu-
tion due to concentrated boat use alone cannot be measured (USPHS,
1967a). Sometimes, the background level of coliforms from land-based
sewage is so high that boating-related impacts are masked (Nixon et al.,
1973; Faust, 1982). There is no epidemic!ogical evidence that boat
wastes cause disease. However, raw feces discharged from boats contain
pathogens which, when concentrated by shellfish, might transmit disease
(Furfari, 1968). It is apparent that sewage from vessels may pose loca-
lized environmental problems.
4-56
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Coliform bacteria are commonly used as an index of fecal con-
tamination because they are easily identified and counted. Shellfish
waters historically have been classified on the basis of total coliform
levels such as those promulgated by the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program (NSSP), a division of the U.S. Public Health Service (Table
4-15). The NSSP Manual of Operations (NSSP, 1965) recommends that
shellfish be taken from "approved areas" having median total coliform
counts of less than 70/100 ml. Guidelines specifically related to the
presence of marinas in shellfish grounds are not offered by NSSP.
Because many state shellfish authorities believed that this Manual
of Operations (NSSP, 1965) did not provide sufficient guidance for
classification of shellfish growing waters adjacent to marinas, the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration Division of Shellfish Sanitation promulgated
National Policy Guidelines for use by state shellfish officials (USFDA,
1972). In summary, these guidelines state that:
Boats are a source of fresh fecal pollution which is a hazard
to public health
The "approved area" criterion of median total coliform counts of
70/100 ml does not apply (to marinas) because:
there are unpredictable aspects of boat pollution
the pathogen-to-col iform ratio is different in fresh fecal
material than in municipal sewage from which the 70/100 ml
coliform count criterion was derived
usual sampling techniques for coliforms do not apply to
. fresh fecal material
The NSSP Manual of Operations clearly states that pollution
from boats is a public health problem requiring special con-
sideration for proper classification
Because of the highly variable and unpredictable contribution of
fresh fecal material, it is necessary to close areas subject to
boat pollution in the vicinity of shellfish beds during the
boating season.
The USFDA (1972) went on to reiterate and emphasize the point made
by NSSP (1965) that areas meeting the 70 coliform/100 ml "approved area"
criterion and which were protected against fresh fecal contamination
would not be involved in the spread of disease. Furthermore, the USFDA
was_able to calculate the number of boats (prior to the use of marine
sanitation devices) that could be permitted in an area of given size and
depth while still meeting the less than 70/100-ml-coliform criteria
(Table 4-16). As an example of the impact of fresh fecal material, USFDA
(1972) calculated that, since there is a much higher proportion of patho-
gens in fresh fecal material than there is in municipal sewage (from
4-57
-------
TABLE 4-15
CLASSIFICATION OF SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
PROMULGATED BY NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM3
Area classification
Criteria15
Approved
Conditionally approved
a.
b.
c.
e.
f.
h.
Area not contaminated with fecal
material such that consumption of
shellfish might be hazardous;
Area not contaminated by radionucli-
des or industrial wastes such that
consumption of shellfish might be
hazardous;
Total coliform median MPN does not
exceed 70/100 ml and not more than
10 percent of samples have counts
exceeding 230/100 ml.
Water quality requirements must meet
those for "approved areas" as above;
Operating procedures to develop per-
formance standards by joint action
of all concerned agencies;
Closed safety zone between shellfish
areas and source of pollution;
Boundaries of closed safety zone
marked;
Minimization of chance of failure or
overloading of sewerage systems
through proper design, construction,
maintenance and acceptable perfor-
mance standards;
Mutual understanding of purpose of
conditionally approved status by all
concerned agencies;
Failure to meet performance stan-
dards immediately reported to the
responsible state agency;
Closure of area by the responsible
state agency if failures occur;
4-58
-------
TABLE 4-15
(continued)
CLASSIFICATION OF SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
PROMULGATED BY NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION PROGRAM3
Area classification
Criteria13
Conditionally approved (cont'd) i
k.
Restricted
Prohibited
Responsible state agency conducts at
least two evaluations of area during
harvesting season;
Area reverts to restricted or prohi-
bited classification if it is disco-
vered that failures have not been
reported;
All data on area maintained by the
responsible state agency.
a. Area is contaminated with fecal
material such that consumption of
shellfish may be hazardous;
b. Area is contaminated with
radionuclides or industrial waste
such that consumption of shellfish
may be hazardous;
c. Total col i form median MPN does not
exceed 700/100 ml and not more than
10 percent of samples have counts
exceeding 2300/100 ml.
a. Area is contaminated with
radionuclides or industrial wastes
such that consumption of shellfish
may be hazardous; or, total col i form
median MPN exceeds 700/100 ml and
not more than 10 percent of samples
exceed 2300/100 ml;
b. No market shellfish may be taken
from prohibited areas except after
controlled purification;
c. Coastal areas where sanitary surveys
have not been made are automatically
considered prohibited.
NSSP, 1965.
All criteria are based
laboratory analyses.
on the results of a sanitary survey verified by
4-59
-------
TABLE 4-16
ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF BOATS IN SHELLFISHING AREAS3
Area of marina
in square miles
Depth
feet
Number of
boats
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
5
10
15
20
25
30
40
5
10
15
20
25
30
40
5
10
15
20
25
30
40
5
10
15
20
25
30
40
3
6
9
12
14
17
23
7
14
21
28
36
42
56
14
28
42
56
70
84
112
28
56
84
140
184
224
USFDA, 1972. The "allowable" number of boats is the number of boats
that would yield total coliform counts of 70/100 ml or less. These
data were presented prior to requirements for MSD installation and
assume input of untreated fecal waste by all boats.
4-60
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
which the 70 coliforms/100 ml criterion was derived), a count of 2
coliforms/100 ml derived from fresh fecal material was equivalent to a
count of 70 coliforms/100 ml derived from municipal sewage. From these
calculations, USFDA was able to project the expected concentration of
coliform bacteria from a given number of boats in an area of given size
and depth (Table 4-17). These calculations indicate that, to maintain
the water quality necessary for shellfish to be safely grown, only a few
boats (assuming discharge of untreated, fresh fecal material) can be
allowed in relatively large, deep marinas. However, these calculations
do not take into account the survival time of fecal coli forms or the
influx of fecal coliforms from non-point sources.
In a study of the Rhode River estuary in Chesapeake Bay, it was
estimated that a water volume of 10 to 20 x 104m3 per boat was necessary
to dilute fecal coliform concentration in the water below 14
coliforms/100 ml, the recommended safe level for shellfish harvesting in
the Chesapeake Bay (Faust, 1982). This estimate was based on a fecal
coliform survival time of 12 hours and four people per boat, with each
person producing 2.9 x 10$ fecal coliforms per half day. The estimate
agreed with the 13.7 x W^m? of dilution water per boat reported in an
earlier study in Rhode Island (Furfari, 1968).
The USEPA and the U.S. Coast Guard have promulgated regulations
that require the use of permanently installed marine sanitation devices
(MSDs) on boats having heads. On inland waters, such as lakes, Type III
MSDs, which are holding tanks that prevent discharge of any kind, must be
used. Boats on marine waters may utilize Type I, Type II or Type III
MSDs, which release treated sewage, if the effluent meets certain water
quality specifications (Table 4-18). These specifications exceed the
coliform specifications of the NSSP (1965).
Use of MSDs in the prescribed manner is designed to reduce the
amount of raw fecal matter discharged by boats, but other problems may
arise from their use. Type III MSDs can be too large and cumbersome for
some boats and their use is predicated on the availability of pumpout
facilities at marinas (OCZM, 1976). Pumpout facilities are not common at
southeastern coastal marinas (Table 2-1) and apparently see limited use
from larger boats over 25 feet in length (Rogers and Abbas, 1982). In
addition, the disinfectants used by Type III MSDs, primarily formalin,
can cause marina septic systems to be less efficient and may cause
increased leaching of septic system wastes and their fecal pathogens into
marina waters (OCZM, 1976; Rogers and Abbas, 1982). An alternative to
holding tanks is the use of Type I and II MSDs that release physically
and chemically treated fecal wastes to the water. Boats using Type I and
Type II MSDs ideally restrict their use to well flushed coastal waters
and prohibit sewage discharge in marinas, waters used for water contact
sports and areas from which aquatic organisms are harvested for food
(Boozer, 1979). The proper use and maintenance of these MSDs is
impossible to enforce, however. It is estimated that only 25 percent of
all recreational vessels comply with the federal requirements for MSDs
(USEPA, 1981a).
4-61
-------
TABLE 4-17
CONCENTRATION OF COLIFORM EXPECTED FROM GIVEN
NUMBERS OF BOATS PER 100 mla
Area of marina
in square miles
Depth
feet
Number of boats
10
50
100
200
500
0.1
0.25
0.5
5
10
15
20
25
30
40
5
10
15
20
25
30
40
5
10
15
20
25
30
40
6.3 32
3.1 16
2.1 10
1.6
1.3
1
1
7."8
6.3
5.2
3.9
2.5 12.5
1.3
1
6.3
4.2
3.1
2.5
2.1
1.6
1.3
1
6.3
3.1
2.1
1.6
1.3
1.1
-------
TABLE 4-18
WATER QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS FOR MARINE
SANITATION DEVICE DISCHARGES3
MSD type Coliform count Solids
I <1000/100 ml no visible floating
solids (<10r» of total
suspended solids dis-
charged)
II <200/100 ml <150 mg total sus-
pended solids per
liter of discharge
III None None
aCoast Guard Regulations on Marine Sanitation Devices, as amended
through 3 February 1983.
Represents the arithmetic mean of the fecal coliform bacteria in 38 of
40 samples when tested in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 136.
4-63
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Formalin (diluted formaldehyde solution) and chlorine, two of the
chemical treatments used in MSDs, may harm marine organisms, although
views differ (USEPA, 1981a). Chlorine has been shown to be toxic in the
aquatic environment and oysters in particular are sensitive to chlorine
and chlorine products (Scott and Middaugh, 1978; Scott and Vernberg,
1979). A chlorine level of 0.05 ppm can be fatal to oyster larvae, and
the effective disinfection of sewage wastes requires chlorine levels
greater than 0.05 ppm (Zoellner, 1977). In general, the toxicity of
chlorine compounds is a function of concentration, contact time, and che-
mical form (USEPA, 1981a). Data available on formaldehyde indicate-that
it is degradable and the potential for bioaccumul ation is low. USEPA
(1981a) reports that formalin reacts chemically with sewage from
watercraft and is changed in the process to relatively harmless substan-
ces that are unlikely to cause any significant adverse effects. No data
are available to substantiate a link between chlorine or formalin, when
used specifically as MSD disinfectants, with effects on the environment.
Marina sites in the vicinity of harvestable shellfish beds repre-
sent potential sources for bacterial contamination of the shellfish.
Therefore, issues related to the potential for contraventions of state
water quality standards in waters classified as suitable for shellfish
propagation and harvesting may arise. The following methods available
for predicting impacts from boat wastes may not be conclusive because
coliform counts vary with temperature, turbidity, boat densities, tides,
day of the week, season of the year, and the number of persons aboard
each boat.
Empirical Methods
In addition to the dilution and dispersion methods that can be used
for predicting fecal coliform concentrations that were previously pre-
sented, the contribution of boats to fecal coliform pollution of the
water can be estimated by methods used by FWPCA (1967), USFDA (1972),
Faust (1982), Furfari (1968), and SCDHHS (1982). Many of these studies
were directed toward estimating the number of boats allowable in a
shell fishing area. Although specific bacteriological standards for the
concentration of coliform bacteria in boating waters have not been
established, estimates of the concentration of coliforms may be made
using existing bacteriological criteria for treated wastewater.
Dye Study
The USFDA, National Technical Services Unit (1972) has estimated
the expected concentrations of coliform bacteria from the number of boats
in an area, the population equivalent per boat and the volume of water
available for dilution of discharged fecal material. These estimates
were derived as:
4-64
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(25) MPN/100 ml =
_ GP
F25VL
where: MPN = Most probable number
G = No. of boats
P = 2.5 x 109 coliforms per boat
VL = Volume of water at low tide
F25 = 1 x 104 (converts units to MPN/100 ml).
Table 4-17 showed some representative values derived from these
calculations. The results assume initially coliform-free water and input
of untreated fecal waste from every boat.
The population equivalent (P) used in these calculations was based
on 1.25 people/boat (FWPCA, 1967). This is based on an average of 3.6
people per boat, 5.6 hours per trip. Using 16 man-working hours in a
day, one boat is equivalent to:
3.6 x 5.6
(26) = 1.25 people
16
The contribution of coliforms per person was 2x10 coliforms/day
(Geldreich, 1966). This value is generally accepted by most authorities
(Clark, 1982). Thus:
(27) P = (1.25 people/boat)(2x109 coliforms/person) =
2.5 x 1Q9 coliforms per boat
The estimated numbers of boats allowed are based on the
70 MPN/100 ml "Approved Area" criteria for shellfish waters. However,
for the reasons previously discussed, the USFDA (1972) feels that the
"Approved Area" criterion of 70 Coliform MPN/100 ml does not apply to
sanitary waste from boats.
Similar calculations for the amount of water required to dilute
fecal coliforms to acceptable levels for shellfish waters have been
variable because of the assumptions used. Values reported are:
c -3
. Between 1.0 and 2.0 x 10 m of water per boat to achieve a
concentration of 14 MPN/lOOml (Faust, 1979)
. 1.37 x 105 m3 for "safe levels" (Furfari, 1968)
. 1.4 x 105 m3 for "safe levels" (USFDA, 1972).
Dye studies also may be used to predict coliform concentrations at
proposed marinas. Flows available for dilution of bacteria are calcu-
lated by dividing the area under time-concentration curves by the amount
of dye released. Resulting dilution volumes can be used to estimate the
concentration of coliforms at specified distances from a proposed marina.
4-65
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This technique has been used to estimate the fecal coliform con-
centrations resulting from a proposed marina in South Carolina (SCDHHS,
1982). The assumptions used to predict coliform contribution were:
. 100 boats
. 2 people per boat discharging fecal coliforms over a twelve-hour
period (one every 3.6 minutes)
. 2 x 109 col i forms per person per discharge
. 12 hour time period.
The flow of coliforms was calculated as:
(28) 2.0 x 109 coliforms/person x 200 people fi
12 hrs. x 3,600 seconds/hr.= 9.25x10° coliforms/sec
The concentrations of coliforms at specified distances from the
marina was calculated as:
(29) 9.25 x 106 coliforms/sec.
= col iforms/lOOml
(Flow in nr/sec)F25
Although performing a hydrological survey is expensive, use of the
dye study in conjunction with estimated coliform contribution can provide
more accurate approximations to actual coliform concentrations than the
previously discussed empirical methods.
The volume needed to provide the USFDA's (1972) 1.4 x 105m3 of
water per boat for 100 boats is more than twice the amount of water
required according to results obtained with the dye studies and assump-
tions made (SCDHHS, 1982).
Impact Evaluation
Several methods have been presented for predicting the potential
coliform concentration resulting from sanitary waste discharge in a
marina basin or adjacent waters. Potential impacts to shellfish areas or
water quality can be estimated by comparing results from any of these
methods with the state water quality standards for the classification of
waters in which the marina is located.
Evaluating the level of impact based on results from these predic-
tive methods is complicated by the assumptions required. The only
variable with a widely accepted value is the 2 x 10 coliforms per per-
son. Choice of values for the remaining required parameters can signifi-
cantly affect the estimates of coliform concentrations obtained.
Complicating these assumptions are the following unpredictable aspects of
boat or vessel pollution (USFDA, 1972):
4-66
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
. Variable population
. Mobility
. Intermittent pollution contribution
. Varying modes of treatment ranging from none to holding tanks
. Treatment devices with varying ranges of efficiency which have
not been proven or generally accepted
. The epidemiological background of a transitory population
contributing fresh fecal pollution is not well defined.
4.2.6 Boat Operation and Maintenance
Many of the water quality impacts of boat operation and maintenance
on the environment are subtle and most have not received the scientific
attention required to assess them. In addition to sanitary waste
discharges, other pollutants include outboard exhaust and other engine
pollutants, lead, copper and detergents. The impacts associated with
these pollutants range from acute toxicity to slight perturbations.
Pollutants from Boat Operation
Motorized boats are propelled by inboard, outboard, or
inboard/outboard engines. This discussion centers on outboard motors
since the majority (over 75 percent) of motors used by recreational
boaters are of the outboard type (NMMA, 1983), and because most research
on the environmental effects of boat motors has centered on outboards
(Chmura and Ross, 1978).
Two-cycle engines (outboards) are less efficient than four-cycle
engines (inboards and inboard/outboard). Unlike four-cycle engines, fuel
intake and exhaust are accomplished in the same stroke in two-cycle en-
gines. Unburned fuel can be released with exhaust gases as a result of
this combination of strokes. Although a deflector is often constructed
on the piston to help prevent the incoming fuel-air mixture from passing
across the cylinder and out the exhaust manifold, unburned fuel is still
discharged with the exhaust gases, decreasing efficiency and adding
pollutants to the water (Jackivicr and Kuzminski, 1973).
Pollutants can result from the manner in which two-cycle engines are
lubricated. Lubricants cannot be used directly in the crankcase of a
two-cycle engine because the crankcase must be airtight to force the
fuel-air mixture into the cylinder during the downward power stroke of
the piston. Thus, oil must be mixed with the fuel to reach and lubricate
internal engine parts. In pre-1972 outboards, excess oil that accumu-
lated in the. engine was discharged directly into the water through a
valve in the Crankcase. Starting in 1972, outboards were equipped with
drainage recycling ("scavenger") devices to recycle this excess oil back
4-67
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
into the fuel system. The amount of oil discharged into the water is
significantly reduced with these newer outboard motors. These outboards
can discharge an estimated average of 10 to 20 percent (Muratori, 1968).
Beginning in 1984 some larger horsepower outboard motors incorporated
more sophisticated lubrication systems in which the fuel-to-oil mixture
ratio is varied to match the operating speed of the motor. This arrange-
ment is designed for more efficient motor operation and reduction of oil
consumption. A reduction of unburned oil discharges may also result from
this system.
The quantity of substances discharged into the water varies with
features of the motor, such as size, deflector design, intake and exhaust
design, and recycling apparatus, and with operating variables, including
gasoline-oil fuel ratio, speed of operation and tuning of the engine
(Jackivicz and Kuzminski, 1973). Depending on these variables, a maximum
of 55 percent of the original fuel can be discharged into receiving
waters (Jackivicz and Kuzminski, 1973).
The major components discharged during outboard operation are carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, and lead. A USEPA (1974a) study
identified the following components and concentrations in outboard motor
exhaust from motors with and without drainage recycling devices and of
varied horsepowers:
Carbon monoxide in emissions ranged from 4.5 percent at 1000
rpm to 6.5 percent at 5000 rpm
Carbon dioxide ranged from 5.4 percent at 1000 rpm to 7.5 per-
cent at 4000 rpm
Hydrocarbon concentration ranged from 7.75 parts per thousand
(ppt n-hexane) at 1000 rpm to a low of 4.5 ppt at 4000 rpm
Lead varied from 1.84 percent to 12 percent of the lead in the
fuel (Kuzminski and Mulcahy, 1974).
The hydrocarbons in exhaust gases were composed of 20-30 percent
olefins, 20-30 percent aromatics and approximately 50 percent paraffins
(USEPA, 1974a). Hydrocarbons also can be released with bilge water that
is drained or pumped from boats. Pollution from bilge pumping is nor-
mally a problem in major shipping areas and is cumulative. Hydrocarbons
may be introduced into the aquatic system by spillages at docks and
fueling areas.
Once exhausts are released into the water, some of the hydrocarbons
become suspended in the water column while others evaporate at the sur-
face (Kuzminski et al., 1973). Some of the carbon oxides may dissolve in
the water, depending on solubility (primarily temperature related),
although most will dissipate into the atmosphere. Kuzminski and Mulcahy
(1974) report that lead emission is dependent on the speed of operation
and prior operational history of the motor. Almost all of the lead that
4-68
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
is discharged eventually reaches bottom sediments (Kuzminski and Mulcahy,
1974). However, unleaded fuel can be used in most modern outboard
motors.
Pollutants from Boat Maintenance
Other sources of pollutants are derived from boat maintenance acti-
vities,' including fiberglass repair, washing, sanding and painting.
Detergents are introduced to the water when boats are washed. Sanding
and painting boats add toxic materials to the aquatic environment from
anti foul ing paints. Anti foul ing paints are also used on floats and buoys
within a marina. Although once a problem, major brands of anti foul ing
paints currently in use do not contain significant amounts of PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls). Young et al. (1974) found that only 7 of
the 28 paints commonly used yielded detectable PCB levels; of these,
median concentrations were less than 0.7 mg/1 and the maximum con-
centration measured was 40 mg/1. Copper, on the other hand, is a heavy
metal commonly used in antifouling paints. Young et al. (1974) esti-
mated a median copper concentration of 600 mg/1 in paints tested.
However, copper contamination is typically not a problem when marinas are
well flushed (Boozer, 1979).
4.3 Ecological Impacts
4.3.1 Aquatic Habitat Resources
Marinas are usually located in estuaries which are among the most
diverse of all habitats. As such, they contain many plant and animal
communities that are of economic, recreational, ecological or aesthetic
value. These communities are frequently sensitive to habitat alteration
that can result from marina development and operation.
Pollutant Impacts
Research is lacking concerning the chronic effects of low level
pollutant discharges into coastal water systems. The principles gained
from northern studies, freshwater studies, and laboratory studies may not
always be applicable to southeastern and Gulf coast nearshore waters.
Most studies concerning the effects of hydrocarbons on marine fauna have
been after major oil spills, where the amount of hydrocarbon pollutants
is considerably greater than would occur from outboard exhausts. These
studies (included in Hart and Fuller, 1979) showed that the areas of con-
cern regarding oil pollution were direct lethal toxicity, sublethal
disruption of physiological or behavioral responses (of which extremely
little is known), persistence and accumulation of oil in invertebrates
that is passed up the food web chain, destruction of habitat, and damage
to fishery resources through, tainted shellfish or finfish meat (Moore and
Dwyer, 1974; Dawson, 1979; Williams and Duke, 1979).
4-69
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Outboard motors and petroleum spillages are definitely sources of
petroleum hydrocarbons in marinas; however, there is dispute concerning
their level of importance. The United Nations (1982a) has reported esti-
mated concentrations of soluble aromatic fractions of oil which are toxic
to marine organisms (Table 4-8). Some reviewers consider their
occurrence more problematic than real based on the reported low incidence
of oil spills in marinas (Cardwell et al., 1980), the low solubility of
petroleum (particularly in quiet waters) and the relatively low acute
toxicity of low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons to many species of
marine organisms.
Laboratory test results have shown toxicity to be associated with
outboard motor exhaust. However, these tests were conducted at higher
concentrations than would be expected under actual field conditions.
Nixon, et al. (1973) subjected various estuarine organisms to con-
centrations of up to 75 percent exhaust water. Grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes pugio) survived for at least several hours in con-
centrations of 50 percent exhaust water under aerated conditions, whereas
a 50 percent concentration killed mixed zooplankton in two hours. The
mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), a small forage fish, showed 100 per-
cent survival over 24 hours in concentrations of at least as high as 10
percent exhaust water. Half of the isopods (Idotea baltica, a small
crustacean), died in less than one hour at 75 percent exhaust water; the
50 percent mortality time was 47 hours at 10 percent exhaust water.
Field studies, reported by Clark et al. (1974), suggest that small
amounts of petroleum, including outboard motor wastes, may adversely
affect mussels and oysters. They found that mussels (Mytilus edulis)
were more sensitive to two-cycle outboard motor effluent than oysters
(Ostua lurida), and that cumulative mortality in mussels after 10 days
was 66 percent compared with 14 percent for oysters. Oysters can close
their shells for long periods of time, thereby excluding pollutants.
Mussels, however, may not be able to prevent pollutants from entering the
byssal opening. Histological examination revealed that mussel gill
tissue damage occurred within the first 24 hours of exposure. Oysters
were not affected during the first 24 hours of exposure, but chronic
exposure could be deleterious.
Field and laboratory bioassay studies have also shown that lighter
petroleum products, such as diesel oil, are taken up by mussels more
readily than crude oils and heavy, more viscous products (Clark et al.,
1974). Under controlled conditions mussels will retain lighter petroleum
products up to five weeks after the pollutant is removed. Sensitivity to
petroleum products may thus be highly dependent upon the characteristics
of the affected organisms as well as upon the physical properties of the
hydrocarbon pollutant (Chmura and Ross, 1978; Clark et al., 1974).
Boats also may introduce heavy metals into the aquatic environment.
The major source of lead in the environment, for example, is the com-
bustion of leaded gasoline (88 percent: May and McKinney, 1981). Lead
enters the aquatic environment in surface emissions, atmospheric fallout
4-70
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
and surface runoff, as well as through subsurface outboard motor exhaust.
Lead is very toxic to most plants and is moderately toxic to mammals,
where it acts as a cumulative poison (Bowen, 1966). The aquatic
organisms most sensitive to this metal are fish (Mathis and Kevern,
1975). Toxicity and bioaccumulation concentration factors of lead and
other heavy metals in marina organisms have been documented (Table 4-7;
United Nations, 1982a). The toxicity of lead in water is affected by pH,
hardness, organic materials and the presence of other metals. Because of
these variables, there are few data from which to draw conclusions about
the relationship of safe versus toxic levels for any given species
(USEPA, 1976). USEPA (1976) has determined that data are insufficient to
base a marine criterion. Some states in the study area have stringent
guidelines.
Data are insufficient to derive satisfactory criteria levels for
copper (USEPA, 1976). Copper is distributed through the environment
along several pathways, many of which make the element unavailable to
aquatic organisms. Copper is available and toxic to marine organisms
only when it is in its cupric form (Cu++) and if it occurs in sufficient
amounts (Cardwell et al., 1980).
Nixon et al. (1973) found that copper concentrations were signifi-
cantly higher in the attached benthic algae, fouling communities, and
sediments at a marina than in a nearby marsh. Yet copper enrichment was
not found in higher tropic levels such as fish or shrimp. Young and
Hessen (1974) and Young et al. (1975) found that mussels taken from boat
harbors had significantly higher copper concentrations. Little is known
about copper transfer through food chains or long-range impact (Chmura
and Ross, 1978). The increase in copper concentration is dependent on
the flushing characteristics of a marina, and only poorly flushed marinas
will cause leaching to be a problem (Ervin et al., 1980).
Under normal outboard motor use, Kuzminski and Fredette (1974) found
that exhaust concentrations did not inhibit the growth of two species of
freshwater algae (Selenastrum capricornutum and Anabaena flosaquae). A
USEPA (1974a) study found that there was no significant difference be-
tween diatom communities, plankton communities, or organic production in
freshwater control ponds compared with ponds subjected to outboard motor
use. Both the USEPA (1974a) study and a study by Jackivicz and Kuzminski
(1973) on a Florida lake concluded that outboard motor emissions under
normal field conditions do not significantly affect freshwater aquatic
systems or seriously degrade water quality. Similar results for
estuarine or salt water aquatic systems have not been substantiated.
Field and laboratory studies show conflicting results regarding the
quantity of hydrocarbons necessary to impart noticeable tastes in fish
(Chmura and Ross, 1978). The 1974(a) USEPA study reported that con-
centrations up to 110 ppm of fuel and water could be used before any
alteration in the taste of fish was demonstrated. Another study esti-
mated that the threshold for tainting fish flesh (from fish caught in
ponds) was eight ppm (English et al., 1963). Results of studies by Kempf
4-71
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(1967) showed an increase in objectionable tastes in carp with continuing
exposure to outboard motor effluent water and a loss of taste when the
carp were transferred from the effluent treated water. It is difficult
to relate the results of these studies to coastal marinas since they
rarely possess steady state conditions.
Ecological impacts also include an undesirable smell of gasoline and
oil noticeable in fish and water supplies. Kuzminski et al. (1974) found
that the odor threshold occurred at fuel concentrations less than 0.3
ppm. This is similar to the range of 0.5 to 1.5 ppm reported by English
et al. (1963).
Marine organisms also are affected by detergents from boat washing
and clothes washing either aboard boats or at marina shore facilities.
Detergents introduced to the water can cause increased nutrient levels
that contribute to plankton blooms and decreased dissolved oxygen con-
centrations. Detergents cause the most problems in marinas with limited
tidal flushing, particularly if nutrients are also being added to the
marina waters from other sources such as inadequate sewage disposal faci-
lities. Detergents, including oil dispersants, may be divided into two
categories: water-based compounds, which are highly toxic to fish and
shellfish but not to crustaceans, and solvent-based compounds for which
the reverse is true. This phenomenon is explained by the fact that fish
and shellfish have gills that require contact with water while crusta-
ceans have a waxy covering on their gills that is eroded by the solvent
base. Detergent concentrations above 10 ppm are acutely toxic to shrimp
and crab larvae and sublethal effects have been observed in the 0.1 to
1.0 ppm range (Hart and Fuller, 1979). Solvent-based detergent con-
centrations between 1.0 and 2.5 ppm are toxic to isopods, while worms
show a high incidence (up to 16.3 percent) of abnormal larvae in the pre-
sence of detergents (Hart and Fuller, 1979).
Litter is a form of pollution associated with increased boating
activity that has an aesthetic as well as an ecological impact. During
the peak boating season, approximately one-half to one cubic yard of
uncompacted garbage per day can be expected for every 100 boats in a
marina (01 sen and Burd, 1982). Plastics are the chief concern. To date,
15 percent of the world's 280 species of sea birds are known to have
ingested plastic (Wehle and Coleman, 1983). Plastic has been found in
the stomachs of four of the seven species of marine turtles, in at least
eight species of fish, in marine mammals including whales, dolphins, and
manatees, and in invertebrates. The reason for ingestion of plastic
items appears to be related to their similarity in color, size, and shape
to natural prey. For example, transparent polyethylene bags evoke the
same feeding response in sea turtles as do jellyfish, the major food of
leatherback turtles and a secondary food source for green, loggerhead,
and other sea turtles (Wehle and Coleman, 1983). In some cases, ingested
plastic causes intestinal blockage. It may also reduce animal hunger
sensations and thus inhibit feeding, cause stomach and intestinal ulcera-
tions and damage to other anatomical structures, and contribute synthetic
chemicals to body tissues causing eggshell thinning, aberrant behavior,
4-72
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
or tissue damage. Wildlife also may become entangled in plastic. Lost
or discarded fish netting, monofilament line, and plastic beverage yokes
are materials that may lead to strangulation, drowning or starvation.
Waterborne trash can also affect sensitive mangroves by covering,
breaking off, or uprooting seedlings.
Sanitary Wastes from Shoreside Facilities
Much of the coastal development associated with new marinas may
occur in localities that are not served by municipal waste collection and
treatment systems. As a result, septic tank disposal systems are the
predominant type of waste treatment used. A septic tank removes solids,
decomposes wastes biologically (anaerobically), and stores scum and
sludge (USPHS, 1967b). The efficiency and effectiveness of a tank system
is governed by the soil sorption system of a site (Polkowski and Boyle,
1970; Patterson et al., 1971; Bender, 1971). Treatment effectiveness is
dependent upon geographical characteristics of the surrounding area, soil
permeability, soil depth, groundwater level, slope of the ground surface,
proximity to surface waters and presence of fractured geologic strata
(Polkowski and Boyle, 1970; Patterson et al., 1971; Bender, 1971;
Kingston, 1943; Leopold, 1968).
Failures of septic tank systems are generally due to overloading,
characteristics of the soil (either impervious or too pervious soils) or
high groundwater levels which prevent proper system functioning (USEPA,
1975b). Any sewage that leaches into marina waters from malfunctioning
(poorly designed, sited or maintained) septic systems contributes to the
overall col iform bacteria levels of marina waters. The effects of
leached fecal contamination are the same as those previously cited for
sewage pollution from boats. Additionally, excessive septic tank
Teachings can cause nuisance plant growth, algal blooms, the creation of
anoxic zones in areas with poor hydraulic flushing characteristics, fecal
contamination of groundwater, and the presence of offensive odors
resulting from organic decomposition (USEPA, 1975b).
Under ideal soil and hydrological conditions, percolation of sewage
through several feet of fine saturated soil will effectively remove
pathogenic viruses and bacteria (Butler et al., 1954; Robeck et al.,
1963). Soil characteristics, area hydrology and rate of sewage input all
play important roles in the filtering capabilities of the soil; the
amount of soil needed for proper filtering may vary. Soil charac-
teristics may also affect the rate and distance of travel of bacteria
through the soil. Bacteria can travel from 10 to 2000 feet; the most
common distances reported are 10 to 400 feet (Polkowski and Boyle, 1970;
Butler et al., 1954). The rate of chemical transfer through soil is even
greater (Butler et al., 1954; Mailman and Mack, 1961). Some enteric
viruses in surface waters may take as long as 100 days for inactivation
of 99.9 percent of their viral infectivity (USEPA, 1975b). Estimates of
the enteric virus content of polluted waters range from 0.15 to 1.5 per
100 ml of water (Clarke et al., 1964); however, these low densities are
significant in view of reports that as few as one infective tissue dose
4-73
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
may be enough to cause infection (Mechalas et al., 1972; EPA, 1976).
Shellfish tend to concentrate enteric pathogens, thereby prolonging their
infectivity.
Very few studies of septic systems specifically located at marinas
have been conducted. One study (Mack and D'ltri, 1973) concluded that a
damaged septic system, along with the raw sewage discharged by boats into
a Michigan marina, were responsible for coliform counts being higher at
slips most frequently used by boats than at sites remote from the marina.
Studies conducted by USEPA (1975b) have shown that septic systems located
50 feet from finger-fill canals transmitted leachates into canal waters
in 25 hours at Punta Gorda, Florida and in 4 hours and 60 hours in stu-
dies at Atlantic Beach, North Carolina. These areas, which were mostly
fill material, had poor soil percolation characteristics. Most Region IV
states require drainfields to be at least 50 feet away from surface
waters. USEPA (19755) has recommended that drainage fields be a minimum
of 100 feet away from a body of surface water and three to four feet
above the saturated soil zone at the wettest time of the year. Leopold
(1968) also stated that a setback of at least 100 feet is required for
effective cleansing in areas such as coastal soils where groundwater is
subject to exchange with surface waters and that, in general, no seepage
field should be located closer than 300 feet to a channel or watercourse.
Water quality assessment methods that may be used to predict impacts
to shellfish and other aquatic organisms from sedimentation, dredging
activities and pollutant loading are detailed in Section 4.2. Monitoring
shellfish, grassbed, benthic, and nursery habitats may involve sample
collections at regular intervals over periods of time (up to two years in
many cases), normally in concert with water quality monitoring. Most of
these measurement methods (outlined in Appendix A) are labor intensive or
require sophisticated analytical apparatus. Mitigative measures for
aquatic habitat resources are described in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.2.
Impacts of Boat Operation
Boat operation affects the environment by creating wakes and tur-
bulence and by directly contacting flora and fauna, particularly with
propel!ors. Boat wakes can contribute to shoreline erosion in some loca-
tions. An important factor in mangrove establishment and survival, for
example, is wave energy from natural waves, currents, and boat wakes at
the shoreline. Teas (1980) reports wave action can wash out well-
established mangroves. Red mangrove seedlings planted on the east coast
of Florida showed a greater survival rate in low energy sites than in
areas subjected to waves from boat traffic (Teas, 1980). The degree of
impact from boat wakes depends on shoreline soils, topographic con-
ditions, vegetation characteristics, and exposure to natural wave action.
Studies conducted in Anne Arundel County, Maryland to evaluate the
impact of boat wakes on shoreline revealed that the majority of shoreline
erosion measured was caused by storms and normal wave action (Zabawa and
Ostrom, 1980). Boat wake energy measured at five sites varied between
4-74 '
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
0.5 percent and 9.5 percent of the total wind wave energy over a one-year
period. Shoreline erosion was attributed to boat wakes at only one of
five sites. The type of shoreline most susceptible to erosion has a com-
bination of the following characteristics (Zabawa and Ostrom, 1980):
Exposed point of land in a narrow creek or cove
Shoreline segment consisting of easily erodable material (i.e.,
sand or gravel)
Steep nearshore gradient on the shoreline profile
Location adjacent to a high rate of boating, with boat passage
relatively close (two or three hundred feet) to the shoreline.
Wave action also can disturb shellfish such as oyster beds with
newly attached spat and can damage fragile shells of the spat, as well as
the adult oysters. Boat wake action that increases the energy imparted
to the shoreline can result in removal of the fine-grained substrate
suitable for oyster habitat (Marshall, 1984). Godwin (1977), who per-
formed a survey of closed shellfish waters in the Intracoastal Waterway
and in Brunswick County, North Carolina, found that wake turbulence from
vessel traffic was a limiting factor in oyster production. Natural
oyster production was low because of wakes created by vessels, lack of
oyster cultch material , and soft bottom sediments in the adjacent marsh
areas. Breaking waves caused by boat passage were reported to cause the
short-term loading of suspended material to increase two orders of magni-
tude above that of the ambient level at nearshore sites in Anne Arundel
County, Maryland (Zabawa and Ostrom, 1980). The increased amount of
suspended sediment was attributed to either the bottom sediments in the
nearshore, or from the bank scarp within the range of the boat wake's
path. Values for total wind and boat-wake energies can be estimated.
However, a complete portrayal of the wave energy at a site would require
continuous measurement of the waves. The principal steps involved in the
calculation of boat-wake energy are (Zabawa and Ostrom, 1980):
1) Develop for each site the regression relationship between hourly
boating frequency and total boat-wake energy per hour. This
relationship allows the simple estimation of hourly wake energy
from the hourly boating frequency
2) Establish the duration of the boating season
3) Establish the average hourly boating frequency for both weekdays
and weekends at each site
4) For the purposes of computation, the period of boating activity
each day may be estimated as 8 hours
5) Following steps (1) through (4), the wave energy due to boat
wakes can then be calculated on a monthly basis.
4-75
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Lagler et al. (1950) found in experimental pond studies that,
although a considerable amount of bottom material was moved by outboard
motors in waters less than 30 inches deep, the turbidity was not
measurably increased. Lagler et al. (1950) noted that the ponds had
muddy bottoms and that turbidity caused by motor operation may be greater
where bottom soils are dominantly clay. Beds of aquatic vegetation can
minimize the turbulence effects of propeller wash. However, motor boat
usage was found to destroy rooted aquatic vegetation in motor paths where
the propeller was within 12 inches of the bottom. Lagler et al. (1950)
also showed that the number and volume of bottom organisms was substan-
tially reduced in shallow boat paths. This reduction may be due to a
variety of reasons, including organisms being washed out of the boat path
or tossed into the water column where they were consumed by fish, or
destruction by the engine itself.
One of the most serious impacts of boat motors on flora and fauna is
direct contact of boats and propellers with the bottom or with animals in
the water column. Zieman (1982) stated that the most common form of
seagrass bed disturbance in south Florida is cuts from boat propellers.
Although it would seem that these small cuts would heal rapidly, Fuss and
Kelly (1969) found that 10 months were required for turtle grass (the
spatially dominant south Florida species) to show new shoot development.
Two to five years were typically required to recolonize a turtle grass
bed (Zieman, 1976). Seagrass disturbances in some regions become per-
manent features. Turtle grass (Thallasia testudinum) has failed to reco-
lonize in many areas in south Florida and the Caribbean even 50 years
after its removal. Although scarred areas rapidly fill in with sediment
from the surrounding seagrass beds, there is less fine sediment, reduced
pH and reduced oxidation-reduction potential in bottom sediments below
boat tracks.
Another form of impact occurs when coral is overturned or otherwise
physically disrupted. This type of damage is geographically restricted
in USEPA Region IV to the Florida Keys, where corals occur. It usually
results from careless anchoring, rather than direct contact with boats or
motors (Tilmant, 1981). The construction of marinas may make sensitive
sites such as seagrass beds and coral reefs more accessible to the
public, thereby increasing the possibility of impact.
The largest single mortality factor for manatees, an endangered mam-
mal , is collision with boats and barges. Scars and deformities from
being run over by boats are so common and distinctive on manatees that
they are used in surveys for recognition of individuals (Brownell, 1980).
Manatees may dive to avoid boats if the water is deep enough and the boat
is moving slow enough to provide sufficient warning. However, manatees
do not necessarily avoid areas with heavy boat traffic (Packard, 1981)
and may even become accustomed to the sound of boats (Reynolds, 1981).
Sea turtles also are subject to collision with boats. In the
summer, turtles congregate near nesting beaches and during nesting inter-
vals these animals may be found either along shore in the ocean or in the
4-76
-------
. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
lagoons and estuaries behind the barrier islands (Hopkins and Murphy,
1981; Stoneburner, 1982). It is primarily during the summer nesting
period that impact from motor boats occurs.
4.3.2 Terrestrial Habitat
Marina construction may impact terrestrial habitats through
grading, clearing and filling of marina areas during construction. The
extent of impact is directly related to the size of the area altered.
The primary impact from marina construction is the actual physical re-
placement of terrestrial habitats such as forests and grasslands.
Habitat loss can be predicted once marina design, location and size are
determined as discussed in Section 3.4.1.
Impacts on adjacent terrestrial habitat can result from upland
dredged material disposal and the operational noise and general activity
at the marina. Impacts to adjacent protected areas or wildlife manage-
ment areas depend on the proximity of such areas to the marina site, the
organisms present, the schedule for construction and type of construction
and boating activities.
Heavy construction equipment and support vessels produce noise.
Noise levels from construction of rip-rap revetments, for example
(dBA=decibels adjusted to the A-scale compatible with human hearing capa-
bilities), would affect an area of about 100 feet and may disrupt local
waterfowl (Mulvihill et al., 1980). Pile driving (101 dBA at 50 feet:
Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., 1971) for docks and piers can tem-
porarily affect terrestrial organisms and vibration-sensitive marine
organisms.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1978b)
indicated in a draft EIS that proposed dredging of the inland Theodore
Ship Canal in Mobile, Alabama was expected to produce 85 dBA at 100 feet.
Noise sources for the "improvement and extension" of the channel were
listed as a 27-inch hydraulic dredge, pump, and tug boat. Since tug
boats are often needed to assist dredges or spoil barges, Table 4-19
(excerpted: USEPA, 1978b) is presented to provide additional noise data
produced by various tugs/barges. For reference, the average noise level
emanating from motorboats at 50 feet is 80 dBA (Berkau, 1975). Table
4-20 (excerpted: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., 1971) provides noise
level data for construction equipment that may be used in marina
construction. Ambient (background) noise levels are important in the
assessment of noise impacts since noise in quiet undisturbed areas would
have more of an effect than would noise in industrialized coastal areas.
Ambient noise levels measured at a shoreline on Dauphin Island, Alabama
with light breaking waves, for example, were 55 to 65 dBA (Coastal
Ecosystems Management, Inc., 1974). These noise levels, over a 24-hour
period, would become 58 to 71 dB (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1982).
Values expected in Mobile Bay were as low as 30 dB during "extremely
calm" weather and 55 dB during a "moderate breeze" (USACoE, 1982). The
USEPA (1978a) recommends an outdoor day/night level (Ldn) of 70 dBA for
4-77
-------
TABLE 4-19
NOISE LEVELS OF TUG BOATS AND ASSOCIATED BARGES
AT 100 FEET FROM CHANNELS
Tug/barge
•in
Noise levels (dBA)
ISO.
•gn
Tug alone 49
Large tug with 4 loaded 56
barges
Small tug with 2 loaded 56
barges
Small tug with empty 55
barges
Large tug pushing barge 64
at dock area
47
55
54
51
62
42
54
51
51
58
aUSEPA, 1978b.
NOTE: L (L,n» L5Q, LqQ) indicates the noise level that is exceeded x
percent of the time (USEPA, 1978a).
4-78
-------
• TABLE 4-20
NOISE LEVELS EMITTED FROM CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT AT 50 FEETa
Equipment Noise level (dBA)
Earthmoving
front loader 79
backhoes 85
dozers 80
tractors 80
scrapers 88
graders 85
truck 91
paver 89
Materials Handling
concrete mixer 85
concrete pump 82
crane 83
derrick 88
Stationary
pumps 76
generators 78
compressors 81
Impact
pile drivers 101
jack hammers 88
rock drills 98
pneumatic tools 86
Other
saws 78
vibrator 76
Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., 1971.
4-79
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
commercial/industrial land use and 55 dBA for residential/institutional
areas. However, since over 40 percent of the U.S. population is exposed
to noise emissions over 55 dBA, an interim value of 65 dBA has been
established for residential/institutional areas (USACOE, 1980).
Noise emissions from tug boats and dredging activities would not be
appreciably attenuated over open estuarine waters, as opposed to vege-
tated wetlands, since no vegetation or physical barrier would buffer,
reflect, or muffle the noise (USEPA, 1978b). The attenuation distance
would also vary with weather conditions. Atmospheric inversions could,
for example, increase the propagation of sound considerably, particularly
over open water, while rainfall, which produces its own noise, would tend
to dampen other sounds.
Boating can be detrimental to wildlife populations if boaters
intrude into otherwise secluded habitats. Noise levels from outboard
motors have been reported to reach 80 decibels at 50 feet (Wurzback and
Lampheer, 1973). Batten (1977) stated that several species of waterfowl
no longer used a reservoir because of increased boat activity. Harris
and Matteson (1975) reported that nesting success in gull and tern colo-
nies was probably reduced by boaters passing or visiting normally
secluded colonies on Lake Superior. In the southeastern United States,
this type of impact can be especially significant because several bird
species potentially affected are designated as rare or endangered. These
include the brown pelican, bald eagle, wood stork, least tern, and
several others (USFWS, 1977). The effect of noise on wildlife and other
animals has been reviewed by the USEPA (1973b). Effects categories
involved hearing acuity, masking of auditory signals, behavioral changes,
and physiological stress responses. In general, noise can reduce
wildlife hearing sensitivity; mask social signals; induce panicking,
crowding, and aversive behavior; disrupt breeding and nesting habitats
and possibly migration patterns; and change blood pressure/chemistry,
hormones, and reproductivity. Some animals have been able to adapt to
noise sources and to differentiate dangerous ones from others.
Measurement methods for assessing terrestrial impacts are presented
in Appendix A. Many sampling techniques will allow inferences of the
area! extent of impact from marina development if monitoring is required.
Mitigative measures (Section 5.4.2 and 5.5.2) may be proposed based on
the results of impact assessment.
4.3.3 Wetland Habitat
One of the most ecologically important estuarine habitats that may
be impacted by marina construction and operation are wetland habitats,
specifically salt marshes. Because of their importance, destruction or
modification of wetlands for marina development is generally unaccep-
table.
4-80
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Saltwater wetlands include the coastal area between the mean low
tide mark and the normal high storm water line. Wetlands include the
tideflats, vegetated tidelands (salt marshes and mangrove swamps), and
wetland areas between the tidelands and the floodplains. This general
definition is similar to that reported in Clark (1974), although somewhat
more inclusive. Wetlands have also been classified by the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al.,
1979).
The importance of wetlands and the concept of interrelationships in
ecosystems has been reviewed in Odum (1971), Clark (1974), and others.
In principle, wetlands are vital areas that serve as a buffer between the
estuary and developed upland areas. Drainage from the uplands is there-
fore cleansed by marsh and mangrove vegetation. According to Clark
(1974), a 1,000-acre marsh may be able to filter the nitrogenous wastes
of some 20,000 people. Wetlands also slow the drainage from uplands for
natural flood control. Salt marshes, such as those in Georgia and South
Carolina, and mangrove swamps, found in south Florida, fill an important
role in collecting, assimilating, storing, and supplying nutrients to the
wetland and contiguous estuary. Nutrients are available in the form of
degraded plant material (detritus) and minerals which are important to
the food web which microorganisms, plankton, fishes, and man depend.
According to Clark (1974), approximately half of the plant material pro-
duced by grass marshes and mangrove swamps is flushed to the estuary
where it supports the many estuarine inhabitants. In addition to food,
wetlands provide habitat, predator protection (cover), and nursery areas
for invertebrates, fishes, and various local or migratory birds. These
concepts are now well recognized and documented so that alteration of
wetlands and disruption of their ecological function is considered detri-
mental to the environment. Chmura and Ross (1978) suggest that certain
aspects of marina development are irreversible since an altered environ-
ment "...cannot be restored to its original condition."
Development of marinas in wetland areas can include the removal or
covering (dredge spoil filling) of wetland habitat. Dredging new canals
or improving existing canals or natural waterways for boat navigation
purposes directly impacts the benthic habitat because submerged bottom
and benthic macroinvertebrate inhabitants are excavated. Channelization
in wetlands for drainage or for providing boat access to shallow water
marinas will similarly result in benthic habitat loss.
The physical effects of stream channelization have been reviewed
(Virginia State Water Control Board, VSWCB, 1979). Boozer (1979) indi-
cated that straightening channels in wetlands can cause the idle meander
sections of the channelized drainage creek to fill with sediment and
result in more rapid drainage of a wetland. From an environmental stand-
point, increased wetland drainage could be detrimental since it would
reduce water filtration and reduce the water level typical of the local
wetland and the associated wildlife. However, channelization may, in
some instances, be beneficial if tidal flushing is enhanced in areas
where water quality is poor due to low flushing rates.
4-81
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The value of an estuary, which is essentially a shallow marine habi-
tat influenced by freshwater, is related to the value of saltwater
wetlands. Estuaries use the nutrients from wetlands and other runoff
sources and provide grassbeds used as nursery grounds by the eggs, lar-
vae, and juveniles of various fish and benthic communities. Seagrasses
also serve to stabilize and trap suspended sediments (Clark, 1974).
Dredge-related destruction of grass flats may increase turbidity levels
directly through removal of substrate or indirectly through alteration of
the sediment stabilizing and filtering function of seagrasses. Zieman
(1982) reports that the primary cause of seagrass bed destruction in
south Florida is probably dredging.
As an example of the value of estuaries it has been estimated that
in the late 1960's fishery production in the Tampa Bay estuary was worth
about $741/ha ($300/acre; Taylor and Salomon, 1968). This estimate
increased to $988/ha ($400/acre) when additional consideration was given
to the use by public utilities, industry, commerce, and also the
recreational use by approximately one million residents and 1.5 million
annual tourists. The value in present-day dollars is even higher. For
example, in 1976, the Gulf State fisheries were valued at $275.2 million
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980) compared to 1964 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service statistics estimating the U.S. Gulf of Mexico commercial
fisheries at approximately $114 million per year (Taylor and Saloman,
1968). Loss of productive estuarine habitats, particularly seagrass
beds, would reduce fishery recruitment which, in turn, could reduce
recreation and marina-related activities.
Habitat Loss
Gross measurements published in 1967 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Chapman, 1968) indicated that dredging and filling destroyed
over 74,074 ha (200,000 acres) of "shallow bay nursery areas" in the Gulf
and south Atlantic between 1948 and 1968. Approximately 389 to 518
km2 (150 to 200 mi2) of Florida's marshland, tideland, and estuarine
water areas have been lost to dredging and landfills (Krenkel et a!.,
1976 j_n Johnston, 1981). Chapman (1968) reported that 20 percent of the
surface area of Boca Ciega Bay, Florida, for example, was altered with
dredged fill for waterfront real estate purposes. In Florida, 9,520 ha
(23,524 acres) of submerged land has been filled with dredge spoil, pri-
marily to form land for residential and industrial purposes (Zieman,
1982).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for dredging large
volumes of sediment each year to maintain navigable waterways. Annual
quantities are approximately 206 million cubic meters (400 million cubic
yards), with costs exceeding 150 million dollars (Montgomery and Griffis,
1973). Windom (1976) reports that most of this dredging occurs in
estuarine areas where major harbors and navigation channels exist. While
these figures reflect dredging in general, as opposed to marina-related
dredging, they emphasize the potential physical alteration and coastal
ecosystem stress associated with dredge and fill operations to which
marina development can contribute.
4-82
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The importance of habitat loss is related to the existing environ-
ment at the prospective marina location. Although the effects of tur-
bidity and siltation are associated with alteration of shoreline and
submerged bottom sediments in general, the impact is significantly
greater when coastal wetland habitats and estuarine seagrass beds and
their inhabitants are disturbed, removed, or covered with dredge spoil.
Dredging can affect, the tidal area, open water bays, oyster reefs,
shallow shoreline zones, beaches, and river deltas (Chapman, 1968).
Studies of an oyster shell mining project in Tampa Bay, for example,
showed that between 3,500 and 22,000 invertebrates were destroyed for
every square meter of dredged bottom (Taylor, 1973). Such data are
dependent upon the health of the estuary and the type of habitat
disturbed. If commercial benthic species are killed by dredge removal or
siltation related to dredging, the cost and socioeconomic repercussions
of dredging activities are increased and are more easily recognized. The
commercial oyster, primarily Crassostrea virginica in the coastal states
of USEPA Region IV, is a valuable fishery resource in several of the
coastal states. Data on oyster landings, compiled by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS, unpublished), are presented in Table 4-21 by
poundage and total value for 1982 and 1981. The Florida fishery resulted
in the highest total value obtained for 1981 and 1982, with Mississippi
and Alabama also leading in 1982 and Alabama and South Carolina leading
in 1981. The highest 1982 price per pound ($1.48) was calculated for
North Carolina oysters and the lowest figure ($0.49) was obtained for
South Carolina. Although these landings are valuable to several of the
states, they are small when compared to the 1982 landings for neighboring
Louisiana, where landings were higher than all of the study area states
combined (12,621,484 pounds valued at $17,010,770).
Spoil banks and channels (borrow pits) resulting from dredging can
segment an estuary and affect water circulation (Chapman, 1968). Since
tides are influenced by estuarine geometry (VSWCB, 1979), tidal flows may
be altered by changes in bottom topography. Tor example, spoil deposi-
tion in upper Tampa and Hillsborough Bay (Florida) from channelization
activities has adversely affected circulation and tidal exchange rates
(Taylor, 1973). Segmentation also may isolate certain areas and cause
shoaling, which may reduce the value of these areas as a nursery ground
(Chapman, 1968).
Although marina-related dredging activities comprise only a small
proportion of total dredging in coastal areas, this dredging may have
significant local environmental impact, depending on the proximity to
sensitive environmental areas. Dredging may be necessary during marina
construction to provide safe access channels and to maintain acceptable
water quality within marina basins. The importance of good water cir-
culation has been stressed by several authors (Chmura and Ross, 1978;
Boozer, 1979; USEPA, 1975b). A flushing turnover rate of two to four
days has been recommended (Boozer, 1979). Flushing is a function of
channel depth. USEPA (1975b) has recommended an optimum depth of four to
six feet at mean low water in order to maximize canal flushing, meet
4-83
-------
TABLE 4-21
1982 AND 1981 OYSTER LANDINGS PRESENTED BY STATE
AND RANKED BY TOTAL VALUES
State
Florida
Mississippi
Alabama
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
TOTAL
Florida
Alabama
South Carolina
North Carolina
Mississippi
Georgia
TOTAL
Value
$5,420,520
2,237,683
2,150,500
908,676
797,649
24,016
$11,539,044
7,177,315
2,002,392
1,378,224
730,293
472,729
35,716
$11,796,669
Pounds
1982
5,236,186
2,575,970
1,496,949
611,998
1,612,451
18,292
11,551,846
1981
7,269,384
1,329,925
1,467,254
550,502
467,070
24,898
11,109,033
Price/pound
$1.04
0.87
1.44
1.48
0.49
1.31
$1.00
0.99
1.51
0.94
1.32
1.01
1.43
$1.06
National Marine Fisheries Service, Unpublished.
4-84
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
navigational requirements and minimize the potential for violations of
state dissolved oxygen standards.
While dredging activities may result in potentially adverse ecologi-
cal effects in terms of habitat loss, fishery potential reduction, and
circulation disruption, some positive effects can also result. Dredging
can increase circulation, which may be beneficial for marina basin water
quality and aesthetics. Certain isolated or brackish/freshwater areas
also may become open to estuarine circulation and could become productive
nursery grounds. This may serve as partial compensation for the direct
loss of habitat (Chapman, 1968) unless saltwater intrusion progresses too
far inland, causing freshwater aquatic vegetation to die. The habitat
loss from marina construction is also lessened by the colonization of new
surface areas provided by marina structures, particularly rip-rap and
piling surface areas (Boozer, 1979). Algae and benthic invertebrates
that live on these surface areas may serve as fish forage. Although
these communities do not replace lost wetlands (Boozer, 1979), they can
lessen the impact. Conversely, undesirable blue-green algae may
repopulate a new surface area. This may be detrimental if toxins are
released during blue-green algal blooms. Resuspension of nutrients
during dredging can be useful in providing needed nutrients to phy-
toplankton and other vegetation (Chapman, 1968), although these nutrients
may contribute to detrimental algal blooms. Dredging may provide a tem-
porary food source for turbidity-tolerant fishes, crabs, and shrimp that
forage on the benthic animals discharged with dredge effluent at spoil
sites (Taylor, 1973). Other benthos may be exposed and become accessible
at dredge sites during sediment disruption. Finally, dredge spoil is
sometimes suitable for use as beach nourishment or as sand or gravel for
construction, and can be used to establish new salt marshes or islands
(USACOE, 1975; Chmura and Ross, 1978). For example, Oyster Bed Island in
Georgia (Tybee National Wildlife Refuge), a marsh island in the Savannah
River that has been used for spoil disposal for years, provides habitat
for gulls, terns, shore birds, and wading birds (Johnson et al., 1974).
Habitat Modification
Dredging impacts should be assessed holistically, so that all spe-
cies and all life stages are considered as part of an interrelated com-
munity system. Species of particular concern are those that are of
commercial, recreational or aesthetic value, geographically restricted,
sensitive or protected. Their food supply network and habitat vegetation
also are factors of concern. Non-motile species/life stages such as
sessile (attached) benthic animals, drifting plankton, and the eggs and
larvae of fishes and invertebrates are particularly subject to dredging
impacts such as siltation since they cannot avoid areas of high tur-
bidity. Loss of seagrass, wetland, reef, and other habitats on which
organisms depend may also damage existing populations and hinder or
preclude the survival and subsequent recruitment of organisms.
4-85
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Turbidity
The effect of turbidity on aquatic/marine animals is related to the
composition and concentration of the suspended solids, the toxins
adsorbed (if any) on the suspensions, and the tolerance, age, health, and
stress load of the organisms at the time of impact (Stern and Stickle,
1978).
Molluscs such as oysters, clams, and mussels are filter feeders and,
thereby, cleanse the water and reduce turbidity. Studies reviewed by
Stern and Stickle (1978) have shown that mortality of molluscs is low in
areas near dredging unless they are buried by sediment at disposal sites.
However, Johnston (1981) reported that oysters within the immediate vici-
nity of a commercial hydraulic clam dredge died, and a significant number
of oysters within 25 feet also died.
Filter-feeding invertebrates also can be affected by turbidity
(Stern and Stickle, 1978). In the presence of an increased level of
suspended solids, the energy expended in food gathering may exceed the
energy obtained from the food ingested, water transport rate and
filtering efficiency can be affected, and the amount of energy required
for maintenance may increase due to turbidity stress. Oyster growth may
be decreased by reduced pumping rates caused by high levels of suspended
solids (Johnston, 1981). In addition, the capability to combat any addi-
tional stress may be decreased.
The effects of turbidity are usually not permanent (Stern and
Stickle, 1978). Normal mollusc pumping rates, for example, usually
followed the return of natural conditions. Dredge-resuspended pollutants
may have a long-term effect on commercial species such as oysters, since
these species concentrate pollutants and then are consumed by man.
Corals are usually harmed by increases in turbidity and suspended
solids (Stern and Stickle, 1978; Hirsch et al., 1978; Johnston, 1981).
Coral feeding activity is reduced and decreased light penetration affects
photosynthetic coralline algae. High turbidity and sedimentation may
decrease coral abundance, alter growth forms, and decrease coral species
diversity.
Laboratory studies reveal that fish egg development is delayed for
several hours by suspended solids and mollusc eggs and larvae development
are also affected (Stern and Stickle, 1978). Increased amounts of par-
ticles in suspension may kill pelagic and recently settled larvae
(Rosenberg, 1977). However, resuspended detritus may also provide
nutrient material and protection from predation for transient estuarine
biota (Sherk, 1971 in Johnston, 1981). Taylor (1973) reported that
researchers studying~Boca Ciega Bay in Florida snowed that turbidity
created by dredging may benefit certain suspension and deposit feeding
invertebrates (sponge, echinoderm, and ascidean). The benefit is
apparently related to increased availability of food in the form of
invertebrates' remains in dredge effluent. However, ingestion of
4-86
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
resuspended pollutants may be harmful to suspension and deposit feeders
or their predators, as indicated by increased heavy metal concentrations
in benthic fauna of a Swedish estuary after dredging (Rosenberg, 1977).
Although adult fish are more sensitive to suspended solids than most
invertebrates, they are motile and presumably can escape turbidity plumes
(Stern and Stickle, 1978). No effects from dredging were found on the
highly motile fishes and invertebrates studied during dredging of the
Georgia Intracoastal Waterway (Stickney, 1972). However, it is likely
that some bottom-dwelling species, such as flounders, would be suscep-
tible to dredging activities. Since predatory game fish are known to be
visual feeders (Clark, 1974), their feeding behavior also may be affected
by turbid water. Everhart and Duchrow (1970 in Johnston, 1981) reported
that fish may be more susceptible to invasion by parasites or disease due
to removal of protective mucus by coarse particles in suspension. Fish
can suffocate from clogged gill filaments if the level of suspended
materials is high. Johnston (1981) reported that fishes near an active
dredge site swam less, showed modified social dominance patterns, and
engaged in "coughing" and gill scraping behavior in an attempt to free
their gills of accumulated particulate matter. The resuspension of bot-
tom material by dredging operations during warm months, particularly
during times of maximum fish migration, may be lethal to many forms of
aquatic life (Brown and Clark, 1968).
^ The variability of biological field studies makes it difficult to
assess the effects of dredging on zooplankton populations. For this
reason, the few studies that have been conducted were done in the labora-
tory. For example, copepod zooplankton response to suspended solids was
studied by Sherk et al. (1976). When presented with phytoplankton food
in the presence of sediment suspensions, copepods showed reduced phy-
toplankton uptake, apparently due to non-selective ingestion of all par-
ticles, including sediment. Such indiscriminant feeding could ultimately
become important since less food and energy is being obtained. The con-
centration ratio of suspended solids to phytoplankton was also important.
Turbidity generally reduces the amount of sunlight that is
transmitted through the water column, which decreases the depth of the
euphotic zone within which photosynthesis occurs in vegetation such as
seagrasses and phytoplankton. Reduced plant photosynthesis results in
less growth (primary production or carbon assimilation), less plant pro-
duction of dissolved oxygen required for most life and lower relative
abundance of phytoplankton, which is an important component in the marine
food chain.
Laboratory tests have shown that three common phytoplankton species,
including Chjorella. exhibit a 50 to 90 percent reduction in carbon assi-
milation with the addition of fine silica sand to cultures (Sherk et al.,
1976). It was assumed that this reduction was associated with light
attenuation caused by the added silica suspensions. Similar conclusions
(" have been reported regarding turbidity and reduced phytoplankton produc-
—' tivity for a field, study conducted in Chesapeake Bay (Harrison and
4-87
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Chisholm, 1974). Zieman (1982) reported a decline in primary produc-
tivity for seagrass (turtle grass) in Texas, apparently due to stress
related to suspended silts. However, the following year the seagrass
showed increased growth, possibly attributable to nutrients resuspended
by dredging the previous year. In the Caribbean, turtle grass stands
declined as a result of turbidity or siltation from dredging. Turtle
grass once found at depths up to 33 feet became restricted to areas of
eight feet or less, apparently due to increased turbidity.
Siltation
The effects of siltation on aquatic/marine fauna and flora are
generally more serious than the effects of turbidity. The immediate
effects of siltation include the death of organisms due to suffocation,
which results in a reduction in faunal biomass and number of species and
individuals (Kaplan et al., 1975 j_n Johnston, 1981). Long exposure to
sedimentation may lead to the elimination of many desirable species of
plants and animals (Sherk, 1971 j_n Johnston, 1981). Siltation caused by
dredging and filling can affect fish by reducing or eliminating food
supplies, destroying habitat including spawning areas, and smothering
eggs and larvae (USEPA, 1976 jm Johnston, 1981). Van Dolah et al. (1979)
studied the effects of unconfined disposal of dredged material in Sewee
Bay, South Carolina and concluded that benthic effects were "short term
and isolated." This summary, however, did not agree with the work of
several other authors reviewed by Van Dolah et al. (1979) who showed the
adverse effects of benthic smothering before spoil recolonization
occurred. Van Dolah et al. (1979) attributed the Sewee Bay results to
the use of several disposal sites as opposed to one, which resulted in a
more even distribution. Additional favorable factors included good site
flushing patterns, presence of resistant and common species, a similarity
between the spoil material and the existing disposal area sediments, and
favorable seasonal effects.
Although sessile organisms attached to bottom substrate can easily
be killed by burial, some non-sessile benthic forms are able to burrow or
otherwise emerge from sediment burial of up to 21 cm (8.3 inches; Chmura
and Ross, 1978). Laboratory studies have shown that vertical migration
of motile invertebrates was possible if the sediment characteristics of
the deposition layer were similar to existing habitat sediment (Hirsch et
al., 1978). However, an overburden of mud on sandy bottom or the reverse
could be detrimental to organisms. Reimold et al. (1978) performed field
experiments to study the recovery of marsh snails, crabs (e.g., fiddler),
and vegetation (Spartina alterniflora) subsequent to overlaying with
unconsolidated sand, silty sand,or clay overburden at depths ranging
from 8 to 91 cm (3.2 to 35.8 inches). A summary of the relative success
of plant and animal recoveries under the experimental conditions is pre-
sented in Table 4-22 (excerpted: Reimold et al., 1978). In general,
organisms buried under up to 23 cm (9.1 inches) of sediment showed
"average" to "excellent" recovery, as well as some "poor" recoveries. A
study in Card Sound near Biscayne Bay, Florida showed that turtle grass
can survive a light cover of dredge sediment of up to 10 cm (4 inches) if
4-88
-------
TABLE 4-22
A SUMMARY OF THE RELATIVE SUCCESS OF MARSH PLANT AND ANIMAL RECOVERIES
FOLLOWING SEDIMENT BURIAL TO SEVERAL DEPTHS3
Unconsol i dated depth
of material
8 cm
15 cm
23 cm
30 cm
61 cm
91 cm
Feb
fil
PR=
SR=
CR=
PR=
SR=
CR=
PR=
SR=
CR=
PR=
SR=
CR=
PR=
SR=
CR=
PR=
SR=
CR=
1
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
2
1
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sand
July
fill
PR= 4
SR= 3
CR= 3
PR= 4
SR= 3
CR= 2
PR= 4
SR= 2
CR= 1
PR= 3
SR= 1
CR= 1
PR= 0
SR= 0
CR= 0
PR= 0
SR= 0
CR= 0
Nov
fill
PR= 4
SR= 2
CR= 3
PR= 4
SR= 1
CR= 2
PR= 4
SR= 1
CR= 1
PR= 2
SR= 1
CR= 1
PR= 1
SR= 0
CR= 0
PR= 1
SR= 0
CR= 0
Feb
fill
PR= 4
SR= 4
CR= 3
PR= 4
SR= 4
CR= 2
PR= 4
SR= 2
CR= 1
PR= 3
SR= 2
CR= 1
PR= 0
SR= 0
CR= 1
PR= 0
SR= 0
CR= 0
Siity sand
July
fill
PR= 4
SR= 4
CR= 3
PR= 4
SR= 2
CR= 2
PR= 4
SR= 1
CR= 1
PR= 2
SR= 1
CR= 1
PR= 0
SR= 0
CR= 0
PR= 0
SR= 0
CR= 1
Nov
fill
PR= 4
SR= 2
CR= 3
PR= 4
SR= 2
CR= 2
PR= 4
SR= 1
CR= 1
PR= 3
SR= 1
CR= 1
PR= 1
SR= 0
CR= 1
PR= 1
SR= 0
CR= 0
Feb
fill
PR= 4
SR= 4
CR= 4
PR= 4
SR= 4
CR= 4
PR= 4
SR= 2
CR= 3
PR= 3
SR= 2
CR= 2
PR= 1
SR= 0
CR= 0
PR= 0
SR= 0
CR= 0
Clay
July
fill
PR=
SR=
CR=
PR=
SR=
CR=
PR=
SR=
CR=
PR=
SR=
CR=
PR=
SR=
CR=
PR=
SR=
CR=
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
2
4
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nov
fill
PR= 4
SR= 2
CR= 4
PR= 4
SR= 1
CR= 3
PR= 4
SR= 1
CR= 4
PR= 2
SR= 1
CR= 2
PR= 1
SR= 0
CR= 0
PR= 1
SR= 0
CR= 0
Reimold et al., 1978.
PR = Plant recovery
SR = Sna?I recovery
CR = Crab recovery
4 = Excel lent
3 = Good
2 = Average
1 = Poor
0 = No recovery
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
the root (rhizome) system is not damaged. Although leaf material was
killed, regrowth occurred after dredging ceased and currents removed the
siltation (Zieman, 1982).
Siltation can also reduce the dissolved oxygen in sediment habitats
since the interstitial water circulation is reduced, particularly if fine
silt or clay particles are deposited (Clark, 1974). Clay usually settles
out of suspension slowly and may form deposits far from dredging sites.
An example of dredge-related siltation and its effects on the
environment was reported by Marshall (1967). The dredge and fill work
occurred in Hillsborough Bay, Florida. Despite the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' stipulation for dike construction around the bayfill area, a
section of the dike was not completed until considerable siltation had
occurred through the remaining gap in the dike. Marshall (1967) reported
that the silt was up to approximately two feet deep and had spread
several thousand feet outside of the dike gap. Extensive areas of grass-
beds and oyster bars were buried with mud and two bird sanctuaries were
affected by mud deposition.
Siltation or removal of grassbeds and other important habitats can
destroy eggs, larvae, and juvenile fauna that cannot escape the impact
and/or use the area as nursery habitat. Species that might be affected
include crustaceans (crabs, shrimp, lobster), molluscs (oysters, clams,
mussels), estuarine fishes, coelenterates (corals), polychaete worms,
sponges and echinoderms (starfish). Tolerance capabilities are specific
to species, life stage, and individual. Dredge siltation can also affect
the distribution of seagrasses, since the fine sediment muds deposited
are often unstable and, consequently, not suitable for seagrass coloniza-
tion. Taylor (1973) reports that the reestabl ishment of seagrasses in
dredged zones is particularly slow.
Dredged areas and dredge spoil are rapidly recolonized by inver-
tebrate fauna (Taylor, 1973). However, the new communities are often
different from the original population. Dredging of deep channels, for
example, creates an environment that differs in water depth and light
penetration and possibly currents and salinity. Sediment type may also
be different, particularly since channels are sinks for silt and other
fine sediments. It is documented that species diversity, abundance, and
feeding behavior are associated with sediment structure (Taylor, 1973)
and that the larvae of many benthic animals will not metamorphose from a
planktonic to a benthic form unless contact is made with the appropriate
sediment composition (Taylor and Saloman, 1968). Channelization of
streams can reduce species abundance and diversity (VSWCB, 1979) and
dredging of estuaries can have a similar effect (Rosenberg, 1977).
Recovery can occur but may take a long period, such as the two years
suggested by Taylor (1973). Taylor and Saloman (1968) reported that the
soft deposits of dredged canals in Boca Ciega Bay (Florida) showed only
"negligible" recolonization after 10 years. Fish diversity in these
canals was also less than at outside stations, and the species present
were not bottom types. Changes in populations, however, may not
4-90
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
necessarily be detrimental. The canals studied by Taylor and Saloman
(1968) did support a 30 percent greater abundance of fish than outside
stations. Such changes could result in the attraction and concentration
of sport fishes, making them more readily available to fishermen.
Windom (1976) concludes that recolonization can be expected to take
place if sediments in a dredged channel or a spoil disposal site are
similar in physical and chemical characteristics before and after
dredging. Recolonization is less likely to occur if the sediment charac-
teristics subsequent to the dredging operation are considerably altered.
The rate of recolonization is dependent on the characteristics of the
given locality.
Shoreline structure-related alterations in the physical environment
and in the water quality of wetland and estuarine areas can affect local
turbidity, sunlight penetration, siltation/erosion, community structure,
habitat, air quality and noise levels. The effects of most of these
impacts on wildlife were reviewed in Mulvihill et al. (1980) with regard
to shoreline structures.
Water-related construction such as pile driving and bulkhead
construction produces some turbidity. Turbid waters may affect animal
respiration (particularly filter feeders), make resuspended heavy metals
and nutrients available from the sediments, and reduce the transmittance
of light through the water column, which consequently decreases algal,
seagrass, and phytoplankton photosynthesis and dissolved oxygen produc-
tion. Photosynthetic processes also can be reduced by shading from
docks, piers, and covered boat slips constructed over water, or onshore
structures that cast shadows over the water.
Siltatioh and erosion may result from the construction and presence
of shoreline structures. Siltation can have a serious impact on
seagrasses and sessile organisms and erosion can contribute to turbidity.
Newly created habitats formed by changes in circulation and the resultant
sediment redistribution often have different sediment compositions and
water depths as compared to the original habitat. Since benthic
assemblages are associated with particular bottom substrates (Saloman and
Taylor, 1968), the organisms colonizing the new habitat may be different
in terms of species composition. Such changes in distribution, abun-
dance, and diversity can be beneficial or negative (Mulvihill et al.,
1980). For instance, an eroded area downcoast of a groin or jetty may
continue to support benthic species following erosion (although probably
different and fewer species) but may now have become a favorable habitat
for deeper water fishes as well. However, if commercial species are
displaced by non-commercial species, the species replacement would not
generally be considered beneficial. Mulvihill, et al. (1980) observed
that siltation of an oyster bed occurred after the construction of a
shoreline structure and the subsequent alterations in current patterns.
4-91
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The placement of a shoreline structure in an estuarine environment
can result in habitat loss due to construction and/or consequences sub-
sequent to placement. Habitat loss may be direct and immediate or
indirect and subtle. Dredging of grassbeds and covering wetlands with
spoil to backfill bulkheads are examples of direct and immediate loss of
habitat for terrestrial and marine life. In addition to the understood
value of wetlands and estuarine seagrasses, Mulvihill et al. (1980)
reported that the transitional shoreline area between the intertidal and
subtidal zones is the most productive zone of estuaries. If bulkheads
are constructed below the mean high tide mark they can destroy much of
the intertidal zone and eliminate the transitional zone habitat. Loss of
habitat also can be caused by bulkhead construction through the shallow
water areas needed for marine juveniles to escape larger predators
(Chmura and Ross, 1978; Mulvihill et al., 1980) and for nursery areas
(see Figure 4-6). Vertical bulkheads, which reflect waves off of their
facing, can erode the foreshore, destroying existing grassbeds and pre-
venting their reestablishment. In addition, the obstruction of wetland
detrital nutrient flow by backfilling bulkheads often results in
decreased productivity in an estuary or local embayment. Studies
reported by Mulvihill et al. (1980) in West Bay, Texas showed that the
settling rate of oysters was 14 times greater and growth rates were
higher in a natural dead-end bayou than in a dredged, bulkheaded canal.
Shrimp were studied in natural estuaries and bulkheaded areas and it was
found that natural habitats were more productive, partly because of a
greater abundance of detritus. Conversely, a finger canal development
area in Florida exhibited relatively high productivity, although the pro-
ductivity may have been enhanced by nearby marshes and tidal action.
While construction and placement of structures can alter the natural
environment, the addition of structures can also provide habitat that can
be beneficial in less productive environments. Structures can act as
artificial reefs and supply substrate for animal colonization. Jetties,
rip-rap revetments, and rip-rap breakwaters are good examples because
they have considerable surface area and irregular, articulated facings
that can serve as cover for sessile, motile, and cryptic species.
Resident algal and animal populations also attract grazing and foraging
fishes, while above-water rock formations attract waterfowl aggregations.
Rock and tetrapod revetments protecting a manmade island off of
California (Rincon Island) supported over 225 species of plants and ani-
mals. By comparison, mainland sandy beaches provided habitat for less
than 12 species and the pre-construction species composition* in the
island area was only 20 to 25 species (Mulvihill, et al., 1980). A jetty
population can be diverse because salinity and current conditions can
differ on opposite sides of a jetty (channel versus estuarine side).
Similarly, different current and wave regimes typically exist on the out-
side and lee side of a breakwater and this results in a correspondingly
different set of species with different ecological requirements,
tolerances, and preferences.
4-92
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Structures such as bulkheads, pilings and poured concrete revetments
provide only minimal habitat because they are vertical, smooth surfaced,
chemically treated, and/or have a relatively small surface area.
However, most available substrates will be quickly populated in healthy
aquatic systems. Encrusting forms such as barnacles are likely marine
colonizers of pilings, boat hulls, and bulkheads. Many of these fouling
organisms can be used as food by marine organisms (Boozer, 1979).
All marine species that inhabit shoreline structures may not be
desirable to marinas. These include insects, borers, isopod crustaceans,
and possibly sea urchin echinoderms that can, together with general decay
or corrosion, destroy structures. Specific examples listed by Mulvihill
et al. (1980) include gribbles (Limnpria) and shipworms (Teredo).
Shipworms made an untreated pine woodwork trestle in Florida unsafe for
work within only three months (Mulvihill et al., 1980). Attempts to
retard the settling of shipworms and other organisms on the submerged
portions of structures usually include chemically treating surfaces with
creosote, copper derivations and other chemicals. These substances can
leach into marine waters and affect local non-target organisms.
Laboratory tests on non-target organisms have shown that creosote, for
example, was "moderately toxic" by the USEPA standards for bluegills (990
ppb) and rainbow trout (880 ppb; Chmura and Ross, 1978). Hart and Fuller
(1979) reported that, although creosote contains a carcinogen, benzo u.aS
pyrene, this chemical was not found in mussels attached to pilings
treated with creosote. Experiments with copper revealed that certain
larval stages of pink and brown shrimp could not tolerate a copper con-
centration of 0.05 mg/liter in a seawater/brine medium (similar to desa-
lination plant mixtures) but grew normally at a copper concentration of
0.025 mg/1 in a 35 ppt seawater medium (Hart and Fuller, 1979). Copper
contamination is usually not a problem at marinas if flushing is adequate
(Boozer, 1979).
Essential to the establishment, growth, and maintenance of a
wetland community are the chemical and physical composition of sediments
and water. Dredging, structures, hydrographic modifications, runoff, and
boat operation associated with a marina facility and the surrounding area
can affect wetland vegetation, soils and erosion rates. Methods for
estimating pollutant concentration (Section 4.2) may be used to assess
potential impacts to wetland flora and fauna. The impact of boat wakes
is addressed in Section 4.3. The predictive methods previously described
for water quality and aquatic habitat also may be used to interpret
impacts to wetland habitat resources. Mitigative measures for addressing
these impacts are described in Sections 5.4.2 and 5.5.2. Sampling tech-
niques and measurement methods for characterizing and monitoring a
wetland system are listed in Appendix A.
4-93
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.3.4 Protected Species
The principal means of predicting impacts to protected species is
the identification of their presence at or near the marina. State and
federal lists of endangered species may be reviewed in order to determine
potential presence of these species at a chosen marina site. Local
experts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state natural resource agen-
cies may also be contacted for endangered, threatened or rare species
information (Appendix F).
Birds are the primary group of endangered species that may be of
concern. Manatees and sea turtles also are protected at both state and
federal levels. Marinas proposed in locations near rookery areas, mana-
tee -refuges or sea turtle nesting areas would be discouraged. Several
natural and artificial warm-water refuges for manatees have been
designated in Florida (Figure 4-11). While Florida is essentially the
northern range of the West Indian manatee, sightings from as far north as
Virginia and as far west as Texas have been reported. There have been
frequent sightings in North Carolina and Georgia during the summer months
(Husar, 1977; Hartman, 1979). There are five species of threatened or
endangered sea turtles indigenous to the Southeast, but the loggerhead
(Caretta caretta) is the most common (Table 4-23). Sea turtles are
generally observed as they come ashore for nesting on open beaches. They
are rarely seen inside estuaries where marinas are most likely located;
however, these species may suffer secondary affects from boating activity
associated with marina facilities. Potential mitigative measures for sea
turtles and other protected species are discussed in Sections 5.4.2 and
5.5.2.
4.4 Other Impacts
4.4.1 Historical or Archaeological Resources
Important planning considerations for any proposed marina facility
include evaluation of the cultural, economic and environmental consequen-
ces of its development. Consideration of the potential effects from
marina development on local cultural resources may include the evaluation
of historical and archaeological sites. If these sites occur in the area
to be developed, data recovery and preservation activities may be neces-
sary to avoid alteration or loss of prehistoric, historic or archaeologi-
cal resources. Cultural resource measurement techniques are listed in
Appendix A.
The National Register of Historic Places, compiled by the National
Park Service, may be used as a primary information source for determining
whether or not a proposed marina would affect any historic or archaeolo-
gical site of significance for the area. The Register and the
appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (Appendix F) will provide
information on sites that the states are nominating for inclusion, or are
considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register. If histori-
cal or archaeological resources, including marine artifacts, may be
4-94
-------
! 1
~\ ' • JL jjcksonville T
•'
Figure 4-11.
Refuges used by the West Indian manatee. Natural warm-water
areas are indicated by the triangles: a)Welaka Spring, b)
Silver Glen Spring Run, c)Blue Spring Run, d)headwaters of
Homosassa River, e)headwaters of Crystal River, and f)Manatee
Springs. Artificial warm-water areas are indicated by the
squares: l)Alton Box Factory, Jacksonville, 2)John D. Kennedy
Generating Station, Jacksonville, 3)Southside Generating Plant,
Jacksonville, 4)Palatka/Putnam Plants, East Palatka, 5)Turner
Generating Plant, Enterprise, 6)Sanford Plant, DeBary, 7)
Indian River Plant, Delespine, 8)Cape Canaveral Plant, Frontenac,
9)Vero Beach Municipal Power Plant, Vero Beach, 10)Henry D.
King Municipal Electric Stc ion, Ft. Pierce, ll)Riviera Plant,
Riviera Beach, 12)Port Everglades Plant, Ft. Lauderdale, 13)
Lauderdale Plant, Dania, 14)Cutler Plant, Miami, 15)Ft. Myers
Plant, Tice, 16)Big Bend Generating Plant, Apollo Beach, 17)
Phosphate Plant, Gibsonton, and 18)Crystal River Plant, Crystal
River. The Turner Generating Plant, the Palatka/Putnam Plants,
the Sanford Plant, and the Cutler Plant are used only
occasionally by manatees. Some of these areas have been
designated as "Manatee Sanctuaries" by the Florida Legislature.
Boat speed regulations are enforced in these official areas.
(FPL, 1982).
4-95
-------
TABLE 4-23
LOCATIONS IN USEPA REGION IV UTILIZED BY SEA TURTLES3
Location
FLORIDA
St. Josephs Bay
St. Vincent Island
St. George Island
Dog Island
St. Joseph Sound
Clearwater
Indian Rocks Beach
Johns Pass
Boca Ciega Bay
Pass-a-grille Channel
Old Tampa Bay
Hillsborough Bay
Tampa Bay
Passage Key
Longboat Pass
Longboat Key
Sarasota Bay
Big Sarasota Pass
Blackburn Bay
Venice Inlet
Manasota Key
Stump Pass
Charlotte Harbor
Cayo Costa
Sanibel Island
San Carlos Bay
Delnor-Wiggins Pass S.P.
Rabbit Key
Pavilion Key
Cape Sable
Naples
Florida Bay
Hallandale
Ft. Lauderdale
Lauderdale-by-the-Sea
Boca Raton
Lake Worth
3uno Beach
Jupiter Island
Hutchinson Island
Indian River Shores
Ballard Pines
Satellite Beach
Kennedy Space Center
Cedar Island
Ponce de Leon Inlet
Flagler Beach S.P.
Washington Oaks Gardens S.P.
Anastasia Island
Usinas Beach
Palm Valley
Little Talbot Island
Amelia Island
GEORGIA
Cumberland Island
Jekyll Island
St. Simons Island
Sapelo Island
St. Catherines Island
Ossabaw Island
Wassaw Island
Savannah Beach
Green
X
X
X
X
X
x-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kemp's
Loggerhead Hawksbill Ridley Leatherback
X
x x
X
x
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X
XXX
XXX
X
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-96
-------
TABLE 4-23
(continued)
LOCATIONS IN USEPA REGION IV UTILIZED BY SEA TURTLES3
Kemp's
Location _ Green Loggerhead Hawksblll Ridley Leatherback
SOUTH CAROLINA
Hilton Head x
Bay Point Island x
Pritchard's Island x
Fripp's Island x
Otter Island x
Edisto Island x
Kiawah Island „ x
Stono Inlet x
Folly Island x
Isle of Palms x
Dewees Island x
Capers Island x
Cape Remain x
North Island x
NORTH CAROLINA
Long Beach x
Cape Fear x
Masonboro Inlet x
Wrightsville Beach x
Mason Inlet x
Old Topsail Inlet x
Ashe Island x
Onslow Beach x
Bear Inlet x
Bogue Banks x
Shackleford Banks x
Core Banks x
Ocracoke Island x
Hatteras Island x
aFrom Beccasio, 1980; 1982.
4-97
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
potentially affected by the project, a survey may be justified (Willey,
1966). The survey may include literature, archival, and historical
research. Local collectors and other resources may be consulted to
determine the possible significance of the site. A surface recon-
naissance may also indicate the archaeological significance of a site.
Visual analysis may help determine the need for any excavation or labora-
tory analyses of survey or excavation findings. If the proposed marina
site is in a location of known historical or archaeological value, it may
be necessary to consider mitigative measures such as those discussed in
Section 5.4.3.
4.4.2 Navigation
Potential impacts to navigation resources may result from
obstructing boating traffic through structure placement or increased
shoaling as a result of marina development. Predicting impacts from
structure placement principally involves determining structure require-
ments for the marina layout and comparing these requirements with the
size and type of boats presently using the waterway. Areas of increased
shoaling can be predicted from methods discussed in Section 4.2.2.
Measurement methods that may be appropriate for assessing existing
hydrographic conditions are listed in Appendix A. Mitigative measures
for potential impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.3.
4.5 Impact Assessment
Addressing potential impacts from the development and operation of
marinas in the coastal zone necessitates a concise and current knowledge
of biological interactions, water chemistry, hydrology, geology, engi-
neering practices and the economics of the situation. This chapter has
focused on the primary environmental impacts associated with development
and operation of marinas in coastal waters by means of reviewing poten-
tial impacts and ecosystem perturbations and examining documented physi-
cal, chemical, and biological responses to these impacts. Assessment of
these impacts may be carried out on multiple levels, each varying in
terms of cost and applicability. Responsibility for performing the
impact assessment can also vary from decision-making agencies to the
developer or third party contractor.
The development of new concepts and methods for evaluating and
describing ecological responses to environmental alteration is a dynamic
process. This section describes current impact assessment techniques
that may be applied on a general basis and a variety of techniques that
are impact specific (e.g., dredge and spoil disposal, shoreline and pro-
tective structures, sewage pollution and runoff, and boating). There are
many other valuable approaches documented by several government agencies
that are available for further information (USEPA, USACOE, USFWS, et
al.).
4-98
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.5.1 Approach
A major public policy concern is for resolving conflicts between
environmental protection and coastal development. There are a variety of
programs such as characterization studies, baseline studies, and moni-
toring programs that are justifiably necessary to provide understandings
which can help minimize environmental impacts of marina developments and
reconcile the conflict between environmental protection and development.
The methods of assessing marina impacts are as varied as the impacts
themselves. A complete environmental impact assessment consists of the
following elements:
1) Initial evaluation
2) Study design
3) Baseline studies and monitoring programs
4) Specific concerns.
Many projects may not require the complete assessment outlined above.
The significance of potential problems will dictate the level of impact
assessment that is justified. This section presents an overview of
environemntal impact assessment.
Initial Evaluation and Ecological Characterization
The level of effort applied in assessing impacts is often limited
by monetary constraints. As an early step in the environmental
assessment process, efforts to understand the most salient and sensitive
components of the, ecosystem will facilitate subsequent impact projec-
tions. An ecological characterization will provide an initial basis for
predicting some of the anticipated impacts of marina development (as
discussed in the previous chapters) if they are not already discernible.
The USFWS has completed many ecological characterizations and ecological
inventories (Gulf and Atlantic Coasts) that may provide a useful foun-
dation of information (Beccasio et al., 1980, 1982, USFWS, 1979a,
1980b-f). In some cases, field reconnaissance may be valuable in
completing an initial characterization.
The emphasis of initial evaluation is to provide a basis for
further investigation when necessary. Compilation, analysis and synthe-
sis of available and relevant data will establish priorities for future
work, given the availability of funding and time. Several resources
derived from individual state files may be utilized for quantitative
data, including state water quality monitoring data reports, shellfish
surveys and data submitted as part of permit applications or to meet per-
mit conditions. These measures are not necessarily project specific, but
can be compiled and analyzed and made available for general use.
Other sources of information include existing literature reviews,
the use of models, field studies, and/or laboratory research. The
Coastal Marinas Handbook, for example, provides guidance for identifying
and evaluating potential problem areas associated with marina development
4-99
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
and boat operation. When a particular area of concern requires further
research, literature reviews can indicate if relevant studies have been
conducted previously on the subject matter of concern or in the general
geographic area of concern. For example, an annotated compilation of
government-funded dredge-related research available through NTIS
(National Technical Information Services: Springfield, VA) is presented
in Herner and Company (1980). There is limited quantitative information
specific to marinas and marina-related impacts. This Handbook may serve
as a basis for indicating where further research is needed. Literature
reviews can be expedited through contacting private/university organiza-
tions that provide a computer search or through government services such
as NTIS. Annotated bibliographies and abstracts are also helpful.
Ideally, the initial evaluation and ecological characterization
would provide the manager/decision-maker with the information necessary
to define the impact assessment objectives. Literature reviews may be
supplemented by field surveys or field studies, increasing costs.
Responsibility for these costs may be borne by the permitting agency, by
the developer, or through other means. Government agencies, univer-
sities, and environmental consulting firms can be helpful in providing
literature and information relative to the planning or conducting of
field and laboratory studies. Examples of information sources are pre-
sented in Table 4-24. Limiting studies to relevant data collection for
areas of critical concern will reduce costs, save time and provide data
most appropriate to specific needs. Models are another predictive tool
that can be utilized. Both mathematical modeling and ecosystem simula-
tion can help evaluate assumptions and determine data needs. The ecolo-
gical characterization or field survey can also serve as a basis for
designing monitoring studies.
Study Design Criteria
When designing a study there are many variables and methods to con-
sider. Several related aspects of study design include selection of
parameters, statistical design, establishment of control areas, logistic
considerations, cost and spatial considerations. If a monitoring program
is planned, parameters can include estimates of species distribution and
abundance, community structure analyses including diversity indices, phy-
siological conditions such as growth rate and rate of productivity or
processes such as primary productivity and benthic respiration (Hirsch,
1980).
Selecting parameters to be measured is often a difficult task. A
priority in selecting parameters is choosing sensitive indicators for the
anticipated environmental stress. For example, when using the predictive
equations previously presented, those variables that are most critical
for obtaining accurate estimates should be measured. Species lists pro-
vide a means for qualitative comparisons of biota prior to and following
development. Diversity and other indices are not always adequate tools
for distinguishing the effects of pollution from natural variation
(Boesch, 1980). They can become more useful when used in combination
4-100
-------
TABLE 4-24
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Boating Industry Association
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
National Data Buoy Office
National Marina Association
National Marine Manufacturers Association
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Individual State Sea Grant Programs and other universities and institutions
National Ocean Survey
National Weather Service
National Oceanography Command
State Geological Surveys
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Census
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Naval Oceanographic Research and Development Activity
4-101
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
with more comprehensive investigations of population and community dyna-
mics. Species that have relatively long life spans and as adults have a
low natural mortality may provide valuable historical information through
age and growth rate analysis. Another quantitative measure is primary
production (defined as the amount of plant biomass that accumulates in a
given time interval). Methods for estimating net primary production
(NPP) and biomass graphs are available in USFWS handbooks and field
guides that evaluate NPP of wetlands, for example (Kibby et al., 1980).
The primary consideration in the selection of parameters is to
choose the proper indicator organism(s) or parameters. Parameters
directly linked with the activity in question, such as levels of fecal
coliform bacteria in shellfish areas near marinas, can assist in
establishing baseline data that can separate natural variability from
changes due to the activity under study. A further consideration in
parameter selection involves identifying organisms or populations that
characteristically-lend themselves to statistical sampling (i.e., benthos
may be more useful than plankton). Predictive impact assessments can be
improved by program results from studies designed with suitable hypothe-
ses and consideration given to environmental variability, the need for
replication, adequate sample size, and so forth. Laboratory studies,
which may be more costly, may aid in the selection of field variables by
allowing for the controlled testing of one parameter against a subject
species or a phenomenon. For example, the effect of dissolved oxygen on
pink shrimp maturation could be evaluated in the laboratory. However,
laboratory studies can only indicate a capability, such as a behavioral
capability exhibited by a test oyster species in response to a siltation
overburden. Field responses by the same species may be different because
of parameter interactions and a less controlled field environment.
In parameter selection considerable attention is given to cost,
logistics, availability of reliable sampling and analytical procedures.
A fundamental problem is that the costs of monitoring may be prohibitive-
ly high, thereby reducing the number of sampling observations that can be
completed within a given budget, which in turn reduces the reliability of
the data. Because of this, the parameters most critical to the antici-
pated issues should be selected for evaluation.
Baseline Studies and Monitoring Programs
Baseline studies can be conducted prior to proposed development
activities. They are generally used as a reference for comparison with
monitoring studies during the proposed activity to determine if the
environment is subsequently changed. In actual practice many baseline
and monitoring studies mesh to represent a continuum, thereby increasing
the validity of the initial baseline. However, both baseline and moni-
toring studies are not always justifiable. In this case monitoring can
develop trend information without an initial baseline study of the par-
ticular area of concern.
4-102
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The duration and extent of baseline and subsequent monitoring plans
should reflect the variability expected in the data. The time frame and
spatial limitations are site specific. More time is required if the
expected variability is high in order to obtain a better overview of the
system. Detecting low level chronic impacts requires more observation
than detecting catastrophic changes.
Baseline and subsequent monitoring data can be particularly valuable
in the case of marinas because of the current lack of specific quan-
titative data. These studies would provide necessary input in the
decision-making process in order to avoid or minimize environmental
damage in advance. The transfer of findings gained from marina impact
studies in one ecosystem to other similar systems facilitates meaningful
management decisions concerning potential impacts.
4.5.2 Specific Concerns
The following sections present specific methods that are currently
available for use in assessing impacts related to coastal marina develop-
ment and operation. The techniques presented are not a recommendation
but a representation of the types of methods in use. Handbooks and stan-
dards for assessing the loading and fate of selected pollutants and per-
forming biological analyses and sampling are available from USEPA and
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), as well as from other federal agencies and
state natural resource departments (USEPA, 1973a, 1980b, 1982; Greeson,
1977; and others).
Dredging and Spoil Disposal
The effects of dredging on the coastal environment can be expressed
in terms of siltation, disposal banks, dredge channels, shoaling, changes
in circulation patterns, and surface (runoff) and groundwater con-
tamination from upland spoil disposal. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
developed the "Dredged Material Research Program" in order to expand the
state of knowledge and provide definitive information on what constitutes
an adverse impact caused by the nature of the dredged material or the
method of spoil disposal. The program, conducted at the Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station at Vicksburg, Mississippi,
attempts to quantify effects or determine alternatives for solutions to
problems associated with dredge and fill activities. Table 4-25 outlines
the program which is divided into four project areas, environmental
impacts and criteria development, disposal operations, productive uses,
and habitat development. Habitat development field studies include
research being performed in North Carolina, Georgia and Florida con-
cerning island, marsh and seagrass development (Smith, 1980).
A variety of methods exist for determining and predicting physical
impacts. Aerial surveys can help identify grassbed areas and indicate
existing damage such as that from boat propellers. Aerial photography
can be used to examine physical factors including circulation and sedi-
ment transport. Physical factors may be assessed using bathymetric data,
4-103
-------
TABLE 4-25
TECHNICAL STRUCTURE OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS' DREDGED MATERIAL
RESEARCH PROGRAM3
Project/Task
Environmental Impacts and Criteria Development Project
IA Aquatic Disposal Field Investigations
IB Movements of Dredged Material
1C Effects of Dredging and Disposal on Water
Quality
ID Effects of Dredging and Disposal on Aquatic
Organisms
IE Pollution Status of Dredged Material
2D Confined Disposal Area Effluent and Leachate
Control
Habitat Development Project
2A Effects of Marsh and Terrestrial Disposal
4A Marsh Development
4B Terrestrial Habitat Development
4E Aquatic Habitat Development
4F Island Habitat Development
Disposal Operations Project
2C Containment Area Operations
5A Dredged Material Densification
5C Disposal Area Reuse
6B Treatment of Contaminated Dredged Material
6C Turbidity Prediction and Control
Productive Uses Project
3B Upland Disposal Concepts Development
4C Land Improvement Concepts
4D Products Development
5D Disposal Area Land-Use Concepts
Objective
Determine the magnitude and extent of effects of disposal sites on
organisms and the quality of surrounding water, and the rate, diversity,
and extent such sites aie recolonized by benthic flora and fauna.
Develop techniques for determining the spatial and temporal distribution
of dredged material discharged into various hydrologic regimes.
Determine on a regional basis the short- and long-term effects on water
quality due to dredging and discharging bottom sediment containing
pollutants.
Determine on a regional basis the direct and indirect effects on aquatic
organisms due to dredging and disposal operations.
Develop techniques for determining the pollutional properties of various
dredged material types on a regional basis.
To characterize the effluent and leachate from confined disposal
facilities, determine the magnitude and extent of contamination of
surrounding areas, and evaluate methods of control.
Identification, evaluation, and monitoring of specific short-term and
more general, long-term effects of confined and unconfined disposal of
dredged material on uplands, marsh, and wetland habitats.
Development, testing, and evaluation of the environmental, economic,
and engineering feasibility of using dredged material as a substrate for
marsh development.
Development and application of habitat management methodologies to
upland disposal areas for purposes of planned habitat creation,
reclamation, and mitigation.
Evaluation and testing of the environmental, economic, and engineering
feasibility of using dredged material as a substrate for aquatic habitat
development.
Investigation, evaluation, and testing of methodologies for habitat
creation and management on dredged material islands.
Development of new or improved methods for the operation and
management of confined disposal areas and associated facilities.
Development and testing of promising techniques for dewatering or
densifying dredged material using mechanical, biological, and/or chemical
techniques prior to, during, and after placement in containment areas.
Investigation of dredged material improvement and rehandjing
procedures aimed at permitting the removal of material from
containment areas for landfill or other uses elsewhere.
Evaluation of physical, chemical, and/or biological methods for the
removal and recycling of dredged material constituents.
Investigation of the problem of turbidity and development of a
predictive capability as well as physical and chemical control methods
for employment in both dredging and disposal operations.
Evaluation of new disposal possibilities such as using abandoned pits
and mines and investigation of systems involving long-distance transport
to large inland disposal facilities.
Evaluation of the use of dredged material for the development,
enhancement, or restoration of land for agriculture and other uses.
Investigation of technical and economic aspects of the manufacture of
marketable products.
Assessment of the technical and economic aspects of the development
of disposal areas as landfill sites and the development of
recreation-oriented and other public or private land-use concepts.
NOTE: This technical structure reflects the second major program revaluation made after the second full year of research accomplishment
and is effective as of August 1975.
Excerpted from Smith, 1980.
4-104
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
tide data, wind data, stream-flow, current velocities, current directions
and turbidity patterns. These factors will help identify areas of
shoaling and basic circulc
tion of wave energy along
(Kinsman et al., 1979).
tion patterns. Wave ray tracing is also a
method to determine the effect of any proposed dredging on the distribu-
the coastline before dredging is carried out
round-truth analyses may be needed for aerial
photograph verification. Closer observations might include diver obser-
vation and selected measurement of sediment depths, as well as grain size
sediment analyses, particularly in suspected siltation areas related to
dredging. Dye and drogue studies could also be conducted to determine
dilution capacity and circulation patterns, which would help predict the
fate of turbidity plumes arid the ecological areas likely to be affected.
Dye studies would also provide a baseline to allow determination of
possible future changes in circulation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed the elutriate test
as a laboratory procedure designed to simulate the disposal of dredged
sediments with respect to the release of chemical contaminants from the
sediments during dredging and subsequent disposal operations. In these
tests a sample of the sediment to be dredged is dispersed in the water of
the proposed spoil disposal site in a ratio of 1:4. After a period of
time, the sediment is filtered and the water is analyzed for the consti-
tuent of concern. The elutriate tests assist in the development of
acceptable dredging and disposal techniques and criteria. Bulk sediment
analyses and bioassays may also be required. The parameters measured
during the baseline should be monitored after dredging in an attempt to
evaluate the effects of dredging. Not all subsequent changes, however,
would necessarily be attributable to dredging or would necessarily be
ecologically undesirable.
Upland disposal sites may be monitored for runoff. Confinement of
runoff is recommended if the spoil contains hazardous or polluting
constituents. Groundwater may also be monitored, particularly in old
spoil confinement basins that may allow groundwater seepage. This would
involve drilling observation wells in selected areas for water quality
monitoring and sample collection. Odorous compounds in the air can also
be monitored at disposal sites by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.
Detection threshold, intensity and character of odors in problem areas
can be determined by experienced panelists using a dynamic, forced-
choice-triangle olfactometer (Harrison et al., 1976).
Water Quality
Standard measurement methods are available for most water quality
parameters. Some parameters associated with marina development surveys
include dissolved oxygen, turbidity, total suspended solids, salinity,
temperature, pesticides, nutrients (e.g., total inorganic nitrogen), bac-
teria (e.g., fecal coliforms), and various metals (e.g., copper, lead,
mercury, zinc, nickel, arsenic, cadmium, chromium: Williamson et al.,
1977). Examination of all of these parameters may not be necessary.
Site-specific parameters related to local industries and other effluent
sources should be considered.
4-105
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Water pH (acidity), BOD (biochemical oxygen demand), COD (chemical
oxygen demand), TOC (total organic carbon), total phosphorus, and oil and
grease may need to be measured. Oil and grease measurement may be
appropriate for marinas because of boat usage. BOD is related to DO,
which may be an indicator of organic loading. Total phosphorus measure-
ment may be appropriate in estuaries limited by phosphorus instead of
nitrogen.
Some water quality parameters, such as pesticides and metals, also
may be measured in sediments. Physical parameters such as grain size
composition should be determined so that spoil sediment quality can be
matched (Hirsch et al., 1978; Reimold et al., 1978) with disposal area
sediments if a wetland or open-water disposal site (although not
recommended) is to be used.
Water quality monitoring can be accomplished through multiparameter
instrumentation that directly measures pH, DO, temperature, conductivity,
and other parameters within the water column so that in-situ depth pro-
files can be made. Monitors for in-situ groundwater measurements that
can be lowered into observation weTTs are also commercially available as
well as various meters which individually measure one or more water
quality parameters.
Water turbidity may be analyzed in the laboratory with a turbidity
meter. Field measurements of sunlight transmittance (related to
turbidity) can be made by using a Secchi Disk, photometer, or related
instruments. Photometers measure the percentage of light transmittance
at a given water depth. The light zone in which photosynthesis occurs is
a function of the suspended particulates in the water.
Ecology
Biological specimens are often qualitatively or quantitatively
collected and taxonomically identified to establish an ecological base-
line for a given site. Vegetation surveys of wetland areas are useful to
determine existing species, especially any rare and endangered species.
Seagrass stands can also be assessed in terms of species composition,
grassbed areal distribution, and biomass (dry weight of living material).
Seagrass studies would involve diver observation, grass plug sampling,
and biomass laboratory analysis. Shellfish standing crop, strata types
and species can be important baseline considerations for marina develop-
ment.
Animal populations can be evaluated through observation (birds),
entrapment (small mammals), tagging (mark and recapture for fish and
wildlife), and sampling (benthic communities). Benthic macroinver-
tebrates can be grab sampled with dredges (for example, Ponar), enu-
merated, and taxonomically identified. Species diversities such as the
Coefficient of Similarity Index are also often calculated to determine
the "health" of a community or the effects of a perturbation such as
dredging. In general, a more diverse benthic community is considered
4-106
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
"healthier" than one with a few successful species; a greater percentage
of similarity between affected and control stations suggests a limited
pollution effect. Fish species can be sampled with seines, traps and
trawls. However, fishes, as opposed to benthic macroinvertebrates, are
less useful indicators of pollution since they are motile and can often
escape or avoid pollution. Pollution can, however, become a problem for
fish if migration routes are blocked or an entire embayment is affected.
Plankton may also be sampled by collecting water samples at various
depths of the euphotic zone and compositing them into one sample that is
then subsampled by volume. Fecal coliforms can be collected just below
the surface of the water and then cultured and counted (most probable
number) in the laboratory. Field sampling methodologies may be available
from the literature of the USEPA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) of most states.
Controlled laboratory studies may also be conducted to determine
effects of specific perturbations to certain species. Data can comple-
ment and refine field results. Algal and sediment bioassays are methods
for evaluating the suitability of a particular dredged material for
disposal. Such bioassay tests require controlled environments, test sub-
ject acclimation periods, replicate testing, and several concentrations
of the parameter being tested (e.g., turbidity). Examples of laboratory
studies regarding the effect of suspended solids on estuarine plankton,
for example, are presented in Sherk et al. (1976).
Shoreline and Protective Structures
Relevant to shoreline and protective structures, impact assessment
study areas include circulation (longshore drift, tides, currents, winds,
prevailing patterns), sedimentation and erosion, water quality
(turbidity, dissolved oxygen, wood preservative leaching), structure
design and engineering, and bioassay evaluations.
Circulation studies may be accomplished through predictive modeling
studies and field observations such as dye studies for describing the
distribution of currents in a specific area. Published literature may be
used to predict typical areas of sand deposition and erosion based on
physical phenomena in response to structure placement. Predictive on-
site studies also may be necessary to account for unique local conditions
such as current eddies and weather events. Such studies may help avoid
subsequent near-structure sand accumulation, downcoast erosion effects,
and costly maintenance dredging (which can have adverse ecological
effects). Biological field tests, such as fish behavior studies relative
to fish migration (e.g., through a permeable breakwater), would also be
useful, especially in areas of anadromous fishes (e.g., striped bass).
Bioassay experiments may be valuable to delineate the lethal con-
centrations of chemical wood preservatives, such as copper derivatives
and creosote, for target and non-target subject species. Data regarding
leaching rates and toxicities do not appear to be adequate at present.
4-107
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Sanitary Hastes and Runoff
Flushing rates and circulation characteristics of an estuary, the
levels of existing organic and chemical pollutants, and a general
assessment of biological community health are important areas where
information is needed to assess the potential impacts of sewage pollution
and runoff. Appropriate field sampling studies take into account
variations in environmental factors such as tidal stage, season of the
year, vertical distribution, or substrate type.
Assessment techniques for data gathered in field surveys are readily
available from many sources, one of the most complete being EPA's Water
Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Chemical
Pollutants (USEPA, 1982). This resource provides needed information on
the environmental chemistry of toxic chemicals, estimation of organic
pollutant loading, impacts of point and non-point sources of conventional
and toxic pollutants, flushing time calculations and pollutant transport
in estuaries, all of which may be useful in ascertaining or predicting
the environmental impact of sewage pollution and runoff from marinas.
In-situ monitoring may be carried out using standard data gathering
techniques(meters or other recording devices) or using oysters, bar-
nacles or other sedentary organisms as live monitors. Barber and Trefry
(1981) found that a 1 ppb increase in dissolved copper levels in waters
downstream from a boat harbor brought about a 36 ppm increase in the
copper found in ivory barnacle (Balanus ebureus) tissues. This copper
concentration factor of 36,000 illustrates the utility of biological
indicators. Barber and Tretry (1981) also reported that barnacles were
suitable for monitoring zinc concentrations.
Oysters were used as monitors of organic pollution by Scott and
Lawrence (1982). The use of a standardized, easily measured index of
oyster condition (Lawrence and Scott, 1982) has been proposed in which
the condition index equals the dry weight of the oyster meat (in grams)
multiplied by 100 and divided by the internal cavity volume (in cubic
centimeters). Oysters have also been shown to be sensitive to other
potential marina effluents such as chlorine (Scott and Middough, 1978;
Scott and Vernberg, 1979). Ridge back prawns (Sicyonia ingentis) and
Dover sole (Microstores pacificus) were utilized by Rau et al. (1981) as
indicators of sewage uptake while blue crabs (Pearson and Olla, 1980) and
marine mussels (Burno and Smith, 1981) were used as indicators of pollu-
tion from petroleum. Except for the case of oysters used in monitoring
organic pollution, the use of live monitors generally requires the use of
expensive, state-of-the-art chemical analysis equipment such as liquid or
gas chromatography, and atomic absorption or mass spectrophotometers.
Modeling can be used as a predictive tool to possibly avoid the
costs of post-hoc testing to ascertain if anticipated problems have
occurred. Kelch and Lee et al. (1978), for example, developed a predic-
tive model for coliform in estuarine environments. The goal is to deter-
mine the contribution of recreational watercraft to fecal coliform
4-108
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
levels. The model makes use of environmental parameters (temperature,
precipitation, river flow, and tide information), bacteriological data,
antibiotic resistance factors for the bacteria isolated, and recreational
use data.
Boat Operation and Maintenance
General methods of assessing physical impacts of boat operation
have been discussed in previous sections. Aerial photography, for
example, can be used for assessing dredging impacts and characterizing an
area, as well as a method for measuring boat propeller damage to seagrass
beds. Assessment of impact from boat collision with sea turtles or mana-
tees is complicated by the lack of information on total populations.
Population studies on these animals are being conducted by several public
and private organizations, notably the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Impacts on other wildlife, such as the effect of marina and boat
noise on local bird populations, can be measured by observation and
counts. Assessment of water bird populations is relatively easy compared
to other wildlife because the birds are highly visible, are active during
the day, and often nest in colonies that are well-delineated spatially.
All bird census techniques require accurate counts conducted either from
the air with ground truthing or on the ground only. Specific methods
vary with the species and the habitats where they occur. These methods
are well described by Parnell and Soots (1979). Counts are made of the
number of nesting adults, the number of nests, the number of eggs, or a
combination of the three. These enumerations are then compared on a
year-to-year basis to monitor the condition of the colony.
Although the water bird population assessment is relatively
uncomplicated, it is often difficult to attribute population changes to a
specific cause. Human disturbance may disrupt a nesting colony, par-
ticularly if it occurs when the nests are being established, and result
in a rapid nesting population decrease. On the other hand, a decreasing
population trend over several years may be related to humans, disease,
climate, or other factors.
The effects of pollutants from boat operation and maintenance,
including hydrocarbons and lead, are generally assessed through the use
of standard bioassay techniques (methods are delineated in Peltier, 1978)
conducted under laboratory conditions. Test organisms are subjected to
varying concentrations of pollutants over varying time periods to deter-
mine when and at what concentration mortalities or sub-lethal effects
(such as cessation of growth or disruption of normal behavior) occur.
4-109
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.6 Summary
The environmental impacts associated with marina development and
operation may be temporary or long-term. The potential for undesirable
environmental impacts is a function of many variables, including marina
location, design, services offered, number and type of boats served,
marina management and operational performance. As a result, the poten-
tial for or the degree of undesirable environmental changes is not the
same for all marinas. Marinas that are adjacent to environmental sen-
sitive areas or areas prone to shoaling or poor flushing may be more
susceptible to water quality problems and could be more expensive to
develop and maintain.
Adverse impacts from marina construction and operation may result
from:
Dredging and spoil disposal
Placement and design of shoreline and protective structures
Wastewater discharge and runoff
Boat operation and maintenance.
Adverse impacts from dredge and fill operations may result from seagrass
and benthic habitat loss, wetland alteration, destruction of shellfish
beds, increased turbidity or siltation, reduced dissolved oxygen or
resuspension of plant nutrients or toxic pollutants. Benefits may result
from the addition of nutrients in nutrient-limited areas or from improved
water circulation or flushing in stagnant areas.
Shoreline and protective structures affect the physical, chemical
and biological components of the environment. Adverse effects may result
from alterations in water circulation, deposition/erosion charac-
teristics, blockage of migration routes or sunlight, elimination of
shallow-water habitat or addition of toxic chemical preservatives. These
structures also may provide suitable habitats for colonization which may
compensate for natural habitat altered or lost during construction.
Certain structures may also attract sport fishes into the area.
Runoff from marinas and sewage discharge from boats in shell fishing
areas may affect the utilization of the shellfish for food or the produc-
tivity of the shellfish. Because shellfish are filter-feeders, they can
concentrate pathogens derived from sanitary wastes or the chemical pollu-
tants from boat operation and maintenance that may enter the water
directly or through stormwater runoff. Boat operation also may result in
physical impacts to shorelines and to sensitive biota including inter-
tidal oyster reefs, seagrasses, mangroves, waterfowl, manatees and sea
turtles.
Techniques that can be used to predict flushing time, sediment
deposition and shoaling rates, sedimentation from dredging and structure
emplacement and pollutant concentrations in the absence of site-specific
data are provided for addressing these environmental impacts.
4-110
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Predictive techniques that have been used to estimate the area of
impact resulting from sanitary wastes discharged from boats in a marina
are discussed. Complications that can arise in evaluating impacts using
these methods include:
Variable boating population
Mobility of the boats
Intermittent pollution contribution
Varying levels of treatment
Treatment devices with varying ranges of efficiency
The epidemiological background of a transitory population
contributing fresh fecal pollution.
Techniques that can be used to evaluate the potential impact to
aquatic and wetland habitats from burial by sediments derived from
dredging operations are detailed.
Results from these methods can be readily used to provide reaso-
nable approximations for evaluating potential problem areas. These
results may be used to alleviate concerns for potential adverse impacts
or to serve as an indicator that a more precise determination based on
data measured at the marina site may be required before making a final
decision on site or design feasibility.
4-111
-------
-------
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS: IMPACT MITIGATION
5.1 Overview 5-1
5.2 Environmental Impact Solutions Through Mitigation 5-1
5.2.1 Definition of Mitigation 5-1
5.2.2 Mitigative Concepts , 5-2
5.2.3 Extent of Mitigation 5-3
5.2.4 Marina-Related Mitigative Measures 5-3
5.3 Marina Location 5-4
5.4 Marina Design and Construction 5-4
Design Considerations and Procedures 5-4
Design Criteria 5-5
Construction Considerations and Procedures 5-6
5.4.1 Water Quality Mitigative Measures 5-7
Flushing 5-7
Marina Basin Design
Mechanical Devices
Entrance Channel Design
Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal 5-11
Dredging Method
Sediment Curtains
Other Mitigative Measures
Dredged Material Disposal
Structures 5-16
Bulkheads and Revetments
Piers and Pilings
Breakwaters
Stormwater Runoff and Spills 5-20
Sanitary Wastes 5-21
Shoreside Facilities
Sanitary Wastes From Boats
Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs)
Marina Wastewater Collection Systems
System Characteristics
System Costs
Overall Comparison of Systems
Existing Operational Systems
Boat Operation and Maintenance 5-43
5.4.2 Ecological Mitigative Measures 5-44
Aquatic Habitat 5-44
Rehabilitation of Altered Areas
Terrestrial Habitat 5-49
Wetlands and Protected Species 5-50
Shellfish 5-52
5.4.3 Other Mitigative Measures 5-56
Historical/Archaeological Resources 5-56
Aesthetic Resources 5-56
Public Access 5-56
Navigation 5-57
-------
5.5 Marina Operation and Maintenance 5-57
5.5.1 Water Quality Considerations 5-58
Dredging 5-58
Runoff 5-58
Boat Wastes 5-58
5.5.2 Ecological Considerations 5-59
Aquatic Habitat 5-59
Terrestrial Habitat 5-59
Wetlands and Protected Species 5-60
Shellfish 5-60
5.5.3 Other Considerations 5-60
5.6 Summary 5-61
-------
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS: IMPACT MITIGATION
5.1 Overview
The ultimate environmental performance of a properly sited coastal
marina depends on the marina design, construction and operation. Most
coastal construction projects, including coastal marinas, will impact the
coastal environment in a variety of ways. This chapter is designed to
provide the Handbook user with alternative measures or "environmental
solutions" that can be used to solve potential environmental impact
problems. The chapter provides guidance for the resolution of those
potential impact problems first identified using the Coastal Marina
Screening checklist in Chapter 3.0 and then evaluated using the tech-
niques discussed in Chapter 4.0.
Section 5.2 begins with an introduction to the concept of impact
mitigation as used in the context of this Handbook. The importance of
marina location for avoiding or minimizing potential impacts is stressed
in Section 5.3. Section 5.4 presented environmental impact mitigative
measures that can be used during coastal marina design and construction.
Following the format of Chapter 4.0, this discussion is divided into
water quality, ecological and other categories, acknowledging the con-
siderable overlap in application that may be involved. Marina operation
and maintenance, critical factors for the success of an environmentally
sound design, are discussed in Section 5.5. Appendix B presents specific
cost calculation information for the slipside wastewater collection and
( " disposal systems discussed in Section 5.4.1. Appendix C provides a
v detailed discussion of shellfish purification technology, an approach
that in the future may allow recovery of shellfish resources lost due to
water quality problems.
5.2 Environmental Impact Solutions Through Mitigation
5.2.1 Definition of Mitigation
The term "mitigation" was first used in connection with wildlife in
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Rappoport, 1979). However, miti-
gation and the philosophy behind it have never been consistently or
clearly defined by all agencies connected with its use.
According to the dictionary definition, mitigation is the "abatement
or diminution of something painful, harsh, severe, afflictive...". This
definition implies that mitigation involves corrective action
(compensation, restoration, replacement, etc.) only after impact has
occurred.
The above definition is valid; however, it only goes part of the way
in dealing with impact-related issues. What is missing is the concept of
prevention, which would avert or limit impact effects prior to
occurrence. "Mitigation" has thus evolved to include avoiding and mini-
mizing project impacts on natural resources during project planning and
implementation, as well as corrective action following impact. This
f ^ broader definition is stated in the National Environmental Policy Act
V., (NEPA; Section 1508) and includes:
5-1
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain
action or parts of an action
Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude
of the action and its implementation
Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring the affected environment
Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preser-
vation and maintenance operations during the life of the
action
Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing
substitute resources or environments.
In short, mitigation means lessening losses through the use of preven-
tative measures and offsetting losses through the use of other structural
and non-structural measures (Krulitz, 1979). In this chapter, the term
"mitigation" will be used in the general sense as defined in the NEPA
Regulations.
5.2.2. Mitigative Concepts
The primary mitigative (or management) approach is one of preven-
tative conservation, designed to protect an ever shrinking base of cer-
tain habitats and avoid costly man-assisted restoration efforts. It is
founded on preventing adverse, predictable and irreversible trends or
changes in aquatic and terrestrial natural systems. The objective is to
maintain as much of the existing ecosystems as possible, even if the
structure, function and relative importance of these ecosystems are not
fully known (Jahn, 1979). The mitigative approach to meet this objective
is to pursue feasible and prudent alternatives to a proposed project
and/or examine all feasible measures to reduce or counteract adverse
impacts associated with that project. Where remedial action is indi-
cated, it should be of sufficient size and properly designed so as to
offset the adverse impacts of a proposed project.
Steps in the mitigative approach (evaluation method) should include
(compiled from Hall and Vogt, 1979; Rappoport, 1979; Wood and Swift,
1979):
Early planning, which is often the key to minimizing or
avoiding conflicts over development. This includes the
early and coordinated involvement of all interests
(national, regional and local; public and private) in
plan formulation and implementation to establish a team
effort
Development of a soundly conceived plan to satisfy
legitimate human needs and/or desires. This plan must
5-2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
be verified as technically sound and objective; data
generated must be documented, replicable and compatible
in detail with other elements of the planning process;
the plan must be compatible with project design and
scheduling, including timing of plan presentation; and
the validity of the plan must be accepted by those
interests involved
The mitigative method(s) developed must be implementable
within the planning framework. Perserverance and
follow-through is required by the team to ensure plan
implementation and operation.
5.2.3 Extent of Mitigation
The extent of mitigation needed for a given project may be based on
consideration of the following factors (modified from Coenen and
Cartright, 1979):
The extent of proposed dredge and/or fill activity in
intertidal and marsh areas
The biological productivity and important resource
values of the site. (This should be based on a func-
tional and qualitative assessment of existing com-
munities, habitats and resource characteristics)
The adverse impacts and the extent to which they can be
minimized through modification of project design or
reduction in project scope
The identification of any remaining adverse impacts to
be mitigated by restoration, compensation or other
measures.
5.2.4 Marina-Related Mitigative Measures
The three greatest adverse impacts in the estuarine ecosystem are
the loss of surface area (by filling), the loss of shallow intertidal
benthic habitat (by either filling or dredging) and the degradation of
water quality. As a minimum, mitigation efforts should be designed to
maintain, to compensate for or to restore these three parameters (LaRoe,
1979).
5-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
5.3 Marina Location
There are institutional measures in addition to the desirable site
characteristics discussed in Chapter 3.0 that can help ensure that mari-
nas are developed in an environmentally sound manner. Comprehensive
regional planning may be considered as a first mitigative measure for
marina siting, instead of the widely used single site approach that may
not consider more suitable alternative locations. Following deter-
mination of present and projected marina demand, alternative sites may be
evaluated with the goal of choosing the most suitable site or sites.
Those that meet the requirements of marina operation and, at the same
time, require the least loss of environmental values. This type of
planning may involve designation of "vital", "critical" or "sensitive"
areas of environmental concern.
One effective approach may be to give priority to the expansion of
existing facilities, if environmentally sound, over new facilities (Cato,
1983) or to encourage use of previously disturbed areas for new marina
sites. For example, numerous navigation channels have already been cut
along the coast. Siting marinas on existing channels could reduce or
avoid the need for additional dredging. Many areas also have extensive
systems of dredged canals with single family homes on filled land. It
may be possible to site marinas in these areas, rather than dredging and
filling in undisturbed areas (Maloney et al., 1980a). The high cost of
residential waterfront property, zoning ordinances and aesthetics are all
potential obstacles to this management alternative.
Encouraging centrally located marina facilities rather than pro-
viding navigational access to individual lots may be effective in
reducing impacts in new residential developments (Maloney et al., 1980a).
Centralized facilities reduce the disruptive influence on coastal
wetlands by concentrating watercraft in one area and the management of
upland support activities can be accomplished more effectively.
5.4 Marina Design and Construction
Proper site planning can avoid or minimize many of the impacts that
can result from marina development. Selecting the marina location that
will complement the marina concept and designing the marina to permit
maximum use of the natural attributes of the site can facilitate the
entire development process from permit application through completion of
construction.
Design Considerations and Procedures
The successful design of marinas and structures requires an aware-
ness of the environment, its characteristics, and the variety of impacts
that can potentially occur. To assure the function and longevity of the
marina and marine structures, the designer also must choose appropriate
construction materials and understand their limitations. Finally, the
marina designer must carefully evaluate the costs of materials and struc-
tures with respect to longevity and safety.
5-4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Marina design can be considered a two-phase procedure. The first
phase is the preliminary design and the second phase is the detailed
design. The preliminary design phase amplifies the conceptual plan deve-
loped in the planning effort. During the preliminary design,
hydrographic and topographic survey work is conducted, meteorological
data is verified, and supplemental measurements of the tidal zone's dyna-
mic characteristics are collected as required to support and confirm
hypotheses identified in the feasibility study. Additionally, a water
quality sampling program can be considered, along with a flora and fauna
assessment. All information collected in the preliminary design should
be evaluated to serve as the data base upon which the detailed design is
based.
The detailed final design, resulting in construction plans and spe-
cifications, can be broken into four components. The first is onshore
site design that includes consideration for vehicular and pedestrian
access, launching facilities, buildings, recreation areas and
landscaping. The second component is the watercourse design. Features
such as final channel alignment, dredging requirements, final basin
configuration and dimensions are included in the detailed watercourse
design. The third design component includes consideration of dockage
structures such as piers, piles, and dolphins and wave attenuation and
erosion/recession control structures such as breakwaters, jetties,
bulkheads, groins and revetments. The last component of the final design
involves consideration of ancillary marina systems including sanitary
waste facilities, utilities (electric, phone, water, television cable),
solid waste disposal, storm water management, fuel storage and delivery
facilities, and fire protection.
Design Criteria
The basis for the preliminary design and the subsequent final design
is a comprehensive data base. As a minimum the following information is
required (Chamberlain, 1983) to provide the foundation for optimal final
design:
Plats, maps, and charts for. the potential site and immediate
surrounding areas can include USGS quadrangle maps, state or
county charts and maps, aerial photographs and surveyor's plot
plans
Bathymetric surveys should be conducted on the proposed marina
basin area as well as those areas that will be utilized as
channels, whether existing or proposed. Water depths can affect
nearly the entire marina layout and design
Soil borings provide information on the characteristics of the
site's underlying soils. This information forms the basis for
the design of pilings, bulkheads, jetties, breakwaters, and
building foundations and, therefore, must be accurate and
up-to-date
5-5
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
A working knowledge of the magnitude of water level fluctuations
is required to design the marine structures. In addition to
tidal range data, data on extreme high and low water levels also
should be considered
Waves caused by wind or by passing vessels affect marina design.
Theoretical wave height formulas are available for preliminary
wave height determination. Field observations also should be
conducted at the proposed marina site during high wind con-
ditions and when boat traffic is heaviest
The marina design should consider prevailing wind velocity and
direction, and how wind characteristics change with time of day
and time of year. In addition, the extreme wind velocity and
direction data are useful. The wind characteristics can affect
the design and orientation of wave suppression facilities within
the marina
Current velocity and direction data are generally available to
the engineer, but may be presented in the form of average
measurements. Field verification of data is prudent, par-
ticularly for extreme events such as flood conditions and spring
and neap tides
Discussions with persons who live on or near the site can pro-
vide very useful information. Of particular interest are items
such as the existence of wood borers, problems with algae,
mussels, barnacles, seaweed and bottom grasses, as well as
historic weather, wave and current information. This infor-
mation will assist in optimal design of facilities.
Construction CQnsJderations and Procedures
The detailed final design results in plans and specifications that
identify the physical characteristics of the marina and graphically show
planned structures, their layout, dimensions, materials, profiles,
construction details and other information required for cost estimating
and construction of the marina. Because of the nature of marine
construction, certain unavoidable short-term construction impacts can be
planned for in advance. These short-term impacts can be minimized
through careful planning, preconstruction preparations (pre-bid qualifi-
cation requirements), and qualified construction inspection.
Project specifications can include special construction practices
such as soil erosion, sedimentation and stormwater runoff control plans.
Also, procedures for containment of silt and sediment during dredging and
structure emplacement. Dedication of permanent upland dredged material
disposal sites and disposal procedures may be necessary.
5-6
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Successful completion of the project requires competent contractors
experienced in the use of proper equipment and accepted construction
practices. The developer can adopt prequalification procedures to eva-
luate prospective bidder qualifications and to determine the bidders that
are best qualified to undertake the construction contract.
Construction inspection is an important aspect of successful deve-
lopment that may be overlooked. All construction should be supervised by
a qualified inspector who has the authority to reject any materials,
workmanship or construction practices that are not in accordance with
project specifications. This also will help ensure that dredging is
carried out only in the areas designated and to the proper depths
required by construction specifications.
5.4.1 Water Quality Mitigative Measures
Flushing
Adequate flushing of a marina is necessary for maintaining the water
quality of the marina basin and adjacent waterway. Natural circulation
near the site should be maintained whenever possible. Poorly flushed
marinas can become stagnant and permit the concentration of pollutants
from the marina facility and boats. The settling and accumulation of
organic material and fine sediments can result in decreased dissolved
oxygen levels and shoaling within the marina basin.
Marina Basin Design
Open marinas located on existing channels will generally have the
same flushing rate as the channel. Semi-enclosed marinas or marinas with
dredged basins should be designed to maximize tidal exchange and mixing
within the marina., Marina basin design features that promote flushing
are:
Basin depths that are not deeper than the open water or channels
to which the basin is connected and never deeper than the marina
access channel
Basin and channel depths that gradually increase toward open
water
Two openings at opposite ends of the marina to establish flow-
through currents
Single entrances that are centered in rectangular basins rather
than at one corner
Basins with few vertical walls and gently rounded corners or
circular or oval shaped
Even bottom contours, gently sloping toward the entrance with no
pockets or depressions.
5-7
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Generally, a rectangluar basin is accepted as the best geometric
shape for maximizing both the number of boat slips and basin circulation.
The minor dimension of the rectangluar basin should be a multiple of 61
to 76 meters (200 to 250 feet). To maximize flushing and minimize waves,
the basin should have as few vertical walls as possible, interior corners
gently rounded with constantly changing radii and a bottom sloped toward
the exit and main waterway (Chamberlain, 1983). The flushing potential
of several marina basin configurations is illustrated in Figure 5-1.
Mechanical Devices
In areas where tidal exchange may not adequately flush the marina,
mechanical means such as tide gates or one-way valves may be used to
enhance flushing rate. However, the performance of these systems should
be carefully evaluated before installation. Such systems have been used
in Florida to flush canals in dead-end lagoon developments (Giannio and
Wang, 1974).
For locked-harbor marinas dredged from uplands, flushing may be
induced by creating a tidal prism with the basin. A recent
marina/residential development in South Carolina has been designed with
different diameter pipes at each end of the marina basin. The basin is
flooded on the incoming tide and the water flows out smaller diameter
pipes on the ebb tide.
Where possible, flushing should be accomplished through basin design
without the assistance of mechanical devices. Mechanical devices may be
costly and will require maintenance.
Entrance Channel Design
Entrance channel design and placement can alleviate potential water
quality problems. Entrance channels designed with openings as wide as
possible and with increasing depth away from the marina basin promote
flushing (Boozer, 1979; Figure 5-2). Flushing also is enhanced when
entrance channels are located in the direction of prevailing winds where
possible because wind-generated currents can mix basin water and facili-
tate circulation between the basin and adjacent waterway. Shoaling may
be significant in entrance channels located perpendicular to waterways
with significant bed load transport. Increased shoaling could require
extensive maintenance dredging of the channel or create a sill at the
entrance to the marina basin. Shoaling at the marina entrance can lead
to water quality problems by reducing flushing and water circulation
within the basin.
5-8
-------
CONCEPTUAL MARINA CONFIGURATIONS
RECTANGULAR BASIN
ASYMMETRICAL SINGLE ENTRANCE
MODERATE FLUSHING POTENTIAL
RECTANGULAR BASIN
TWO-CHANNEL ENTRANCE
GOOD FLUSHING POTENTIAL
POD TYPE DEVELOPMENT MARINA
ASYMMETRICAL ENTRANCE
POOR FLUSHING POTENTIAL
RECTANGULAR BASIN
SINGLE SYMMETRICAL ENTRANCE
GOOD FLUSHING POTENTIAL
FiNGER CANAL
POOR FLUSHING POTENTIAL
Figure 5-1. Comparison of the flushing potential of several
marina configurations, (SCCC, 1983).
5-9
-------
CROSS SECTION
lower flushing rate
higher flushing rate
Figure 5-2. Marina cross sections showing differences in marina flushing,
(Adapted from SCCC, 1983).
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal
Dredging temporarily impacts water quality by increasing turbidity
through the resiispension of the bottom sediments. These resuspended
sediments can affect filter feeding organisms such as shellfish by
reducing feeding rates, suffocate organisms by clogging gills, reduce
primary productivity by reducing light penetration and bury benthic orga-
nisms through siltation. Resuspended bottom sediments can contain trace
metals, toxic substances, nutrients and organic debris that can be
released into the water column. Resulting water quality problems can
include lowered dissolved oxygen concentrations and promotion of algal
blooms.
The abatement of negative dredging effects initially involves
assessing the need for dredging. Ideally, a marina should be sited in a
well-flushed, circulated, protected, deep-water, natural harbor that does
not require dredging for navigation or require spoil filling of submerged
wetland areas. Realistically, such areas are not always available or
economically feasible. However, minimizing the amount (area and volume)
of material dredged and the frequency of dredging activities will reduce
the environmental impact as well as the cost of maintaining the marina.
Mitigative measures for impacts associated with dredging and dredged
material disposal operations are compiled primarily from Boozer (1979),
Chapman (1968), Clark (1979), Diener (1979), Lindall et al. (1979), NMFS
(1983), BRMC (1983), Terrell and Shanks (1979) and VSWCB (1979).
Most marina developments require only small amounts of dredging and
dredged material disposal (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1976). The most
common marina-related dredging involves "spot" and maintenance dredging
to remove sediment from problem areas in boat channels or near docks
(Chmura and Ross, 1978). A recent alternative to dredging boat basins
from shallow water areas has been the excavation of upland areas, con-
nected to open waters by locks.
The marina developer's attention to environmentally sound marina
development by avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts from design and
construction can help assure success of the development, since marinas
are dependent upon functional, healthy environmental systems for the
public recreational service they provide. Generally, guidelines and
mangement considerations are presented in Clark (1974), Chmura and Ross
(1978), Boozer (1979), the Virginia State Water Control Board (VSWCB,
1979), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, 1983), and others.
Water quality impacts may be avoided or minimized by (Maloney et
al., 1980a; Ervin et al., 1980; Bednarz, 1983):
Planning dredged channels that follow the course of natural
channels
Building slips for boats with deep drafts in naturally deep
water
5-11
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Extending piers and docks as far as possible into naturally deep
water
Providing upland storage for smaller boats and using boat lifts
to transport them to the water.
Dredging Method
When dredging is required, water quality impacts due to increased
turbidity may be reduced by:
Choice of dredging method
Use of silt screens or similar containment methods.
The two types of dredges are mechanical and hydraulic. Mechanical dredges
physically pick up and lift materials using various types of buckets or
shovels. Hydraulic dredges utilize a centrifugal pump to move a slurry
of water and material from the bottom through a system of pipes to the
disposal site. An appropriate dredge should be selected based on con-
siderations of site, operation, environmental impact, and cost. Common
mechanical dredges include dipper, ladder and bucket; hydraulic dredges
include pipeline and hopper. Descriptions of these designs are presented
in Table 5-1 (excerpted: Clark, 1974).
Mechanical dredges have the advantage of not adding dilution water
to the spoil and not requiring pipelines. They can remove hard materials
and be operated on land or water. This type of dredge, however, is not
economical for large volumes of material and is inefficient in deep water
(VSWCB, 1979). Hydraulic dredges have the advantage of being productive
for medium to soft bottom material, economical for large spoil quan-
tities, and can rapidly remove benthic material from the site bottom.
However, hydraulic dredges require large disposal sites and effluent
filtration procedures (VSWCB, 1979). Hopper dredges apparently cause a
relatively low amount of damage to the biota but are usually limited to
construction and maintenance usage (Mulvihill et al., 1980).
Hydraulic dredges generally produce less turbidity at the dredge
site since a suction pipe is used to remove dredged material. Negligible
levels of turbidity are produced by a Japanese-developed pneumatic
dredge. Due to the minimal agitation created by this dredge, it is
valuable for dredging contaminated spoil (Golden et al., 1980). However,
this type of dredge is inefficient and is not cost- effective (VSWCB,
1979). Disposal of hydraulic dredge spoil could, however, produce more
turbid waters than mechanical dredge spoil since the former produces
spoil in the form of a diluted slurry. If improperly dumped in open
water without filtration, considerable turbidity could result.
5-12
-------
TABLE 5-1
DESCRIPTIONS OF SEVERAL MECHANICAL DREDGES
(DIPPER, LADDER, AND BUCKET) a
AND HYDRAULIC DREDGES (PIPELINE AND HOPPER)
Dipper dredge
The dipper dredge Is basically a power shovel mounted on a barge. The
barge (which serves as the work platform for the shovel) uses three spuds
(two spuds at the forward end and a single spud at the stern) to provide
stability during dredging operations. The dipper dredge is capable of
excavating from 3 to 10 cubic yards of hard material per cycle. It can
remove blasted rock or loose boulders. The dredged material is discharged
within the reach of the dipper boom. The digging boom limits the depth of
excavation to not more than 60 feet.
Ladder dredge
The ladder dredge uses an endless chain of buckets for excavation. The
dredge is mounted on a barge which is stabilized by side cables during the
dredging operations. The ladder dredge Is capable of excavating from 1 to
2 cubic yards of hard material per bucket. It can remove blasted rock or
loose boulders. The excavated material is dumped from the buckets into
chutes or onto belts and is discharged over the side of the barge. The
design of the ladder limits the depth of excavation to not more than 100
feet.
Bucket dredge
The bucket dredge is basically a crane mounted on a barge. The bucket
(clamshell, orange-peel, or dragline) can be changed to suit the job con-
ditions and material to be removed. The barge (which serves as the work
platform for the crane) uses either spuds or anchor lines to provide stabi-
lity during dredging operation. The bucket dredge is capable of exca-
vating moderately stiff material in confined areas. It is generally not
used for large scale projects. The excavated material is dumped within the
reach of the boom.
Pi pelIne dredge
The pipeline dredge Is the most versatile and widely used dredge. It can
handle large volumes of material In an economical fashion. Using a cut-
terhead the dredge can excavate material ranging from light silts to heavy
rock. It can pump the dredged material through floating and shore
discharge lines to remote disposal areas. Pipeline dredges range In sizes
(as measured by the diameter of the pump discharge) from 6 inches to 36
inches. The depth of excavation is limited to 60 feet. The rate of
dredging will decrease with 1) difficulty in digging, 2) increase in
length of discharge pipe and 3) increase in lift to discharge elevation.
Hopper dredge
The hopper dredge is a self-propelled vessel designed to dredge material
hydraulically, to load and retain dredge spoil in hoppers, and then to haul
the spoil to a disposal area or dump. Loading is accomplished by sucking
the bottom material through a dreg-head into the hoppers while making a cut
through the dredging area. The quantity of volume pumped during a loading
operation depends primarily upon the character of the material and the
amount of pumping time involved as well as the hopper capacity and the
pumping and propulsive capability of the dredge. The loaded dredge pro-
ceeds to the disposal area where the dredge spoil is discharged through
gates In the bottom of the hoppers.
3Excerpted: Clark, 1974).
5-13
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Sediment Curtains
Silt screens may be used to confine suspended sediments in sen-
sitive areas such as those near shellfish beds or grassbeds. Sediment
curtains are effective in low current areas (1 to 1.5 knots) when pro-
perly maintained and monitored. Use of sediment curtains is illustrated
in Figure 5-3.
Other Mitigative Measures
Other mitigative measures for dredging impacts include:
. Dredging during colder months when DO levels are higher (cold
water has a greater capacity for DO than does warm water) would
help mitigate dredging-related DO and BOD problems
. Dredging dead-end (Venetian) finger canals within a marina is
undesirable. If canals are dredged, however, the banks of the
canals can be sloped, as opposed to being at right angles with
the bottom, to reduce stagnant, low DO pocket areas. Sloped
banks can be stabilized with rip-rap to prevent erosion
. Water circulation can be ensured by using properly designed
culverts, pilings and bridge spans, and by using discontinuous
mounds for open water discharge.
Dredged Material Disposal
Dredged material may be disposed of in open water, wetlands or
upland sites. Open water disposal is seldom a viable option for marina
projects and disposal on wetlands is unacceptable because of environmen-
tal reasons. Environmental solutions for potential disposal problems
were compiled from NMFS (1983), Van Dolah et al. (1979), Wright (1978),
Johnston (1981) and Reimold et al. (1978). Mitigative measures for
dredged material disposal include:
. Productive use of suitable dredged material for beach replenish-
ment, construction, sanitary landfill and agricultural soil
improvement
Confining discharges to the smallest practicable deposition zone
to protect adjacent substrates
. Use of currently permitted public disposal sites
. Dedicating permanent upland disposal sites as part of the marina
specifications would help eliminate future problems related to
disposal of maintenance dredging material. These permanent
sites can be sites that have been previously used or represent
an environmentally satisfactory alternative
5-14
-------
Productive
Shellfish Beds
300 feet downstream
USE OF SEDIMENT CURTAINS WHEN DREDGING IN A COVE
^///v\\/>A\N ///'\
Productive
Shellfish Beds
300 feet downstream
USE OF SEDIMENT CURTAINS WHEN DREDGING IN MAN-MADE CANALS
, Sediment
7 Curtain
-^<—:^>^
TO
.... DREDGED
A\\\\ \\x\\\
U
SE OF SEDIMENT CURTAINS WHEN DREDGING ADJACENT TO SHELLFISH BEDS
Figure 5-3. Use of sediment curtains when dredging in different areas,
(Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 1979).
5-15
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
. The carrying capacity at existing disposal areas could be
increased by raising the height of containment embankments
. Disposing of toxic and organic materials in impervious contain-
ment basins (settling of contaminated suspended particles may
be enhanced by the addition of a cationic polyelectrolyte with
further treatment using sand filters and activated charcoal
before discharge)
. Upland retention or treatment of runoff from the discharged
material to remove dissolved pollutants before they reach the
aquatic environment (a simple treatment such as ozonation or
aeration can be adequate for reduction of BOD and COD before the
discharge of supernatant liquid from spoil areas enters into
receiving waters)
. Controlling erosion at diked areas by shaping the dike and using
stabilization measures, such as revegetation. Positioning out-
falls to empty back into the dredged area
. Characterizing the sediments to be dredged and considering the
potential odor problems during the selection of the disposal
site and site preparation.
When upland disposal is not possible and open water disposal is con-
sidered environmentally acceptable, measures that can minimize problems
or impacts include:
Using several sites to provide a more even distribution of
dredged material overburden
Maintaining the same elevation as marshes and other contiguous
areas to promote natural tidal flooding and flushing
Situating spoil islands on the windward side of the dredged
channel.
Structures
Structures that may be required at the marina include bulkheads,
revetments, pilings, piers and breakwaters. Bulkheads and revetments are
primarily used to stabilize banks and control erosion. Pilings, piers
and finger piers are necessary for mooring watercraft in the marina.
Breakwaters are used to absorb and reflect wave energy away from the
marina to protect boats moored within the marina basin. A direct water
quality impact from these structures during construction is a temporary
increase in turbidity during emplacement. This may be alleviated, if
necessary, by use of pile-driving rather than jetting. Water quality can
be indirectly affected when structure emplacement, particularly break-
waters, reduces water circulation. Therefore, all structures should be
designed and placed so as not to restrict water circulation or mixing
5-16
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
within the marina basin or increase shoaling. Environmental solutions to
potential problems related to protective and shoreline structures have
been addressed by Bara et al. (1977), Boozer (1979), Chmura and Ross
(1978), Mulvihill et al. (1980), and NMFS (1983).
Bulkheads and Revetments
Revetments are preferable to vertical bulkneading for controlling
erosion because bulkheads provide less surface area than revetments, for
colonization by organisms. Vertical bulkheads also can create reflection
waves that can increase turbidity within the marina basin and can cause
scouring at the base of the bulkhead. Placing these structures as far
upland as possible not only avoids alterations to shallow intertidal and
wetland areas, but also provides a vegetated buffer to filter stormwater
runoff between upland facilities and the waterway. Where vertical
bulkheads are necessary, they should contain weep holes, covered with a
filter cloth to curtain sediments and to permit groundwater flow into the
marina. Problems with floating debris accumulation, shoaling and
flushing can be avoided by using rounded corners instead of sharp turns.
The construction of currently used bulkheads and several types of revet-
ments are illustrated in Figure 5-4.
Vegetated revetments are currently recommended as a means of main-
taining a vegetative fringe along the shoreline while protecting the
upland (Jones, 1984). Mangroves are presently being used for this pur-
pose in south Florida. A guide to the planting and maintenance of
mangroves is available from the Florida Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program
(MAP-25, Stevely and Rabinowitz, 1982).
Piers and Pilings
Mooring structures can impact water quality within the marina basin
through the leaching of wood preservatives and by impeding water cir-
culation. These potential impacts can be avoided or reduced by:
Using alternative materials such as concrete-filled,
steel-reinforced PVC, plastics or other non-conventional
material s
Using highly refined (grade one) creosote that contains less tar
or alternative preservatives such as chromated copper arsenate
(CCA salt) to minimize chemical leaching
Avoid solid structures
Elevate docks and piers as high as possible, orient in
north-south rather than east-west direction and minimize
structure width to allow for maximum sunlight penetration (many
design guidelines call for a minimum width of 1 meter (3 to 4
ft) for finger piers and 2 meters (6 to 8 ft) for main piers.
5-17
-------
ISAND OR GROUT-FILLED BAGS)
GROUT FILLED BAGS
BARS
WOVEN PLASTIC __
FILTER CLOTH
STONE TOE PROTECTION
M£AN HIGH ^ATER^
STONE FILLED
GABIONS
STONE TOE
PROTECTION
MEAN HIGH WATER
•PREPARED
SLOPE
WOVEN
FILTER
UNTERLOCK1NG CONCRETE
BLOCKS)
IN
,TERLOCK1NG BLOCKS
TONE TOE PROTECTION
OEADMAN
"PREPARE
SLOPE
^ CLOTH
Figure a-*. —tures
«.
5-18
-------
(POSSIBLY IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER METHODS)
CLEAN
GRANULAR BACKFILL
\
S
BULKHEAD
STONE TOE
PROTECTION EXISTING OR PLANTED PLANTS,
TREES, OR GRASSES
MEAN HIGH WATER LINE
EXISTING SLOPE •'--/.'.•pI'-vS-
WOVEN
FILTER
• • I- -"^T-^f^A^
N PLASTIC;-.-?;:v;->-;B;?r^>rn^
;R CLOTH ' •""-' •"-•--V';V-^£;;^-_
(STEEL, TIMBER, CONCRETE)
BULKHEAD
STONE TOE PROTECTION
OEAOM
MEAN HIGH WATER LINE
CABLE
TIE-BACK
CLEAN
GRANULAR BACKFILL
WOVEN PLASTIC
FILTER CLOTH
(STONE RIPRAP)
• LARGESTON
MEAN HIGH WATER LINE
EXISTING SLOPE
FILTER
STONE WOVEN PLASTIC
FILTER CLOTH
Figure 5-4 (continued). Examples of bulkhead and revetment
structures, (USACOE, no date).
5-19
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Breakwaters
Breakwaters can be fixed or floating. Fixed breakwaters can inter-
fere with currents and reduce the flushing rate within the marina,
resulting in reduced water quality and increased shoaling. Circulation
often can be maintained by providing openings in solid breakwaters, at
both ends of fixed breakwaters or between the fixed breakwater and shore.
Alternatively, floating breakwaters can be used.
Although floating breakwaters are only effective for wavelengths
shorter than twice the width of the breakwater and are not effective on
open coasts, they offer certain advantages over fixed breakwaters (Rogers
et al., 1982):
. Construction cost is nearly independent of water depth
. They can be used where soft or unstable bottom precludes the
use of fixed structures
. They can be easily relocated if necessary
. They can minimize potential interference with fish migration
and shoreline processes and can reduce benthic habitat modifica-
tion.
A description of the various types of floating breakwaters, including
discussion of construction materials and techniques and performance ana-
lyses, can be found in Hales (1981).
Stormwater Runoff and Spills
Water quality in the marina basin can be impacted by pollutants in
stormwater runoff from upland facilities, spills and discharges from
boats. These pollutants include: sediment, nutrients, petroleum hydro-
carbons, metals and bacteria.
Through optimal site selection, many of the problems associated
with sanitary waste or other pollutants in stormwater runoff can be
avoided or minimized. Marinas sited on estuaries, creeks, and waters
characterized by high flushing rates or high rates of water exchange
should exhibit fewer water quality problems than marinas in areas of low
water exchange. High exchange rates tend to dilute and disperse any
sanitary waste or stormwater runoff pollutants from a marina. The con-
figuration of a marina basin may enhance or hinder flushing rates.
Marina basins with backwater, excessively deep or dead-end areas that
have lower than natural rates of exchange tend to accumulate potential
pollutants or require inordinate periods of time for flushing and organic
decomposition. Presently, several proposed marinas in South Carolina are
designed as locked-flow systems. These systems are intended to enhance
flushing through the marina basin to maintain water quality (principally
dissolved oxygen). These locked-flow systems also serve to contain
pollutants in the event of a spill.
5-20
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
An effective marina design and stormwater management plan are
essential to maintaining water quality within the marina. Stormwater
runoff impacts can be mitigated through proper control measures incor-
porated during marina design. Mitigative measures that can be used are:
. Minimize clearing and retain or create vegetated buffers such as
marsh, mangrove or natural vegetation on the site between land
and water areas (Chmura and Ross, 1978)
. Install erosion and sediment controls before upland construction
begins
. Use porous surfaces (crushed stone, shell) wherever possible,
particularly in parking areas
. Retain at least the first inch of rainfall and route runoff
through swales, wetlands, retention and detention ponds and
other systems that will increase the time of concentration
for pollutants, decrease runoff velocity, increase infiltration
and allow suspended solids to settle and remove pollutants
(Boozer, 1979)
. When outfalls are necessary they should be located to discharge
into areas with high flushing rates (Boozer, 1979).
Florida, for example, currently requires planned unit developments (PUD)
to provide retention or detention basins to handle the first one inch of
rainfall. Similar policies within other USEPA Region IV coastal states
can help alleviate pollution problems due to stormwater runoff.
Fuel docks and launching ramps are the primary sources for small
spills of oil and fuel. Spills at fuel docks can be minimized by using
fuel pumps with back pressure automatic cut-off valves. Cut-off valves
should be available at the dock and in the marina.
Sanitary Wastes
If the marina is in an area where public sewer service can be
obtained, this service should be used. Where septic tanks are used, they
should be located in suitable soils far enough from the marina basin and
adjacent waters and designed with sufficient capacity to prevent the
leaching of contaminants. Wastes from boat pumpouts should be handled
separately as the chemical disinfectants used can destroy the bacteria
necessary to decompose wastes in onshore treatment facilities.
5-21
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Shoreside Facilities
Connection to a central sewage system is the best way for a marina
to avoid potential problems with pollution from land-based sewage facili-
ties. Connection to municipal systems may not be available at all poten-
tial or proposed marina sites, however. In such cases, septic tank
systems are a viable alternative as other forms of waste treatment can be
prohibitively expensive for such relatively small businesses as marinas.
Septic tanks are more effective if consideration is given to the
needed size of the septic tank and its drainfield based on present and
future projections of the number of people that would use the facility.
A minimum drainfield setback of 100 feet (preferably more) from surface
waters is recommended, as is a minimum water table depth of four feet.
In addition, soil classification and percolation tests and establishment
of maximum percolation rates are required in some states.
Where a municipal sewage system is not available, a problem of how
best to treat holding tank wastes from boats (Type III MSDs) may arise.
The problem is that most methods of waste treatment rely on the biologi-
cal breakdown of wastes. Chemicals from Type III MSDs may retard or stop
the desired biological decomposition (Rogers and Abbas, 1982).
Connection to a municipal sewer system solves the problem of dilution of
these chemicals, whereas a septic tank may not. Failure of the septic
tank could result. One solution to this problem is to use two septic
tanks in series for both pumpout and marina use (Rogers and Abbas, 1982).
A properly installed double septic tank system would segregate solids in
the first tank, reduce the chance of drainfield clogging, and increase
retention time in the tanks, thus allowing for more complete waste decom-
position. The installation of a septic tank exclusively for boat waste
is not currently justified by the level of demand for pumpouts. In addi-
tion, a system exclusively for use for pumpout wastes would stand a
greater chance of failure than a double tank system because its chemical
input would be relatively undiluted and would result in a more rapid rate
of filling (Rogers and Abbas, 1982). Present rates of pumpout usage are
low enough, however, for a properly installed and functioning single sep-
tic tank system to handle three to four pumpouts per day (Rogers and
Abbas, 1982).
Sanitary Wastes from Boats
Controlling sanitary wastes from boats is one of the primary marina
permitting issues that may arise for marinas proposed in the vicinity of
shell fishing waters, because of the potential impacts to shellfish
through bacterial contamination. This source of pollution also can
potentially result in contraventions of state water quality standards.
Because of these regulatory concerns, proper management plans and designs
for these wastes can be critical to marina development. In general,
marina sanitation can be considered to have two components; the first is
the equipment on board a vessel and the second is the onshore equipment,
including piers; The onboard equipment is categorically referred to as
marine sanitation devices, or MSDs.
5-22
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
One means of controlling sewage pollution from boats would be to
educate boaters about the potential health hazards associated with the
discharge of sewage and to encourage boaters not to discharge either
treated or untreated wastes into a marina basin. Marina operators or
harbor masters could post regulations prohibiting the discharge of any
waste into marina waters and frequently inform their clients of such
regulations. Such a regulation would be helpful in preserving water
quality. It also makes good business sense to maintain an aesthetically
pleasing appearance.
Prior to the enactment of legislation requiring MSDs on boats with
heads, it was believed that MSDs would sharply reduce or eliminate the
potential for shellfish contamination (Chmura and Ross, 1978). In order
to assure that Type I and II MSB use is not conducted in marina waters or
other restricted waters (such as bathing areas or shellfish areas), it is
necessary to enforce MSD regulations. Since enforcement has been a dif-
ficult problem for the Coast Guard, an extensive public information
program directed at the boating public may be effective (Boozer, 1979).
Such a program could explain federal and state regulations and policies,
identify restricted areas for sewage discharge, and inform the public of
the public health and ecological consequences of discharging raw or
treated sewage into shallow estuarine waters. Marina operators could
inform their clients of restricted areas or distribute information as
slips or dry storage spaces are rented.
Boat toilet use would be reduced if marinas discourage 1ive-aboards
and provide well-maintained shoreside restroom facilities of sufficient
quantity to accomodate above average boating populations. Shoreside
facilities must be convenient to the docks (Chmura and Ross, 1978).
USEPA does not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for: "Any discharge of sewage from vessels, effluent from
properly functioning marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink
wastes, or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel." However, this exclusion does not apply to permanently moored
vessels (Olmstead, 1982). Permanently moored vessels could be
discouraged from marinas in order to avoid potential discharge problems.
The states also have the option to prohibit the discharge of any sewage
from all vessels into aquatic habitats by applying to the USEPA
Administrator for issuance of a regulation prohibiting discharge into
well-defined shellfish growing waters. Applications have not been filed
by any state with the Administrator, apparently because enforcement of
the regulation would be defined as a state responsibility (Olmstead,
1982). Enforcement could be supported by the public education program
mentioned above.
The installation and use of pumpout facilities should be encouraged.
Some of the states within USEPA Region IV are presently requiring pump-
out facilities for new marinas and in conjunction with permit renewals.
Voluntary pumpout facility installation may avoid future efforts to
require them by regulations (Rogers and Abbas, 1982). Virginia and other
states now require all marinas to have pumpout facilities. North
5-23
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Carolina recently repealed its requirement for pumpout facilities at new
marinas, primarily because of their low utilization rate (Rogers and
Abbas, 1982). It is possible to construct small, portable pumpout
systems having hand-operated or small electric pumps. Rogers and Abbas
(1982) reported that the North Carolina Sea Grant program constructed a
30-gallon portable transfer tank with hand pump for 250 dollars. If
sewer connections had been in close proximity to the boat slips, they
concluded that a workable system consisting of only a hand pump and
enough hose to reach the connection could be built for only 125 dollars.
Such portable systems offer marina clients the additional advantage of
providing a spare bilge pump when needed (Rogers and Abbas, 1982). Small
portable systems would eliminate the need for heavy duty commercial
systems until their expense was justified by demand. Manufacturer recom-
mendations and design guidelines also are readily available for indivi-
dual slipside connection systems.
Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs)
Onboard marine sanitation devices (MSDs) are normally classified as
Type I, Type II, or Type III. Type I and II MSDs treat and discharge the
wastes to the water body. Type III devices are onboard holding tanks
which must be periodically emptied to an onshore facility.
Type I devices only macerate and disinfect the waste. The waste is
discharged immediately after treatment. There is no onboard storage of
the waste.
Type II devices provide more complete treatment of the waste than
Type I devices before discharge to the water body. Type II devices,
however, normally include solids storage facilities as an integral part
of the treatment system.
Type III MSDs can be simple holding tanks or can provide varying
degrees of treatment followed by storage in a holding tank. Typically
the holding tanks are emptied by shoreside pumpout.
Marina Wastewater Collection Systems
Onshore marina sanitation facilities for collection of sanitary
wastes from boats are most readily compatible with Type III MDSs that
must dispose of raw or treated wastes. Although Type I and II MSDs
discharge directly to a water body, the Type II MSDs may require periodic
pumpout of sludges accumulated in the treatment of wastes. It is
possible for vessels with Type I and II MSDs to utilize a slipside marina
wastewater system while berthed and connected to the system. Upon
leaving their slips, however, the vessels' MSDs will discharge into the
receiving water body.
5-24
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ,*OLU1
Three types
available:
of onshore marina wastewater collection systems are
. Marina-wide systems
. Portable/mobile systems
. Slipside systems.
Marina-wide wastewater collection
centrally located wastewater pumpout ins
are located at the end of a berthing pier
as a fueling pier). Vessels requiring
would dock at the pumpout installation a
nected to a wastewater fitting in the dec
Several firms manufacture marina-w
manufactured by Envirovac and positive d
are manufactured by Kenton Equipment Co
and by Marl and Environmental Systems, Inc
these units are driven by electric mo
readily available and in widespread use.
holding tank (or truck) or to an onshore
ment system.
de systems.
splacement di
pany (Pump-A-
(Deluxe Sani
ors. Marina
These units
wastewater col
Portable/mobile systems are simila
that the pumpout stations are mobile.
tive displacement pump and a small stora
to the deck fitting on the vessel and
vessel's holding tank to the storage tar
When the storage tank is full, the cont
collection or treatment facilities.
Portable/mobile pumping units can
gasoline engines. Marl and Environmenta1
models: The Mobile Sani-Station and t
type of system is widely available and in
Slipside systems provide continuous
at each slip. In general, there are two
with modifications available to customi
systems include one or more
allations. These installations
or on a non-berthing pier (such
he wastewater pumpout services
d a flexible hose would be con-
of the vessel.
Vacuum units are
aphragm pump units
-Head; Figure 5-5)
-Station). All of
-wide systems are
pump to an onshore
lection and treat-
to marina-wide systems except
he mobile unit includes a posi-
ge tank. The unit is connected
wastewater is pumped from the
: attached to the pumping unit.
nts are discharged into onshore
e driven by electric motors or
Systems, Inc. manufactures two
e Portable Sani-Station. This
general use.
wastewater collection facilities
types of slipside systems, each
e the system. Pumpout systems
use an onboard grinder pump to transport wastes to a main sewer.
Vacuum systems use differential pressure to transport the wastewa-
ters from each slip to a central collection tank from which wastewater
may then be pumped to a sewer or hauled to a wastewater treatment plant.
Both types of systems can also handle bilge water discharged from boats
if the flow rates do not exceed a specified volume. The system may be
used on either floating or fixed docks (Figure 5-6).
5-25
-------
01
I
ro
cr>
Fi gure 5-5. A sanitary holding-tank pumpout facility (Courtesy of Kenton Equipment Company).
-------
Figure 5-6. Representation of the various elements of the ENVIROVAC
marina system, (ENVIROVAC, 1984).
5-27
-------
Slipside systems have been used on only a very limited basis in the
United States. Generally, these systems have been custom fabricated by
marina owners in various locations to meet the specific needs of a
marina. Information on these systems is not generally available and the
systems do not necessarily comply with any industry or regulatory stan-
dards.
As of October 1984 the only identified United States manufacturer of
slipside systems actively promoting and installing systems is Envirovac
Corp. Envirovac has a working installation serving a houseboat marina
and a sporting boat marina in Vancouver, B.C.
According to information provided by Envirovac, centrally located
vacuum pumps maintain the entire system of small diameter (2" or 3") PVC
sewer mains at a negative pressure of approximately 7-1/2 PSIG (1/2 ATM).
Because the (central) vacuum (Figure 5-7) provides the motivating force,
only the PVC sewer mains and an interface valve are required at the slip.
Electrical power or control lines are not necessary. The interface valve
provides an airtight seal between the environment and the vacuum system
and because the vacuum system is under negative pressure, leakage can
occur only into the system. Additionally, vessels using this type of
system require only a holding tank with a through hull or deck fitting
(Figure 5-8).
The slipside vacuum system can be designed to include automatic
operation for long-term 1iveaboards and semi-automatic operation for
marina berthed or transient vessels (Figure 5-9). In the automatic
operating mode, a liveaboard vessel is fitted with an onboard interface
valve and connecting piping. The interface valve includes a sensing
device that automatically opens the valve when the holding tank level
reaches a predetermined depth. The interface valve will automatically
close after the wastewater has been removed by the vacuum into the sewer
main line.
In the semi-automatic operating mode, a flexible hose with quick
disconnect couplings (Kamlok) is used to connect the interface valve unit
with the deck connection on each vessel. After the connection has been
made, the operation is manually activated using a push button. The
operation is terminated automatically when the tank has bc~n emptied.
Two semi-automatic interface valves are available, one that services a
single boat and one that can service from one to four boats (Figure
5-10).
The couplings used to connect a vessel's holding tank to the slip-
side system can be any number of existing manufactured units. It may be
necessary for a marina to have a supply of various fittings to insure
that all vessels utilizing a marina can be properly connected. Figures
5-11 through 5-12 illustrate several examples of fittings and deck or
hull connections.
5-28
-------
Figure 5-7. The Center of the ENVIROVAC System, the Vacuum
Central Station (ENVIROVAC,1984).
5-29
-------
AUTOMATIC
SERVICES: Live-aboards
VACUUM PUMP-OUT STATION
VACUUM MAIN
F'« ":' ' (I II TM" "i
SEMI AUTOMATIC
SERVICES: Transient Boats, 1 Connection
Non Live-aboards,
1-4 Boats
VACUUM PUMP-OUT STATION
VACUUM MAIN
PNEUMATIC
ACTUATION
SWITCH//
Figure 5-8. Automatic vacuum pump-out stations, (ENVIROVAC, 1984).
5-30
-------
|" FEMALE QUICK RELEASE
COUPLING
1" DECK PENETRATION
l£" PVC HOSE ADAPTER
STANDARD APPROVED TYPE
PVC LONG RADIUS ELBOW
HOSE ADAPTER-PVC
r~
MALE /W HOSE ADAPTER
QUICK RELEASE CONNECTION
Ij" FEMALE QUICK RELEASE COUPLING
<.
^•Ij" PVC SUCTION HOSE (SMOOTH BORE
HEAVY DUTY
DRIP £ DUST CAP
VIEW "A"
SEE VIEW "A
//A //
FLEXIBLE HOSE-PVC
en
i
GO
t.D. FLEXIBLE
(SMOOTH BORE)
VIEW "B"
4 BOAT VACUUM
CONNECTION PORTS
11 VACUUM PUMP-OUT STATION
2" SERVICE BRANCH-PVC
2" CLEAN-OUT
SEE VIEW -
"B"
:-^
\^.2" TRANSPORT POCKET-PVC
POCKET LOCATED AT 160' INTERVALS
- 2" VACUUM SEWAGE MAIN-PVC
SEWAGE HOLDING TANK
SEWAGE UPTAKE PIPE
PIPE TO EXTEND 2" FROM BOTTOM
FLOAT OR PIER
Figure 5-9. Typical Marina Boat Hook-Up for a
Vacuum Sewage Collection System
(ENVIROVAC, 1984).
SINCE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THC EQUIPMENT IS DEPENDENT UPON
THE DESIGN OF THE VACUUM SYSTEM. ENVMOVAC ASSUMES NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT UNLESS
GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ALL DRAWINGS ANO DESIGN DATA
RELATIVE TO THE VACUUM SYSTEM ANO THE SYSTEM a INSTALLED M
ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RECOMMENDATIONS.
THIS MATERIAL IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF
CNVIROVAC (THE COMPANY). ANO SHALL NOT BE
REPRODUCED. USED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS.
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY CONTRACT WtTH THE
COMPANY. WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION
OF THE COMPANY.
wcv
CMC OnociNO
DA1C
DCSCniPTlON
CMM O BT
UP'^ ENVIROVAC vacuum srwaRc systems
ENVIROVAC INC.
1260 Turret Or. • Hcxllord. It 61 1 1 1
"VACUUM SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM
TYPICAL MARINA/BOAT HOOK-UP
ML NO
D"«* KG
Cmo 0v
MAtl
»«?/"**
i - -
I5-1.V7Q
RC 19-13-79
SC*ll
«rrv
K0 2700803
l^or*^
-------
Figure 5-10. Interface valves installed below decking.
5-32
-------
Figure 5-11. Examples of deck connections
5-33
-------
c_n
I
GO
Figure 5-12. Examples of through-hull connections.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
System Characteristics
The three types of collection systems outlined previously
(marina-wide, portable/mobile, and slipside) all have advantages and
disadvantages. The marina owner should consider the operational and
environmental aspects of each, as well as the associated costs, before
selecting a system. Characteristics of each system are summarized in
Table 5-2.
System Costs
Tables 5-3 and 5-4 summarize the construction or installation costs
(capital costs), annual operation and maintenance costs, and total annual
costs associated with the three types of collection systems. The capital
costs are highest for the slipside system because of the extensive net-
work of piping necessary to collect the wastewater. The annual operation
and maintenance costs are highest for the portable/mobile system because
of the higher labor requirement associated with moving the pumpout equip-
ment to each boat. These costs are based on calculation procedures and
assumptions provided in Appendix B.
The costs of ultimate disposal of the wastewater as well as the
costs of fitting or refitting of vessels are not included in Tables 5-3
and 5-4. It is assumed that these costs will be the same for the three
types of collection systems considered here.
Overall Comparison of Systems
The collection systems discussed above can all provide effective,
reliable means of removing wastewaters from boats. The major differences
are the degree of convenience to the boat owner and the costs for both
initial construction and operation and maintenance. Table 5-5 is a sum-
mary of the major characteristics.
All other things being equal, the marina developer will tend to
choose that system which provides the degree of convenience acceptable to
the clientele he intends to serve, and which is within his financial
resources at the time of construction.
Marina slip rentals are highly variable and dependent on several
factors. They are dependent on the competition for slip space, the
overall cost of materials, labor, and services at the marina, and the
variety of services provided by the marina. This last factor is the most
significant. Basic marinas provide slip only, while others provide a
wide variety of maintenance (e.g., repair facilities, shops) and
recreational services (e.g., tennis courts, swimming pools).
Slip rentals for continuous usage range from as low as $300/year to
as much as $15,000/year. For a basic marina with minimal services,
wastewater collection services could add as much as 50 percent to the
cost of slip rentals. At highly developed full service marinas,
5-35
-------
TABLE 5-2
CHARACTERISTICS OF MARINA WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Type
Implementability
Reliability and Operability
Disruption and Convenience
Marina-Wide
en
i
OJ
en
Portable/Mobile
Slipside
Applicable to all marinas.
Moderately convenient to
retrofit to existing
marinas.
Non significant vessel
retrofit needed.
Applicable to all marinas
with sufficient pier
integrity.
Very convenient to retro-
fit to existing marinas.
No significant vessel
retrofit needed.
Marina configuration may
limit application.
More difficult to
retrofit for existing
marinas. Requires
addition of special
fittings to vessels.
Moderately reliable depending
upon the level of operator
attention. Easy to take out of
service during non-use or under
severe conditions.
Most reliable since the equip-
ment can be removed for service
at shop. Reliability increased
with additional back-up units
available. Easier to operate.
Requires most manpower because
of necessity to move the pumping
equipment.
Least reliable because of the
extensive piping and valving.
Requires least amount of opera-
tor attention. Most difficult
to take out of operation under
severe conditions.
Least convenient system.
Requires vessels to move to
the discharge installation.
Very inconvenient for live-
aboards. Not applicable to
houseboats. Adds to noise
and congestion in the marina.
Moderately convenient.
Boat owners may find it dif-
ficult to wait for the unit
to provide service to the slip.
Scheduling difficulties.
Most convenient and least
disruptive. Most practical
system for live-aboards and
houseboats.
COASTAL IX
TABLE 1
-------
TABLE 5-3
CAPITAL COSTS (CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT)
Marina-Wide Portable/Mobile Slipside
Small Marina (200 slips) $20,500 $12,100 $141,000
Medium Marina (500 slips) 59,000 26,000 346,000
Large Marina (2000 slips) 218,000 96,000 1,564,000
*See Appendix B for details
COASTAL IX
TABLE 2
5-37
-------
TABLE 5-4
ANNUAL PER SLIP COSTS (AMORTIZED CONSTRUCTION COSTS, AND
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE)
Small Marina (200 slips)
Capital cost
0 & M Costs
Marina-Wide
$ 15 (1)
110
Portable/Mobile
$ 15 (2)
200
Slipside
$ 102 (1)
50
Total Cost/Slip/Year 125 215 152
Medium Marina (500 slips)
Capital Costs
0 & M Costs
Total Cost/Si ip/Year
Large Marina (2000 slips)
Capital Costs
0 & M Costs
Total Cost/Slip/Year
17
90
107
16
80
$ 96
10
160
170
10
140
$150
101
40
141
113
36
$149
(1) Based on 12 percent interest, 15 years amortization.
(2) 12 percent interest, 15 years on piping, 12 percent, 5 years on por-
table units.
5-38
-------
TABLE 5-5
SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF AVAILABLE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Characteristic
Marina-Wide Portable/Mobile Slipside
First Cost
Operation and
Maintenance Costs
Total Annual Costs
Convenience to
Boat Owner
Low
Moderate
Lowest
Low
High
High Moderate
(labor intensive)
Highest Intermediate
(due to labor
requirements)
Least
Intermediate
Most
COASTALIX
TABLE4
5-39
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
wastewater collection will represent as little as 10 percent of the ren-
tal cost.
The selection of a marina collection system will depend upon cost
and operational factors and the level of convenience the marina elects to
provide. The higher cost of the slipside system, for example, may be
offset by the significantly greater convenience to the boat owner. Costs
to install and operate the system will impact on the cost competitiveness
of the marina. The relative costs for services at nearby marinas will
affect the decision.
In the long-term, regulations may be the deciding factor in which
system is used. Several municipalities have adopted ordinances or per-
mitting systems for liveaboards or houseboats. Ordinances from Dade
County, Florida, the City of Berkeley, California and Marin County,
California, have been included as examples in Appendix D.I, D.2 and D.3,
respectively. A summary of these ordinances appears in Section 6.5.4.
In addition to the ordinances and permits, it is necessary that reaso-
nable enforcement be conducted. Another important point that must be
considered is that of federal (Coast Guard) regulations preempting
local/regional or state regulations.
Existing Operational Systems
As of the date of this Handbook there were only a limited number of
operating slipside wastewater disposal systems in the United States. Two
areas with significant numbers of these systems are San Francisco Bay and
Vancouver firanville Island. Systems in use in these areas were evaluated
as to cost, function, acceptability and institutional aspects of their
use.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, a state agency, the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), has been designated as
the lead regulatory agency to guard the "people's trust" water bodies in
the greater Bay area. The BCDC, through fairly detailed studies, has
determined that the water quality in the water bodies under its jurisdic-
tion has been decreasing in recent years. One of the causes of this
degradation is the concentration of boats in the Bay area, including
sporting boats, cruising liveaboards, anchorouts, and houseboats.
The BCDC attempted to control the discharge of wastewater from
vessels utilizing a permit system requiring holding tanks on vessels and
additional pumput stations and facilities at the marinas within the Bay
area. The U.S. Coast Guard has vetoed this plan, informing BCDC that
such a permitting process is preempted by federal laws and regulations,
specifically the Federal Boating Safety Act of 1971, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended, and Title 35 Code of Federal
Regulations part 159.
5-40
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
The Coast Guard subsequently suggested that the BCDC seek U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency designation for areas within the Bay as
"no discharge areas." With this designation, compliance with MSD regula-
tions in a "no discharge area" becomes the responsibility of the Coast
Guard.
Marin County, north of San Francisco, contains one of the larger
concentrations of houseboats/1 iveaboards. The county has adopted ordi-
nances to provide zoned areas for houseboats/1iveaboards, to require
slipside sanitary service to those marinas that allow houseboats or 1ive-
aboards, and to require holding tanks on any vessel that may dock in
Marin County and have 1 iveaboards. A copy of the ordinance is included
in Appendix D.3.
One of several houseboat marinas in Marin County is the Kappas
Marina in Sausalito. Each houseboat unit has its own holding tank. When
the level of wastewater in the holding tank reaches a certain predeter-
mined level, a pump is activated and empties the contents of the tank
into the common PVC sewer main under the pier. The wastewater is con-
veyed to an onshore pumping station where the wastewater is subsequently
conveyed to the Sausalito Marin City Sanitary District for conveyance,
treatment and disposal. According to the marina owner and boat users,
the grinder pump is not a source of operation and maintenance problems.
In the Richardson Bay waters adjacent to Kappas Marina, another
problem that has plagued marina owners and users are anchorouts. These
vessels are occupied by individual(s) as liveaboards but they remain
anchored offshore in open water. The vessels often appear to be run-down
and generally in poor shape. The disposal of wastewater from these
vessels is suspected of being discharged directly into the Bay. No solu-
tion to this problem has been developed.
The City of Richmond, California has recently redeveloped its
waterfront to include luxury condominiums and a private and a public
marina. The City has established, through an ordinance, that liveaboards
or houseboats are not permitted. Individuals are prohibited from staying
on their vessels for more than 72 consecutive hours. There are three
"pump-a-heads" serving approximately 1,000 slips. The wastewater is
transported by the pump-a-heads to an onshore pumping station for con-
veyance and treatment in the City's sewer system.
According to the marina Harbor Master, the pump-a-heads function
satisfactorily but require constant minor maintenance such as diaphragm
and check valve replacement. The Harbor Master functions as an enfor-
cement officer to prevent sanitary wastes from being discharged into the
Bay. Also at the Richmond City Marina bilge water disposal was perceived
to be a much more serious water quality problem. The control of bilge
water discharge is particularly difficult since most boats are fitted
with bilge pumps by the manufacturer.
5-41
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
The Berkeley Marina in Berkeley, California, has 1,100 slips,
including dry storage. Twelve slips are sewered slipside for houseboats
or liveaboards. The marina also allows 40 additional cruising
liveaboards, although the liveaboards must use the pump-a-head station.
Liveaboards must enter into an agreement with the City of Berkeley to
comply with the rules and regulations of the City Ordinance. A copy of
the agreement and ordinance is included in Appendix D.2.
According to the agreement, a cruising liveaboard must have all
through-hull fittings sealed prior to receiving a liveaboard permit. The
open fittings must be resealed within one day of returning to the marina
following an open water cruise.
At the Berkeley City Marina the slipside service to houseboats and
liveaboards is comprised of onboard holding tanks and grinder pumps con-
nected by various piping schemes to the sewer main along the main pier.
The wastewater from the main sewer in the pier drains to another holding
tank in the pier with larger pumps. These larger pumps convey the
wastewater to an onshore pumping station for final conveyance and treat-
ment.
The Peninsula Marina in Redwood City, California, has liveaboard
piers and utilizes a modified holding tank/pumpout slipside sewer system.
Every liveaboard slip is provided with a connection piping stub or
lateral. Each vessel connects a line from the hull or deck opening to
the slipside piping. Wastewater is pumped from the vessel's holding tank
into the sanitary mains below the pier. The sanitary mains act as a
holding tank during the day and at midnight the mains are flushed with
city water and the wastes are transported to the public sewer.
Two privately owned marinas using slipside sanitary sewer service
are found in the City of Vancouver, British Columbia. The first is Sea
Village and is comprised of 12 houseboats and two liveaboard vessels.
The second marina is Spruce Harbor and contains 100 slips, 80 of which
are served by slipside service, including 64 year-round liveaboard
vessels. Both marinas are located on False Creek in the Granville Island
area and both utilize vacuum systems by Vacuusan (ENVIROVAC). The Sea
Village houseboats have individual holding tanks and valves that are
activated by preset pressure in the tank. When the valve is open,
wastewater is drawn by a vacuum into a larger holding tank. When the
vacuum in the individual holding tank is broken as the tank empties, the
valve closes. The wastewater in the larger holding tank is pumped to
onshore facilities for conveyance and treatment.
The liveaboard vessels in the Spruce Harbor Marina are required to
obtain permits from the City of Vancouver each year at a cost of approxi-
mately $500. The funds from liveaboard permits represent a substitute
property tax. Each liveaboard vessel is connected by a through deck or
hull fitting to the marine's vacuum system. Each slip is isolated by a
manually operated valve located in the finger pier. When a vessel's
holding tank becomes filled, the boat owner manually opens the isolation
5-42
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
valve, allowing wastewater to be drawn into the vacuum system. The valve
is manually closed when the tank has been emptied. Wastewater drawn from
a vessel is transported through a PVC main located in a pipe gallery
below the pier's walkway. The wastewater is collected in a holding tank
and is subsequently pumped onshore for final conveyance, treatment and
disposal.
From these cases, certain conclusions concerning marina sanitation
become obvious:
. Local governments/agencies use ordinances, contracts, and permits
to regulate liveaboards and houseboats. The ordinances provide
the necessary legal framework to require slipside service to
liveaboards and houseboats
. Regulatory control of holding tank requirements may result in
agency conflict
. The strongest ordinance, contract, or permit systems require
constant enforcement
. Bilge water discharge may be a serious problem that is not being
addressed
. Systems operate without major problems, including self-fashioned
systems. Boat owners do not complain of inconvenience or expense
. Costs are not readily obtainable for slipside service. Marina
owners/operators do not separate this specific sevice from total
costs of marina operation.
Boat Operation and Maintenance
Boat motor emissions can be reduced through the increased use of
unleaded fuels and by manufacturer research and development aimed at
reducing the pollutants in emissions and increasing fuel efficiency.
Public education directed toward the importance of well-tuned engines in
reducing emissions and increasing efficiency is another mitigative
measure to be considered. Relevant to noise mitigation, manufacturers
have made significant progress in reducing the noise levels of boat en-
gines. At marinas, consideration must be shown to both neighbors and
customers. If necessary, posting and enforcing rules can be used to
1 imit noise.
Use of the newer non-phosphate detergents for washing boats would
greatly reduce the amounts of nutrients entering the water from this
source. Hydrocarbons entering the water from bilges may be controlled by
using oil filtration devices on bilge pumps, or commercial oil-absorbant
pads placed in the bilge to soak up oil and fuel prior to bilge water
discharge (Chmura and Ross, 1978). Fuel spills at marinas are generally
very small, but they may be frequent. Contamination from fuel spills may
5-43
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
be avoided through training fuel attendants to prevent and to clean up
any fuel spills. Fueling of ramp-launched boats before launching would
prevent spills directly into the water.
Paint spraying, sand blasting, engine repairs, boat washing and
similar boat maintenance activities performed on shore either indoors or
behind canvas screens would help confine any residue or spills from these
operations. These operations should be conducted upland, away from
marina waters. This would facilitate clean-up and help prevent con-
tamination of marina waters from runoff during rain storms.
Manufacturers need to develop antifouling paints which will reduce
or eliminate the amount of heavy metals such as copper that leach into
the water or flake off boat bottoms (Nixon et al., 1973). Sieburth and
Conover (1965) have described the preliminary development and testing of
an antifouling paint based on the antibiotic activity of sea weed.
Marina operators can reduce copper levels by eliminating the use of
copper-based antifouling paints on floats, buoys, and other non-boat sur-
faces. This step may encourage additional fouling. However, these
fouling communities are an important food source for forage fishes which,
in turn, attract sport fishes into the area. Another desirable pollution
control option is to collect and remove particles or otherwise treat the
runoff from boat painting and scraping areas. Copper concentrations
within the marina, as with detergents, sewage, and other pollutants, also
can be reduced by proper marina siting and design that allows adequate
tidal flushing.
5.4.2 Ecological Nlitigative Measures
Aquatic Habitat
Maintaining water quality through the design and mitigative measures
previously discussed is essential to maintaining the aquatic habitat in
the vicinity of the marina. Construction impacts to aquatic habitats
result from increased turbidity and siltation and from direct habitat
loss due to dredging. Alteration of the shoreline through dredging and
placement of structures also can damage the aquatic community and even
eliminate the shallow intertidal zone. Recolonization of dredged areas
or disposal sites is more likely to occur when the sediments in either
area are similar in physical and chemical characteristics both before and
after dredging or disposal. Mitigative measures applicable to aquatic
habitat resources are:
5-44
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Locate marinas on existing channels
. Avoid sensitive areas such as shellfish beds and grassbeds
. Minimize the need for dredging through choice of marina site and
design and the use of dry-stack storage for boats
. Extend open dockage to reach deep water
. Depth requirements should be based on the size and type of boats
serviced and should not exceed the zone of light penetration
unless existing conditions already exceed that depth
. Schedule dredging and other construction activities at times
other than during spawning, migration or critical life stages of
fish and other aquatic organisms. Critical periods vary with
geographic location, e.g., recommendations to mitigate impact on
recruitment in South Carolina, for example, are for late and/or
early winter dredging (Van Do!ah et al., 1979)
. Use sediment curtains and coordinate dredging activities with
tidal cycle so as to avoid excessive siltation and burial of
sensitive organisms
C ^ . Minimize pier widths to avoid excessive shading of aquatic
v-7 habitats
. Place bulkheads or revetments as far upland as possible and
and provide access ways over wetlands to avoid shallow intertidal
areas
. Use floating, detached breakwaters and floating docks or piling
construction to minimize habitat loss
. Sloping revetments (stair-step or sloped 45° or less) and
vegetated revetments provide better habitat and protection for
juvenile fish and are preferable to vertical bulkheads, where
feasible
. Locate boat ramps away from sensitive areas such as grassbeds or
shellfish beds. Preferred areas are shorelines without wetland
vegetation and adjacent to waters with adequate navigation
depths
. Use of marine ways (dolly) and hoists can be used instead of
ramps to minimize shoreline alterations (a marine way precludes
the need for a pier or dredging at marinas with a gradual sub-
marine slope and permits preservation of a vegetated fringe,
while hoists require pier construction).
5-45
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Unavoidable loss of habitat can be compensated through use of
dredged material to provide new habitat. The planting of mangroves,
marsh grasses and seagrasses has been used to restore altered habitats.
Rehabilitation of Altered Areas
When alternative sites are not available, or when some habitats are
altered or destroyed during construction, some of these areas can be
rehabilitated. The planting of mangroves and marsh grass (Clark, 1974;
Woodhouse et a!., 1971) and seagrasses (Thorhaug _TJT_ Swanson, 1979;
Zieman, 1982) are examples of artificial habitat restoration. The method
of recolonization or rehabilitation chosen for these sensitive areas will
depend on location, species concerned, sediment type and cost.
The disturbance of mangroves caused by dredge and fill is a par-
ticular problem for Florida. Mangrove species differ in their response
to alterations of their environment. For example, black and white
mangroves in Florida are typically more resistant to the effects of
diking and flooding than red mangroves (Teas, 1980). Teas (1980) reports
that several years of experiments have been performed on mangrove
transplanting to a spoil island in Roberts Bay at Marco, Florida. The
plant survival rate after three years was 15.7 percent. This low sur-
vival rate may have been partially caused by the settling of the soft
fill used in forming the spoil island. Success rates will vary under
different conditions. Mangrove rehabilitation/creation is a viable miti-
gation alternative that will necessitate site-specific research.
Woodhouse et al. (1971) discuss the stabilization of dredge spoil
and the establishment of new tidal marsh using Spartina alterniflora
Loisel in several sites in North Carolina. This technique could be
applied elsewhere along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Revegetation pro-
jects in South Carolina and Georgia, however, are hindered by substrates
composed of clay and silt which form thick hard crusts (Windom, 1976).
Establishment of Spartina is possible by means of either seeds or
transplants. Direct seeding apparently offers a very rapid and relative-
ly economical route to the establishment and stabilization of areas
meeting certain standards. Transplanting is considerably more expensive,
but may be adaptable to a wider variety of conditions. Results from
these studies have indicated complete revegetation in two growing
seasons.
Since it has been shown that natural recolonization of seagrass beds
takes many years and is often unlikely, rehabilitation of damaged
seagrasses by means of transplanting is a mitigative measure that may be
considered (Table 5-6). Thorhaug (1980) has given estimates ranging
between $2,000 and $8,000 an acre after three to four years for the reha-
bilitation of Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass). These estimates were
based on 7,000 plants in 15,000 m2 using the seeding method. Thorhaug
(1980) estimates marina building on navigational channels may possibly be
assessed at 1:1 to 3:1 (restored acres: filled acre ratios).
5-46
-------
TABLE 5-6
SUMMARY OF SEAGRASS RESTORATION
on
I
Method
Plugs
Plugs
Plugs
Plugs
Plugs
Plugs
Turfs
Turfs
Author
Kelly et al.
1971
Van Breedveld
1976
Van Breedveld
1976
Larkum 1976
Phillips 1960
Reported 1975
Phillips 1960
Reported 1975
Ranwell et al.
1974
Ranwell et al.
1974
Place Shelter
Tampa Bay,
Florida Blocks
Tampa Bay, Rows of plants
Florida
Tampa Bay, Rows of plants
Florida
Mortons Bay,
Australia
Tampa Bay, Concrete blocks,
Florida wood barricades
Tampa Bay, Concrete blocks,
Florida wood barricades
Norfolk,
England
Norfolk,
England
Number
120
266
15
Not re-
ported
Not re-
ported
20
1,950
into
2.3 acres
Anchoring Chemical
method additive
1. Tin can
2. Burlap bag
3. Wrap in poly- NAA
ethyl ene for
transport
30 cm substrate 5% NAA
into hole 5% Root
dip
30 cm substrate 5% NAA
into hole 5% Root
Dug holes
Burled with soil None
Burled with soil None
Spaded into hole
Spaded into hole
Dimension of
transplant Success
20 cm2 Control 40%
Exper. 15%
30 cm 0-100%
deep
posthole
digger
30 cm 100%
deep
posthole
digger
10 cm2 Some
10 cm None
22X15X
10 cm
22X10X 100% yr 1
15 cm 35% yr 2
Genus
Thalassla
Thalassia
Syringodiun
Zostera
Halodule
Thalassla
Zostera
Zostera
Zostera
Thorhaug, 1980.
-------
CO
TABLE 5-6
(concluded)
SUMMARY OF SEAGRASS RESTORATION9
Method
Turfs
Turfs
Turions
Turions
Turions
Seeds
Seeds
Seeds
Seeds
Author
Backman
(unpubl )
Lark urn
1976
Kelly et al .
1971
Phillips
1974
Eleuterius
1975
Addy 1974a,b
Phillips
1972
Thorhaug
1974
Thorhaug
1974
Place Shelter
San Diego,
California Wire screening
Botany Bay,
Australia
Tampa Bay, Concrete block
Florida enclosures
Whidbey Isle,
Washington None
Biloxi,
Mississippi
Woods Hole, None
Massachusetts
Friday Harbor, None
Washington
S. Biscayne Bay, None
Florida
N. Biscayne Bay, None
Florida Peat pots
Number
Not re-
ported
Not re-
ported
60
243
335
343
210
25
6,000
600
Anchoring Chemical
method additive
Turf buried
at site
Screening
Plastic trays
Dug holes
Construction rods 10% NAA
bricks, pipes
Iron pipes &
trenches
Mesh wire &
and construc-
tion rods
None
Iron rods &
trenches
Plastic 10% NAA
Plastic 10% NAA
Dimension of
transplant
Not reported
Not reported
Single blade
Group
Single blade
Group
45 cm X
45 cm
Single seeds
Single seeds
Single seeds
Single seeds
Success
Rhizomal
growth
18% in
some
Dependent
on depth -
100% to none
3%
3%
No results
reported
None
80%
15-55%
Qenus
Zostera
Zostera
Thalassia
Zostera
Thalassia
Halodule
Cymodocea
Zostera
Zostera
Thalassia
Thalassia
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Zieman (1982) has reviewed studies conducted on seagrass plug/shoot
transplants and seed/seedling plantings. Restoration problems included
specimen acquisition, anchoring, survival, expansion, logistics and
costs. The plug technique produced the highest survival rate (90-98
percent) but costs were estimated between $27,000 and $86,500/ha. In
addition, areas disturbed by removing plugs were slow to be repopulated
by seagrass, as was the case with boat propeller cuts in seagrass beds.
Recolonization of plug holes had not occurred after two years. However,
this method could be useful if seagrass plants were salvaged from grass-
beds scheduled for destruction due to development. Laboratory-cultivated
seeds/seedlings exhibited moderate survival (29 percent) but costs were
prohibitive. Primarily because of laboratory culturing expenses, this
method cost approximately $182,900/ha. Seeds/seedlings also were only
suitable for quiet water areas where they would not be uprooted.
Thorhaug (1980) has had success in restoring certain south Florida areas
using turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) seedlings. A summary of many
seagrass transplantation techniques and locations is provided in Table
5-6.
Although these accounts show some success, problems involving cost
and restoration time exist, so avoiding or minimizing impacts to sen-
sitive aquatic habitat resources is the primary mitigative measure.
Existing marinas and other sites that flush poorly also can be reha-
bilitated. In lieu of improving circulation by dredging, such stagnant
areas can be supplied with aeration systems (Boozer, 1979) that oxygenate
and vertically circulate stagnant water areas. However, this method
should remain a rehabilitation technique for existing marinas (Boozer,
1979); new marinas should be designed to maintain adequate DO levels
without .aeration.
Terrestrial Habitat
Upland facilities constitute an asset that can be as important as
the waterfront area and can ultimately determine how successfully the
marina operates. In order to support the boating and onshore activities,
sufficient land area is required for vehicular parking and vehicular and
pedestrian access. Additional land area is required for supplemental
service facilities such as an open service yard, open dry boat storage,
boat hoist and launching facilities, and fuel facilities. Depending on
the marina design, additional land area may be required for items such as
swimming pools, tennis and badminton courts, and picnic and playground
areas. Upland requirements vary according to the marina concept. In
general, however, the land area required to support a marina in a satis-
factory fashion will range from less than an acre to an acre and one half
per acre of water space in slips and turning areas (Chaney, 1961).
It should be noted that onshore site requirements may differ signi-
ficantly if the marina utilizes practices such as dry-stack storage,
which reduce the water slip areas. Similarly, if the marina is built for
a residential development and is intended for the use of the residents
5-49
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
(within walking distance), only the required land area for support
facilities will be reduced.
Impacts to terrestrial habitats are primarily related to construc-
tion of upland facilities and upland disposal of dredged materials. Site
clearing and grading will remove the natural protective vegetation which
controls erosion. Without that cover, soil is carried into the waterway,
causing turbidity. Vegetation should be replaced as quickly as prac-
ticable. The soil also contains plant nutrients and other pollutants
that can further degrade water quality. Minimizing the damage to natural
vegetation is an effective method of controlling erosion, as well as
other construction erosion control measures. If marina development
requires the unavoidable loss of vegetation considered to be ecologically
important, an area of greater value can be restored elsewhere in the eco-
system.
Wetlands and Protected Species
Wetlands function as sediment traps and filters for pollutants. Any
activity that reduces the effectiveness of this function can affect tur-
bidity and water quality of adjacent waters. Wetlands also serve as nur-
sery areas and are highly productive, providing a significant source of
nutrients to the estuary. Wetlands are therefore vital to the health of
the estuarine ecosystem. Any loss of wetlands is generally considered
unacceptable by regulatory agencies. When there is no alternative to
unavoidable loss of wetlands during marina construction, acceptable miti-
gation maybe the creation of new wetlands or the restoration of a greater
area of previously disturbed wetland. Measures that may be taken to
mitigate impacts to wetlands are:
. Avoid dredging through use of existing channels
. Avoid dredging deep channels into wetlands or straightening
tidal creeks to obtain access to the marina site
. The construction of access ways through wetlands should be ele-
vated or otherwise permit unrestricted water flow through the
wetland
. Wherever possible the marshland should be retained along the
shoreline and bulkheads and revetments should be placed along
the existing shoreline as close to the upland as possible.
The impact of erosion on inshore or channel shorelines from boat
wakes can be prevented or reduced by posting and enforcing "NO WAKE"
zones in areas of high boating activity. Since boats approaching a
speed-control zone reach their maximum wake speed as they slow down,
placing the speed limit signs at locations where the boat is more than
200 feet from shore allows for dissipation of wake energy before reaching
the shore (Zabawa and Ostrom, 1980). Not all situations or areas where
wakes may be a problem can be patrolled. In these cases, it is often
5-50
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
simple courtesy on the part of the boater and an individual awareness of
potential dangers that limit wake impact. Organizations such as the U.S.
Power Squadrons and the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary have been instrumental
in providing safety awareness to boaters. Public education should be
considered high priority for mitigating many types of boating-related
impact.
Planting marsh vegetation on stabilized exposed banks can be an
efficient deterrent to erosion caused by boat wakes. The establishment
of mangroves in conjunction with Spartina is another means of rapid
shoreline stabilization for protection against erosion in some locations
(Teas, 1980). Mangroves that are sensitive to boat wakes and floating
trash can be protected by small breakwaters such as floating tires.
Poorly marked channels in shallow areas may inadvertantly lead to
resuspension of sediments by turbulence from boat propellers or to direct
contact of organisms by propellers. Because boaters generally prefer to
avoid the problems of manuvering in shallow water (Chmura and Ross,
1978), well-marked channels from the marina basin or launch area to deep
water would limit this type of impact considerably. Channels two to
three feet deeper than the propeller of the deepest draft boat using the
area during low water periods generally will be sufficient to prevent
greater than normal turbidity (Lagler et a!., 1950).
Fauna and flora also can be protected through public awareness. For
example, a massive effort by the state of Florida, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and private organizations is underway to educate the
public to protect the manatee (Van Meter, 1982). Regulation of boat
speeds and limited access in manatee sanctuaries is also underway to
reduce boat-related incidents. Similar measures can be taken for other
species of concern. Damage to coral heads can be avoided with reasonable
precaution when anchoring, since waters where coral heads occur are noted
for their clarity and coral heads can be seen from the surface.
The visible presence of humans may disturb wildlife, particularly
during nesting seasons. Thus, regulations regarding minimum distances
from nesting areas may be set and enforced to reduce noise and other
disturbances from passing boats. Minimum distances required to prevent
disturbance of nesting birds will vary with the number and species of
birds and with the physical characteristics of the site such as the
amount of vegetative cover. For herring gull colonies on bluffs above
Lake Superior, it was suggested by Harris and Matteson (1975) that people
be restricted from approaching within 100 yards during the breeding
season. This minimum distance could serve as a guideline for nesting
colonies in the southeastern United States, at least until site-specific
and/or species-specific studies conclude otherwise. Whatever distance is
established, signs on pilings or floats may be positioned to warn boaters
of important nesting areas.
5-51
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
On a national and international scale, mitigative measures for
plastic pollutants include the manufacture of biodegradable plastics,
filtering the outflow of plastic particles from certain industrial opera-
tions and plastic recycling. On the state and local level, a first miti-
gative measure would be to alert the public to the seriousness of plastic
pollutants in the marine ecosystem. Both commercial fishermen and
recreational boaters may discard plastic and other refuse. Plastics can
be properly discarded when easily accessible, well-marked trash disposal
facilties are provided at boat ramps and docking areas. Receptacles
should be covered to prevent animals such as birds or raccoons from
becoming entangled in plastic debris. Similarly, receptacles should be
regularly emptied to prevent overflow and the additional possibility of
animal entanglement.
Impacts to protected species such as sea turtles and manatees
should be avoided. The presence of rare, threatened, endangered or
otherwise designated unique species or habitat should be identified early
in the marina planning process and planning and design steps taken to
avoid any impacts.
Marina sites located near rookery areas or other wildlife refuges
or sanctuaries should be buffered through the use of vegetation.
Construction activities should be scheduled to not interfere with
breeding, nesting or spawning seasons.
Shellfish
The principal factors that promote the propagation, growth, and
general welfare of an oyster community are the character of the bottom,
water movement, water salinity, temperature and food availability.
Unfavorable factors that tend to destroy or inhibit growth and produc-
tivity of oyster communities are sedimentation, competition, pollution,
disease and predation (Galtsoff, 1964). Marina construction in or adja-
cent to oyster beds may contribute directly and indirectly to these fac-
tors. Bacteriological contamination of shellfish waters can preclude
shellfish harvesting for human consumption. Marina construction and
operation does not favor oyster production. All available information
points to the conclusion that shellfish harvesting from waters near mari-
nas is not desirable from a public health perspective.
A recent survey (USFDA, 1980) of state shellfish sanitation agencies
was conducted to determine if states had policies specifically related to
marinas (Table 5-7). The majority of states assessed marina impacts on a
case by case basis, and most used the USFDA "Approved Area" criterion to
some extent. South Carolina and Mississippi currently employ a prede-
termined radius of shellfish ground closure around a marina 305 meters
(1000 feet). The closure of shellfishing grounds around existing marinas
conforms to recommendations made by USFDA (1972) and is justified from a
public health standpoint. Such closures may not be necessary if
shellfish beds are considered prior to marina construction. Maryland has
devised a plan to avoid this conflict whereby marina facilities in
5-52
-------
TABLE 5-7
RESPONSE TO U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION QUESTIONNAIRE
REGARDING STATE POLICY ON MARINAS AND CLOSURE OF SHELLFISH AREAS3
en
I
en
CO
Inqu! ry
1 -Cri teri a used to
determine if closure
should be established
around a marina
2. How 1s size of clos-
ure area determined
North Carolina
1. Size of marina
2. Number of boats
with heads
3. Presence of other
Identifiable
sources of con-
tamination near
marina
4. Physical factors
relevant to dis-
persement of
pollutants
5. Actual total and
fecal coliform
levels in water
and shellfish
near marina
No predetermined
area. Evaulation
of above criteria
determines size
of closure area
South Carolina
1. Meeting of NSSP
"approved area"
criteria
2. Size of marina
3. Number of boats with
heads
4. Results of monitor-
ing studies
Open shellfish areas
should not be located
within 1000 feet of
marinas; presence of
creeks, islands,
jetties, etc. that
are within 1000 feet
radius may make area
smaller
Georgia
1. Georgia has no
marinas in its 4
"approved areas"
which are remote
from shoreline
development. No
harvesting 1s per-
mitted in areas
which are developed
NA
Florida
1. Presence of live-
aboards
2. Does marina have
adequate shower and
bathroom fad I1t1es
3. Presence of pump-out
facilities
4. How is sewage disposed
of at marina
5. Does marina make boat
or other repai rs
6. What are provisions
for industrial/
commercial wastes
7. Size of marina
8. Proximity of shellfish
bed to marina
9. Size and general
hydrography of ad-
jacent waters
No predetermined area.
Evaulation of above cri-
teria determines size
of closure area.
Alabama
1. Criteria are same as 1.
for any other poten-
tial source of
pollution
2. Presence of 11 ve-
aboards
3. Meeting of NSSP
"approved area"
criteria
4. Size of marina
5. Hydrography of adja-
cent waters
Goal of 1000 feet around
marina dependent on hydro-
logical consideration and
the pollutant units
Mississippi
Meeting of NSSP
"approved area"
criteria
Size determined
by a point sea-
ward of where
water qual ity
meets NSSP
"approved" or
"conditionally
approved"
3.Point of measure-
ment of closed
area
NA
Measured from center
of marina
NA
Measured from peri -
phery of marina
Measured from peri-
phery of marina
NA
3.Written policy on
marinas
None
None, but written
policy of S.C. Coastal
Council closely para-
llels that of DHEC
None
None
None
None
"Olmstead, 1980.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Maryland are restricted within certain distances of viable shellfish
beds, based upon the survival time of coliform bacteria and the size of
the marina. Marinas with less than 50 boats may be located within 200
meters (1/8 mile) of shellfish beds, marinas with 51 to 100 boats must be
a minimum of 400 meters (1/4 mile) from shellfish beds, and marinas with
more than 100 boats are restricted to at least 800 meters (1/2 mile) from
beds (Ervin et al., 1980). This plan may be used as a guideline for
establishing specific state standards depending on coliform bacteria
rates. The size of a buffer zone area could be determined through analy-
sis of data from a comprehensive study of biological and hydro!ogical
conditions of a proposed marina location and the sanitary and engineering
considerations of the marina1s design. Shellfish harvesting seasons also
may be a consideration when planning construction schedules (Table 5-8).
It is also possible to purify or depurate shellfish harvested from
certain polluted waters. This procedure could become an important miti-
gative measure for area-wide or regional impacts in the future. Because
of the potential applications of depuration technology, an in-depth
discussion is presented in Appendix C.
Shellfish are particularly sensitive resources with respect to
marina development because of the potential for fecal contamination from
marinas and boat discharges. Most coastal states within USEPA Region IV
impose buffer zones around marinas located in shell fishing waters.
Significant permitting issues may arise from resource-use conflicts and
this issue can prevent marina permitting (see Section 6.3.3). The pri-
mary mitigative measure for impacts to shellfish would be to avoid deve-
lopment within 1000 feet from harvestable shellfish beds.
The marina developer may choose to conduct hydrographic studies
with respect to potential contamination of shellfish in order to predict
the area of influence from the marina. These predictive techniques are
discussed in Chapter 4.0.
One way to mitigate the potential loss of shellfish areas closed by
marina construction is to transplant oyster beds or create new oyster
beds using crushed oyster shell as "cultch" material. Such efforts are
usually successful when shell or seed oyster plantings are made in areas
conducive to oyster growth (Gracy et al., 1978; Little and Quick, 1976).
It is also possible to purify or depurate shellfish harvested from
certain polluted waters. This procedure could become an important miti-
gative measure for area-wide or regional impacts in the future.
5-54
-------
TABLE 5-8
SHELLFISH HARVESTING SEASONS IN OPEN GROUNDS
FOR USEPA REGION IV STATES
State Oysters Clams
North Carolina 1 Sep - 30 Apr3 no season
South Carolina 16 Sep - 30 Apr 1 Sep - 30 May
Georgia 16 Aug - 14 May 1 Sep - 31 May
Florida 1 Sep - 31 May'3 no season
Alabama no season no season
Mississippi 1 Oct - 30 Apr3 no season
aDates may vary slightly from year to year.
Excludes leased grounds and three areas in Apalachicola Bay which are
only open during summer months.
5-55
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
5.4.3 Other Mitigative Measures
Historical/Archaeological Resources
Historical or archaeological resources present at the marina site
or discovered during construction that may be impacted by marina develop-
ment can be identified by contacting the State Historic Preservation
Officer. Mitigative measures can include:
. Preservation or restoration of the artifacts
. Photographic documentation
. Survey or excavation by professional historians or archaeolo-
gists.
Aesthetic Resources
Aesthetic resources contribute to the attractiveness of the area
for development. Measures to protect and maintain water quality, mini-
mize modifications to existing resources and develop the marina facility
to be aesthetically compatible with the area will serve to preserve the
aesthetic appeal of the location.
Marinas in urban locations may improve waterfront areas through
developing attractive facilities. Marinas developed in a rural area
should have soft lines and blend into the surroundings.
Public Access
Public access to navigable waters is a concern of permitting agen-
cies when reviewing marina permit applications. Designs that incorporate
provisions for public access through providing boat ramps, parks or other
public recreational facilities will be a positive factor.
In areas where maintaining public access to recreational waters is
increasingly difficult, mitigative measures can include leasing of state
submerged land for marina development. The plan recommended by the
Florida Blue Ribbon Marina Committee (1983) encourages public access by
providing a discount from the base leasing fee when public access is part
of the marina operating plan. This concept also has been applied to
mitigating potential impacts to specially designated resource protection
areas by charging a higher lease fee for developments in these areas.
This fee could be conveniently applied to obtain necessary funds for
marina-related impact assessment and resource management needs.
5-56
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Navigation
The principal impact to navigation that can result from marina
development is the obstruction of existing traffic on the waterway.
Mitigative measures include:
. Providing adequate channel, basin and turning fairway area with
sufficient depth for safe navigation (the channel width must
permit boats to pass in opposite directions at the same time)
. Position equipment during construction so as not to interfere
with boating traffic on the waterway
. Protective and mooring structures should be placed in a manner
which allows adequate room for navigation in the adjacent
waterway
. Channels should be clearly marked.
The size of turning areas and fairways within the marina basin must
balance the construction costs of an expanded water area with potential
boat handling difficulties from too little water area for safe
maneuvering. The recommended width for a fairway between rows of slips
in quiescent waters should be 1.25 to 1.5 times the length of the longest
slip (Chamberlain, 1983). In general, an accepted width of water area
for turning, entering, and leaving slips is 2.25 times the length of the
longest boat (Chaney, 1961). Both of these design considerations are
subject to minor modifications, depending on boat length and type (single
vs. twin screw, etc.), current, and obstructions encountered at the mari-
nas.
The transition from open water to the marina should be smooth. The
entrance channel should be as straight as possible and follow an existing
natural channel where practicable to minimize dredging. Access channels
that are three to four times the width of the largest boat to use the
marina facility are adequate (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1976).
5.5 Marina Operation and Maintenance
A coastal marina designed and constructed using the most environ-
mentally sound methods can be ineffective without proper operation and
maintenance. A clear and complete operations and maintenance plan should
be available at all times. The dockmaster and marina attendants should be
completely familiar with the specified standard operating procedures. It
may be helpful for marina operators to receive training and certification
from suppliers and equipment manufacturers on proper operation and main-
tenance of boats and other specialized marina equipment. The specifica-
tion of performance standards for marinas could be an effective
management tool for controlling pollutants.
5-57
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Routine marina upkeep should include the regular collection of all
litter in covered containers, the regular maintenance of fuel pumps and
spill prevention measures to prevent spills, and the removal of debris
that accumulates on the shore.
5.5.1 Water Quality Considerations
Dredging
Maintenance dredging may be necessary in some marinas. During
marina planning, provisions should have been made to dispose of any
dredged material in upland areas away from the marina. Most maintenance
dredging involves spot dredging of silt fines or sands. Suction head
dredges have been used for this work around marina structures to prevent
damage that dragline and clamshell dredges may cause. A suction head
dredge uses high-pressure water jets to loosen bottom material and
compressed air to operate pneumatic slurry pumps to force material in
concentration through a discharge line (Dunham and Finn, 1974).
Runoff
Maintaining water quality within the marina basin requires effec-
tive management and use of the stormwater management plan-. Careful
attention to boat maintenance and repair activities is essential.
Mitigative measures that can be employed during marina operation include:
. Require that paint spraying, sand blasting, engine repairs, boat
washing and similar maintenance activities be performed on shore
either indoors or behind canvas screens. These activities
should not take place near ramps, on railways or in the harbor
where pollutants can readily wash or fall into marina waters
Use of non-phosphate detergents can greatly reduce the amount of
nutrients entering marina waters.
Boat Wastes
Properly maintained and convenient waste disposal services,
including garbage disposal and onboard wastewater collection, are impor-
tant to the boat owner who has no other means of proper disposal. The
disposal services should be capable of handling heavy weekend or seasonal
usage. Trash containers should be convenient and secure to prevent
litter from falling or blowing into the water. With regard to boat
holding tank wastes, marina experience has shown that collection
facilities should be conveniently available at existing fueling stations.
Facilities for pumping out larger boats that remain in their slips and
for handling wastes from small portable toilets also should be provided
as required. Another method of handling boat wastes is to provide
convenient shoreside restroom facilities of adequate size with hot
showers and wash basins. Restrooms, if well maintained, will tend to
reduce boat toilet use (Chmura and Ross, 1978).
5-58
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Oily wastes can enter marina waters from the discharge of bilge
water. This type of pollution can be reduced or eliminated through
strict marina rules and management. Boats can be fitted with oil
filtering devices and contain oil-absorbent pads in their bilges.
Control of pollutants from bilge water also can be implemented through
discharge of bilge water into a slipside vacuum system such as the com-
mercially available ENVIROVAC system described previously. This system
can handle wastewater at rates up to 18 gallons per minute.
Potential sanitary waste discharge into marina waters can be miti-
gated by:
. Posting and strict enforcement of discharge rules in the marina
. Requiring all boats with installed MSDs to be connected to a
sanitary waste collection system when moored in the marina
. Sealing discharge outlets from Type I and Type II MSDs when
boats enter the marina and requiring portable toilets or
requiring all boats berthed in the marina to have an approved
Type III MSD or a portable toilet
Banning liveaboards or requiring that these boats be permanently
v x connected to a slipside sanitary waste collection system.
C "•
5.5.2 Ecological Considerations
Aquatic Habitat
The mitigative measures for controlling pollutants discharged into
marina waters in previous water quality sections are applicable to all
ecological habitat resources. Enforcement of speed limits within marinas
and adjacent waterways and clearly marked channels also can protect
aquatic organisms. Posting of no-wake zones can help prevent damage from
boat-generated waves. Clearly marked channels and areas identified by
special markers can eliminate or reduce damage to resources such as
grassbeds in the vicinity of the marina.
Terrestrial Habitat
Control of boat speeds can help prevent shore erosion due to
boating activity. Eroding areas should be immediately stabilized.
Groundskeeping is an important maintenance responsibility. The marina
grounds should be kept clean and attractive. Good maintenance practices
should be extended to the marina waters and shoreline. In addition to
the normal groundskeeping duties, the maintenance staff should consider
the following:
5-59
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
. Utilizing professional landscaping practices
. Conservative use of insecticides, herbicides and fertilizers
. Clean-up of shoreline and beach debris washed up on shore
. Prevention and clean-up of petroleum spills from upland fueling
stations
. Maintaining a regular trash collection schedule.
Wetland and Protected Species
Damage to wetland resources from erosion can be lessened through
controlling boat speed in waterways. The mitigative measures for
controlling pollutants and maintaining water quality are applicable to
protecting wetland resources.
The visible presence of people and associated boating noise can
significantly affect wildlife during the breeding season. Public educa-
tion, specifying safe minimum distances, maintaining vegetative buffers
and otherwise controlling access to wildlife nesting and spawning areas
during critical periods can solve potential problems.
Marinas located near manatee sanctuaries or turtle nesting areas
should ensure that patrons are cognizant of the presence of these orga-
nisms during critical periods. Posting rules and regulations in the
marina can be an effective means of controlling boating activities.
Shellfish
Posting and enforcement of discharge rules for boats berthed in
marinas, particularly sanitary waste discharges, can help to maintain
harvestable shellfish waters and state water quality standards for marina
waters.
5.5.3 Other Considerations
Marinas in residential areas should maintain a "good neighbor"
policy by stipulating and enforcing rules to control noise. Buffers be-
tween marina sites and residential areas can be provided and maintained.
A well-managed marina with adequate attention to controlling wastes
and litter will be aesthetically pleasing to both patrons and adjacent
property owners. Marina personnel should be sufficiently experienced,
trained and familiar with marina operation and maintenance plans to:
5-60
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
. Handle administrative requirements and problems
. Properly execute marina services such as boat launching,
fueling, boat repairs and sales
. Exercise necessary control over marina activities
. Maintain the premises in good condition.
5.6 Summary
Every marina site presents unique aspects in relation to providing
adequate recreational boating facilities at a reasonable cost to the
developer while minimizing adverse environmental effects. The engineer
and developer must evaluate several planning and design options in deter-
mining the most suitable marina development. This evaluation includes
considerations of:
. Land and water access
. Access to utilities
. Area requirements for facilities
. Weather and physical environmental conditions
. Environmental protection
. Aesthetics.
The marina should provide maximum natural protection, while minimizing
habitat alterations and undesirable environmental changes.
Marina design must accommodate a variety of conditions related to
the environment in which marinas must function. The design engineer must
be aware of the environmental parameters that will affect the longevity
and functioning of the marina and marine structures when planning and
evaluating marina design.
The ultimate environmental performance of a marina depends not only
on the site location but on the design, construction, operation and main-
tenance of the facility as well. Proper site planning can help avoid or
minimize many of the impacts that can result from marina development.
Designing the marina to take maximum advantage of the natural attributes
of the site can contribute significantly to reducing or eliminating
potential environmental problems from marina construction. During marina
operation and maintenance, implementation of a clear and complete opera-
tions and maintenance plan can contribute significantly to the environ-
mentally sound performance of the marina facility.
5-61
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Alternative measures taken during marina design and construction
are directed toward avoiding adverse impacts on water quality and aquatic
biota such as shellfish and grassbeds, wetland habitats and protected
species. Mitigative measures also are employed to minimize unavoidable
adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
Habitat creation and habitat rehabilitation can be acceptable mitigative
measures in some cases.
The principal environmental solutions that can be applied during
marina operation and maintenance relate to good management and pollution
control practices. High quality management of marina operations is
essential for the financial success of a marina. Effective management is
not only financially desirable, but will help assure that the marina
functions in an environmentally sound manner and remains attractive to
marina patrons.
5-62
-------
6.0 REGULATION
6.1 Overview 6-1
6.2 Agency Functional Roles in Regulation 6-2
6.2.1 Federal Agencies 6-4
6.2.2 State Agencies 6-5
North Carolina 6-6
South Carolina 6-6
Georgia 6-6
Florida 6-7
Alabama 6-7
Mississippi 6-7
6.2.3 Review Agencies 6-8
Federal 6-8
State 6-8
6.3
6.4
6,5
Regulatory/Planning Responsibilities for Specific
Coastal Resource Impact Categories
6.3.1 Water Quality Resources
6.3.2 Groundwater Resources
6.3.3 Aquatic Habitat Resources
Shellfish Resources
Marinas, Shellfish Harvesting and Antidegradation
6.3.4 Terrestrial Habitat Resources
6.3.5 Wetland Resources
6.3.6 Socioeconomic Resources
6.3.7 Navigation Resources
6.3.8 Aesthetic Resources
Desirable Features of Regulatory/Planning Programs
6.4.1 Use of Desirable Features in USEPA Region IV
Marina Regulation in USEPA Region IV
6.5.1 Federal Agencies
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6-9
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-12
6-14
6-15
6-15
6-15
6-16
6-16
6-19
6-20
6-20
6-21
Overall Permitting Process
Basis for Decision-Making
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 6-25
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service 6-27
U.S. Coast Guard 6-29
6.5.2 State Agencies 6-29
North Carolina 6-34
Overall Permitting Program
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
Water Quality Criteria
Dredge and Fill Requirements
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
Summary of North Carolina Permit Process
-------
REGULATION
6.5.2 State Agencies (contjd)
South Carolina 6-44
Overall Permitting Program
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
Water Quality Criteria
Dredge and Fill Requirements
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
Summary of Sorth Carolina Permit Process
Georgia 6-54
Overall Permitting Program
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
Water Quality Criteria
Dredge and Fill Requirements
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
- Summary of Georgia Permit Process
Florida 6-62
Overall Permitting Program
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
Water Quality Criteria
Dredge and Fill Requirements
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
Summary of Florida Permit Process
Alabama 6-70
Overall Permitting Program
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
Water Quality Criteria
Dredge and Fill Requirements
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
Summary of Alabama Permit Process
Mississippi 6-79
Overall Permitting Program
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
Water Quality Criteria
Dredge and Fill Requirements
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
Summary of Mississippi Permit Process
6.5.3 Analysis of Differences Between State Permit Programs 6-88
6.5.4 Local Agencies 6-88
6.6 Summary 6-91
-------
6.0 REGULATION
6.1 Overview
A complex and sometimes confusing variety of federal, state,
regional and local regulations concerning coastal development have
evolved over the years. These regulations are designed to protect the
public interest and conserve coastal resources by reducing development
impacts and providing an orderly approach to coastal development. This
chapter provides both marina developers and regulatory agency staff with
a resource that outlines the objectives, procedures and areas of respon-
sibility for the primary regulators of marina development in USEPA Region
IV.
Use of Section 6.2 will provide a general understanding of the main
functional roles of agencies involved in coastal marina regulation.
Table 6-1 summarizes these agency roles as they relate to various coastal
resource impact categories. A Handbook user interested in the role of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in marina regulation, for example, would
want to concentrate on this section.
More detailed information on the regulatory involvement of each
federal and state agency for specific impact categories is presented in
Section 6.3. A reader interested in regulation of coastal marinas for
the protection of aquatic habitat resources, for instance, can refer
directly to Section 6.3.3 which covers this subject.
A description of desirable features of regulatory programs is pre-
sented in Section 6.4. In some cases these features are already in use
in some regulatory programs; in other cases these are features that would
improve marina regulatory programs.
Specific information on coastal marina permitting in USEPA Region
IV is presented in Section 6.5. This description is broken down by
federal and state agency. For each, the overall permitting process is
outlined and, in most cases, illustrated by a flow diagram. Also, for
each permitting agency, the bases for decision-making are presented with
emphasis on permit evaluation criteria. Examples of actual permit con-
ditions for each state are given. Each state discussion is concluded
with a summary of the permitting procedure and an approximate timetable
for each stage of the process.
A comparison of the state programs follows the individual state
discussion. The roles of local agencies in marina regulation are
discussed and some innovative marina ordinances summarized.
Supporting Appendices for this chapter provide information on whom
to contact concerning permit applications (Appendix F), sample permit
application forms and information (Appendix G), and some examples of
local ordinances regulating marina activities (Appendix D).
6-1
-------
REGULATION
A Handbook user interested in obtaining permits for a marina deve-
lopment in South Carolina, for example, would want to read (in addition
to other pertinent Sections of this Chapter) the description of the
federal permitting process in Section 6.5 and then go to the South
Carolina program discussion. Reference to the permit application
materials in Appendix G for South Carolina would introduce the reader to
some of the specific required information regarding a permit application.
Using the information in Appendix F, the appropriate federal and state
permitting agencies should then be contacted for the most current permit
application information and materials.
This chapter was organized as a resource that does not have to be
read in its entirety. Thus, some important information has been repeated
in some of the Sections to eliminate cumbersome cross-referencing and to
ensure its attention by the reader. The information in this chapter will
provide the Handbook user with a sound basis for pursuing marina
regulatory matters.
6.2 Agency Functional Roles in Regulation
The primary functional roles of each agency involved with marina
regulation are shown on Table 6-1. The regulatory functions that each
agency carries out are listed by coastal resource. These functional
roles are:
Resource Management (RM) - Indicates that the agency is responsible
forlong-termplanning to manage or protect the particular
resource. The agency is not limited to specific case-by-case
decision-making with respect to the resource.
Permitting (?) - Denotes that the agency has permitting authority
over marina development for the particular resource category.
Water Quality Certification (W) - Indicates that the agency issues
the Section 401 water quality certification for water resources.
Monitoring (M) - Indicates that the agency carries out monitoring
activities to assess performance of the permitted activities with
respect to permit conditions.
Compliance (C) - Signifies that the agency has the means and
authority to enforce regulations and permit conditions.
State Land Lease (P*) - Indicates that the agency issues state land
leases for the use of submerged lands.
Table 6-1 shows that permitting authority (P) only appears under a
few resource categories for most agencies. This is because the defini-
tion of functional roles was strictly applied. A "P" only appears under
those resource categories that were specifically intended by state or
federal authorizing legislation to be the primary focus of the agency's
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1
FUNCTIONAL ROLES OF PERMITTING AGENCIES
Major Impact Categories
en
i
CO
Agency
Water
Quality Groundwater
Resources Resources
Aquatic Terrestrial Socio-
Habitat Habitat Wetland Economic Navigation Aesthetic
Resources Resources Resources Resources Resources Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
RM.P.M.C ...
P.M.C P.M.C P.M.C
M,C -
_ -
P.M.C P.M.C P.M.C
M,C
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Office of Coastal Management
(NCDNRCD/OCM)
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDNRCD/DEM)
South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC)
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC)
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal
Resources Division, Coastal Marshlands Protection
Committee, (GDNR.CRD/CMPC)
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental
Protection Division (GDNR/EPD)
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR)
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER)
Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA)
Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR)
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
(ADCNR)
Alabama State Docks Department (ASDD)
Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources (MBMR)
Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control (MBPC)
Mississippi Secretary of State (MSOS)
RM.P.M.C, RM.P.M.C
RM.W.M.C P.M.C
RM.W.M.C W,M,C
RM.W.M.C P.M.C
RM.W.M.C P.M.C
RM.W.M.C P,M,C
RM.W.M.C P.M.C
RM.P.M.C
P.M.C
P.M.C
P.M.C
P
RM.P.M.C
RM.P.M.C RM,P,M,C
RM
RM.P.M.C RM
P.M.C
RM.P
P*
P.M.C
P.M.C
P
RM.P.M.C RM.P.M.C RM
PLANNING/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT-RM~
STATE LAND LEASE - P*
RM.P
P.M.C
PERMITTING - P
MONITORING - M
COMPLIANCE-T
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION - W
TABI Fh-1 !rflA<;TAI XII
-------
REGULATION
regulatory program. Therefore, a "P" is shown under aesthetic resources
for only one state agency. Although most regulatory programs allow for
appropriate consideration of all resources listed in Table 6-1 and con-
sider aesthetic impact to some extent in their decision-ma'king process,
the primary focus for most programs is generally water quality, aquatic
habitat and wetland resources.
Resource Management (RM) only appears for a few state agencies and
resource categories. This is because most of these agencies regulate
marina development through a case-by-case permit review procedure and do
not exercise long-term planning roles for management and protection of
all listed resources. Exceptions -are Mississippi and to some extent
North and South Carolina, where state coastal zone management agencies
can designate critical areas, areas of environmental concern, or special
management areas, independent of and prior to a decision on a marina per-
mit in a specific area, thereby exercising resource management functions.
Few of the agencies in Table 6-1 exercise specific functional roles
with respect to terrestrial habitat, socioeconomic and aesthetic resour-
ces. Permitting authority (P) with respect to these resources is shown
for three state agencies, North Carolina DNRCD/OCM, Florida DCA and
Mississippi BMR. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) is
not directly involved in marina siting but has a permitting role with
respect to socioeconomic resources for some larger marinas (100 or more
slips) based on the state's Development of Regional Impact (ORI) program.
Four state agencies also administer state land leases, indicated by P*
under socioeconomic resources in Table 6-1.
The general lack of direct functional involvement of permitting
agencies with respect to terrestrial, socioeconomic and aesthetic
resources illustrates that regulatory authority for marina permitting is
focused on aquatic, wetland and water resources. Potential impacts on
landside resources are considered in the decision-making process;
however, impacts to these resources are not the primary concern of the
regulatory agency. Identification and evaluation of impacts is often the
responsibility of a separate review agency.
6.2.1 Federal Agencies
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) is the federal agency
with direct permitting authority for coastal marinas, although USEPA par-
ticipates with the Corps in implementing this authority. Permitting
authority is vested in the USACOE under Section 10 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Guidelines
which the USACOE applies in evaluating disposal sites for dredged or fill
material under Section 404 are developed by USEPA. The expressed goal of
the 404 program is to protect water quality, aquatic resources and
wetlands, but the evaluation guidelines developed by USEPA also state
that no discharge will be permitted if it will result in significant
adverse impacts on other factors, including municipal water supplies,
recreation, economic and aesthetic values. For this reason a functional
6-4
-------
REGULATION
permitting role (P) is recognized for the USACOE in most of the resource
categories.
Although USEPA, jointly with USACOE, develops evaluation criteria
for disposal of dredge and fill material under Section 404, they are not
the permitting agency. The USEPA does not typically exercise any direct
permitting control over marina development. However, under 404(c) USEPA
has ultimate authority to veto dredge and fill permits.
The functional roles for USEPA under the water quality and ground-
water resource categories reflect the agency's authority to set water
quality standards and permit the discharge of pollutants. The NPDES per-
mitting authority has been delegated to all USEPA Region IV coastal sta-
tes except Florida.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has authority to enforce regulations
controlling marine sanitation devices (MSDs) and aids to navigation. MSD
regulations do not directly affect marina developments, but since the
USCG regulations now require most boats to have holding tanks, many
states require marinas to provide pumpout facilities.
A marina developer is also responsible for arranging with either
the Coast Guard or approved state agency to provide private aids to navi-
gation from the marina to the nearest channel. The USCG has established
standards for navigation aids and has authority to install necessary aids
when a developer has not installed appropriate navigation aids.
6.2.2 State Agencies
State marina permitting programs vary within USEPA Region IV. Some
states issue separate dredge and fill, marshland or wetlands permits for
marina developments, while other states review federal permit applica-
tions and do not issue state permits. All coastal states have the
authority to veto Section 10/Section 404 permits if the proposed action
is inconsistent with the state's Coastal Zone Management program, except
Georgia, which did not elect to participate in the CZM program under the
Coastal Zone Management Act. All states have authority under the Clean
Water Act to issue Section 401 water quality certifications for federal
permitting actions as part of their water quality standards program.
The Clean Water Act requires that states adopt water quality stan-
dards in order to protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality
of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. A water quality
standard defines the water quality goals for a particular water body, by
indicating its use and by setting criteria necessary to protect that use.
The water quality standards program through the antidegradation policy
requires that existing uses be maintained. Existing uses are those uses
actually being attained. Existing uses are determined by the states who
have responsibility for identifying uses and when they are actually
attained. A more detailed discussion of the antidegradation policy is
found in Section 6.3.3 under "Marinas, Shellfish Harvesting and
Antidegradation."
6-5
-------
REGULATION
The water quality standards program is designed to protect
designated and existing uses. In marina permitting actions (Section 404
and certain Section 10 permits), states are asked to certify that marina
projects will not violate established criteria or preclude existing uses
of the area's waters. This certification is required for a permit to be
issued. Denial of certification results in denial of a federal permit.
North Carolina
There are two state agencies in North Carolina with regulatory
authority for marinas. The North Carolina Office of Coastal Management
(NCOCM) is the state's coastal management agency. Because 'NCOCM desig-
nates areas of environmental concern (AECs), the agency has resource
management (RM) planning authority for the resource categories indicated
in Table 6-1. This agency also has permitting, monitoring and compliance
authority for both the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) program and the
general permit program delegated to the state by the USACOE.
The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) has authority
to issue water quality certifications under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act.
South Carolina
South Carolina has the same type of functional organization as
North Carolina. The South Carolina Coastal Council (SCCC) is the agency
with responsibility for coastal zone management. SCCC carries out
resource management functions for the resource categories indicated on
Table 6-1 by virtue of its authority to designate critical areas. The
Coastal Council also issues permits for construction in tidal waters and
has monitoring and enforcement authority.
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC) is the state agency which is responsible for issuing 401 water
quality certifications and for follow-up monitoring and enforcement. In
carrying out this responsibility SCDHEC also exercises certification
authority for groundwater as well as surface water.
Georgia
There are two state agencies directly involved with marina regula-
tion in Georgia. The Georgia Coastal Marshland Protection Committee
(GCMPC) has authority to issue permits for any activity that would
require dredging, draining, filling or any other alteration of coastal
marshlands.
Other direct authority in the state rests with the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division
(GEPD). This agency issues the 401 water quality certification. GEPD
also has authority to monitor activities covered by the 401 certification
6-6
-------
REGULATION
and to require compliance with any conditions. Additional functional
roles designated for GEPD reflect the agency's authority to set water
quality standards and designate use classifications for waters of the
state.
Florida
Agencies in the state of Florida have regulatory authority under
more resource categories than agencies in most of the other states. This
is in part because of the number of different state programs and agencies
that may be involved with marina development. The Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER) has authority to issue water quality cer-
tifications and to approve dredge and fill permits under two separate
statutes. Florida is also one of the few states which has direct per-
mitting authority over marinas with respect to their impact on socio-
economic resources. This authority is carried out by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) under the Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) program. The Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR)
also has authority to grant a lease for state-owned bottom land. FDNR
also grants coastal construction and coastal construction control line
permits under the state's coastal zone management program. The coastal
construction control line permit is necessary only in beach front areas
and, therefore, is almost never required for marinas.
Alabama
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), through
its coastal management and water quality review, is the primary state
agency having responsibility for marina development. It is significant
to note, however, that although ADEM exercises review and approval of
USACOE permits, this agency does not administer a separate permit program
for dredge and fill and wetland related projects. ADEM also carries out
the 401 water quality certification.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
(ADCNR) also has a regulatory role in marina development in Alabama.
ADCNR approves state land leases and administers a permit program
controlling dredging of state owned submerged lands (authority up to mean
high tide line).
A third state agency, the Alabama State Docks Department (ASDD)
also can control marina development through its authority to issue per-
mits for construction of structures in water on navigable streams.
Mississippi
There are three state agencies in Mississippi with functional roles
in marina development. The Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources (MBMR)
is the state's primary coastal management agency. It administers the
state's coastal zone management plan and Coastal Wetlands Protection law.
Under these authorities it exercises a resource management function with
6-7
-------
REGULATION
respect to many of the major impact categories (see Table 6-1). Under
the Wetlands Act, MBMR also issues permits for dredging, filling or erec-
tion of structures in coastal wetlands.
The Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control (MBPC) has authority to
establish water quality standards, designate stream classifications, and
issue 401 certifications.
The Mississippi Secretary of State (MSOS) issues submerged land
leases.
6.2.3 Review Agencies
In addition to those agencies with direct permitting or cer-
tification authority over marina development, there are numerous federal
and state agencies which review permit applications and provide comments
on the potential impacts of marina developments.
Federal
At the federal level the principal review agencies are the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act both have
authority to consider and comment on impacts to wildlife and marine
resources resulting from water resources development. The USFWS also
reviews potential impacts to endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. If USFWS determines that an activity may jeopardize
the existence of an endangered species or destroy or modify habitat cri-
tical to the existence of a species on the threatened or endangered list,
then the Corps may not issue a Section 10/404 permit for the activity
without further consideration.
State
In each state there are significant numbers of state agencies to
which USACOE or state dredge and fill permits are sent for review and
comment. The agencies most typically involved are those with authorities
over water resources (when the agency is not already performing a direct
permitting function), wildlife, land use, transportation, public utili-
ties, and historic preservation. In most cases the comments from these
agencies do not ultimately control the permit decision. However, the
permitting agencies consider all comments and can deny the permit when
comments indicate the potential for significant impact to a given
resource.
In the case of historic and archaeological resources, a finding of
significant impact can cause a USACOE permit under Section 404 to be
denied. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the
USACOE must ascertain if properties potentially affected by a marina
development are listed on or eligible for inclusion in the "National
Register of Historic- Places". The USACOE must then consider the effect
6-8
-------
REGULATION
of marina development on these historic properties. The state historic
preservation officer (SHPO) has the responsibility under Section 106
regulations to assist in the identification of "National Register" pro-
perties and to determine possible adverse impacts. Typically, when
adverse impacts are likely, mitigation measures may be agreed to through
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). If an MOA is not reached, the USACOE
may deny the permit, although denial is not mandatory.
6.3 Regulatory/Planning Responsibilities for Specific Coastal Resource
Impact Categories
6.3.1 Water Quality Resources
Agencies with functional roles relating to water quality resources
include USEPA, USACOE, USCG and State water agencies.
The USACOE carries out permitting, monitoring and compliance acti-
vities under authority of the Clean Water Act and River and Harbor Act of
1899. The USACOE does not exercise any planning function with respect to
water quality.
The USEPA has permitting, monitoring, compliance, and resource
management (planning) responsibilities based on authorities in numerous
sections of the Clean Water Act. Specifically, USEPA sets guidelines for
establishing water quality standards (USEPA can also directly establish
these standards), monitoring water quality, approving discharge permits
and certifying compliance with water quality standards for federally per-
mitted activities, requiring compliance with permit limitations, sets
standards for MSDs, and establishes criteria for ocean discharges. Many
of these responsibilities can and have been delegated to the states.
USEPA also assists the USACOE in administering the dredge and fill permit
program.
The USCG does not exercise permitting functions related to water
quality resources. USCG does, however, have authority to monitor and
enforce compliance with MSD regulations.
At the state level, state water quality agencies carry out a number
of functions affecting marina development. Within Region IV these agen-
cies include:
. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Office of Coastal Management
. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental
Protection Division
6-9
-------
REGULATION
. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Water
Improvement Commission
. Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control.
Generally, these agencies set water quality standards, designate
water quality classifications for specific water bodies, issue discharge
permits, issue 401 certifications and carry out monitoring and compliance
activities related to these planning and permitting functions.
6.3.2 Groundwater Resources
The USACOE and state water resource agencies have functional roles
relating to groundwater resources.
The USACOE carries out permitting, monitoring and compliance acti-
vities under 40 CFR Part 230, "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal
Sites for Dredged or Fill Material". The USACOE does not exercise any
planning function with respect to groundwater quality.
Impacts to groundwater are not normally a key consideration in the
state's permitting process. In most states, if marina construction or
operation presents potential impacts to groundwater, these impacts are
evaluated by respective water resource agencies in conjunction with the
401 certification process. These agencies are:
. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Office of Coastal Management
. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental
Protection Division
. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Water
Improvement Commission
. Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control.
Each agency carries out permitting, monitoring and compliance functions
as appropriate with respect to groundwater resources.
The SCDHEC routinely considers impacts to groundwater as part of
the 401 certification process. The ADEM is responsible for managing any
use which might contribute to a waste discharge from a point or non-point
source to groundwaters of the Coastal Area. MBPC carries out functional
roles only if the project will impact a known.wetlands recharge area or a
6-10
-------
REGULATION
shallow aquifer area. In North Carolina, Georgia and Florida, if impacts
to groundwater are suspected, then functional roles will be exercised.
In addition, NCDNRCD/OCM carries out planning functions if a project is
sited in a well field area, an area considered a "critical environmental
area" by the state.
6.3.3 Aquatic Habitat Resources
Aquatic habitat resources are one of the key areas of concern for
federal and state dredge and fill programs. As such, many agencies are
involved in several functional roles with respect to aquatic habitat
resources.
USEPA does not have a direct functional role with respect to
aquatic resources; however, the guidelines used by USACOE in evaluating
dredge and fill permits were developed jointly by USEPA and USACOE (see
40 CFR 230, particularly subparts C, D, and E which address impacts to
various aquatic habitat resources).
The USACOE has a significant direct functional role with regard to
aquatic habitat resources. The USACOE 404 permit program focuses on
aquatic habitat and wetland resource impacts. Any permit for a marina
development which poses significant adverse impacts for aquatic habitat
resources may be denied or appropriately modified as a result of the
USACOE permit evaluation.
Each coastal state within USEPA Region IV also carries out a
variety of institutional responsibilities directly related to aquatic
habitat impacts. The state agencies involved are typically coastal mana-
gement agencies. These include:
. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Office of Coastal Management
. South Carolina Coastal Council
. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources
Division, Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee
. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
. Alabama Department of Environmental Management
. Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources.
Although Florida DER is not the lead state agency for coastal zone
management, it administers both water quality and state dredge and fill
programs.
6-11
-------
REGULATION
Typically, state authority with respect to issues affecting aquatic
resources is exercised through a dredge and fill permit program. In most
states the program is carried out jointly with the USACOE 404 permit
program. Alabama does not have a separate state permit program, but
approves the USACOE permit. In some states, this regulatory authority is
combined with or augmented by a coastal critical areas type of permit.
Regardless of the exact arrangement, each state carries out a permitting
role. Each state also monitors compliance with permit conditions and has
some procedures for ensuring compliance.
Shellfish Resources
Significant permitting issues may arise from potential impacts to
shellfish resources. These impacts are considered as part of the Section
10/Section 404 permit review process and in state permitting programs.
Where marinas are proposed in waters that are currently used for
shellfish harvesting, bacterial and/or other contamination can become a
significant ' issue. Most USEPA Region IV coastal states prohibit
shellfishing within specified distances from marinas. The majority of
state shellfish sanitation agencies establish these buffer zones on a
case-by-case basis.
The state agencies primarily concerned with shellfish resources
are:
. North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Health
Services, Shellfish Sanitation Office
. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control,
Shellfish and Recreational Waters Division, Bureau of Special
Environmental Programs
. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources
Division
. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Marine
Resources and Division of State Lands
. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
. Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources, Wetlands Division and
Mississippi Department of Health, Shellfish Sanitation Office.
Marinas, Shellfish Harvesting and Antidegradation
Water quality standards regulations require states to develop and
adopt a statewide antidegradation policy. It is the purpose of this
policy to assure that existing instream uses and the level of water
quality necessary to protect those uses are maintained and protected. An
"existing use" can be established by demonstrating that fishing, swimming
or other uses have actually occurred since 28 November 1975, or that.the
6-12
-------
REGULATION
water quality is suitable to allow the use to be attained (unless there
are physical problems, such as substrate or flow, which prevent the use
regardless of water quality.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that states provide for the pro-
tection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and provide for
recreation in and on the waters of the United States. Beyond these CWA
requirements, water quality standards regulations charge states with
assuring compliance with antidegradation requirements. States must
determine what are the existing uses of their waters and the level of
water quality necessary for their protection.
Shellfish harvesting is a use that is covered by the antidegrada-
tion regulations. For example, consider a situation where shellfish are
apparently propagating and surviving in a biologically suitable habitat
and are suitable for harvesting. Such facts clearly establish that
shellfish harvesting is an "existing" use, not one dependent on improve-
ments in water quality.
Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act calls for that level of
water quality which "...provides for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, ..." To say that the shellfish use exists, and that the
water quality must be maintained, only if the shellfish are literally
being "harvested" undercuts the objective of the Act to restore and main-
tain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters.
State water quality agencies should consult with the state agency
responsible for shellfish harvesting to determine if potential or actual
uses are known and documented. States should use the public notice and
public hearing processes to determine if shellfish harvesting uses exist
that have not otherwise been identified. The process used to make each
determination should be documented.
When considering a loss of an existing use, a decisionmaker should
address the specific area where existing uses may be affected. The pre-
sence of existing uses in adjacent unaffected areas, no matter how small
or large, does not materially affect decisions regarding the specific
waters where existing uses may be affected.
The level of water quality is important in regards to antidegrada-
tion policy. If loss of a use (establishment of a buffer zone where
shellfish harvesting is closed) is based on a recognition that water
quality is likely to be lowered to the point that it no longer is suf-
ficient to protect and maintain an existing shellfish harvesting use and
the public health, allowance of such loss of use is inconsistent with
EPA's antidegradation regulations. Wherever actions affect the probabi-
lity of lower water quality and this change in probability precludes an
existing use, this action should be considered to affect the level of
6-13
-------
REGULATION
water quality and would be inconsistent with antidegradation require-
ments.
In summary, it is necessary for states to fully consider the anti-
degradation policy in specific decision-making related to marinas in
shell fishing waters. Deliberate and documented decisions should be made.
Opportunity for public comment and discussion should be given. And
finally, the intent of the antidegradation policy should be followed.
Appendix E presents copies of letters and memoranda relating to marinas,
shellfish and antidegradation.
6.3.4 Terrestrial Habitat Resources
Impacts to terrestrial habitat resources are considered by the
USACOE and by state agencies which administer either dredge and fill or
coastal areas permits. These state agencies include:
. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Office of Coastal Management
. South Carolina Coastal Council
. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources
Division, Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee
. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
. Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources.
Although all regulatory programs consider terrestrial resource
impacts, state and federal permit programs generally are not focused on
terrestrial impacts and few programs are directed toward equal con-
sideration for terrestrial and aquatic resource impacts. Terrestrial
resource impacts are typically addressed through comments from review
agencies and are not necessarily a deciding factor in permit approval.
However, comments from the USFWS, which functions as a federal review
agency for USACOE 404 permits, may result in permit denial if an
endangered terrestrial species may be affected.
Two state regulatory programs are broader in scope than the dredge
and fill programs in other states and provide for direct consideration
for terrestrial resource impacts. These are the North Carolina CAMA per-
mit and Mississippi Coastal Wetlands permit programs administered by
NCDNRCD/OCM and MBMR, respectively. The broader scope of state coastal
area programs in North Carolina, South Carolina and Mississippi also pro-
vide for resource management functions carried out by NCDNRCD/OCM, SCCC
and MBMR, with respect to terrestrial resources.
6-14
-------
ADDENDUM 1 (5-85)
Water Quality Certification in Coastal Waters
Shellfish resources are an important consideration in the
water quality certification process for coastal marinas.
Simply stated, if a shellfish resource is present and the
water quality is suitable for shellfish harvesting, a proposed
marina development that would cause loss of the use of this
resource would be inconsistent with the antidegradation
requirements of the water quality standards regulations.
Figure 6A diagrams the progression of decisions (square
boxes) and actions (rounded boxes) relating to marina siting
in coastal waters. The figure takes into account recent
interpretations by the EPA Office of Water of "existing uses"
related to antidegradation.
There are two determinations that must be made to complete
the water quality certification process. Water quality
standards criteria must be met and there must be compliance
with the state's policy on antidegradation. The major
controlling determination for coastal marinas is the antide-
gradation requirement.
The certification process begins with a determination of
the state water quality use designation for the waters at the
proposed marina site. Such information is available from the
state water quality agency. For waters classified for shellfish
harvesting use, it is necessary to determine if water quality
criteria will be met during construction and following completion
of the project. A particularly important water quality
criteria for shellfish harvesting waters is the fecal coliform
requirement. The determination of compliance with such
criteria typically assumes pollution control devices are
operating properly.
If the state determines that water quality criteria will be
met, the state's antidegradation policy must be considered.
The antidegradation policy requires that existing uses be
maintained. Existing use has been defined as where a use has
been documented since November 28, 1975 or where the water
quality at the site is suitable to allow the use to be attained
and no physical problems exist to preclude its attainment.
The state shellfish harvesting agencies are a primary source
of information related to whether shellfish harvesting has
occurred at the site since 1975. This source can be supple-
mented by information from the state coastal zone management
agency, local shellfishermen or field survey data.
6-14A
-------
ADDENDUM 1 (5-85)
If there has been documented shellfish harvesting at the
proposed marina site, it is necessary to determine if the
proposed marina project would cause a loss of the shellfish
harvesting use. A requirement for a buffer zone or other
form of closure of the area for shellfish harvesting due to
the proposed project would constitute a loss of the use.
If the use would be lost, the 401 certification would be
denied, if not, the certification could be given.
If there is no documented shellfish harvesting at the pro-
posed marina site, the state should determine whether the
existing water quality is suitable for the use to be attained
and if physical conditions at the site allow its attainment.
The first step is to determine whether the water quality is
suitable or unsuitable. (For example, are the fecal coliform
concentrations at the site suitable for shellfish harvesting?)
Then an analysis should be made as to whether physical problems
(such as substrate or flow) prevent the attainment. One
means of determining the presence or absence of such physical
problems would be the existence or lack of a shellfish resource.
If the use is found to be attainable, the state water
quality agency must then determine whether the use would be
lost if the marina project proceeded. If the use would not
be lost, certification may be given. If the use would be
lost (for example, by establishing a buffer zone where shell-
fish harvesting is prohibited), certification would be denied.
If the use is found to be unattainable by the water quality
agency, (for example, no shellfish are located at the site)
401 certification may be given.
For instances where shellfish harvesting is the designated
use and is not considered the existing use and water quality
criteria for this use can not be met, an applicant may wish
to investigate with the state water quality agency whether
this shellfish harvesting use is attainable. A use attain-
ability survey, as described in the water quality standards
regulations, can be conducted to make this determination.
Such a survey may be performed by the applicant, the state
water quality agency, the state shellfish resource agency or
combinations of these groups. Based on the results of this
study, if the state water quality agency determines that the
use is attainable, then the certification would be denied.
If the uses are determined to be unattainable, a water quality
standards (and use classification) change could be initiated.
Such a change would be necessary before certification could
be given. A change in water quality standard requires extensive
documentation and a public hearing. The state water quality
agency makes decisions on certification and standards changes.
If the shellfish resource is there and the water quality is
suitable to allow harvesting, a change in the use classification
is not allowable. If the shellfish are present, the water
quality is suitable and the designated use is not shellfish
harvesting, the shellfish resource is still protected under the
provisions of antidegradation.
6-14B
-------
ADDENDUM 1 (5-85)
Primary Contact
Process
State Water
Quality Agency
State Water
Quality Agency
State Shellfish
Harvesting Agency
State WQ and
Shellfish Agencies
State Water
Quality Agency
State Water
Quality Agency
State Water
Quality Agency
Shellfish Harvesting Water
Quality Classification?
I
yes
no
Will Water Quality
Criteria Be Met?
yes
no
Is Shellfish Harvesting
Documented?
I
no
Is The Use Attainable?
Is The Water
Quality Suitable?
yes
-yes
Are Physical
Conditions Suitable?
yes
Will The Use
Be Lost?
yes
Certification)
Denied
Figure 6A. Water quality certification in coastal waters
6-14C
-------
-------
REGULATION
6.3.5 Wetland Resources
Wetland resources, like aquatic habitat and water quality re-
sources, are one of the key areas of concern of USACOE and state dredge
and fill programs. The agencies involved and their functional roles are
the same for wetland resources as for aquatic habitat resources. These
agencies include:
. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Office of Coastal Management
. South Carolina Coastal Council
. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources
Division, Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee
. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
. Alabama Department of Environmental Management
. Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources.
Each of these agencies has permitting authority which directly
addresses wetland impacts. They also monitor general conditions in
wetland areas, develop compliance through permit conditions and exercise
enforcement authority.
6.3.6 Socioeconomic Resources
As discussed in Section 6.2, socioeconomic resources are not a
major focus for permit programs applicable to coastal marinas.
The USACOE guidelines specify that permits should not be approved
where there may be significant adverse impacts to economic resources.
The state coastal management agencies have no direct permitting authority
under this category. In some states, a state land lease is required. In
Florida, FDCA, which is not a coastal area management agency, administers
a permit program which addresses socioeconomic impacts. This permit
program applies to marinas with 100 or more boat slips.
6.3.7 Navigation Resources
Under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act, the USACOE has direct
permit authority over virtually all work, including structures built in
navigable waters.
The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for maintaining necessary aids
to navigation in navigable waters. Under this authority they would
require marina operators to install necessary private navigational aids
at the marina and from the marina area to the adjacent navigation chan-
nel. The USCG may delegate its authority over navigation to an approved
state agency.
6-15
-------
REGULATION
The only state agency identified as having a function related to
navigation is the Alabama State Docks Department. ASDD requires
construction permits for structures in water on navigable streams.
6.3.8 Aesthetic Resources
The fewest functional roles for federal and state regulatory agen-
cies are for aesthetic resources (Table 6-1). Though many permit
programs recognize the potential for impacts to aesthetic resources, it
is a direct consideration for only one permit program. It is unlikely
under most programs that adverse aesthetic impact alone would be the
basis for denying a permit unless the impact represented a major visual
intrusion on a significant resource area.
The North Carolina CAMA program recognizes aesthetic values in
designating areas of environmental concern; therefore, this agency per-
forms a resource management function for aesthetic resources. The CAMA
permitting process, independent of NCOCM activities under the USACOE
general permit, also directly considers aesthetic impacts.
6.4 Desirable Features of Regulatory/Planning Programs
Analysis of the state and federal regulatory/planning programs
during the coastal marinas assessment revealed ways for enhancing the
success of existing regulatory programs. Nine desirable features were
identified through review and evaluation of agency roles and functions in
the marina permitting process, interviews with state agency officials and
consideration of review comments received from an interagency coor-
dination committee. Descriptions of each of these nine desirable
features follow.
6-16
-------
REGULATION
FEATURE 1 -CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND DESCRIBED AUTHORITIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
Clearly defined authorities for the regulatory agencies would
help identify where responsibilities overlap among agencies or where
there are gaps in authority. This would help eliminate duplication of
effort for both review agency and permit applicant and ensure a more
thorough protection of coastal resources.
Clear definition of authority would allow the permit applicant
to know precisely which agencies to contact and each agency's range of
involvement. It would help the permittee determine what was required-in
the permit and ensure that all necessary permits were filed with the
correct agencies.
FEATURE 2 - COORDINATION AMONG AGENCIES WHERE JOINT AUTHORITIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES EXIST
This feature is directly related to Feature 1. Because there
are numerous areas where overlap of responsibilities and duplication of
effort can occur among regulatory agencies, some formal means of coor-
dination could help eliminate unnecessary expenditures of time and
effort. Such formal coordination can be achieved through processes such
as memoranda of understanding (MOUs), general permits or other intera-
gency agreements.
FEATURE 3 - CONSISTENCY IN INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS OF APPLICANTS
This directly addresses the overlap of authority among regula-
tory agencies. Even if there are clearly defined areas of authority
(Feature 1), and specific means for coordination (Feature 2), there could
still be inefficient use of time and effort unless information requested
from permittees is consistent among agencies. For example, even where
joint permit application procedures have been established, federal and
state agencies or even different state agencies may request different
information in support of a single permit application. If similar types
of data were requested at one time and in a consistent format, it could
meet the requirements of all agencies and save both the applicant and
review agency time and effort.
FEATURE 4 - CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND DESCRIBED PERMIT FLOW DIAGRAMS AND
TIME FRAMES'
Flow diagrams and time limitations would provide a very useful
device for tracking permit progress and consistency in the permit
decision-making process. When clearly described, this information would
allow both the permit applicant and the review agencies to know who was
involved in each step of the decision-making process, when each of the
processes would take place, and how long it should take.
6-17
-------
REGULATION
FEATURE 5 - PROVISIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP OF PERMITS THROUGH MONITORING AND
COMPLIANCE"
This desirable feature is a requirement for successful regula-
tory programs. There is no way to guarantee compliance with regulatory
program objectives and permit conditions unless appropriate follow-up is
carried out. With monitoring, marina developers and permitting agencies
can assess the effectiveness of marina design and operation plans in
meeting objectives and the success of mitigation strategies.
FEATURE 6 - CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND DESCRIBED DECISION-MAKING CRITERIA
This is one of the most important features of those identified.
It is necessary to have clearly established and described decision-making
criteria in order to achieve consistency in decisions. This is an abso-
lute requirement for legally defensible permit decisions. If objective
criteria are clearly stated, applicants have a better understanding of
what actions are likely to be permittable and the basis for making the
permit decisions. With this understanding, the applicant is less likely
to propose actions or to submit applications which are inappropriate.
This would result in significant savings of time and manpower for both
marina developers and regulatory agencies.
FEATURE 7 - PROVISIONS FOR OPTIONAL "FAST-TRACK" PERMITTING
Fast-track permitting could be beneficial to both permitting
agencies and applicants in certain situations. This procedure would
require identification of low or no impact marina projects. These pro-
jects would be identified by use of standardized criteria. The criteria
would address all pertinent environmental concerns and could utilize a
format similar to the siting checklist (Table 3-1). This would result in
a streamlined approach that would reduce the permitting time for accep-
table projects. Fast-track permitting could lessen the permit review
load on the permitting agencies and aid the developer by scaling the
complexity and cost of the review process to the specific project. There
would be no circumvention of environmental concerns and development of
low impact marina projects would be encouraged.
FEATURE 8 - ASSIGNMENT OF AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE AT INITIATION OF
PERMITTING PROCESS TO ASSIST AND ADVISE APPLICANT
This approach is presently employed by some agencies. The
agency representative can provide guidance to developer for achieving the
most environmentally acceptable project, thereby saving the regulatory
agency the time of reviewing applications for inappropriate sites. This
approach provides the developer with a clearly identified and familiar
contact, and, if necessary, a source of technical expertise for iden-
tifying mitigative alternatives.
6-18
-------
REGULATION
FEATURE 9 - REGIONAL PLANNING FOR MARINA SITING
Regional planning for marina siting could reduce the number of
individual permit reviews and, in theory, place the decision-making in a
comprehensive, multidisciplinary context. Regional planning could pro-
mote more effective decision-making as well as reduce the number of
application denials. Regional planning for coastal land uses currently
is being carried out in at least three of the USEPA Region IV states.
6.4.1 Use of Desirable Features in USEPA Region IV
All regulatory agencies in USEPA Region -IV with authority over some
aspect of marina development have their authorities and responsibilities
clearly defined in either state or federal statutes. The areas of
authority and regulatory programs are further defined by most of the sta-
tes in state regulations or administrative procedures. Although there
are multiple agencies involved in review of marina development in each
state, the possibility for duplication of effort for both applicant and
review agency has been lessened by the adoption of joint programs in many
states. In many cases only the application process is carried out
jointly, with separate comment review, evaluation, and decision pro-
cesses. Formal interagency agreements among state agencies apparently
have not been adopted.
Most agencies use specific decision-making criteria contained in
state statutes or regulations during the permitting process. While such
specific criteria exist, many people find state statutes and regluations
intimidating and not easy to understand. A good approach, used by some
states, is to publish a separate pamphlet discussing the permitting pro-
cess and the basis for decision-making.
The permitting process could be further strengthened in many states
by publication of a flow chart that illustrates and describes the
decision-making process. Such a chart could be made publicly available
as an information pamphlet to be distributed at pre-application confer-
ences. The USACOE, as well as some states, provide applicants just such
a fl ow chart.
Both the USACOE and the state permitting agencies (except for
Alabama, which only reviews an application for consistency with its
coastal program and does not grant a permit) discuss the permitting pro-
cess and decision criteria in a pre-application meeting. Some agencies
also assign a point-of-contact to each permit applicant at this time. A
pre-application meeting and the assignment of a point-of-contact, par-
ticularly if the contact is also a field representative, is a very bene-
ficial procedure. Although the USACOE and the state permitting agencies
encourage a pre-application meeting, in most cases there is not an
established method of informing the applicant of this recommendation.
6-19
-------
REGULATION
Many permitting programs have no fast-track permit process and
standard time frames may also present problems. Fast-track permitting
can have numerous advantages as discussed under Feature 7 in Section 6.4.
Although overall time frames are often stipulated, time frames for subac-
tivities such as receipt of application, comment period, review period,
decision and appeals often are not specified.
All permitting agencies exercise some monitoring and compliance
activities. Some rely on applicant self-monitoring, while others use
field personnel for monitoring. Neither approach is necessarily more
satisfactory. Regardless of who performs the work, continual or more
frequent monitoring for certain parameters could be beneficial.
Occasional or inconsistent monitoring does not give the regulatory agency
an adequate idea of average daily conditions and also is less helpful to
the developer. This type of monitoring can be interpreted by the deve-
loper as a "spot check" backed by the threat of enforcement actions.
Conscientious developers seeking to provide a high quality development
which meets or exceeds regulatory standards could be better served by
consistent ongoing monitoring whether it be by agency staff or required
of developers by the regulatory agencies.
The final area of regulatory program evaluation is the regional
planning feature. Three states have some overall resource management
authority, though only one state actually designates land/water areas
where marinas would be a permitted or nonpermitted use. The regional
planning approach can create some new problems and does not eliminate the
need for site-by-site review and approval. However, if a regional
planning approach were more widely used it could greatly decrease the
number of inappropriate permit applications. This would save time and
expense for permitting agencies and developers, and provide an additional
mechanism for managing and protecting sensitive resources including uni-
que natural areas and shellfish beds. The incorporation of desirable
features in specific state programs is discussed in Section 6.5.2
6.5 Marina Regulation in USEPA Region IV
The principal federal and state permitting, certification and review
agencies are listed by state in Appendix F. Appendix G contains sample
permit application materials for each USEPA Region IV coastal state.
6.5.1 Federal Agencies
Federal involvement in the permitting of coastal marinas is pri-
marily through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory program.
Corps authority to control marina siting is derived from Section 10 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Section 10 provides the Corps authority to control through its
permit program construction in navigable waters and the excavation or
deposition of any materials in navigable waters. Section 404 authorizes
the Corps to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States. Section 10, in conjunction with other
6-20
-------
REGULATION
environmental laws, provides the Corps with authority to regulate any
structure or work that may affect navigability, including associated
impacts on other public interest factors. Section 404 authority focuses
primarily on consideration of water quality issues and impacts on fish,
shellfish and recreation associated with discharges of dredged or fill
material. Certain responsibilities under Section 404 are shared with the
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Significant input to the pro-
cess of evaluating permit applications under Sections 10 and 404 is also
provided by the Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and the Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Overall Permitting Process
The U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers is the sole
federal marina permitting agency. The USACOE is responsible for
reviewing marina permit applications and granting or denying a Section
10/Section 404 permit based on that review. In four of the USEPA Region
IV coastal states (North Carolina and Alabama are excepted), there is a
joint application process between the regional USACOE office and the
applicable state permitting agency. In North Carolina, the USACOE has
granted a general permit to the state and may approve Section 10/ Section
404 permits for activities approved by the state. In Alabama application
is made only to the USACOE with the state exercising review of the USACOE
permit. Although the permitting process is separate in most states, the
USACOE will not grant a Section 10/Section 404 permit if the application
is denied by the state permitting agency. General permit evaluation
criteria used by the Corps and states are listed by coastal resource in
Table 6-2.
The overall process followed by the Corps in reviewing permit appli-
cations, including marina development is shown on Figure 6-1. This
diagram illustrates overall Corps responsibilities and decision points.
The procedure shown would apply in general, to Corps reviews under any
area of authority. Typically, when a Corps application form is utilized
by an applicant only one form is submitted for both Section 10 and 404
approval and adequate information for both reviews is required. This
general process has been modified to some extent based on memoranda of
agreement signed by the Corps and state permit agencies.
The Corps' permit review process provides a clearinghouse for the
collection and review of comments from public agencies at all levels of
government, private groups and individuals. It also brings together
comments representing the entire range of social, economic and environ-
mental factors affected by marina development.
Following receipt of the permit application, the Corps undertakes a
preliminary assessment to determine the type of environmental review
required. This environmental review may range from a categorical exclu-
sion to a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) procedure based upon
6-21
-------
TABLE 6-2
GENERAL PERMIT EVALUATION CRITERIA
Evaluation criteria
Impact category
USACOE
State agencies
Water Quality
Aquatic Resources
cr>
i
ro
ro
Terrestrial Resources
Wetland Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Compliance with applicable effluent limit-
ations, water quality standards and manage-
ment practices during construction, operation
and maintenance.
1. Potential direct and indirect loss of or
damage to fish resources.
1. Potential direct and indirect loss of and
damage to wildlife resources.
Unnecessary alteration or destruction of
wetlands will be discouraged as contrary
to the public interest.
Determine whether the coast line or base
line might be altered.
1. Probable impact marina and its intended
use on the public interest, including
nearby properties.
2. Extent of public and private need.
3. Effect on the enhancement, preservation
or development of historic, scenic and
recreational values.
1. Construction and operation must not result in
water quality standards contraventions.
2. Adequate provision for dredged material
disposal for life of project.
3. Need for maintenance dredging.
*. Demonstrated measures to minimize Impacts on
natural resources from marina or attendant
boat operation.
5. Adequate waste disposal facilities and plans
for meeting state requirements or specifica-
tions.
6. Adequate circulation and tidal flushing.
7. Measures to minimize possibility of spills.
8. Depth of basins and access channels not
exceeding depth of receiving waters.
1. Need for dredging in primary nursery areas.
2. Timing and location of dredging activities.
3. Adequate protection for natural resources in
project and adjacent areas.
4-. Proximity to shellfish and grassbeds.
5. Effect on conservation of shellfish and other
marine resources.
6. Impact on marine resources or critical habi-
tats.
1. Adverse impact to or interference with con-
servation of wildlife, critical habitats or
other natural resources.
2. Air emissions that may degrade plant or ani-
mal life.
1. Development In areas not requiring dredging
or disruption of shallow water or wetland
habitats.
2. Measures to minimize any necessary alteration
3. Excavation of boat basins in uplands or loca-
tion on deep water site may be preferred.
1. Extent of public water use required.
2. Prominent display of nearest pumpout loca-
tion and other appropriate waste disposal
Information.
3. Accomodation for disposal needs for main-
tenance dredging.
4. Adequacy of land access and parking facili-
ties.
-------
TABLE 6-2
(continued)
GENERAL PERMIT EVALUATION CRITERIA
Impact category
Evaluation criteria
USACOE
State agencies
Socioeconomic Resources
(continued)
ro
CO
Navigation Resources
Aesthetic Resources
Groundwater Resources
1. Interference with public access to, or use of
navigable waters.
2. Interference with a Federal project in navi-
gable waters.
1. Impact on public interest with respect to
scenic values and Wild and Scenic Rivers
1. Potential impacts to wetland recharge areas
and potable water supplies.
5. Designs should adequately serve commercial,
sport fisheries and other recreational needs.
6. Plans for public safety.
7. Impact to historic, cultural and archaeologi-
cal resources.
8. More efficient utilization of existing mari-
nas. Innovative solutions to increased
demand for services is encouraged.
1. Other reasonable alternatives to construction
and maintenance of access channels.
1. Proper handling of litter and other refuse.
2. Interference with visual and physical access
to coastal waters.
3. Preservation of natural scenic values.
-------
LOCAL
AGENCIES
SPECIAL
INTERESTS
STATE AGENCIES
•Water Quality
•Coastal zone
•SHPO
•State lands
•Natural Res.
•Fish & Wildlife
RECEIVE
APPLICATION
PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT
PUBLIC
NOTICE
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
•General Permit
•Nationwide Permit
•Letter of Permission
COMMENT
PERIOD
INDIVIDUALS
OTHER CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
OPTIONAL
PUBLIC
HEARING
FEDERAL AGENCIES
•EPA
•NMFS
•F&W
•OCZM
•Interior
NECESSARY
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEWS
DENY
APPLICATION
APPROVE
APPLICATION
Figure 6-1. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting process
6-24
-------
REGULATION
the potential extent of adverse impact on the natural and manmade
environment. A proposed activity is categorically excluded from further
environmental review if the Corps finds that the project will have mini-
mal or no individual or cumulative effect on environmental quality and
that it will not cause an environmentally controversial change to
existing environmental conditions.
When a categorical exclusion is not made, the next step in the per-
mit process is for public notice to be given. This notice goes out to
all interested parties along with those agencies with a required review
or regulatory role in the process. The finding of the preliminary
assessment may be included as part of the public notice.
A public hearing is held when it is determined necessary. This is
based on review of comments from individuals, special interest groups,
other Corps offices and public agencies. The permit application is then
evaluated and the necessary environmental reviews, as determined in the
preliminary assessment, are conducted. Following the completion of the
environmental review, the permit decision is made and the permit is
either issued or denied.
Basis for Decision-Making
Table 6-3 presents a summary of the criteria considered by the Corps
in making permit decisions. Along with these criteria, the Corps con-
siders the comments received in response to the public notice. In par-
ticular, comments of the USFWS and NMFS are addressed as required by the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and USEPA criteria are met for siting
of dredged material discharges under 404(b)(l) of the Clean Water Act.
In general, the decision to issue or deny a permit is based on an
assessment of the overall impact on the public interest. In the absence
of overriding national factors of the public interest, a permit will
generally be issued where a favorable decision has been received from the
responsible state agencies. According to the Corps Section 404 regula-
tions, a dredge and fill permit will be denied should any required
federal, state or local authorization (including 401 Certification) be
denied. This is reiterated in Section 401 regulations which state that
if 401 Certification is denied, no other license or permit will be
granted.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The USEPA is involved in the permitting of coastal marinas through
its joint responsibilities with the Corps for administration of the 404
Program and through its responsibilities under Sections 312 and 402 of
the Clean Water Act. The USEPA's involvement under Section 404 includes:
Development of criteria for evaluating locations for discharge
of dredged material under 404(b)(l)
6-25
-------
TABLE 6-3
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT EVALUATION CRITERIA
•Evaluation of economic, social and environmental costs, versus benefits
•Extent of public and private need
•Desirability of alternative locations
• Cumulative impacts
•Effects on. wetl ands
•Conservation of wildlife and prevention of direct and indirect losses
•Evaluation for compliance with applicable effluent standards, water
quality standards and management practices
•Consideration of effects on the enhancement, preservation or development
of historic, scenic and recreational values
•Effects on wild and scenic rivers
•Effects on the limits of the territorial sea
•Interference with adjacent properties or water resource projects
•Impacts on navigation
•Compliance with state coastal zone management programs
•Evaluation of potential impact to marine sanctuaries
•Consistency with state, regional or local land use classifications,
determinations or policies
•Effects on flood losses, impact of floods, human health, safety and
welfare and the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.
6-26
-------
REGULATION
Ultimate authority to veto the specification of a disposal site
having unacceptable effects under 404(b)(l) guidelines
The designation of geographic areas and ecosystems where the
USEPA will make final determinations on permit applications
Assistance to states in developing responsibility for delegated
programs
Determination of boundaries of waters of the United States
The authority to halt illegal discharges.
The USEPA has developed detailed guidelines under 404(b)(l) (Table
6-4), which augment the general criteria used by the Corps in reviewing
404 permit applications (See Table 6-3). The USEPA has also developed
additional guidelines that describe how discharges of dredged or fill
material may impact the biological, ecological and chemical processes at
a site. Specific procedures for evaluating the extent of the impacts
are also provided. These guidance and evaluation procedures are found in
40 CFR 230, Subparts C through F.
Under Section 312 of the CWA, the USEPA was given the responsibility
for promulgating federal standards of performance for marine sanita-
tion devices (MSD). These standards basically prohibit discharges from
marine sanitation devices into freshwater lakes and rivers except those
bodies that support interstate navigation. For vessels operating in
saltwater estuaries and the territorial seas, new vessels operating after
January 30, 1980 must either not discharge or have an MSD capable of
limiting fecal coliform bacteria and suspended solids to 200 MPN (most
probable number) per 100 milliliters and 150 milligrams per liter,
respectively. Older boats are still allowed to operate MSDs with lower
levels of coliform and solids removal but are not permitted to use pump-
through devices.
Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, either the USEPA or an
approved state agency must grant a permit for any discharge other than
dredged or fill material to the waters of the United States. This
applies to any marina with an on-site sewage treatment system, greywater
discharges from shower or washing facilities, or collection and discharge
of waters from repair areas.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
The USFWS and NMFS participate in the 404 process based on respon-
sibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The Act
requires that impacts to fish and wildlife resulting from potential water
resource development activities be fully considered. Both agencies are
typically involved in coastal areas. When permits are reviewed, the
USFWS considers whether alternative, non-wetland sites are available and
whether construction can be accomplished without adverse impact to fish
6-27
-------
TABLE 6-4
SUMMARY OF USEPA EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PROJECTS PROPOSING
DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL UNDER SECTION 404(b)(l) OF THE CWA
No discharge of dredged or fill material is permitted:
•Where practicable alternatives with less adverse impacts on the
aquatic ecosystem and no other significant adverse impacts exist;
such alternatives include:.
activities resulting in no discharge
alternative discharge locations
•If water quality standards would be violated
•If toxic effluent standards would be violated
•If the continued existence of endangered species would be violated
•Where requirements to protect marine sanctuaries would be violated
• Unless considerations of the economic impacts on navigations are
overriding, where there are:
significant adverse effects on human health or welfare, munici-
pal water supplies, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife and
special aquatic sites
significant adverse effects on aquatic life and other aquatic-
dependent wildlife
significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystem diversity,
productivity and stability
significant adverse effects on recreational, aesthetic and
economic values
Specific procedures for making these determinations have been set forth
in Subparts C through F of 40 CFR 230.
6-28
-------
REGULATION
and wildlife in aquatic, terrestrial or wetland habitats. NMFS reviews
applications for potential impacts to aquatic and wetland resources as
they affect commercial fisheries. Comments received from these agencies
by the Corps are reviewed extensively and are quite important in the
decision-making process. Tables 6-5 and 6-6 list the criteria considered
by these two agencies in reviewing and commenting on Corps 404 applica-
tions.
U.S. Coast Guard
Under the CWA, the U.S. Coast Guard has responsibility for enforcing
regulations controlling MSDs. This includes requirements for vessel
manufacturers and vessel operators, and procedures for evaluation and
certification of performance for all MSDs. The Coast Guard also reviews
applications with respect to boating safety and navigation.
6.5.2 State Agencies
The coastal states in USEPA Region IV play a major role in the per-
mitting of marina developments. Although there is broad variation from
state to state in the type of approval required and the way in which the
regulatory programs are administered, every state still has some major
authority to control marina development.
The minimum level of state participation is review and comment on
Section 10 permit applications. When Section 404 permits also are
required the states must provide a certification to the Corps under
Section 401 of the CWA that the proposed activity will not result in any
violation of state water quality standards throughout the construction
phase and subsequent operation of the facility. Under Corps regulations,
states (with the exception of Georgia) must also comment on applications
submitted to the Corps to indicate that any other state license, permit
or approval can be secured. Without this assurance, the Corps will not
approve the 404 Permit. Also, based on requirements of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, the state fish and wildlife agencies must com-
ment to the Corps along with USFWS and NMFS.
The next level of state involvement is a consistency review of the
Corps permit action under the State Coastal Zone Management Program.
Under Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, any applicant
for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity affecting a
state's coastal zone must furnish a certification that the activity will
be consistent with the goals of the state coastal zone program. The
state will review these certifications, and unless it is in agreement,
the application for a 404 Permit will be denied by the Corps. This pro-
vision is effective only in states where a coastal zone management
program has been approved by the Secretary of Commerce.
The above state actions only involve review and approval actions as
part of the Corps regulatory program. The highest level of state
involvement is reached in those states where a separate state regulatory
6-29
-------
TABLE 6-5
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CRITERIA FOR MARINA SITING EVALUATION
• Marinas with docks and piers that extend out from the shoreline far
enough not to require dredging of the shallow shoreline would be
preferable as a means of gaining access to deep water. These docks
could either be floating or elevated on piles. The marina break-
water should either be a floating type or should allow for adequate
circulation within the enclosure in other ways (e.g., leaving the
bottom of the breakwater open, leaving openings every few inches
along the breakwater, leaving the area near shore open)
• In areas where extending the dock into deep water is not possible,
excavation of basins in uplands would be the next choice .
•The marina should be sited so that dredging of access channels is
kept to a minimum. Access channels should not be dredged through
submerged grass or shellfish beds
•The use of elevated boat lifts instead of dredged basins should be
considered in areas where smaller boats are to be docked and deep
water is accessible without dredging through sensitive habitats
• The entrance channel should be well marked and boaters should be
required to stay within the designated channel to reduce the possi-
bility of boat traffic tearing up nearby submerged grass beds or
causing siltation problems
• The entrance to the marina should be at least 1,000 feet from
shellfish harvesting areas to reduce the possibility of polluting or
silting these areas
• The turning basins and navigation channels should not be designed to
create a sump that would result in long-term degradation of water
quality. For example, the depth of the boat basin and access chan-
nel should not exceed that of the receiving body of water, and
should not be located in areas of poor water circulation
• The depth of the basin should not exceed the depth of light penetra-
tion through the water column. If greater depths are necessary for
deeper draft boats, these boats should be docked near the entrance
to the basin so that the basin depth could be reduced sloping upward
from the receiving body of water
• The design should not disrupt currents or restrict the the tidal
flow. Often a flushing channel would be a beneficial addition to
the design to provide another entrance for tidal waters
6-30
-------
TABLE 6-5
(continued)
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CRITERIA FOR MARINA SITING EVALUATION
• Permanent spoil disposal sites should be set aside in non-wetland
areas for use in initial contraction and future maintenance
dredging. The site should be designed to contain the material in
such a manner so as to prevent dispersal into adjacent wetland
areas. All effluent from the disposal area should be directed back
into the basin being dredged and should be monitored to insure that
it meets all water quality standards
•At the entrance and within the basin, sloping riprap, gabions, or
vegatation should be used as stabilization rather than vertical
seawalls. Where bulkheads are essential, a shallow zone should be
maintained against the bulkheads with not more than a 3:1 slope
starting at least 10 feet from the bulkhead
• Sharp angles and turns that may collect debris or cause shoaling or
flushing problems should be avoided within the basin
• Project proposals should include facilities for the proper handling
of petroleum products, sewage, litter, and other refuse. Current
federal regulations regarding holding tanks should be enforced
• For marinas dredged into upland sites, the basin should be dredged
and the shoreline stabilized before the "plug" is removed connecting
the basin with open water in order to reduce the detrimental effects
of turbidity and siltation produced during excavation. In other
areas, designs for the excavation project should include protective
measures such as silt curtains, diapers, or weirs
• Berms and swales should be made part of the marina design so that
there is a gradual slope away from the edge of the basin. This will
help prevent introduction of contaminants into adjacent open water
and wetland areas
• All development near the marina should be on a central wastewater
treatment facility as opposed to septic systems which could leach
polluted groundwater into the marina.
6-31
-------
TABLE 6-6
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE GUIDELINES FOR WETLAND ALTERATION
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
In assessing the potential impacts of proposed projects, the NMFS is
guided by the following seven considerations:
•The extent of precedent setting and existing or potential cumulative
impacts of similar or other developments in the project area
• The extent to which the activity would directly affect the produc-
tion of fishery resources (e.g., dredging, filling marshland,
reduced access, etc.)
• The extent to which the activity would indirectly affect the produc-
tion of fishery resources (e.g., alteration of circulation, salinity
regimes and detrital export)
• The extent of any adverse impact that can be avoided through project
modification or other safeguards (e.g., piers in lieu of channel
dredging)
•The extent of alternative sites available to reduce unavoidable pro-
ject impacts
• The extent to which the activity requires a waterfront location if
dredging or filling wetlands is involved
• The extent to which mitigation is possible to offset unavoidable
habitat losses associated with a water-dependent project that
clearly is in the public interest.
Marinas
All marinas affect aquatic habitats to some degree, but adverse effects
can be minimized with proper location and design. In addition to guide-
lines for bulkheads and seawalls, the following apply:
• Marinas should be located in areas where maximum physical advantages
exist (e.g., where the least initial and maintenance dredging will
be required)
• Design should not disrupt currents or restrict the tidal flow
• Marinas should be located at least 1,000 feet from shellfish har-
vesting areas, unless state regulations state otherwise
• Open dockage extending to deep water is a preferable alternative to
the excavation of boat basins; where not possible, excavation of
basins in uplands is generally preferred
6-32
-------
TABLE 6-6
(continued)
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE GUIDELINES FOR WETLAND 'ALTERATION
•Turning basins and navigation channels should not be designed to
create a sump that would result in long-term degradation of water
quality. For example, the depth of boat basins and access channels
should not exceed that of the receiving body of water, and should
not be located in areas of poor water circulation
• Filling or dredging of vegetated wetlands for marina construction is
unacceptable
• Marinas should not be sited in areas of known high siltation and
shoaling rates
• Permanent spoil disposal sites should be set aside in non-wetland
areas for use in initial construction and future maintenance
dredging
•Marinas should be designed to ensure adequate flushing and should
not create a sump; they should be no deeper than the parent body of
water and aligned with prevailing summer winds to take advantage of
wind-driven circulation
•When marinas are built in proximity to grassbeds, channel routes
should be clearly marked to avoid damage to the grassbeds by pro-
pellers and propwash.
Bulkheads and Seawalls
Bulkheads are retaining structures used to protect adjacent shorelines
from the action of currents or waves, or to make waterfront more
accessible. A common practice has been to erect vertical seawalls in the
water and then place fill material on the landward side of the structure.
This technique has often been ineffective in terms of protection and is
disruptive to marine productivity. To mitigate these environmental
losses, the following criteria apply:
•Except under special circumstances such as severely eroding shoreli-
nes from a recent storm, structures should be aligned no further
waterward than the existing shoreline (upland boundary) and
constructed so the reflective wave energy does not destroy adjacent
fishery habitat or wetlands
• Where possible, sloping (3:1) rip-rap, gabions, or vegetation should
be used rather than vertical seawalls.
6-33
-------
REGULATION
program controlling marina development has been implemented. Different
states have taken different approaches to direct regulation of marina
activities. Some states have developed a wetland or coastal area permit
as- part of the coastal zone management program while other states have
developed separate wetland or marshland permitting programs. Some states
also have developed dredge and fill permit programs.
An additional means of regulating marina development is through
control over state ownership of submerged lands. Though the extent of
ownership varies among the states, most states do claim title to sub-
merged lands. In some of the USEPA Region IV coastal states, this claim
results in a requirement that marina owners lease the bottoms over which
their development is located.
More than one of these regulatory programs have been implemented in
some states. In Florida, for example, in addition to required input to
the Corps permit review process, there is a state dredge and fill permit
program, a state review program for developments of regional impact, two
separate permit programs administered by Florida DNR and DER and a
requirement for a submerged land lease from DNR. For all the USEPA
Region IV states, whatever the approach taken, the program must be
carried out in liaison with the Corps' permit program. Different proce-
dures for carrying out this liaison have been developed by the Corps and
each of the states in USEPA Region IV. The following sections describe
the overall state programs in more detail and discuss the various cri-
teria used in decision-making, water quality criteria as they relate to
marina development and 401 Certification, and the permit conditions and
mitigative measures typically applied to marina developments.
North Carolina
Overall Permitting Program
The process for permitting coastal marinas in North Carolina is uni-
que among Region IV states. Unlike other states, North Carolina has
received general permit authority from the Corps. The terms of the per-
mit authorize construction activities covered under Section 10 and
Section 404, if they receive prior permit approval from the state.
Without required federal, state or local approval (including 401
Certification), Section 404 and Section 10 Permits will not be granted.
With this arrangement, the role of the Corps is different from that in
most states. Instead of a duplicate permit review process parallel to
that of the state, the Corps serves more of a review and final authoriza-
tion role. Figure 6-2 schematically represents the marina permitting
process in North Carolina. The diagram shows the absence of continuous
Corps involvement from top to bottom. Instead, at certain points in the
state review process there is a lateral coordination with the Corps.
The primary state regulatory program for marina development in North
Carolina is the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit program
operated by the State Department of Natural Resources and Community
6-34
-------
NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE
OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEN
RECEIVE JOINT
PERMIT APPLICATION
SITE VISIT
RECEIVE JOINT
PERMIT APPLICATION
>
401 CERT
REQUIRED
RECEIVE JOINT
PERMIT APPLICATION
AEC
DETERMINATION
±
STANDARD
PERMIT TRACK
SEE FIG. 5-1
AEC-CAMA PERMIT
NEEDED
NOT AEC-NO
PERMIT NEEDED
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO
APPLICANT AND STATE
FIELD REPORT
FEDERAL REVIEW
•CORPS
•EPA
•NMFS
•F&W
•NCSHPO
COMMENT PERIOD
STATE
AGENCIES,
1
JOINT
POSIT
\
IRRESOLVABLE
OBJECTIONS
REVIEW FEDERAL
POSITION
RESOLVE FEDERAL/
STATE CONFLICTS
RECEIVE 401 CERT.
AND CAMA PERMIT
APPROVED
WITH CONDITIONS
CONSISTENT WITH
GENERAL PERMIT
INCONSISTENT WITH
GENERAL PERMIT
APPLICANT
LOSES APPEAL
Figure 6-2. North Carolina marina permitting process
6-3b
-------
REGULATION
Development, Office of Coastal Management under authority of the Coastal
Management Program. A separate requirement for state dredge and fill
permits has also been integrated into the CAMA permit review process.
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Management is also
involved in marina permitting based on their role in providing 401 cer-
tifications to the Corps. The 401 Water Quality Certifications pertains
to the construction phase, as well as the subsequent facility operation.
The CAMA program is basically a coastal "critical areas" type of
program. There are broad categories of critical areas in which CAMA per-
mits are required before development can occur. After receipt of a per-
mit, application, a determination is made as to whether or not the area
involved is an area of environmental concern (AEC). If it is not, a CAMA
permit is not required. In actual fact, almost all developments within
the coastal zone are found to be in areas of environmental concern. Once
the AEC decision is made, the review process is fairly straightforward,
as shown on Figure 6-2. There are several key decision-making points
included in the process shown on the figure. Initially, the Corps must
make a decision as to whether or not the general permit track is
applicable to a specific application. Later during the review, the
entire process can be reverted back to the standard permit track based on
objections of state and federal agencies or the agencies' failure to
develop a joint position on the application.
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
Specific criteria for marina siting along the North Carolina coast
emphasize required location and design characteristics as a means of con-
serving important environmental features and also of safeguarding
"biological, social, aesthetic and economic values..." (North Carolina
Administrative Code, 1983).
Table 6-7 lists specific criteria used by the North Carolina Coastal
Resources Commission (CRC) in evaluating a marina permit application. One
of the most important considerations in marina siting is the potential
impact on wetland habitat or fishery resources. North Carolina prohibits
dredging activity in primary nursery areas and areas chiefly used for
propagation, storage and gathering of shellfish for market purposes. The
state also disallows activity in any area where a significant adverse
impact on fishery or wetland resources will result.
Water Quality Criteria
North Carolina differentiates between water use classifications in
defining the limits of water quality parameters (Table 6-8). Changes in
each of the parameters may occur as the result of marina development or
operation. For instance, wastes discharged from marine sanitation devi-
ces may affect values for floating solids, pH, dissolved oxygen or coli-
form counts in receiving waters. Toxic wastes, such as oils, can result
6-36
-------
TABLE 6-7
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA MARINA PERMIT EVALUATION CRITERIA9
• Dredging activities are not approved in primary nursery areas
• Development is preferred in non-wetland sites or in deep waters
which require no dredging; development should not disturb valuable
shallow water or wetland habitat, except for dredging necessary for
access to high ground
• Marinas requiring dredging must provide areas to accommodate dispo-
sal needs for future maintenance dredging
• Sites in order of preference:
upland site with no alteration of wetland or estuarine habitat
and providing adequate flushing by tidal or wind-generated water
circulation
upland site with dredging for access if dredging will cause no
significant adverse impact on fishery or wetland resources
deep water site (not primary nursery area); no excavation or
wetland alteration
site requiring excavation of relatively unproductive estuarine
substrate to a depth no greater than depth of connecting chan-
nels
*
• Mixture of dry storage areas, public launching facilities and
berthing spaces is considered
• The sign of the marina must provide the following information:
location of nearest pumpout facility
telephone numbers of local septic tank pumping services
other appropriate waste disposal information
•Demonstrate implementation of means and measures to be used to
minimize impact of pollutants likely to be emitted by marina and
attendant vehicle operation on natural systems, to include providing
grease and sediment traps for storm water runoff
• Use methods that will minimize adverse effects on navigation and
public water use while allowing applicant adequate access to deep
water
• Activity shall not be enclosed within breakwaters that preclude cir-
culation sufficient to maintain water quality.
aNCDNER, 1983.
6-37
-------
TABLE 6-8
STATE OP NORTH CAROLINA
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO MARINA SITING AREAS'
Use Classification Potentially Impacted by Marina"Si ting
Parameter
Floating
Sol ids,
Settleable
Solids &
Sludge
Deposits
Class SAb
None, attributable to
sewage, industrial or
other wastes
Sewage, In-
dustrial or
Other Wastes
PH
Disolved
Oxygen
None not treated to
satisfaction of es-
tablished standards
6.8-8.5
Not •*- 5.0 mg/1 swamp
waters: less if
caused by natural
conditions
Toxic Wastes, Only such amts. as will
Oils; Dele-
terious Sub-
stances ;
Colored or
Other Wastes
not make the waters un-
safe-or unsuitable for
fish & shellfish or
their propagation, im-
pair palatabi1ity or
impair waters for any
other best usage in
this class
Manganese 0.1 mg/1
Organisms of
Coliform Gp.
Total Gp not > median
MPN or MF of 70/100ml
& not > 10% of samples
shall exceed an MF count
of 230/lOOml in areas
most probably exposed to
fecal cont. during most
unfavor. hydrographic &
pollution conditions
Class SBC
Same as Class SA
Class SCG
Only such amts.
from sewage, in-
dustrial or other
wastes, as will
not make waters
unsafe or unsuit-
able for fish,
shellfish & wild-
life or impair
water for any
other best usage
in this class
Same as Class SA
Normal for area waters,
gen. 6.8-8.5
Same as Class SA
Only such amts. as will
not make the waters un-
safe or unsuitable for
bathing, injurious to
fish or she!Ifish or
adversely affect
palatabi1ity, or im-
pair the waters for
any other best usage in
this class
May-Sept.: fecal coli-
forms not > log mean of
200/100 ml (MPN or MF)
based on 5 or more consec
samples examined during
any 30-day pd. & not >
400/100 ml in more than
20% of samples examined
during such pd. (not dur-
ing or after rainfall)
(Oct-April: See Class SC)
Normal for area
waters, gen.
6.0-8.5. Swamp
waters: min.4.3
Same as Class SA
Only such amts. as
will not render water
injurious to fish &
shellfish, adversely
affect palatabi1ity
or impair waters
for any other best
usage in this class
Fecal coliforms not
log mean of 1000/lOOml
(MPN or MF) based on
.5 or more samples
examined in 30-day pd.
nor > 2000/100ml in
more than 20% of sam-
ples during such pd.
(not during or after
rainfall)
6-38
-------
TABLE 6-3
(continued)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO MARINA SITING AREAS3
Parameter
Class SAL
Class SBC
Class SCC
Temperature
Not increased above
natural water temp.
by more than 0.8°C
(1.44°F).during June,
July and August, not
more than 2.2°C
(3.96°F) during other
months; never more
than 32°C (89.6°F)
due to discharge of
heated liquid.
Same as Class SA
Same as Class SA
JNCDNER, 1979.
'Shellfishing for market purposes and any other usage specified by "SB" or "SC"
classification. Waters will meet sanitary and bacteriological standards in 1965
revision of "National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations: Part
1, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas.
'Primary recreation and any other usage specified by the "SC" classification.
Fishing, secondary recreation and any other usage except primary recreation or
shellfishing for market purposes.
6-39
-------
REGULATION
from spillage during boat refueling operations or engine cleaning, or
from accidental spills during construction.
State guidelines for marina siting require that measures must be
taken to minimize the impact of pollutants likely to be emitted by
marina operation. Grease and sediment traps could be used, for example,
to control storm water runoff. In addition, siting guidelines, such as
not enclosing marinas in breakwaters that preclude circulation, are
established to help maintain water quality.
Dredge and Fill Requirements
North Carolina generally discourages dredging in wetland areas
unless it is a necessity to gain access to upland sites. Whatever the
case, dredging is prohibited in primary nursery areas.
High-ground spoil disposal sites for future maintenance dredging
must be provided with adequate stabilization measures to prevent sedi-
ments from entering adjacent water bodies and marshes. State require-
ments for dredge spoil are listed in Table 6-9.
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
Table 6-10 presents examples of permit conditions or measures to
mitigate potential problems that could violate state regulations
regarding the development of marinas. In most cases, the conditions must
be met or it must be shown that they will be met prior to state approval.
The conditions listed in Table 6-10 are imposed to protect the
existing water quality and natural state of the environment during
construction (i.e., use of sediment screens during dredging). These con-
ditions are intended to insure that pre-construction environmental con-
ditions are maintained or enhanced after construction is completed (i.e.,
vegetation or submerged grasses).
Summary of North Carolina Permit Process
The North Carolina permit process is a streamlined approach to coor-
dination between the Corps 404 Permit responsibilities and a comprehen-
sive state regulatory program. The general permit approach eliminates
much of the duplication of effort that takes place when state regulatory
controls are exercised along with the Corps. The process appears to pro-
vide simplified procedure with clear lines of authority. This program
provides for monitoring and compliance procedures and has a separate
fast-track process for small projects. Another important feature is the
field service representative, a staff member who serves as a point of
contact for the permit applicant. This representative assists in site
evaluation and provides recommendations on alternative site development
and environmental solutions to marina impacts. Although there is no
regional planning specifically for marina developments, the CAMA program
has directly encouraged overall land use planning in coastal counties.
6-40
-------
TABLE 6-9
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DREDGE AND SPOIL REQUIREMENTS3
• Position terminal end of dredge pipeline at a sufficient distance to
preclude erosion of containment dike and at a minimum distance from
spillways to allow adequate settlement of suspended solids
•Confine spoil on high ground by adequate retaining structures, or
deposit it on beaches for nourishment, if spoil material is accep-
table
•Confine spoil on high ground landward of regularly and irregularly
flooded marshland with soil stabilization measures that prevent
entry of sediments into adjacent water bodies or marshes
• Effluent from diked areas receiving disposal from hydraulic dredging
operations must be contained by pipe, trough or similar device
waterward of emergent vegetation or below mean low water
• Return effluent from diked disposal areas to area being dredged when
possible
•Water control structure must be installed at intake end of effluent
pipe
• Publicly funded projects are considered on case-by-case basis with
respect to dredge and spoil methods
• Dredge spoil from closed shellfish waters and effluent from diked
disposal areas used when dredging in closed shellfish waters shall
be returned to closed shellfish waters.
3NCDNER, 1983.
6-41
-------
TABLE 6-10
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
EXAMPLES OF MARINA PERMIT CONDITIONS3
•Seasonal limitations on dredging to protect juvenile fish and
shellfish
• Revegetation of submerged grasses
• Grading of channel and basin bottoms to aid flushing
• Use of sediment screens during dredging
•Confine excavated materials above mean high water and landward of
regularly or irregularly flooded marsh behind adequate dikes or
other retaining structures to prevent spill-over into marsh or
surrounding waters
• No marsh excavated or filled outside alignment on plats
• Keep underground waste disposal fields at least 100 feet from sur-
face water and no less than 4 feet above groundwater tables
•Install water control structure at intake end of effluent pipe to
assure compliance with water quality standards.
aState of North Carolina, Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development and Coastal Resources Commission Permit.
6-42
-------
REGULATION
The permit applied for through the Department of Natural Resource
and Community Development, Office of Coastal Management (DNRCD/OCM) is
the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit. A permit application can
be obtained from the USACOE Wilmington District Office or from the Office
of Coastal Management (including any one of the four regional offices).
A sample copy of the joint permit application is included in Appendix G.
The application itself lists any other items that must be provided by the
developer with the application and, also, where to forward the completed
application.
The permit application must be submitted jointly to the USACOE and
to the Office of Coastal Management. Examples of permit application
materials for each Region IV coastal state are provided in Appendix G.
The permitting process in North Carolina is unique in that the state has
received general permit authority from the USACOE Wilmington District for
construction activities under Section 10/Section 404 permits. The USACOE
authorizes activities if they receive permit approval from the state.
The OCM makes a permit decision within 75 days of receipt of a completed
application. This decision may be delayed if extended agency review is
required or if there is a conflict between the federal and state posi-
tions. Although an application is to be submitted following site selec-
tion, both the Corps and the OCM recommend a pre-application meeting
prior to application submittal.
The DNRCD, Division of Environmental Management reviews the permit
application and notifies the USACOE of its decision on 401 water quality
certification. The application for a CAMA permit serves as a request for
water quality certification.
The following state agencies are routinely solicited by the Office
of Coastal Management for comments on a permit application:
Field Services Section, Office of Coastal Management
State Property Office
Division of Archives and History
Division of Community Assistance
Land Quality Section, Division of Land Resources
Division of Highways, Department of Transportation
Environmental Operations Section, Department of
Environmental Management
Wildlife Resources Commission
Office of Water Resources
Division of Health Services.
Review comments and/or recommendations are forwarded to the Office
of Coastal Management. A decision on the application is not made until
all appropriate agencies have commented and all issues are resolved.
6-43
-------
REGULATION
South Carolina
Overall Permitting Program
The South Carolina permit program is a special permitting program
under authority of the South Carolina Coastal Council which requires a
permit for construction in tidal waters. In addition to this program,
marina development in South Carolina must also receive Section 404
Permits from the Corps and a 401 Certification from the Department of
Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). Although these three separate
approvals are required, the procedure has been coordinated somewhat by
the use of a joint permit process by the Corps and the Coastal Council.
The overall permitting process for South Carolina is shown in Figure 6-3.
The permitting process is fairly straightforward and typical of
states where joint programs have been implemented. The starting point is
the submission of a joint permit to the Coastal Council which then for-
wards a copy to the Corps. A request for 401 Certification then goes out
from the Corps to DHEC. Should DHEC deny 401 certification, the Corps,
pursuant to their Section 404 regulations, will deny a Dredge and Fill
Permit. Should the 401 Certification be granted, it will pertain to both
project construction and subsequent facility operation.
The joint program procedure results in only one permit application
being required. ' A joint public notice is given and a joint public
hearing can be held where it is deemed necessary. In all other respects,
however, there are really two separate permitting actions plus the 401
Certification review being carried out. Both state and federal agencies
receive and review comments, and in the end, the process results in two
separate approvals (the Coastal Council and the Corps) being granted.
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
The South Carolina Coastal Council evaluation criteria for marina
siting are found in Table 6-11. South Carolina has an extensive list of
location requirements that generally must be met prior to approving a
marina permit. The location must have minimal adverse impact on the
natural biological environment of an area. Detrimental impacts must be
assessed before construction can be approved, particularly in shellfish
areas. In addition, where shellfish areas may be involved, the rights of
both the lessee (if applicable) and the public must be considered ini-
tially at the onset.
The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Marine
Resources Division considers the issue on lessee rights in the policy/
guidelines they developed to help regulate marina siting. Marina siting
criteria specified in these guidelines are:
6-44
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL
COUNCIL
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
RECEIVE COPY OF
JOINT PERMIT
APPLICATION
RECEIVE JOINT
PERMIT APPLICATION
401 CERTIFICATION
REQUEST
401 CERTIFICATION
DETERMINATION
APPROVE
PERMIT
DENY
PERMIT
Figure 6-3. South Carolina marina permitting process.
6-45
-------
TABLE 6-11
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
MARINA PERMIT EVALUATION CRITERIA3
•Chosen location must have minimal adverse impact on wetlands, water
quality, wildlife and marine resources or other critical habitats
• In affected shellfish areas, rights of the leasee (if applicable)
and the public and possible detrimental impacts on resources must be
considered
•Selected location must contain maximum physical advantages of the
area and must require least initial and maintenance dredging
•Project must avoid or minimize disruption of currents
'•Minimize need for excavating and filling shorelines (design
criteria)
•Proposals must consider open dockage to deep water as alternative to
dredging and bulkheading
• Turning basin and navigation channel design must prevent long-term
water quality degradation and depth of boat basins and access chan-
nels should not exceed that of receiving water body to protect water
quality in areas with poor circulation
• Proposals must include facilities for proper handling of petroleum
products, sewage, litter, waste, and other refuse, meeting South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) spe-
cifications
• A minimal number of onshore restroom and shower facilities may be
required as a condition of any marina permit, and is determined
based on number of slips or moorings
• All pumpout and sewage facilities must be included in public notice
and approved by DHEC
•Trash receptacles must be plentiful and convenient
•Where feasible, boat maintenance areas must be designed so that all
bottom scraping and painting is accomplished over dry land
•Dry storage type marinas are preferred
•Applications for marina construction will be considered only after
adequate demonstration of facilities demand
•Application must include maintenance dredging schedules.and dredged
material disposal sites (if applicable).
aSouth Carolina Coastal Council, 1981.
6-46
-------
REGULATION
A leaseholder or tenant of state property used for commercial
shellfish culturing cannot grant or cede a portion of his lease
to a conflicting interest (i.e., marina siting)
A Public Oyster Ground (POG) will not be considered for closure
through pollution incursion from proposed marinas and associated
developments.
Water Quality Criteria
In order to protect the existing water quality marina permit
evaluation criteria require that the design of boat basins and access
channels be such that circulation is maintained, particularly in areas of
poor circulation. In addition, proper facilities for handling petroleum
products, sewage, litter, waste and other refuse must be specified in the
proposals to protect inherent water quality as much as possible.
Water quality parameter limits for use classifications applicable to
marina siting are presented in Table 6-12. These limits are basically
the same as for North Carolina and include levels of fecal coliform, pH
and dissolved oxygen levels resulting from MSD discharges, and oily waste
pollution from engine maintenance, refueling and accidental spills during
marina construction. In addition, South Carolina water quality standards
include a turbidity standard. The most valuable waters from an ecologi-
cal standpoint, Class SAA (Table 6-12), require that under no cir-
cumstances can turbidity be greater than existing natural levels.
Dredging for marina construction can increase turbidity past acceptable
levels unless preventive measures are taken.
Dredge and Fill Requirements
The South Carolina Coastal Council requirements for dredging and
spoil disposal can be found in Table 6-13. Dredging is discouraged but,
if no feasible alternative exists such as open dockage to deep waters,
then the location needing the least amount of initial and maintenance
dredging is preferred. An application for marina construction will not
be approved unless a maintenance dredging schedule and a spoil disposal
site are included on the application. Use of existing sites is recom-
mended but, if this is not possible, then maintenance dredging and spoil
disposal in upland sites must be handled in such a manner that dispersal
into wetlands is avoided.
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
Permit conditions are imposed to avoid impacts from marina develop-
ment. Any permit or certification can be conditioned by the approving
agency. The conditions included in Table 6-14 are designed by the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) to
prevent degradation of existing water quality in order to .meet the
requirements for certification in accordance with Section 401 of the
6-47
-------
TABLE 6-12
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO MARINA SITING AREAS
Parameter
Garbage, cinders,
ashes, oils,
sludge or other
refuse
Treated wastes,
thermal dis-
charges, toxic
wastes, dele-
terious sub-
stances, colored
or other wastes
Use Classifications Potentially Impacted by Marina Siting
Class SAAb Class SAC Class
None allowed
None allowed
Disolved oxygen
4 mg/1
None allowed
None alone or in suf-
ficient amounts to ad-
versely affect the taste,
color, odor or sanitary
condition of clams, mus-
sels or oysters for human
consumption or to impair
the waters for any other
best usage
> 5 mg/1 (daily avg.)
with a low of 4 mg/1.
Some waters may.have avg.
of 4 mg/1 due to natural
conditions
None allowed
None alone or in com-
bination with other
substances or wastes
in sufficient amounts
to make the waters un-
safe or unsuitable for
primary contact recrea-
tion or impair waters
for any other best
usage
Same as Class SA
Class SCe
None allowed
None alone or in com-
bination with other
substances in suf-
ficient amounts to be
harmful to survival
of marine fauna or
flora or culture/
propagation thereof;
to adversely affect
taste, color, odor
or sanitary condition
of fish for human con-
sumption; to make
waters unsafe or un-
suitable for secondary
contact recreation or
to impair waters for
any other best usage
> 3 mg/1
-------
TABLE V )2
(continued)
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO MARINA SITING AREAS'
Parameter
Organisms of
Coliform gp
hecal c°liform
Class SAAP
Not >MPNftotal coliform
median of 70/100 ml; not
>> 10% of samples exceed
MPN of 230/100 ml (using
5 tube dilution method)
PH
Natural conditions
C-,
I
Temperature
Existing levels under
natural conditions
Turbidity
Existing levels under
natural conditions
Class SAL
Same as Class SAA
Not vary more than 0.3
of a pH unit above or
below that of effluent-
free waters in the same
geological area with
similar total salinity,
alkalinity & temperature
but between 6.5-8.5
Class SB
Not >geometric mean of
200/100 ml based on 5
consecutive samples
during any 30-day pd.;
not >10% of samples in
30-day pd. exceed 400/
100 ml
Same as Class SA, but
variance not more than
1 pH unit
Not > weekly avg. temp.
of 4°F (2.2°C) above
temp, under nat. con-
ditions during fall,
winter or spring, or a
weekly avg. of 1.5°F (0.8°C)
during summer
Same as Class SA
Class SC
Not ->geometric mean
of 1000/100 ml based
on 5 consec. samples
during any 30-day pd;
not •>2000/100 ml in
more than 20% of sam-
ples during such pd
Same but variance
not more than 1 pH
unit
Same as Class SA
-------
TABLE 6-12
(continued)
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO MARINA SITING AREAS3
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 1981.
Tidal salt waters which constitute an outstanding recreational or ecological resource and/or waters suitable for uses
that require the absence of pollution. Suitable also for uses listed under footnotes c, d and e.
GTidal salt waters suitable for harvesting clams, mussels or oysters, except within buffer zones. Suitable also for
uses listed under footnotes d and e.
Tidal salt waters suitable for primary contact recreation. Suitable also for uses listed under footnote e.
eTidal salt waters suitable for secondary contact recreation, crabbing and fishing except harvesting clams, mussels
or oysters for market purposes or human consumption. Also suitable for the survival and propagation of marine fauna
and flora.
fMPN: Most Probable Number.
in
O
-------
TABLE 6-13
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
DREDGE AND SPOIL REQUIREMENTS3
• Dredging and filling in wetland areas shall be undertaken only if
the proposed activity is water-dependent and there are no feasible
alternatives
•
•To the maximum extent feasible, dredging and filling activities
should be restricted in nursery areas and shellfish grounds and
during critical periods in the life of important sport and commer-
cial species
•Dredging and excavation shall not create stagnant water conditions,
lethal fish entrapments, or deposit sumps or otherwise contribute to
water quality degradation
•Designs for dredging and excavation projects shall, where feasible,
include protective measures such as silt curtains, diapers, and
weirs to protect water quality in adjacent areas during construc-
tion by preventing the dispersal of silt materials
• Dredged materials shall be deposited and contained in such a manner
so as to prevent dispersal into adjacent wetland areas
•Upland disposal of dredged material is preferred; vegetated wetlands
and mudflats shall not be utilized for disposal unless there are no
feasible alternatives; any other wetlands should not be used for
disposal when other alternatives exist
• Open and deep water sites should be considered for disposal if high-
land alternatives are not feasible only after consultation with the
Council and other relevant state and federal agencies
• Existing disposal sites should be utilized to the fullest extent
possible (where feasible)
•Dredged materials containing hazardous levels of toxic materials
shall never be disposed of in wetland areas
•Dikes surrounding disposal areas should be shaped and vegetated
immediately, with outfalls positioned to empty into non-wetland
areas
• Attention must be given to possible adverse impacts of alternative
deposition sites on public health and welfare
• In all cases, dredging activities shall not be approved until satis-
factory disposal sites have been acquired.
aSouth Carolina Coastal Council, 1981.
6-51
-------
TABLE 6-14
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
EXAMPLES OF MARINA PERMIT CONDITIONS3
• Wastewater pumpout facilities are to be provided for boats using the
marina. The facility is to be tied directly into the waste treat-
ment system servicing the marina
• No persons shall live on boats moored at the marina unless the
boats:
are equiped with Class 3 nondischarging marine sanitation de-
vices
are hooked directly into the central sewer servicing the marina
use other wastewater collection or treatment systems approved by
SCDHEC
•Specified water quality sampling program must be implemented
•The marina boat fueling system must be equipped with emergency pump
cutoffs in the Harbor Master's facility and with manual cutoff
valves at the tank, at the edge of the dock, and at the pump. Fuel
lines from storage tanks to the pumps must be steel, preferably
stainless steel. Fuel storage tanks are to be located below ground
• A copy of the Harbor Master's 0 & M manual is to be provided to DHEC
for review and approval. It must contain procedures for containment
of spills within the marina
• There are to be no discharges of fish processing wastes from onshore
facilities or from boats docked at the marina. This includes trash
fish, shrimp heads, and other waste normally thrown overboard during
the cleaning and sorting of a catch
• There is to be no discharge of stormwater to the harbor
• The channel from the government-maintained turning basin to the
marina basin shall be marked with appropriate markers at each bend
so that boats will not stray from the channel into shallow water
where they will churn up sediment.
a
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 1981-1983.
6-52
-------
REGULATION
Clean Water Act. If not met, certification will be suspended by the
SCDHC. In turn, all other permits and licenses will be suspended. All
conditions in Table 6-14 are actual conditions imposed on marina develo-
pers with 401 Certification. Additionally, SCDHEC closes an area within
a 1000 ft radius of both ends of a marina or basin entrance channel to
mitigate or eliminate possible bacterial contamination of shellfish due
to marina activities.
•
In their proposed general policy concerning shellfish area closure
due to marina siting and activities, the Marine Resources Division of the
South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resource Department recognizes that,
because oysters and clams are a renewable resource, this characteristic
should be the foundation for any type of mitigation arrangement.
Guidelines promulgated by SCDHEC also preclude the transplanting of
an affected shellfish area (by a marina facility) to an unpolluted area.
The reasons for this prohibition include:
Existing oyster crops contribute greatly to substrate integrity
and prevent erosion and siltation in the intertidal zone
"Polluted" shellfish still filter polluted waters, contri-
buting to the cleansing process by improving water quality in
the closed area
Although polluted for human consumption, these shellfish provide
a healthy habitat to other estuarine organisms in the closed
area
Unnecessary mortalities of adult and juvenile oysters may occur
during movement as well as potential damage to the underlying
shell substrate. Additionally, it is probable that large num-
bers of larvae produced in the closed area will attach them-
selves to suitable substrates outside the affected area and
eventually mature.
Summary of South Carolina Permit Process
A joint permit procedure has been implemented in South
Carolina. Aside from a joint public notice requesting comments, there
are totally separate comment review processes that proceed independently
of each other following the joint notice.
The South Carolina Coastal Council and the Corps each review com-
ments concerning the joint permit application. The Coastal Council also
has permit responsibilities and issues or denies a separate state permit.
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control is
responsible for the State 401 Certification of the 404 Permit and
conducts a separate 401 review. A separate, fast-track review process is
available for 401 Certification. Both SCCC and SCDHEC have monitoring
and enforcement authority and provide field representatives to assist
6-53
-------
REGULATION
permit applicants. The Corps' Section 404 regulations require that all
federal, state or local certifications be obtained, prior to Corps
approval of a 404 Dredge and Fill Permit.
The USACOE, Charleston District Office requires submittal of a
marina permit application. If the proposed project is in the Savannah
River area, the application must be submitted to the Savannah District
Office (See Appendix F, Georgia). The South Carolina Coastal Council
(SCCC) receives a copy of the permit application from the Corps. SCCC,
in turn, requests additional information from the applicant (See Appendix
G). South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC), Office of Environmental Quality Control receives a request for
Section 401 water quality certification from the USACOE.
Following receipt of the completed application, the USACOE, SCCC and
SCDHEC issue a Joint Public Notice, which serves as a means of notifying
appropriate state and federal agencies who submit review comments on pro-
posed projects. The state review agencies include: the Wildlife and
Marine Resources Department, which evaluates impacts to shellfish and
their habitat, and any other agency responsible for evaluating impacts to
the cultural (particularly historical/archaeological resources) and the
natural environment.
Typically, the USACOE reaches a permit decision within 60 days after
receipt of the completed application. This can be extended if the nature
of the proposed project requires a longer review period. The Coastal
Council has a built-in period of 30 days while waiting for state agency
comments. A decision on the permit is typically made 60 days after all
comments are received (90 days after receipt of application). Delays may
result if additional time is requested during state agency review or if a
public hearing is requested. The Office of Environmental Quality
Control, SCDHEC, generally forwards the 401 water quality certification
to the applicant within 30 days following the request.
Although an application (obtained from USACOE) is required following
site selection, both the USACOE and the SCCC (permit administrator)
recommend a pre-application meeting between the applicant and the permit-
tee to discuss the project prior to application submittal.
Georgia
Overall Permitting Program
The overall process for review of marina development proposals in
Georgia is outlined in Figure 6-4. The regulatory program in Georgia is
the Coastal Marshlands Protection Program, administered by the Coastal
Marshlands Protection Commission (CMPC). Along with a permit from the
CMPC, a marina developer must receive a 404 Corps Permit and a 401 Water
Quality Certification, when required, from the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division and a revokable license for use of state-owned
lands.
6-54
-------
COASTAL MARSHLANDS PROTECTION
COMMISSION
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
RECEIVE JOINT
PERMIT APPLICATION
RECEIVE JOINT
PERMIT APPLICATION
RECEIVE JOINT
PERMIT APPLICATION
REVIEW FOR CONSISTENCY
WITH LOCAU? REGULATIONS
NOT CONSISTENT
r
NOTICE TO LOCAL
LANDOWNERS
RECEIVE JOINT
PERMIT APPLICATION
GRANT
REVOCABLE
LICENSE
DENY
REVOCABLE
LICENSE
APPROVED WITH
CONDITION OF
OTHER APPROVALS
Figure 6-4. Georgia marina permitting process.
6-55
-------
REGULATION
Although there are four separate reviews conducted (See Figure 6-4),
they are coordinated through a joint permit procedure with one applica-
tion submitted to each of the four agencies. Though the overall process
is fairly straightforward, there are certain significant features which
merit discussion.
The CMPC review process includes, as an initial step, a review for
consistency with local regulations. If the application is not consistent,
it is dropped from the review process and returned to the applicant. This
initial consistency review assures that local zoning and land use
authority is recognized and that applications are not carried through an
extensive permit review process only to discover later that local govern-
ment regulations prohibit their development.
A second important feature of the Georgia process is the exchange
of comments between the Corps and CMPC. This does not necessarily elimi-
nate duplication of comments but it may encourage consistency.
There is also an informal tie-in at the permit decision-making point
between the Corps and the CMPC. First, the CMPC only grants permits that
are conditioned on the approval of all other necessary permits.
Secondly, the Corps waits to make its final decision until after the CMPC
decision. The Corps, as stated in 404 regulations, will not approve a
Dredge and Fill Permit if any other necessary permit is denied.
Therefore, if the CMPC denies a permit, the Corps, in turn, will deny a
404 Permit. These procedures taken together should provide some unifor-
mity in the permit decision process.
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
The siting of a marina in the State of Georgia must not "unreason-
ably" interfere with the conservation of fish, shrimp, oysters, crabs and
clams or any marine life or wildlife or other natural resources to the
extent that it would be contrary to the public interest. The applicant,
prior to approval, must demonstrate that the activity will not be
contrary to the public interest.
A marina siting will only be permitted if the applicant can show
that the chosen site is the most feasible, insofar as no alternative
upland or deepwater site exists. A listing of marina permit evaluation
criteria for the State of Georgia can be found in Table 6-15.
Hater Quality Criteria
Water quality criteria applicable to marina siting areas are pre-
sented in Table 6-16. These criteria include those parameters that may
be negatively impacted by marina construction and/or use. Parameters
such as fecal coliform, pH and temperature could be affected by the use
of marine sanitation devices on boats in the marina. Toxic wastes such as
6-56
-------
TABLE 6-15
STATE OF GEORGIA
MARINA PERMIT EVALUATION CRITERIA3
• No unreasonably harmful obstruction to or alteration of the natural
flow of navigational water should arise, and need for maintenance
dredging should be minimal
• No unreasonably harmful or increased erosion, shoaling of channels,
nor stagnant areas of water should be created to such an extent as to
be contrary to the public interest
•Project will not unreasonably interfere with the conservation of
fish, shrimp, oysters, crabs, and clams or any marine life or other
natural resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public
interest
•Public demand must justify alteration of marshlands
•If dredging is involved, proposal must include a description of the
type, composition and quantity of the material to be dredged, the
method of dredging and site of and plans for disposal of dredged
material
• Only those marine-oriented activities and structures which must have
a shoreline or marshlands location in order to function will be con-
sidered
•Amount of marshlands to be altered should be minimum in size
• Marinas will be considered only if no alternative upland or deepwater
site is feasible
•Designs should adequately serve needs of commercial and sports
fisheries and other water recreation as well as other demonstrated
public needs
•Water supply and waste disposal facilities must be approved by the
Environmental Protection Division, Department of Natural Resources,
prior to approval
•Proposal must provide for public safety and access and minimize the
possibility of fuel spills.
aRules of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1975.
6-57
-------
TABLE 6-16
STATE OF GEORGIA
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO MARINA SITING AREAS'
Use Classifications Potentially Impacted by Marina Siting
c
Parameter
Recreation
Fishing
Bacteria: Fecal
Coliform
PH
Temperature
Toxic Wastes
Not > geometric mean of -100/
100 ml; based on 4 or more sam-
ples over a 30-day pd. at inter-
vals not > 24-hr
6.0-8.5
Not > 90 F. Receiving water
temperature not to be increased
by more than 1.5 F
None in concentrations that
would harm man, fish and game
or other beneficial aquatic
life
Not > geometric mean of
1000/100 ml, based on 4
or more samples over a
30-day pd. and not >
mas.: 4000/100 mla
6.0-8.5
Same as recreation
Same
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1980.
^Includes general recreational activities, i.e., water skiing, boating
and swimming, etc.
'Propagation of fish, shellfish, game and other aquatic life...
Applicable to waters designated as shellfish harvesting waters: require-
ments for bacteria will be consistent with those established by state and
federal agencies responsible for the National Shellfish Sanitation Program.
6-58
-------
REGULATION
oils may be inadvertantly spilled into waters during construction opera-
tions or during boat refueling operations or repair.
The evaluation criteria in Table 6-15 support the preservation of
existing water quality through requirements that waste disposal
facilities be approved by the Environmental Protection Division of the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources prior to marina permit approval
and that the activity be designed so that the possibility of fuel spills
is minimized. The 401 Water Quality Certification required from the
Georgia Environmental Protection Division is applicable during dredging
and filling and throughout the operation of the facility.
Dredge and Fill Requirements
Dredge and fill requirements are found in Table 6-17. Generally, if
dredging is required, the applicant must describe the material to be
dredged, the dredging method and must submit plans for spoil disposal,
particularly disposal sites as part of the marina permit application. In
most cases, upland sites for disposal of dredge spoil will be required.
Both initial and maintenance dredging must be timed and located such
that movements and lifestages of fish, shellfish and wildlife are pro-
tected, particularly during spawning and early development. Overall, the
design of the marina should be such that both initial and maintenance
dredging is minimal.
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
Table 6-18 presents eight examples of actual conditions imposed by
the CMPC on approved marina applications. If the condition or conditions
are not met, permit approval may be revoked. Most of the conditions in
Table 6-18 are designed to mitigate any potential impact to the natural
environment including marine life and wildlife, vegetation and water
quality in all areas that may be adversely impacted by dredging, by
marina construction activities and marina use.
Summary of Georgia Permit Process
In terms of overall approach, Georgia is fairly typical of states
with joint permit procedures. This program requires a license to use
state lands and certain features of the permitting procedure encourage
consistency with local and federal decision-making. Field represen-
tatives are available to assist the applicant.
In Georgia, marina development requires a Coastal Marshland
Protection Permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Coastal
Resources Division. A copy of the joint application for the USACOE per-
mit, the Marshland Protection Permit and Water Quality Certification (if
needed) is included in Appendix G. The application provides explicit
direction on the type of supporting information required and where to
forward the completed application. In addition, a detailed list of joint
6-59
-------
TABLE 6-17
STATE OF GEORGIA
DREDGING REQUIREMENTS3
The design and alignment of navigation channels, canals, or ditches
should meet demonstrated public needs, insure adequate flushing, and
make maximum use of natural and existing deepwater channels. Projects
should not create stagnant pockets of water or increase shoreline
erosion
Plans of channel dredging should be designed to avoid siltation at
the point where the dredged channel joins with the natural channels
and the marshlands. Sumps should be constructed to contain silt prior
to the introduction of an upland channel into marshlands
Plans for channel and ditch construction should include appropriate
methods for spoil disposal. In most cases upland disposal of dredge
spoil (with adequate protection against runoff) will be required
Whenever possible, project plans should utilize piers or docks rather
than channels or canals to reach deeper waters
The timing and location of dredging activities should take into con-
sideration the movements and lifestages of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife, especially during spawning and early development
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1975.
6-60
-------
TABLE 6-18
STATE OF GEORGIA
EXAMPLES OF MARINA PERMIT CONDITIONS3
•That all small boat storage facilities be moved to the existing
upland and none be placed on the filled marsh
•That the project is to comply with all other federal, state and local
statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and the applicant is to obtain
all licenses and permits prior to commencement of construction
• That certain items or structures be moved to the upland
• That the dredged material disposal site be legally bound in per-
petuity for maintenance dredged material, and that the site be
designated by maps and plans
• That sumps be placed at the weir outfalls to prevent siltation of
marsh
•That the fixed dock be moved channelward... to reduce dredging of
marsh to a minimum
• That bank stabilization with rip-rap be restricted to those areas too
unstable for native vegetation
•That equipment utilized in the marsh for pier construction be placed
on mats, and not on fill material.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1983.
6-61
-------
REGULATION
application procedures and a sample copy of the form letter to DNR's
Executive Assistant requesting a revocable license for use of state land
are included. These documents are all included as part of the applica-
tion package which can be obtained by contacting either the USACOE
Savannah Office or DNR and asking for the "Permit Packet."
The USACOE, Savannah District, DNR's Coastal Resources Division
(CRD) and Environmental Protection Division (EPD) and the Executive
Department all receive copies of the marina permit application along with
the supporting information. Other state and federal agencies are
notified of the proposed project and comments are solicited through the
Joint Public Notice issued by the USACOE and the CRD.
The USACOE's goal is to reach a permit decision within 60 days,
however, the nature of the project may require a longer review period.
The Coastal Resources Division also makes a decision within 60 days after
receipt of a completed application. The permit decision also may be
delayed depending upon the nature and extent of agency review. Although
applications must be submitted following site selection, both the USACOE
and the CRD recommend a pre-appl ication meeting to discuss the proposed
project. The EPD and the Executive Department each notify the applicant
of their decisions on the 401 water quality certification and the request
for use of state-owned lands, respectively.
Florida
Overall Permitting Program
The permitting procedure for marina development in Florida is, by
far, the most complex of the six states. The primary state review for
marinas is through the state dredge and fill program, administered by the
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). The dredge and fill
program is authorized under two separate pieces of legislation, one
applied to all waters and one only to navigable waters. Each has its own
review procedures. The review and 401 Certification process is
integrated into the dredge and fill programs.
The Florida Department of Community Affairs administers a state
program for reviewing developments of regional impact (DRI), including
marinas. Under this program, an activity found to be a DRI must receive
a stat^ review and approval in addition to meeting local regula-
tions. Figure 6-5 outlines the process for determining if a proposed pro-
ject is a DRI. Once this determination has been made, a separate review
procedure is carried out. Although a number of specific factors are con-
sidered in evaluating marinas, the key criteria is the number of slips.
Marinas with 100 or more slips are typically determined to be DRIs.
Although the overall program in Florida is quite complex, the use of
a joint process has added a degree of coordination. One permit applica-
tion is prepared and the DER forwards copies to the Corps and DNR. DER
then determines if the project can be exempt. If not, DER decides if
6-62
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
SHORT
FORM
1
PROCESS IN
REGIONAL
OFFICE
PROCESS IN
PERMITTING
TALLAHASSEE
1 1
253/403
DECISION
STANDARD
SECTION--
REQUEST FOR LETTER
OF INTERPRETATION
/
LOCAL
GOV'T
NOTICE TO
GOVERNMEN
CONS IDE
OF REQU
-\
LOCAL
TS
P
ST -i
GRANT
PERMIT(S)
DENY
PERMIT(S)
APPROVE OR APPROVE
MTU CONDITIONS
DENY PERMIT
AND 401 CERT.
Figure 6-5. Florida marina permitting process.
6-63
-------
REGULATION
processing on a short form through the regional office is appropriate and
which dredge and fill review procedure is applicable. As in Georgia,
there is a termination point for applications that have not received
local approvals.
The review process from this point on is similar to other states.
Comments are submitted to both the Corps and DER, but there is a provi-
sion for a joint public hearing. Also, agreements have been made to
coordinate the final decision-making process where necessary. Joint
DER/Corps meetings are held monthly where this coordination is carried
out.
In granting permits, DER reviews the status of the application for
state land lease. Where the lease has not been granted, DER will not
grant a dredge and fill permit. Also, the Corps will not approve a 404
application where DER did not approve a dredge and fill permit, since
Corps approval is contingent on approval of all other permits and licen-
ses, including Section 401 Certification.
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
Construction is prohibited in Class II Water Use Classification
Areas (Shellfish Propagation and Harvesting) because these waters are
important as existing or potential sites for commercial and recreational
shellfish harvesting and as nursery areas for fish and shellfish. The
exception to this rule is a plan or procedure that would adequately pro-
tect the project area and nearby areas.
Where deemed necessary by the DER, a biological survey, an ecologi-
cal survey and/or a hydrographic survey must be prepared by or under
supervision of the Department prior to project approval. These surveys
must show that marina construction and use will not interfere with the
conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources. In
addition, the studies must show that construction of the marina will not
destroy oyster beds, clam beds or marine productivity to the point where
public interest would be adversely affected. Marina permit evaluation
criteria are listed along with dredging guidelines in Table 6-19.
Water Quality Criteria
Table 6-20 presents DER water quality criteria for parameters and
use classifications potentially impacted by marina siting. These classi-
fications are: Class II - Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting; Class II
- Recreation - propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well population
of fish and wildlife-, and Class V - Navigation, Utility and Industrial
Use. These water quality standards and use classifications relate to the
effects of changes in heavy metal concentrations, bacteriological
quality, dissolved oxygen, nutrient levels, odor and pH. These changes
can occur as a result of boat maintenance, fueling, discharges from MSDs,
dredging, construction, and dumping of fish wastes or other refuse.
6-64
-------
TABLE 6-19
STATE OF FLORIDA
MARINA PERMIT EVALUATION CRITERIA AND DREDGE AND SPOIL REQUIREMENTS3
The Department may require the preparation of biological and/or
hydrographic surveys. These survey(s), preparecTby or under the
supervision of the Department, are to contain findings and recommen-
dations with reference to the effects of the proposed activity upon
fish, wildlife and other natural, resources
These surveys must show that:
project activities will not interfere with the conservation of
fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources, to such an
extent as to be contrary to the public interest. Activities will
not destroy oyster beds, clam beds, or marine productivity. This
includes, but is not limited to, destruction of natural marine
habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for
marine life. Established marine soils suitable for producing
plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for
marine life or natural shoreline processes shall not be inter-
ferred with to such an extent as to be contrary to the public
f ^ i nterest
V,
the proposed project will not create a navigational hazard, or a
serious impediment to navigation, or substantially alter or
impede the natural flow of navigable waters, so as to be contrary
to the public interest
All dredge and fill activities shall comply with state water quality
standards
Applicant shall provide reasonable assurance that the short-term and
long-term effects of the marine activity will not result in violation
of state water quality standards
Permits for construction in Class II areas (due to importance as
existing or potential sites of commercial and recreational shellfish
harvesting and as a nursery area for fish and shellfish) will be
denied, except for those plans and procedures which will adequately
protect the project area and nearby areas
If the project involves the state transportation system, it must be
certified by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT).
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1983.
6-65
-------
TABLE 6-20
STATE OF FLORIDA
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO MARINA SITING AREAS9
Use Classifications Potentially Impacted by Marina Siting
Parameter Class IIb Class Ic Class Vd
Aluminum 1.5 mg/1
Antimony 0.2 mg/1
Bacterio- Median coliform MPN-
logical 70/100ml
Quality 10% of samples MPN-
230/lOOml
Fecal coliform bacterial
level-median of 14 MPN/
100ml
10% of samples MPN-
43/100ml
Biological Shannon-Weaver index of
Integrity benthic macroinverte-
brates-not less than 75%
of est. background levels
as measured using a U.S.
Stnd.#30 sieve; collected
& composited from a min.
of 3 natural substrate
samples, taken with
Ponar type samplers with
min. sampling areas of
225 sq. cent.
Bromine & Free bromine - 0.1 mg/1;
Bromates bromates - 100 mg/1
Cadmium 5.0 micrograms/'i
Chlorine 0.01 mg/1
Copper 0.015 mg/1
Cyanide 5.0 micrograms/1
DO Avg. - 4 mg/1/24 hr.pd.
3 mg/1 always
Fluorides 1.5 mg/1
Iron 0.3 mg/1
Manganese 0.1 mg/1
Mercury 0.1 micrograms/1
Nickel 0.1 mg/1
1.5 mg/1
0.2 mg/i
Fecal coliform bacteria-
monthly avg.-200/100ml;
10% of samples-400/100ml
800/lOOml-daily;
Total coliform count
1000/lOOml-monthly
average; 1,000/lOOml
20% of samples/month;
2,400/lOOml at any time.
Same as Class II
Free bromine - 0.1 mg/1
Bromates - 100 mg/1
5.0 micrograms/1
0.01 mg/1
0.015 mg/1
5.0 micrograms/1
Same as Class II
5.0 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
0.1 micrograms/1
0.1 mg/1
5.0 micrograms/1
> 1.0 mg/1
0.2 micrograms/1
6-66
-------
TABLE 6-20
(continued)
STATE OF FLORIDA
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO MARINA SITING AREAS'
Parameter Class IIb
Nutrients
Odor
PH
Phosphorus
(elemental)
Polychlori-
nated
Biphenyls
(PCB's)
Selenium
Silver
Total Dis-
solved
Gases
Transparency
In no case shall nutri-
ent concentrations be
altered so as to cause
an imbalance in nat.
pop. of aquatic flora
or fauna
Threshold: 24@60°C as
a daily average
Class Ic
Same as Class II
Class V(
No more than one unit Same as Class II
above or below nat. back-
ground of coastal waters,
provided it is between
6.5-8.5. If nat. back-
ground < 6.5, pH shall
not vary below nat.back-
ground or more than one
unit above. If > 8.5,
pH shall not vary above
nat. background or more
than one unit below
Only in such amts
as will not un-
reasonably inter-
fere with use of
the water for its
intended purpose
5.0-9.5, except
certain swamp
waters which may
be as low as 4.5
O.lmicro,cjrams/l
0.001 micrograms/1
0.1 micrograms/1
0.001 micrograms/1
0.025 mg/1
0.05 micrograms/1
llu% or less of saturation Same
value for gases @ ex-
isting atmospheric &
hydrostatic pressures
0.025 mg/1
0.05 micrograms/1
Class II
as
Depth of compensation
point for photosynthetic
activity shal"1 noc be
reduced by more than 10%
as compared to nat. back-
ground value
Same as Class II
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1983.
bShellfish Propagation or Harvesting.
Recreation-propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well balanced population
of fish and wildlife.
Navigation, utility and industrial use.
6-67
-------
REGULATION
The Marina Permit Evaluation Criteria in Table 6-19 state that an
applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the short-term and long-
term effects of the proposed activity will not violate state water
quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3 of the Florida Administrative
Code (F.A.C.). Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires an applicant
to receive certification that discharge into the waters of the United
States will comply with applicable effluent limitations and water
quality standards. This certification pertains to both construction
activities and subsequent facility operation.
Dredge and Fill Requirements
Dredge and fill requirements for the state of Florida are listed in
Table 6-19. These requirements state that marina construction activity
must not, at any time, violate state water quality standards.
Additionally, a biological hydrographic survey of the potentially
affected area is required prior to any construction.
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
Permit conditions and mitigative measures imposed on applicants by
state agencies for the purpose of eliminating or lessening the environ-
mental impact of a proposed action are found in Table 6-21. These
include restricting the depth of boat basins to a specific depth below
mean low water to provide adequate light penetration and circulation for
marine organisms, placing rubble rip-rap to provide additional habitat
for marine organisms, and taking steps to prevent pollution from entering
waterways.
Summary of Florida Permit Process
The Florida permitting program is complex. Features have been
adopted that achieve some coordination between DER and local governments,
the Corps and DNR. However, there is currently no coordination between
DER and the DRI program or the coastal zone regulatory programs under
DNR. Applicants are provided with a permitting booklet and checklist.
DER provides field representatives and both DER and DNR assign one point
of contact for each permit.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) requires
the submittal of a marina permit application and supporting material,
including an affidavit of ownership and drawings sealed by an engineer
(See Appendix G). If the permit is approved, DER will also issue the 401
water quality certification. The DER forwards copies of the application
to the USACOE, Jacksonville District for review and also to the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which works directly with the
applicant to issue a state submerged lands lease.
6-68
-------
TABLE 6-21
STATE OF FLORIDA
EXAMPLES OF MARINA PERMIT CONDITIONS3
• Limit boat basin expansion to a depth of -5 feet mean low water
•Place rubble rip-rap at toe of all new bulkhead, construction to
provide additional habitat for marine organisms
• Take positive steps to minimize the introduction of organics or other
pollutants into the waterway (e.g., through a mangrove leaf barrier)0
•Realign the proposed marina to make maximum use of the prevailing
wind's ability to flush surface debris from the waterways
• Recommend spoil be hauled to an upland site to prevent the possibi-
lity of its entering the water
•Recommend silt screens be used across the marina entrance to prevent
siltation in adjoining waters .
aMaloney et al., 1980.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1974.
°Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1975.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1977.
6-69
-------
REGULATION
DER also solicits comments from state agencies. The Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, Regional Planning Districts and the State Historic
Preservation Officer are asked to comment on the project from their
regulatory perspectives. These agencies have 30 days to respond unless
an extension is granted. Comments from other agencies are requested when
appropriate. DNR evaluates the application if the proposed site is in an
established aquatic preserve area or if oyster or shellfish producing
areas may be impacted. The USACOE solicits comments from other federal
agencies through their Public Notice process.
Typically, the USACOE's goal is to reach a permit decision in 60
days, although agency backlog or review period extensions may prolong the
time frame. DER's decision is generally made 90 days following receipt
of the completed application; they may take an additional 30 days after
receipt of the application to request additional information from the
applicant.
An application must be submitted following site selection, although
both the USACOE and DER encourage a pre-application meeting to discuss
the project.
In addition to issuing the state submerged lands lease, which must
be obtained before a permit can be granted, DNR also reviews the project
for a beaches and shores permit when any structure is proposed for a
sandy beach area.
A sample copy of the USACOE and DER's joint application form is
included in Appendix G. The application form is available from either
the USACOE or from DER's main office or any branch office.
Alabama
Overall Permitting Program
Alabama is the one coastal state in USEPA Region IV that does not
operate a separate state regulatory program to control marina develop-
ment. The approach taken by Alabama is to review the proposed devel-
opment activity for consistency with the state Coastal Zone Management
Plan. The consistency finding then becomes binding on the Corps decision
on the application for a 404 Permit. The overall permit review process
is illustrated in Figure 6-6.
To develop a coastal marina in Alabama, the first step is to submit
an application to the Corps of Engineers. The Corps issues a public
notice on the project and proceeds with a standard review process. At
the same time, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
receives an information copy of the permit. Where required, DEM also
receives a request from the Corps for a 401 Certification. Although DEM
does not administer a specific marina permitting program, there are
coastal use policies and regulations contained in the Coastal Zone
Management Plan. DEM reviews the Corps application based on these cri-
6-70
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVA
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RECEIVE PERMIT
APPLICATION
INTERAGENCY AND CORPS
COORDINATION
COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
CONSISTENCY
DECISION
RECEIVE PERMIT
APPLICATION
REQUEST STATE
LAND LEASE
FEDERAL
AGENCIES
OTHER CORPS
COMMENTS
L INDIVIDUALS
CORPS SEND COPIES
OF ALL COMMENTS
TO ADEM
WATER
QUALITY
CERTIFICATION
DECISION
OPTIONAL
PUBLIC
HEARING
NECESSARY
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEWS
LAND-LEASE
DECISION
APPROVE PERMIT
DENY
PERMIT
Figure 6-6. Alabama marina permitting process,
6-71
-------
REGULATION
teria in order to make a consistency determination. The decision, once
reached, is forwarded to the Corps along with other comments on the 404
Permit application. Corps 404 regulations (and Section 401 of the CWA)
state that if a 401 Certification or other federal, state or local
authorization is denied, a 404 Dredge and Fill Permit will also be
denied.
Other state agencies involved in this review process are the State
Docks Authority, which reviews navigational issues, the Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, which evaluates impacts on fisheries
resources, and the Alabama Historical Commission, which evaluates impacts
on cultural resources. Alabama also claims title to submerged lands and
may require leases to be obtained where these lands are involved. It
has generally been the case, however, that state land leases have not
been required.
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
Table 6-22 presents operational rules and regulations used by the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management in implementing the
Coastal Area Management Program, which can be applied to development of
marina facilities in coastal zones. There is nothing specific to marina
development in the plan (The Alabama Coastal Area Management Program and
Final Environmental Impact Statement, August 1979).
Pertaining to the siting of an activity, an applicant must show that
the marina will be designed in such a way to minimize hurricane damage.
In addition, the applicant must show that the natural function of
wetlands or submerged grasslands will not be degraded nor will oyster
reefs and fishery and wildlife habitats be degraded or destroyed.
Water Quality Criteria
Water quality criteria applicable to marina siting areas are pre-
sented in Table 6-23. The three use classifications potentially impacted
by marina siting are shellfish harvesting, fish and wildlife, and naviga-
tion. Standards for applicable parameters are given.
The two most critical areas in terms of standards are shellfish har-
vesting and fish and wildlife. These stringent standards dictate, not
only the types of uses permitted, but also the extent of mitigative
measures required.
Dredge and Fill Requirements
Dredging and fill disposal requirements of the Alabama Area
Management Program are listed in Table 6-24. Briefly, if DEM determines
that dredging will degrade the coastal area it will not be permitted.
Channel construction or maintenance to existing or approved marinas will
6-72
-------
TABLE 6-22
STATE OF ALABAMA
CRITERIA FOR SITING OF ACTIVITIES IN THE COASTAL AREA3
•Development shall be designed, located, constructed and operated in
a manner that will not significantly increase potential damage
resulting from a hurricane
• No solid waste disposal sites will be located in wetlands or on
beaches or dunes
• Applicant must submit erosion control plan
• Proposed activity must not degrade any natural function of wetlands
or submerged grasslands including the ability to support present •
levels of plants and animals and act as a buffer against storm surges
or any other natural function
• Development must not degrade oyster reefs or fishery habitats
• Development must preserve and protect existing wildlife and wildlife
habitats.
aUSDOC, 1979.
6-73
-------
TABLE 6-23
STATE OF ALABAMA
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO MARINA SITING AREAS'
Use Classifications Potentially Impacted by Marina Siting
Parameter Shellfish Harvesting b Fish & Wi1dlifec Navigation*"
PH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
Toxic Sub-
stances (at-
tributable to
sewage, in-
dustrial
wastes or
other wastes)
Color, Taste
& Odor (at-
tributable
to sewage,
industri al
wastes or
other wastes
Bacteria
6.5-8.5 or not greater
than 1 unit from the
normal or natural value
of the water body
Addition of artificial
heat shall not exceed
4°F (Oct-May) or PF
(June-Sept); maintain
normal daily & seasonal
variations; no thermal
block to aquatic organ-
ism migration
Estuaries, tidal tribu-
taries & coastal: not
< 5mg/l except as
caused by natural phe-
nomena
Not injurious to fish
& aquatic life; should
not affect marketabil-
ity of fish & shell-
fish; should not ex-
ceed 1/10 of 96-hr.
median tolerance limit,
fish, aquatic life or
shellfish
Not injurious to fish
& aquatic life; should
not affect marketabil-
ity of fish & shell-
fish; not unreasonably
affect aesthetic value
for any use in this
classification
Not to exceed limits
in National Shellfish
Sanitation Program
Manual of Operations,
Sanitation of Shell-
fish Growing Areas
by USEPA
Same as shellfish
harvesting
Same
Same as shellfish
harvesting
Same
Not < 2.0 ppm
Same
Same
Fecal coliform:
not > geometric
mean of 1,000/lOOml
on a monthly avg.
value; nor max. of
2,000/lOOml in any
sample
6-74
-------
/
V
TABLE 6-23
(continued)
STATE OF ALABAMA ,
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO MARINA SITING AREAS
Parameter Shellfish Harvesting b Fish & Wildlife c Navigatiorf*
Turbidity None, except natural Same Same
origin causing sub-
stantial visible con-
trast with natural
appearance or intjer-
fering with use; ;not
> 50 Nephelometric
units above background
Alabama Water Improvement Commission, 1982.
•Propagation & harvesting of shellfish for sale or use as a food product.
cFishing, propagation of fish, aquatic life, & wildlife, and any other
usage except water-contact spdrts, water supply source for drinking or
food-processing purposes. •
Navigation & related activities.
6-75
-------
TABLE 6-24
STATE OF ALABAMA
DREDGE AND FILL REQUIREMENTS3
• Dredging and filling operations shall not be permitted if it is
determined by ADEM to degrade the coastal area
• New dead end canals shall not be permitted unless ADEM determines
that such activity will not degrade the coastal area
• Proposed channel construction or channel maintenance providing access
to existing or approved marinas shall be permitted only if there are
no other reasonable means of access to such facilities
• Dredge spoil materials shall be deposited in upland areas or in
offshore Gulf of Mexico areas unless it is determined by ADEM that
the dredge spoil material may be used in another manner that will not
degrade the coastal area
• No dredge spoil, fill or other foreign solid materials shall be depo-
sited in waters of the coastal area unless it is determined by ADEM
that such deposition will not degrade the coastal area
• Normal maintenance dredging of existing channels is permitted if the
dredging operation maintains the channel within the original design
specifications.
aUSDOC, 1979.
6-76
-------
REGULATION
be approved only following determination by DEM that there is no other
reasonable means of access.
Fill may be disposed of only in upland areas or in offshore Gulf of
Mexico areas. However, if DEM determines that the fill material can be
deposited in the coastal area and not degrade the waters, then such depo-
sition may take place.
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
Examples of marina permit conditions and possible mitigative
measures imposed on applicants by DEM are found in Table 6-25. A con-
dition or mitigative measure is attached to a permit application
following review and is a restriction intended to eliminate or lessen
unavoidable adverse impacts of marina construction or use. The Corps
also conditions a 404 Permit to assure water quality maintenance and con-
sistency with the state's Coastal Area Management Program (agreement bet-
ween Alabama DER and USCOE, 1983). Such conditions or measures can
include elevating everything on piers, restoring or revegetating
wetlands, and not infringing on oyster beds, submerged grass beds or fish
reefs as ways of protecting the natural environment. Non-structural
methods of protecting coastal areas from potential damage following
construction are generally recommended.
The water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA
is designed to protect the quality of the affected water body for its
intended use. This certification is applicable throughout both construc-
tion and facility operation.
Summary of Alabama Permit Process
The overall marina permitting process in Alabama is straightforward
and uncomplicated. There is no duplication of comments and only one
final approval is required. Although the state has opted not to
directly control marina development, it still has effective
control through the Alabama Coastal Area Management Plan. This con-
sistency review provides an element of regional planning in marina siting
decisions.
Alabama has no specific marina criteria for evaluating permit appli-
cations. The State relies on standards for components of marina develop-
ment such as dredging and filling in order to evaluate permits. Field
services personnel assist the applicant and carry out monitoring activi-
ties.
6-77
-------
TABLE 6-25
STATE OF ALABAMA
EXAMPLES OF MARINA PERMIT CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES3
• Elevation of everything on piers out of wetlands (except for pilings)
• Restoration, revegetation, creation, or replacement of wetland and
submerged vegetation
• No infringement on submerged grass beds, oyster beds or fish reefs.
3USDOC, 1979.
6-78
-------
REGULATION
Marina applications are submitted to the USACOE Mobile District
Office (from whom the application form is available). The applicant also
submits a copy to DEM. The USACOE then submits a copy of the public
notice to ADEM for review. ADEM is responsible for submitting a letter
documenting a finding of consistency with the state Coastal Zone
Management Plan. ADEM also submits all necessary certifications,
including the 401 water quality certification, to the USACOE. These cer-
tifications must be submitted or an extension requested within 15 days
after the end of the 30 day public comment period. The USACOE must
receive the letter of consistency, denials of certification, waivers of
certification or conditions to the certification before a permit decision
can be made. The permit decision is typically made within 15 to 45 days
after receipt of the letter of consistency.
The application form to the USACOE is submitted following selection
of the site; however, the USACOE recommends a pre-application meeting to
discuss the proposed project. The Memorandum of Agreement between ADEM
and the USACOE relating to Section 10/Section 404 permits is included in
Appendix G.
The USACOE and ADEM's Joint Public Notice is used to solicit com-
ments from appropriate state and federal agencies. State review agencies
include the Alabama Historical Commission (SHPO) for cultural resource
impacts, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which eva-
luates an application for impacts on fisheries resources, and the State
Docks Department, which evaluates navigational issues.
Mississippi
Overall Permitting Program
Mississippi administers state control of coastal marina development
through authority contained in the Mississippi Coastal Program. The
Coastal Program encompasses a number of earlier state laws including the
Coastal Wetlands Protection Law. The Wetlands Law prohibits the conduct
of any regulated activity unless a permit has been issued or the activity
is covered by a valid exclusion. Therefore, though it appears that
Mississippi does not operate an individual regulatory program, the
Wetlands Law does provide a specific review and approval process within
the overall coastal program. This review process is illustrated in
Figure 6-7.
The state and federal programs are coordinated through the provision
for a joint permit application. The permit application is provided to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Mississippi Bureau of Marine
Resources (BMR) and Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control (BPC). The
Secretary of State approves submerged land leases. The Corps issues a
joint public notice with BPC, which conducts the 401 review and approval
where required.
6-79
-------
BUREAU OF MARINE
RESOURCES
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
BUREAU OF POLLUTION
CONTROL
SECRETARY OF STATE
Figure 6-7. Mississippi marina permitting process,
6-80
-------
REGULATION
The BMR implements the requirements of the Wetlands Act. Upon
receipt of a joint application, BMR reviews it for completeness and
determines if it is eligible for a waiver or exclusion. When it is
determined that a wetland permit is required, BMR will issue a public
notice and invite comments. The comment process is carried out through
the A-95 Clearinghouse and not through direct submission of comments to
BMR. As part of this review process, BMR would consider input from BPC
regarding the 401 Certfication. However, denial of the 401 Certification
would not mean that a proposal would necessarily be found to be incon-
sistent with the wetlands plan.
The A-95 process refers to the federal Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) circular A-95, which establishes a formal review process
for all actions involving federal assistance. It provides for the
establishment of "clearinghouses" at state and regional levels where pro-
ject information is routinely collected, reviewed, and made available
for review by all other agencies and interested parties. Although the
process has been substantially modified under revised OMB direction,
many states and regional planning agencies have continued to perform the
clearinghouse function.
Once BMR has reviewed the application, a finding of consistency is
transmitted to the Corps along with other state comments. The wetlands
permit is then either approved, approved with conditions, or denied. If
it is determined that a revision to the wetlands use plan is required, a
separate review process must be initiated. Where a proposed marina is
not consistent with the wetlands use plan and a revision to the plan is
not granted, the permit will not be approved. In addition to the wetland
permit, a marina can not be developed unless it receives a submerged land
lease from the Mississippi Secretary of State. The Corps cannot issue a
Section 404 Dredge and Fill permit unless all other federal, state and
local approvals are obtained, including a Section 401 Certification.
Basis for Decision-Making
Siting Criteria
Criteria used by the Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources in eva-
luating the feasibility of constructing and operating a marina facility
are presented in Table 6-26. There are five criteria specific to the
actual siting of a marina, the first and foremost of which is whether the
site is a "permitted" area for marinas as designated by the coastal
wetlands use plan. Utilization of the wetlands use plan as a decision
tool is the most innovative aspect of the permitting process in
Mississippi. The plan establishes use categories for the coastal area and
territorial waters. Based on these categories, marinas may only be per-
mitted in certain areas. Although only activities allowed under the use
plan may be granted a permit, exceptions are made based on the review
process.
6-81
-------
TABLE 6-26
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
MARINA PERMIT EVALUATION CRITERIA3
• Location must be consistent with wetland use plan
• Location in areas where minimal initial dredging will be required
• Location shall be at least 1,000 feet from shellfish harvesting areas
or seagrass and must avoid archaeological and historic sites
• Project shall not disrupt currents or restrict tidal flow, change
salinity regimes or change related nutrient and aquatic life distri-
bution patterns
• Location shall not be in areas of known high shoaling and siltation
• Preferred alternatives are:
more efficient utilization of existing marina
open dockage extending to deep water
excavation of basins in uplands vs. coastal wetlands
•Depth of boat basins and access channels shall not exceed that of
receiving water body or be located in poor circulation areas and be
designed to insure adequare flushing
• Indented boat slips with angled sides are preferred
• Boat basins shall be designed for tidal flushing with angled sides
(or similar means) for water circulation
•Presentation of innovative solutions to increased demand for new
mooring, dockage and storage space is encouraged
•Permanent dredged material disposal sites in non-wetland areas are
preferred
• Application must indicate that all appropriate permits or cer-
tificates have been applied for or are not required
•Statement describing environmental effects, assessing impacts and
describing measures to be taken to reduce detrimental impacts to
wetlands during and after activity must be submitted.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation, 1980.
6-82
-------
REGULATION
The specific site chosen for a marina must also conform to the loca-
tion standards in Table 6-26.
Water Quality Criteria
Water quality criteria applicable to the use classifications for
shellfish harvesting areas and fish and wildlife are described in Table
6-27. Parameters presented are those in which potentially adverse
changes due to marina use may occur. Fecal coliform levels (bacteria),
DO, pH and temperature may change as a result of discharge from marine
sanitation devices on boats. Toxic substances, such as oil, may acciden-
tally spill into coastal waters as a result of engine cleaning and
refueling operations. Oily substances, in addition to sewage waste, will
produce changes in color, taste and odor of water.
Permit evaluation criteria, imposed by the BMR, state that specific
measures must be taken to insure against adverse impacts to water quality
(Table 6-26). For instance, boat basins and access channels must not be
located in poor circulation areas and they must be designed to insure
adequate flushing of the area. Many of the evaluation criteria are
designed to protect the natural quality of the environment in the long-
term.
Another measure designed to protect the long-term water quality of
an affected water body is the requirement that an applicant receive a
Section 401 (CWA) Water Quality Certification. This Certification is
applicable throughout construction and operation of the marina.
Dredge and Fill Requirements
Table 6-28 lists dredging and fill disposal requirements of the
Mississippi Coastal Program. In the state of Mississippi, all dredged
material is viewed as a potential reusable resource and, therefore,
disposal plans are to include provisions for access to these resources.
Existing disposal sites are to be used as much as possible. New
disposal must be in upland or deep water sites. Coastal areas containing
submerged vegetation and regularly flooded emergent vegetation are abso-
lutely forbidden for use as fill disposal sites. Other fill disposal
regulations are presented in Table 6-28.
Permit Conditions and Mitigative Measures
Three examples of possible conditions or measures to be taken by an
applicant to insure environmental protection or protection of the public
interest for/during marina construction are listed in Table 6-29. These
are actual conditions imposed by BMR.
The Mississippi Coastal Program has two general purposes for
attaching conditions to permits: to ensure compliance with the coastal
program and as a means of minimizing adverse impacts on coastal wetlands.
6-83
-------
TABLE 6-27
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI -
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO MARINA SITING AREAS3
Use Classifications Potentially Impacted by Marina Siting
Parameter Shellfish Harvesting Areas Fish and Wildlife
Bacteria
Dissolved
Solids
Toxic Substances,
Color, Taste and
Odor-Producing
Substances
PH
Temperature
Median fecal coliform MPN
not > 14/100ml; not > 10%
of samples sliall ordinarily
exceed an MPNbof 43/100ml
in areas most probably ex-
posed to fecal contamina-
tion during most unfavorable
hydrographic & pollutional
conditions
None added that will impair
use for that which it is
classified; not > 1/lOth of
96-hr, median tolerance
limit
6.0-8.5 (with 1 unit vari-
ation allowed); or not to
vary 1 unit from background
level unless it falls with-
in accepted range
Discharge of heated waste
shall not raise temperature
> 4°F (Oct thru May) or >
1.5°F (June thru Sept)
Not > geometric mean of
2000/lOOml; not > 10% of
samples per month should
exceed 4000/100ml
Not > 750mg/l monthly
average value
Same
Same
Same
Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, 1982.
bMPN: Most Probable Number.
6-84
-------
TABLE 6-28
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DREDGE SPOIL REQUIREMENTS
• All dredged material shall be viewed as a potential reusable resource,
and all disposal plans should include provisions for access to such
resources
• Existing disposal areas shall be used to the fullest extent possible
• Disposal dikes shall be shaped and stabilized immediately upon con-
struction to minimize erosion and dike failure, and outfalls shall
be positioned to empty back into the dredged area
• Permanent, upland disposal sites or deep water disposal sites shall
be used in preference to coastal wetland disposal
• Areas containing submerged vegetation and regularly flooded emergent
vegetation shall not be used for spoil disposal
. Toxic and highly organic materials shall be disposed of in a manner
that prevents their harmful release into the environment
• New spoil disposal proposals shall include a maintenance plan for
either the life of the facility or 50 years, whichever period is
shorter.
a
Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation, 1980.
6-85
-------
TABLE 6-29
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
EXAMPLES OF MARINA PERMIT CONDITIONS3
Applicant must obtain a submerged lands lease
Elimination of a bulkhead waterward of mean high tide as well as
accompanying backfill for a sand beach which would have meant taking
a portion of public trust lands
Maintain some type of public access where possible, in areas where
access is being limited.
Conditions posed by the Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources in
granting permits under the Coastal Wetlands Protection Law
6-86
-------
REGULATION
As a condition, the state may require a performance bond to secure
compliance with a BMR permit and its mitigative measures.
Summary of Mississippi Permit Process
Mississippi is one of the states .with a unique approach to marina
permitting. The state administers a consistency review and wetlands per-
mit as a coordinated activity under the State Coastal Program. The uti-
lization of the wetlands use plan as a tool in the decision-making
process has many advantages that other states have yet to implement.
Mi-ssissippi has a specific list of criteria with which to assess the
impact of marina development/use and associated uses on the environment.
These criteria, along with time limits for permit review, are provided to
applicants. The Mississippi list is specific to marinas and a few
related uses and some of the protective requirements are more thoroughly
detailed than those of other states. For example, a size is specified
for the buffer zone for shellfish areas. Field representatives assist
the applicant, evaluate sites and recommend alternative sites or environ-
mental solutions.
The USACOE Mobile District (Vicksburg District if project is in the
Pearl River drainage basin), the Mississippi Department of Wildlife
Conservation, Bureau of Marine Resources (BMR) and Bureau of Pollution
Control (BPC) require submittal of a joint permit application. Appendix
G provides a sample copy of the joint application and notification form
for a USACOE permit, a BMR permit and the BPC 401 water quality cer-
tification. The application also describes attachments to be forwarded
with the application and applicable fees.
Permit applications are coordinated through the Mississippi State
Clearinghouse for Federal Activities to ensure compliance with A-95
review requirements, and the clearinghouse forwards copies of BMR and BPC
certifications to the USACOE. A permit decision may be reached within 15
to 30 days after the end of the 30 day public notice period. Otherwise a
decision is made in 60 to 90 days. The BMR typically makes a decision
within 90 days after receipt of the completed application. This includes
receipt of all necessary federal, state and local agency approvals.
The application is submitted following selection of a potential
site. However, a pre-application meeting is encouraged by both the
USACOE and BMR.
Comments on a proposed project are solicited from state and federal
agencies through the Public Notice procedure. State agencies which com-
ment include the State Historic Preservation Office, which routinely eva-
luates permit applications for potential interference with
historic/archaeological resources.
6-87
-------
REGULATION
6.5.3 Analysis of Differences Between State Permit Programs
North Carolina's permit review program uses a general permit that
appears to result in effective coordination between state and federal
regulatory agencies. Alabama relies on indirect control of marina deve-
lopment through use of their coastal plan requirements and only one final
approval is required. Mississippi utilizes a coordinated consistency
review and wetlands permit process under the State Coastal Program.
Although the three approaches to permit review are different, the outcome
is essentially the same. The overall permitting procedure becomes less
complicated because coordinated control results in less time spent in
processing duplicated reviews and comments.
South Carolina and Georgia use the joint permit program, resulting
in duplication of comments and reviews and multiple permits. The process
in Georgia includes an initial review for consistency with local regula-
tions. The permit review procedure in Florida is complex and involves
several state agencies.
Another area of comparison between state guidelines is that of per-
mit evaluation criteria. Mississippi and North and South Carolina have
fairly stringent guidelines regarding marina location and design. The
listings of criteria are extensive and cover most critical areas that
could be impacted by marina development.
Florida also has stringent marina permitting guidelines. The
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) requires preparation
of extensive biological, ecological and/or hydrographic surveys to deter-
mine the extent of potential adverse effects on natural resources in the
area prior to marina development. State permit approval is contingent on
the results of these studies.
Georgia has a list of criteria applicable solely to marina-related
use development, but it does not appear to be all-inclusive. Alabama
does not have specific guidelines for marinas. Approval or disapproval
of marina applications is based on adherence to other standards of the
Alabama Coastal Program such as dredging and filling, public access,
natural hazards and solid waste disposal. Many of these apply indirectly
to marina development.
6.5.4 Local Agencies
Local agencies exercising control over coastal marina development
include city, county and regional bodies. Typically, these agencies are
not involved in the comprehensive evaluation of the suitability of a
marina based on environmental water quality issues. Their review and
approval generally covers regulations such as local land use controls,
building codes, subdivision ordinances and provision and operation of
public facilities. In some states, though, comments of the local juris-
diction can affect the decision on a state permit application. Local
ordinances can also have a significant impact on marina use and opera-
tion.
-------
REGULATION
Local involvement in North Carolina was significantly spurred by the
Coastal Area Management Act. The Act required all cities and counties
within the state's coastal zone to adopt land use plans, or accept plans
adopted by the state. CAMA permits granted under authority of the Act
must be consistent with these plans. In addition, the Act delegates to
cities and counties with approved programs the authority to grant CAMA
permits for minor developments.
The Georgia state program considers local government regulations at
the earliest point in the permit review process. This process provides
for termination of permit processing where all local approvals have not
been received.
All but four of the coastal counties have adopted zoning and sub-
division regulations in Florida. However, most coastal communities do
not have plans or regulations that directly address marinas. Even where
they are addressed in the local zoning ordinance, it is only to prohibit
them in residential areas. Significant exceptions to this situation are
Jacksonville, St. Petersburg and Dade County, which have either com-
missioned or conducted marina studies (Maloney et a!., 1980). The
Florida state permitting program under DER also has an initial review
which halts the application process until local approvals are received.
Many Florida communities are now addressing marinas through their local
government's Comprehensive Plan (LGCP).
Eleven of the 14 coastal municipalities in Alabama have adopted
zoning ordinances and all but four have adopted subdivision regulations.
Although approval by local agencies is not a requirement of the state
review process, the Coastal Area Management Program does provide delega-
tion of review authority for non-regulated uses to local governments with
approved programs.
The Mississippi state regulatory program does not require applica-
tions to be consistent with local plans and programs. Applicants must,
however, certify that all necessary building and zoning permits have been
applied for or are not required. There is also an extensive requirement
for coordination with local agencies. For example, notice and infor-
mation on all permit requests must be circulated through the state A-95
clearinghouse. Furthermore, notice of any proposal to revise the
wetlands use plan must be provided to the port and harbor commissions,
development commissions and boards of supervisors in the coastal coun-
ties.
Local agencies are increasingly exercising control over marinas.
Appendix D presents examples of ordinances, regulations and agreements
relating to coastal marinas and liveaboard boat wastewater disposal.
They are good illustrations of the potential impact and extent well writ-
ten, comprehensive local and regional laws can have on coastal marina
design and operation in regards to wastewater collection and treatment
from boats. The laws are also significant in the protection of the
environment and public health in the vicinity of marinas with liveaboard
vessels. Summaries of each of the appendices follow.
6-89
-------
REGULATION
Appendix D.I - This is a proposed Dade County, Florida ordinance creating
an Operating Permit Program for recreational and commercial boat docking
facilities. All recreational and commercial marinas with docking facili-
ties for 10 or more vessels must apply for an operating permit. The per-
mit specifies that a recreational marina must have sewage pumpout
stations and sewage pumpout connections for houseboat liveaboards. The
ordinance calls for appointment of a technical advisory committee (by the
county manager) to study methods for direct sewage pumpout for cruising
liveaboards and make recommendations. Transient vessels will remain
exempt from direct pumpout requirements if they have a USCG-approved
marine sanitation device (MSD) under this ordinance. Commercial marinas
are required to have upland sanitary facilities.
The Dade County ordinance also has provisions for control of boat
maintenance and repair activities at marinas, stormwater disposal system
maintenance, trash and litter control and reporting requirements.
Property owners providing dockage for 1-9 houseboat liveaboards must
provide "direct sewage pumpout connections".
Appendix D.2 - Appendix D.3 presents ordinances and agreements relating
to regulations by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC). The BCDC regulation section 10722 established a per-
mit program for marinas. The permits limit the number of liveaboard
vessels to be berthed at each marina and impose conditions on
liveaboards. Liveaboard vessels are required to seal all through-the-
hull fittings and must have a MSD type III holding tank. Marinas are
required to provide pumpout facilities and to carefully monitor (log in)
use of such facilities. BCDC can require that liveaboards permanently
connect to shoreside wastewater disposal facilities. Marinas are
required to report to BCDC annually. The report is to include data on
fecal coliform bacteria in the waters of the basin and surrounding areas,
the extent and diversity of the benthological community, and pumpout logs
among other information. It is interesting to note that BCDC law con-
siders liveaboard vessels a form of fill and that the vessels must adhere
to some fill regulations and requirements as well.
Besides the BCDC regulation, this appendix contains City of
Berkeley, California ordinances (No. 5032 and 5226) defining rules and
regulations for the Berkeley munucipal marina. These regulations follow
the BCDC ordinance and define authority, duties and fees. A copy of a
letter in this appendix outlines minimum MSD holding tank capacities that
will be approved for various liveaboard vessels.
Also included in Appendix D.2 is a sample agreement between the City
of Berkeley and the "Berther" which outlines the responsibilities of the
liveaboard owner/inhabitant.
6-90
-------
REGULATION
Appendix D-3 - Appendix D.3 contains several Marin County, California,
ordinances. One ordinance (Chapter 11.20) on "Moorage and Occupancy of
Vessels" provides for issuance of occupancy permits by the county public
health department. Another ordinance (1693) regulates "Floating Home
Marinas". One provision of this ordinance is that floating homes are
required to be connected to an onshore wastewater disposal system. A
marina containing floating homes must provide the "lateral" collection
system.
A relatively unique ordinance (Marin County - Chapter 19.18) in D.3
is "Regulation of the Construction and Maintenance of Floating Homes".
This ordinance defines a floating home as any liveaboard craft and sets
out fairly detailed design and construction criteria for these vessels.
The regulations are similar to conventional building codes. In the
design criteria are specifications on dimensions of required holding
tanks for all wastewater and "ejector devices" for connection to onshore
systems.
6.6 Summary
In every USEPA Region IV state there are multiple agencies directly
involved in the marina permitting process. Overlap because of the
multiple agency involvement may result in unnecessary expenditures of
time and effort by both permit applicants and agency staff.
Two approaches have been used to better coordinate permitting among
agencies. The first approach is the joint permit program. Using this
approach, one application is made for both federal and state permits. In
some cases the receipt and review of comments is also carried out
jointly, but the permit decision is a separate action in every case.
Even when using the joint permit process there are cases where state and
federal agencies review separate sets of comments at different times in
the review process. At the end of the review process, it is also
possible that a state permit may be granted while a permit from the
USACOE may be denied.
The second approach that has been employed to coordinate state and
federal permitting roles is the granting of permitting authority to a
state under a general permit issued by the USACOE. This approach is uni-
que to North Carolina where the Wilmington District has executed a
general permit for activities covered under Section 10 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This general
permit authorizes Section 10/Section 404 activities that have received
prior approval from the State of North Carolina. Such prior approval
would include all of the following authorizations when required:
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
Permit to dredge and fill
401 water quality certification.
6-91
-------
REGULATION
The general permit agreement does not eliminate USACOE involvement in the
decision-making process, but it does eliminate duplication of effort for
routine projects by eliminating parallel permit review processes by both
the USACOE and the state.
Other desirable regulatory program features, some of which are
already included in some state regulatory programs, are:
Formal agreements such as memoranda of understanding adopted
between state agencies to aid in coordinating review procedures
and responsibilities
Clear, objective permit decision-making criteria that are made
available to applicants and explained at pre-application
meetings
The permitting process may be further streamlined by what might
be called a "cooperative outreach program". Such a program
would center on the use of agency field representatives who are
now used in a number of states. In addition, it would combine
other desirable regulatory features into a program targeted to
assist the applicant and lessen the probability of reviewing
nonpermittable applications. A cooperative program would
include the following elements:
field representative to provide assistance with siting and
mitigation
permitting handbook describing the permitting process
including flow charts and decision-making criteria
pre-application conference in conjunction with a method for
notifying applicant of the benefits from such a conference
designation of a single agency contact person to track a
given permit and assist applicant.
Another consideration regarding agency functions is the primary
focus on water quality and wetland impacts. Most of the permitting
programs at both the federal and state levels address marina permitting
primarily in terms of water quality and wetland impacts. Emphasizing
these major impact areas is justified but development of a marina repre-
sents a major change in land/water use. A more comprehensive planning
approach may be beneficial in regulating these activities.
Closely related to this issue is the lack of well-defined planning
and resource managment functions from some key federal and state agen-
cies. Only two state programs (Mississippi and North Carolina) are
designed from a planning perspective to address most of the resources
that can be impacted by marina development. Most states have extensive
resource inventories that could provide the base for developing some type
6-92
-------
REGULATION
of general plan for areas most suitable for marina development. Although
this approach would not eliminate the need for a detailed evaluation of
individual marina permit applications, it could lessen the number of
unpermittable applications received and expedite the marina permitting
process.
The federal agencies involved in the marina permitting and review
process include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine
Fisheries Service and the U.S. Coast Guard. Federal involvement in the
coastal marina permitting process is primarily through Section 10 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Section 10, River and Harbor Act, authorizes dredging, filling and
construction activities in navigable waters of the United States.
Section 404, Clean Water Act, authorizes the Corps of Engineers to issue
permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the waters of
the United States. It does not authorize the Corps to regulate dredging
in these waters. In many cases it overlaps the Corps' authorities under
Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act.
In processing Section 404 permits the Corps applies Section 404(b)
discharge site specification guidelines developed by the Environmental
Protection Agency in consultation with the Corps. Other legislation to
be considered in the Corps permitting process includes (but is not
limited to) the National Environmental Policy Act, the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Endangered Species
Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the National Historic
Preservation Act.
The number of state agencies involved in the federal or state per-
mitting and review processes vary from state to state. State agencies
take 60 to 90 days in reaching a permit decision. These time frames may
be extended if applications are incomplete or inadequate. The USACOE
normally awaits a state permit decision before the decision on a Section
10/404 permit is made. If the state permit or certification is denied,
the USACOE permit will also be denied. The USACOE typically makes a per-
mit decision within 60 days following receipt of the completed permit
appl ication.
Several permits, certifications and approvals may be required before
construction of a new marina can begin. These include:
Section 10 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for any
construction activities in navigable waters
Section 404 permit for any discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of^the United States including adjacent wetlands
Section 401 water quality certification from the state
State dredge and fill permit where applicable
6-93
-------
REGULATION
Regional and local permits, approvals and authorizations as
required.
Most marina developments will require a Section 10/Section 404 per-
mit with a Section 401 water quality certification. State dredge and
fill permits may be required as well as regional or local authorizations.
Because of the complexity of the marina permitting process, it is impor-
tant for the planner or developer to request and participate in a pre-
application conference with permitting agencies after the site has been
selected. This type of conference is recommended by most permitting
agencies. Required regional and local permits, approvals or authoriza-
tions should be quickly identified as well. The pre-application con-
ference and early identification of required permits, approvals and
authorizations will facilitate the marina permitting process.
6-94
-------
7.0- BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alabama Coastal Area Board. 1981. Building in the coastal counties:
a guide to the permitting process with special emphasis on the
coastal area. 32 pp.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 1983. Memorandum of
agreement between Alabama Department of Environmental Management
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers relating to Section 404 and
Section 10 permits. 3 pp. -
Alabama Water Improvement Commission. 1982. Regulations, policies and
procedures. Title II Water quality criteria and use classifica-
tions. Montgomery, AL. 37 pp.
APHA (American Public Health Association). 1970. Recommended procedures
for the examination of seawater and shellfish (4th ed.). American
Public Health Association, New York, NY.
! . 1976. Standard methods for
fh~e examination of water and wastewater (14th ed.). American
Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
. 1980. Standard methods for
the examination of water and wastewater (15th ed.). American
Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. 1134 pp.
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 1969. Small craft harbors,
manuals and reports on engineering practice. Mo. 50, ASCE, New
York, NY.
ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials). 1976. Soil specimen
preparation for laboratory testing. Special Technical Publication
599, American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, PA. 376
pp.
. 1983. Annual book of
ASTM standards. American Society for Testing Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
Andrewartha, H.G. 1971. Introduction to the study of animal popula-
tions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 283 pp.
Ayers, R.V. and A.V. Kneese. 1969. Production, consumption, and exter-
nalities. In: The American Economic Review LIX:282-97. (Cited in
Nissan and Williams, 1979).
Bachmat, Y., J. Bredehoeff, B. Andrews, D. Holtz and S. Sebastian. 1980.
Groundwater management: the use of numerical models. American
Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 127 pp.
7-1
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bahr, L.M. and W.P. Lanier. 1981. The ecology of intertidal oyster
reefs of the south Atlantic coast: a community profile. Prepared
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services. Washington, D.C. 105 pp.
Bakus, Gerald J.} William G. Stillwell, Susan M. Latter and Margaret C.
Wallerstein. 1982. Decision making: with applications for
environmental management. In: Environmental Management, 6(6), pp.
493-504.
Bara, Mark 0., Ralph W. Tiner, Jr. and Duncan C. Newkirk. 1977.
Guidelines for evaluating proposed wetland alterations in South
Carolina. Prepared for South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources
Department. Columbia, SC. 36 pp.
Barbaro, R.D., B.J. Carroll, L.B. Tebo and L.C. Walters. 1969.
Bacteriological water quality of several recreational areas in
the Ross Barnett Reservoir. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 41(2), pp. 1330-1339.
Barber, Scott and John H. Tretry. 1981. Balanus churnas: a sensitive
indicator of copper and zinc pollution in the coastal zone. In:
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 27(5), pp.
654-659.
Barfield, B.J. and C.T. Haan. 1972. Erosion sediment production pro-
ceedings, urban rainfall management short course. Technical Report,
University of Kentucky, College of Engineering, Lexington, KY.
(Cited in Carstea et a!., 1975).
Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories. 1974. A technique for environ-
mental decision making using quantified social and aesthetic values.
Publication No. BNWL-1787, Richland, WA.
Batten, L.A. 1977. Sailing on reservoirs and its effects on water
birds. Biological Conservation, 11(1), pp. 49-58. (Cited in
Chmura and Ross, 1978).
Beccasio, A.D., G.H. Weissberg, A.E. Redfield et al. 1980. Atlantic
coast ecological inventory: user's guide and information base.
U.S. Fish and Wildife Service, Biological Services Program.
FWS/OBS-80/51. Washington, D.C. 163 pp.
Beccasio, Angelo D., Nick Fotheringham, Alice E. Redfield et al. 1982.
Gulf Coast ecological inventory user's guide and information base.
Prepared by Dames and Moore for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Washington, D.C. 191 pp.
7-2
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bednarz, Patricia Ann (Ed.). 1983. Marina siting considerations: a
guide to the permit process in Maryland. Prepared for Coastal
Resources Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Annapolis, MD. Variously paginated.
Bell, Frederick W. and Vernon R. Leeworthy. 1984. Estimation of the
demand and supply of marina services in the state of Florida.
Prepared for Bureau of State Lands Management, Florida Department
of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.
Bender, William H. 1971. Soils and septic tanks. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Agriculture Information
Bulletin No. 349. Washington, D.C.
Berkau, Eugene E., Stephen R. Cordle, Franklin D. Hart et al. 1975.
An assessment of the federal noise research development and demon-
stration activities: F473-75. EPA 600/2-75-010. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C.
Bittaker, H.F. and R.L. Iverson. 1976. Thalassis testudinum pro-
ductivity: a field comparison of measurement methods.Marine
Biology, 37:39-46.
Blades, D.A. et al. 1982. A users guide to LANDSAT satellite imagery
for studying natural resources in Maryland. Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration, Coastal Resources
Division. Annapolis, MD.
Blue Ribbon Marina Committee. 1983. Final report. Florida Sea Grant
College, Building 803, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL.
25 pp.
Boesch, Donald F. 1980. Evaluating impacts on continental shelf
environments concepts and prospects. In: Biological Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts. Cosponsored by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. FWS/OBS-80/26. pp. 159-169. (Cited in USFWS, 1980).
Bolt, Berenek and Newman, Inc. 1971. Noise from construction equipment
and operations, building equipment, and home appliances. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement
and Control. Washington, D.C.
Boozer, Alton C. 1979. A review of the impacts of coastal marina
siting, construction, and activities as related to water quality
considerations. Prepared for the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Field and Analytical
Services, Division of Biological and Special Services. Columbia,
SC. 30 pp.
7-3
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bowen, H.J.M. 1966. Trace elements in biochemistry. Academic Press,
New York, NY. 241 pp. (Cited in Mathis and Kevern, 1975).
Bower-man, Frank R. and Kenneth Y. Chen. 1971. Marina Del Ray: a
study of environmental variables in a semi-enclosed coastal water.
University of Southern California, Sea Grant Program. Los Angeles,
CA. 23 pp.
Brown, C.L. and R. Clark. 1968. Observations on dredging and dissolved
oxygen in a tidal waterway. In: Water Resources Research, 4, pp.
1381-1384. (Cited in Johnston, 1981).
Brown, D. 1954. Methods of surveying and measuring vegetation. Common-
wealth Agricultural Bureau, Farnham Royal. Bucks, England. 223
pp.
Brown, William H., C. David Veal and William J. Demoran. 1972.
Mississippi oyster culture research: a progress report. Sea Grant
Publication No. MSGP-72-001. 9 pp.
Browne!!, R.L. 1980. West Indian manatee recovery plan. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in cooperation with the West Indian Manatee
Recovery Team. 35 pp.
Burnham, J.B. (Ed.). 1974. Quantification of aesthetic values. In_:
A technique for environmental decision-making using quantified
social and aesthetic values. Prepared by Battelle Pacific North-
west Laboratories for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Burno, Kathryn A. and Jonathan L. Smith. 1981. Biological monitoring
of ambient water quality: the case for using bivalves as sentinel
organisms for monitoring petroleum pollution in coastal waters.
Jji: Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science (1981)13, pp. 433-443.
Butler, R.G., G.T. Orlob and P.H. McGauhey. 1954. Underground movement
of bacteria and chemical pollutants. Journal of American Water
Works Association, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 97.
Cain, S.A. and G.M. Castro. 1959. Manual on vegetation analysis.
Harper Brothers, New York, NY. 325 pp.
Caine, Edsel A. and E.W. Seabrook Hull. 1981. An examination of the
effects of dredging salt marsh creeks. South Carolina Sea Grant
Consortium. Baruch Institute Technical Report No. USC-B1-81-1.
44 pp.
Cairns, J. and L.L. Dicksen (Eds.). 1973. Biological methods for the
assessment of water quality. ASTM Sp. Pub!. 528, Philadelphia, PA.
256 pp.
7-4
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cairns, J., K.L. Dickson and G.F. Westlake (Eds.). 1978. Biological
monitoring of water and effluent quality. ASTM Sp. Publication
607. Philadelphia, PA. 246 pp.
Canter, L.W. and L.G. Hill. 1979. Handbook of variables for environ-
mental impact assessment. Ann Arbor, MI. 203 pp.
Capone, O.G., P.A. Penhale, R.S. Oremland and B.F. Taylor. 1979.
Relationship between productivity and N2 (C2H2) fixation in a
Thalassis testudinum community. Limnology and Oceanography,
24:117-125.
Cardwell, R.D., E.W. Sanborn and M.I. Carr. 1980. Water quality and
flushing of five Puget Sound marinas. Washington Department of
Fisheries, Technical Report 56. Olympia, W.A. 77 pp. (Cited in
Goodwin, 1982).
Cardwell, Rick D. 1980. Water quality - biological implications in
Pacific Northwest marinas. In: Robert F. Goodwin (ed.). Boating
and Moorage in the '80s. Proceedings of a workshop. Washington
Sea Grant Publication. Seattle, WA. pp. 96-106.
Carstea, D., A. Binder, R. Stricter, L. Boberschmidt, L. Thomas and
J. Golden. 1975. Guidelines for the environmental impact assess-
ment of small structures and related activities in coastal bodies
of water. Prepared by MITRE Corp. for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
New York District.
Cato, James C. 1983. Blue ribbon marina committee. Final report,
January 1983. Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Coastal Management by Florida Sea Grant
College. 25 pp.
Chamberlain, C. 1983. Marinas: recommendations for design construction
and maintenance. National Marine Manufacturers Association,
Chicago, IL.
Chamberlain, Clinton J. 1983a. Boat handling equipment. Presented at
the Marinas and Docks Conference. University of Wisconsin, Madison,
WI. 25 pp.
1983b. Marina layout and the environment..
las and Docks Conference. University of
PresentedattfieMarinas and Docks Conference. University
Wisconsin. Madison, WI. 20 pp.
Chaney, C.A. 1961. Marinas: recommendations for design, construction
and maintenance. National Association of Engine and Boat Manu-
facturers, Inc., New York, NY.
7-5
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chapman, Charles. 1968. Channelization and spoiling in Gulf Coast and
South Atlantic estuaries. In: S.D. Mewsome (ed.), Proceedings of
the Marsh and Estuary Management Symposium. T.J. Moran's Sons, Inc.
Baton Rouge, LA. pp. 93-106.
Chen, K.Y., F.R. Bower-man and M. Petridis. 1972. Environmental impact
of storm drain on a semi-enclosed coastal water. Reprint of the
Eighth Annual Conference of the Marine Technology Society. pp.
763-770. Sea-Grant Library Abstract (SCI-R-72-003).
Chmura, Gail L. and Neil W. Ross.
marinas and their boats, a
considerations. University of
Narragansett, RI. 32 pp.
1978. The environmental impacts of
literature review with management
Rhode Island Marine Memorandum 45.
Chow, V.T. (Ed.).
Book Company,
1966. Handbook of applied
New York, NY. 1477 pp.
hydrology. McGraw-Hill
Christensen, B.A. and R.M. Snyder. 1978. Establishment of residential
waterfront property by construction of canal sytems in coastal
wetlands. Problems and solutions. In: Coastal Zone, 1978. pp.
1301-1315.
Chukobasih, Prince Collins. 1981. State and federal interactive rela-
tionship on water pollution regulatory systems. Mississippi-Alabama
Sea Grant Consortium. University of Alabama. 29 pp.
Clark, G.L. 1967. Elements
Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
of ecology, 1st edition. John Wiley and
Clark, J.R. 1979. Mitigation and grassroots conservation of wetlands-
urban issues. In: The Mitigation Symposium: a national workshop
on mitigating losses of fish and wildlife habitats. July 16-20,
1979. Colorado State University. General Technical Report RM-65.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins,
CO. pp. 141-151.
Clark, John. 1967. Fish and man, conflict in the Atlantic estuaries.
American Littoral Society, Publication No. 5. Highlands, NJ. 78 pp.
. 1974. Coastal ecosystems, ecological considerations for
management of the coastal zone. The Conservation Foundation,
Washington, D.C. 178 pp.
. 1977. Coastal ecosystem management. The
Foundation. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Conservation
Clark, R.C., Jr., J.S. Finely and G.C. Gibson. 1974. Acute effects of
outboard motor effluents on two marine shellfish. In: Environmental
Science and Technology, 8(12), pp. 1009-1014. (Cited in Chmura and
Ross, 1978).
7-6
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clarke, N.A., G. Berg, P.M. Kabler and S.L. Chang. 1964. Human
enteric viruses in water: source, survival and removability.
Advances in Water Research, Vol. 2, pp. 523.
Clarke, Trevor. 1982. Marine sanitation devices and pollution from
small recreational boats, an annotated bibliography. Sponsored by
the National Boating Federation. Cove Press, Severna Park, MD.
Coastal Ecosystems Management, Inc. 1974. Environmental inventory and
assessment of lower Mobile Bay complex in light of proposed drilling
activities by Mobil Oil Co. Fort Worth, TX.
Cochran, W.C. 1953. Sampling techniques. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY. 330 pp.
Coenen, N.L. and B. Cartwright. 1979. Mitigation in the Oregon Coastal
Management Program. In: The Mitigation Symposium: a national
workshop on mitigating losses of fish and wildlife habitats.
July 16-20, 1979. Colorado State University. General Technical
Report RM-65. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Fort Collins, CO. pp. 103-107.
Collier, C.A. no date. Building construction on shoreline property.
Sponsored by Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of
Beaches and Shores. Pamphlet.
Cook, Clyde E., Michael L. Bridge, T.J. Brooks et al. 1971. The
delineation of and factors affecting Misssissippi coastal
estuaries and tidal marshes. University of Mississippi. 59 pp.
Cossin, J., K. Smith and K. Frenke. 1971. Sanitary implication of small
boat pollution in an Atlantic estuary. Environmental Letters,
2(2), pp. 59-63.
Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet and Edward T.
LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. Performed for the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 103 pp.
Crompton, John L. and Robert B. Ditton. 1975. A feasibility, manage-
ment and economic study of marinas on the Texas Gulf Coast.
Prepared by Texas A & M University for U.S. Department of Commerce,
Office of Sea Grants. College Station, TX. 51 pp.
Curtis, J.T. and G. Cottam. 1962. Plant ecology workbook. Burgess
Publishing Company, Minneapolis, MN. 193 pp.
Daly, H.E. 1968. On economics as a life science. In: Journal of
Political Economy, 76 (3):392-406. (Cited in Nissan and Williams,
1979).
7-7
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant communities: a textbook on plant syneco-
logy. Harper and Row, New York, NY. 300 pp.
Davis, S.N. and R.J.M. De Weist. 1966. Hydrogeology. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 463 pp.
Dawson, O.K. 1979. Copepods (Arthropoda: Crustacea: Copepoda). Chapter
5, pp. 145-170. (Cited in Dawson, et al., 1979).
Dearstyne, Charles S., James W. Dunham, Kenneth R. Kuammen et al. 1969.
Report on small craft harbors. Prepared by the Task Committee on
Small Craft Harbors, Committee on Ports and Harbors, Waterways and
Harbors Division. New York, NY. 130 pp.
de la Cruz, Armando A. 1981. Differences between South Atlantic and
Gulf Coast marshes. Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium.
Excerpted from: Proceedings of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Workshop on Coastal Ecosystems of the Southeastern United States.
Carey, R.C., P.S. Markovits, and J.B. Kirkwood (eds.). Office of
Biological Services. Washington, D.C. 257 pp.
Dee, Norbert et al. 1972. Environmental evaluation system for water
resource planning. Final report prepared by Battelle-Columbus
Laboratories for the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Recreation. Columbus, OH.
Dial, R. Steve and Brian J. Balcom. 1983. A review of compliance
monitoring requirements for marinas. Presented at the National
Marina Conference. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Diener, R.A. 1979. Man-induced modifications in estuaries of the north-
ern Gulf of Mexico: their impacts on fishery resources and measures
of mitigation. In: The Mitigation Symposium: a national workshop
on mitigating losses of fish and wildlife habitats. July 16-20,
1979. Colorado State University. General Technical Report RM-65.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins,
CO. pp. 115-120.
Dunham, James W. and Arnold A. Finn. 1974. Small-craft harbors: design,
construction, and operation, special report no. 2. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center. Fort Belvoir,
VA. 377 pp.
Edge, Billy L. (Ed.). 1980. Proceedings of the second symposium of
coastal and ocean management. Coastal Zone '80, Volume 1. Pub-
lished by the American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, NY.
Eleuterius, Charles K. 1978. Location of the Mississippi Sound oyster
reefs as related to salinity of bottom waters during 1973-1975.
Prepared by Gulf Coast Research Laboratory for the U.S. Department
of Commerce, Office of Sea Grants and the Mississippi-Alabama
Sea Grant Consortium. 23 pp.
7-8
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ellender, R.D. and David W. Cook. 1980. Viral evaluation of prohibited
oyster growing waters, final report. Mississippi-Alabama Sea-Grant
Consortium. Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, University of Southern
Mississippi. 110 pp.
. 1982. Enteroviruses in prohibited
oystersand marinesediments, final report. Gulf Coast Research
Laboratory and University of Southern Mississippi. Hattiesburg, MS.
103 pp.
Ellender, R.D., D.W. Cook, V.L. Sheladia et al. 1981. Enterovirus and
bacterial evaluation of Mississippi oysters. Excepted from: Gulf
Research Reports, 1980, 6(4), pp. 371-376.
Ellender, R.D., J.B. Mapp, B.L. Middlebrooks et al. 1980. Natural
enterovirus and fecal coliform contamination of Gulf Coast oysters.
In: Journal of Food Protection, 43(2), pp. 105-110.
English, John N., Eugene W. Surber and Gerald N. McDermott. 1963.
Pollutional effects of outboard motor exhaust-field studies. In:
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 35(9), pp. 1121-1132.
Englund, H.M. and W.T. Beery (Eds.). 1974. Environmental noise control.
APCA Reprint Series. Air Pollution Control Association, Pittsburgh,
PA. 57 pp.
Environment Reporter. March 25, 1983. U.S. Coast Guard regulations on
marine sanitation devices. 33 CRF-159. 41 FR 4622 amended to
February 3, 1983. pp. 167-174.
ENVIROVAC. 1984. ENVIROVAC vacuum sewage systems. Rockford, IL.
Ervin, Thomas L., C.E. Abrahamson, Jr. and J.E. Frank. 1980. Anne
Arundel County boating and marina study. Anne Arundel County Office
of Planning and Zoning. Annapolis, MD. variously paginated.
Faust, Maria A. 1982. Contribution of pleasure boats to fecal bacteria
concentrations in the Rhode River estuary, Maryland, U.S.A. In:
The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 25, pp. 255-262.
Federal Register. 1979. Environmental Protection Agency CFR 40, Part
136, guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of
pollutants, proposed regulations; corrections. Federal Register,
Tuesday, December 18, 1979. 44(244):75028-75052.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (The Clean Water Act).
1972 with 1977 and 1978 Amendments. Water Pollution Control Fed-
eration. Washington, D.C. 136 pp.
7-9
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
FWPCA (Federal Water Pollution Control Association). 1967. Wastes
from watercraft. Report of the D.I., FWPCA to Congress. August 7.
Senate Document No. 48. (Cited in SCOHHS, 1982).
Feverstein, D.L. and R.E. Selleck. 1963. Fluorescent tracers for
dispersion measurements. American Society of Civil Engineers
Procedures, Volume 89, No. SA4, pp. 1-21.
Florida Blue Ribbon Marina Committee. 1983. General summary of Blue
Ribbon Marina Committee recommendations, 1 August 1983. 6 pp.
Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals. 1978.
Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume 2, Birds. Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. University Presses of
Florida. Gainesville, FL. 121 pp.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1977. Permit applica-
tion appraisal, DER form PERM 16-10, performed by R.A. Lotspeich,
Division of Environmental Permitting, 2 December 1977. (Cited in
Maloney, et al. 1980.
. 1981. Florida statutes.
Chapter 403 Environmental Control, pp. 778-836.
. 1981. Florida statutes.
Title XVIIIPublic Lands and Property, Chapter 235 State Lands.
pp. 1432-1462.
. 1982. Florida
Administrative Code, Chapter 17-25. Regulation of stormwater
discharge.
. 1982. Supplement to
Florida Statutes 1981. Chapter 403 Environmental Control. pp.
501-514. Chapter 253 State Lands, pp. 307-320.
1983. Florida Adminis-
trativeCode,Chapter17-4.Permits.June 1983. Chapter 17.3
Water Ouality Standards.
Florida Department of Natural Resources. n.d. Sovereignty submerged
lands management, Rule Mo. 16Q-21 and correction sheet. Division of
State Lands.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1974. Letter from Mr.
O.E. Frye, Jr., Director FGFWFC to Mr. Joseph W. Landers, Jr.,
Director, Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund. 26 November
1974. (Cited in Maloney, et al. 1980).
7-10
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. 1975. Letter from Mr.
O.E. Frye, Jr., Director FGFWFC to Mr. Joseph W. Landers, Jr.,
Director, Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund. 17 February
1975. (Cited in Maloney, et al. 1980).
Folk, R.L. 1974. Petrology of sedimentary rocks. HemphilVs. Austin,
Texas. 64 pp.
Ford, Kristina (Ed.). 1979. Remote sensing for planners. Center for
Urban Policy Research Rutgers, State University of New Jersey.
Mew Brunswick, NJ. 219 pp.
Frankenberg, D. and C.W. Westerfield. 1968. Oxygen demand and oxygen
depletion capcity of sediments from Wassau Sound, Georgia. In:
Bulletin Graduate Academy of Sciences, 26, pp. 160. (Cited in
Windom, 1976).
Franzreb, Kay. 1977. Inventory techniques for sampling avian popula-
tions. .U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Filing Code 6611. 17 pp.
Furfari, S.A. 1968. A problem paper on boat wastes and the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program. Northeast Marine Health Services
Laboratory, U.S. Public Health Service. Davisville, RI. 27 pp.
. 1978. Hydrography and pollution tracing in shellfish
sanitation. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Training Manual.
Davisville, RI.
Furfari, S.A. and J.L Verber. 1969. Boat waste survey, Potter Cove,
Rhode Island, summer 1968. Northeast Marine Health Services
Laboratory, U.S. Public Health Service. Davisville, RI. 27 pp.
Fuss, C.M. and J.A. Kelly. 1969. Survival and growth of seagrasses
transplanted under artificial conditions. In: Bulletin of Marine
Science, 19(2), pp. 351-365. (Cited in Zieman, 1982).
Gallagher, T.P. et al. 1969. Pollution affecting shellfish harvesting
in Mobile Bay, Alabama. Tech. Servs. F.W.P.C.A. Southeast Water
Laboratory. Athens, GA.
Galloway, G.E., Jr. 1978. Assessing man's impact on wetlands. Univer-
sity of North Carolina Sea Grant Publication. UNC-SG-78-17.
Raleigh, NC. 115 pp.
Galtsoff, Paul S. 1964. The American oyster-Crassostrea virginica
Gmelin. Fishery Bulletin of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Volume 64. Washington, D.C. 457 pp.
7-11
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Garbe, Carl W., David P. Smith and Sri Amerasinghe. 1974. Demonstra-
tion of a methodology for dredged material reclamation and drainage.
Prepared by Dames and Moore for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Environmental Effects Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. 71 pp. plus
appendices.
Gaythwaite, J. 1981. The marine environment and structural design,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Geldreich, E.C. 1966. Sanitary significance of fecal coliforms in the
environment. U.S. Department of the Interior, FWPCA. Publication
WR-20-3.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 1970. Coastal Marshlands
Protection Act of 1970. Article 4, Part 4. pp. 297-306.
. 1975. Coastal marshlands protection. Game and
Fish Division. Rules. Chapter 391-4-12. pp. 1215-1230.
. 1980. Water use classifications trout stream
designations and water quality standards for the surface waters of
the state of Georgia. Environmental Protection Division. 29 pp.
. 1983. Marshlands protection joint application
procedures and department recommendations on actual permit applica-
tions. Brunswick, GA.
Gerba, Charles P., Sagar M. Goyal, Irina Cech et al. 1980. Bacterial
indicators and environmental factors as related to contamination of
oysters by enteroviruses. In: Journal of Food Protection, 43(2),
pp. 99-101.
Giannio, Steven P. and Hsiang Wang. 1974. Engineering considerations
for marinas in tidal marshes. Prepared by Delaware University for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Sea
Grant. Rockville, MD. 105 pp.
Giblin, Anne E, Alain Bourg, Ivan Valiela and John M. Teal. 1980.
Uptake and losses of heavy metals in sewage sludge by a New England
salt marsh. In: American Journal of Botany, 67(7), pp. 1059-1068.
Giles, R.H., Jr. (Ed.). 1971. Wildlife management techniques. Prepared
by the Wildlife Techniques Manual Committee, The Wildlife Society.
Washington, D.C. 633 pp.
Godwin, Walter F. 1977. A survey of closed shellfish waters in
western Brunswick County, NC. North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries. Morehead City, NC. 11 pp.
7-12
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Golden, J., R.P.
Environmental
MI. 864 pp.
Quellette, S.
impact data
Saari anc P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1979.
book. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor,
laghdr
Golden, Robert J., Jr., Kenneth Gall
1980. OCS natural gas pipelines:
Prepared for New Jersey Department of
Policy Analysis, by Rutgers Univers
Environmental Studies. New Brunswick,
Goldstein, Robert J. 1983. Dredge spoil,
Frontiers, 29(4), pp. 241-247.
Norbert P. Psuty et al.
analysis of routing issues.
inergy, Office of Planning and
ity Center for Coastal and
NJ.
not always a waste. In: Sea
Goodwin, Robert F. (Ed.). 1982. Boating
Proceedings of a workshop held in Seittl
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adnvi
Grant Publication. Seattle, WA. 136
and moorage in the 1980's.
e, Washington, Nov. 1981.
inistration. Washington Sea
P-
Grace, R.A. 1978. Marine outfall system
struction. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
planning, design and con-
Cliffs, NJ.
Gracy, Robert C., Willis J. Keith and
Management and development of the
Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife and
Technical Report No. 28. 33 pp. plus
Raymond J. Rhodes. 1978.
shellfish industry in South
Marine Resources Department,
mips,
Graham, Donald S., John P. Daniels and B
dieting circulation changes from ba
Proceedings of the Specialty Conferencle
Oceans IV. San Francisco, CA. 18 pp
A. Christensen. 1979. Pre-
hymetric modification. In:
on Civil Engineering in "tfie
Green, T. 1983.
Marinas and
WI. 13 pp.
Coastal engineering:
Docks Conference. Unive
ah overview. Presented at the
sity of Wisconsin. Madison,
Greenberg, Arnold E., Joseph J. Conners and
Standard methods for the examinati
(15th ed.). Prepared by the Americ;
American Water Works
Association,
Federation. Washington, D.C. 1,134
David Jenkins (Eds.). 1981.
On of water and wastewater
n Public Health Association,
jnd Water Pollution Control
Greeson, P.E. (Ed.). 1977. Techniques of
of the United States Geological Survey
analysis of aquatic biological and m
Geological Survey, U.S. Department o
D.C. 332 pp.
vater-resources investigations
', methods for collection and
crobiological samples. U.S.
f the Interior. Washington,
Greig-Smith, P. 1964. Quantatitive
Butterworth's, London, England. 256 pp
7-13
plant ecology (2nd ed.).
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gusey, William F. 1978 (revised). The fish and wildlife resources of
the middle Atlantic bight. Shell Oil Company. Houston, TX. 582
pp.
. 1981. The fish and wildlife resources of the south
Atlantic coast. Shell Oil Company. Houston, TX. variously pagi-
nated.
Hales, Lyndell Z. 1981. Floating breakwaters: state-of-the-art litera-
ture review. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Technical Report No. 81-1. Fort Belvoir, VA.
Hall, R.S. and T.R. Vogt. 1979. Mitigation and the multiobjective
planning process. In: The Mitigation Symposium: a national
workshop on mitigating losses of fish and wildlife habitats. July
16-20, 1979. Colorado State University. General Technical Report
RM-65. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort
Collins, CO. pp. 343-347.
Hamann, Richard G. and Bram D.E. Canter. 1982. Legal aspects of
recreational marina operations in Florida. Florida Sea Grant
College Report No. 46. 92 pp.
Hansen, M.H., W.N. Hurwitz and W.G. Madow. 1953. Sampling survey
methods and theory. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
638 pp.
Harris, J.T. and S.W. Matteson. 1975. Gulls and terns as indicators of
man's impact upon Lake Superior. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Sea Grants. University of Wisconsin Sea
Grant Program Technical Report No. 227. Madison, WI. 46 pp.
(Cited in Chmura and Ross, 1978).
Harrison, Joan E. and Laurie C. Chisholm. 1974. Identification of
objectionable environmental conditions and issues associated with
confined disposal areas. Prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc., for
Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Vicksburg, MS. 134 pp. plus appendices.
Harrison, W., A. Draunieks, R. Zussman and R. Goltz. 1976. Water
resources program. Abatement of malodors at diked, dredged-material
disposal sites, final report. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 132 pp.
Hart, C.W., Jr. and Samuel L.H. Fuller (Eds.). 1979. Pollution ecology
of estuarine invertebrates. Academic Press. New York, NY. 406 pp.
Hartman, D.S. 1979. Ecology and behavior of the manatee (Trichechus
manatus) in Florida. American Society of Mammalogists~i Special
Publication No. 5. 153 pp.
7-14
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hecker, Stanley (Ed.). 1979. Summary of proceedings of an experimental
dredge disposal workshop for Mississippi Sound. Prepared for the
U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Sea Grants, and the
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. 45 pp.
Hedgepeth, J.W. (Ed.). 1957. Treatise on marine ecology and paleo-
ecology, volume I - ecology. Geological Society of America.
New York, NY.
Henderson, Jim E. 1982. Handbook of environmental quality measurement
and assessment: methods and techniques. Instruction Report
E-82-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,
Vicksburg, MS.
Herner and Company. 1980. Publication index and retrieval system.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental
Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. 187 pp.
Hirsch, Allan. 1980. The baseline study as a tool in environmental
impact assessment. In: Biological Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts. Cosponsored by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-80/26. pp. 84-93. (Cited in USFWS, 1980).
Hirsch, Nina D., Louis H. DiSalvo and Richard Peddicord. 1978. Effects
of dredging and disposal on aquatic organisms. Prepared for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 41 pp.
Hite, James and E. Laurant. 1972. Environmental planning: an economic
analysis. Praeger Publishers, NY. (Cited in Nissan and Williams,
1979).
Holme, N.A. and A.D. Mclntyre. 1971. Methods for the study of marine
benthos. IBP Handbook No. 16. Blackwell's, Oxford. 256 pp.
Hopkins, S.R. and T.M. Murphy. 1981. Reproductive ecology of Caretta
caretta in South Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine
Resources Department, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries.
E-l, Study No. Vl-A-1. Columbia, SC. 96 pp.
Hunt, Daniel A. 1977. Indicators of quality of shellfish waters.
Reprinted from Special Technical Publication 635. American Society
for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA. pp. 337-345.
_ . 1980. Microbiological standards for shellfish growing
areas - what do they mean? In: Journal of Food Protection,
43(2), pp. 127-128. ~~
Husar, S.L. 1977. The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Report 7. 22 pp.
7-15
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Husch, B., C.I. Miller and T.W. Beers. 1972. Forest mensuration (2nd
ed.). Ronald Press Company, NY. 410 pp.
Isard, Walter. 1972. Ecologic-economic analysis for regional develop-
ment. The Free Press, NY.
Jackivicz, T.P., Jr. and L.N. Kuzminski. 1972. The effects of the
interaction of outboard motors with the aquatic environment-a
review. In: Environmental Research, Vol. 6, pp. 436-454. (Cited in
Chmura and Ross, 1978).
. 1973. A review of outboard
motor effects on the aquatic environment. In: Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation, 45(8), pp. 1759-1770.
Jahn, L.R. 1979. Summary of the symposium, and recommendations for im-
proving mitigation in the future. In: The Mitigation Symposium: a
national workshop on mitigating losses of fish and wildlife habi-
tats. July 16-20, 1979. Colorado State University. General
Technical Report RM-65. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. Fort Collins, CO. pp. 6-18.
Jain, R.K., L.V. Urban and G.S. Stacey. 1974. Handbook for environ-
mental impact analysis. Department of the Army, Construction
Engineering Reserach Laboratory (CERL). Technical Report E-59.
Champaign, IL.
Janssen, W.A. 1974. Oysters: retention and excretion of three types of
human water-borne disease bacteria. Health Laboratory Sciences,
11, pp. 20.
Jeane, Grover Scott, II and Roland E. Pine. 1975. Environmental effects
of dredging and spoil diposal. In: Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation, 47(3), pp. 553-561.
Johnson, Sydney A., H.O. Hillestad, S.F. Shanholtzer and G.F.
Shanholtzer. 1974. An ecological survey of the coastal region of
Georgia. National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series,
No. 3. Washington, D.C. 233 pp. plus maps.
Johnston, Sam A., Jr. 1981. Estuarine dredge and fill activities: a
review of impacts. In: Environmental Management, 5(5), pp. 427-440.
Jones, Christopher P. n.d. Deterioration and repair of timber and
concrete pilings. Florida Sea Grant College Program.
. 1984. Letter from Mr. Christopher P. Jones,
Coastal Engineering Specialist, University of Florida to Mr.
Bowman Crum, Jr., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta,
GA.
7-16
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
JRB Associates, Inc. 1981. Analysis of wastewater discharge from marine
sanitation devices. Final report. McLean, VA.
Kelch, W.J. et al. 1978. Modeling techniques for estimating fecal
coliforms in estuaries. Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation, May 1978. pp. 862. (Cited in USEPA, 1981).
Kelleher, Thomas F. 1964. Boats and marinas and their impact on water
pollution control. Presented at the Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin. Washington, D.C. 6 pp.
Kelly, C.B. and W. Arcisy. 1954. Survival of enteric organisms in
shellfish. Public Health Reports, Vol. 69, pp. 1205.
Kemp, M.G., M.R. Lewis, T.W. Jones, J.J. Cunningham, J.C. Stevenson and
W.R. Boynton. 1981. Measuring productivity of submerged aquatic
macrophytes: a comparison of methodologies. Chapter 4, In:
W.M. Kemp (Ed.) et al. Submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake
Bay. University of Maryland, Center for Environmental and
Estuarine Studies. Cambridge, MD.
Kempf, T. et al., 1967. Pollution of waters by motorized operations,
especially outboard motors. Report No. 26, Journal of the
Association for Water, Ground and Air Hygiene, Gustav Fischer Verlag
Stuttgart (Germany). (Cited in Jackivicz and Kuzminski, 1972).
Kendeigh, S.C. 1944. Measurement of bird populations. Ecological
Monographs, 14(1), 67-106.
Kennedy, Victor S. and Linda L. Breisch. 1981. Sixteen decades of
political management of the oyster fishery in Maryland's Chesapeake
Bay. In: Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 16, pp.
153-171."
Kibby, H.V., J.L. Gallagher and W.D. Sanville. 1980. Field guide to
evaluate net primary production of wetlands. EPA-600/8-80-037.
Environmental Research Laboratory. Office of Research and Develop-
ment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Con/all is, OR. 57 pp.
plus appendices.
Kidd, D.E. 1975. Bacterial contamination of Lake Powell waters: an
assessment of the problem. NTIS publication No. PB 261-682.
Kingston, S.P. 1943. Contamination of water supplies in limestone
formation. Journal of American Water Works Association, Vol. 35,
pp. 1450.
Kinsman, Blair, J.R. Schubel, George E. Carroll and Mary
Glackin-Sundell. 1979. A suggestion for anticipating alterations
in wave action on shores consequent upon changes in water depths in
harbors and coastal waters. Prepared for National Oceanic and
7-17
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atmospheric Administration, Office of Sea Grants. Rockville, MD.
72 pp.
Kline, Earl 0., Frank Petrusak and William Moore. 1977. Elite atti-
tudes towards the marshlands in South Carolina. Prepared for
U.S. Department of Commerce, South Carolina Sea Grant. Technical
Report Number 5. Unpaginated.
Klos, E.G. 1973. Toxic and corrosive effects of Wilcox-Crittenden's
permanent toilet deodorant. Graduate School of Oceanography,
University of Rhode Island. Narragansett, RI. Unpublished.
Krulitz, L.M. 1979. Keynote: federal legal background for mitigation.
In: The Mitigation Symposium: a national workshop on mitigating
losses of fish and wildlife habitats. July 16-20, 1979. Colorado
State University. General Technical Report RM-65. Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. pp. 19-26.
Kuzminski, L.N. and L.T. Mulcahy. 1974. A study of the fate of lead
emitted from two-cycle outboard motor subsurface exhausts. Progress
Report for the Division of Water Pollution Control, Massachusetts
Water Resources Commission. Report No. Env. E. 38-74-1. Boston,
MA. 37 pp. (Cited in Chmura and Ross, 1978).
Kuzminski, L.N. and 0. Fredette. 1974. The effects of outboard motor
subsurface exhausts on the growth characteristics of two common
freshwater algal species. Progress Report for the Division of
Water Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water Resources Commission.
Report No. Env. E. 41-74-5. Boston, MA. (Cited in Chmura and Ross,
1978).
Kuzminski, L.N., G.A. Lake and P.M. Sayer. 1974. The effects of out-
board motor subsurface exhausts on the sensory properties of
recipient water. Progress Report for the Division of Water
Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water Resources Commission.
Report No. Env. E. 41-74-4. Boston, MA. 37 pp. (Cited in Chmura
and Ross, 1978).
Kuzminski, L.N., T.P. Jackivicz, Jr. and D.A. Bancroft. 1973.
Identification and fate of organic compounds emitted from outboard
motor subsurface exhausts. Progress Report for the Division of
Water Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water Resources Commission.
Report No. Env. E. 31-73-2. Boston, MA. (Cited in Chmura and Ross,
1978).
Lagler, K.F., A.S. Hazard, W.E. Hazen and W.A. Tompkins. 1950. Outboard
motors in relation to fish behavior, fish production and angling
success. Transactions of the 15th Annual North American Wildlife
Conference, pp. 280-303. (Cited in Chmura and Ross, 1978).
7-18
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LaRoe, E.T. 1979. The biological basis for estuarine ecosystem mitiga-
tion. In: The Mitigation Symposium: a national workshop on miti-
gating Tosses of fish and wildlife habitats. July 16-20, 1979.
Colorado State University. General Technical Report RM-65. Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Co.
pp. 90-92.
Lawrence, David R. and Geoffrey I. Scott. 1982. The determination and
use of condition index of oysters. In: Estuaries, 5(1), pp. 23-27.
Leahy, Thomas M. (Ed.). 1979. Conference proceedings: marina and
boatyard operators in Florida. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Sea Grants. Florida Sea Grant Publication
No. 27. 53 pp.
Lehman, Lucille and Todd L. Walton. 1979. Florida coastal and
environmental information, a user's guide. Sponsored by the State
University System of Florida Sea Grant College Program. Pamphlet.
Leontief, Wassily. 1970. Environmental repercussions and the economic
structure: an input-output approach. In: Review of Economic
and Statistics, pp. 262-271. (Cited in Nissan and Williams, 1979).
Leopold, Luna B. 1968. Hydrology for urban land planning - a guidebook
on the hydro!ogic effects of urban land use. Geological Survey
Circular No. 554. Washington, D.C.
. 1969. Quantitative comparison of some aesthetic
factors among rivers. United States Geological Survey, Circular
620. Washington, D.C.
Leopold, Luna et al. 1971. A procedure for evaluating impact. United
States Geological Survey, Circular 645. Washington, D.C.
Lindall, W.N., Jr. et al. 1979. Estuarine habitat mitigation planning
in the Southeast. In: The Mitigation Symposium: a national work-
shop on mitigating^osses of fish and wildlife habitats. July
16-20, 1979. Colorado State University. General Technical Report
RM-65. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort
Collins, CO. pp. 129-135.
Linsley, K. and J.B. Franzini. 1979. Water-resources engineering (3rd
ed.). McGraw-Hill. 716 pp.
Little, Edward J. and J.A. Quick, Jr. 1976. Ecology, resource rehabili-
tation, and funga] parasitology of commercial oysters, Crassostrea
virginica (Gmelin), in Pensacola Estuary, Florida. Prepared for
Florida Department of Natural Resources. Florida Marine Research
Publication No. 21.
7-19
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Litton, R.B., Jr., R.J. Tetlow, J. Sorenson and R.A. Beatty. 1974.
Water and landscape: an aesthetic overview of the role of water
in the landscape. Water Information Center, Inc., Port Washington,
NY.
Livingston, R.J., R.S. Lloyd and M.S. Zimmerman. 1976. Determination of
sampling strategy for benthic macrophytes in polluted and unpol-
luted coastal areas. Bulletin of Marine Science, 26(4)-.569-575.
London, James B., John S. Fisher, Gary A. Zarillo et al. 1981. A study
of shore erosion management issues and options in South Carolina.
The South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium. 246 pp.
Loosanoff, V.L. 1965. The American or eastern oyster. Circ. Bur.
Comml. Fish., Washington 205, 1-36. (Cited in Carstea et al.,
1975).
McHarg, I.L. 1969. Design with nature. Doubleday Press, Inc., Garden
City, NJ.
McRoy, C.P. and C. Helfferich (Eds.). 1977. Seagrass ecosystems - a
scientific perspective. Marcel Dekker, NY.
Mack, W.N. 1971. Pollution of a marina area by watercraft use as
indicated by coliform and chemical concentrations. NTIS publication
No. PB 200-622.
Mack, Walter N. and Frank D'ltri. 1973. Pollution of a marina area by
water craft use. In: Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 45(1), pp. 97-104.
Mailman, W.L. and W.N. Mack. 1961. Biological contamination of ground-
water. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public
Health Service Technical Report W61.5.
Maloney, Frank E. and Anthony J. O'Donnell, Jr. 1978. Drawing the line
at the oceanfront. University of Florida Law Review. Volume XXX.
pp. 383-403.
Maloney, Frank E., Bram D. Canter and Richard G. Hamann. 1980a. Legal
aspects of recreational marina siting in Florida. Prepared by
University of Florida College of Law for the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Office of the Sea Grants. Florida Sea Grant College
Report No. 36. Gainesville, FL. 69 pp. plus appendices.
Maloney, Frank E., Richard G. Hamann and Bram D.E. Canter. 1980b.
Stormwater runoff control: a model ordinance for meeting local
water quality management needs. In: Natural Resources Journal,
20, pp. 713-764.
7-20
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Marcus, J.M. and G.R. Swearingen. 1983. A water quality assessment of
selected coastal marinas, Beaufort County, South Carolina. Prepared
for South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Columbia, SC.
Marshall, A.R. 1967. Dredging and filling. In:
Marsh and Estuary Management Symposium. T.J.
Baton Rouge, LA. pp. 107-113.
J.D. Newsom (Ed.),
Moran's Sons, Inc.
Marshall, Howard, Ph.D. 1984. Howard P. Marshall, USEPA, Region IV,
Coastal Marina Assessment comments (letter) to W. Bowman Crum,
NEPA Compliance Section, USEPA Region IV.
Mathis, B.J. and N.R. Kevern. 1975.
lead and thallium in a eutrophic
pp. 207-222.
Distribution of mercury, cadmium,
lake. In: Hydrobiologia 46(203),
May, Edwin B. 1972. The effect of floodwater on oysters in Mobile Bay.
In: Proceedings of the National Shellfisheries Association, Volume
62. Dauphin Island, AL. pp. 67-71.
. 1974. Effects on water quality when dredging a polluted
harbor using confined spoil disposal. In: Alabama Marine Resources
Bulletin, 10(1). (Cited in Windom, 1976).
May, Edwin B. and Donald G. Bland. 1969. Survival of young oysters in
areas of different salinity in Mobile Bay. In_: Proceedings of
23rd Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Game and
Fish Commissioners, pp. 519-521.
May, T.W. and G.L. McKinney. 1981. Cadmium, lead, mercury, arsenic,
and selenium concentrations in freshwater fish, 1976-77 - National
Pesticide Monitoring Program. In: Pesticides Monitoring Journal,
15(1), pp. 14-38.
Mechalas, Byron J., K.K. Hekimian, L.A. Schinazi and R.H. Dudley.
1972. An investigation into recreational water quality. Water
Quality Criteria Data Book, Vol. 4. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C.
Mehta, A.J., J. Weckmann and B.A. Christensen. 1981. Sediment manage-
ment in coastal marinas: a case study. In: 1981 International
Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Sediment Control.
University of Kentucky. Lexington, KY. 8 pp.
Menzel, N.C., N.C. Hulings and R.R. Hathaway. 1966. Oyster abundance
in Appalachicola Bay, Florida in relation to biotic associations
influenced by salinity and other factors. In: Gulf Research
Reports, 2(2), pp. 73-96.
7-21
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mercer, James W. and Charles R. Faust. 1981. Groundwater modeling.
GeoTrans, Inc. Reston, VA.
Merritt, F.S. 1976. Standard handbook for civil engineers (2nd ed.).
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Metcalf, T.G. and W.C. Stiles. 1968. Viral pollution of shellfish in
estuary waters. Journal of Sanitary Engineering Division, Pro-
ceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 94, pp. 595.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1971. Engineering study and
recommendations for mechanical and electrical services at mooring
facilities and launching ramps in the state of Michigan. Prepared
by Consulting Engineering Associates, Inc. for the Waterways
Division, DNR. Detroit, MI. 31 pp.
Mi Ion, J. Walter, Gary Wilkowske and George L. Brinkman. 1983.
Financial structure and performance of Florida's recreational
marinas and boatyards. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Sea Grants. Florida Sea Grant Publication
No. 53. 70 pp.
Mississippi Department of Natural Resources. 1982. Water quality cri-
teria for intrastate, interstate and coastal waters. Bureau of
Pollution Control, Jackson, MS. 15 pp.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation. n.d. Final staff
comments and recommendations, coastal wetlands use plan revision,
Terry-Windjammer Marina generic change: final project evaluation
and staff findings and sample of actual joint application and
notification for proposed activities in waters of U.S. and
Mississippi. Bureau of Marine Resources.
. 1980. Mississippi
coastal program and final environmental impact statement. Bureau of
Marine Resources and U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal
Zone Management. August 1980.
Monkmeyer, P.L. 1983. Coastal engineering: some design considerations
for marinas and harbors. Presented at the Marinas and Docks
Conference. University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI. 14 pp.
Montgomery, R.L. and F.H. Griffis, Jr. 1973. The Corps of Engineers
dredged material reserach program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 45 pp.
Moore, S.F. and R.L. Dwyer. 1974. Effects of oil on marine organisms:
a critical assessment of published data. In: Water Resources, Vol.
8, pp. 819-827. (Cited in Dawson et a "I., 1979).
7-22
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Morris, R. 1960.
of Entomology,
Sampling insect
5:243-264.
populations. In: Annual Review
Moss, Mitchell L. 1976. The management of urban coastal resources.
New York Sea Grant Institute, State University of New York. Albany,
NY. 4 pp.
Mulvihill, E.L., C.A. Francisco, J.B. Glad et al. 1980. Biological
impacts of minor shoreline structures on the coastal environment:
state of the art review. Volumes I and II. Prepared for Fish and
Wildlife Services, U.S. Department of the Interior. - Washington,
D.C. 156 pp.
Muratori, A., Jr. 1968. How outboards contribute to water pollution.
_I_n: The Conservationist, 6:6(1968). (Cited in Jackiwicz and
Kuzininski, 1973).
Muretta, Peri and Willard Price. 1982. Environmental mitigation of
dredge and fill projects: a case study of Coos Bay/North Bend,
Oregon. In: Coastal Zone Management Journal, 10(3), pp. 233-254.
Mysels, K.J. 1960. Introduction to colloid chemistry.
Publisher, New York, NY. (Cited in USEPA, 1982).
Interscience
/
NAS (National Academy of Science). 1980. The international mussel
watch. Report of a workshop sponsored by the Environmental
Studies Board, Commission on Natural Resources, National Research
Council, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C. 248 pp.
NEAI (Newspaper Enterprise Association,
1985. NEA, New York. 928 pp.
Inc.) 1985. The world almanac
NESP (National Environmental Studies Project). 1975. Environmental
impact monitoring of nuclear power plants source book of monitoring
methods. Volumes I and II. Prepared by Battelle-Pacific Northwest
Laboratories and Columbus Laboratories for the Atomic Industrial
Forum, Inc. 918 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1983. Guidelines for proposed
wetland alterations in the southeast region of the U.S. National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Washington, D.C. 13 pp.
. Unpublished. Fishery statistics of
1977-1982. Prepared by the Resource Statistics
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanographic
Administration, Statistical Digest No. 70.
the United States,
Division, National
and Atmospheric
Washington, D.C.
7-23
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
National Marine Manufacturers Association. 1983. Boating 1982, a
statistical report on America's top family sport. Prepared by
the Marketing Services Department, National Marine Manufacturers
Association. New York, NY. 8 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1976. Coastal facility
guidelines. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office
of Coastal Zone Management. 96 pp.
National Shellfish Sanitation Program. 1965. National Shellfish Sani-
tation Program manual of operations: Part I, sanitation of shell-
fish growing areas. U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection,
Shellfish Sanitation Branch. Washington, D.C. 32 pp.
Nelson, Robert G. and William E. Hardy. 1980. The economic and
environmental structure of Alabama's coastal region, Part I:
economic structure. Prepared by Auburn University for the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Office of Sea Grants and the Mississippi-
Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. 126 pp.
Nelson Robert G., W.E. Hardy, Jr. and J.B. Flynn. 1980. The economic
and environmental structure of Alabama's coastal region, part II:
environmental structure. Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium.
Auburn University. 45 pp.
Nissan, Edward and D.C. Williams, Jr. 1979. A decision model for the
trade-off between the benefits of economic growth and its environ-
mental cost. Prepared by the University of Southern Mississippi for
the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Sea Grants and the
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. MASGP-79-031. 16 pp.
. 1980. Linkages between the
economy and the environment of the coastal zone of Mississippi,
part III: semi-technical summary. Prepared by the University of
Southern Mississippi for the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of
Sea Grants and Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium.
MASGP-79-014/MASGP-79-013. 15 pp.
Nissan, Edward, D.C. Williams, Jr. and Trellis Green. 1980. Linkages
between the economy and the environment of the coastal zone of
Mississippi, part III. Prepared by the University of Southern
Mississippi for the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Sea
Grants and the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. 77 pp.
Nissan, Edward, D.C. Williams, Jr., Bill M. Brister et al. 1980.
Waste disposal inventory for Mississippi-Alabama coastal counties.
Prepared by University of Southern Mississippi and Auburn University
for the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Sea Grants and the
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. 29 pp.
7-24
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Nixon, S.W., C.A. Oviatt and S.L. Northby. 1973. Ecology of small
boat marinas. University of Rhode Island Marine Technical Report
No. 5. Kingston, RI. 20 pp.
North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources. 1979.
North Carolina Adminstratiye Code. Chapter 2 Environmental Manage-
ment. Subchapter 2B Sections .0100, Procedures for assignment of
water quality standards and .0200 Classifications applicable to
surface waters of North Carolina. Environmental Management Com-
mission. Raleigh, NC. pp. 2-12 through 2-37.
s . 1983.
North Carolina Administrative Code.Feb.1983.Subchapter 7H
State guidelines for areas of environmental concern. Sections
.0100-.1000. pp. 7-1 to 7-59.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
1983. Application, supporting paperwork and final deposition on a
recent marina project. Office of Coastal Management.
North Carolina Session Laws. 1981. Article 7, coastal area management
(North Carolina), pp. 113A-100-113A-127.
O'Connor, J.D. and W.E. Dobbins. 1958. Mechanisms of reaeration in
natural streams. Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Engrs., 123(1958):655 as
cited in Clark, J.W., W. Viessman, Jr. and M.J. Hammer, Water Supply
and Pollution Control (3rd ed.), New York, 1977. pp. 297.
OCZM. 1976. (see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
1976).
Odum, Eguene P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology (3rd ed.). W.B.
Saunders Company. Philadelphia, PA. 574 pp.
Odum, H.T., B.J. Cope!and and E.A. McMahan (Eds.). 1974. Coastal eco-
logical systems of the United States. Volumes I, II, III and IV.
Prepared for the Conservation Foundation. Washington, D.C.
Odum, W.E., C.C. Mclvor and T.J. Smith, III. 1982. The ecology of the
mangroves of south Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.
FWS/OBS-81/24. 144 pp.
Ohmann, L.F. 1973. Vegetation data collection in temperate forest
research natural areas. North Center Forest Experiment Station.
St. Paul, MN. 35 pp.
Olmstead, Roger 0. 1980. Letters from Roger 0. Olmstead, Program
Manager, Shellfish Sanitation, U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Atlanta, GA to six coastal states USFDA, Region IV, regarding
policy on marinas. 15 January 1980.
7-25
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. 1982. Letter from Roger 0. Olmstead, Program
Manager, Shellfish Sanitation, USFDA, Atlanta, GA to J. David Clem,
Chief, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, regarding federal regulations-
marine sanitation devices. 1 December 1982. 3 pp.
01 sen, John D. and Sherman Burd. 1982. Marina utilities and codes. In:
Goodwin, R.F (Ed.), Boating and moorage in the 1980's. Proceedings
of a workshop. Seattle, WA. pp. 88-95.
Packard, J.M. 1981. Abundance, distribution, and feeding habits of
manatees (Trichechus manatus) wintering between St. Lucie and
Palm Beach Inlets, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contract
No. 14-16-0004-80-105. University of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. 142
pp.
Pan, Y.H., J.L. Bricker, T.L. Stephens and R.H. Patton. 1982. Chemical
analysis of shellfish tissue from ambient water quality monitoring
stations: annual report. Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Tallahassee, FL. 21 pp.
Panuzio, F.L. 1963. Proceedings of the Federal Inter-Agency Sedimen-
tation Conference. Miscellaneous Paper No. 970. Agricultural
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
(Cited in Carstea et al., 1975).
Parkinson, D., T.R.G. Gray and S.T. Williams. 1971. Methods for study-
ing the ecology of soil microorganisms. Oxford, Blackwell Scienti-
fic Publications, IBP Handbook No. 19. 127 pp.
Parnell, J.F. and R.F. Soots, Jr. 1979. Atlas of colonial waterbirds
of North Carolina estuaries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Sea Grants. Sea Grant Publication
UNC-SG-78-10. University of North Carolina at Wilmington. 269 pp.
Patriquin, D.G. 1973. Estimation of growth rate, production and age of
the marine angiosperm Thalassis testudinum Konig. Caribbean Jour-
nal of Science. 13(1-2]:111-123.
Patterson, J.W., R.A. Minear and T.K. Nedued. 1971. Septic tanks and
the environment. State of Illinois, Institute for Environmental
Quality.
Pearson, Walter H. and Bori L. Olla. 1980. Threshold for detection
of naphthalene and other behavioral reponses by the blue crab,
Callinectes sapidus. Jjn: Estuaries, 3(3), pp. 224-229.
Peltier, W. 1978. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of efflu-
ents to aquatic organisms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory. EPA-600/4-78-012.
Cincinnati, OH.
7-26
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Penhale, P.A. 1975. Primary production of eelgrass, Zostera marina,
and its epiphytes in the Newport River Estuary. Pages 184-101 In:
Annual Report to the Energy Research and Development Administration.
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Beaufort, NC.
Pequegnat, W.E., L.H. Pequegnat, B.M. James, E.A. Kennedy, R.R. Fay and
A.D. Fredericks. 1981. Procedural guide for designation surveys
of ocean dredge material disposal sites. Prepared by TerEco Corp.
for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 311 pp.
Pessoney, George F., Ill, Charles R. Brent, Billy J. Grantham et al.
1975. A report on Mississippi - Alabama Sea Grant January 1,
1974-June 30, 1975. Prepared for the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium.
Peterson, P.G. and E.E. Gross, Jr. 1974. Handbook of noise measurement.
General Radio. Concord, MA. 322 pp.
Phillips, E.A. 1959. Methods of vegetation study. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc. New York, NY. 107 pp.
Phillips, R.C. 1960. Observations on the ecology and distribution of
the Florida seagrasses. Professional Papers Series, Florida Board
of Conservation, 2:1-72.
Phillips, R.C. and C.P. McRoy (Eds.). 1979. Handbook of seagrass
biology. Garland STMP Press, New York, NY.
Phillips, Ronald C. 1980a. Creation of seagrass beds. In: Lewis,
James C. and E.W. Bunce (Eds.), Rehabilitation and creation of
selected coastal habitats. Proceedings of a workshop. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-80/27. Washington, D.C. 162 pp.
. 1980b. Responses of transplanted and indigenous
Thalassia testudinum Konig banks and Halodule Wrightii Aschus to
sediment loading and cold stress. In: Marine Science, Vol.
23, pp. 83-86.
Phillipson, J. (Ed.). 1970. Methods of study in soil ecology. Educa-
tional, scientific and cultural organization, UNESCO, Paris.
Series No. 2. 303 pp.
Pineros, Joaquin. 1981. Bubble screens to control marine's environ-
mental impact. Abstract of thesis presented to the graduate council
of the University of Florida. Florida Sea Grant College.
Pish, R.H., C.R. Sparks, M.F. Ajax, M.E. Brown and D.R. Saathoff. 1977.
Handbook for noise control at gas pipeline facilities. Project
PR-15-65. Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Asso-
ciation.
7-27
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Plumb, R.H., Jr. 1981. Procedure for handling and chemical analysis
of sediment and water samples. Technical Report EPA/CE-81-1.
Prepared by Great Lakes Laboratory, State University College at
Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the Corps of Engineers Technical Committee on Criteria
for Dredged and Fill Material. Vicksburg, MS.
Polkowski, L.B. and W.C. Boyle. 1970. Groundwater quality adjacent
to septic tank soil absorption system. Report to the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
Prochaska, Fred J. and R. Allen Morris. 1978. Primary economic impact
of the Florida commercial fishing sector. Prepared for the Florida
Sea Grant Program. University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. 56 pp.
Quinn, A.D. 1972. Design and construction of ports and marina struc-
tures. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Race, Margaret Seluk and Donna R. Christie. 1982. Coastal zone develop-
ment: mitigation, marsh creation, and decision-making. In:
Environmental Management, 6(4), pp. 317-328.
Rao, P.V., J.J. Einerson, J.A. Einerson and A.J. Mehta. 1980. A survey
of small-craft recreational marinas in Florida. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Sea Grants. Florida Sea
Grant Technical Paper No. 18. 41 pp.
Rappoport, A. 1979. The mitigation problem: a background review for
the Mitigation Symposium. In: The Mitigation Symposium: a
national workshop on mitigating losses of fish and wildlife
habitats. July 16-20, 1979. Colorado State University. General
Technical Report RM-65. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. Fort Collins, CO. pp. 1-5.
G.H., R>E. Sweeney, I.R. Kaplan et al. 1981. Differences in
animal 13C, N and D abundance between a polluted and an unpolluted
Rau,
animal
coastal site: likely indicators of sewage uptake by a marine food
web. In: Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 1981, 13, pp.
701-707.
Reimold, Robert J., Michael A. Hardisky and Patrick C. Adams. 1978.
The effects of smothering a Spartina alterniflora salt marsh with
dredged material. Prepared by University of Georgia for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Vicksburg, MS. 114 pp.
Reynolds, J.E. 1981. Behavior patterns in the West Indian manatee,
with emphasis on feeding and diving. In: Florida Scientist, 44(4),
pp. 233-242.
7-28
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Richardson, Michael D., A.G. Carey, Jr. and W.A. Colgate. 1978. Aquatic
disposal field investigations Columbia River disposal site, Oregon,
Appendix C: the effects of dredged material disposal on benthic
assemblages. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Environmental Effects Laboratory. Technical Report D-77-30.
Washington, D.C. 411 p. '
Ritchie, Theodore P. 1977. A comprehensive review of the commerical
clam industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Services.
Washington, D.C. 106 pp.
Robeck, Gordon G., T.W. Bendixen, W.A. Schwartz et al. 1963. Factors
influencing the design and operation of soil systems for waste
treatment. In: Journal Water Pollution Control Federation:36(8).
pp. 971.
Rogers, Golden and Hal pern. 1982. Developing a marina in New Jersey:
a handbook. Prepared for New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Coastal Resources.
Rogers, Spencer M., Jr. and Leon E. Abbas. 1982. Availability and use
of pump-out facilities in North Carolina: a survey of marinas.
UNC Sea Grant College Publication UNC - SG-WP-82-1. UNC Sea Grant
Marine Advisory Service, North Carolina State University. Raleigh,
NC. 9 pp.
Rood, Marsha V. and Robert Warren.
and developing Marina Del Rey.
Sea Grant Program (USC-SG-5-74).
1974. The urban marina: managing
University of Southern California
124 pp.
Rosenburg, Rutger. 1977. Effects of dredging operations on estuarine
benthic macrofauna. Swedish Water and Air Pollution Research
Laboratory. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 3 pp.
Ross, N.W. 1976. Marinas: the environmental impact. In: Proceedings
of the Ninth National Conference on Access to Recreational Waters,
1975. Outboard Boating Club of America, Chicago, IL. (Cited in
Chmura and Ross, 1978).
Rounds, George. 1983. Remarks to marina
to the Marinas and Docks Conference.
Madison, WI. 9 pp.
docks symposium,
University of
Presented
Wisconsin.
Roy Mann Associates, Inc. 1975. Aesthetic resources of the coastal
zone. Prepared for the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Cambridge, MA. 199 pp.
7-29
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY-
Santos, S.L. and J.L. Simon. 1980a. Marine soft-bottom community
establishment following annual defaunation: larval or adult
recruitment? University of South Florida. Tampa, FL. 7 pp.
. 1980b. Response of soft-bottom benthos to
annual catastrophic disturbance in a South Florida estuary.
University of South Florida. Tampa, FL. 9 pp.
Santos, S.L. and Stephen A. Bloom. 1980. Stability in an annually
defaunated estuarine soft-bottom community. In: Oecologia (Berl),
Vol. 46, pp. 290-294.
Sargent, Frederic 0. 1967. Scenery classifications. Vermont Resources
Research Center, Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station. Report
18.
Schoenbaum, Thomas J. and Kenneth G. Silliman. 1976. Coastal planning:
the designation and management of areas of critical environmental
concern. Prepared by University of North Carolina Sea Grant College
for Office of Sea Grants, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Raleigh, NC. 25 pp.
Schroeder, W.L. et al. 1977. Dredging in estuaries, a guide for
review of environmental impact statements. National Science
Foundation. Washington, D.C. 89 pp.
Scott, C.H., V.W. Norman and F.K. Fields. 1969. Reduction of fluores-
cence of two tracer dyes by contact with a fine sediment. U.S.
Sediment Survey Professional Paper 650-B, pp. B164-B168.
Scott, G.I. and D.P. Middaugh. 1978. Seasonal chronic toxicity of
chlorination to the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica. In:
Ann Arbor Science Publ. Inc., Water Chlorination: Vol. 2,
Environmental Impact and Health Effects. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
pp. 311-328.
Scott, G.I. and D.R. Lawrence. 1982. The American oyster as a coastal
zone pollution monitor: a pilot study. In: Estuaries, 5(1),
40-46.
Scott, G.I. and W.B. Vernberg. 1979. Co-occurring chlorine produced
oxidants in seawater and their effect on the growth, survival, and
physiology of the American oyster, Crassostrea Virginia (Gmelin).
Evidence for synergistic effects with seasonal temperature stress.
In: W.B. Vernberg, F. Thurberg, A. Calabreese, and F.J. Vernberg
Teds.), Marine Pollution: Functional Responses. Academic Press.
New York, NY. pp. 415-435.
7-30
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Seabloom, R.W. 1969. Bacteriological effect of small boat wastes on
small harbors. College of Engineering, University of Washington.
Seattle, WA. (Cited in USEPA, 1981).
Seliger, H.H., J.A. Boggs, R.B. Rivkin et al. 1982. The transport of
oyster larvae in an estuary. In: Marine Biology, Vol. 71, pp.
57-72. ~
Service, J. 1972. A user's guide to the statistical analysis system.
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. (Cited in Stiven
and Plotecia, 1976).
Shafer, E.L., Jr. and T. Mietz. 1970. It seems possible to quantify
scenic beauty in photographs. United States Department of Agri-
culture, Forest Service Research Paper NE-162. Northeastern
Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, PA.
Shell, W.E. and John R. Kelley, Jr. 1968. Final report, anadromous fish
project. Prepared for the Alabama Department of Conservation.
Montgomery, AL. 19 pp.
Sherk, J.A., Jr., J.M. O'Conner and D.A. Neumann. 1976. Effects of
suspended solids on selected estuarine plankton. Miscellaneous
report No. 76-1. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Coastal Engineering Research Center. Fort Belvoir, VA. 50 pp.
Shiver, R.S. and L.A. Register. 1978. The influence of the water table
aquifer on shellfish waters near Surf City and Old Settler's Beach
in Render and Onslow Counties, North Carolina. Report of
Investigation No. 12, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Groundwater Section. Wilmington, NC.
(Cited in USEPA, 1983).
Shuba, Peter J., Joe H. Carroll and Karon L. Wong. 1977. Biological
assessment of the soluble fraction of the standard elutriate test.
Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 114 pp.
Sieburth, J. M. and J.T. Conover. 1965. Sargassum tannin, an anti-
biotic which retards fouling. In: Nature, Vol. 208, pp. 52-53.
(Cited in Nixon et al., 1973).
Smith, B.S. 1981. Reproductive anomalies in stenoglossan snails
Nassarius obsoletus related to pollution from marinas. In: Journal
of Applied Toxicology, 1(1), p. 15-21.
Smith, Hanley K. 1980. Coastal habitat development in the dredged
material research program. In: J.C. Lewis and E.N. Bunce (Eds.),
Rehabilitation and creation deselected coastal habitats. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-80/27. 162 pp.
7-31
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Smith, Robert 6., Jr. and Herbert L. Windom. 1972. Analytical handbook
for the determination of arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, iron,
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc in the marine and
estuarine environments. Georgia Sea Grant Program, Technical Report
72-6.
Smith, Robert J. 1983. Governmental permit requirements for docks and
marinas. Presented at Marinas and Docks Conference. University of
Wisconsin. Madison, WI. 19 pp.
Smith, Roland F., A.H. Swartz and W.H. Massmann (Eds.) 1966. A
symposium on estuarine fisheries. American Fisheries Society
Publication No. 3. Allen Press. Lawrence, KM. 154 pp.
Sobsey, Mark D., Cameron R. Hackney, Robert J. Carrick et al. 1980.
Occurrence of enteric bacteria and viruses in oysters. In:
Journal of Food Protection, 43(2), pp. 111-113.
Soil Conservation Service. 1972. National engineering handbook, section
4, hydrology. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
pp. discontinuous.
Soil Survey Staff. 1951. Soil survey manual. United States Department
of Agriculture Handbook No. 18. 503 pp.
Soil Survey Staff. 1960. Soil classification; a comprehensive system,
7th approximation. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. 265 pp.
Solomon, R.C. et al. 1977. Water resources assessment methodology
(WRAM)—impact assessment and alternative evaluation. Technical
Report Y-77-1. Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, MS.
Soule, Dorothy F. and Mi lei hiko Oquri (Eds.). 1976. Marine studies
of San Pedro Bay, California, part 12, bioenhancement studies of
the receiving waters in outer Los Angeles Harbor. University of
Southern California. Los Angeles, CA. 279 pp.
SCCC (South Carolina Coastal Council). 1981. Permitting rules and
regulations. Chapter 30 Sections 48-39-10 to 48-39-230. Code of
Laws of South Carolina. 49 pp.
. 1981. Rules and regulations for
permitting in critical areas of the coastal zone. Charleston,
SC. 49 pp.
_ 1983. Guidelines for development of
marina operations and maintenance plans. Prepared by Environmental
Science and Engineering, Inc. Gainesville, FL.
7-32
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control).
1981. Procedures and quality control manual for chemistry
laboratories. SC Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Columbia, SC.
1981-1983.Samples of marina permit applications/responses.Bureau
of Water Pollution Control. Columbia, SC.
. 1981.
Water classification standards sytem for the state of South
Carolina. July 1981. Regulation 61-68. 16 pp.
SCDHHS (South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services). 1982.
Hydrographic studies of the Kiawah River, South Carolina. Staff
Engineers, NE Technical Services Unit, HFH-410.
Southwood, T. et al. 1966. Ecological methods. Methuen and Company,
Ltd., London, England. 391 pp.
Spencer, Sam L., Wayne E. Swingle and Thomas M. Scott, Jr. n.d.
Commercial fishing in the Mobile Delta, Alabama during the period
of July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964. Prepared for the Alabama Depart-
ment of Conservation and the Alabama Water Improvement Commission.
States, J.B., P.T. Haug, T.G. Shoemaker, L.W. Reed and E.B. Reed. 1978.
A systems approach to ecological baseline studies. Prepared by
Ecology Consultants, Inc. for Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-78/21.
Stern, Edward M. and William B. Stickle. 1978. Effects of turbidity
and suspended material in aquatic environments. Prepared for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg,
MS. 97 pp.
Stevely, John and Larry Rabinowitz. 1982. Mangroves, a guide for plant-
ing and maintenance. Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program, University
of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Stickney, Robert R. 1972. Effects of intracoastal waterway dredging on
ichthyofauna and benthic macroinvertebrates. Unpublished
manuscript. Skidaway Institute of Oceanography. Savannah, GA.
27 pp. plus tables.
Stiven, Alan E. and Raymond K. Plotecia. 1976. Salt marsh primary
productivity estimates for North Carolina coastal counties: projec-
tions from a regression model. Prepared by University of North
Carolina Sea Grant College for Office of Sea Grants, National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Raleigh, NC. 17 pp.
7-33
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Stoneburner, D.L. 1982. Satellite telemetry of loggerhead sea turtle
movement in the Georgia bight. In: Copeia, 1982(2), pp. 400-408.
Stroud, Richard H. (Ed.) 1982. Marine recreational fisheries.
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Marine Recreational Fisheries
Symposium. Sport Fishing Institute. Washington, D.C. 180 pp.
Suher, Thomas and Keith Hennessee. 1974. State and federal jurisdic-
tional conflicts in the regulation of United States coastal waters.
Prepared by University of North Carolina Sea Grant Program for
Office of Sea Grants, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Raleigh, NC. 75 pp.
Sverdrup, H.U. and
relations for
tion No. 601.
W.H. Munk. 1947. Wind, sea and swell; theory of
forecasting. U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office Publica-
44 pp. (Cited in Zabawa and Ostrom, 1980).
Swanson, Gustav A. 1979. The mitigation symposium: a national workshop
on mitigating losses of fish and wildlife habitats. Prepared for
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 684 pp.
Swingle, Wayne and Dave Kelley. 1969. Annual progress report-anadromous
fish project. Prepared for the Alabama Department of Conservation
Montgomery, AL. 18 pp.
Swingle, Wayne E.,
Statistics on
period of July
Department of
Commission.
Sam L. Spencer and Thomas M. Scott, Jr. n.d.
the sport fishery of the Mobile Delta during the
1, 1963 to June 30, 1964. Prepared for the Alabama
Conservation and the Alabama Water Improvement
Symonds, P.J. 1979. Equity in coastal access: income and spatial
effects on the benefits of a new boat harbor in metropolitan
Los Angeles. In: Coastal Zone Management Journal, 5:1/2,
. 0090-8339/79/0101-0083.
Szmedra, Philip Isak. 1981. Development feasibility for dry stack boat
storage facilities on the Georgia coast. Thesis submitted to
University of Georgia. Athens, GA. not paginated.
Taber, D. and
animals, j^. ,,..,.
Society, Washington
I. McTaggart-Cowen. 1971. Capturing and marking wild
In: R.H. Giles, Jr. (Ed.), 3rd Edition. The Wildlife
n'not.nn. D.C. 633 nn.
PP.
Talbert, O.R.,
activity
Carolina,
S.E. Stancyk, J.M. Dean and J.M. Will. 1980. Nesting
of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in South
I: a rookery in transition. Copeia, 4:709-718.
7-34
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Taylor, Cynthia
36, No. 2.
(Ed.). 1983a. Waterway guide, Mid-Atlantic '83.
Published by Boating Industry Magazine. 354 pp.
Vol
. 1983b. Waterway guide, southern edition '83.
Vol. 36, No. 1.Published by Boating Industry Magazine. 480 pp.
Taylor, John L. 1973. Biological studies and inventory for the Tampa
Harbor, Florida project. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Jacksonville, FL. 101 pp. plus appendices.
Taylor, John L. and Carl H. Saloman. 1968. Some effects of hydraulic
dredging and coastal development in Boca Ciega Bay, Florida.
Fishery Bulletin, Vol. 67, No. 2.
Teas, Howard J. 1980. Mangrove swamp creation. In: Lewis, James C.
and E.W. Bunce (Eds.), Rehabilitation and creation of selected
coastal habitats. Proceedings of a workshop. U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service. FWS/OBS-80/27. Washington, D.C. 162 pp.
Terrell, C.R. and L.R. Shanks. 1979. Coastal impact mitigation and
OCS-induced oil and gas development: a perspective of the Clean
Water Act's Section 404 guidelines. In: The Mitigation Symposium:
a national workshop on mitigating Tosses of fish and wildlife
habitats. July 16-20, 1979. Colorado State University. General
Technical Report RM-65. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. Fort Collins, CO. pp. 270-275.
Thomas, L. et al. 1975. Guidelines for the environmental impact
assessment of small structures and related activities in coastal
bodies of water. Mitre Technical Report MTR 6916, Mitre Corp.
McLean, VA.
Thompson, M.J. 1976. Photomapping and species composition of the
seagrass beds in Florida's Indian River estuary. Harbor Branch
Foundation Technical Report No. 10. 34 pp.
Thorhaug, Anitra. 1980. Techniques for creating sea grass meadows in
damaged areas along the east coast of the U.S.A. In: Lewis, James
C. and E.W. Bunce (Eds.), Rehabilitation and creation of selected
coastal habitats. Proceedings of a workshop. U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service. FWS/OBS-80/27. Washington, D.C. 162 pp.
. 1981. Seagrasses in the Gulf of Mexico, Florida and
Caribbean, including restoration and mitigation of seagrasses.
In: Carey, R.C. et al. (Eds.), Proceedings U.S. Fish and Wildlife
"Service Workshop on Coastal Ecosystems of the Southeastern United
States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-80/59.
Washington, D.C. 257 pp.
7-35
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Tilmant, James T. 1981. Recreational
populations. In: Carey, R.C. et
Fish and Wildlife Service Workshop
Southeastern United States. U.S.
FWS/OBS-80/59. Washington, D.C. 257
impacts on coral reef fish
al. (Eds.), Proceedings U.S.
on Coastal Ecosystems of the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
pp.
Udell, Harold
F.
cruisers and
Workshop.
1956. Pollution problem created by waste from cabin
other shipping. National Shellfish Sanitation
wastes
Health.
. 1957-1963.
discharges by small
United Nations. 1982a. Coastal area management
Nations Department of International Economic
Ocean Economics and Technology Branch.
NY. 188 pp.
Pollution effect on marine waters from
boats. New York State Department of
and
development. United
and Social Affairs,
Pergamon Press, Elmsford,
. 1982b. Waste discharge into the marine environment:
principles and guidelines for the Mediterranean action plan. World
Health Organization and UN Environmental Program. Pergamon Press,
Oxford. 422 pp.
U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1977. Shore protection
manual, vols. 1, 2 and 3 (3rd ed.). Fort Belvoir, VA.
USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), n.d. Alternatives to vertical
bulkheads for shoreline protection. Brochure prepared by USACOE,
Jacksonville District.
. n.d. General regulatory policies;
320). Code of Federal Regulations.
permit authority
Washington, D.C.
(33 CRF
pp. 641-652.
1973. Shore protection manual.
Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.
3 volumes.Coasta
(Cited in Zabawa and Os"trom, 1980).
navigable waters or
Washington, D.C. pp.
ocean
31320-31428.
. 1975. Permits for activities in
waters. Federal Register 40(144).
1975. Final environmental impact
and maintenance activites.
statement, Ontonagon Harbor operation
Ontonagon County, Michigan.
n__^__ 1976. Ecological evaluation of
proposeddischarge6?dredgedor fill material into navigable
waters: interim guidance for implementation of Section 404(b)(l) of
Public Law 92-500 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of
7-36
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1972). Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 33 pp. plus appen-
dices.
. 1977. Environmental con-
procedures (33 CFR Parts 307, 308,
Washington, D.C. pp.
siderations proposed policies and
309, 310). Federal Register 42(36).
10782-10804.
Engineers permit program:
the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers.
pp.
. 1977. U.S. Army Corps of
a guide for applicants. Department of
Washington, D.C. 20
. 1978. Aquatic disposal field
investigations,EatonsNeckdisposal site, Long Island Sound.
Appendix B: water quality parameters and physiochemical sediment
parameters. Prepared by Marine Sciences Research Center. Stony
Brook, NY. Technical Report D-77-6. Washington, D.C. 322 pp.
_^__^ . 1978. Water Resources Council
(WRC); principles and standards,National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and related policies: guidelines for conducting feasibility
studies for water and related land resources; final rules (33 CFR
Parts 290, 291). Federal Register 43(135). Washington, D.C. pp.
30222-30231.
1979. Environmental quality:
implementing NEPA (33 CFR Part 230). Preliminary. Federal Register
44(127). Washington, D.C. pp. 38292-38316.
1980.
statement for four exploratory/appraisal
Bay, Alabama. Permit application by Mobil
Mobile District. 181 pp. plus appendices.
Wilmington, NC District. 5 pp.
Final environmental impact
hydrocarbon wells, Mobile
Oil Corporation. USACOE,
1981a. General permit.
. 1981b. Environmental quality:
policy and procedures for implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA); Correction (33 CFR Part 230). Federal Register
46(40). Washington, D.C. pp. 14745-14746.
. 1982a. Engineering and design;
Federal Register 47(196). Washington,
water controlmanagement.
D.C. pp. 44543-44562.
7-37
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. 1982b. Environmental quality;
environmental effects of Army actions (32 CRF Part 651). Federal
Register 47(192). Department of Defense. Department of the Army.
Washington, D.C. pp. 43685-44562.
_ . 1982c. Final environmental
impactstatement,production of natural gas from the lower Mobile
Bay field, Alabama. Permit applications by Mobil Oil Exploration
and Producing Southeast, Inc. Mobile, AL.
. 1983. Joint guidelines on
criteria and design and evaluation of freshwater deadend canals.
Mobile, AL. 3 pp.
. 1983. Proposed revisions to
rules for dredge and fillpermits under section 404 of Clean Water
Act (48 FR 21466). Environment Reporter 14(3). Washington, D.C.
pp. 108-118.
U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Valley. 1980. A habitat
evaluation system (HES) for water resources planning. Vicksburg,
MS.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1969. Engineering field manual
for conservation practices. USDA, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1976. Coastal facilities guidelines; a
working paper. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Office of Coastal Zone Management. Washington, D.C. 50 pp. and
appendices.
1977a. A comprehensive review of the
commercialmusselindustries in the United States. Prepared for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, D.C. 133 pp.
. 1977b. A comprehensive review of the
commercial oyster industries in the United States. Prepared by
the National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, D.C. 63 pp.
1979. The Alabama coastal area management
programand"finalenvironmental impact statement. Prepared in
conjunction with the Alabama Coastal Area Board. 411 pp.
. 1981a. Proceedings of a symposium on
environmental research needs in the Gulf of Mexico, Volume I.
Prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and Environmental Research Laboratories.
Washington, D.C. 60 pp.
7-38
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. 1981b. Proceedings of a symposium on
environmental research needs in the Gulf of Mexico, Volume IIB.
Prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and Environmental Research Laboratories.
Washington, D.C. 259 pp.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1965. National
Shellfish Sanitation Program manual of operations, part 1,
sanitation of shellfish growing areas. Public Health Service,
Shellfish Sanitation Branch. Washington, D.C. 32 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1979a. The ecology of intertidal flats
of North Carolina: a community profile. Prepared for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Slide!!, LA. 73 pp.
. 1980a. Biological evaluation of
environmental impacts. Proceedings of a symposium at the 1976
meeting of the Ecological Society of America. Given in conjunction
with the Council on Environmental Quality and the Fish and Wildife
Service. U.S. Government Printing Office. 237 pp.
. 1980b. Ecological characterization of
the Sea Island coastal region of South Carolina and Georgia.
Volume I, physical features of the characterization area. Prepared
for the Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Washington, D.C. 212 pp.
. 1980c. Ecological characterization of
the Sea Island coastal region of South Carolina and Georgia. Volume
II, socioeconomic features of the characterization area. Prepared
for the Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Washington, D.C. 321 pp.
. 1980d. Ecological characterization of
the Sea Island coastal region of South Carolina and Georgia. Volume
III, biological features. Prepared for the Office of Biological
Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 620
pp.
. 1980e. Ecological characterization of
the Sea Island coastal region of South Carolina and Georgia,
executive summary. Prepared for the Coastal Ecosystems Project,
Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Washington, D.C. 51 pp.
. 1980f. Proceedings, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service workshop on coastal ecosystems of the southwestern
United States. Prepared by Montana State University for U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
7-39
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973a. Biological field and
laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and
effluents. EPA-670/4-73-001. Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH. Variously
paginated.
. 1973b. Public health and welfare
criteria for noise. USEPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
Washington, D.C.
. 1974a. Analysis of pollution from
marine engines and effects on environment. Prepared by the Boating
Industry Association. Chicago, IL. 62 pp.
^ . 1974b. Methods for chemical
analysis of water and wastes.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Environmental Research Center. EPA-625/6-74-003. Cincin-
nati, OH. 298 pp.
. 1975a. Environmental and recovery
studies of Escambia Bay and the Pensacola Bay system, Florida.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. Atlanta, GA.
____^ . 1975b. Finger-fill canal
studies-Florida and North Carolina.U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Surveillance and Analysis Division. Athens, GA. 427 pp.
. 1976. Quality criteria for
water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-440/9-76-023.
Washington, D.C. 501 pp.
. 1976. Computer program documenta-
tion for the unsteady flow and water quality model WRECEV. Prepared
by A.E. Johnson and J.H. Duke, Jr., Water Resources Engineers, Inc.
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
. 1978. Rates, constants, and
kineticsformulationsfnsurface water quality modeling.
USEPA-600/3-78-105. (Cited in SCCC, 1983).
. 1978a. Draft environmental impact
statement Ideal Basic Industries. Appendices, Volume II. USEPA
Region IV. Atlanta, GA. Variously paginated.
. 1978b. Draft environmental impact
statement,IdealBasic Industries. Appendices, Volume IV. USEPA
Region IV. Atlanta, GA. Variously paginated.
7-40
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. 1979a. Chemistry laboratory
manualfor bottom sediments and elutriate testing. USEPA Region V,
Surveillance and Analysis Division, Chicago, IL. EPA905/4-79-014.
. 1979b. Methods for chemical
analysis of water and wastewater. EPA-600/4-79-020. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 460 pp.
^ 1980a. Guidelines for specifica-
tion of disposalsites for dredged or fill material (40 CFR 230).
Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, D.C. pp. 85336-85357.
. 1980b. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater (15th ed.). Franson, Mary
Ann H. (Ed.). Prepared and published jointly by American Public
Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water
Pollution Control Federation. Washington, D.C. 1134 pp.
. 1981a. Analysis of wastewater
discharge from marine sanitation devices. Final Report. Prepared
by JRB Associates, Inc. for Office of Analysis and Evaluation,
USEPA. Washington, D.C. 90 pp. plus appendices.
1981b. Report on the existing
program for regulation of marine sanitation devices under Section
312 of the Clean Water Act. 22 pp. plus appendices.
. 1982. Water quality assessment:
a screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants, Parts
I, II. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. in cooperation with the USEPA
Center for Water Quality Modeling. Athens, GA.
. 1983. Draft environmental impact
statement,NorthCarolinaBarrier Island wastewater management.
Three volumes. USEPA Region IV, Atlanta, GA. Variously paginated.
. 1983. Inventory of existing con-
ditions and key factors task report. Prepared for USEPA, Region IV,
by Applied Biology, Inc. and Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter,
Inc.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. Endangered and threatened
wildlife and plants. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service. Federal Register 42(135). pp. 36420-36431.
1980. Habitat evaluation procedures
(HEP) manual.102 ESM, Washington, D.C.
7-41
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. 1983. Criteria for marina construction
in the coastal zone. Division of Ecological Services. Brunswick,
GA. 6 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination (16
U.S.C. 661-667e). pp. 409-415.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1972. Classification of areas sub-
ject to sanitary waste discharges from boats. Food and Drug
Administration. U.S. Public Health Service Northeast Technical
Services Unit. Davisville, RI. 21 pp.
. 1980. Compiled from responses to
15 January 1980 memorandum from Roger Olmsted, USFDA Senior
Regional Shellfish Specialist, to Region IV state shellfish agen-
cies, Subject: Policy on marinas.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1977. Techniques of water resources
investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey. Chapter A4, Book 5:
Methods for collection and analysis of aquatic biological and
microbiological samples. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
332 pp.
U.S. Public Health Service. 1967a. Marina, watercraft problems of
sanitation studies. U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare. Public Health Reports 82(3). pp. 227-228.
. 1967b. Manual of septic tank practice. U.S
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service
Publication No. 526. Washington, D.C.
University of Florida. 1983. Marine log, Florida Sea Grant College
publication. Marine Advisory Program. Gainesville, FL. 7 pp.
Van Dolah, Robert F., Dale R. Calder, David M. Knoh and Magdalene S.
Mac!in. 1979. Effects of dredging and uncpnfined disposal of
dredged material on macrobenthic communities in Sewee Bay, South
Carolina. Technical Report No. 39. Prepared by South Carolina
Marine Resources Center for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Charleston, SC. 54 pp.
Van Donsel, D.J. and E.E. Geldreich. 1971. Relationships of Salmonellae
to fecal coliforms in bottom sediments. In: Water Resources, Vol.
5, pp. 1079.
Van Meter, V.B. 1982. The West Indian manatee in Florida. Prepared
for Florida Power & Light Company by Applied Biology, Inc. Atlanta,
GA. 29 pp.
7-42
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Vaughn, James M., Edward F. Landry, Thomas J. Vicah et al. 1980.
Isolation of naturally occurring enteroviruses from a variety of
shellfish species residing in Long Island and New Jersey marine
embayments. In: Journal of Food Protection, 143(2), pp. 95-98.
Victor, P. 1972. Pollution: economy and environment. George Allen
and Unwin, Ltd., London, England. (Cited in Nissan and Williams),
1979).
Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1979. Section 3.3, sediment
curtains. In: Best Management Practices Handbook. Virginia
State Water Control Board, Planning Bulletin 319.
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1979. Best managment practices
handbook - hydrologic modifications. Planning Bulletin 319.
Richmond, VA. Variously paginated.
Wehle, D.H.S. and F.C. Coleman. 1983. Plastics at sea. In: Natural
History, 92(2), pp. 20-26.
Weibel, S.R., R.B. Weidner, A.G. Christiansen and R.J. Anderson. 1966.
Characterization, treatment, and disposal of urban stormwater.
Third International Conference of Water Pollution Research.
Munich, Germany. (Cited in Carstea et al., 1975).
Wetzel, R.G. 1975. Limnology. W. B. -Saunders, Philadelphia, PA. 743
pp.
Willey, G.R. 1966. An introduction to American archaeology, volume I:
North America. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Williams, A.B. and T.W. Duke. 1979. Crabs (Arthropoda: Crustacea:
Decapoda: Brachyura). Chapter 6, pp. 171-233. (Cited in Dawson
et al., 1979).
Wilson, J.F., Jr. 1968. Fluorometric procedures for dye tracing,
techniques of water resources inventory of the U.S. Geologic
Survey. Book 3, Chap. A-12, p. 31.
Windom, Herbert L. 1976. Environmental aspects of dredging' in the
coastal zone. In: Critical Reviews in Environmental Control,
6(2), pp. 91-108.
Wingo, Lowdon and James Fawcett. 1980. Coastal zone integration of
state and local plans. Reprinted from Proceedings of the Conference
Coastal Zone '80. Hollywood, FL. pp. 2052-2067.
Wood, R.K. and B.L. Swift. 1979. Wildlife conservation strategy derived
from case histories of ten federal water-resource projects in the
Southeast. In: The Mitigation Symposium: a national workshop on
mitigating losses of fish and wildlife habitats. July 16-20, 1979.
7-43
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Colorado State University. General Technical Report RM-65. Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO.
pp. 400-407.
Woodhouse, W.W., Jr., E.D. Seneca and S.W. Broome. 1971. Marsh building
with dredge spoil in North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Sea Grant Program Publication No. 72-10. 28 pp.
Wright, Thomas D. 1978. Aquatic dredged material disposal impacts.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental
Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. 57 pp.
Wurzback, W.F. and R.A. Lampheer. 1973. Mercury outboard product line
survey. Mercury Marine Company, Research Memorandum No. 6-MS2-19.
Fond du Lac, WI. 38 pp. (Cited in Chmura and Ross, 1978).
Young, D.R. and T.C. Hessen. 1974. Inputs and distributions of
chlorinated hydrocarbons in three southern California harbors.
pp. 51-67. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Technical Confer-
ence on Estuaries of the Pacific Northwest, March 14-15, 1974.
Oregon Experiment Station Circular No. 50. Con/all is, OR.
(Cited in Chmura and Ross, 1978).
Young, D.R., D.J. McDermott, T.C. Hessen and T.K. Jan. 1975. Pollutant
inputs and distributions off southern California. Pages 424-439
in: Church, T.M. (Ed.), Marine chemistry in the coastal environ-
ment. ACS Symposium Series 18, American Chemical Society,
Washington, D.C. 710 pp. (Cited in Chmura and Ross, 1978).
Young, D.R., T.C. Hessen, D.J. McDermott and P.E. Smokier. 1974.- Marine
inputs of polychlorinated biphenyls and copper from vessel antifoul-
ing paints. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.
El Segundo, CA. 25 pp.
Zabawa, Chris and Chris Ostrom (Eds.). 1980. Final report on the role
of boat wakes in shore erosion in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
Prepared for Coastal Resqures Division, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources. Annapolis, MD. Variously paginated.
Zieman, J.C. 1974. Methods for the study of the growth and production
of turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum Konig. Aquaculture,
4(1974):139-143.
. 1975. Quantitative and dynamic aspects of the ecology of
turtle grass, Thalassis testudinum. Pages 541-562 in: L. E. Cronin
(Ed.), Estuarine ResearcTuVol. I. Academic Press, New York, NY.
1976. The ecological effects of physical damage from
motorboats on turtle grass beds in southern Florida. In: Aquatic
Botany, Vol. 2, pp. 127-139. (Cited in Zieman, 1982).
7-44
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. 1982. The ecology of the seagrasses of south Florida: a
community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services. FWS/OBS-82/25. Washington, D.C. 158 pp.
7-45
-------
-------
8.0 GLOSSARY
ADSORPTION
The adherence of the atoms, ions, or molecules of a gas or liquid
to the surface of another substance (the adsorbent). Adsorption
is often used to extract pollutants by causing them to be attached
to adsorbents such as activated carbon or silica gel. Some
adsorbents are used to extract oils from waterways in oil spills.
ADVECTION
Average velocity over some space or time scale. Advection is
caused by relatively large scale water movements transporting the
given property and thus effecting a local change in concentration.
AIR CURTAIN (Bubble Screen)
A method for mechanical containment of oil spills. Air is bubbled
through a perforated pipe, causing an upward water flow that retards
the spreading of oil. Air curtains are also used as barriers to
prevent fish from entering a polluted body of water.
ASYMPTOTE
A line considered a limit to a curve in the sense that the perpen-
dicular distance from a moving point on the curve to the line
approaches zero as the point moves an infinite distance from the
origin.
BARRIER ISLAND
Islands of narrow strips of sand protecting gently sloping coastal
mainland.
BASELINE STUDY, ECOLOGICAL
Any investigation conducted prior to the "breaking of ground" in
order to provide an ecological basis for decisions on whether,
where and how to accomplish a proposed development. The scope of
study may range widely from qualitative inventories conducted by
natural resource managers to exhaustive quantitative studies of spe-
cific development sites undertaken by industry in compliance with
federal and state regulations. The results of an ecological base-
line study describe the. existing ecological conditions and trends in
the potentially affected region, providing a reference "baseline"
from which environmental scientists can (1) predict the effects of
the proposed action and recommend alternatives, (2) define
appropriate mitigation measures, and (3) design future programs to
monitor the accuracy of predictions and the effectiveness of mitiga-
tion.
BATHYMETRIC
Relating to the measurement of depths of water in oceans, seas, and
lakes.
BENTHOS
Organisms growing on or associated principally with the water
bottom.
8-1
-------
GLOSSARY
BILGE WATER
Water that collects in the lowest inner part of a ship's hull.
BIOASSAY
1. Determination of the physiological effect of a substance (such
as a drug) by comparing its effects on a test organ or living
organism with that of some standard substance.
2. Determination of the concentration of a substance (e.g., a
pesticide residue) in the tissues of an organ or organism.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand)
A measure of the demand on a water body's dissolved oxygen supply
that will be generated, over a specified time period, by the biolo-
gical decomposition of organic material. A high BOD may temporarily
or permanently so deplete the oxygen in water that aquatic life is
killed.
BIODEGRADATION
The biochemical breakdown of complex, large, organic molecules into
small simple molecules; decomposition by bacteria, fungi and other
microorganisms.
BIOMASS
The total weight of living and dead matter in organisms, often
expressed per unit volume or area.
BIOTA
All of the named or nameable organisms of an area; fauna and flora
(biota) of a region.
BIOTIC
Environmental factors which are the result of living organisms and
their activities.
BOAT BASIN
Naturally or artificially enclosed or nearly enclosed harbor area
for small craft.
BREAKWATER
Structure protecting shore area, harbor, anchorage, or basin from
waves.
BREAKER ZONE
Zone of shoreline where waves break.
BUFFER ZONE
An area between a marina and a shellfish growing area usually based
on hydrography and the size of the marina established in order to
protect shellfish growing areas.
8-2
-------
GLOSSARY
BULKHEAD
Structure or partition built to prevent sliding of the land behind
it.
CANAL
Artificial watercourse cut through land area.
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
A measure of the amount of a water body's dissolved oxygen supply
that would be used up in completely oxidizing added inorganic oxidi-
zable compounds - such as in the oxidation of ammonia to nitrate.
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) tests can measure only the biodegra-
dable fraction of the total potential dissolved oxygen consumption
by added wastes; however, COD tests may be used to measure the oxy-
gen demand created by toxic organic or inorganic compounds as well
as by biodegradable substances. A standard COD test, therefore, can
be used to evaluate many industrial wastes not readily analyzed for
water quality factors by the sewage-oriented BOD test.
CIRCULATION
The act of circulating; passage or transmission from place to place.
CONCENTRATION
The amount of a substance occurring in a given amount of air, water,
soil, tissue, etc. May be expressed as parts per million, grams per
liter, or in other units suitable to the substance of interest.
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Economic analysis that yields a ratio between anticipated benefits
and costs, thus showing the relative economic efficiency of a pro-
ject or program.
COVER, VEGETATIVE (Coverage)
The portion of the ground occupied by a perpendicular projection to
the ground from the outline of the aerial parts of plants.
COVER, WILDLIFE
The plants or other objects used by animals for nesting, rearing of
young, resting, escaping from predators or avoiding adverse environ-
mental conditions.
CRITICAL HABITAT
See HABITAT, CRITICAL
CULTCH
An artificially placed hard substrate such as clam or oyster shell
that is placed on the bottom to create a suitable substrate for
colonization by larval shellfish.
8-3
-------
GLOSSARY
DENSITY (Stand Density)
The number of individuals of a defined group occurring in a spe-
cified unit of space; refers to the average distance between adja-
cent individuals.
DEPURATION
The rate at which the organism can rid itself of body burdens when
placed in uncontaminated water.
DESIGN WAVE HEIGHT
Wave which is used for designing coastal structures such as revet-
ments, breakwaters, jetties or groins. The wave height and period
assists the designer in selecting sizes of armor units and other
features of the structure.
DILUTION
Reduction in concentration of a pollutant.
DISPERSION
To distribute, as finely divided particles, more or less evenly
throughout a water body.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
The extent to which oxygen occurs in solution in
wastewater; usually expressed as concentration, in
million, or percent of saturation.
water or
parts per
DISTURBED LAND
Land that has been altered physically, biologically or chemically by
the action of man; e.g., land on which excavation has occurred or
upon which overburden has been deposited.
DIVERSION
Channel constructed across the slope for the purpose of intercepting
surface runoff. Changing the accustomed course of all or part of a
stream. Also, a ditch or canal by which water is diverted from one
stream to another.
DIVERSION DIKE
A ridge of compacted soil placed above, below or around a disturbed
area to intercept runoff and divert it to a disposal area.
DIVERSION DITCH (Diversion Swale)
An excavated, temporary drainageway used above and below disturbed
areas to intercept runoff and divert it to a safe disposal area.
DRAINAGE BASIN (Catchment Area, Watershed)
The preferred term for that part of the surface of the earth that is
occupied by a drainage system, which consists of a surface stream or
a body of impounded surface water together with all tributary sur-
face streams and bodies of impounded surface water.
8-4
-------
GLOSSARY
DOCK
Place for loading and unloading of vessels/for small boats.
DREDGED BASIN
An artificially enclosed area of a river or harbor.
EBB FLOW
The period of tidal flow between high tide and a succeeding low
tide.
ECOLOGY
The study of the interactions between organisms and their living and
non-living environment (including interactions with each other).
ECOSYSTEM
An assemblage of living organisms (biotic community) plus their
nonliving (abiotic) environment.
EFFLUENT
A discharge of pollutants into the environment, generally used in
regard to discharges into waters.
ELUTRIATE TEST
Laboratory procedure designed to simulate the disposal of hydrauli-
cally dredged sediments with respect to the release of chemical
contaminants from the sediments during dredging and subsequent dis-
posal operations.
EMPIRICAL
Relying on observation or experiment; guided by experience rather
than theory.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
1. An endangered species, or subspecies, of animal or plant is one
whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate
jeopardy.
2. Its peril may result from one or many causes: loss of habitat
or change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition,
disease or even unknown reasons. To survive, an endangered species
must receive the assistance of man through habitat preservation and
development and legislated protection.
ENVIRONMENT
The sum of all external conditions and influences affecting the
life, development and ultimately the survival of an organism.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS REPORT (E.A.R.)
A report on environmental effects of proposed Federal actions that
may require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under Section
102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EAR is an
"in-house" document of various degrees of formality that becomes the
8-5
-------
GLOSSARY
final document on environmental impacts for those projects that,
because their effects are minor, do not require a formal EIS.
Although not formally prescribed under NEPA, the EAR is the document
normally used to determine whether Section 102 of NEPA applies to
the project in question, and as such is subject to court challenge
if no EIS is filed.
EROSION
Wearing away of land by forces, e.g., by wave action, tidal
currents, and littoral currents.
ESTIMATE
Measurements and observations of a particular parameter, process, or
response. The accuracy and precision of an estimate depend on the
instruments employed and the experimental design in which it was
obtained.
ESTUARIES
Areas where fresh water meets salt water (e.g., bays, mouths of
rivers, salt marshes and lagoons). Estuaries are delicate eco-
systems, serving as nurseries and spawning and feeding grounds for a
wide variety of marine life and providing shelter and food for birds
and wildlife.
FAIRWAY
A navigable deep-water chennel in a river or harbor or along a
coastline,
FAUNA
The animal life of a given area or period.
FIRST-ORDER DECAY OF POLLUTANT
When the rate of decay is directly proportional to the concentra-
tion of the pollutant.
FISH, GAME (Sport Fish)
A species of fish considered to possess sporting qualities on
fishing tackle. Examples of fresh water game fishes are salmon,
trout, grayling, black- bass, muskellunge, walleye, northern pike and
lake trout.
FLOOD TIDE
The rising tide.
FLORA
The plant life of a given area or period.
FLUSHING TIME
1. The measure of the time required to transport a conservative
pollutant from some specified location.
8-6
-------
GLOSSARY
2. The volume of the estuary divided by the water flux rate; a use-
ful figure for assessing load capacities.
FROUDE NUMBER
The Froude Number is the ratio of the boat speed and the speed of a
wave in shallow water. The wave speed is a function of the basin
depth.
GABION
Hollow cylinder filled with earth.
GRADE
1. Common usage: The inclination or slope of a stream channel or
ground surface, usually expressed in terms of the ratio or percen-
tage of number of units of vertical rise or fall per unit of hori-
zontal distance.
2. The finished surface of a road bed, top of an embankment, or
bottom of an excavation.
3. To establish a profile by backfilling.
GROIN
X-N A rigid structure built at an angle (usually perpendicular) from the
(^ shore to protect it from erosion or to trap sand. A groin may be
~~^ be further defined as permeable or impermeable depending on whether
or not it is designed to pass sand through it.
GROUNDWATER
Subsurface water occupying the saturation zone (where all openings
in soils and rocks are filled), from which wells and springs are
fed. In a strict sense the term applies only to water below the
water table.
HABITAT
The place, and the characteristics and conditions of that place,
where an organism lives.
HABITAT, CRITICAL
Any air, land or water area, including any elements thereof, that
the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or National Marine Fishery Service, has determined
is essential to the survival of wild populations of a listed species
or to its recovery to a point at which the measures provided pur-
suant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 are no longer necessary.
Such determinations are published in the Federal Register.
HEAVY METALS
Metallic elements of high molecular weight, generally toxic to plant
and animal life in low concentrations. Such metals are often resi-
( dual in the environment and exhibit biological accumulation.
v Examples include mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic and lead.
8-7
-------
GLOSSARY
IMPACT
An observed effect that occurs in an ecosystem as the result of an
environmental perturbation.
IMPACT, ACCUMULATIVE
The total effect over time resulting from the sum of the variety of
environmental perturbations produced by one facility.
IMPACT, DIRECT (Primary Impact)
Direct or primary impacts are those in which the causative agent
impinges directly upon the responding ecological components, e.g.,
land clearing for construction causes direct loss of vegetation.
IMPACT, ECOLOGICAL
The observable effects, or suspected effects, of one or more pertur-
bations on the biota of an environmental system.
IMPACT, INDIRECT (Secondary or Tertiary Impact)
Indirect or secondary effects are those in which man-caused change
in the environment creates one or more intermediary effects in a
chain of events leading to the observation of the impact. Certain
agencies (e.g., USEPA) distinguish between indirect and secondary
impacts. For example, an indirect impact occurs when construction
of a dam causes reduction of stream flow, xhich in turn causes eli-
mination of riverine wetlands downstream. Secondary impacts occur
when a wastewater treatment project induces urbanization which, in
turn, has environmental impacts.
IMPACT, LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM
These terms refer to the relative duration of an impact. No strict
definition of the relative time frames involved in short- and long-
term impacts exists, so a time frame should be specified whenever
either word is used. Generally, long-term impacts are those
lasting for the duration of the project or longer. Short-term
impacts are generally those lasting only during the construction
phase or occurring for brief periods during the operation of the
facility.
IMPACT(S), MODERATE AND SEVERE
Moderate and severe effects are gradations of adverse impacts.
Moderate can be characterized as partial elimination, dislocation,
impairment, or alteration of biota or use of resources and facili-
ties. Severe can be characterized by total elimination, disloca-
tion, impairment or alteration of biota or use of resources and
facilities.
IMPACT, SIGNIFICANT
Any impact resulting in measurable changes in indicator parameters
or community dynamics (such as reduced primary production).
8-8
-------
GLOSSARY
INVENTORY, SPECIES
A census of the flora and/or fauna inhabiting a defined area. The
level of resolution of such a listing varies with the objectives of
the study and may range from a listing of a few conspicuous or
predominant species to a complete list for the area. A species
inventory does not necessarily constitute an ecological baseline
study and the two phases should not be used interchangeably.
INVERTEBRATE
Animal lacking an internal skeletal structure, e.g., insects,
mollusks, crayfish, etc.
JETTY
A structure built out into a body of water to influence currents,
tides or waves for protection of a harbor or shoreline.
JTU (Jackson Turbidity Units)
An arbitrary scale used as a basis to measure changes in turbidity.
LAND USE PATTERNS
Natural or imposed configurations resulting from spatial arrangement
of the different uses to which various plots of ground are put at a
particular time.
LEACHING
Extraction of dissolved or suspended materials from a solid by a
liquid.
LITTORAL
Of or pertaining to a shore.
LITTORAL DRIFT
Sedimentary material in littoral zone under influence of waves and
currents.
LITTORAL TRANSPORT
Movement of littoral drift by waves and currents; includes movement
parallel to and perpendicular to shore.
LOCKED-HARBOR
Marine harbor that is or can be separated from adjacent waterway
by a mechanical device such as a lock or tide gate.
MARINA
Small boat harbor or boat basin providing dockage, supplies, and
services for small pleasure craft.
MIGRATION
Mass movement of animals to and from feeding, reproduction, or
resting areas.
8-9
-------
GLOSSARY
MEAN HIGH WATER
Average height of high waters over a 19 year period.
MEAN LOW WATER
Average height of low waters over a 19 year period.
MEAN TIDE LEVEL
Plane midway between mean high water and mean low water (also half-
tide level).
MITIGATION, IMPACT
Specific procedures to reduce or avoid potential impacts of develop-
ment on the environment.
MIXING ZONE
Zone of initial dilution in the immediate area of a point source of
pollution.
MODEL
A representation or abstraction of a real system; an attempt to pre-
sent some of the important features of the real system in a
simplified way to aid understanding. Models may use words, pictures
or mathematics to present the abstractions.
MONITORING PROGRAM, ENVIRONMENTAL
A program for measuring anticipated disturbances in environmental
systems. The program often includes certain aspects of the baseline
study program selected for their abiltiy to detect alterations in
local ecsosytems caused by the project of interest. Monitoring
programs are often subdivided into construction, operations and
post-operational stage monitoring programs.
NET FLOW
The net movement of a water mass that is carried back and forth by
the oscillatory motion of the tides. Net flow is typically seaward
for estuaries, although it is possible to have a net upstream flow
in individual embayments of an estuary where freshwater inflows are
so small that surface evaporation exceeds freshwater inflow.
NONPOINT SOURCE
Any non-confined area from which pollutants are discharged into a
body of water, i.e., agricultural runoff, urban runoff and sedimen-
tation from construction sites.
NURSERY
Area where young are born and cared for.
NUTRIENTS
Elements or compounds essential as raw material for organism growth
and development; e.g., carbon, phosphorus, oxygen and nitrogen.
8-10
-------
GLOSSARY
ONE-DIMENSIONAL
A vertically well-mixed estuarine system.
OPEN MARINA
Marina designs consisting of piers and/or docks extending into a
coastal water with minimal protective impermeable barriers.
ORIENTATION
Arrangement in any established position especially in relation to
the points of the compass.
OUTFALL
Structure extending into a body of water for the purpose of dis-
charging an effluent (sewage, storm runoff, cooling water).
PARAMETER
1. A quantity that characterizes or describes a statistical
population (e.g., a population mean); it is estimated by a sample
statistic.
2. In systems ecology, a quantified estimate or measurement of the
value of an attribute of a component of an ecological system; e.g.,
the parameter gm/m2 provides a measure of biomass (attribute) for
some species or group of species of organisms for a given site.
PATHOGEN
Any agent that causes disease, especially a microorganism such as
a bacterium or fungus.
PERTURBATION, ENVIRONMENTAL
A disturbance that occurs in an environmental system resulting in a
measurable change in components or processes of that system.
PIER
A structure, usually of open construction, extending into the water
from the shore. It serves as a landing and moving place for vessels
or for recreational uses. Includes trestles, platforms and docks.
PILE
Long, heavy timber or section of concrete or metal driven or jetted
into earth or sealed for support or protection.
PLUGS
A small section of sod containing grass and roots.
POINT SOURCE
A stationary emitting point of a pollutant, e.g., a discharge pipe;
in contrast to an area source or a nonpoint source.
8-11
-------
GLOSSARY
POLLUTANT
Any contaminant that, when present in the air or water, detracts
from or interferes with the desired use or natural state of that air
or water.
POLLUTANT, CONSERVATIVE
A pollutant that is relatively persistent and resistant to
degradation, such as PCB and most chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides.
POLLUTANT, NONCONSERVATIVE
A pollutant that is quickly degraded and lacks persistence, such as
most organophosphate insecticides.
POLLUTION
An undesirable change in the physical, chemical or biological
characteristics of air, land and water that may or will harmfully
affect human, plant, or animal life, industrial processes, living
conditions, or cultural assets; or that may or will waste or
deteriorate raw material resources. See POLLUTANT.
PPT
Represents parts per thousand by mass. Sometimes the symbol 0/00
is used.
PRODUCTION
1. The amount of organic material produced by biological activity
in a given area or volume.
2. The total amount of energy stored over a specified period by an
organism or organisms.
RAMP
A uniformly sloping platform walkway, or driveway. The ramp
commonly seen in the coastal environment is the launching ramp
which is a sloping platform for launching small caft.
RARE SPECIES
1. Species occurring as a very few individuals or small groups at
widely scattered localities over a large geographic area of what
appears to be suitable habitat.
2. Species found in very small numbers widely dispersed in each
community where they grow, but which occur in many suitable areas
over their geographic range.
3. Species with a range restricted to so few localities that they
are considered rare even though they occur in large numbers at each
locality.
8-12
-------
GLOSSARY
RECLAMATION (Rehabilitation)
1. The process of reconverting disturbed land to its former or
other productive uses.
2. The process of making a site habitable to organisms that were
originally present or others that apporoximate the original inhabi-
tants.
RECRUITMENT
Addition of mature individuals to a population through reproduction
and survival.
REGRESSION
1. Simple: A statistical analysis procedure in which an algebraic
relationship (a simple regression equation) is derived that
describes how the magnitude of a variable (the dependent variable)
changes with the magnitude of a second variable (the independent
variable) and determines whether the relationship is statistically
significant.
2. Multiple: A statistical analysis procedure in which an
algebraic relationship (a multiple regression equation) is derived
that describes how the magnitude of a variable (the dependent
variable) changes with the magnitudes of two or more variables
(independent variables) and determines whether each of the indepen-
dent variables has a statistically significant effect on the depen-
dent variable.
RESIDENCE TIME
The measure of time required before a pollutant is transported from
some specified location.
RESTORATION
The process of restoring site conditions to the way they were before
occurrence of land disturbance.
REVETMENT
A sloped facing built to protect existing land or newly created em-
bankments against erosion by wave action, currents, or weather.
Revetments are usually placed parallel to the natural shoreline.
RIPRAP
Larger facing, or protection mound of stones randomly placed to pre-
vent erosion, scour, or sloughing of structure or embankment; see
revetment.
ROOKERY AREA
A breeding place of rooks or certain animals.
RUNOFF
The portion of rainfall that is not absorbed into the ground. It is
utilized by vegetation or lost by evaporation or it may find its way
into streams as surface flow.
8-13
-------
GLOSSARY
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER (RCN)
An indicator of the runoff potential based on physical charac-
teristics of an area.
SAMPLE
The part of a population that is collected or measured, usually
through a deliberate selection procedure, for the purpose of drawing
conclusions about the properties of the parent population.
SECTION 10 PERMIT
Permit issued by USACOE under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1899 for construction activities either in navigable waters or
outside navigable waters if the activity may impact navigable
waters.
SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act-a state must certify that
a proposed activity will not violate any state water quality
requirement.
SECTION 404 PERMITS
State or EPA issued permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into
waters of the United States.
SEDIMENT
Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is
being transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by air,
water, gravity, or ice and has come to rest on the earth's surface.
SEDIMENT TRAP (Sediment Basin)
A small temporary basin formed by an excavation and/or embankment to
intercept sediment-laden runoff and to trap and retain the sediment.
In so doing, drainageways, properties and rights-of-way below the
trap are protected from sedimentation.
SEDIMENTATION
Process of deposition of material, usually soil or organic detritus,
in the bottom of a liquid.
SEMI-ENCLOSED MARINA BASIN
An enclosed area of a river or harbor that has one opening and is
otherwise protected by geographical barriers (See Figure 3-5 for
representation).
SENSITIVITY
A physiological condition of susceptible organisms or tissues
whereby they are prone to injury by pollutants.
8-14
-------
GLOSSARY
SHOAL
A sandy elevation of the bottom of a body of water, constituting a
hazard to navigation.
SHORELINE, ERODING
Shoreline which, by wave action, current, boat activity or frequent
storm activity is losing material.
SILT
Finely divided particles of soil or rock that are often carried in
cloudy suspension in water and eventually deposited as sediment.
SILT SCREEN (Sediment Curtain)
A screen used to confine suspended sediments in sensitive areas such
as those near shellfish beds or grass beds.
SLIP
Berthing space between two piers.
SOIL
The surface layer of the earth ranging in thickness from a few
inches to several feet. It is composed of finely divided rock
debris mixed with decomposing vegetative and animal matter and is
capable of supporting plant growth.
SOUNDING LINE
A line, wire, or cord for sounding that is weighted at one end and
is divided for sounding by hand.
SOURCE
In systems ecology, an infinite supply outside the system of
interest for flows of matter or energy.
SPECIES, GAME
1. Wild animals, usually mammals, fishes, or birds hunted for sport
or food and subject to legal regulations.
2. U.S. Forest Service usage: any species of wildlife for which
seasons and bag limits have been prescribed, and which are normally
restricted to possession by sportspersons under state laws and
regulations.
STOKES LAW
A relationship to determine terminal settling velocity of a particle
in a fluid considering the parameters of gravity, fluid viscosity,
density of the fluid, density of the particle, and particle
diameter.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (SS)
Small particles of solid pollutants that resist separation by
conventional means. SS (along with BOD) is used as a measurement
of water quality and an indicator of waste treatment plant
efficiency.
8-15
-------
GLOSSARY
TERRESTRIAL
Growing or living on or peculiar to the land, as opposed to the
aquatic environment.
TETRAPOO REVETMENT
A revetment composed of large reinforced concrete structures having
four arms.
THREATENED SPECIES
Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range and which has been designated in the Federal Register by
the Secretary of the Interior as a threatened species.
This includes species categorized as rare, very rare or depleted.
Many states also have lists of threatened species which may be more
encompassing, for various reasons, than the Federal lists.
TIDAL CREEK
A creek that is influenced by tidal fluctuations.
TIDAL FLAT
The sea bottom, usually wide, flat, muddy and unyegetated which is
exposed at low tide; marshy or muddy area that is covered and un-
covered by the rise and fall of the tide.
TIDAL PRISM
That volume of water which enters an estuary during an incoming
(flood) tide and equals high tide estuarine volume minus low tide
volume.
TIME CONCENTRATION CURVE
In hydrographic studies using dye release methods, the curve
generated by plotting measured dye concentrations at specified
locations against time intervals after dye release. The area under
the time concentration curve may be divided by the amount of dye
released to calculate the flow available for dilution of a
pollutant.
TOXIC
Possessing the quality of being able to produce deleterious effects
on the physiological processes of an organism.
TOXICITY
The quality, state or relative degree of being toxic or poisonous;
the ability of a chemical molecule or compound to produce injury
when it reaches a susceptible site in the body.
TURBIDITY
A measure of the optical clarity of water, and is dependent upon the
light scattering and absorption characteristics of both suspended
and dissolved material in the water column.
8-16
-------
GLOSSARY
TURFS
Sections of the surface layer of soil containing a dense growth of
grass and its matted roots.
TURIONS
Detached winter buds by means of which many aquatic plants survive
winter.
TWO DIMENSIONAL
Estuary that is vertically stratified.
WATER QUALITY
A term used to describe the chemical, physical and biological
characteristics of water in respect to its suitability for a
particular use.
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
The types and concentrations of pollutants that affect the
suitability of water for a given use.
WATER QUALITY INDEX
An index developed through either an arithmetic or geometric model,
which includes quantitative data from certain basic water quality
indicators, which allows a ranking of the quality of natural waters
according to excellent, very good, good, poor, bad or other similar
categorizations, based on accompanying numerical ranking from 0 to
100.
WATER QUALITY STANDARD
A requirement for water quality specifying: 1) the use to be made
of the water (recreation, fish and wildlife, drinking water,
industrial or agricultural); 2) criteria with which to measure and
protect these uses; 3) implementation and enforcement plans; and 4)
an antidegradation statement to protect existing water quality.
WATER TABLE
The upper surface of the groundwater or that depth below which the
soil is saturated with water. It is defined by the levels at which
water stands in wells that penetrate the water body just far enough
to hold standing water. In wells that penetrate to greater depths,
the water level will stand above or below the water table if an
upward or downward component of groundwater flow exists.
WEEP HOLES
Drainage hole in a structure allowing release of groundwater to
prevent a buildup of water behind the structure.
WILDLIFE
1. U.S. Forest Service usage: All nondomesticated mammals, birds,
reptiles and amphibians living in a natural environment, including
both game species and nongame species, whether considered beneficial
or otherwise. Feral animals such as wild horses, burros, and hogs
are not considered wildlife.
8-17
-------
GLOSSARY
2. Undomesticated vertebrate animals, except fishes, considered
collectively.
3. Generally, all nondomesticated animal life.
4. More particularly, a loose term that includes nondomesticated
vertebrates, especially mammals, birds and fishes and some of the
higher invertebrates (such as crabs, crayfish, etc.).
5. Living things that are neither plant, nor human, nor domesti-
cated, especially the mammals, birds and fishes that are hunted by
man for sport or food.
8-18
-------
APPENDIX A
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES FOR
IMPACT AREAS
-------
-------
MODELS THAT MAY BE ADAPTED
TO MARINA IMPACT ASSESSMENT3
Impact
Water quality
Ground water
Socioeconomic
Navigation
Technique
CEM Tributary Model
DOSAG-1 Model
QUAL-II Model
RECEIV-II Model
Various Numerical Models
Flow and Transport Models
Input-Output Analyses
Wind-Wave Energy Models
Reference
1
1
1
2
3
4
5-7
8-10
Various screening procedures for pollutants are discussed with examples
in USEPA, 1982; Procedures for assessing impacts from small structures
and related activities in coastal waters are discussed with examples in
Carstea et al., 1975; various environmental quality assessment tech-
niques are reviewed in Henderson, 1982.
bGolden et al., 1979; 2) USEPA, 1976; 3) Bachmat et al., 1980; 4)
Mercer and Faust, 1981; 5) Nelson et al., 1980; 6) Crompton and
Ditton, 1975; 7) Nissan and Williams, 1980; 8) USACOE, 1978;
9)Sverdrup and Munk, 1947; 10) Zabawa and Ostrum, 1980.
-------
WATER QUALITY RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Impact
Turbidity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coiiforms
Nutrients
(nitrogen/phos-
phorus)
Metals
Pesticides/PCBs
& Hydrocarbons
Assessment Technique
c
Secchi disk
Oackson candle turbidimeter
Nephelometric turbidimeter
Quantum photometer
Membrane electrode method
(oxygen meter)
lodometric method
(Winkler) and modif igatlons
Most probable number technique
(MPN)
Membrane filter technique
Ion chromatography
Wet chemistry method
Atomic absorption spectroscopy
(AA)
(all metals)
Wet chemistry methods
(all metals except barium)
Inductively-coupled argon plasma
(atomic emission spectroscopy)
(ICAP)
(all metals except mercury)
Ion chromatography (potassium,
sodium, iron, copper, nickel,
cobalt, zinc, lead, calcium,
arsenic and magnesium only)
Gas chromatrography
Gas chromatrography/mass
Unit of Measurement
Centimeters
Oackson turbidity units
Nephelometric turbidity units
ueinsteins/m2/sec
photosynehetlcally available
radiation
mg/1
mg/1
colonies/ 100 ml
mg/1 in water
mg/kg in sediments
jjg/1 in water
pg/kg in sediments
pg/1 in water
jjg/kg in sediments
a
Reference
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
5-7
5-7
b
Time Frame
in situ
TjT'sTnr
in situ
Trf situ
in situ
lH situ
1-2 days
1-2 days
1-2 days
1-2 days
2-3 days
2-3 days
2-3 days
2-3 days
1-2 days
1-2 days
spectroscopy
Liquid chromatography
5-7
1-2 days
-------
WATER QUALITY RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Impact
Oil and Grease
Detergents
Sediments
Assessment Technique
Gravimetric method
Infrared spectroscopy
Colorimetrlc method
(ultraviolet spectroscopy)
Grain size analyses (mean
grain size, sorting
Unit of Measurement
mg/1 In water
tag/kg In sediments
mg/1 In water
mg/kg in sediments
phi (I) units
or
Reference3
1-6
1-6
1-6
6,8,9
Time Frame15
1-2 days
1-2 days
1-2 days
2 days
coefficient,
skewness and Kurtosis of
grain size distribution)
Elutriate analyses
9-11
3-4 days
1) NESP, 1975; 2) States et al., 1978; 3) Henderson, 1982; 4) USEPA, 1979b; 5) APHA, 1980; 6) ASTM, 1983; 7) Federal
Register, 1979; 8) Folk, 1974; 9) Pequegnat et al., 1981; 10) USEPA, 1979a; 11) Plumb, 1981.
Time frames are based on estimated laboratory time to complete one analysis. Individual laboratories may require longer pro-
cessing periods. Field sampling time will vary with individual site conditions.
c
The techniques do not measure turbidity per se, however, the relative turbidity of two sampling sites may be Inferred through
use of these techniques.
-------
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Impact
Nutrients
(nitrogen/phosphorus)
Coliforms
Metals
Pesticides/PCBs
Oil and Grease
Detergents
Assessment Technique
Ion chromatography
Wet chemistry methods
Most probable number technique (MPN)
Membrane filter technique
Atomic absorption spectroscopy
(AA)
(all metals)
Wet chemistry methods
(all metals except barium)
Inductively-coupled argon plasma
atomic emission spectroscopy
(ICAP)
(all metals except mercury)
Ion chromatography (potassium,
sodium, iron, copper, nickel,
cobalt, zinc, lead, calcium,
arsenic and magnesium only)
Gas chromatography
Gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy
Liquid chromatography
Gravimetric method
Infrared spectroscopy
Colorimetric method
Unit of Measurement
mg/1
colonies/ 100 ml
M9/1
M9/1
H9/1
M9/1
Reference8 Time Frame"
1-6 1-2 days
1-2 days
1-6 1-2 days
1-2 days
1-6 2-3 days
2-3 days
2-3 days
2-3 days
5-7 1-2 days
1-2 days
1-2 days
1-6 1-2 days
1-2 days
1-6 1-2 days
(ultraviolet spectroscopy)
DATA EVALUATION TECHNIQUES
Groundwater Contamination Predictive numerical models
Groundwater field studies Well monitoring
9-11
Several days
once all data
has been
collected
a DNESP, 1975; 2)States et al., 1978; 3)Henderson, 1982; 4)USEPA, 1979b; 5)APHA, 1980; 6)ASTM, 1980; 7)Federal Register,
1979; 8)Bachmat et al., 1980; 9)Chow, 1966; 10)Davis and DeWiest, 1966; 11)Soil Conservation Service, 1972.
b
Time frames are based on estimated laboratory time to complete one test. Individual laboratories may require longer pro-
cessing periods.
-------
AQUATIC HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Impact
Shellfish Beds
Grassbeds
Assessment Technique
Direct counts (no. of individuals per unit area) or size measurement
Size frequency distribution
Condition Index
Flow-through or static bioassays
Chemical uptake analyses
Bacteriological quality analyses
Aerial photography in concert with groundtruthing
Community survey
Community productivity
1) measured by uptake of radioactive carbon (14C);
2) measured by marking the blades and measuring the growth increment after
a growth period of several weeks;
3) measured by statistical estimates based on length and width of the longe'st
5% of the leaf population of a given area.
References3
1
2
3,4
5-9
8-11
8
12
13-16
17-21
Time Frame Per Sample15
2-3 days
2-3 days
3-* days
7-10 days
4-7 days
3-4 days
3-4 days
3-4 days
8-10 days
7-10 days
3-4 days
Benthos.
Nursery Areas
Numerical assessment (quantitative study)
Faunal survey (qualitative study)
Bloassay (effluent or sediment elutriate testing)
Numerical assessment (quantitative study)
5,22-25 Sampling could take several
days per collection sample
processing; analysis may
take weeks to months per
collection.
22-25 Sampling could take several
days per collection. Sample
processing may take several
weeks per collection.
5,6,7,9,26,27 Several weeks for collec-
tion, testing and data ana-
lysis.
5,23-25 Sampling could take several
days per collection. Sample
processing and analysis
could take several more
weeks per collection.
-------
AQUATIC HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Impact
Assessment Technique
References3
Time Frame Per Sample0
Nursery Areas
(cont'd)
Manatees
Sea Turtles
Faunal survey (qualitative study) 22-25
Bioassay (effluent or sediment elutriate testing) 5-7,9,26,27
Observation and counts
Observation and counts
Tangle nets
Endangered Species Presence of other endangered species may be ascertained through the use of
previously cited methodology.
Contact local experts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, state agencies Appendix 1
Reference state and federal endangered species lists 1
Sampling could take several
days per collection. Sample
processing could take a few
weeks per collection.
Several weeks for collec-
tion, testing and data
analysis.
Report observations as
they occur.
Report observations as
they occur.
Netting conducted daily or
weekly in frequented areas
Report observations and
disposition as they occur
1 or more days
1 day
1) Van Oolah et al., 1979; 2) Gray et al., 1978; 3) Lawrance and Scott, 1982; 4) Scott and Lawrance, 1982; 5) USEPA, 1973; 6) Cairns and
Dickson, 1973; 7) Cairns et al., 1978; 8) HAS, 1980; 9) APHA, 1980; 10) SCDHEC, 1981; 11) Pan et al., 1982; 12) Thompson, 1976; 13)
Phillips, 1960; 11) Livingston et al., 1976; 15) McRoy and Helfferich, 1977; 16) Phillips and McRoy, 1979; 17) Patriquin, 1973; 18) Zieman,
1971-75; 19) Penhale, 1975; 20) Capone et al., 1979; 21) Kemp et al., 1981; 22) Holme and Mclntyfe, 1971); 23) NESP, 1975; 24) USGS, 1977;
25) APHA, 1980; 26) Plumb, 1981; 27) USEPA, 1979b.
t>
Time frames are estimated based on minimal field time and do not include analysis of data collected, unless otherwise specified.
-------
TERRESTRIAL HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Impact
Assessment Technique
References
Time Frame
Birds
(including
rookery
areas)
Vegetation Plot, quadrat or transect methods
Dry matter production (biomass)
Plotless techniques (closest indivi-
dual, nearest neighbor, random pairs,
Bitterlich or quarter methods).
Remote sensing (aerial or satellite
photography)
Vegetation mapping
Territory mapping (spot-mapping)
Roadside count
Plot method-winter
Strip census
Aerial photosc.
Aerial visual sample census
Nest counts
Mark and recapture
Auditory index
Line transect method (King method)
Temporal census
Radar
Radio-location
Mammals Drive count (large animals)
Temporal census (large animals)
Total capture
Strip census (King method)
Time-Area count
Roadside count
Bounded count
Pellet count
Marking
Mark and recapture
Reduction of rate of capture
Selective reduction or increase
1-5 4-6 days
6-9 3-5 days
10,11 2-4 days
12 10-20 days
6-11 6-8 days
1-11,12-16 8-10 days
(in breeding season)
1-11,12-16 3-4 days (fall and
winter)
1-11,12-16 8-10 days (Dec through
Feb)
1-11,12-16 3-4 days (seasonally)
1-11,12-16 3 days (in winter)
1-11,12-16 2-3 days (in spring)
1-11,12-16 1-2 days (in spring)
16 2 weeks (approximately)
1-11,12-16 2-12 days (in spring)
1-11,12-16 2-3 days (in fall)
1-11,12-16 1-3 evenings per roost
1-11,12-16 several days in
migrating season
1-11,12-16 day and night, all
seasons, up to 1 year
1-16 1 day
1-16 2-3 days during migration
1-16 very time consuming;
varies with area sampled
1-16 3-4 days
1-16 4-5 days during main
activity periods
1-16 1-2 days
1-16 10-20 days
1-16 3-4 days
1-16 7-10 days
1-16 8-10 days
1-16 4-5 days
1-16 1-2 days per animal
-------
TERRESTRIAL HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Impact
Mammals
(cont'd)
Invertebrates/
Herptiles
Soils
Endangered
Species
Turtle Nesting
Areas
Adjacent
Wilderness/
Wildlife
Management Areas
Assessment Technique
Radio-telemetry
Infrared scanning (aerial)
Aerial photos or counts0
Pitfall traps
Sweep net collections
Light trapping
Malaise trap collecting
Drop trap (grasslands)
Soil mapping (pits, cores, augers)
Physical analyses (compaction,
porosity, permeability)
Chemical analyses
Textural analyses (grain size,
soil type, soil description,
water content)
Presence of endangered species
may be ascertained through the
use of previously cited
methodology
Contact local experts, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife, state agencies
Reference state and federal
endangered species lists
Nest counts
Nest removal
Impacts may be inferred
from use of previously
described techniques
a
References
1-16
1-16
1-16
17-22
17-22
17-22
17-22
17-22
1-22
1-22
1-22
1-22
Appendix 1
-
;
Time Frame
up to 1 year
1-2 days
8-10 days
2-3 days
2-3 weeks
2-3 weeks
2 weeks
2-3 weeks
3-4 days
2 days/ sample
2-3 days
7-10 days
'
1 or more days
1 day
2-4 days
as necessary
1) NESP, 1975; 2) States et al., 1978; 3) Henderson, 1982; 4) Husch et al., 1972; 5)
Odum, 1971; 6) Brown, 1954; 7) Cain and Castro, 1959; 8) Phillips, 1959; 9) Curtis
and Cottam, 1962; 10) Greig-Smith, 1964; 11) Ohmann, 1973; 12) Ford, 1979; 13)
Franzreb, 1977; 14) Kendeigh, 1944; 15) Parnell and Soots, 1979; 16) Taber and
McTaggart-Cowan, 1971; 17) Cochran, 1953; 18) Hanson et al., 1953; 19) Morris, 1960;
20) Southwood et al., 1966; 21) Andrewartha, 1971; 22) ASTM, 1976.
Time frames are estimated based on minimal field time and do not include analysis of data
collected unless otherwise specified.
-------
WETLAND HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Impact
Vegetation
Soils
Erosion
Birds
a
Assessment Technique References
Plot, quadrat or transect methods
Plotless techniques (closest
individual, nearest neighbor,
random pairs, Bitterlich
or quarter methods)
Remote sensing (aerial or
satellite photography)
Vegetation mapping
Dry matter production (biomass)
Soil mapping (pits, cores, augers)
Textural analyses (grain size,
soil type, soil description, water
content)
Chemical analyses
Litter loss rates
Cellulose decomposition
Bacteria
Physical analyses (compaction,
porosity, permeability)
Shoreline profiles
Boating activity inventory
Electronic wave guage
Wind speed gauge and compass
Empirical, site specific
wind wave energy models
Aerial photographs
Aerial visual sample census
Nest counts
Mark and recapture
Auditory index
Temporal census
Radar
Radio-location telemetry
1-11
1-11
12
6-11
1-11,26
1,15
1
1,15
13
13
1*
1,15
16-18
16-18
16-18
16-18
16-18
19-2*
19-2*
19-2*
19-2*
19-2*
19-2*
19-2*
19-2*
b
Time Frame
*-6 days
2-* days
10-20 days
6-8 days
3-5 days
3-* days
7-10 days
2-3 days
several days once
field data has been
collected
2 days/ sample
in situ
in situ
in situ
ID. situ
in situ
under varying
wind conditions
1-5 days
1 or more days
1 or more days
1 or more days,
very time consuming
2-* days
1-3 evenings per roos!
September
migratory seasons
day and night,
all seasons, to 1 year
-------
WETLAND HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Impact
Mammals
Vertebrates/
Invertebrates
Endangered
Species
Assessment Technique
Temporal census
Total capture
Time-area count
Mark and recapture
Marking
Reduction of rate of capture
Selective reduction or increase
Radio-telemetry
Aerial photography/counts
Sweep net collections
Light trapping
Malaise trapping
General collecting
a
References
19-2*
(see also
terrestrial)
19-2*
19-24
25
25
25
25
25
25
20-21
20-21
20-21
20-21
b
Time Frame
2-3 days during migration
very time consuming;
varies with area sampled
1 hr/count for several days
2 days minimum
2 days minimum,
no specific time
2 or more nights
2 separate samples
(1-2 days/animal)
up to 1 year
8-10 days
2-3 weeks
2-3 weeks
2 weeks
6-8 days
Presence of endangered species
may be ascertained through the
use of previously cited methodology
Contact local experts, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife, state agencies
Reference state and federal
endangered species lists
Appendix 1
1 or more days
1 day
1) NESP, 1975; 2) States et al., 1978; 3) Henderson, 1982; *) Husch et al., 1972; 5)
Odum, 1971; 6) Brown, 195*; 7) Cain and Castro, 1959; 8) Phillips, 1959; 9) Curtis
and Cottam, 1962; 10) Greig-Smith, 196*; 11) Ohmann, 1973; 12) Ford, 1979; 13)
Phillipson', 1970; 1*) Parkinson et al., 1971; 15) ASTM, 1976; 16) Zabawa and Ostrom,
1980; 17) Sverdrup and Munk, 19*7; 18) USACOE, 1973; 19) Kendeigh, 19*4; 20) Giles,
1971; 21) NESP, 1975; 22) Franzreb, 1977; 23) Parnell and Scots, 1979; 2*) States et
al., 1978; 25) Taber and McTaggart-Cowan, 1971; 26) Kibby et al., 1980.
b
Time frames are estimated based on minimal field time and do not include analysis of data
collected unless other wise specified.
COASTAL MARINAS*
TB2.3-6.A
-------
SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Impact
Assessment Technique
References3
Time Frame"
Cultural
Historical
Archaeological
Economic
Resources/
Land Use
Reference the National Register
of Historic Places
Interview local collectors
Contact appropriate State Historic (Appen 1)
Preservation Officer
Reference the National Register
of Historic Places
Interview local collectors
Contact appropriate State
Historic Preservation Officer (Appen 1)
Archaeologicl Survey:
Surface reconnaissance 1,2
Excavation 1,2
Laboratory analysis of artifacts 1,2
*Contact local Planning Board
*Review existing mapped data 5
*Visual site survey
Aerial reconnaissance 4-
Comparative cost analysis 1
Input-output analysis 1,6-8
Spatial interaction analysis 1
(The gravity model)
Activity complex analysis 1
Numerical ecological 1
classification system
1 day
2-3 days
1 day
1 day
2-3 days
1 day
several weeks for collec-
tion, testing and data
analysis
1 day
1-2 days
1-2 days
1-2 weeks
Several weeks for collec-
tion, data analysis
Several weeks for collec-
tion, data analysis
Several weeks for collec-
tion, data analysis
Several weeks for collec-
tion, data analysis
Several weeks for collec-i
tion, data analysis
a DHenderson, 1982; 2)Willey, 1966; 3)Isard, 1972; 4)Ford, 1979; 5)U.S. Coast and
Geodetic Survey Charts; 6)Nelson et al., 1980; 7)Crompton and Ditton, 1975; 8)Nissan and
Williams, 1980.
bTime frame dependent upon availability of data, personnel.
-------
AESTHETIC RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Impact
Visual
Assessment Technique
Data Collection Techniques:
Systematic observer survey
Eye-level photography
Written record of visual
impressions
Remote sensingc
Mapping
Unit of
Measurement Reference3
1,2
1,2
1,2
1-3
1,2
Time Frame
in situ
in situ
in situ
10 days
1 or more days
Noise
Taste
Odor
Evaluation Methods:
Qualitative
Classification schemes
Quantitative
Independent
Comprehensive
Precision sound level
meters
Vibration meters
Recorders
Computer modeling and
analytical techniques
Taste threshold test
performed by panel
Threshold odor test
performed by odor
judgement panel
Scentometer
1,*
5-7
8-11
Sound level (L) 12,13
in decibels (dB)
12,13
12,13
Rating system
Rating system
15
15
15
1 or more days
1 or more days
1 or more days
in situ
in situ
in sltu
several days
once all data
has been
collected
1 day
in situ
in situ
1) Roy Mann Associates, Inc., 1975; 2) Henderson, 1982; 3) Ford, 1979; 4) Litton et al.,
1974; 5) Burnham, 1974; 6) Sargent, 1967; 7) Leopold, 1969; 8) Leopold, 1971; 9)
Dee, 1972; 10) Shafer and Mietz, 1970; 11) Golden et al., 1979; 12) Peterson and
Gross, 1974; 13) Englund and Berry, 1974; 14) USEPA, 1978; 15) 3ain, et al., 1974.
Time frames dependent upon availability of data, personnel.
-------
NAVIGATION RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Imp a
ct
Assessment Technique
References3
Time Frameb
Circulation
Wave Conditions
Other Physical
Factors
Soils/Sedi-
ments
Depth
Wind
Direction/
Velocity
Dye and drogue studies/
field observations
Aerial photography/ground-
truth ing
Hydrographic study
Field observations
Wave ray tracing
Refraction and diffraction
diagram analysis
Hydraulic modeling
Analyze available data
Interview local residents
Diver observation
Soil investigations - test piles
- direct soil
evaluation
Soundings
Anemometer
1-3,5 in situ
4,7 10 days
6 Several days once all data
has been collected
_in_ situ
8 2-3 days
9,10 1-2 days
10 Several days once all data
has been collected
Several days once all data
has been collected
jm situ
in situ
11,12 2 days
2 days
in situ
in situ
a DFeverstein and Selleck, 1963; 2)Wilson, 1968; 3)Scott et al., 1969; MFord, 1979;
5) Marcus and Swearingen, 1983; 6)U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts; 7)Blades, 1982;
8)Kinsman et al., 1979; 9)ASCE, 1969; 10)Zabawa and Ostrom, 1980; 11)Plumb, 1981;
12)USEPA, 1979b
Time frame dependent upon availability of data, personnel.
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
SLIP-SIDE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS
ASSUMPTIONS AND COSTING EXAMPLES
-------
-------
TABLE B-l
ASSUMPTIONS MADE FOR
COSTING SYSTEMS
SLIP-SIDE SERVICE
a. Marina design and layout based on information set forth in Marinas:
Recommendations for design construction and management by Clinton
J. Chamberlain, NMMA, 1983
b. Costs of PVC Schedule 40 pipe 2" $1.50/ft
3" $2.75/ft
4" $3.90/ft
c. Installation cost of pipe is equal to capital cost of pipe
d. One vacuum central unit can serve 300 slips and includes two vacuum
pumps and two sewage pumps
e. "Typical" example marina includes 10% liveaboards
f. Installation of vacuum central unit estimated at 20% of capital
costs
g. A vacuum central unit is capable of serving 300 slips
h. Annualized costs based on 15 year life cycle and 12% interest
i. Power costs based on $0.08/KWHR
j. Miscellaneous maintenance costs are equal to 5% of vacuum central
costs
k. Major maintenance is equal to 25% of vacuum central costs per
5 years
1. Assume one vacuum central unit requires h of a man for 0 & M
m. Costs for public wastewater collection/conveyance and treatment
not included in any analysis
n. Costs to boat owners for fit or retrofit with MSD's not included/
considered in discussions
o. Contingencies of 10% of added to costs of system
-------
TABLE B-l (Cont'd.)
2. MARINA WTDE SYSTEMS
a. Assumptions Include: a, b, c, e, h. i, m, n, o (from item 1)
b. Miscellaneous maintenance equal to 5% of capital costs
c. Major maintenance is equal to 25^ of capitl costs every 5 years
d. Every other pier has a pump-out facility
e. Installation of pump-out is equal to 20% of equipment costs
3. PORTABLE/MOBILE SYSTEMS
a. Assumptions include: a, b, c, e, i, m, n, o (from item 1)
b. Annualized costs based on 12% and 15 years on piping and 12% and
5 years on pumping units
c. One person with portable unit can perform 4 pump-outs/hour
d. Shifts assumed to be 10 hours/day, 5 days/week
e. Regular cruising vessel requires one pump-out per week
f. Liveaboard vessel requires pump-out every other day
g. Labor includes 30% benefit package
-------
TABLE B-2
COST ESTIMATE FOR
SLIP-SIDE SERVICE
A. CALCULATE TOTAL LENGTH OF MAIN PIERS
Number of Piers x Length = Total (feet)
Al A2
B. CALCULATE PIPING LENGTH ALONG FINGER PIERS
Number x Length = Actual x 2 (for double = Pipe Length (feet)
wide slips)
Total Bl
C. CALCULATE INTER-PIER (ONSHORE) PIPING
Number of Piers (Al above) x Length of Longest
finger pier (ft) x 3.5 Length (ft)
Total Cl
-------
TABLE B-2 (Cont'd.)
D. CALCULATE PIPING COSTS
Length x Cost/foot = Total Cost
A2
Bl
Cl
Total Dl
E. INSTALLATION COST (100% of Line Dl)
Total El
F. TOTAL PIPING COSTS
Dl + El = Fl
G. DETERMINE:
Gl Number of slips
G2 Number of livaboards
G3 Number of fueling piers
H. CALCULATE VACUUM SYSTEM COSTS
Line Gl - 300(1) =
X
Cost/Vac. Central Module
Total Cost of Modules HI
I. CALCULATE INTERFACE VALVE COST
Single Interface Valve: [(Line Gl - Line G2) - 4] x $/Valve
Automatic Interface Valve: (Line G2) x $/valve
Single (Transient Vessel) Interface
Valve: (Line G3) x $/Valve
Total Cost of Valves II
(1) Assume 300 slips/central vacuum module.
-------
TABLE B-2 (Cont'd.)
J. EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION COST (HI + II)(0.20) =
Total Installation Cost Jl
K. TOTAL SLIP-SIDE VACUUM SYSTEM COST
Fl + HI +11 + Jl
Total Cost Kl
-------
TABLE B-3
COST ESTIMATE FOR
MARINA WIDE SERVICE
A. CACULATE TOTAL NUMBER OF PIERS AND DIVIDE BY TWO
Al v 2 - A2
B. CALCULATE TOTAL PIPING LENGTH ALONG PUMP OUT PIER
Length
Total Bl
C. CALCULATE TOTAL INTERIOR (ON-SHORE) PIPING
Length of Longest
Number of Piers (Line Al) x Finger Pier (ft) x 3.5
X
LATE PIPING COSTS
Length x Cost/ft
x 3.5 =
Total Cl
= Total Cost
Bl x
Cl x
Total Dl
E. INSTALLATION COSTS (100% of Line Dl)
Total El
-------
TABLE B-3 (Cont'd.)
F. TOTAL PIPING COSTS
Dl + El = Fl
G. COST OF PUMP-OUT EQUIPMENT:
Number of Pump-outs Line A2 x Cost Per Unit =
Total Gl
I. INSTALLATION OF PUMP-OUT EQUIPMENT
Line Gl x 0.2
Total II
J. TOTAL MARINA WIDE PUMP-OUT COSTS
Fl + Gl + HI
Total Jl
-------
TABLE B-4
COST ESTIMATE EOR
PORTABLE/MOBILE SYSTEM
A. DETERMINE NO. OF PUMP-OUTS REQUIRED PER DAY
, _.. one pump-out x week =
Regular Slips x *—? -r—•
week 5 days
Subtotal Al
T. , , _.. 4 pump-outs x week
Liveaboard Slips x —l E
week 5 days
Subtotal A2
Total Al + A2 A3
B. DETERMINE UNITS REQUIRED
Line A3 AO pump-outs =
day
Total Bl
C. UNIT COSTS
Line Bl + 1 (standby unit) x Cost/Unit =
Total Cl
D. DETERMINE PIPING COSTS (ON-SHORE) PORTABLE UNIT PUMPS TO COLLECTION
LINE ON SHORE
Total Number of Piers x Length of Longest Finger Pier (ft) x 3.5
Total Dl
E. PIPE INSTALLATION COST
100% of Line Dl
Total El
F. TOTAL PORTABLE/MOBILE COSTS
Line Cl + Line Dl + Line El =
Total Fl
-------
APPENDIX C
CONTROLLED PURIFICATION OF 'SHELLFISH
-------
-------
Shellfish are particularly sensitive resources with respect to
marina development .because of the potential for fecal bacteria con-
tamination from marinas and boat discharges. Shellfish will cleanse
themselves of polluting microorganisms and other substances over a period
of time if they are provided with clean water.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognizes two cleansing
methods. One method, referred to as relaying, involves transferring
shellfish from a restricted or prohibited growing area to one that meets
approved growing water standards. These shellfish must remain in
approved waters for at least 14 days before being reharvested. The
second method, referred to as controlled purification or depuration,
involves the process of self-cleansing in an onshore facility, a depura-
tion plant, where water quality can be controlled. In most instances,
water taken from a nearby estuary is disinfected in a depuration plant by
ozonation or ultraviolet irradiation. The water then flows through tanks
containing the shellfish and is returned to the estuary. The depuration
process requires approximately 48 to 72 hours. Complete depuration must
be confirmed by required bacteriological testing (Williams, et jal_., 1980;
FDA, DRAFT; Furfari, 1966).
Shellfish purification methods are technically proven processes that
allow harvesting of shellfish from most of the coastal waters but should
not be considered substitutes for adequate pollution control. Each
method has advantages and disadvantages related to technical application,
( economics, institutional concerns, and environmental characteristics. In
general, the methods and principles discussed are valid for all shellfish
but the specifics and details of purification could vary significantly.
Depuration (Controlled Purification)
Commercial depuration of shellfish has been successfully practiced
in Great Britain and other European countries for over 60 years. In
fact, the majority of marketable oysters in England and Wales are subject
to a purification process. By contrast, depuration has been sporadically
practiced in the United States. Clam depuration plants are located in
Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, South Carolina, Florida and
California (Table C-l). The only existing oyster depuration plant in the
United States is a land based aquaculture facility in Hawaii which grows
the Pacific oyster. One oyster depuration plant, currently scheduled for
construction in Louisiana, will have a capacity of approximately 1,000
bushels per day (Casper, 1984). The limited use of controlled purifica-
tion is not clearly understood since many oyster beds throughout the
United States are closed for harvest due to moderate pollution.
There are many factors to consider in constructing and operating a
depuration facility. The typical depuration plant is comprised of four
units: 1) controlled dry storage for untreated and treated shellfish, 2)
washing and culling facilities for untreated and treated shellfish, 3)
depuration tanks or basins and 4) seawater treatment (Figure C-l).
Depending on the facility, office and laboratory space may be necessary.
( Conveyer belts or overhead traveling cranes and hoists for lifting large
loads of shellfish may be needed for large plants (Furfari, 1966).
-------
TABLE C-l
DEPURATION PLANTS OPERATIONAL IN THE USA AS OF JULY 1983
State
Maine
Massachusetts
New York
New Jersey
South Carolina
Florida
California
Hawaii
Number
3
1
1
2
5
1
1
1
Type
Soft Clam
Soft Clam
Hard Clam
Soft Clam
Hard Clam
Hard Clam
French Oyster
(12/82 Inactive)
Pacific Oyster
(3/83 Inactive)
SOURCE: Furfari, 1983 (unpublished)
-------
The site of a shellfish purification plant is of primary importance.
Factors to be considered include a suitable supply of seawater,
accessibility by vehicle and/or boat, availability of utility services
such as electricity, and water and waste disposal. The pollution status
of a water source is critical to the depuraton process. The two most
economical sources of seawater are a well supply or local high quality
surface supply. The quality of source seawater required is outlined in
Table C-2, along with major environmental factors important in the
depuration of shellfish to acceptable levels. These environmental fac-
tors include temperature, turbidity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, flow
rate, pH, and the concentration of pollutants in the depuration waters.
Brief descriptions of these factors follow; more information is available
from Furfari (1966, 1976) and Bond and Truax (1978).
. Temperature affects the activity of shellfish. Low temperatures
generally cause hibernation and inactivity; higher temperatures
may induce spawning of ripe oysters which could cause operational
problems.
. Excessive turbidity can reduce shellfish feeding activity, reduce
the penetrating power of ultraviolet light, cause an undesirable
taste in shellfish, and cause maintenance problems.
. Reduction of salinity to a level of 50 to 60 percent of the oysters'
natural environment was found to stop shellfish from functioning.
. Variations within + 20 percent of those conditions found in the har-
vest area have a mTnimum influence on the cleansing process.
. Dissolved oxygen levels in depuration waters are reported to be
important because below 2.55 cc/liter (3.6 mg/liter) the oxygen con-
sumption of £. virginica becomes restricted.
. Flow rates are directly related to the degree of oxygen depletion.
The greater the flow rate the more oxygen provided to the shellfish
and the lower the rate of depletion. A flow rate of 1
liter/oyster/hour is recommended.
. Oyster depuration will occur between pH values of 7.0 and 8.4 units.
. Pollution in the form of metals and some organics can be
concentrated by shellfish. Additionally, shellfish concentrate
microorganisms of which pathogens are a problem. The inactivation
of microorganisms in seawater has been accomplished by several
means, including chlorination, ultraviolet light treatment,
ozonation and heating.
-------
f
J
)h
r
x»
1
T
S0&S/0
k
?!
M
>>^
ii A" r •
51 | \ -
u i -• *~'
,
to
c
(O
-p
res
s_
3
O-
O)
CD
I
O
0)
s_
3
CD
-------
TABLE C-2
QUALITY OF DEPURATION SOURCE WATER (SEAWATER)
Limits
Item
b
Temperaure :
Soft Clam
Hard Clam
Oyster
Minimum
35°F(2'C)
50°F(10°C)
50°F(10'C)
Maximum
68°F(20°C)
68°F(20°C)
77°F(25°C)
Control Methods
Incorporate water temperature control
device into depuration facility
Turbidity
PH
7.0
20 Jackson Candle
Turbidity Units
8.4
Reduce turbidity by settling, filtration,
and centrifugation. Care must be given
not to remove food particles from depura-
tion waters
Raise or lower artifically
Salinity1
Oxygen
Metallic Ions
and Compounds
Organics,
Radioisotopes
and Marine Toxins
within (100^20) %
percent of the
harvest area value
5.0 mg/1
Saturation
temperature
Potentially toxic metals shall not
be in concentrations above that
normally found in seawater
Pesticides, detergents, dye stuffs,
radioisotopes and marine toxins
shall not be in concentrations in
water above that which can cause
concentrations in shellfish which
are unacceptable by FDA regulations,
Paralytic shellfish poison:
80 micrograms per 100 grams
of the edible portion
Locate plant in vicinity of harvest area.
Dilute high salinity seawater with fresh-
water. Use artificial seawater
Elevate D.O. by diffused aeration or
cascade aeration
Treatments to remove these elements and
compounds typically too expensive and
difficult to control
Treatments to remove these elements and
compounds typically too expensive and
difficult to control
-------
TABLE C-2
(continued)
QUALITY OF DEPURATION SOURCE WATER (SEAWATER)
Limits
Item Minimum Maximum Control Methods
Coliform MPN/100 ml:
Depuration Seawater 1.0 Bactericidal treatment such as
ozone or untraviolet light
Source Seawater ' Median of samples equal to
or less than 700 (not more than
10 percent of samples shall
exceed 2300 for a 5-tube,
3-dilution test, and 3300 for a
3-tube, 3-dilution test)
Flow rate one gall on/min/bushel
aAdapted from Furfari, 1966 and Bond and Truax, 1978
Subject to geographical and local differences. For example, Gulf Coast oysters may depurate just as
effectively at 28°C as at 25°C, and at turbidities up to 100 JTU.
c
According to Furfari (1976) the depuration plants in the United States did not require salinity adjustments
-------
Treatment of the seawater to meet the quality standards outlined in
Table C-2 may or may not be necessary. However, in order to maintain
sanitary conditions and to assure that the water used in purification is
not contaminated, treatment • for microbiological contamination is
necessary. The two most widely used techniques for reducing bacterial
and viral populations of waters are ultraviolet (UV) irradiation and
ozonation. Ozone is used in France and Spain and UV light is used in the
United Kingdom and United States in commercial plants. The effectiveness
of using these methods has been well documented (Furfari 1966,1976; Bond
and Truax 1978; Williams et al., 1980).
Ultraviolet Irradiation
Relatively high concentrations of coliforms and various viruses have
been reduced to almost undetectable levels with proper operation of
ultraviolet treatment. There are four operational items pertinent to the
use of the ultraviolet disinfection system; these are bulb monitoring and
replacement, maintenance of the unit, safety of personnel and equipment
reliability (Furfari, 1966). An effective ultraviolet water treatment
unit developed by the Public Health Service is depicted in Figure C-2.
Ultraviolet lamps are manufactured for a variety of purposes but it
is onT^y those which emit ultraviolet light in the germicidal range
(2,537A) that may be used for shellfish purification. A dose of approxi-
mately 7,000 viw-sec/cm2 is required to assure that viruses and bacteria
will be killed (FDA, 1983). In addition, the effective penetration of
ultraviolet light is limited by depth of water and turbidity. Turbidity
is the major deterrent to the ultraviolet disinfection system because
excessive turbidity can inhibit the disinfection process. Additional
facilities for removal of suspended solids may have to be incorporated,
depending on the water source used. These factors need to be considered
in the design of seawater systems.
There are currently no standardized purification tank designs in the
United States, but basic hydraulic and sanitation concepts may be
followed. The FDA (DRAFT) recommended specifications for depuration
tanks would provide a maximum depth of 7,6 cm (3 in) for hard clams and
oysters and 2\0.3 m (a in) for soft clams. This tank size would allow at
least 0.224m;* (8 ft6) per U.S. bushel of hard clams and oysters or
0.14m (5 ft ) per U.S. bushel of soft clams. It is also recommended
that hydraulic flow throughout the tank be uniform and turbulence in the
tank be minimized to avoid recontamination of the shellfish.
The other treatment method, ozonation, typically does not require
additional water treatment for turbidity. The germicidal properties of
ozone have been attributed to its high oxidation potential (Bond and
Truax, 1978). By-products from the decomposition of ozone are also
effective in reducing the microbial concentration of waters. The
limiting factor in the maintenance of shellfish in a closed depuration
system is nitrogeneous waste accumulation. Ozone reactions with various
nitrogen compounds are complex and influenced by the characteristics of
the water being treated (i.e., pH, temperature, concentration of com-
-------
•&
Dz
IT
To Coo/
To
X
0 0 O1^ OOQO
M/-/^5;
1^ i i*x l
0 0
^•/icc
1
. Q ,_ L"\ ^\ y-v
j
\8
i<_» •-/ <^i
/ '
xl
1 (*
r- — ~5.
r-"
U.V- Q
3 (Jn.'f must i>* /«.»/<:/.
•4.
Figure C-2. Ultraviolet treatment unit for sea water developed by the Public Health
Service at Purdy, Washington (Furfari, 1966).
-------
peting compounds, etc.)- However, the end product of those reactions
appears to be nitrate (Bond and Truax, 1978). Nitrates are reported to
be least toxic with regard to shellfish activity, with levels as high as
100 ppm showing no effect on metabolic processes. The use of ozone
requires careful control because excessive ozone concentrations may
weaken or kill oysters. Ozone generators also require auxiliary equip-
ment such as blowers, piping and filters (Furfari, 1966). An example of
an ozone treatment unit is depicted in Figure C-3.
Regardless of the depuration method selected, ozonation or ultra-
violet irradiation, a period of 48 to 72 hours is required for the puri-
fication process to be considered complete. If polluted shellfish are
added to a batch which has already received partial purification then
another 48 hour period of purification must be completed before any
shellfish may be marketed. The time required for depuration is a func-
tion of the environmental conditions in the depuration system, the ini-
tial bacterial level in the shellfish and the final bacterial levels
desired. Source and process seawater are therefore tested daily for cri-
tical parameters and to demonstrate that treatment units are working
properly.
The basic premise for public health assurance is that depurated
shellfish harvested from restricted areas should attain the same low
bacterial levels of shellfish harvested from approved or conditionally
approved areas. Generally, the shellfish harvested from waters in the
range of 70-200 coliform MPN/100 ml need to be depurated for 48 hours;
those from waters in the range of 200-700 coliform MPN/100 ml need to be
depurated for 72 hours. Shellfish harvested from waters containing more
than 700/100 ml coliform are considered unacceptable for depuration
(Furfari, 1966).
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) final product
criteria for soft shelled clams (Mya arenaria) is a median of 50 fecal
coliforms per 100 grams of meat or less and not more than 10 percent of
the samples exceeding 170 fecal coliform per 100 grams (FDA, DRAFT).
NSSP guidelines state that hard clams and oysters can be purified to a
median of 20 fecal coliform per 100 grams and not more than 10 percent of
the samples exceeding 70 fecal coliform per 100 grams (FDA, DRAFT). NSSP
purification requirements are further discussed in the Institutional
Section.
Relaying
Shellfish relaying, the movement of shellfish from polluted waters
to cleaner waters for purging and later reharvesting, is another
potential solution to loss of shellfish resources from required closures.
In relaying operations, shellfish are harvested from marginally polluted
areas onto boat decks or packed in bags, plastic crates or baskets.
Shellfish are then transported to specially approved sites and flushed
off the decks into the water by high velocity hoses, or the bags and/or
crates containing the shellfish are lowered by ropes to the estuary bot-
tom. Baskets may be placed on rocky foreshores, supported by racks on
-------
r
i i
Top View: icale- V • l'-0"
Norton Dome Oiffusers
1
\
•-0"
I_
f
L
o-
In
4-
r
1
-0"
\
_—
J
et
s—1
:
'
N
-N
1
HJ
>
j
i
i
i
1 —
_s"a_
^
-
L«^i
> £
t
i
4
^
-
^
r
/)
6")
'
y
"
A
j£_
',
_!_;
d ! „
i — j —
y
^r&J
• • .'"'° ",
— .•--
• • •• mn^
Lsi^
.. —
•*
- 3',"« PVC
^
cV
L- J
Air —
— ^-^
*
]rs^saJ
i
i
V^-
fr
r
u
°"C
.
*
LSB£2|
-0"
1
I--
_
— .
,
-
L
O
w.
^
V.
-•
1 Found
... 2. Chimb
S* ' »mi A
Jttel
1. All p
._ 9<"0
1
| Tint (Optlonil)
1
1 To Depuntlon
1
Hi i ?
_Jj i 6 — -
i !
Typical Ozone/Aeration Unit
Scale- 1" • r-0"
020HE CDHTKACT CHAWEft
Foundation plan Is for estimating only. Ftnal design Mill be
dependent upon the location of the Deouratfon Facility
Chambers A (Ozone Recover). B (Main Treatment) anc C (Contact
tlon) ire to be fabricated from 1/9" thick nlld
steel ptatesi sand blasted and coated with Hypaton ™
J, All pipe fftMi otone generator, and atr compressor to the 620
optional tank Is schedule 80 PVC joints are~threade
-------
soft beaches, suspended from rafts, or attached to floated lines for
easier recovery. Basket purification also may be used as an additional
step by depuration facilities to ensure reasonable purification time and
also as a means to maintain continuity and uniformity of supply.
Relaying from restricted or prohibited areas to approved areas is
allowed by state shellfish control agencies subject to certain limita-
tions. Relaying operations are carried out by state agencies, private
Interests, or joint ventures between state transplanters and private
operators/shippers. All relaying operations must be under the immediate
supervision of the shellfish control agency.
Like controlled purification, the cleansing process depends on the
pumping activity of the shellfish which is controlled by environmental
factors such as water quality, temperature, salinity, turbidity, size and
the presence of organic and inorganic materials. Temperature is a criti-
cal factor since the rate of purging appears to be negatively related to
water temperature. The lower the water temperatures (perhaps bounded,
however), the shorter period of time needed for successful purging
(Easley and Seabolt, 1981). However, viruses are not eliminated at the
same rate as bacteria. Current NSSP practice among the states is to
require a minimum purification time of 14 days. This period of time is
sufficient to allow all shellfish in a population to cleanse themselves
of polluting microorganisms if environmental factors are favorable for
oyster or other shellfish activity.
Shellfish from prohibited areas will require longer periods for'
purification if they are heavily laden with viruses. The time period for
purification by means of basket relaying may be shortened to four or five
days based on local study results. However, this shortened time period
necessitates more intense monitoring of water quality, the shellfish and
environmental parameters.
NSSP purification requirements, outlined in Figure C-4, must be met
before shellfish are allowed to be marketed. The water quality in the
relay area must be monitored to document that approved water quality
standards are maintained (i.e., median coliform MPN of the water is less
than 70/100 ml or the median fecal coliform MPN is less than 14/100 ml;
FDA, DRAFT). NSSP purification requirements for relaying are further
discussed in the Institutional Section.
INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
The rules and regulations relating to the utilization of shellfish
harvested from restricted areas vary from state to state in USEPA Region
IV. While all USEPA Region IV states have written policies concerning
relaying, depuration policies apparently are not as well defined, since
only two states (South Carolina and Florida) have operational facilities.
Many of the states have recently reviewed or are currently reviewing
state policies concerning depuration and/or relaying. The USEPA Region
IV states with written depuration and relaying policies generally follow
the guidelines established by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
-------
NSSP PURIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
PROHIBITED AREA
>700/ 100ML
TOT. COLI.
\
r
/SOURCE \
1 OF I
I SHELLFISH/
RESTRICTED AREA
70-700/100ML
TOT. COLI.
i
APPROVED AREA
<70/100ML
TOT. COLI.
RESTRICTED AREA
70-700/100ML
TOT. COLI.
RELAY TO
APPROVED
AREA
<70/100ML
TIME: 14-30 Days
TEMP: 10°C+
SAL:
D.O:
TURB:
DEPURATION PLANTS
I TIME: 14-30 Days |
I TEMP: 10°C+ '
SAL:
D.O:
TURB:
1
TIME:
TEMP:
SAL:
D.O:
TURB:
10°C
I
DEPURATION PLANTS
TIME:
TEMP:
SAL:
j D.O:
TURB:
FLOW
RATE:
48 HRS+
10-20" C hard clams '
10-29°C Chesapeake I
Bay Oysters '
Not vary >20% from I
harvest area I
Not drop below 5 I
mg/1 I
Up to 80 ppm for I
oysters
I RATE: 1 g
1 gal/mlnute/bushel .
1
TIME:
TEMP:
SAL:
D.O:
TURB:
FLOW
RATE:
48 Hrs+
10-20°C hard clams
10-29°C Chesapeake
Bay Oysters
Not vary >20% from
harvest area
Not drop below 5
mg/1
Up to 80 ppm for
oysters
1
1 gal/minute/bushel
r
1^91 ICA i/
Depuration shall be permitted only under the Immediate supervision of the appropriate state shellfish control
agency.
Abstracted from FDA, 1983.
Figure C-4. Purification requirements of the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program (adapted from FDA, 1983).
-------
(NSSP), a cooperative association between the states, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the shellfish industry. The NSSP's basic
program document, the 1965 Manual of Operations, is currently being
updated and is referred to in the text as FDA, DRAFT. Relaying and
depuration regulations continue to be developed in response to increased
commercial interest in their use.
The states, supervised by FDA, are responsible for providing laws or
regulations to ensure the sanitary control of all interstate phases of
the shellfish industry, including relaying and depuration. State proce-
dures related to relaying and depuration include sanitary surveys of
growing areas. Each growing area is designated as approved, con-
ditionally approved (optional), restricted (optional), or prohibited.
The states may alternatively classify conditionally approved and
restricted areas as prohibited if technical and administrative resources
are insufficient for surveying, monitoring and controlled harvesting.
Areas in which sanitary surveys have not been performed are automatically
classified as prohibited. The classifications are summarized below.
MedianMedian
total coliform fecal coliform
standard standard
Approved < 70 MPN/100 ml <14 MPN/100 ml
nmt 10% of samples nmt 10% of samples
>230/100 ml - >43 MPN/100 ml
for 5-tube decimal
dilution test
Prohibited >700 MPN/100 ml >140/100 ml
>10% of samples >10% of samples
>2300/100ml >430 MPN/100 ml
State shellfish control agencies (SSCA) may approve the transfer or
relay of market shellfish from restricted or prohibited areas to approved
areas for purification if certain conditions are met. Those conditions
as outlined in the current NSSP Manual, are summarized in Table C-3.
Shellfish from restricted areas may be marketed after effective
controlled purification (depuration). Controlled depuration of shellfish
harvested directly from prohibited areas is not permitted. Table C-4
summarizes the guidelines for shellfish depuration facilities.
-------
TABLE C-3
NSSP RELAY PURIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
State control agency provides or approves written operating procedures.
Harvester possesses a valid permit or license to relay issued by the SSCA. The license
may be renewed annually or per relay operation.
SSCA provides supervision for harvest, transport, and laying down of the shellfish.
Shellfish for relay shall not be contaminated with heavy metals, hydrocarbons, toxic
chemicals or radionuclides to the extent that they may not be removed during
relaying.
Designated relay areas are located and marked for ready identification and so that any
adjacent approved areas will not be contaminated.
Shellfish shall not be relaid for less than 14 days under suitable conditions for puri-
fication.
Relaid shellfish are harvested only with writen permission of SSCA.
Adequate records are maintained by the private relay harvestor/operator. (Test
results, date of harvest, stock source, quantity, etc.)
Adequate records are maintained by SSCA for each relay operation.
Container (basket) relaying is subjected to the same type of controls as conventional
relaying except for a shorter purification time period and more intense testing.
Shellfish from prohibited areas are still relaid for a minimum of 14 days.
SOURCE: FDA, DRAFT.
-------
TABLE C-4
NSSP CONTROLLED PURIFICATION (DEPURATION PLANT) REQUIREMENTS
Shellfish from restricted or prohibited areas are notjtransported for purification without
written permission from SSCA.
The depuration system and operations have been demonstrated prior to certification.
SSCA provides or approves written operating procedures for all critical components from
harvesting to distribution as a certified product.
Depuration plant is licensed, permitted and/or certifJed to operate by SSCA, who also has admi-
nistrative control.
SSCA provides supervision, enforces operating procedures, inspects, evaluates and processes
records.
Shellfish come from estuaries having a restricted are^is classification.
Source seawater Is of no less quality than a restricted area and there are no Industrial wastes
to degrade the shellfish quality.
Maximum collform level of tank water is 1 total collfprm per 100 ml.
Adequate laboratory control and monitoring is maintained during the purification operation.
Final product crtterla for soft shelled clams (Mya ar6narla) is a median of 50 fecal coliform
per 100 grams or less and not more than ^Q% of the samples exceed 170 fecal coliform per 100
grams. Final product criteria for other shellfish species are specified in operating proce-
dures.
SSCA performs monthly sanitation Inspections, revlewsiof operating procedures, and evaluations
of monitoring and end product quality data during periods of operation. Comprehensive plant
evaluation performed annually prior to recertificatloip.
Depuration operator maintains adequate records consistent with requirements of the operating
procedures. I
SSCA maintains records for each facility including sapitary survey reports, analysis of process
data, facility sanitary inspection reports, compliance reports.
SSCA approves all construction/remodeling plans prior
SSCA forwards to FDA Shellfish Certification Form for
Certified Shellfish Shippers List.
to commencing construction or remodeling.
listing the plant on the Interstate
SOURCE: FDA, DRAFT.
-------
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Presently there is little information with which to compare depura-
tion costs with those for relaying in the United States. Direct com-
parisons of cost evaluations currently available generally are not
reliable because they are based on different factors. These cost factors
such as location, current prices, harvest yields, harvest methods, losses
during processing and processing time are highly variable and are criti-
cal to the determination of actual costs. Varying local political and
environmental conditions also play a large role in determining the econo-
mics of purification. The following information gives a general indica-
tion of the relative costs involved in a shellfish cleansing program
based on data obtained from people involved in the oyster industry and
from local officials.
One of the major economic and planning considerations for a
depuration facility is determining the location. The site chosen governs
the design and layout of the structure which in turn governs internal
operations and product flow (Furfari, 1976). The scale of the plant will
mainly be dependent on the availability of polluted shell stock. The
annual average productivity of the area indicates the plant capacity that
particular site location can support.
Ideally, once the desired plant capacity is determined, the type of
treatment, UV or ozone, can be decided upon. Ultraviolet irradiation has
traditionally been the treatment of choice in the United States.
However, ozone is proven outside the U.S. and is a viable alternative.
One reason why UV has been chosen over ozone is due to cost. The costs
of setting up an ozone facility are more expensive than UV (Williams et
a!., 1980; Lozes, 1984). UV treatment is generally used for smaller
purification plants and ozone is used for larger facilities due to the
higher initial costs. Estimated equipment costs for an ultraviolet faci-
lity with a capacity of 100 sacs (sac = 1 1/3 bushel) per day are $10,000
to $12,000. Equipment costs for an ozone facility of the same size are
estimated to be $35,000 to $40,000 (Lozes, 1984).
Operating and design costs for a significantly larger facility
(capacity of 400 sacs per day) are estimated to range from $250,000 to
$350,000, excluding land acquisition costs. The major component of these
costs is construction of the plant. Construction costs can be reduced
depending on site location (Lozes, 1984). The use of existing structures
may also be considered as a means to avoid high construction costs. Many
of the northern facilities are converted lobster pools, wet storage
areas, garages or shucking houses. Other means of reducing overall costs
include having an adequate supply of clean water for use in the cleansing
process in order to avoid pretreatment costs. Another cost factor which
may be reduced is the expense of laboratory testing. If the state does
not perform required laboratory tests, these tests can be performed at
the depuration facility at an approximate cost of $20.00 per sample, or
$75.00 to $100.00 per batch of shellfish.
-------
C
Depuration will increase the expense of oyster processing by an
estimated 12 to 14 percent (Lozes, 1984). However, certain commercial
buyers (particularly restaurants) are willing to pay the increased price
to ensure receipt of a high quality depurated product. As the shellfish
industry and general public become more cognizant of the value of the
purification process, the more this treatment technology will be put into
practice.
The alternative purification process, relaying, is commonly reported
to be more expensive than depuration. The expected mortality of the
shellfish is a prime factor when comparing depuration to relaying. The
average mortality rate at a depuration facility is reportedly two to
three percent compared to a 20 to 40 percent loss in the relaying pro-
cess. The higher mortality associated with relaying is due to double
handling, predation and disease of shellstock. The higher the mortality
rate, the higher the cost per bushel because equipment and labor costs,
already committed, remain the same.
The economies of scale are greater for a depuration facility than
for a traditional relaying program (Furfari, unpublished). Although the
initial costs of a depuration facility are considerably higher than those
for relaying, the added cost per depurated barrel (barrel=4 bushels)
decreases with higher production rates while the added cost for relaying
remains about the same. For example, the 1979 estimated added cost per
depurated bushel was $2.00 for a 100 bushel/day plant and $1.00 for a 200
-bushel/day plant. However, the estimated (1979) added cost per relaid
bushel was about $3.10 for 100 bushels relaid and approximately $3.00 for
200 bushels relaid. The 1979 market price was $7.50 per bushel. Note
that the relay estimates are based on a relaying loss of 20 percent
(Furfari, unpublished). Relaying using baskets can susbtantially reduce
the added cost per bushel by decreasing the mortality rate and reducing
the processing time.
Costs for relaying and/or depuration will also vary over time.
Relaying costs are lower than depuration costs over the short-term (two
to three years) due to initial cost expenditures for depuration facili-
ties. Over the long run, depuration can be less costly than relaying. A
break-even analysis depicted by Furfari (unpublished - circa 1979) shows
a break-even time of 2.75 years for relay versus depuration at a produc-
tion rate of 200 bushels per day.
Joint State/Private Relaying
In order to give a general indication of the costs involved in a
relay program, estimates are given for relaying accomplished by two
methods: private interests and joint state and private interests. Since
all the data are not available for analyzing each method, direct
comparison of cost and income from the options shown is advised with
caution.
-------
Cost factors included in the computations that follow are 1984
updates of figures outlined by Etzold in a 1975 estimate of transplanting
oysters from polluted to non-polluted Mississippi waters by a state
agency for harvest by a private oyster tonger (Williams et al., 1980).
The estimates by Etzold were for long-term averages and included engine
overhaul, painting, etc. These figures were updated by the consumer
price index (CPI) and durable goods price index. The changes in the
index from 1975 to July 1984 are as follows:
Year CPI Durable Goods
1975 161.2 165.8
July 1984 307.5 261.3
Price Adjustment Factor 1.908 1.576
The 1984 updated estimated costs to transport the oysters are shown
in Table C-5A. The 1984 figures indicate that it would cost the state
approximately $2.83 per barrel (total volume) to transplant the oysters.
Part of the total volume dredged and transferred was shells; this par-
tially accounts for a 30 percent recovery rate. Therefore, the
transplanting cost per barrel is $9.34 ($2.83 x 3.3), or $2.34 per
bushel.
The estimated cost to the private harvester in 1984 is approximately
$7.92 per barrel or $1.98 per bushel (Table C-5B.). The sum of trans-
planting and harvesting costs, $10.75 per barrel, does not include admi-
nistrative costs to the state, or any charge for labor and management for
tonging the transplanted oysters. An average market price of $12.00 per
bushel ($48.00 per bbl) was chosen out of current quoted values ranging
from $7.00 to $17.00 per bushel. Based on this $12.00 per bushel value,
returns to labor and management for oyster tongers would be $10.02 per
bushel ($12.00 - $1.98 = $10.02). Note that the $10.02 value excludes
all costs of transplanting the oysters.
Private Relaying
Data presented for the alternate cleansing method, relaying, by pri-
vate interests is based upon one season's operation by one commercial
firm, as reported by Williams et al. (1980). The cost to have oysters
dredged from leased water bottoms by a private interest was $3.00 per
barrel (total volume), based on 1978-1979 prices. The oysters, harvested
after 15 days, had a recovery rate of 30 percent of the total volume.
Long-term recovery rates are expected to be higher than short-term rates
due to reproduction of unrecovered oysters. For example, approximately
70 percent of one batch left on the bottom for six months was recovered.
At a short-term recovery rate of 30 percent (total volume), the per
barrel cost of transplanting recovered oysters was 3.3 times the cost per
barrel, or $9.90 per barrel (total volume). The cost to harvest the
oysters was $15.00 per barrel. Therefore, the cost to transplant and
recover the oysters .was $24.90 per barrel ($6.23 per bushel). At a
market price of $30.00 per barrel ($7.50 per bushel) there would be $1.27
-------
TABLE C-5
JOINT STATE/PRIVATE RELAYING COSTS
A. COST TO STATE FOR TRANSPLANTING OYSTERS
1978 Price 1984 Price
19753 Adjustment Adjustment
Value Factor Factor
Vessel $ 8,000 1.135 1.576
Interest 4,400
Operation & Maintenance 58,500 1.212 1.908
Haul Out, Scrape, Paint 1,500 1.212 1.908
Engine Overhaul 400 1.212 1.908
Miscellaneous 2,000 1.212. 1.908
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS
1978 COST PER BARREL $89,100/48,000 bbl = $1.86
1984 COST PER BARREL $136,067/48,000 bbl = $2.83
1978b
Adjusted
Valuec
9,080
4,400
70,902
1,818
485
2,424
89,109
1984
Adjusted
ValueC
12,608
4,400
111,618
2,862
763
, 3,816
136,067
B. COST TO OYSTER TONGERS TO HARVEST TRANSPLANTED OYSTERS
1978 Price 1984 Price
19759 Adjustment Adjustment
Value Factor Factor
Boat 40 1.135 1.576
Motor 450 1.135 1.576
Equipment 100 1.212 1.908
Fuel, etc. 1,500 1.212 1.908
1978°
Adjusted
ValueC
45
510
121
1,818
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS $ 2,494
1978 $2,500 x 100 Tongers = $250,000
1984 $3,800 x 100 Tongers = $380,000
1978 COST PER BARREL = $250,000/48,000 bbl = $5.20
1984 COST PER BARREL = $380,000/48,000 bbl = $7.92
TOTAL COST per barrel of transplanted oysters: 1978 1984
Transplant 1
Harvest 5
TOTAL $7
.86 2.83
.20 7.92
.06 $10.75
1984
Adjusted
ValueC
63
709
191
2,862
$3,825
Estimates by Etzold (1975) in Williams et al., 1980.
bEstimates updated from 1975 to 1978 by Williams et al. (1980) are given for means of
comparison of private relaying costs presented in the text.
°Adjusted values are the sum of the 1975 value times (x) the appropriate Price Adjustment
Factor.
-------
per bushel profit to include capital, management, and other costs,
excluding any cost for obtaining the lease.
The cost of the lease will vary according to the size of the lease
and the state from which it is granted. The expenses the private relayer
may incur by leasing bottom lands include a lease application fee, yearly
lease payment, survey fee and annual patrol ing expense.
In summary, the above economic analysis indicates that relaying is
more expensive than depuration over the long run. Costs over the short-
term, however, are lower for relaying than for depuration due to substan-
tially lower initial costs.
-------
C
LITERATURE CITED
Ayres, P.A. 1978. Shellfish purification in installations using ultra-
violet light. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Directorate of Fisheries Research. Laboratory Leaflet No. 43,
Lowestoft, England. 20 pp.
Bond, Marvin T. and D.D. Truax'. 1978. Environmental, legal and manage-
ment aspects of proposed oyster depuration facility. Mississippi-
Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, Mississippi State University.
Easley, J.E., Jr. and J.D. Seabolt. 1981. Shellfish relay: a prelim-
inary review of potential gains from alternative property rights in
southeastern North Carolina. UNC Sea Grant College Program, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 15 pp.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Draft. Update national shellfish
sanitation program manual of operations, Part I sanitation of
shellfish growing areas. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C. 166 pp.
. 1983. England shellfish program review.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Washington, D.C. 68 pp.
Furfari, Santo A. Unpublished. Cost curves, break even curve, operating
estimates, etc. Approximate date: 1979. Shellfish Sanitation
Branch, NETSU, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C.
. 1966. Depuration plant design. Northeast Shellfish
SanitationResearch Center, U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, Washington, D.C. 119 pp.
. 1976. Shellfish purification: a review of current
technology. Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Food and Drug Administra-
tion, Washington, D.C. 16 pp.
. 1983. Reprints including operational depuration plant
list, plant layouts. Shellfish Sanitation Branch, NETSU, Food and
Drug Administration, Washington, D.C.
Nielson, Bruce J., D.S. Haven and F.O. Perkins. 1976. Technical studies
on the engineering and biological aspects of controlled purifica-
tion of the eastern oyster. Volume I. Prepared for Public Health
Service, Food and Drug Administration by Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA.
Quayle, D.B. and F.R. Bernard. 1976. Purification of basket-held
Pacific oysters in the natural environment. In: Proceeding of the
National Shellfisheries Association 66:69-75.
-------
LITERATURE CITED (continued)
Williams, D.C., D.J. Etzold and E. Nissan. 1980. Oyster depuration
facility: economic assessment. Prepared under a Mississippi-
Alabama Sea Grant, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg,
MS.
-------
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLES OF LOCAL ORDINANCES FOR REGULATING
MARINA ACTIVITIES
-------
-------
APPENDIX D.I
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
PROPOSED BOAT DOCKING FACILITY ORDINANCE
(under revision as of 4-85)
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAM FOR
RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL BOAT DOCKING FACILITIES;
REQUIREMENTS; WORK EXEMPT FROM CLASS I PERMITS
This ordinance provides an April 1,1984 effective date for en
operating permit program for commerciaJ boat docking facilities and
recreational boat docking facilities containing or capable of containing
ten or more vessels. Operating requirements for recreational facilities
include sewage pumpout stations by October 1, 1984 and direct
sewage pumpout connections for houseboat liveaboards by January 1,
1985. A technical advisory committee will be appointed by the County
Manager to evaluate the methods of providing direct sewage .pumpout
connections for cruising liveaboards and make recommendations in six
months. Transient vessels are exempted from the direct sewage
pumpout connection if they have a U.S. Coast Guard approved Marine
Sanitation Device (MSD) on board or if upland sanitary fecilties are
used. CommerciaJ boat docking facilities are required to have upland
sanitary facilities by January 1, 1985.
Additional water pollution abatement requirements for commercial and
recreational boat docking facilities include: oil and fuel spill cleanup
equipment if the facility has vessel fueling capabilities, control of
maintenance and repair activities on the upland, derelict vessel
removal, floating debris cleanup within the facilities boundaries, a
maintenance program for existing storm water disposal systems, trash
end fish carcass dipsosal containers on the uplands, and the
reporting of pollution control equipment breakdowns. Propprty
owners providing dockage for one to nine houseboat livcaboarci
vessels must provide direct sewage pumpout connections.
Boat docking facilities with operating permits will be allowed to
conduct certain repair work, minor additions and maintenance
dredging without having to obtain a Class I Coastal Construction
Permit.
-------
Agenda Item No.
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 24-3 AND 24-35.1,
AND CREATING SECTIONS 24-11.1 AND 24-56.16 OF
THE CODE OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
REGULATING RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL BOAT
DOCKING FACILITIES; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS;
PROVIDING FOR OPERATING PERMITS AND OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS; REQUIRING TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON CRUISING LIVEABOARD VESSELS;
PROVIDING EXEMPTION FROM CLASS I COASTAL
CONSTRUCTION PERMITS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY,
INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 24-3 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade
County, Florida, is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 24-3. Definitions.
(97) Boat docking facility shall mean a place
where vessels may be secured to a fixed
or floating structure or to the shoreline.
(98) Boat slip shall mean a berthing space
_for a vessel between two piers or pilings.
(99) Commercial boat docking facility shall
mean a boat docking facility which has
boat slips, moorings, davit spaces, or.
vessel tleup spaces of which more than
fifty (50) percent are designated for or
contain commercial vessels.
(100) Commercial vessel shall mean any vessel
engaged in any activity wherein a consideration
is paid by the user either directly or
indirectly, to the owner, operator or
custodian of the vessel; or any vessel
engaged in the taking of saltwater fish
or saltwater products for sale either to
the consumer, retail dealer or wholesale
dealer.
(101) Cruising liveaboard vessel shall mean
any liveaboard vessel which is not a
houseboat liveaboard vessel.
(102) Davit space shall mean an area along a
bulkhead or pier where a vessel may be
suspended over the water by a mechanical
device.
Underscored words constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining
provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged.
-------
(103 ) Derelict vessel shall mean any vessel
left or stored in a wrecked, sunken^
junked, or substantially dismantled
condition and which is abandoned upon
public waters or which is docked at any
private property.
(104) Direct sewage pumpout connection shall
mean a semi-permanent connection made to
a vessel for the purpose of removing
vessel sewage from its holding tank or
head on a continuous or automatic
intermittent basis.
(105) Elutriate test shall mean a test developed
by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for estimating the potential significance
of contaminants present in sediment to
be dredged, as set forth in Implementation
Manual for Section 103 of Public Law
92-532, July 1977 (Second printing April
1978), Environmental Effects Laboratory,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi entitled
"Ecological Evaluation of Proposed
Discharge of Dredged Material Into Ocean
Waters".
(106) Holding tank shall mean a receptacle on
a vessel which is used to retain vessel,
sewage.
Houseboat liveaboard vessel shall mean
any liveaboard vessel with a barge-type
infrastructure or any liveaboard vessel
supported on the water by flotation
devices.
Liveaboard vessel shall mean a
(a) vessel used principally as a
residence; or
(b) vessel used as a plac-e of business,
professional or other commercial
enterprise and, if used as a means
of transportation, said transportation
use is a secondary or subsidiary
use; or
(c) vessel used by any club or any
other association of whatever
nature when serving a purpose other
than as a means of transportation.
(Commercial fishing vessels are
excluded from being classified as
liveaboard vessels if the boat
docking facility where such vessels
tieup provides upland sanitary
facilities.)
Maintenance dredging shall mean the
restoration of a waterway to its previous
depth by removing substrate material.
Mooring shall mean a temporary or permanent
piling or floating device anchored in
open water for the purpose of securing a
vessel.
-------
Page No. 3
(III) Recreational boat docking facility shall
mean a boat docking facility which .has
boat slips, moorings, vessel tieup
. spaces, or davit spaces of which lifty.
(50) percent or more are designated for
or contain recreational vessels.
(112) Recreational vessel shall mean any
vessel used by its owner or operator for
non-commercial purposes.
(113) Maritime sanitary facilities shall mean
toilets and sinks designed for human use.
(114) Sewage pumpout station shall mean a
'mechanical device which is temporarily
connected to a vessel for the purpose of
removing vessel sewage from its holding
tank or head.
(115) Transient vessel shall mean a vessel
which is in Dade County waters for a
total of six months or les_s during any
calendar year.
(116) Vessel sewage shall meait human body
wastes and the wastes from toilets and
other receptacles intended to receive or
retain human body wastes.
(117) Vessel tieup space shall mean an area
abutting a bulkhead or natural shoreline
where a vessel may be secured.
Section 2. Section 24-35.1 of the Code of Metropolitan
Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 24-35.1. Operating permits.
No person shall operate a public water
system, public sewerage system, or any of the
following pollution sources without a valid
operating permit issued by the Director of
the Department of Environmental Resources
Management:
(a) Interim package sewage treatment plants.
(b) Industrial wastewater facilities.
(c) Facilities that could be a source of
water pollution.
(d) Facilities that could be a source of air
pollution; provided however, the operation
of heating equipment or comfort space
heating within individual family dwellings
or multiple-family dwellings of not more
than four units is exempt from the
requirement of obtaining a permit pursuant
to this section.
The criterion for issuance of an
operating permit pursuant to this section is
compliance with Chapter 24, Dade County,
Code.
Such operating permits shall not be
required for the aforesaid facilities, systems,
and plants existing on the effective date of
this section until one hundred twenty (120)
days from the effective date of this section.
-------
This section shall not be immediately
applicable to air pollution sources with
valid air pollution control operating permits
on the effective date of this section.
However, said air pollution sources shall
comply with this section by obtaining the
operating permit required by this section no
later than one hundred eighty (180) days from
the effective date of this section.
Notwithstanding anything in this chapter
to the contrary, such operating permits shall
not be required until April 1, 19B4 for
commercial boat docking facilities within
the tidal waters of Dade County or for recreational
boat docking facilities with a total of ten
(10) or more boat slips, moorings, davit
spaces, and vessel tieup spaces within the
tidal waters of Dade County. Furthermore,
such operating permits shall not be required
with respect to any recreational boat docking
facility with a total of nine (91 or less
boat slips, moorings, davit spaces and vessel
tieup spaces within the tidal waters of Dade
County.
Section 3. Section 24-11.1 of the Code of Metropolitan
Dade County, Florida, is hereby enacted as follows:
Sec. 24-11.1. Recreational and commercial
boat docking facilities;
operating requirements; prohibitions.
(i) Sewage pumpout stations for non-liveaboard
vessels in recreational boat docking facilities.
(a) All recreational boat docking
facilities containing a total of.
ten (10) or more non-liveaboard
boat slips, moorings, davit spaces,
and vessel tieup spaces within the
tidal waters of Dade County shall
install and maintain at all times
in a fully operable condition one
or two sewage puropout stations for
the removal of vessel sewage from
holding tanks or heads as follows:
1. Total of ten (10) to nineteen
(19) non-liveaboard boat
slips, moorings, davit spaces,
'and vessel tieup spaces — one
portable sewage pumpout station
or one permanent sewage pumpout
station.
2. Total of twenty (20) to twenty-nine
(29) non-liveaboard boat
slips, moorings, davit spaces,
and vessel tieup spaces -- one
permanent sewage pumpout
station.
3. Total of thirty (30) or more
non-liveaboard boat slipsj
moorings, davit spaces, and
vessel tieup spaces -- one
permanent sewage pumpout
station and one portable
sewage pumpout station.
-------
(b) All recreational boat docking
facilities required to have an
operating permit pursuant to Section
24-35.1 of this Code shall submit
on or before July 1, 1984, engineering
plans for the required sewage
pumpout station(s) for review and
approval by the Department of
Environmental Resources Management.
The engineering plans shall include
connection of the sewage pumpout
station to an appropriate sanitary
sewerage system. If the Department
of Environmental Resources Management
determines it is not feasible to
connect to a sanitary sewerage
system, then an underground holding
tank or discharge to a septic
tank-drainfield system shall be
used, subject to the approval of
the Department.
(c) All recreational boat docking
facilities required to have an
operating permit pursuant to Section
24-35.1 of this Code shall instalT
"and have operational the required
number and type of sewage pumpout
stations on or before October 1,
1984. If the operator of the boat
docking facility is unable to meet
the installation deadline due to
delays in delivery of the sewage
pumpout station or unusual engineering
problems, the operator may apply
for an extension of time. Said
Extension request shall be submitted
in writing to the Director, Environmental
Resources Management, and shall
include the reason for the request
and a proposed compliance schedule.
Based upon a review of the information
submitted by the operator of the
boat docking facility, the Director,
in his or her discretion, may grant
extensions of time for compliance
with this section.
(d) All recreational boat docking
facilities with sewage pumpout
stations within the tidal waters of
Dade County shall have available
on-site standard vessel pumpout
fittings to service all types of
vessels that use the facility.
(2) Direct sewage pumpout. connections
for houseboat liveaboard. vessels in recreational
boat docking facilities.
(a) All recreational boat docking
facilities containing a total of
ten (10) or more boat slips, moorings,
davit spaces, and vessel tieup
spaces within the tidal waters of
Dade County and which contain
houseboat liveaboard vessels shall
install and maintain at all times
in a fully operable condition a
direct sewage pumpout connection at
each houseboat liveaboard boat slip
or vessel tieup space for the
purpose of removing vessel sewage
from the houseboat liveaboard
vessel on a continuous or automatic
intermittent basis.
-------
(b ) AH recreational boat docking
facilities required to have an
operating permit pursuant to Section
24-35.1 of this Code and which
contain houseboat liveaboard vessels
shall submit on or before July 1,
1964, engineering plans for the
required direct sewage pumpout
connection system for review and
approval by the Department of
Environmental Resources Management.
The engineering plans shall include
connection of the direct sewage
pumpout connection system to an
appropriate sanitary sewerage
system.
J^J^_A11 recreational boat docking
facilities required to have an
operating permit pursuant to Section
24-35.1 of this Code and which
contain houseboat liveaboard vessels
Ishall install and have operational
"a direct sewage pumpout connection"
"at each houseboat liveaboard boat .
jj.jp or vessel tieup space on or
before, January 1, 1985 v_. Within
thirty (30) days of completion of
the installation of the direct
sewage pumpout connection system,
the operator of the recreational
boat docking facility shall ensure
that all houseboat liveaboard
vessels in the boat docking facility
to the_ direct sewage
_
pumpout connection system and are
not discharging any 'raw or parti ally _
treated ..... vessel sewage to the _ tidal
waters of pad e County. If the
"operator of the boat' docking facility
is unable to meet the ins tail a ti on
"deadline due to unusual engineering
problems or an unusually long~
^distance to a sanitary sewerage
Tine, the operator may apply for an
"extension of time. Said extension
re.quest~shair~b_e_isut>mjLtte_d_ in~
writing to the Director, Environrnental
Resources Management , and shall
include the reason for the request
"and a proposed compl'iance scheduler
Based upon j _reyi_cw of the information
submitted by the operator of the
boat docking facility, the Director,
in his or her discretion, may grant _
extensions of .time for compliance
with this section.
Within the tidal waters of Pade
County, operato_rs_pf boat docking
facilities which provide boat slips
and vessel tieup spaces in recreational,.
boat docking facilities which are
designated for or contain transient
vessels shall not be required to
provide direct sewage pumpout
connections if the transient~essel
contains a U.S. Coast Guard approved
Marine Sanitation Device or if the
operator and all occupants of the
vessel use upland sanitary facilities
provided by the boat docking facility.
-------
Page No. 7
(3 ) The County Manager shall appoint a
technical advisory committee to evai uate the
potential methods of providing cruising
liveaooard vessels with direct sewage hookups
in boat docking facilities. The committee
shall be selected within two weeks of the
effective date of this ordinance and shall
present its findings and recommendations to
the Board of County Commissioners as to the
most feasible methods of sewage hookups for-
cruising liveaboard vessels within six (6i
months of the effective date of this ordinance.
(4 ) Upland maritime sanitary facilities
for commercial boat docking facilities.
(a) All commercial, boat docking facilities
within the tidal waters of Dade
County shall install and maintain
at all times in a fully operable
condition maritime sanitary facilities
for the use of the captains and the
crews of the commercial vessels
while said vessels are docked.
(b ) Operators of all commercial boat
docking facilities within the tidal
waters of Dade County shall submit
on or before July I, 1964, engineering
plans for the required maritime
sanitary facilities for review and
approval by the Department of
Environmental Resources Management.
LSJ Operators of all commercial boat
docking facilities within the tidal
waters of Dade county shall install
and have operational the required _
maritime sanitary facilities on or
before January 1, 1985.
(5) Oil and fuel spill cleanup procedures
and equipment for boat docking facilities.
(a) .All, boat, docking facilities required
to have an operating permit_pursu ant
to Section 24-35.1 of this. Code and
which dispense fuel or oil shall
comply with the following:
1. Floating oil booms and sorbent
.materials _shall be available
at the boat docking facility
at, all,, times . The Department
of Environmental Resources
Management shall determine if
the oil and fuel spill cleanup
equipment is adeo^iate for the
size of the boat docking
facility. Employees at the
boat docking facility shall be
trained in the deployment and
usage of the recnjired oil and
fuel spill cleanup equipment.
This equipment shall be subject
to inspection by the Department
of Environmental Resources
Management.
2 . All fuel nozzles shall have
automatic shut-off valves.
Jt>J_ On or before October 1, 1984, the
operators of all boat docking
facilities required to have an
-------
operating permit pursuant to Section
24-35.1 of this Code and which
dispense fuel or oil shall comply
with the requirements in Section
24-11.1(5)1 a)I. and 2. of this
Code.
(c) Operators of all boat docking
facilities within the tidal"viaters
of Dade County shall immediately
notify the Department of Environmental
Resources Management, as well as'
the U.S. Coast Guard and the Florida
Marine Patrol, of all oil or fuel
spills at the boat docking facility.
(d) Operators of all boat docking
facilities within the tidal waters
of Dade County shall take immediate
corrective action when any .oil..or
fuel spill occurs. This shall
include, but not be limited to, the
determination of the source of the
spill and its elimination, the
deployment of oil and fuel containment
booms', and the spreading of sorbent
materials for collection of the oil
or fuel and other appropriate
abatement measures.
(6) Water pollution abatement requirements
for boat docking facilities.
(a) Within the tidal waters of Dade
County all recreational boat docking
facilities containing a total of
ten (10) or more boat slips, moorings,
davit spaces, and vessel tieup
spaces, and all commercial boat
docking facilities shall comply
with the following water pollution
abatement measures:
1. The operators of all boat
docking facilities which
conduct or allow to be conducted
boat maintenance and repair
activities shall designate a
specific area of the upland
property of the boat docking
facility for said activities.
Said.operators shall issue
rules and .regulations concerning
the type of maintenance and
repair vork which may be
conducted within said area and
shall ensure that the area is .
kept free of all liquid and
solid wastes that could enter
Dade County tidal waters. _
through overland runoff or
storm sewer systems. A copy
of said rules and regulations
_shall be submitted as part oT
the boat docking facility's
application for a Dade County
operating permit. If the
changing of oils and hydraulic
fluids from boat engines is to
be conducted or allowed, the
operator of the boat docking
facility shall provide a tank
or drum for the deposit of all
waste oils and fluids and it
shall be located a sufficient
-------
Page No. 9
distance from the water, as
determined by the Department
of Environmental Resources
Management, to prevent oil
spills.
The operators of all boat
docking facilities which
currently contain derelict
vessels shall submit with
their Dade County operating
permit application a compliance
schedule for removal aniT"
disposal of the derelict
vessels. Said compliance.
schedule, if acceptable to the
Department of Environmental
Resources Management, shall
become a part of the operating
permit for the boat docking
facility. The operators of
"all boat docking facilities
shall include in each boat
slip, mooring, davit space, or
vessel tieup space rental or
lease agreement a provision
which requires the owner of
each vessel to immediately"
refloat any vessel which sinks
in the boat docking facility.
3. The operators of all boat
docking facilities shall be
responsible for "the cleanup
and removal of floating debris,
both natural and manmade, frc~
the water areas within the
boundaries of the boat docking
facility.
4. The operators of all boat
docking facilities shall
jprovide the Department of
Environmental Resources Management
with a plan of the existing
storm water disposal system,
if any such, system exists, for
their boat dockinq..facilities
with their application for a
Dade Cpunty_ operating permit.
A plan for reqular.lv..scheduled
maintenance of the storm water_
'^disposal system shall also be ,~
included with the application.
It shall be the boat..docking
facility operator's responsibility
-to ensure that catch basins,
oil and grease separators and
other system components are
cleaned on a regular basis and
that wastes other than stormwater
^re not discharged into the
stormwater disposal systems.
5. All boat docking facilities
shall have an adequate number.
as determined by the Department
of Environmental Resources
"Management, of trash disposal
containers on the upland
portion of the property to
serve the needs of the vessel
owners that use the boat
docking facility.
-------
i-'age No. 10
6. All boat docking facilities
which provide fish cleaning
tables shall provide covered
trash containers at a convenient
location adjacent to the
cleaning tables for the disposal
of fish carcasses. Permanent
signs shall be posted at each
cleaning table by the operator
of the boat docking facility
advising the users thereof to
dispose of fish carcasses in
trash containers.
7. In the event of any breakdown
or lack of proper functioning
. of any equipment required in
boat _docking facilities by
this Code, it shall be the
duty of the operator of the
boat docking facility to
immediately notify the Department
of Environmental Resources
Management and to take immediate
corrective action to restore
the equipment to full and
proper operation.
(7) Prohibitions for boat docking
facilities.
(a) Within the tidal waters of Dade_
County it shall be unlawful after
January 1, 1985, for any person
providing boat slips or vessel
tieup spaces for one to nine vessels
to rent, lease, or otherwise provide
a slip or space for any houseboat
liveaboard vessel unless said
vessel is provided by the operator
of the boat docking facility with a
direct sewage pumpout connection to
an approved land-based sewage
treatment system.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person
.to build, erect, install or use any
device, machine, equipment or other
contrivance, the use of which will
conceal any discharge which would
otherwise constitute a violation of
any of the provisions of this
chapter.
Section 4. Section 24-58.16 of the Code of Metropolitan
Dade County, Florida, is hereby enacted as follows:
See. 24-56.16. Class I coastal construction,
permit exemptions for boat
docking facilities with
operating permits: procedures.
(1) All recreational and commercial
boat docking facilities which have a valid
operating permit from the Department of
Environmental Resources Management may be
authorized by the Department to perform at
the permitted facility certain in-water
repairs and minor additions, and maintenance
dredging work without obtaining a Dade County
Class I Coastal Construction permit. The
work which may be authorized under an operating
permit is as follows:
-------
C
1 i
(a ) Repair or replacement of seawalls or
bulkheads not exceeding three hundred
feet (300') in length at the mean _.hiqh
water line or at the original location
of the seawalls or bulkheads.
(b) Construction of dock(s) provided that
the proposed dock(s) extends twenty-five
feet (25') or less waterward of the
existing seawall, bulkhead, or shoreline
and, together with associated ti^-up
facilities, does not protrude into the
water more than twenty-five percent
(25%) of the width of the waterway, or
forty feet (40'), whichever extends the
least into the water, and, further,
provided no dredging and filling is
associated with the project.
(c) Repair or restoration of docks or dock
pilings limited to their original dimensions.
(d) Installation or replacement of mooring
piles or buoys, when it is determined by
the Department of Environmental Resources
Management, that the proposed installation
will not present a hazard to navigation.
(e) Placement of riprap in front of an
existing seawall, bulkhead or shoreline,
provided the Department of Environmental
Resources Management determines no
adverse environmental impact results
therefrom.
(f) Construction of new seawalls or bulkheads,
not exceeding two hundred feet (200') in
length, at the mean high water line.
(g) Davit installation on a new seawall,
bulkhead or dock.
(h) Repair or replacement of wave baffles at
their original location and dimensions.
(i) Maintenance dredging projects involving
the removal from submerged lands of less
than ten thousand (10,000) cubic yards
Of material, when dredged material is to
be deposited on a self-contained upland
site.
(j) Installation of aids to navigation.
(2) Requests for boat docking facility
repairs and minor additions, and maintenance
dredging shall be made to the Department of
Environmental Resources Management and said
request shall include the following information:
(a) A brief description of the proposed work
and a tentative timetable for completion
of the work.
(b) A plan or sketch of the proposed work.
(c) The name of the contractor who will
perform the work.
The Department of Environmental Resources
Management may recruire the submission of the
following additional information for work
which involves the construction of new structures,
repair or replacement of seawalls or bulkheads
or maintenance dredging work:
-------
Page No.
(d) Three (3) or more complete sets of
construction plans and calculations for
t.'-.e proposed work, prepared by an engipeer.
regzsLerea in the State of Florida.,
provided, however, that said plans and
calculations are subject to review and
approval by the Department of Environmenta 1
Resources Management. These reemirements_
may be.fulfilled by an architect registered
in the State of Florida for work described
in Section 24-58.16(1)(b), (c). (d),
(e), (g), (h). and (3).
(e) Certification by an engineer registered
in the State of Florida qualified by
education and experience in the area of
construction that:
To the best of his knowledge and belief,
the proposed work does not violate any
statutes, zoning law, ordinance, or
promulgated administrative rule which
may be applicable to such area or construction_
work, and that diligence and recognized
standard practices of the profession
were exercised in the design process
with the intent to avoid the following
effects.
1. Harmful obstruction or undesirable
"alteration of the natural flow of
the water within the area of the
work.
2. Harmful or increased erosion,
shoaling of channels or stagnant
areas of water.
3. Material injury to adjoining land.
(f) Zoning approval from the appropriate
local zoning authority.
(g) Evidence of ownership of the submerged
land upon which the proposed work will
occur.
The following information shall only be
required for maintenance dredging work:
(h) The type of dredging ecruipment to be
used.
(i) The type of water quality control equipment
to be used during dredging.
(j ) A water quality monitoring program to be._
conducted by the applicant during the
dredging operation.
(k) The method of turbid water runoff control
from the spoil piles on the upland
portion of the property.
(1) The,ultimate disposal site of_the dredged
material.
(rn) The results of an elutriate test performed
on the proposed dredge ma_terial if work
is to be performed in the Miami River.
(3) Upon completion of the work, a set
of reproducible record prints of drawings
showing those changes made during the construction
process, based on the marked-up prints,
-------
drawings and other data furnished by the
contractor shall be submitted to the Dep,a r tm e n t
of Environmental Resources Management. The
drawings shall >be prepared by an engineer
registered in the State.of Florida. These
requirements may be fulfilled by an architect
registered in the State of Florida for work
described in Section 24-5S.16(1)(b), (c),
(d), (e), (g), (h), and (j).
Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause
or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of
this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 6. It is the intention of this Board of County
Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of
this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of
Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance
may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and
the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or
other appropriate word.
Section 7. This ordinance shall become effective ten
days after the date of its enactment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED:
Approved by County Attorney as^
to form and legal sufficiency.
Prepared by:
-------
-------
APPENDIX D.2
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
-------
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
1979, by and between the CITY OF BERKELEY, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
called City, and
hereinafter called Berther.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City operates a Marina, and
WHEREAS, City has authorized live-aboard status to a specific number of
cruising type vessels berthed in the Berkeley Marina, and
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission has
issued a permit authorizing a selected number of live-aboard berths at the Berkeley
Mar ina, and
WHEREAS, the live-aboard status is granted in an attempt to increase the
security and surveillance for the Berkeley Marina, and
WHEREAS, Berther is willing and prepared to offer security and surveillance
to the City as a condition of being granted live-aboard status at the Berkeley
Marina.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and conditions
herein contained, City and Berther agree as follows:
1. TERM;
This Agreement shall be in effect for the duration of the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission Permit No. 5-79., -Amendment No. I, attached hereto as
Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part of this Agreement, unless terminated by
either party under conditions herein contained.
2. CONDITIONS:
Berther agrees to abide by the conditions stated in Permit No. 5-79,
Amendment No. I, and City of Berkeley Ordinance 5032-N.S. attached hereto as
Exhibit B, and by this
-------
reference made a part of this Agreement and any amendments thereof. Violation of
any condition may result in the termination of the live-aboard status for the berther.
3. TERMINATION:
Berther may terminate his/her live-aboard status by written notification
of such to the Berkeley Marina Administration Office.
City may terminate Agreement for cause, non-compliance with the conditions
of this Agreement or by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the Berther.
4. SECURITY AND SURVEILLANCE:
Berther shall use reasonable efforts to provide security and surveillance
assistance to Marina staff. Berther shall report to the Marina Office any violation
of Exhibit A and/or Exhibit B and any unlawful activities that occur within the
Marina to which he/she is a witness.
5. RESIDENCY:
As a condition of obtaining and retaining live-aboard status at the Berkeley
Marina, Berther must reside aboard his/her vessel for a minimum of nine months of any
calendar year.
Live-aboard status may be retained while vessel is absent from the Marina
for & period up to and including one year. Absence beyond one year will result in
termination of current live-aboard status and the placement of Berther onto the
waiting list for selection for future live-aboard status.
6. SIGNATURES;
All adults residing aboard Berther's vessel shall sign this contract, or
provide the Marina Administration Office with a letter agreeing to abide by this
Agreement, prior to living aboard.
7. NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED LIVE-ABOARD BERTHS:
The maximum number of live-aboard berths in the Berkeley Marina as of
July 1, 1980, shall be forty (40). If more than forty (40) berthers have live-
aboard status as of that date, this Agreement may be terminated effective July 1, 1980.
-------
8. HOLDING TANKS:
Berther, as a condition of his/her live-aboard status, shall install, use,
and maintain in operating order holding tank(s) with sufficient capacity to meet
the minimum tank size(s) as identified in Exhibit C, attached hereto and by this
reference made ?. part of this Agreement.
City shall maintain in operating order at all times a free pumpout
facility for use by Berther and other vessels berthed at the Marina.
9. THROUGH-HULL FITTINGS:
All through-hull fittings for sewage and greywater discharge
on Berther's cruising type vessel will be sealed by Marina Office prior
to Berther obtaining permission to live aboard. Opened fittings must be
resealed by Marina Office within one day of return to the Berkeley Marina.
10. INDEMNITY:
Berther shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend City from and against
any and all claims arising from any actions or omissions of Berther, his/her
agents, employees, servants or licensees, or arising from any accident, injury or
damage whatsoever caused to any person or property occurring in, on or about the
use of City's property that arises from this Agreement and from and against all
costs, expenses and liabilities incurred in or in connection with any said claim
or any proceeding brought thereon.
11. MISCELLANEOUS:
a. Berther shall not assign, subcontract or transfer its live-aboard
status to another party.
-------
b. In the rendering of the services herein provided for, Berther is and
shall be considered for all purposes an independent contractor and not an employee
of the City or any of its departments.
c. Violation of any of the terras of this Agreement may result in the
termination of the live-aboard status for Berther and the termination of this
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Berther have hereunto set their names, the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF BERKELEY
By
CITY MANAGER
Approved as to form:
Associate Attorney
BERTHER
-------
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF CAUFOHNIA EDMUND O. MOWN J«., Co-.rno-
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
30 VAN NESS AVENU£
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
PHONE: 357-3686
PERMIT NO. 5-79
(Issued on June U, 1979, As
Amended Through November 27, 1979)
AMENDMENT NO. 1
City of Berkeley
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, California 9^70*4
ATTENTION: Forrest Craven
Acting City Manager
Gentlemen:
On May 17, 1979, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission, by a vote of 21 affirmative and 0 negative, approved the
resolution pursuant to which this permit 4e had been issued. Moreover,
jon November 0^ 1979? pursuant t£ Cpmmission Regulation Section 10722, the
Executive Director approved the amendment request to which this amended
permit is" hereby issued;
I. Authorization
A. Subject to the conditions stated below, the permittee is granted
permission to moor and use no more than U9 j?2 live-aboard, cruising type
vessels at no more than 1+9 52 existing berths to provide increased security
and surveillance assistanceTt the Berkeley Marina, in the City of Berkeley,
Alameda County. The number £f live-aboard boats and berths authorized
shall be reduced and permanently maintained at no more than UP by July 3.^
190*0.
B. This authority is generally pursuant to and limited by the
application filed April 6, 1979» and your letter and amendment request
dated October !_,_ 1979, including its accompanying exhibits, but subject
to the modifications reauired by conditions hereto.
C. The live-aboard program authorized herein must commence prior to
October 1, 1979, or this permit_,_ as amended, vill lapse and become null and
void. This permit, as_ amended,~vlll terminate on September 1, 1982, unless
a vritten extension of time is granted pursuant to Special Condition II-H
of the permit, as amended.
-------
City of Berkeley
PERMIT NO. 5-79
(Issued on June U, 1979, As
Amended Through November 27, 1979
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Page Tvo
D. The project will result in a permanent change of use for no more
than Uo boat berths, currently used for cruising type recreational vessels,
to allow berthing for no more than Uo live-aboard, cruising type vessels.
No new public access will be provided.
II- Special Conditions
The authorization^ as_ amended, made herein shall be subject to the
following Special Conditions in addition to the Standard Conditions in Part
IV:
A. Holding Tank Standards. The permittee shall not grant or continue
live-aboard status for any vessel until a standard for holding tank capacity
based on the number of vessel occupants, use of a standard marine or recycle
toilet, and the presence or absence of other waste generating fixtures (such
as showers), has been established and approved by or on behalf of the Commis-
sion. The standard shall assure that no less than three (3) days estimated
volume of waste can be contained in the holding tank.
B. Installation of Holding Tanks and Sealing of Through-Hull Fittings.
The permittee shall not grant or continue live-aboard status to any vessel
until: (l) a holding tank that meets the approved holding tank capacity
standard pursuant to Special Condition II-A has been installed and is fully
operational aboard the vessel; (2) the plumbing system aboard the vessel
has been modified to collect and transmit greyvater as well as sewage to
the holding tank; (3) all through-hull fittings for sewage and greyvater
discharge have been sealed in such a manner that any disconnection of the
fitting will be apparent; and (U) the permittee has inspected the vessel's
holding tank and plumbing system and certified that the system complies with
the above condition and does not leak.
C. Report to the Commission. Each year, starting January 15, 1980, for
a period of twelve (12) years, the permittee shall report to the Commission on
the effect of the live-aboard program on the water quality and security of the
marina basin. The report shall include the following information: (1) a
comparison of the incidence of vandalism before and after institution of the
live-aboard program; (2) a comparison of water quality measurements, speci-
fically including coliform count, within the marina basin to the same water
quality measurements in neighboring areas outside the marina basin; (3) a
comparison of water quality measurements provided pursuant to Special Condition
II-C-2 with measurements taken in preceding years; (U) an assessment of any
significant changes in the composition, diversity, or density of benthic
populations in the marina basin; (5) the number of trips made by live-
aboard vessels outside the marina basin over a twelve-month period; and
(6) a brief summary of the information contained in the logs required by
-------
City of Berkeley
PERMIT NO. 5-79
(Issued on June k, 1979, As
Amended Through November 27, 1979)
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Page Three
Special Condition II-D-5 on the number of visits per vessel per month to the
pump-out stations. This section of the report should also relate the size
of the vessel, the size of the vessel's holding tank, and the number of occu-
pants living aboard the vessel to the number of trips made by the vessel to
the pump-out station.
D. Use of Marine Toilets
1. The permittee shall not grant or continue live-aboard status
to any vessel until the permittee has made it a requirement
of live-aboard status that any live-aboard berthed, if
equipped with a marine toilet (head), shall contain an ade-
quate U. S. Coast Guard Type III holding tank, that vould
receive and retain sewage from the boat's head as well as
any greyvater from any sinks, shower or other devices, and
would preclude discharge of sewage, chemicals or greywater
into the waters of the marina.
2. The permittee shall not grant or continue live-aboard status
to any vessel until the permittee has made it a requirement
of live-aboard status that any dumping of solid or liquid
waste or greywater into that portion of San Francisco Bay
within the mooring area is forbidden and any such dumping
shall be cause for immediate cancellation of the right of
such use or occupancy and shall be reported to all appro-
priate authorities.
3. The permittee shall not grant or continue live-aboard status
to any vessel until the permittee has submitted to the Commis-
sion a copy of the berthing agreement which includes the
requirements of Special Conditions II-D-1 and II-D-2. The
permittee shall also provide the Commission with a list of
the names of all boats, owners, and occupiers of boats granted
live-aboard status. This list shall be updated at least every
calendar year.
U. The permittee shall not grant or continue live-aboard status
to any vessel until the permittee has provided, in the marina,
adequate restrooms for boat owners and users, and guests.
5. The permittee shall permanently and adequately enforce, through
appropriate policing, the rules and requirements adopted pur-
suant to this condition. Upon execution of this authorization,
the permittee shall submit to the Commission's staff the name,
address and telephone number of the person who is responsible
at the marina for enforcing the rules and regulations adopted
pursuant to this condition. The permittee shall not grant or
continue live-aboard status to any vessel until the permittee
-------
City of Berkeley
PERMIT NO. 5-79
(issued on June U, 1979, As
Amended Through November 27, 1979)
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Page Four
has established a log at each pump-out station and required
that the operator or owner of each vessel having live-aboard
status record the day and time that the holding tank was
pumped out. The permittee shall certify that the logs are
accurate and shall maintain the logs for public inspection
for at least two years from the date the log is first established.
6. The Commission specifically reserves the right, in the event
of repeated or serious problems with dumping of sewage or grey-
water from boats into the Bay within the marina, to require in
addition to the above either that shoreside sewer connections
be provided for each offending boat berth and that said boat
be connected to said sewer whenever moored in the marina or,
in the alternative, that the permittee, upon written demand
of or on behalf of the Commission, shall permanently remove
or cause to have removed said offending boat or boats from the
marina.
E. Water Quality Measurements. After commencement of the live-aboard
program, but in no case later than September 1, 1979» the Berkeley Public
Health Department shall collect and analyze water samples from at least ten
(10) sample locations within the marina basin (at least six (6) of the sample
locations shall be adjacent to approved live-aboard vessels), and from at
least four (k} sample locations near the entrance of the marina. The samples
shall be analyzed for coliform, and shall be collected on a weekly basis for
the first three (3) months of the live-aboard program. Thereafter, samples
shall be collected and analyzed once a month. These measurements shall pro-
vide the information used in the permittee's report to the Commission as
required pursuant to Special Condition II-C.
F. Pump-Out Station. No later than July 1, 1980, an additional
pump-out station, available free of charge to all vessels, shall be installed
and fully operational at the fuel dock adjacent to the marina entrance. There-
after, both pump-out stations shall be kep functional and in good repair
and made available for use by any vessel at all convenient times of all days
and evenings.
G. Sanitation. The permittee shall immediately require that no person
shall throw, discharge, deposit or place refuse, sewage, or waste matter of
any description into the waters of the marina basin, nor shall any person
discharge or deposit material of any kind on the banks, docks, or walks in
any location where the same may be washed, or accidentally deposited into the
waters of the marina basin.
-------
City of Berkeley
PERMIT NO. 5-79
(Issued on June k, 1979 > As
Amended Through November 27, 1979)
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Page Five
H. Program Duration. The live-aboard uses authorized herein are
limited to a three (3) year period commencing June 1, 1979 • Extensions
of time for continuing the live-aboard program may be approved by the
Commission for additional three (3) year periods thereafter. Such exten-
sions shall be granted or denied on the basis of consistency with any
policies adopted by the Commission as a result of the Commission's marina
study and compliance with all terms and conditions of this authorization.
I. Log Maintained by Live-Aboard Vessels. No later than September 1,
19795 the permittee shall require that each live-aboard vessel in the marina
shall maintain a log of the number and duration of trips made by the live-
aboard vessel outside the marina basin. The logs shall be made available
to the permittee for use in preparing the permittee's annual report to the
Commission, and also be provided by the permittee to any public agency
requesting the logs.
III. Findings and Declarations
This authorization^ as_ amended, is given on the basis of the Commission's
findings and declarations that the work authorized is consistent with the
McAteer-Petris Act, the San Francisco Bay Plan, and the California Environmental
Quality Act for the following reasons:
A. Use. Bay Plan Map No. k indicates that there is an existing marina
at the site. Inasmuch as the live-aboard vessels will provide increased
security and surveillance for the entire marina, thereby enhancing the marine's
primary function of providing safe moorage for recreational vessels; and since
the live-aboard vessels will be equipped with approved holding tanks to pro-
hibit dumping of any sewage or greywater in the basin, the granting of live-
aboard status to no more than UO vessels is consistent with the Bay Plan
Policies on Marinas.
B. Fill. The live-aboard vessels, a form of fill under the BCDC law,
moored pursuant to this authorization^ as_ amended, will conform to the Bay
Plan Policies concerning Houseboats (pages 28 thru 29) because they will
be moored at berthing locations where increased sedimentation in the harbor
will not result over that which would result in any case due to the mooring
of other types of craft. Secondly, in accordance with the conditions listed
under Section II of this authorization^ as_ amended, no sewage, greywater,
liquid or solid waste will be discharged into the waters of the marina from
the live-aboard vessels which will be equipped with on-board facilities
acceptable to both the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the U. S.
Coast Guard. Thirdly, no new fill for support facilities for the proposed
live-aboards is necessary or authorized. Lastly, the permittee, the con-
cerned local government, has approved permanent live-aboard status for no
more than ko vessels as a means of providing increased security and surveillance.
-------
City of Berkeley
PERMIT NO. S-79
(Issued on June k, 1979, As
Amended Through November 2?, 1979)
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Pape Six
C. Precedence. The Commission notes that this is the first application
for granting live-aboard status to a large number of vessels in a primarily
recreational marina. The Commission notes that the permittee has advised
the Commission that the reason for granting live-aboard status to so many
vessels is to provide increased security and surveillance assistance to the
marina, thereby enhancing its value as a recreational marina. The Commis-
sion advises the permittee that this application is being approved as an
experiment and will not be used as a precedent for other similar proposals.
D. Environmental Impact. The City of Berkeley, the lead agency and
the permittee, issued and adopted a Negative Declaration for this project on
July 19, 1978. The Negative Declaration states that vessels will be equipped
with approved holding tanks to prohibit the dumping of any sewage or greyvater
into the marina basin and that the vessel owners must comply with the sewage
control requirements of the permittee.
E. Water Quality. The conditions listed under Section II of this
authorization^ as_ amended, which control the treatment of wastes, refuse,
and greyvater from live-aboard vessels and limit the number of such vessels
will assure that the waste treatment capacity of the on-site facilities are
not exceeded; thus, these conditions assure that the policies of the Bay Plan
on water pollution which states that projects built on the Bay should have
their liquid and solid wastes treated on the premises or in a public treat-
ment plant will be satisfied. In addition, the determination of the permittee's
Public Health Department that high water quality standards in the marina basin
and adjacent Bay waters are being maintained as long as live-aboards are per-
1 mitted to moor at the marina shall assure that the standards of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act will also be met.
F. Public Trust. By this authorization, as_ amended, the Commission
finds that the mooring of the vessels authorized herein is consistent vith
the public trust.
C-. Conclusion. For all the above reasons, the public benefits exceed
any public detriment from the project. The Commission further finds, declares,
and certifies that the activities authorized herein are consistent with the
Commission's Amended Management Program for San Francisco Bay as approved by
the Department of Comcerce under the Federal Coastal Zone.
IV. Standard Conditions
A. All required permissions from governmental bodies must be obtained
before the commencement of work; this includes, but is not limited to, the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State Lands Commission, the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and the city and/or county in which the work is to be
performed, whenever any of these may be required. This permit, as amended,
( does not relieve the permittee of any obligations imposed by s€a€e~ or Federal
lav, either statutory or otherwise.
-------
PERMIT NO. c,-?3
(isrued on June U, 1979, As
Amended Through November 27, 1979)
A!.^!vTiKENT NO. 1
Tape Feven
B. The attached Notice of Completion shall be returned to the
Commission within thirty (30) days following completion of the work.
,'
C. Work must be performed in the precise manner and at the precise
locations indicated in your application.
D. Work must be performed in a manner so as to minimize muddying of
vaters, and if diking is involved, dikes shall be vaterproof. If any seep
age returns to the Bay, the permittee vill be subject to the regulations
of the Regional Water Quality Control Board in that region.
BT -The Figkte ierived if em thie permit -?-=e &Pti.g.c.?bleT tat eweh
gHweHt ekall Ret fee ef£eetive until the a&eigsee ekall have exeeute^
the Gemffiieeiefi gt-all have received as aekHevledgweat that the assignee
pead and HndeF&teed the application fef this permit and the peFEtt
,. SH^ agpeee te be beund by the eeftditieRe he¥ee£-r
FT E. Except as othervise noted, violation of any of the terms of this
permit, as amended, shall be grounds for revocation. The Commission may
revoke~ariy permit for such violation after a public hearing held on reason-
able notice to the permittee, ea? te hie assignee if the permit feae been
effectively
Sr F\_ This permit_,_ &s_ amended, shall not take effect unless the permittee
executes the original of this permit^ a£ amended, and returns it to the
CoT.mission vithin fifteen (15) days after the date hereof.
Executed at San Francisco, California, on behalf of the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission on the date first above vritten.
MBW/RJB/st
MICHAEL B. VILMAR
Executive Director
cc: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: Regulatory Functions Branch
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Attn: Certification Section
Environmental Protection Agency, Attn: Eric Yunker, E-U-2
Chuck Roberts, Berkeley Park and Recreation
Receipt acknowledged, contents understood and agreed to:
Executed at
Berkeley, California
December 4, 1979
City gf Berkeley
by:
V
Ac tine City Manager
Title
-------
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 5032 -N.S.
ESTABLISHING RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE BERKELEY MARINA, AND
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 4159-N.S. AND ALL ORDINANCES AMENDATORY THEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Section 1. DEFINITIONS.
Whenever any of the words hereinafter defined are used in this
ordinance, they shall be construed to mean the following:
a. "Berkeley Marina", hereinafter referred to as "Marina",
shall mean the area owned or controlled by the City of Berkeley on or within the
breakwater and the sea walls and the extensions thereof located on the Berkeley
waterfront approximately between "Allston Way and Virginia Street, and West Marina
Drive.
b. "Marina Supervisor" shall mean the Marina Supervisor of the
City of Berkeley or his/her duly authorized representative.
c. "Director of Finance" shall mean the Chief Financial Officer
of the City of Berkeley, or his/her duly authorized representative.
d. "Vessel" shall include every descripton of watercraft used,
or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on the water.
(1) "Non-Cruising Type Vessel" shall include any vessel
that was not specifically designed for operating in open waters. This type of ves-
sel includes any non-self-propelled vessel such as barges and/or any non-cruising
type houseboats.
(2) "Cruising Type Vessel" shall include any sailboat, motor
driven craft or cruising type houseboat that was specifically designed for opera-
ting in open waters.
1.
-------
e. "Residence" shall mean any vessel, located within the
Marina boundaries, used for overnight accommodation between the hours of 2:00
a.m. and 6:00 a.m. for more than three (3) nights in a seven (7) day period.
Section 2. MARINA SUPERVISOR AUTHORITY.
The Marina Supervisor, acting under the orders and jurisdic-
tion of the Parks and Marina Superintendent, the Director of Recreation, Parks
and Community Services, and subject to the authority of the City Manager and City
Council, shall have full authority in the interpretation and enforcement of all
regulations affecting the Marina, and all orders and instructions given by him/
her in the performance of his/her duties shall be obeyed.
Every vessel entering the Marina shall immediately become sub-
ject to the order and direction of the Marina Supervisor, and he/she shall have
the authority to enter upon any vessel in the Marina in the performance of his/
her duties.
The Marina Supervisor shall have the authority to designate the
area in which any vessel shall be berthed and may require any vessel to change
its berth in the Marina. If a vessel does not change berths after notification,
it may be moved by the Marina Supervisor and towing charges added. Vessels may
anchor in the Marina only with the permission of the Marina Supervisor.
The Marina Supervisor, or his/her authorized representative may
have the right of refusal for Marina use to any vessel at his/her discretion, i.e.,
derelict boats, vessels needing major overhaul and non-self-propelled vessels
other than sailboats.
Section 5. APPLICATION FOR BERTHS.
Application for berths in the Marina shall be made upon forms
furnished by the Marina Supervisor and shall be granted in the order of the re-
quest. Preference will be given to the vessel most suitable to the berth to be
rented.
-------
Section 4. CANCELLATION OF BERTHS.
The Marina Supervisor shall be notified in writing of the
exact date of release of assigned facilities; charges will continue until such
notice is given. Written notice can be made by the return of the vessel owner's
copy of the original application for the berth with the request for release writ-
ten in the space provided thereon. Required time of notice is at least thirty
(30) days as established by resolution of the Council of the City of Berkeley.
Telephone cancellation will be accepted, provided written confirmation is re-
ceived within five (5) days.
The Marina Supervisor shall have the authority to cancel as-
signed berth(s) with thirty (30) days notice in writing to the boat owner at the
address of record for any violation of this ordinance, or continued late payment
of charges.
Section 5. TRANSFER OR SUBLEASING OF A BERTH.
Transferring a berth to a new occupant, or subleasing, is not
permitted. However, when a berth holder sells his/her boat and cancels the berth,
and the purchaser wishes to retain the berth, it may then be transferred to the
new owner. The new owner must complete a berth application with berth deposit
equivalent to one (1) month's rent within seven (7) days from the date that no-
tice of cancellation was given.
The berth holder may allow another boat owner to use his/her
berth for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days. Notice must be given in ad-
vance to the Marina office and a Temporary Use of Berth Form must be completed
prior to the effective date of change.
Section 6. MAINTCNANCE AND CARE IN BERTHING VESSELS.
All vessels shall be berthed with proper care and equipment,
and such berthing equipment shall be maintained at all times in such condition
as to meet witn the approval of the Marina Supervisor. In the event that ves-
-------
sels are not so maintained, the Marina Supervisor may supply lines and fittings,
or replace inadequate lines and fitting, or may care for the vessel in such a
manner as to prevent damage. A charge for this service, and for any lines, fit-
tings or materials supplied will be made, and payment shall be made at the end
of each month. Any lines, fittings and materials used and supplied by the Ma-
rina Supervisor to protect vessels are not returnable,
No person shall berth within the Marina any vessel of any kind
whatsoever which is so unseaworthy, or in such a badly deteriorated condition
that it is liable to sink or damage docks, floats or other vessels, or which may
become a menace to navigation, except in cases of extreme emergency, in which
case the owner will be liable for any damage caused by such vessel.
In the event a vessel is wrecked or sunk within the Marina, it
shall be the owner's responsibility to mark its position and provide for the
raising and disposition of such vessel and assume all liability for damage to
City property or other vessels in the Marina.
Section 7. REGISTRATION AND NUMBERING; FURNISHING INFORMATION TO MARINA
SUPERVISOR.
Every vessel entering the Marina must be registered and num-
bered as provided by the laws of the State of California or the U.S. Government
regulations regarding documented vessels.
The owners of vessels entering the Marina shall furnish all
documents relating to the vessel anil the ownership thereof before the berthing
application can be accepted. The Application must be in the registered owner's
name.
Section 8. ACCIDENT RF.FGKiS.
All boating accidents involving damage or injury to any pri-
vate or public property require the operator of the vessel which caused the acci-
dent to complete an accident reporr provided by the Marina Supervisor within
4.
-------
x x twenty-four (24) hours of the incident.
V.,-
Section 9. ACCESS TO MARINA AND VESSELS.
The berthing area of the Marina is closed to the general pub-
lice, except to owners of vessels berthed in the Marina, their authorized guests
and those receiving special permission from the Marina Supervisor. "K" Dock is
open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours.
Section 10. BERTH RATES AND SERVICE CHARGES.
The rates for service, supplies and rent at the Marina shall
be established by resolution of the Council of the City of Berkeley.
All charges for rent shall be due and payable monthly in ad-
vance on or before the first day of each month and shall be delinquent on the
15th day of the month for which the payments are due. All charges for service
. and supplies shall be due upon billing and shall be delinquent fifteen (15) days
thereafter. If any payment is delinquent as provided herein, a penalty of ten
percent (10%) shall be added and paid in addition thereto.
Boat owners who wish to remove their vessels from the Marina
for a period in excess of thirty (30) days and do not want to release their
berths permantly may pay one-half (1/2) the monthly berth rates. The Marina
will use the berth(s) for temporary and visitor berthing. Fifteen (15) days
notice is required in writing to the Marina office prior to placing berth on
one-half (1/2) rate, and fifteen (15) days notice in writing is required prior
to returning the vessel to the berth.
Use of a berth is restricted to one (1) vessel only, not in-
cluding a dinghy or small boat up to twelve (12) feet in length, provided that
neither vessel extends beyond the limits of the berth width and length. An
exception to this provision may be permitted by the Marina Supervisor if the
size of the berth will permit its use by two (2) or more vessels. The rental
charge for those berths will be based on the overall length of each vessel, or
5.
-------
the length of the berth, whichever is greater.
Section 11. NON-PAYMENT OF CHARGES.
a. No person shall remove or cause to be removed from the
Marina any vessel upon which charges for berth rental, dry storage, or any other
proper charges are delinquent, without paying all such delinquent charges.
b. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate the pro-
visions of subdivision a. of this section, or to willfully give false informa-
tion to the Marina Supervisor or the Director of Finance in order to secure the
removal of a vessel.
c. When any charges have been thirty (30) days delinquent,
the Marina office will be advised by the City of Berkeley's Department of Fi-
nance to secure the vessel. The Marina office will post a notice of delinquent
payment and secure the vessel to prevent removal. A labor charge of one (1)
hour will be added to the account for securing of the vessel.
d. When the charges for berth rentals, dry storage, or any
other proper charge on any vessel are delinquent, the Director of Finance is
empowered to enforce the City's lien pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Article 4, Sections 500 through 505 of the California Harbors and Navigation
Code.
Section 12. GEAR LOCKERS.
Gear lockers are available only to vessel owners having ves-
sels berthed in the Marina and at rates established by the City Council. Lock-
ers must be vacated upon the release of berth. Rental of lockers may be re-
stricted to a maximum of two (2) lockers assigned to a berth holder. Indivi-
dual gear lockers shall be kept in a safe condition with a minimal amount of
flammable material and shall be subject to inspection by the Marina Supervisor
at all reasonable times.
6.
-------
Section 15. DISPOSING OF REFUSE.
a. No person shall throw, discharge or deposit from any ves-
sel or from the shore or wharf, or otherwise, any refuse matter of any kind
whatsoever into or upon the waters or land area of the Marina.
b. No person shall dump or discharge oil, spirits, inflammable
liquid or contaminated bilge water into the Marina. This also includes excessive
unburned fuels discharged from engine exhausts.
c. All garbage must be deposited in receptacles furnished by
the City of Berkeley for that purpose.
d. All fish must be disposed of within eight (8) hours from
the time of catching. No person shall throw fish or bait overboard at the dock
or from a vessel. Fish cleaning is not permitted on vessels, floats or any other
area of the Marina, except at designated fish cleaning areas.
Section 14. HAZARDOUS CONSTRUCTION PROHIBITED.
Floats, gangways, tops of lockers and docks shall be kept clear
at all times of skiffs, tenders, miscellaneous gear, debris, or hazardous obstruc-
tions. Boarding platforms on floats shall be permitted, provided that any plat-
form used for boarding shall not be over eighteen (18) inches in width and three
(3) feet long, shall be of lightweight construction and shall not be used as a
storage locker for gear exceeding, in the aggregate, fifty (50) pounds in weight.
Section 15. MAINTENANCE OF VESSEL.
a. Repairs to and maintenance of a vessel may be made or ac-
complished while such vessel is at its assigned berth, provided all such work is
done within the confines of the vessel itself and is not carried on in any manner
whatsoever upon floats, gangways or docks. Any repairs on vessels must not in-
terfere with any other vessels. These repairs must be accomplished in the assigned
berth of the owner of the vessel and not have a negative environmental effect.
7.
-------
b. No person shall use welding equipment, a burning torch
or any other open flame apparatus without a written permit from the Berkeley
Fire Department. Care must be exercised to maintain the safety of other vessels
and Marina facilities, and an approved fire extinguisher of sufficient size must
be readily available, as well as a water hose attached to an outlet in case of
emergency.
c. An individual receiving compensation for repairing or main-
taining vessels berthed at the Marina must show proper work authorization to the
Marina Supervisor from the vessel's owner, as well as a City of Berkeley Business
License or permit.
d. No person shall spray paint or sand blast while such vessel
is in the Marina area.
Section 16. MARINA RESTRICTIONS.
a. All vessels must be equipped with approved engine mufflers,
if necessary, to control noise level.
b. All vessels shall comply with applicable sections of the
City of Berkeley's Uniform Fire Code, Ordinance No. 4677-N.S.
c. The owner of the vessel is legally responsible for his/her
crew and guests. Unnecessary noises, including loud talking and playing of mu-
sical instruments, is prohitied from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Continued violation
of this rule will be cause for cancellation of berthing agreement and removal of
the vessel from the Marina.
d. Gates to berthing area are to be locked at all times. Block-
ing open or climbing over gates is prohibited.
e. Except when on board an owner's vessel, animals must be on
a leash (not to exceed six (6) feet in length).
f. A person shall not willfully injure, break, remove or tamper
8.
-------
with any part of any vessel in the Marina, nor shall any person climb into or
upon any vessel without consent of the owner, unless in performance of official
duties or to protect life and/or property.
g. Landing or taking off of an aircraft is prohibited except
in emergency situations. No person shall land or take off any helicopter, sea-
plane, or other aircraft on or from any land or waters of the Marina without
prior approval of the Marina Supervisor.
h. All vessels must keep a minimum of two hundred (200) feet
from the Berkeley Fishing Pier, except when using the designated boat passage.
i. No structure may be built for the purpose of berthing,
anchoring or mooring vessels without permission first having been secured from
the Marina Supervisor.
j. Gross length of the boat, including bowsprits, rudder boom,
^-"' outboard motors or other extensions, may not exceed the limits of the berth as-
signed.
k. Bicycles, skateboards, or similar vehicles shall not be
ridden on any dock or float in the Marina.
Section 17. VESSEL TRAFFIC WITHIN THE MARINA.
All vessels approaching or within the Marina area must be
operated in a safe and prudent manner and in no event shall the entrance to the
Marina be blocked by general boating activities or fishing.
The speed of any vessel within the Marina shall not exceed
five (5) miles per hour.
No persons shall operate a vessel upon the waters of the Marina
in such a manner that the speed thereof creates an unnecessary or excessive wake,
or interferes with the operation of any other vessel.
Vessels are prohibited from using the Marina waters except for
9.
-------
departing and returning to their designated berths. (Map of Marina attached to
this ordinance to show area of restricted movement.)
Section 18. SWIMMING AND/OR UNDERWATER DIVING.
It shall be unlawful for any person to swim, bathe, or wade
in any portion of the Marina, except Shore Bird Park. However, this section
shall not prevent an owner or his/her authorized representative from working on
his/her vessel under water.
The Marina Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to
install and maintain signs in such number and at such places in said Marina as
he/she shall deem necessary in order to give notice to persons that swimming,
bathing and wading is prohibited therein, except at Shore Bird Park.
Section 19. CRUISING TYPE VESSELS USED AS A RESIDENCE.
No vessel berthed in the Marina shall be used as a place of
residence except as authorized by the City Council. Any vessel used for overnight
accommodation between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. for more than three
(3) nights in a seven (7) day period shall be considered a residence. A re-
quest in writing to the Marina Supervisor for a reasonable extension of time,
i.e., vacation, temporary or visitor's berthing, or extenuating circumstances,
will be considered. Written approval from the Marina Supervisor must be received
prior to the fourth night of remaining on board the vessel.
To provide additional security and assistance in emergency sit-
uations, the Marina Supervisor may authorize and designate a limited number of
berths, not to exceed forty '40), as residences. These berths will be designated
in each berthing section, depending upon the total number of berths in that sec-
tion, and will be subject to the following conditions:
a. Vessels receiving residence privileges from the Marina
Supervisor must DC of a cruising type, kept in good repair and in seaworthy con-
dition. The v•„•• •:,.-.e 1 -' j.iiist not. t-.<- neiv.-inently attached to the dock and must leave
10.
-------
the Marina waters at least once for a minimum of six (6) hours each ninety (90)
day period.
b. Report any emergency situation, unusual event, or viola-
tion of regulations to the Marina office.
c. The berther and three (3) members of his/her family, and
one (1) other non-family member, may be permitted to use a vessel as a residence
Subleasing or renting will not be allowed. The Marina office is to be advised ii
writing the names and phone numbers of all persons residing on board for any peri
exceeding seven (7) days. If the berther is not using the vessel, the berther ma
allow another person to use the vessel as a residence for a period not to exceed
ninety (90) days. The berther must advise the Marina office in writing prior to
giving permission for another person to use the vessel as a residence.
d. Residence privileges are not transferable with the sale of
the vessel. Berthers who have residence privileges may purchase a new vessel and
. *
still retain these privileges, provided that a suitable berth for the new vessel
is available. A berther may place the berth on half-rate and retain residence
status; however, during this period, the temporary berther does not have resi-
dence privileges.
e. The owner of a pet that creates a public nuisance will be
required to remove that pet from the Marina.
f. Permission to use a vessel as a residence will be revoked
if complaints are received by the Marina office about loud, boisterous, or unseem-
ly conduct of those on board, or violation of these or other Marina regulations a<
set forth herein.
g. No appurtenances, or writing, may be placed on the exterioi
of the vessel that would detract -from the normal appearance of the vessel.
h. Sewage mubt be controlled or contained in the following man
ner:
11.
-------
(1J Remove marine head (toilet) and seal valves and
thru-hull fittings.
(2) Install self-contained marine head (toilet) such as
monomatic or similar.
(3) Install approved holding tank or other device to con-
tain sewage, with no outlet to allow tank or device to be emptied except by pump-
ing.
(4) If marine head (toilet) remains on board, it must be
physically and permanently disconnected from discharge valves or thru-hull fit-
tings.
i. A charge of forty-five cents (45$) per berth foot per month
will be charged for additional expense of water, mail, garbage, restroom facili-
ties and use of holding tank pump-out.
j. Vessels used as a residence located in non-metered berths
will pay an additional charge for electricity. Based on P.G.fJE. current rate
of .02089 per kilowatt hours, vessels to thirty (30) feet will pay Ten Dollars
($10.00) per month, thirty and one/tenth (30.1) feet to thirty-nine and nine/
tenths (39.9) fett will pay Twelve Dollars and Fifty Cents ($12.50) per month.
All vessels of forty (40) feet or over will pay Fifteen Dolars ($15.00) per
month.
k. Payments for berth rent and all other charges must be
kept current. If any charges become delinquent for seventy-five (75) days, the
privilege will be cancelled.
Section 20. NO.N-CRUISING V, TE VESSELS USLD AS A RESIDENCE.
Berths H-l, 1, 5, 6, 9, and 10 and 1-1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10
are authorized as non-cruising type vessel berths. The vessels occupying these
berths are non-CLMISII.^ type v.----:ei5 with permanent sewer hookups and are subject
12.
-------
to the following conditions:
a. Vessels using a berth as a residence may be rented for a
period not to exceed six (6) months in any twelve (12) month period. The City
Manager may permit such vessel to be rented for an additional six (6) months if
he/she determines that there is good cause.
b. Non-cruising type vessels being used as a residence can-
not be replaced by other non-cruising type vessels once the berth is vacated.
The berth will be available for residence privileges by a cruising type vessel
equipped with sewer hookups.
c. Vessels in the above listed berths, and the areas imroedi-
atly surrounding such vessels, shall be kept in a sanitary and orderly condition
at all times in order to assure the preservation of the public health and safety
Failure of any person living on a vessel in the Marina to abide by such require-
ments shall be cause for revocation of the privilege of using such vessel for
living purposes.
Section 21. SANITARY FACILITIES.
Sanitary facilities (Marina toilet, or head, sinks, etc.) shal
not be used while the vessel is in the Marina unless the vessel is equipped with
an approved or acceptable operating device for containment of sewage. It shall
be unlawful for any person to discharge sewage or other pollutants into the water
in the Marina area.
Vessels in the Marina, and the areas immediately surrounding
the vessel, shall be kept in a clean, neat and orderly condition at all times.
Failure of any person to comply with the above requirements
shall cause revocation of the berth.
Section 22. CHILDREN IN MARINA.
It shall be unlawful for any child under the age of sixteen
13.
-------
(16) years to go, remain, or be upon any of the wharves, gangways, floats or
vessels in the Berkeley Marina, unless such child is accompanied by his parent
or parents, or other adult person, or unless such child has the written permis-
sion of the owner of any vessel located at the Marina to go upon such vessel.
Section 25. FISHING IN MARINA BASIN PROHIBITED.
It shall be unlawful for any person to fish in the Marina or
in restricted area or from any vessel, structure, floats, docks or shoreline.
(See attached map.)
Section 24. DAMAGE AND/OR LOSS OF PROPERTY.
The owner of a vessel must assume all liability for loss to
his/her property of any kind while it is within the limits of the boundary of
the Marina. The City of Berkeley assumes no risk on account of fire, theft,
Act of God, or damages of any nature to vessels.
Section 25. VEHICLE OR TRAILER PARKING IN MARINA AREAS.
Permission from the Marina office must be obtained prior to
parking any vehicle, trailer or boat in the parking areas within the Marina area
for a period exceeding seventy-two (72) consecutive hours. If permission is not
requested or granted, the vehicle, trailer or boat will be removed from the Marina
area at the owner's expense.
Any vehicle or trailer parking in restricted areas, in limited
parking areas beyond the allowed time, or in driveways will be removed from the
Marina at the owner's expense.
All motor driven vehicles are prohibited on any path, sidewalk,
pier, dock or float in the Marina.
'Ihe use of any vehicle for eating or sleeping for over four
(4) hours per day while parked in the Marina is prohibited.
14.
-------
Section 26. SOLICITATION AND ADVERTISING.
a. Solicitation of patronage for private or commercial busi-
ness in the Marina without a permit is prohibited. (City Ordinance No. 5017-N.S.
b. No distribution of literature (brochures, pamphlets or
other material) is permitted in the Marina area. This includes posting of signs,
except as allowed by the Marina Supervisor.
c. No person shall row, propel, navigate or maintain any ves-
sel or float in the Marina for the purpose of advertising, without first having
received a permit from the Marina Supervisor for such purpose. (City Ordinance
No. 5017-N.S.)
d. No sign advertising commercial use of a vessel shall be
displayed on any vessel, float, dock or other structure. Properly licensed com-
mercial vessels operating from the Marina may have the vessel's name and tele-
phone number displayed on the vessel in an area no larger then fourteen (14) in-
ches by thirty-six (36) inches in two (2) locations.
e. Other signs, such as for sale signs, on privately owned
vessels may not exceed three (3) square feet.
Section 27. PENALTY.
Violations of this ordinance are punishable as provided in
the Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 1.20.
Section 28. CONSTITUTIONALITY.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held
to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remain
ing portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby de-
clares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more
15.
-------
sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases
be declared unconstitutional.
Section 29. REPEAL,
Ordinance No. 4159-N.S. and all ordinances amendatory thereof
are hereby repealed.
Section 30. POSTING.
Copies of this Bill are hereby ordered published by posting
with the vote thereon for two (2) days at the ten (10) prominent places in the
City of Berkeley as designated by Ordinance No. 2032-N.S.
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley, held on
the fourteenth day of March, 1978, this Bill was passed to print and ordered
published by posting by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Davis, Dean, Denton, Feller, Hancock, Hone, Segesta
and President Widener.
Noes: None.
Absent: Councilmember Rumford.
A'1 TEST: EDYTHE CAMPBELL
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council
In effect: April 27, 197b
16.
-------
\\
s
RAMP
/i it -f-jrOWi^ -— ) 'f\
Uf OOP Q O JU
!E~;p~l£ qc—ip
_J~ ~~ —tr- ;'"""" """Ij""""
— — j -•M —j Hp-j K rl -~ir~j>
r __ f O«^'U»K * rfl^nrr f f\ ' lr|' " Q ~^ !j ^
•" *•• ""l1— ,—*,""-. . «-^L—,Q
^—»— < o- :i i
"—•r—» V t '
s_Z? i-.~j
l__, ,-H.^J
' rf 9
c^.»n *
2
INN
/TX ?
fv*1
-me* W**
Q
o Q
- oo\
^""jr—X X * r !•
n
Wr
I (HORSESHOE
\ PARK
^s
M L
^F ^ r^^ ~
~jv— —-f—
•L_ _'-:~==1
^h^^ci
^r -,^a *Vi r
H —•'—' * i l \
*:>" -US \\ i LL
S3-* -,:-? i ^-==TT
« j—5 —^-j .. \ I ft
• iJ-^ji:"-* l\ I » *
K±2—•.«^'-sr J,*^OLO-
a.~- f—; '- ^: .W-~3 \J » '
Hi_n —< • >- ^ JL ' B=»rl S ^3—»j3>—1*~ S^""
._, -^paeb? £:'cf ER H^^'
u-s 5-,u^R-^s-:(~o o-/ .5, fe—ir'af ^s^r-.-q^.c;
^-pSoZ^RlS 2^^ R:
. dU, , 7 ,—• I i 'L
^-•\o
^~ ^z
^ ^
^ L;
*«i
PARKING
1
u
PARKING
i r\
! ! i ..
j \ — - . J *Z. _- . — -:
--^i
1
liXCi.
?~t
-------
ORDINANCE NO. 5226 -N.S.
t
AMENDING SECTION 6.20.190 OF THE BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SECTION 19 OF ORDINANCE
NO. 5032-M.S.) - HASINA RULES AND REGULATIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:
Sect ion 1, That the second paragraph of Section 6.20.190 of the Berkeley
Municipal Code (second paragraph of Section 19 of Ordinance No. 5032-N.S.) is
hereby amended to read as follows:
6.20-.190. Cruising type vessels used as residences.
* * *.* *
To provide additional security and assistance in emergency situations, the.
Marina Supervisor rr\ay authorize and designate a limited number of berths,.not to
exceed fifty-two (52) prior to July 1, 1980 and not to exceed forty (^0) as of
July 1, 1930, as residences. These berths will be designated in each berthing
section, depending upon the total number of berths in that section, and will be
subject to the-follow!ng conditions:
A A V: A A
Sect ion 2. Copies of this Bill are hereby ordered published by posting with
the vote thereon for two (2) days at the ten (10) prominent places in the City of
Berkeley as designated by Chapter 1.08 of the Berkeley Municipal Code.
At a regular neacing of the Council of the City of Berkeley, held on the
eleventh day of September, 1979, this Bill was passed to print and ordered
published by posting by the following vote:
Ay=is: Councilm'ecr.bers Davis, Dean, Denton, Feller, rukson, Hone, McDonald,
Segesta and President Newport.
Noes: None-
Absent: None.
ATTEST: EDYTHE CAMPBELL
City Clerk and Clark of the Council
In effect: February 21, 1980
-------
ORDINANCE NO. 5226 —N.S.
Passed to Print: Sep.tembe_r..11.,.. 1979
Rnally Adopted:
In
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Berkeley, held on fhe ............. .eleventh ...... :. ......... _ ..... jgy- Qf
.......... _____ ....... September , 1979 ......... f th;s Q]\\ was passed to prjnf ancj ordered published by posting by the
following vote:
Ayes- _ Councllmenbers Davis, Dean, Denton, Feller, Fukson, Hone, McDonald, Segesta
and President Newport.
Noes:
Absent: £o.ne... : —
Attest-.
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of th« Council.
At a regular meeting cf the Council of the City of Berkeley, held on the ................ H?.^Hy~?.e.fr.°J?. ........... day of
_________________ January, 1980 ............. t tnjs Ordinance was finally adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: _______ Cpjy.a£il3J38^.s.J)3yiak..D.eA^
President Newport.
Noes:
Absent- Counciliaanber Feller. _ ^
Attest:
City Clerk ond ex-officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Berkeley, California
Approved this....?.?.nd day of._.. JanuaryA..19.8p
Mayor ond Prw'dK'.; of the Council
of the City of BerVsiey. California
366-544
-------
City of Berkeley
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
21PO MILVIA STREET
BERKELEY. CALIFORNIA 94704
(415) 644-6580
Mr. Michael B. Wilmar, Executive Director
San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA. 94102
Dear Mr. Wilmar:
Pursuant to discussions with your office and the Berkeley Mariners Neighborhood Associ
ation, the City of Berkeley requests BCDC approval of the following minimum holding
tank size standards for our authorized live-aboard vessels:
Number of Occupants ^~
Functioning Facilities
Porta-Potti (no through hull fittings)
Sinks
Commodes
Shower
Washer
The tank sizes are for functioning facilities aboard a cruising type vessel, based
upon number of occupants per vessel.
The total gallon size of the holding tank(s) is additive. It can be obtained by com-
bining the number of functioning facilities on board the vessel. For example, a
cruising type vessel with two sinks and one commode requires a total of a 30 gallon
capacity holding tank for 1-2 residents. A total holding tank capacity of 75 gallons
would be necessary for a 3-5 occupant vessel that has sinks, commodes and a shower.
A vessel may have one or more holding tanks; however, each tank must be able to be
punped out and sealed from through-hull discharge.
Formal approval of this standard for minimum holding tank capacity is requested in
compliance with Item II.A. of BCDC Permit No. 5-79.
Sincerely,
1 - 2
None
10 gallons
20 gallons
20 gallons
15 gallons
3-5
None
15 gallons
30 gallons
30 gallons
20 gallons
Forrest Craven
Acting City Manager
cc: Director of Public Works
-------
APPENDIX D.3
MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
-------
MOORAGE AND OCCUPANCY OF VESSELS 11.20.010
Chapter 11.20
MOORAGE AND OCCUPANCY OF VESSELS2
Sections:
11.20.010 Definitions.
11.20.020 Prohibited acts and activities.
11.20.030 Permits.
11.20.032 Mooring
11.20.033 Dryolocks.
11.20.040 Penalty for violations.
11.20.050 Seveiability.
11.20.060 Special fees.
11.20.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the follow-ing
phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given in this
section. When not inconsistent with the context, word.- in the piesent tense
include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number,
and words in the singular number include the plural number. The word
'"shall" is always mandatory and not meiely directory.
(a) "Aik" is any vessel, boat, ciaft, or structure orHrally designed to
float that is no\v permanently grounded or supported by a foundation O"
piling.
(b) "Director" mei'iis the duly authori'/ed and acting director of the
public works dcpaitrncnt of the county.
(c) "Floating home" is any boat, craft, living act-Oinmodation or struc-
ture supported by a means of floatation, designed to be used without a
permanent foundation, which is used or intended for human habitation.
(d) "Garbage" includes any or all of the following: garbage, swill,
refuse, cans, bottles, papers, vegetable matter, carcasses of dead animals,
offal, traJi, rubbish, arc! radioactive wujte material
(e) "Graywater" mean-., wastcwater from lavatories, bathtubs, shower:-.,
clothes washers, dishwashers and other similar plumbing fixtures.
(f) "Moor" means the fixing of a vessel in one location, temporarily
or permanently, by mooring, anchoring, grounding, or any other means.
(g) "Person" includes any person, firm, association, corporation, or
Lin;. memli.Ts, agents, or employees of any of the foregoing.
(h) "Sewage" means any and all waste substance, liquid or solid, as-
sociated with human habitation, or which contains, or may be contaminated
with, human or animal excreta or excrement, offal, or any feculent matter.
0) "Transient vessel" means any vessel temporarily moored in the
2. P^.'I-.itir,'. c ! v.jtcrs rn-'l p..b!i - pK-.-j^ ji!M!:i'.!tf- by statute - Sx He. and S.:fc-> Codo, Division
5, PaM 2, Ch.<;'!.-r 4.
159 (Marin County 2-Sl)
-------
11.20.020-11.20.030 HARBORS AND WATERWAYS
county which is occupied lor a period of le.ss than four consecutive days
oi ten clays in any calcndai month.
(l) "Vessel" means any water-craft of any type or size, including but
not hunted to baiges, ferry boat.-., arks, yachts. liouy~boats, floating homes,
and rafts.
fk) "Waterway" means any water, waterway, lake, river, creek, canal,
lauoon, bay, inlet, slough, tributary, or arm ol the sea situated within or
bounding the county. (Orel. 2440 § 25, 1979: Ord. ll^Q § 1, 1970: Ord.
1675 § 2, 1968: Orel. 1313 § 1, 1963).
11.20.020 Prohibited acts and activities. It is unlawful for any person to
do any of the following:
(a) Discharge untreated sewage or graywater into a waterway;
(b) Dump or throw garbage into a waterway;
(c) Occupy, or cause, or permit another person to occupy any moored
vessel as living quarters, other than a transient vessel, without first securing a
valid occupancy permit as hereinafter provided;
(d) Rent or lease berthing space to any vessel other than a transient
vessel, for which an occupancy permit has not been secured;
(e) Cause or allow a vessel located on or moored to his property to be
occupied in contravention of this chapter for a period in excess of thirty
days after receipt of a written notice from the director, specifying the vessel
involved and the location thereof;
(f) Furnish 01 supply electrical service, natural gas or fresh water, or
provide a sewer connection, to any vessel, other than transient vessels, for
wliicii -an occupancy permit has not been secured. (Ord. 2440 § 26, 1979:
Old-. 1790 § 2, 1970: Ord. 137], 1964: Ord. 1313 § ?, 1%3).
H.20.030 Permits, (a) Form-Fee. All applications for occupancy per-
mits shall be in writing on a form supplied by the Marin County department
of public works, one! shall be accompanied by a nonrefunclable fee as estab-
lished in the current "Resolution of the M-irin County Doard of Supervisors
I'otabli^hing Fee^ for Permits Administered by the Department of Public
Works," to cover the cost of processing and inspection.
(b) Content.-! of Applications. All applications shall, as nearly as pos-
sible, contain the following information:
(!) The size, typo and location of ihe vessel for which the permit is
soimht;
(2) The number of people to be accommodated on board;
(3) That provision has been made for Jispo>al of sewage and graywater
by connection to an approved shoreside sewage disposal system;
(4) That precision has been made; for connection to shoreline utilities;
(5) Such other information as the chief buil-Jing inspector or his
cHithori/.ed deputies may deem necessary to effectuate the provisions of this
ch.-T.ter.
(VanV Coiiiiij 2 :, i ; 160
-------
MOOKAGI- AND OCCUPANCY OF VIISSHLS 11.20.030
(c) Issuance. If the chief building inspector, after investigation, deter-
mine.5, thai suitable provision has been made for the disposal of sewage and
graywater and connection of shorcside utilities, and that occupancy of the
vessel for which the permit is requested will not create a hazard to the
health, welfare or safety of the occupants thereof or the community in gen-
eral, he shall issue the permit. Al! permits may be made subject to such con-
ditions as the chief building inspector deems appropriate to insure compli-
ance with the provisions of this chapter.
(d) Posting. Permits shall be permanently posted and maintained upon
the vessel.
(e) Term - Renewal. All permits issued hercunder shall In- effective for
a period of one year; provided, however, that any material cruinrr in the con-
ditions shown upon the application or any change in ownership or location
of the vessel shall revoke the permit. Permits may be renewed by ^sub-
mission of an appropriate application and payment of a nonrefundable fee
as established in the current "Resolution of the Marin County Hoard of
Supervisors Establishing Fees for Permits Administered by the Department
of Public Works," to cover the cost of processing and inspection.
(f) Inspections - Revocation. The chief building inspector or his
authorized deputies shall have the authority to board and/or inspect any
ve'S-if-l, after reasonable notice to the owner or occupant, when he has rea-
sonable cause to believe that the vessel is occupied in violation of the provi-
sions of this chapter or Chapter 19.18. The authority of the chief building
inspector to board and/or enter any vessel shall be subject to the require-
ments and provisions of Section 19.04.023, provided the chief building
inspector shall be exeir.pt from the provisions of Section 19.04.023 and may
board and/or enter any vessel in situations of emergency v, here public
health, safety or properly is endangered. The chief building inspector shall
have the right to revoke any permit granted hereunder in the event that lu-
ascertains that the permittee, or any occupant of the vessel, is acting in
contravention of any of the provisions hereof
(g) Appeal. In the event that any applicant or permittee i> for any
reason dissatisfied with the a:tions of the chief building inspector by reason
of failure to grant a permit, revocation of a permit, or imposition of any
conditions relating to the permit, the applicant or permittee shall have the
right to appeal to the board of supervisors, in writing, within ten days after
notification of the action of the chief building inspector. Upon receipt of an
appeal, the board of s'-T^visors shall call a hearing within fifte-r, c'ays from
receipt of the uprva! :.r.ci gr. e the .'poii-.aj-.t notice rh::c^f \~\ :.^.-~:r-^J: •: r
certified ma;l addressed TO the arpelij.M at the address ;hc-v,-_. c:: :.':: apv.ii^.-
tion or permit. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board of supervisors
.vhal! rer.Jor a decision, which decision shall be final. (Ord. 2451 § 5, 1980:
C) ,1. 24-1 :; 4. 1980. Ord. 2440 § 27, 1979: Ord. 2209 § 3, 1976: Orel.
17-53 ? I, 1970. Orel. 1790 § 3, 1970. Ord. 1675 § 3, 1968: Ord. 1371,
1964: Ord. 1313 § 3, 1963)
161 (Man:i County 2-SI)
-------
11.20.032 -11.20.040 HARBORS AND WATERWAYS
11.20.032 Mooiing. All vessel.'; shall be secuic!) and safely mooted to
in MI re the icquircd space between floating homes, as specified in Section
11.21 O.SO. is maintained at all times V/hen uv.nl, mooiing lines shall be of
Mifhucnf strength and be- installed in a mannei that will prevent the float-
ing home from moving more than twelve inches in any lateral direction.
(Orel. 2440 § 28, 1979: Ord. 1675 § 5, 1968).
11.20.033 Drydocks. No person shall, without first securing a permit
therefor from the board of supervisors, move, locate, relocate, transport or
dock a floatinc drydook wiilnn the unincorporated area of Marin County.
(Ord. 1779 § l", 1970).
11.20.040 Penalty for violations. Any person violating any of the pro-
visions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
comiction thereof, shall be punished as provided in Section 1.04.270. The
person shall be deemed to b^ guilty of a separate offense for each and
evciy day during any portion of which a \iolation of this chapter is com-
mitted, continued or permitted by him. (Ord. 1313 § 4, 1963).
162/164
V
-------
FLOATING HOME: MARINAS 11.20.050-11.21.010
11.20.050 Scverability. If any icction, subsection, subdiviMon, sentence.
clause or phrase of this chapter is. for any reason, held to be illegal or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this chapter. The board of supervisors hereby declares that they
would have passed this chapter and each section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses or phrases are
declared illegal or unconstitutional. (Ord. 1313 § 6. 1963).
11.20.060 Special fees. Any vessel inspection requested for purposes not
included under Section 11.20.030 shall be made by the department of public
\\orks. This inspection will be performed upon receipt of an application and
fee in the manner as provided for in Section 11.20.030. (Ord. 2353 § I,
197S).
Chapter 11.21
FLOATING HOME MARINAS
Sections:
11.21.010 Purpose.
11.21.020 Definitions.
11.21.030 Application of chapter.
11.21.040 Sewerage.
11.21.050 Mooring.
11.21.055 Mooring.
11.21.060 Access.
11.21.070 Parking.
11.21.080 Plumbing.
11.21.090 Electrical distribution.
11.21.100 Fire protection.
11.21.110 Solid waste disposal.
11.21.120 Permit required.
11.21.130 Application for permit-Fee.
11.21.140 Issuance of permit.
11.21.150 Permit posting required.
11.21.160 Term of permit-Renewal fee.
11.21.170 Revocation of permit.
11.21.180 Appeal procedure.
11.21.190
11.21.210
11.21.010 Purpose. This chapter is enacted to provide for the health,
safety and welfare of marina residents and the general community, by estab-
lishing trie minimum standards required to insure the persona! safety and
v.- •11-being of occupants and visitors to floating homes. (Ord. 1693 § 1 (part),
1969).
164-1 (Marin Coimtv 5-&4)
-------
11.21.020-11.21.040 HARBORS AND WATERWAYS
11.21.020 Definitions, (a) A "floating home marina" (herein called
marina) means a facility that contains one or more berthing spaces for
floating homes.
(b) "Vessel" means a watercraft of any type or size, including but not
limited to barges, ferryboats, arks, yachts, houseboats, floating homes and
rafts. "Vessel" when used herein shall include floating homes.
(c) "Moor" means the fixing of a vessel in one location, temporarily or
permanently, by mooring, anchoring, grounding or any other means.
(d) A "floating home" is any boat, craft, or living accommodation or
structure supported by a means of flotation, designed to be used without a
permanent foundation, which is used or intended for human habitation.
(e) "Harbormaster" is the person designated by the marina owner to
control the operation of the marina.
(f) A "transient vessel" means any vessel moored in the county which
is occupied for less than four consecutive days or ten days in any month. A
"transient vessel" also includes any vessel for which a permit is secured from
the harbormaster by the occupant stating that no sewerage will be discharged
from that vessel during its occupancy. (Ord. 1693 § 1 (part), 1969).
11.21.030 Application of chapter. The provisions of this chapter shall
apply to all marinas wholly or partially located within the unincorporated
area of Marin County. Each marina owner shall designate a harbormaster.
Marinas shall be established only where allowed by applicable zoning.
Marinas which accommodate only transient vessels are exempt from the
provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1693 § 1 (part), 1969).
11.21.040 Sewerage. (3) Sewer connection. Every vessel moored at a
marina shall be lawfully connected to an approved and accepted local sewer.
(2) Sewerage lateral system. Every marina shall provide a sewerage
lateral for the collection of sewage from every vessel accommodated at the
marina. The sewerage laterals shall be connected to a shoreside facility, shall
have an inlet connection at each vessel's side, and shall be constructed,
installed, and maintained in an approved manner. Connections at floating
home berths shall be equipped with approved backflow prevention devices,
and provide for the entrance of effluent from floating homes without reflux
or back pressure.
(3) Connection to sewerage lateral system. It is unlawful for any
person to use, occupy or let any vessel for human habitation unless it is
lawfully connected to a sewerage system as provided above. The harbor
master shall not allow occupancy of any floating home without sewerage
handling facilities, as re a u ire d in Chapter 19.18, within a marina under his
contro!.~(Ord. 1693 § 1 (part), 1969). "
(Marin County 5-84) 1 64-2/1 64-4
-------
FLOATING HOME MARINAS 11.21.050-11.21.060
11.21.050 Mooring The harbor master shall assure the adequacy of
facilities for mooring vessels at a marina. The provisions for moorage shall
comply with Section 1 1.20.032. Vessels shall be moored to provide a clear
waterway projection between adjacent boats or floating homes of six feet on
all sides. Clearance often feet shall be maintained when either floating home
is in excess of one story. The above clearances do not apply between the
vessel and the walkway or slip. Berthing areas shall be dredged to +1.5 feet
mean lower low water datum and to such a depth that all floating homes are
floating at a tidal stage of+5.0 mean lower low water datum. (Ord. 1693 § 1
(part), 1969).
11.21.055 Mooring. Vessels shall be inoorec! so as to allow landward
vessels unlimited acces^ (Orel. 2791 § 1. 1983).
11.21.060 Access. All slips or walkways providing access for more than
two berthing spaces shall have a clear width of four feet. Main walkways
from slips to the shore shall be five and one-half feet clear width. Any
walkway or slip that extends over one hundred feet may be considered a
main walkway. All public gangways (serving more than one residence) shall
be designed to eliminate slopes greater than two and one-half horizontal to
one vertical at any tidal stage. All public gangways shall be provided with
guardrails on each side and have a clear width of four feet. All nonfloating
walkways or piers shall be equipped with, guardrails. All gangways and
walkways shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) Gangway design live load shall not be less than thirty pounds per
square foot.
(2) Guardrails must withstand a twenty-pound lateral load per linear
foot of rail.
(3) Floating walkways shall serve no more than four floating homes
and shall have sufficient bouyancy to support a twenty-pound-per-square-
foot uniform live load, plus the dead load of the structure, without
allowance for structural members in the floatation calculation.
(4) Framing shall be at least two inches nominal thickness if
constructed of wood. If the entire structure is of plywood, it shall be at least
three-fourths-inch thickness, marine grade, except for the portions above
water which may be exterior grades.
(5) All floats or walkways shall have an identification number at
berthing spaces. Identification numbers shall have standard four inch high
numbers and be kept legible at all times.
(6) Piling for floating equipment shall be adequate to resist lateral
forces produced by any combination of wind, current, wave, and impact.
(7) All walkways shall be lighted to provide an average illumination of
0.1 footcandles at the deck level, but in no case less than 0.05 footcandles.
1 64-5 (Mann County 5-S4)
-------
11.21.070-11.21.090 HARBORS AND WATERWAYS
(8) Walkways serving ten or more floating homes shall be of cither
Type 1 or Type II construction or constructed in accordance with Chapter
ZOOS of the Uniform Building Code. (Orel. 21 77 § 1, 1975: Ord. 1693 § 1
(part), 1969).
11.21.070 Parking. Parking shall be provided at all marinas as follows:
(1) Parking spaces shall be provided in conformance with Chapter
22.74.020(a);
(2) The parking area shall be paved with two inches of asphalt concrete
over approved base, or approved equal;
(3) Parking areas shall be illuminated. Lighting shall provide average
illumination of 0.05 footcandles on the pavement, but in no case shall be less
than 0.01 footcandles;
(4) Stalls shall be clearly marked. (Ord. 1693 § 1 (part), 1969).
11.21.080 Plumbing. The plumbing of water, sewage, and gas for docks
serving floating homes shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.04,
except as follows:
(a) Water distribution. Each space for a floating home shall be supplied
with a water outlet which, by means of approved connecting hoses, provides
sufficient pressure and contains an approved backflow prevention device.
(b) Fuel gas piping. If floating home berths are provided with gas
outlets, they shall be equipped with valve and approved disconnect
couplings.
All gas piping installed on dock, piers, or other areas exposed to
corrosion shall be protected by approved wrapping, or be galvanized and
painted. (Ord. 1693 § 1 (part), 1969).
11.21.090 Electrical distribution. The provisions of this section cover
the electrical conductors and equipment installed within, on, .or above
walkways or slips serving floating homes. The conductors that connect
dockside power sources with the last utility connection, and all wiring
running on docks and/or shore from the distribution center to the point of
supply shall conform to Chapter 19.04 except as follows:
(a) Wiring system. A wiring system nominally rated 115/230 volts,
three-wire AC, with grounded neutral and with a continuous means of
grounding shall be used. A receptacle shall be furnished at each location
intended for use by a floating home.
(b) Number of supply cords for one dwelling unit. No more than two
fifty-ampere supply cords shall supply one floating home. Where the
calculated load exceeds one hundred amperes the supply may be furnished
by four permanently installed conductors in an approved wiring method, one
conductor being identified by a continuous green color or a continuous
green color with a yellow stripe.
(c) Supply from one floating home to another. No service shall be
C.-'-Tln County S-S4) 164-6
-------
FLOATING JIOMR MARINAS 11.21.100
supplied from one floating home to another.
(dj Insulation of service conductors. Service conductors shall be
covered with insulation which v/ill normally withstand exposure to the
atmosphere and which will prevent any detrimental leakage of current to
adjacent conductors, object, or the ground. All conductors shall be insulated.
(o) Size of service conductors. Service conductors shall have adequate
current-carrying capacity to conduct the current for the loads supplied safely
without a tcmperatme' rise detrimental to the insulating covering of the
conducfo.'.s, and adequate mechanical strength.
Service conductors shall not be smaller than No. 6.
(f) Clearance- of aerial conductors. No energi/ed aerial con.lictor shall
pass over a dock or slip, unless supported on permanently fixed poles.
Minimum elevation for conductors shall be elevation +15.0 feet mean sea
bvd datum. Clcittance of ten feet shall be maintained between gangways or
piers and conductors at all tidal stages. Aerial conductors shall only be used
for primary service.
(g) Protected against damage. When conductors are carried down a
pole, the mechanical protection shall be installed to the point required to
injure against physical damage but not less than elevation +13.0 feet mean
sea level datum.
(h) Service connections. No aerial sen-ice drops shall be made to
floating homes with a demand of less than on; hundred ten amperes.
Cords whicii supply floating homes shall be connected at docksido to a
permanently supported receptacle enclosed in an appro.ed manner, mounted
in a manner v.hich vill insure a minimum of eighton inches clearance above
extreme high tide. If meters are used, they shall be firmly attached at the
receptacle locations and protected from physical damage. Strain relief grips
shall be used on all cords to relieve strain from v/iring terminals.
(i) Wiring to service connection points. Service by conduit system sha!!
he as follows:
Corrosion resistant rigid conduit shall extend fror; ihe aerial or utility
supply poirt to the edge- of the fixed portion of the pier, shore, etc.
Sufficient liquid tight flexible metal conduit shall be run to the floating
docks or slips to allow for extreme tidal changes \vith no str?in on the
connections Liquid tight metal conduit shall be installed to avoid continual
immersion in water. Where attached to the floating dock, the flexible
condi:'? S'>are-;-L:nt materials. (Orel. 16^3 § I (part), 196°':.
11.21.100 Fire protection. Unkss a local fire agency has established
m.sre st: irx.ent standards, a marina shall ha\e a water system capable of
1 64-7 (Mann County 12-1 5-7A)
-------
11.21.110-11.21.140 HARBORS AND WATERWAYS
providing two fire streams of sixty gallons per minute to nny location within
the nu.rina. Fire hydrants shall be equipped with a ho.se and no/,/,le adequate
to accomplish the above. Hydrant risers shall be one and one-half inches in
diameter .'.nd equipped with gate valves. Systems shall be designed to provide
a minimum pressure of thirty psi at hydrant risers, under flow. Systems shall
be approved by the local fire authority and local water district. (Ord. 1693 §
1 (part), 1969).
11.21.110 Solid waste disposal. A system for the collection and removal
of solid wastes approved by the county department of public health shall be
provided at each marina. It shall be the responsibility of the harbor master to
insure compliance and operation of the system. (Ord. 1693 § 1 (part),
1969).
11.21.120 Permit required. It is unlawful for any person to operate a
marina 01 let berths for moorage of nontransient vessels without, first
securing a valid permit as hereinafter provided. (Ord. 1693 § 1 (part), 1969).
11.21.130 Application for permit — Fee. (a) All applications for marina
permits shall be in writing on a form supplied by the county department of
public works and shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount established in
the current "Resolution of the Mariri County Board of Supervisors
Establishing Fees for Permits Administered by the Department of Public
Works."
(b) All applications shall, as nearly as is possible, contain the following
information:
(!) The size and location and boundaries of the marina for which the
permit is sought;
(2)«The number of vessels to be accommodated therein;
(3) All provision that has been made for disposal of sewage by
connection to an approved shoreside sewage disposal system;
(4) All provision that has been made for connection of shoreside
utilities;
(5) Certification that all applicable zoning provisions will be observed;
(6) Plans for all improvements;
(7) Such other information as the director of public works may deem
neccjsary to effectuate the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 2209 § 4, 1976:
Ord. 1693 § l(a),(b), 1969).
11.21.140 Issuance of permit. If the director of public works, after
investigation, determines that suitable provision has been made for the
disposal of sewage and connection of shoreside utilities, and that operation
of tiie marina for which the permit is requested will not create a hazard to
the health, v,o!fa:e or safety of the occupants of vessels moored thereat or
the community in general, he shall issue the permit. All permits may be
made subject to such conditions as the director of public works deems
(W:irin County 12-15-76) 164-8
-------
FLOATING HOME MARINAS 11.21.150-11.21.190
appropriate to insure compliance with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord.
1693 § l(c), 1969).
1 1.21.150 Permit posting required. Permits shall be permanently posted,
displayed, and maintained at a conspicuous location in the marina. (Ord.
1693 § l(d), 1969).
1 1.21.160 Term of permit - Renewal fee. All permits issued hereunder
shall be effective for a period of one year; provided, however, that any
material change shall revoke the permit. Permits may be renewed by
resubmission of an appropriate application and payment of a fee in the
amount established in the current "Resolution of the M::rin County Board of
Supervisors Establishing Fees for Permits Administered by the Department
of Public Works." (Ord. 2209 § 5, 1976: Ord, 1693 § l(e), 1969).
11.21.170 Revocation of permit. If the director of public works
determines that a permittee is acting in contravention of any of the
provisions hereof, he shall notify the permittee, in writing, of the specific
provisions involved and the requirements for correction. If the permittee
fails to effect compliance within the time specified in the notice, the director
of public works may revoke the permit. (Ord. 1693 § 1(0, 1969).
11.21.180 Appeal procedure. In the event that any applicant or
permittee is for any reason dissatisfied with the actions of the director of
public works by reason of failure to grant a permit, revocation of a permit,
or imposition of any conditions relating to the permit, the applicant or
permittee shall have the right to appeal to the board of superiors, in
writing, within ten days after notification of the action. Upon receipt of an
appeal, the. board of supervisors shall call a hearing within fifteen days from
receipt of the appeal and give the applicant notice thereof by registered or
certified mail addressed to the appellant at the address shown on the
application or permit. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board of
supervisees shall render a decision, which decision shall be final. (Ord. 1693
§ Kg), 1969).
11.21.190 Existing marinas. All marinas presently operating shall apply
for a permit within one month of March 25, 1969, provided, however, that
the applicants v/ho file within the requisite period shall b; entit'ed to a
reriod of C!
-------
11.21.210-11.22.030 HARBORS AND WATERWAYS
11.21.210 Penalties for violations. Any person, firm or corporation
violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a
separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which
any violation of the provisions of this chapter is committed, continued, or
permitted and upon conviction of any such violation such person shall be
punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprison-
ment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
For purpose of uniformity, this section shall be deemed to supersede
any of the penalties provided in the respective codes referred to in this
chapter. (Ord. 2644 5 3, 1981).
Chapter 11.22
ANCHORAGE OF VESSELS
Sections:
11.22.010 Prohibitions.
11.22.020 Exceptions.
11.22.030 Fees.
1 1.22.010 Prohibitions, h is unlawful to anchor, ground, moor or dock
any vessel in those portions of Richardson Bay within Marin County juris-
• diction, except as permitted by the board of supervisors. (Ord. 2719 § 1
(part), 1982).
11.22.020 Exceptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
(a) Vessesl possessing permits issued by the County of Marin;
(b) Vessels moored to approved shoreside facilities or in areas covered
by an approved phn;
(c) Vessels which anchor temporarily for periods of less than seventy-
two hours. (Ord. 2719 § 1 (part), 1982).
11.22.030 Fees. The board of supervisors may provide, by resolution,
for. the imposition of permit fees for the use of approved anchorages.
(Ord. 2719 § 1 (p.irt), 1982).
{Mam: County 3-83) 166
-------
FLOATING HOMES
Chapter 19.18
REGULATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE OF FLOATING HOMES
Sections:
19.18.010 Purpose.
19.18.020 Definitions.
19.18.030 Applications.
19. IS.035 Permit requirement-;.
19.! 8.040 Code requirement.-,- Genial.
19.18.042 Alternate construction.
19.1 8.045 Space requirement^.
19.18.050 Hek'lit.
19.1S.051 Length and width.
19.18.052 Exception and adjustment procedures for relief from height
and other limitations.
19.18.060 Material.
19.18.070 Construction.
19.18.080 Ramps or horizontal exit ways.
19.18.090 Plumbing-General.
19.18.100 Building drain.
19.18.110 Plastic pipe.
19.18.120 Inboard sewage and graywater device.
19.18.130 Pipine-Drainaue and vents.
19.18.140 Mechanical.
19.18.150 Water distribution.
19.18.160 Fuel-Gas piping.
19.38.170 Wiring system.
19.18.180 Power supply.
19.3 S.190 Supply cord.
19.38.200, Second supply cord.
19.18.210 Permanent wiring.
19.18.220 Disconnecting means.
19.18.230 Branch circuit protective equipment.
19.18.240 Brand! circuit.
19.18.250 Portable appliances.
19.18.260 Genera! appliances.
19.18.270 Receptacle outlets.
19.1S.2SO Fixtures and appliances.
19.18.290 Wiring methods, an:' materials.
19.1S.33J Grc,-.r.di!^
19.18.310 Cai.^Lon,.
19.18.320 Overa!! stability.
19.18.330 Cakulj-tions by engineer.
19.1 8.340 Co":;\Ttnentat!On 'ir.J flotation.
19.18.350 Fire p;e\ention.
19.1 8.3(.0 Life s:t\ir,2 equipment.
19.18.370 Occupancy permits.
307 (Marin County 2-82)
-------
19.18.010-19.1 S.035 BUI LDINGS
19.18.380 Kcstnctions.
19.18.400 Temporary berthing permits
I q.18.410 'lermination date of temporary berthing permits.
19.18.420 Plumbing.
19.18.510 Penalties for violation.
19.18.010 Purpose. This chapter is intended to protect the health,
safety and welfaie of floating home occupants by establishing the minimum
structural, safety, health and sanitation standards for floating homes. (Ord.
1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.18.020 Definitions, (a) An "ark" is any vessel, boat, craft, or struc-
ture originally designed to float that is permanently grounded or supported
by a foundation or piling.
(b) A "floating home" is any bout, craft, living accommodation or
structure supported by a means of flotation, designed to be used without
permanent foundation, which is used or intended for human habitation.
(c) "Mezzanine" is an intermediate floor placed in any story or room.
If the total floor area of any mezzanine exceeds thirty-three and one-third
percent of the total floor area in that room, it shall be considered as con-
stituting an additional story.
(d) "Story" is thai, portion of the superstructure located between the
upper surface of any deck and the upper surface of the deck or ceiling next
above.
(e) "Superstructure" is that portion of a floating home or ark above
the lowest deck or the level of flotation. (Ord. 2440 §2, 1979: Ord. 2367
§ 3, 1978: Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.18.030 Applications. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to
any floating homo moored within Marin County. Nothing contained herein
shall be deemed to exempt floating home occupants from complying with
Chafer 11.20. (Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.18.035 Permit requirements. No person shall construct a floating
hone, without having first secured, a permit therefor from the department of
public works. Application for permits shall be on a form supplied by the
county and shall be accompanied by such fee as is fixed by the board of
supervisors. No permit for th2 construction of a floating home shall be issued
urh'CiS and unti' the owner thereof provides the county v/irii satisfactory
evidence that the floating home will be moored at a legally approved marine
wh.::L- Marin County.
If the floating home is to be transported to another jurisdiction, no
per.T'it s!i.i!l he granted unless the owner or ship builder shall provide the
cou.-.ty with satisfactory evidence that the floating home will, upon its
co.-.p'jtion, be transported from Marin County. In this connection, the
cc'jruy may require, as a condition of issuance of the permit, that the owner
(V.:.-:r. County 2-52) 308
-------
FLOATING HOMES 19.18.040 -19.18.050
or ship builder furnish a suitable bond guaranteeing that the floating home
will, in fact, be expoited as indicated on the permit.
Any peison dissatisfied with any action by the depaitnvnt of public
works hereunder may appeal the same in writing, to the board of supervisors
within ten days following the effective date of such action. (Orel. 1758 § 1,
1970).
19.18.040 Code requirements -General. Except as provided hciein, each
floating home or ark shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.04. A
dwelling unit which meets the minimum requirements fuj an efficuncy unit
set forth under Chapter 12 of the 1979 Edition of tlv Uniform Building
Code may be contracted, provided all stability design is performed in ac-
cordance v-ith tius chapter. As an alternative to the ceiling height:-, specified
in Chapter 12 of the 1979 Editnn of the Uniform Bidding Code, minimum
ceiling heights may be six feet six inches provided that no portion of the
ceiling is less than six feet six inches and that floor areas compK with Sec-
tion ]9.18.045(b) of the Marin County Code. (Ord. 2440 ? 3, 1979: Ord.
1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.1S.042 Alternate construction. Alternate materials and methods of
construction may be allowed as provided in Chapter I of the 1979 Edition
of the Uniform Building Code, adopted by Chapter 19.04. The building
official may approve any such alternate use of salvaged material and lumber
manufactured by the floating home owner provided the building official
finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and corr.plies v.r.h the provi-
sions of Chapter 23 of the Uniform Building Code, and that the material,
method, or work offered is, fo.< the purpose intended, at least the equivalent
of that prescribed in this Code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire
resistance, durability, and safety. All data required by the building official in
order to determine they.- equivalents shall Jbe provided by the applicant.
(Ord. 2440 fc 4, 1979: Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.18.045 Space requirements. Each floating home or ark shall be re-
quired tu co.'.iply v.Ith til-. lolloping space requirements
(a) Habitable rooms or spaces shall have an average ceiling height of
six feet three inches. No portion of any room with a ceiling height of less
than five feet shall be included in computing the minimum areas specified in
subsection (b)
(b) A rnirmnuin of one hundred square feet of h?.bit,ib'e f.o;.r spu:e
sh :!i be provided. ATI ;;dv!:u.>:;al seventy square feel of hJ.rl.u 'j Hoor 5"r.:e
shall be provided for each occupani in excess of on.-, ''rhbi;a':!;- sp^e" i.s
defined in the 1979 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. (Ord. 2440 § 5,
1979: Ord. 36'75 >: 1 (part), 196S).
19.1ft.050 Height. The height of .• floating home or ark shall not exceed
sixteen feet as measured, from the water line; provided that:
(a) If its hull is composed of wood or styrofoarn or similar material
309 (M.i.-M Coanty 2-S2)
-------
19.1 S.051-19.18.052 BUILDINGS
approved by the depattmcnt o! public works, the height shall not exceed
eighteen feet; and
(b) "I here may be a deviation fioin the foregoing height allowed by
the planning director upon presentation of evidence showing that the float-
ing home or ark has special design features that accomplish the objectives of:
1. Avoiding block> or massive appearances within marinas, and
2. Obtaining adequate open space and viewsheds both within and to
the marina;
(c) Such deviation from these standards will not violate the intent of
Chapters 11.24 and 19.18;
(d) No part of any such deviation shall extend in excess of twenty feet
above the water line; and
(e) Such deviation shall not be for the purpose of obtaining an addi-
tional story of living or storage space. (Orel. 2451 § 1, 1980: Ord. 2449 § 1,
1930: Ord. 2440 § 6, 1979: Ord. 2367 § 2, 1978: Ord. 1675 § 1 (part),
1963).
19.18.051 Length and width. The basic floor area of a floating home
shall not exceed forty-six feet in length and twenty feet in width, and that.
the length and width shall be subject to any greater limits on length and
width that may be applicable pursuant to Section 11.21.050 of this code.
The floor area of any story above the lowest story of the superstructure
shall not exceed eighty percent of the story- immediately below said story.
All deck areas must be unencumbered by walls or roof structures. As used in
thii section, "basic floor area" means that area defined by the perimeter
v/alls of a horizontal cross section through the lowest story of the super-
structure with "superstructure" defined in Section 19.18.120 of the Maria
Cour.tj Code. (Orel. 2582 § 1, 1980: Orel. 2451 § 2, 1980: Ord. 2449 § 2,
19SO).
19.18.052 Exception and adjustment procedures for relief from height
ar.cl other limitations. An owner or occupant of a floating home may apply
to the zoning administrator for an exception or adjustment from relief of the
strict application of the requirements of Sections 19.18.050 and 19.18.051.
An application for relief shall be made in the form of a written application
obtainable from the planning department. A fee shall be charged the appli-
cant for the cost of administering, noticing and processing the application,
which fee shall be set annually by resolution of the board of supervisors.
Upon receipt of any such application, the zoning administrator shall set z.
ten: a rive time wherein action will be taken on the application. Notice of
the time and hearing on the application shall be provided to all persons with
temporary or floating home occupancy permits within the immediate vicini-
ty of the berth or intended berth of the subject floating home and as are pn
file vv:th the department of public works Notices shall also be posted on the
dock in which the floating home is berthed. Distribution and posting of
notices shall be the lesponsibility of the Murin County marine inspector.
(M.--L-. Courty 2-82) 310/332
-------
FLOATING HOMES 19.18.060-19.18.070
In order t'nr exception or adjustment to be granted, the zoning adniinr-tralor
shall establish that the following (actual circumstances prev.-il.
1. The requested exception will not adversely diminish or substantially
reduce:
a. Light and-ventilation to floating home.-, berthed adjacent to the
proposed floating home;
b. Existing vicv/3 and/or view corridors enjoyed by ov.ncrs or tenants
of neighboring or adjacent floating homes and floating home sites. For the
purpose of this section the term "neighborhood" is intended and construed
to mean the owners, occupants and/or lease-ho'ders of floating homes or
floating home berths in the general vicinity of the berth site for which excep-
tion has been requested. The term "neighborhood," is not, nor shall it be
construed to moan the ov, ners or occupants of land-based propcvUes or
improvements thereon.
2. The size (length, width and height) of the requested exception is:
a. Comparable and compatible with the st/e of neighboring floating
homes;
b. Properly designed and fully engineered;
c. Within the spatial limitations of its intended berth and will not
encroach into any fairway, adjoining berth or any icquired open space.
3. The exception lequestecl is the minimum necessary to satisfy the
objectives sought by the owner and/or builder of the floating home.
4. The grant of exception will not prove of any detriment to other
floating homes in the immediate vicinity of the proposed floating home.
The zoning administrator shall make a decision on the said appli-
cation for exception within sixty cl.'iys after the application h:j.s b-?rn deemed
complete by the planning department. The planning department slnill con-
sult with the county marine inspector prior to the hearing or, the application
for any comments or concerns the marine inspector may wish to add;--?-:
with respect to the application.
Any person dissatisfied with the decision of the zoning administrator
may appeal to the board of siipoivigors. Appeals must be in writing accom-'
pan;eol by a fee in the amount which shall be set annually by resolution of
the board of supervisors, and filed within ten working days following the
decision. The bop.rd shall i :t upon such app-.i! within tlrrty days from the
filing thereof and may sustain, modify, or overrule any decision of the
zoning administrator. The decision of the board of supervisors shall be
final. The board of supervisors shall have the power to decide any questions
in\ohing the interpretation of any provision of this section. (Ord. 2667,
1931: Ord. 2*51 § 3, 19SO: Ord. 2449 5 3, 1930).
19.lS.Ocj N ceriri. All n^'jric: such a?
ing, whi-.li is .i_ .-jected to moisture 01 water splash shal! be of a type not
adversely affected by moisture, or shall be treated. (Ord. 1675 § 1 (part),
Is'uS).
19.18/r/O Construction, (a) Flooring, wall and flotation shall be de-
signed and constiucted by use of diaphragm walls in such a manner that the
332-1 (Marin County 2-S2)
-------
19.18.080-19.18.100 BUILDINGS
superstructure acts ns i'.n independent unit and is not iu!vor;^ly affected by
point reac'iorLs under tlic flotation.
(b) Floatiri;'. homes and arks snail comply with the residential energy
regulations sot foHh in paragraph T20-1401, Article I, f'att 6, Title 24 of
the California Administrative Code. (Ord. 2440 § 7, 1979: Did. 1675 § 1
(part), 1968).
19.18.080 Ramps or horizontal exit ways. Ramps shall be not less than
thirty-six inches in width, exclusive of required handrails which shall not
reduce the width more than three and one-half inches. The ramp or gangway
slope shall not exceed three horizontal to one vertical at any stage of the
tide.
Ramps or horizontal exits, other than mooring docks, shali be provided
with two handrails or guard railings.
Railing shall be designed to withstand a twenty-pound lateral live load
along the top rail. Railings shall be not less than thirty-six inches in height
above the lamp floor, and in open-type railings intermediate members shall
not be spaced more than nine inches apart.
Private rarnps or horizontal exits shall be capable of carrying a live
load in rjccoulance with the following schedule.:
LIVE LOAD LENGTH O? RAMP BETWEEN SUPPORTS
50 psf 0 to 5 feet
40 psf 5 feet to 10 feet
30psf Over 10 feet
Ramp design slnlj also include dead load." Minimum framing members
shall be two inches by four inches if constructed of wood.
Ail ramps and hori/.onta1; exits shall have exit ilkunination \viih mini-
mum intensity of one footcnnclle at floor level of entry or one-tenth foot-
candle on walkway or ramp. Alternate materials and methods of construc-
tion may be allowed as provided in Chapter 19.04 of this code. (Ord. 2440
§ 8, 1979: Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.18.090 P3 limbing -General. It is the intent of" these provisions that,
except as may be otherwise expressly authorized by local public health
agencies, water quality control agencies, and the San Francisco Bay Con-
sOiTaiion and Development Commission, that there be no discharge of
sewage or grayv/atsr from floating homes or arks into the waters within
the jurisdiction of the county.
The plumbing of all floating homes, arks, and dockside facilities shall
comply with Chapter 19.04, except as hereinafter provided. (Ord 2440
§ 9, 1979: Ord. 1675 § 1 (p?.rt), 1968).
19.18.100 Building drain. The "building drain" is that part of the low-
cs; piping of a drainage system which receives the discharge from all soil,
.-i-. Counts 2-82) 332-2
-------
FLOATING HOMI-:S 19.18.045-19.18.051
resistance, durability, and .safety. All data icquircd by the building of IK ial in
ordci to determine thtse- equivalents shall be piovidcd by the applicant
(Old. 2440 i 4, 1979. Ord. 1675 § 1 (pait), 1968).
19.18.045 Space requirements. Each floating home or ark shall be :•
quired to comply with the following space requirements:
(a) Habitable rooms or spaces shall have an a\erage ceiling height of
six feet throe inches. No portion of any room with a ceiling height of less
than five feet shall be included in computing the minimum area.s specified in
subsection (b).
(bj A minimum of one hunched squatc feet of habitable floor space
shall be pmuJcd An additional seventy square, feet of habitab!-- floor spa^e
shall be provided foi each occupant in excess of one. "Habitable ^pace" is
defined in the 1979 Edition of the Uniform Bmldmg Code. (Ord 2440 § 5,
1979: Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.18.050 Height. The height of a floating home or ark shall not exceed
sixteen feet as measured from the water line; provided that:
(a) If its hull is composed of wood or styrofoam or similji material
approved by the department of public works, the height shall not exceed
eighteen feet; and
(b) There may be a deviation from the foregoing height allowed by the
planning director upon presentation of evidence sh.ov.lng that the floating
home or arl: has sp'.-ci;J design features that accomplish the objectives of:
1. Avoiding blocky or massive appearances within r.utrinas, 2:10
2. Obtaining adequate open space and viewbheds both within and to
the marina;
(c) Such deviation from these standards will not violate the ir,tent of
Chapteis 1 1.24 and 19.18;
(d) No part of a:ii such deviation shall extend in excess of twenty feet
above the water line; and
(e) Such deviation shall not be for the purpose of obtainLi'j. an x'cii-
t;or/;l stor, of living or storage space. (Ore! 2451 § 1,1980 Orc!.~2449 ? 1,
19SO: Ord 24 JO £ 6. 1979: Ord. 2367 § 2, 197S: Ord. 1675 $ 1 (p.tKj.
1968).
19.18.(i51 Length nncl width. The basic floor area of a floating home
shall not exceed forty-six feet in length and. twenty fe:t in width.and that the
area 01 an\ sti.>r, <.<'.ed in this sec-
tion. "i.< ibic flooi are.:" means that area defined by the perimctc'- \Va!;s of
:: n.^'i'/.ua^a! rross section through the lowest story of the supersiructuK-
\-itii "su;>.-r-tructu;e'' defined in Section 19.18 120 of the Mann County
Code. (Ord. 2582 § 1, 1930: Old. 2451 § 2, 19f'0: Ord. 2449 § 2, 1980).
332-2a
-------
19.18.052 BUILDINGS
19. 18.0." 2 Variance ami adjii.sfmen! puuediires foi 'relief fiom height
and orhc-r limitations. (a) An owner or occupant of a floating home ma1,
api'K to Ilk' /oning adniinistiator fot a variance 01 adjustment fot relief
from strkt applications of Hit1 rcquiiements of Sections 19.18050 and
19. IS. 051. An application for relief slull he made in tin. form of a written
application obtainable from (lie /.omng administrator. A fee of two hundred
dollars and a categorical exemption fee of twelve dollars and fifty cents .shall
be charged the applicant for cost of administiation, mailing arid processing.
Upon receipt of any such application, the zoning administrator shall set a
time and place for he-ami? thereon. Notice of the time and p!.;cc of hearing
shall be mailed to all persons with temporary berthing or floating home
occupancA peimits on file with the department of public works and whose
float mu homes or atks are beithed on clocks immediately adjacent to or at
the s::rne dock as the floating home to which any such application applies.
"1 he zoning administrator shall also cause to be posted a notice of the- time
and hearing on the clock in which the floating home is berthed. It shall be
ncce^ary that the zoning administrator find the following facts with respect
thereto:
(1) That because of special circumstances applicable to subject float-
ing home, including M?.C, shape, location or surro'uidings. the stiict applica-
tion of Sections J 9. 18.050 ancl/or 19.18.051 is found to deprive subject
float hi: home of privileges enjoyed by other floating homes or arks i'i the
proximity to the affected floating home;
(2) That the variance 01 adjustment i> necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant;
'.3) That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be tietri-
( mental to the public welfare or injurious to other floating homes or arks in
"~^ the area in which the floating home is bc-tthed.
(b) An> variance 01 adjustment granted under Die provisions of this
section shall be subject to such conditions us \vill assure that such does not
consi-tute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon
othe'- floating homes or arks in proximity to the affected floating home
where the subject floating home is berthed.
(c) The /.on ing administrator shall make his decision on the applica-
tion v.ithin si\tj clajs after the filing of the application or within such ionger
pe.iiou as may be agreed upon between the applicant or his agent and the
/OMJ:;- administiator
:or to winch such adjustment or saiiu^ce is granted, as to light, tiir :mJ
ti;t i.u:bi.c he,;lt!;. s.ilcty, comfort, conu';;ier,ce and genera! welfare. In all
cav.--_n> which adjustments or variances arc granted under the provisions of
tin- '.ectic;:, tl'e y.oning admiiiistiator 'hall cecjuiiv such evidence and
s:;u; ir.tees as he may deem to be nccessun, that the conditions designated in
connection iiictev. ii!i aie being and will he complied with.
332-21)
-------
•"LOATINC; JIOMl-S 19.18.060 19.18.070
fe) Any person dissatisfied with I he decision of the /oning adminis-
trator may appeal to the board of supcisisois. Appeals mii">t be in writing
accompanied by a fee in the amount of seu'nty-five dollars, and filed within
ten working days following the dechion. The board shall act upon such
appeal within thirty days fiom the filing thereof and may sustain, modify, or
oveirule any decision of the zoning administrator. The deeision of the board
of supervisor shall be final. The board of supervisors shall have the power to
decide any questions involving the interpretation of any provision of this
section: (Orel. 2451 § 3, 1980. Ord. 2449 § 3, 19SO).
19.18.060 Material. All mateiial such as decking, siding, and suhfloor-
ing, which is subjected to moisture o; waiter splash shall be of a type not
adversely affected by moisture, or shall be treated. (Ord. 1675 § 1 (part),
1968).
19,18.070 Construction, (a) Flooring, wall and flotation shall be de-
signed and constructed by use of diaphragm walls in such a manner that the
332-2C (Marin Counts 2-S1)
-------
19.18.080-19.18.100 BU1LD1NC.S
MipcMructure acts as an independent urn! and is not ;
-------
F-1 GATING HOMES 19.18.110-19.18.150
waste and other drainage pipes inside the walls of the unil and convey-, it to
a >cwage device which conform1, to Section 19.18.120 of tins chapter.
(Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 1968j
19.18.110 Plastic pipe. 1'lastic pipe for use in piping of the potable
water supply, drainage systems and venting, shall be in accordance with
the 1979 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, adopted by Mann County
Code Chapter 19.04. (OrJ 2440 § 10, 1979. Orel. 1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.18.120 Inboard sewerage and graywater device, (a) A sev.agc and
gray water receiving tan': and cjcctoi device shall be installed m every float-
ing home. Said device shall convst of a tank with a liquid capacity of not less
than thirty gallons, nor more than forty gallons. Said device must connect
to the local sewerage lateral system. The pump horsepower (11 P.) rating.
type and outlet size shall be. approved by the Matin County department of
public works and the local .sanitary district.
(b) Arks shall be connected to the local sewage disposal system. The
connection to the disposal system and method used to move the sewerage
from the ark to the local s>stem shall be approved by the sanitary district
and the county. (Ord. 2440 § 11, 1979. Orel. 1675 § 1 (part), 196°.).
19.18.130 Piping-Drainage and vents. ABS-DV/V may be used fo:
drainage systems and \ent piping. (Ord. 1C75 § 1 (part), 196$)
19.18.140 Mechanical. All mechanical devices and system shall comply
with the 1979 Edition of the Uniform Mechanical Code adopted by Mann
County Code, Chapter 1 9.04.
Heating for floating homes may be supplied by wood burni ig fireplaces
or stoves; oil-fired appliances; electrical heating appliances; or solar energy
where the applicant furnishes satisfactory evidence to th: chief building
inspector that a minimum temperature of seventy degrees can be main-
tained and that the initallation of the heating device will comp!\ with
Sections 60] anc! 7Q4.S of the Uniform Mechanical Cede. (OrJ 2440
§ 12, 1979- Ord 1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.18.150 Water distribution. V/ater shall not be piped to supply float-
ing homes or arks through flexible hose unless the hose is a high-pressure
type terrnmatinq j- appro', ed connectors and is preceded by an approved
backfiov prcv. nti'.i. -J..;.v, NJ hc.-e s./.j'.: U.P e~--;-~--J •:•:: ;!"..-- ".•''-_..
HOatirg .lO'.'iiwS OI a~:\? i ."C i.T._..:" '.; tfiJ PiO.sS Si'... '." !J. i - ... ._•--.
Plastic pipe for use in piping of potable warer supply il;jii be PVC
type 2 hiyii impact, schedule 40 or higher. PVC shall bear the UPC Lbei
and/or the N S.F. appn>••...!. PVC shall not be threaded in the fu!d. Clca-i-
iii'j. and cementing of joint.s si,all Jv as directed by the manufucrurv CO.d
2440 § 13, 1979: Ore. 1675 5? 1 (part). 1968).
332-3 (V.nrir Co :ni., 2-Rl)
-------
19.18.160-19.18.200 BUM DINGS
i
19.18.160 FueI-G;is piping. All gas piping in .tailed in ;i floating hour-
or ark v1. hich is exposed to cono-.ion shall be ga!\ ani/ed, primed and paint-.-'!
o: v.tapped and installed in accoidancc \viih the piovKiuir- ol" Hie \V'/'i
l:dmjn of tiie Uniform Plumbing C'ode
Docked? gas connections to floating homes o; arks sliall be mad •
wiili approved high pressure hose and teiminate in approved positive cli,-
connect couplings. Gas hoses shall not whete subject to physical dama-"..-
n:n exposed on docks, piers, floating home> or arks. The lio>e length shai!
not ex,ecd fifty feet. (Ord. 2440 § 1*4. 1979: Orel. 1675 § 1 fpait). 196H)
19.13.370 Wiring system. A wiring system nominally ia!ed 1 15/230 volt,.
3 wire AC. 3 pole 4 \virc grounding type shall be in all floating homes the!
use shore power. Arks shall be 115/230 u>!t, 3 wiie AC with grounded
reutrjj. (Orel. 2451 § 4, 1980. Ord. 2440 § 15, 1979: Ord. 1675 §" 1 (part;
196S),
19.18.180 Power supply, (a) The service piovkied to an ark locate!
v. iihin twenty feet of the shoreline shall be installed in accord.ince with tiu
1978 Edition of the National Electrical Code for a land based structiue. M"
the ark is more than twenty feet from the shoreline, service shall be pro-
vided and installed as specified for a floating home.
(b) Service equipment and meter for a floating home shall be locatej
:
a -..ontinMous green color with a yellow stripe The attachment plug, conncc-
t>">*.-> a PC! mating receptacles s'uH be three pole, four wire grounding tyre-
-;•<:•-. ered b}' Americ.'iu" Standards C 73 attachment plug and receptacle.
Tiu- power supply cord shall be permanently attached to the distribution
P^K'!. A suitable clamp or equivalent shall be provided at the disti ibusi.1".
p;.";-[ to afford strain relief for the cord in order to prevent strain a! the
ler^n iN The Icneth of the power supply cord shall not exceed fifty feet.
fO.-J. 2440 5 I"7. 1979:"Ord. 16"?5 § 1 (part), 1968)
! 9.] 8.200 Second supply cord. Where the cuLv.kueu ic:,u oi the :'!- -:
ire ;--'.'"-n. oi ark is in excess <••!' tl.e available an'.perage from a iingi? ^:i';'->
;•: - !. (,r wlien.- a separately i::-_terecl appliance is installed in the fie.!';"1".
h:>"v or ark, a second floating home, or ark, supply eon! may be insi.'ik-J
h.? only if a second serving point is available and provided. (Ord .'-H'1
? ',8. 1971J: Oid. 11.754- 1 (part). 1968).
332-4
-------
FLOATING HOMES 19.18.210-19.18.240
19.1 o.210 Pcimanent wiring. Wheie the calculated load exceeds one
hundred ampeies or permanent feeder is used, the supply shall be effected
by means .of loin pcimancntly installed conclnctois in an approved wiring
led by a continuous green re.'oi or a
stripe. (Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
y means >o oin pcimancnty nstae concnctois n an approve
method, one loiiduclor being identified by a continuous green re.'
continuous gn.cn color with a yellow stripe. (Ord. 1675 § 1 (part),
19.18.220 Disconnecting means. A disconnecting means shall be pro-
vided on the exterior of each floating home or ark using approved service
entrance equipment, consisting of circuit breakers, 01 a switch and fuses and
their accessories, installed in a location that is readily accessible from the
pier, dock, or float, and is near the point the supply cord or conductors cn-
tei the floating hone or ark This equipment shall have an a;npeie rating
suitable foi the Kvicl and no greater than the capacity of the supply cord.
The main circuit bu-akei or fuses shall be plainly marked '".MAIN."
This equipment shall contain solderless type of grounding connectoi
or bar for the purpose of gtounding with sufficient terminals for ail gtoimd-
ing conductors. The neutral bar termination of the grounded circuit conduc-
tors shall be insulated.
The distribution equipment shall be located a minimum of twenty-four
inches from the bottom of such equipment to the floor level or deck
Where more than one power supply cord is installed, disconnecting
means shall be provided for each cord and shall be permittee! to be combined
in a single equipment, but without electrical interconnections other than for
grounding purposes.
Plug fuses and fuse holders shall be tamper resistant, type "S" enclosed
in dead front punch.. (Orel. 2440 § 19, 1979: Ord. 1575 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.18.230 Brar.eh ciscuit protective equipment. Branch circuit clKtribu-
tion equipment sha<: be install.':! in each floating home and shall include ov-
ercurrent protection for each branch circuit, whether circuit-breakers or
fuses.
If circuit-breakers are provided for branch circuit protection, tv/o hun-
dred thirty volt circuits shall be protected by two pole common (or com-
panion trip), or handle-tied paired, circuit-breakers.
Tne branch-circuit overcurrent devices shall be rated:
(a) Not moie than the circuit conductors; and
(b) Not more than one hundred fifty percent of the rating of a single
appliance rated ten amperes or more; but
(c) Not more than the fuse size marked on the air conditioner or
othei motor opeiated appliance. (Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 196S).
19.18.240 Branch circuits. The number of branch circuits required shall
be determined in accordance with the following:
Cased on three watts per sqiuuv foot, times outside dimensions of the
332-5 (.\brin Count* J2-1S-7*)
-------
19.18.250-19.18.270 BUILDINGS
enclosed aica of the floating home, excluding decks ;uul porches, divided by
one hundred 1'il'icen volts, to determine, numbei of fifteen or twenty nmpvre
lighting area ciiui'Ls. e.g.,
+ Numbcr of , 5 (or 20 ampere circuits )
! ! 5 x 15 (or 20)
(Ord. 1675 § 1 (puit), 1968).
19.18.250 l*oi table appliances. A minimum of two twenty-ampere
branch circuits shall be requited for receptacle outlets in the kitchen area,
which may also supply other receptacle outlets in the dining, and deck
area. These circuits shall supply only portable appliances. A washing ma-
chine shall be on a separate twenty amp-ore circuit. (Ord. 1675 § 1 (part),
1968)
19.18.260 General appliances. (Including furnace, water heater, range,
and centra! or room air conditioner, etc.) One or more circuits of adequate
rating shall be required in accordance with the following:
(a) For fixed appliances on a circuit, without lighting outlets, the sum
of rated amperes shall not exceed the branch circuit rating for other than
motor loads or eighty percent of the branch circuit rating for air condition-
ing.
(b) The rating of a single portable appliance on a circuit with no other
outlets shall not exceed eighty percent of the circuit rating.
(c) The rating of range branch circuit shall be based on the range de-
mand. as specified for ranges in Section 19.18.3 10(b)5. (Ord. 1675 § 1
(part). 1968).
1 9.] 8.270 Receptacle outlets. All receptacle outlets shall be the
V
-------
FLOATING HOMES J!U 8.280—19.18.200
grounding type and must be ins'alVcl in accordance with Chapter 19.04 of
this code. Receptacles shall he parallel blade, fjftctn ampere, one hundred
twenty-five volt, either single or duplex, and shall contain an individual
grounding type outlet for earh coid-connected fixed appliance installed.
Except in the bath and hall areas, receptacle outlets r.hali be installed
at wall spaces two feet wide or more, so that no point along the floor line is
more than six feet, measured horizontally, from an outlet in that space, ex-
cept as explained in the following. Receptacle outlets are not required for
wall spaces occupied by kitchen or wardrobe cabinets.
In addition, a receptacle outlet shall be installed:
(a) Over counter type tojcs in the kitchen (at bast or.? on each side of
the sink if counter tops are on each side) ;
(b) Adjacent to the refrigerator and free-standing gas range space.
(c) At counter top spaces for built-in, vanities;
(d) At counter top spaces under wall-mounted cabinets. Receptacle
outlets shall not be installed within or adjacent to a shower or bathtub
space. (Ord. 1875 S 1 (part); December 10, 195S).
19.18.280 Fixtures anil appliances, (a) Water heaters, refrigerators,
air conditioning equipment, ranges, electric heaters, washer, dryers and
other similar appliances shall be an approved type, connected in an ap-
proved manner, and securely fastened in position. (See Section 19.18.300
for provisions on grounding)
(b) Specifically approved pendant type fixtures or pendiiit cords may
be installed in floating homes.
(c) If a lighting fixture is provided over a bathtub or in a shower
stall, it shall be an approved enclosed and gaskc-ted type.
(d) Switches shall not be located inside the tub or shower space. (Ord.
1675 § 1 (part); December 10,1H63).
19.13.2C9 Wiring methods ami materials. Except as provided in this
section v.'iring methods and materials required by Chapter IP.04 shall be
used in floating homes.
(a) Nonmetallic outlet boxes are acceptable only in conjunction with
nonmetallic sheathed cable.
(b) Nonmetallic cable located below seven feet six inches above the
floor, if exposed, shall be protected from physio?! damage by covering
boar-l.-. guard straps, •-)•" Cfociu:
(c) Metal clad ai..: nor.:r.et/;i.c c&b'es, n^y >•; x^e-l :nr;ugh zhv cen-
ters of the wicl" side of two by lour studs. Plp-.vever, they shall be protected
where they pass through two by twro studs or at other studs or frames
where the cable or armour would be less than one and one-half inches from
the insidr; or outside surface. Steel plates on each side of the cable, or a
tube with not less than No. 16 manufacturer's standard gauge wall thick-
ness, are required to protect the cable. These plates or tubes shall be se-
332-7
-------
1lU,S.:itK> BUILDING
curely faf.ten^d in pl'rr
(d) If rnctnlii,; f;,e-epiHtc;; arc used, they .shall be effectively grounded.
(e) If a range;, clothes dryer, or similar appliance is connected by ar-
mored cable or flexible conduit, n length of free cable or conduit should be
provided to perrrut movement of the appliance. The cable or flexible conduit
should be adequately secured to the v/r.ll. Clearance space behind a range
may provkl^ the required protection if a range is connected i>y type SE ca-
ble. Wh^n used, type SE cable shall have an identified and insulated neutral
plus an equipment giounding conductor. Nonrnelallic cable (typeNM) shall
not be us';d to connect a range.
(f) Rigid metal conduit shall be provided with a locknut inside and
outside the box. A conduit bushing shall be used on the inside. Inside ends
of the conduit shall be reamed.
(g) Sv.-itchf-s shall bs rated as follows:
(I) Lighting circuit switches shall have a ten ampere, one hundred
twenty-five volt rating, or higher if required for the connected load.
(2) Motor or other load switches shall have ampere or horsepower
ratings or both, adequate for loads controlled. (An "AC general use" snap
switch may control a motor two horsepower or less if full load current is
not over eighty percent of the switch arnper^e rating)
(h) At least four- inches of free conductor shall be left at each outlet
box unless conductors are intended to loop without joints.
fi) WIRING EXPOSED TO WEATHER. (1) If outdoor wiring is
exposed to moisture or physical damage, it shall be protected by rigid met-
al con-lj-''. or liquid-tight flexible metal conduit. Electrical metallic tubing
may be- used when closely route;! against frames and equipment enclosures.
(2) Conductors shall be Type NMC, RW, TW, or "equivalent. (Ord.
1675 J ] (part); December 10, 19GS).
39.1S.300 Groi'piVmg1. Grounding of electrical and non-electrical metal
parts in a floating home shall be effected thz-ough connection to a ground-
ing bui in the floating home distribution panel. The grounding bus shall be
grounded through the green conductor in the supply cord, or the feeder
wiring to the service ground in the service entrance equipment.
(a) INSULATED NEUTRAL
(1) The grounded circuit conductor (neutral) shall be insulated from
the grounding conductors, equipment enclosures, and other grounded parts.
The grounded (neutral) circuit terminals in distribution panels, ranges,
clothes dryers, counter mounted cooking "units, and wall mounted ovens
are to b? insidaiud from tho equipment enclosure. Bonding screws,
straps, or buses iu distribution panels and/or appliances are to be removed
and discarded.
(2) Ranges and clothes dryers shall be connected with four conductor
cord .vad three pole fuur \vizx- grounded type plugs, or by armored cable or
conductors eni-losed in flexible steel conduit.
332-8
-------
FLOATING HOMES 1f).l8.P,10
(b) EQUIPMENT]' GROUNDING MKANS
- (1) The green grounding wire in the supply cord or permanent Ireder
wiring shall be connected to the grounding bus in the disf ribution ppiiel or
disconnecting means
(2) The chr.si.s, if metal, sluill be grounded. The grounding- conductor
may be solid or .stranded, insulated or ban:, and shall be an armored
grounding conductor or routed in conduit if No. 8 AWG. The conductor, if
No. G AWG or larger, may be run without metal covering. The grounding
conductor shall be connected between distributing panel grounding termi-
nal and a terminal on the chii-^is. Grounding terminals .shall be of the f.old-
ei'less type and approved as pn-ssure terminal connectors recognized for
the wire size empl''o,vd
(3) In the electrical system, all exposed nvjtal parts, onclo.-urcs,
frames, lamp fixtures, canopies, etc., shall be effectively bonded to the
grounding terminal or enclosure of the distribution panel.
(4) Cord connected appliances, such as washing machines, clothes
dryers, refrigerators, and the electrical system of gas ranges, etc., shall be
grounded by means of an approved cord with grounding cond'ict.0'- and
grounding type plug.
(c) GROUNDING OF NON-CURRENT CARRYING METAL
PARTS
All major exposed metal parts that may become energized, includ-
ing the \vatcr, gas, and v/aste plumbing, the roof and outer metallic
covering, the chassis and metallic circulating air ducts, shall be off ec tivvly
bonded to the grounding terminal or enclosure of the distribution panel or
to the metal chassis. Bonding of the chassis to the distribution panel
grounding terminal shall be effected in accordance with Section
19.18.300 (b)2. (Orel. 1675 g 1 (pprt) ; December 10, 1963).
J 9.18.310 Calculations. The supply cord and distribution panel load for
each, power supply assembly in a floating home shall be computed on the
basis of a three wire, 115/230 volt supply with or.e hundred fifteen volt
loads ball-need hrtw-en thi- two legs of the three wire system, p.s follows:
( a) LIGHTING AND SM ALL AP PLI ANCE LOAD
LIGHTING WATTS: Length times width of floating home (outside di-
mensions) times three watts per square foot; e.g.,
Length x width x 3 = Lighting watts.
SMALL APPLIANCE WATTS: Number of circuits times fic:-rr. hun-
Nurr.b«r cf circuits x 1500 = Small apr,lia.nee -,vc.tui.
Total : Lighting watts plus sinaU appliance — Total watts.
Fir^'.t three thousand total watts at one hundred percent plus remain-
der at 35 percent - v*v.tts o be divided "by two hundred thirty volts to ob-
tain current (amperes) per leg. ~
3S2-9
-------
10.18.310 BUILDING
(b) Total load for determining po\ver .supply is the summation of:
(1) Lighting rind small appliance, load as calculntccl in Section
19.1S.310 (a).
(2) Nameplate amperes for motors and heater loads — exhaust fans,
air conditioners", electric, gas or oil heating.
*Omit smaller of these tv/o, except blower motor if used as air condi-
tioner evaporator motor.
(3) Twenty-five percent of current of largest motor in (2)
(4) Total of nameplate amperes for: disposal, dishwasher, water heat-
er, clothes dryer, wall mounted oven, cooking units. If the number of these
units exceeds three, use seveiity-fivs percent of total.
(5) Amperes for free standing range (as distinguished from separate
ovens and cooking units) shall be determined by dividing values below by
two hundred thirty volts.
Nameplat© Hating Use
10,000 w x or less 80 percent of rating
10,001-12,500 w 8,000 w
12,501-13,500 8,400
13,o91-14,5CO 8,800
14,501-15,500 9,200
15,501-15,500 9,GOO
16,501-17,500 10,000
(6) If outlets or circuits are provided for other than assembled appli-
ances, pumps, etc., the anticipated loads must be included; e.g.,
A floating home is thirty-five by twenty and has two portable appli-
ance circuits, a one thousand \vatt, two hundred thirty volt heater; a two
hundred watt, one hundred fifteen volt exhaust fan; two hundred watt, one
hundred fifteen volt dishwasher t-nd seven thousand watfc electric ranga.
Lighting and small appliance load
Lighting 35 x 20 x 3 = 2,100 watts
Small appliance 1,500 x 2 = 3,000 watts
5,100 watts
1st 3,000 watts at 100 % 3,000
Remainder (5,100 — 3,000 = 2,100) at 35 5& 735
Sr-o —
,foU
3,735 -H 230 = 18 amperes per leg
1,000 v.-att (heater) -j- 230 =? 4.4 amp
200 watt (fan) -=- 115 = 1.7 azap
400 watt (dishwasher) -=- 115 = 3.5 amp
7,000 wait (range) x .8 ~ 230 = 24. ainp
Amperes per Leg
332-10
-------
FLOATING HOMES 19.18.320
A 13
Lighting and appliances 16 16
llcati-i (230 vok) 4 4
Fan (115 volt) 2 - -
Dishwasher (1 15 volt) 4
Range 24 24
Total 46 48
Based on higher current calculated for either leg, use one fifty ampere
supply cord. (Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.18.320 (her;;!! stability. The floating home shall be stable with
both dead load and live lo-id inched..
(a) METACE.N TRIG HEIGHT
The inetaccntric height (MG) shall be equal to + 1.0 foot or more ac-
cording to the following equation:
(MG) = Ws Iy
r
L
where:
Ws = unit weight of sea water
W = total wjight of floating home including dead lo:'d and live load.
(L.L. = twenty pounds per square foot of first floor area, and
ten pounds per square foot of second floor, habitable attic or
loft)
Iy = Moment of inertia of the area encompassed by the waterline
around the hull or flotation (fully lorried boat) as taken about
the longitudinal axis of the floating home.
L = The distance between the center of gravity and llu center of
buoyancy of the fully loaded floating home.
(b) FREEBOARD
The freeboard, as measured from the waterline to the top of the hull of
the completed floating home, including the dead and live load shall be at
leait fifl-jL-M i:i;h;-> ( •-. ith list angle = O degree^)
(c) STABILITY WITH OFF-CENTER LOADING; OR WIND LOAD-
ING
The flouting home, when subjected to cither off-center loading or wind
loading shall not exceed the limitations on hull immersion and angle of list
set forth a- follows'
(1) Tii,' maximum angle of lh,t shall not exceed four decrees.
(2) 'li-e fiee! L_rd shah be rru^.ijed fron: tht v,a:jr!;r,:- to the co- of
the hull 0:1 the side or end of the \ej3ol v/liere said freebo.trd has its least
dimension.
The alluv/ab!-: immersion shall not be more than two-thirds of this
freebourd.
The oi .'Venter loading shall be considered as app'icab'e to the completed
332-1 1 (Mrtrin Cou.Uy I2-1S-79)
-------
19.iS.330 BUILDINGS
floating home, including (lead load, and shall consist of ;i line load of one
hiuuiud pounds or five pounds per fool of width, whichcvn r, greater, per
hnejl fool (1st flooi) rind fifty poimcK 01 two and one-hair pounds pet foot
of width whichever is greater, per Imejl foot (.second floor, habitable ai
tic. or loll) The uniform line load is to be applied halfway between the cen-
ter of gravity and the outside edge of deck, to one side of the floating home
at a time. The dividing line is the longitudinal axis of the vessel, and the over-
turn.'.'-.i'. moment resulting from the oft-center loading shall be taken about
the computed center of gravity. Stability, with the off-center loading applied,
shall be toted on both sides of the longitudinal axis.
V»ir,d loading shall be applied to the completed floating home, including
dead load and hve load, but not off-center loading. The moment due to the
wind loading shall be computed a.s:
Mw = 'PX A x H
Where:
M'.v = Wind heeling moment, in foot pounds.
P = Wind pressure factor, in pound* per square foot in accordance
with the following:
10.0 (for partially protected waters)
A = Area, in square feet, of the projected lateral surface of the
vessel above the load waterlinc. This surface includes the hull,
superstructure and areas bounded by railings and/or struc-
tural canopies.
H = Height, in feet, to the center of area (a) above the first floor
deck.
(Ord. 2440 § 20, 1979: Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.IS.330 Ca'cL'Jaiions by engineer. Calculations by a qualified engineer
shoeing that the stability of the floating home conforms to the above mini-
mi::;; rcq-.'.irementi will be acceptable. Said calculations shall be subject to
the following provisions:
tz) With ref^cnce to Section ]9.J3.320(a) MG=1.0 feet.
(b) With reference to Section 19.1 S.320(c)2 calculations shall show
that ?s a result of the list angle caused by the off-center loading, the origi-
nal freeboard (with list angle ~- 0.0°) shall not be diminished by more than
six';. --d-\en percent.
fO With reference to Section 19.1S.320(c) calculations shall show
thriT:
•> i
---'- - \ or more applicu v.ith 2 list = 4.0°
V i .. * r
-'-'•J
Y/here.
Mo - overturning momeni resulting from the off-center loading, said
moment to be taken about a longitudinal line passing thiough
the conii'Litcd cemer of gravity of the floating home.
<:'.-•-. '."ui!:-:, j:-)b 7v
-------
FLOATING HOMES 19.18.340-19.18.350
Mi - KcL,Ktiii£ moment due to buoyancy, said moment to be taken
about a longitudinal line passing tiirough the computed center
of r.nniiy.
and:
-I1!1 ^ 1 or more applied with a list = 40°
Mw
Where:
M\v - wind heeling inonicnt
Mr - resisting moirient due to buoyancy (same as Mr above).
(Ord. 1675 § 1 (part). 10(,8).
19.18,3'!0 Compartrncnfaiion .-.nil flotation, (a) BULKHEADS. Water-
tight pontoons, floats, or any other Jevjce used to keep tlu floating- home
afloat shall be fitted with transverse and/or longitudinal watertight bulk-
heads v/hi';h provide compartmentation sufficient to keep the fully loaded
vessel afloat with positive stability, v/ith any one main compartment flooded.
For pontoon type flotation, the maximum allowable distance between
bulkheads is eight feet 7.ero inches. No single compartment shall comprise
more than twenty percent of the total available Dotation volume.
(b) HULL TYPE FLOTATION. The hull shall be fitted with at bast
one longitudinal bulkhead and two transverse bulkheads. No compartment
shall comp:ise moie thaa twenty percent of total available flotation volume.
Hull type flotation with less than two transverse bulkheads may be utilized
upoji demonstration that the .structure viil remain c.fknt v/ith one compart-
ment flooded. If construction ir.iterinls are utilised \,hich make the poi^i-
bility of rupture of the hull e\tremo!y remoL-, the county mzy w;:>ve this
reaiurernem.
(c) FLOTATION DI-VICTS. The extent! surfaces of all notation
devices shall be watertight and thoroughly protected from corrosion from
saltwater, solvents, and weather. Flotation devices shall be constructed so
that acce>:-. to each compartment is re;:d;'y avaibb'e from the first floor level
of the com;.
-------
• ^j i^.li t."r
DUlLIMfsUS
chemical fiie extingutshei for cacli separate level or floor of habitable liv-
ing space.
(b) An approved detector foi products of combustion shall be installed
on floating homes and arks at each sleeping area (Orel. 2440 § ?1, 1979;
Old. 1675~§ 1 (pint), 1968).
19.18.360 Life saving equipment. Suitable accessible storage shall be
provided on deck I'oi the storage of life preservers, ring life buoys or other
coast guard approved life saving devices. (Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 1968).
19.18.370 Occupancy permits. All owners of floating homes moored in
Marin County on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter
shall apply for an occupancy permit within thirty days of such date, pur-
suant to Chapter 11.20 of thL code. An owner of a floating home mooring
in county waters after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter will apply within three days. Following the inspection of a floating
home for an occupancy permit, the owner will be advised of any deficiencies
that must bo corrected and of applicable building permits that may be re-
quired. (Ord. 1675 § 1 (part), 196S).
19.18.380 Restrictions. It shall be illegal to inhabit, occupy, moor,
lease, rent, or sell any floating home or ark which does not comply with
the Marin County Codes.
All arks in existence within the county on the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this chapter shall be considered existing nonconform-
ing; provided they meet all requirements of Title 19 and Chapters 11.20
and 11.21 of the Marin County Cods. (Ord. 2440 § 22, 1979: Old. 1675
§ 1 (pan), 1968).
19.18.400 Temporary berthing permits. The owner/occupant of afloat-
ing home which does not comply with the requirements of this chapter, and
which floating home was berthed within Richardson Bay in Marin County on
September 5, 1979, may apply to the marine inspector for a temporary
berthing permit. Those floating homes that were berthed in the unincorpor-
ated area of Marin County prior to February 1, 1977, shall be given priority
for available berths. A permit may be issued; provided, that the following
conditions are met:
(a) Any hazardous condition designated by the marine inspector must
be corrected prior to issuance of the permit.
(b) The floating home must comply with Section 19.18.420.
(c) Compliance with the requirements of this chapter will result in
inordinate hardship to the owner.
(d) Issuance of the permit will not be detrimental to adjoining uses.
If he grants or denies an application for a temporary berth permit, the
(M-::r; County 12-16-79) 332-14
-------
FLOATING IIOMhS 19.18.410-19.18.420
marine inspector shall make findings in accordance with the conditions scl
forth in this section.
Permits may be issued subject to such conditions as the marine inspec-
tor deems appropriate, including a bonding icquiicment.
Any person dissatisfied with a decision of the marine inspectoi may ap-
peal to the board of supervisors. Appeals must be in writing, accompanied by
a fee in the amount of thirty dollars, and filed within ten woiking days fol-
lowing the decision. (Ord. 2440 § 23, 1979).
19.18.410 Tenninatian date of tempoiary berthing permits. All tempor-
ary berthing permits shall expire:
(a) Upon transfer of ownership, rental or lease, or on January 1, 1935,
whichever is later;
(b) Destruction by fne or other causes, which the marine inspector
determines is in excess of fifiy percent value of the floating home;
(c) Upon notice by tho marine inspector that the-condition of the
floating home constitutes a threat to public health or safety.
Temporary berthing permits shall not be renewed. Upon termination
of the temporary berthing permit, the owner/occupant of the floating home
shall comply with the provisions of this chapter; provided, that the termina-
tion date may b? extended if the Marin County board of supervisors find,
during a public hearing, thai there is adequate justification for an extension.
(Ord. 2440 § 24 (part), 1979).
19.18.420 P;iim>>mg. (a) Floating homes or arks which discharge sew-
age or gray water shall have an injection system installed as specifk'd in Sec-
tion 19.18.120.
(b) Floating homes or arks \vhich do not discharge sewage or gray-
water may be excepted from the provisions of Section 19.18.120; provided
the following conditions are met:
(1) The floating homes or arks were located within Marin County on
September 5, 1979, and did not have a connection to a local sewerage sys-
tem as of that date.
(2) The floating homes or arks shall not have on-board tub: or showers,
or drains which discharge into the bay.
(3) Water closet, tub and/or shower and laundry facilities which are
connected to the public sewers are available within an approved structure.
The construction and facilities shall conform to the requirements of the
Marin County Cede, and the structure located within one hundred feet of
walking distance from the exempted home or ark.
Aiicrnarhe methods of waste water disposal, in lieu of T;LJ injection a:iu
connection system required by this chapter, may be allowed if first approved
by the Marin County health department, the State of California Regional
\Vatei Quality Control Board, and other applicable local and srate agencies.
(Ord. 2440 §'24 (part), 1979).
332-15 (Marin County 2-S2)
-------
1915.510 BUILDINGS
19.1S.510 5'i'iialties for vii>latio.»x Any person, fain or corporation
vioLitirr; any of tlic provisions of this chaptei shall be deemed rurilty of a
sepjrut.- offense for each and eveiy da> or poition thereof duriny which
any violation of the provision^, of tbi.-, chaptei is, committed, continued,
or permitted, and upon conviction of any such vio'atkm such person shall
be punisliabie by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by impiis-
c.nrncnt for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprison-
nie.u. For purpose of uniformity, this section shall be deemed to supetsede
any of the penalties provided in the respective codes referred to in this
ch:-.ptoi.(OnI. 2644 § 2, 1981).
532-16
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SHELLFISH
HARVESTING AND AMTIDEGRADATION
POLICY
-------
-------
Febrx-
r'£B $ JLJQG- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEB 2 1 -"
Interpretation' of the Term "Existing Uses"
Under the Antidegration Policy
Patrick M. Tobin, Director LGJ~
Criteria & Standards Division '^
TO
James S. Kutzman, Region IV
Water Quality Standards Coordinator
Under a proper interpretation of the term, an "existing use"
can be established by demonstrating that fishing, swimming, or
other uses have actually occured since November 28, 1975, or
that the water quality is suitable to allow the use to be aTtainei
(unless of course there are physical problems, such as substrate
or flow, which prevent the use regardless of water quality). In
your specific example, shellfish apparently are propagating and
surviving in a biologically suitable habitat and are available
and suitable for harvesting. Such facts clearly establish that
shellfish harvesting is an "existing" use, not one dependent on
improvements in water quality. To argue otherwise would be to
say that the only time an aquatic protection use "exists" is
if someone succeeds in catching fish, and that has never been
EPA's position.
( Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act calls for that
V level of water quality which "... provides for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish,...". To say that the shell-
fish use exists, and that the water quality must be maintained,
only if the shellfish are literally being "harvested" undercuts
the objective of the Act to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
cc: Regional WQS Coordinators
Cathy Winer (LE-132W)
Ed Johnson
-------
-------
April 16, 1984
Mr. John Harleston
Staff Counsel
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Mr. Harleston:
Thank you for your letter dated March 29, 1984, to Mr.
Charles Jeter, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IV, concerning
EPA's requirements for water quality standards and water quality
certifications. Because of the need for national consistency
in these requirements, Mr. Jeter has referred your inquiry
to me in my capacity as national program manager for the
water quality standards program.
Your letter states that although your questions have
been prompted by the Kiawah Marina hearing, you are not asking
for a review of, or comment on, that proceeding. Accordingly,
the following discussion does not address that proceeding or
the Board's order therein.
Your first question concerns the application of EPA's
antidegradation policy. You ask whether the imposition of a
sizeable buffer zone, within which shellfish harvesting is
prohibited, is consistent with EPA's antidegradation policy
when (1) the area to be so designated is currently suitable
for and is used for shellfish havesting, (2) the buffer zone
is created because of the potential for oyster contamination
from polluted water, and (3) the size and location of the
buffer zone reflect the area of potential contamination. It
is unclear from the information you provided whether, and if
so where and to what degree, the actual water quality in the
current Kiawah shellfish area will be affected.
EPA's antidegradation policy, now set out at 40 CFR §131.12
(48 FR 51400, November 8, 1983), is very specific, and does
not allow the lowering of water quality merely by calling the
affected area a buffer zone. The focus of that policy is
the protection of water quality necessary to protect existing
-------
uses. Where the quality of water exceeds that required for
"fishable, swimmabie" waters, the state may after following
specified procedures and making specified findings allow lower
water quality as long as existing uses are fully protected.
(Water quality in "outstanding national resource waters" is to
be maintained in all cases.) Existing uses are defined as those
actually attained in the water body on or after November 28,
1975, whether or not they are included in water quality standards.
EPA's antidegradation policy deliberately speaks of existing
uses, not designated uses, and water quality. While water quality
standards must contain criteria sufficient to support existing
or attainable uses, there may be circumstances where a state
may for non-water quality reasons wish to limit, or not designate,
a particular use. For example, a state may wish to impose a
temporary shellfish ban to prevent overharvesting and ensure
an abundant population over the long run. Similarly, a state
may wish to restrict swimming from heavily trafficked areas.
Our antidegradation policy is not intended to interfere with
such state decisions, as long as criteria supporting existing
or attainable uses are adopted and enforced as part of the state's
water quality standards. Thus, the notion of a buffer zone is
not per se illegal. However, if (and I again stress that I am
making no judgment about the Kiawah facts) the buffer zone is
based on a recognition that water quality is likely to be lowered
to the point that it no longer is sufficient to protect and
maintain an existing shellfish harvesting use and the public
health, imposition of such a buffer zone is inconsistent with
EPA's antidegradation regulation. The fact that the shellfish
use may remain in part of the stream, is laudable but immaterial.
Your second question seems to be whether, in issuing a
section 401 certification for a marina, a certifying agency
should consider possible pollution from any reasonably fore-
seeable associated activity, such as oil and gas and sewage
from vessels using the marina. The short answer is yes.
While there are federal requirements applicable to vessels
(see sections 311 and 312 of the Clean Water Act), it does
not follow that the vessels will never cause or contribute to
a violation of water quality standards. First, the certifying
agency should consider any available, reliable evidence
that indicates that vessels of the type involved generally
do or do not meet the requirements of sections 311 and 312.
In addition, the certifying agency must consider whether the
expected operation of those vessels (whether or not in compliance
with sections 311 and 312) is likely to cause or contribute
to a violation of water quality standards.
Sincerely,
Signed By:
Jack E. Ravan
Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
*..
«t wo'1
c%
OFFICE OF
WATER
MAR 2 5 H
Mr. John Harleston
Staff Counsel
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Mr. Harleston:
Thank you for your letter of March 8, 1985, requesting
guidance on the interpretation and application of the antidegre-
dation policy. I am pleased you found use£ul my reply to your
earlier letter. I have answered your questions in the order you
presented .
The relevant facts as contained in your letter are that an
applicant for 401 certification wishes to construct a marina in
open shellfish waters, now classified by the State for shellfish
harvesting, where such shellfish are found and are suitable for
human consumption. A lease has been granted £or harvesting and
if the marina is constructed the site will be closed by the State
for harvesting because of possible shellfish contamination.
Question 1
Assuming that there has been no actual harvesting, would the
prevention of potential harvesting by the permitting of an activity
that may affect water quality, in an area that is now of suitable
water quality, violate the antidegt/adation policy?
Answer:
Yes. Under a proper interpretation of the term, an "existing
use" can be established by demonstrating that fishing, swimming,
or other uses have actually occurred since November 28, 1975, or
that the water quality is suitable to allow the use to be attained
(unless of course there are physical, problems, such as substrate
or flow, which'prevent the use regardless of water quality). In
your specific example, shellfish apparently are propagating and
surviving in a biologically suitable habitat and are available
-------
and suitable for harvesting. Such facts clearly establish that
shellfish harvesting is an "existing" use, not one dependent on
improvements in water quality. To argue otherwise would be to
suggest that the only time an aquatic protection use "exists" is
if someone succeeds in catching fish, and that has never been
EPA's position.
Section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act calls for that level
of water quality which "...provides for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish,...". To say that the shellfish use exists
and that the water quality must bo maintained, only if the shell-
fish are literally being "harvested" undercuts tho objective of
the Act to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and bio-
logical integrity of the Nation's waters.
Question 2;
Assuming there has been no actual harvesting, does the
designation of the area by the State for shellfish harvesting,
both by SA classification, and by a shellfish lease which requires
cultivation as a lease condition, create an "existing use" without
proof of actual harvesting in the affected area?
Answer;
See Answer to Question 1, above. Please note that it is not
the "designation" of a use that creates an "existing" use, ^ince a
designated use may be one that has not yet been attained, under
40 CFR §131.3(f). A "designated" use that is not an existing use
may in some circumstances be downgraded to another use under
§131.10(g) of the water quality standards regulation; an "existing"
use, however, must be maintained and protected whether or not it
is also a "designated" use. In addition, whether a lease has or
has not been granted is technically irrelevant to the determination
o£ an "existing" use, although normally one would not expect a
lease to be issued unless there were a potential for shellf ishing .
Question 3:
Assuming that water quality has been suitable for harvesting,
but that actual harvesting has been documented only after the
time of the application for certification (and other permits), is
there an existing use for harvesting, i.e., should the certifying
agency disregard, facts occurring after the time application?
-------
-3-
Answer:
The certifying agency may consider these facts as additional
evidence that a use 'exists but, as indicated in my response to
Question 1, actual harvesting is not necessary to determine an
existing use.
Question 4:
Assuming that actual harvesting has taken place in the marina
vicinity, but by persons other than the shellfish leaseholder,
and without the leaseholder's permission, i.e., the harvesting
was illegal because of the exclusive lease, is there an existing
use for harvesting, i.e., does existing use encompass illegal uses?
Answer:
As indicated above, a determination that shellfish harvesting
is an "existing use" is not dependent on evidence of actual har-
vesting. Therefore, it follows that it is irrelevant, for purposes
of the antidegradation policy, whether any harvesting which did
occur complied with the applicable lease.
I trust these answers will be helpful to the Department of
Health and Environmental Control. As you may be aware I will
soon be assuming the duties of Regional Administrator in Atlanta.
I look forward to working with you on this and other related issues
Sincerely,
Jack E. Ravan
Assistant Administrator
tor Water
cc: Jim Kutzman (Region IV)
Cathy Winer (OGC)
-------
-------
V.
APPENDIX F
PRINCIPAL FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITTING,
CERTIFICATION AND REVIEW AGENCIES
-------
-------
PRINCIPAL STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITTING,
CERTIFICATION AND REVIEW AGENCIES
NORTH CAROLINA RESOURCE CATEGORIES (Table 6-1)
Permitting/Certification Agencies
Department of the Army All Resources
Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
Attn: Cliff Winefordner
(919) 343-4631
Department of Natural Resources Water Quality
and Community Development Groundwater
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
Attn: Forrest Westall
(919) 733-5083
Department of Natural Resources Groundwater
and Community Development Aquatic Habitat
Office of Coastal Management* Terrestrial Habitat
P.O. Box 27687 Wetland
Raleigh,, NC 27611-7687 Aesthetic
Attn: John R. Parker, Or.
(919) 733-2293
*Regional Field Offices of the
Office of Coastal Management:
West of the Chowan River and south
of Pamlico River including southern
half of Beaufort County
Coastal Management Field Services
1502 N. Market Street
Washington, NC 27889
Attn: David Gossett
(919) 946-6481
East of Chowan River and north of
Albemarle Sound to VA border, in-
cluding northern Dare County and
outer banks of Ocracoke Inlet
Coastal Management Field Services
108 S. Water Street
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Attn: Nelson Paul
(919) 338-0206
-1-
-------
NORTH CAROLINA (continued)
South of New River Inlet to South
Carolina border
Coastal Management Field Services
725 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attn: Rob Moul or
Bob Stroud
(919) 256-4161
South of Pamlico River and Beaufort
County to New River including
barrier islands from Ocracoke Inlet
to north of New River Inlet
Coastal Management Field Services
P.O. Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Attn: Preston Pate et al.
(919) 733-2160 or 726-7021
Review Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ecological Review Branch
Region IV
345 Courtland Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30308
Attn: Reginald Rogers
(404) 881-7901
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
Beaufort, NC 28516
Attn: Randall Cheek
(919) 728-5090
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Ecological Services
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 468
Raleigh, NC 27601-1470
Attn: Field Supervisor
(919) 755-4520
U.S. Coast Guard
Cdr. 5th Coast Guard District (m)
431 Crawford Parkway
Federal Building
Portsmouth, VA 23705
Attn: Chief of Marine Safety
(804) 398-6372
RESOURCE CATEGORIES (Table 6-1)
Water Quality
Groundwater
Wetland
Aquatic Habitat
Wetland
Aquatic Habitat
Wet!and
Terrestrial Habitat
Navigation
-2-
-------
NORTH CAROLINA (continued)
Department of Human Resources
Division of Health Services
Shellfish Sanitation Office
P.O. Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Attn: Bob Benton, Supervisor
(919) 726-6827
State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Attn: Dr. William Price, Jr.
(919) 726-7021
SOUTH CAROLINA
Permi tti ng/Certi fi cat i on Agenci es
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers,
Charleston District
P.O. Box 919
Charleston, SC 29402
Attn: Robert Riggs
(803) 724-4330
Coastal Council
Office of Coastal Planning
Summerall Center, Suite 802
19 Hagood Avenue
Charleston, SC 29402
Attn: Permit Administrator
(803) 792-5808
Department of Health and Env. Control
Office of Env. Quality Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29202
Attn: Chester Sansbury
(803) 758-5496
Review Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ecological Review Branch
Region IV
345 Court!and Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30308
Attn: Reginald Rogers
(404) 881-7901
-3-
RESOURCE CATEGORIES (Table 6-1)
Shellfish
Historical
Archaeological
All Resources
Aquatic Habitat
Terrestrial Habitat
Wetland
Socioeconomic
Water Quality
Groundwater
Water Quality
Groundwater
Wetland
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA (continued)
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
Beaufort, NC 28516
Attn: Randall Cheek
(919) 728-5090
South Carolina Wildlife and Marine
Resources Department
P.O. Box 167
1000 Assembly Street
Columbia, SC 29202
Attn: Ed Duncan
(803) 758-0020
RESOURCE CATEGORIES (Table 6-1)
Aquatic Habitat
Wetland
Aquatic Habitat
Terrestrial Habitat
Wetland
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Ecological Services
P.O. Box 12559
Charleston, SC 29412
Attn: Field Supervisor
(803) 724-4707
U.S. Coast Guard
Cdr. 7th Coast Guard
District (m)
51 SW 1st Avenue
Miami, FL 33130
Attn: Chief of Marine Safety
(305) 350-5651
South Carolina Archives Department
1430 Senate Street
Columbia, SC 29211
Attn: Charles Lee, Director
(803) 758-5816
Department of Health and Env. Control
Shellfish and Recreational Waters Division
Bureau of Special Environmental Programs
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Attn: J. Luke Hause, Director
(803) 758-4963
Aquatic Habitat
Terrestrial Habitat
Wetland
Navigation
Hi storical
Archaeological
Shellfish
-4-
-------
PEORGIA RESOURCE CATEGORIES (Table 6-1)
Permitting/Certification Agencies
District Engineer All Resources
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers,
Savannah District
P.O. Box 889
Savannah, 6A 31402
Attn: Mr. Stephen Osvald
(912) 944-5347
Department of Natural Resources Water Quality
Environmental Protection Division Groundwater
270 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
Attn: Mike Creason
(404) 656-4887
Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Habitat
Coastal Protection Division Wetland
Marsh and Beach Section
1200 Glynn Avenue
Brunswick, GA 31523
Attn: Dr. Frederick Marl and
(912) 264-7365
Department of Natural Resources Socioeconomic
270 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
Attn: James B. Talley
(404) 656-3508
Review Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality
Ecological Review Branch Groundwater
Region IV Wetland
345 Courtland Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30308
Attn: Reginald Rogers
(404) 881-7901
U.S. Department of Commerce Aquatic Habitat
National Marine Fisheries Service Wetland
Beaufort, NC 28516
Attn: Randall Cheek
(919) 728-5090
-5-
-------
GEORGIA (continued)
RESOURCE CATEGORIES (Table G-l)
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Ecological Services
801 Gloucester Street
Brunswick, GA 31520
Attn: Field Supervisor
(912) 265-9336
U.S. Coast Guard
Cdr. 7th Coast Guard District (in)
51 SW 1st Avenue
Miami, FL 33130
Attn: Chief of Marine Safety
(305) 350-5651
Department of Natural Resources
Historic Preservation Section
270 Washington Street, SW, Rm. 704
Atlanta, GA 30334
Attn: Dr. Elizabeth A. Lyon
(404) 656-2340
Department of Natural Resources
Coastal Resources Division
1200 Glynn Avenue
Brunswick, GA 31520
Attn: Charles F. Cowman, Jr.
(912) 264-7218
FLORIDA
Permitting/Certification Agencies
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District
P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232
Attn: Jim Boone
(904) 792-1666
Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Bldg.
Tallahassee, FL 32301-8241
Attn: Jeremy Craft
(904) 488-0130
Aquatic Habitat
Terrestrial Habitat
Wetland
Navigation
Historical
Archaeological
Shellfish
All Resources
Water Quality
Groundwater
Aquatic Habitat
Wetland
-6-
-------
V FLORIDA (continued) RESOURCE CATEGORIES (Table 6-1)
Department of Natural Resources Socioeconomic
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Attn: Jim McFarland
(Division of State Lands)
(904) 488-2725
Debbie Flack
(Division of Beaches and Shores)
(904) 488-3180
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality
Ecological Review Branch Groundwater
Region IV Wetland
345 Court!and Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
Attn: Reginald Rogers
(404) 881-7901
U.S. Department of Commerce Aquatic Habitat
National Marine Fisheries Service Wetland
3500 Delwood Beach Road
Panama City, FL 32407
Attn: Ed Keppner
f (904) 234-5061
U.S. Department of the Interior Aquatic Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service Terrestrial Habitat
Division of Ecological Services Wetland
P.O. Box 2676
Vero Beach, FL 32960*
Attn: Field Supervisor
(305) 562-3903
U.S. Coast Guard Navigation
Cdr. 7th Coast Guard District (m)
Miami, FL 33130
Attn: Chief of Marine Safety
(305) 350-5651
*If project location is north of
St. Johns River, USFWS contact is:
801 Gloucester Street
Brunswick, GA 31520
Attn: Field Supervisor
(912) 265-9336
If project location is in western
coastal area, north of Suwanee
River, USFWS contact is:
/"^- 1612 June Avenue
v Panama City, FL 32405
Attn: Field Supervisor
(904) 769-0552
-7-
-------
FLORIDA (continued)
RESOURCE CATEGORIES (Table 6-1)
Division of Archives,
History and Records Mgmt.
Department of State
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Attn: George W. Percey
(904) 487-2333
Department of Natural Resources
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Attn: John Schneider
(904) 488-5471
ALABAMA
Permitting/Certification Agencies
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers,
Mobile District
Regulatory Functions Branch
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, AL 36628
Attn: Davis L. Findley
(205) 694-3771
Department of Environmental Management
Permit Coordination Center
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Attn: Marilyn Elliott
(205) 271-7700
Review Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ecological Review Branch
Region IV
345 Court!and Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
Attn: Reginald Rogers
(404) 881-7901
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
3500 Delwood Beach Road
Panama City, FL 32407
Attn: Ed Keppner
(904) 234-5061
Historical
Archaeological
Shellfish
All Resources
Water Quality
Groundwater
Aquatic Habitat
Wetland
Water Quality
Groundwater
Wetland
Aquatic Habitat
Wetland
-8-
-------
ALABAMA (continued) RESOURCE CATEGORIES (Table 6-1)
U.S. Department of the Interior Aquatic Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service Terrestrial Habitat
Division of Ecological Services Wetland
P. 0. Drawer 1197
Daphne, AL 36526
Attn: Field Supervisor
(205) 690-2181
U.S. Coast Guard Navigation
Cdr. 8th Coast Guard District (m)
Room 1341
Hale Boggs Federal Building
500 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Attn: Chief of Marine Safety
(504) 587-6271
Alabama Department of Conservation and Aquatic Habitat
Natural Resources Shellfish
64 North Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
Attn: Bob McCrory
(205) 261-3484
Alabama Historic Commission ' Historical
725 Monroe Street Archaeological
Montgomery, AL 36130
Attn: Mr. F. Lawrance Oaks
(205) 261-3184
Department of Environmental Management Water Quality
4358 Midmost Drive Aquatic Habitat
Mobile, AL 36609 Wetland
Attn: Brad Gane
(205) 479-2336
MISSISSIPPI
Permitting/Certification Agencies
Department of the Army All Resources
Corps of Engineers
Mobile District*
Regulatory Functions Branch
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, AL 36628
Attn: Davis L. Findley
(205) 694-3771
*Vicksburg District, if project
is in the Pearl River drainage
basin
-9-
-------
MISSISSIPPI (continued)
RESOURCE CATEGORIES (Table 6-1)
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Pollution Control
Jackson, MS 39209
Attn: Robert Seyfarth
(601) 961-4790
Department of Wildlife Conservation
Bureau of Marine Resources
P.O. Drawer 959
Long Beach, MS 39560
Attn: Bureau Director
(601) 864-4602
Secretary of State
Jackson, MS
Attn: Ed Pittman
(601) 961-4790
Review Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ecological Review Branch
Region IV
345 Court!and Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30308
Attn: Reginald Rogers
(404) 881-7901
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
3500 Delwood Reach Road
Panama City, FL 32407
Attn: Ed Keppner
(904) 234-5061
Water Quality
Groundwater
Aquatic Habitat
Terrestrial Habitat
Wetland
Socioeconomic
Socioeconomic
Water Qua! ity
Groundwater
Wetland
Aquatic Habitat
Wetland
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Ecological Services
P.O. Drawer 1197
Daphne, At 36526
Attn: Field Supervisor
(205) 690-2181
U.S. Coast Guard
Cdr. 8th Coast Guard District
Room 1341
Hale Boggs Federal Building
500 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Attn: Chief of Marine Safety
(504) 587-6271
(m)
Aquatic Habitat
Terrestrial Habitat
Wetland
Navigation
-10-
-------
MISSISSIPPI (continued)
Department of Archives and History
P.O. Box 571
Jackson, MS 39205
Attn: Elbert Milliard, Director
(601) 359-1424
Department of Health
Shellfish Sanitation Office
P.O. Box 328
Gulfport, MS 39501
Attn: Anthony Taconi
(601) 863-1036
Department of Wildlife Conservation
Bureau of Marine Resources
Wetlands Division
P.O. Drawer 959
Longbeach, MS 39560
Attn: Joe Gill
(601) 864-4602
RESOURCE CATEGORIES (Table 6-1)
Historical
Archaeological
Shellfish
Shellfish
-11-
-------
-------
APPENDIX G
EXAMPLES OF PERMIT APPLICATION MATERIALS
Note: Permitting materials for individual states reported here
may change. Refer to respective agencies for current in-
formation.
-------
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
-------
APPLICATION
FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER CAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT v-
Department of Administration State of North Carolina Department of the Army
(GS 146-12) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(GS 113-229,143-215.3(a)(1), 143-215.3(c), 113A-118 (33 CFR 209.320-329)
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in blank.
I. Applicant Information
A. Namp
Last First Middle
B. Address
Street, P. O. Box or Route
City or Town State . Zip Code Phone
II. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark.
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes No .
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project
111. Description of Project
A. 1 . Maintenance of existing projec
B. Purpose of excavation or fill
1 Ar.re« rhannel
? Rnat ha«in
3 Fill arpa , MIII
4 Other
C. 1. Bulkhead leneth
2. Type of bulkhead construction
t
length
length
length
length
Average distance
(material)
7 NPVV wnrk .
width
wirlth
width
width
waterward of MHW
,-"~
dppth
depth
depth
depth
fQhnrelinp.l
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 2. Type of material
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI. A)
1. Cubic yards 2. Type of material.
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No.
B. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No .
C. Disposal Area
1. Location.
2. Do you claim title to disposal area?_
D. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in ________________
E. How will excavated material be entrapped and erosion controlled?.
F. Typp nf equipment tn he used
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain
D&F-B1
Rev. 10/78
-------
V. Intended Use of Project Area (Describe)
A. 1. Private.
2. Cftmmerriai
3. Housing Development or Industrial.
4. Other
B. 1. Lotsize(s).
2. Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water.
3. Soil type and texture
4. Type of building facilities or structures
5. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing Planned
B. Describe —-—-—-—-—-—-—__—_——
6. I Land Classification'(circle one) DEVELOPED TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY RURAL
CONSERVATION OTHER (See CAMA Local Land Use Plan Syno
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes No
B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following project completion? Yes No _____
2. Type
3. Location of d ischarge _______________________________________________________
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): _________________________________________________
VIM. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable: _______________________________________________
IX. Length of time required to complete project: ________________________________________
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following items must be provided:
A. Attach a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said property,
then forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land.
B. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8/2 X 11" white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G.S. 113-229 (d))Enter date
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
XI. Certification requirement: I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolina's approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
XII. Any permit issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described in this appli-
cation and plat Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
DATE
Applicant's Signature
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MAILING INSTRUCTIONS
-------
PLEASE BE SURE THAT:
— Both copies are completed
- All blanks are filled in
- You have signed both copies
If you have any questions please call your regional field office.
Mail one copy to:
District Engineer
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N. C. 28402
(Note: attach Corps transmittal letter)
Phone: 919/343-4631
AND
Mail one copy to your regional field office as indicated on the map below:
West of Chowan River and south of Pamlico River; Hertford
including southern half of Beaufort County.
Coastal Management Field Services
1502 N. Market Street
Washington, NC 27889
919/946-6481
East of Chowan River and north of Albemarle S(
to Virginia border, including northern Dare Co
and outer banks to Ocracoke Inlet.
Coastal Management Field Services
1085. Water Street
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
919/338-0206
South of Pamlico River and Beaufort County to
New River including barrier islands from Ocracoke
Inlet to north of New River Inlet.
Coastal Management Field Service?
P. O. Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
919/733-2160 or 726-7021
South of New River Inlet to South Carolina border.
Coastal Management Field Services
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
919/256-4161
-------
I
V
SOUTH CAROLINA
V..-
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
Summerall Center
19 Hagood Street, Suite 802
Charleston, South Carolina 29403
(803) 792-5808
INTRODUCTION
The South Carolina Coastal Management Act (Act 123) was
enacted by the General Assembly of South Carolina to provide for the
protection and enhancement of the State's coastal resources.
This Act creates the South Carolina Coastal Council, which is
given the task .of promoting the economic and social welfare of the citizens
of this state while protecting the sensitive and fragile areas of the
coast. Within a framework of a coastal planning program, the Council
will encourage the protection and sound development of coastal resources.
An important part of this program is a coastal permitting system.
As mandated in this Act, the Council has direct state authority to deny or
issue permits in the critical areas designated in this Act.
-------
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FEE SCHEDULE
FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Pursuant to Act 466 of the 1982 South Carolina Legislature, the
South Carolina Coastal Council is hereby establishing the following
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE SCHEDULE for all applications received by the
Coastal Council on or after July 1, 1982.
Private, single-family residential, non-
commercial activity $ 50.00
Commercial activity $200.00
Industrial and special commercial $500.00
iMarinas $500.00
Local and Federal agencies $ 50.00
General Permits . $200.00
No application will be processed until payment of the appropriate
fee is received. This fee is a non-refundable administrative fee
that has no Bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the application.
This fee schedule is subject to change by the South Carolina
Coastal Council. All checks are to be made payable to South Carolina
Coastal Council.
-------
Instructions for Application
1. To be filled in by staff
2. Mailing address
3. Mailing address
4. (A) Dock, boat ramp, etc. (B) Private use; joint landowner
use; etc. (C) Briefly describe dimensions (length, width, depth,
etc.) and materials to be used.
5. Self explanatory
6. If activity is to take place on a major wetland (i.e. Edisto
River), name that wetland. If not, describe as follows - Factory
Creek off the Beaufort River. Latitude and longitude may be
obtained from U. S. Geologic Survey maps.
7. If not sure, estimate as closely as possible.
NOTE: Read through checklist before completing drawings.
CC-P-01-A
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
(Regular Application)
Date_
1. Application number (to be assigned by the Council)
2. Name and address o£ applicant:
Telephone (during Business hours)
3. Name, address and title of authorized agent:
Telephone (during business hours)
4. Describe the dimensions and specifications of the proposed activity, its
purpose and intended use:
3. Names and addresses of adjoining property owners:
6. Location of proposed activity: Street,* road or other descriptive
location
County " Nearest town
Waterway or wetland
Latitude and longitude (if known)_
7. Date construction to commence
Date construction to be completed
8. Additional remarks:
9. I certify that the information contained in this application is true,
complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature o± Applicant
Date
-------
PROOF OF OWNERSHIP MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH
YOUR APPLICATION.
Please submit the Affidavit Of Ownership or Control" on page 10. A copy of the deed,
a lease, or other instrument o£ record may be included in addition to
the affadavit, if desired. Tiie affadavit must be signed. The following
information must be included:
1. The "Affidavit Of Ownership or Control' should be signed by at least
one owner of the property, lessee, or easement holder.
2. Under tne section "Description", describe the location and boundaries
of the property with as much precision as possible.
--If subdivided, the property should be described by lot number, block
number (if any], name of subdivision, and plat book number and page,
where recorded.
--If unplatted, tne property should be described by section, township
and range, and subdivision of section.
--If tne description is based on courses and distances not following
the plan coordinates, the point of beginning should be identified.
3. MaKe sure the affidavit is signed and notarized.
-------
FILL THIS OUT AMD RETURN IT WITH YOUR
PERMIT APPLICATION, SEE PAGE 9,.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL
TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
I hereby certify that I am the (check one):
record owner
lessee
record easement holder
applicant to record owner for easement
of the below described property situated in
County, South Carolina; and that said property is all of the property that
is contiguous to and landward of the area in which the work proposed in
the permit application is to be conducted. Furthermore, I certify that as
record owner, lessee, or record easement holder I have, or will have prior
to undertaking the work, necessary approvals or permission from all other
persons with a legal interest in said property to conduct the work proposed
in the permit application.
DESCRIPTION
Signature of Applicant
Sworn to and subscribed before me at
County, , this
day of , 19
C
Notary. Public
My commission expires:
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
Guidelines
1. The structure owner must make every reasonable effort to perform the
work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any adverse
impacts of the work on fish, wildlife and natural environmental values.
2. The applicant must perform the work authorized herein in- a- manner so
as to minimize any degradation of water quality.
3. The applicant shall permit the South Carolina Coastal Council, the Dis-
trict Engineer, the State Law Enforcement Division, the South Carolina
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, and other State Permit
inspection agencies, their representative(s) or designee(s) to make
periodic inspection at any time deemed necessary in order to assure
that the activity being performed is in accordance with the terms
and conditions prescribed herein.
4. The applicant shall maintain the structure in good condition.
5. No attempt shall be made by the applicant to prevent reasonable used by
the public of all navigable waters adjacent to the structure.
6. If the display of lights and signals on any structure authorized herein
is not otherwise provided by law, such lights and signals as may be
prescribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be installed and main-
tained by and at the expense of the structure owner.
7. If and when a structure owner desires to abandon a structure, unless
such abandonment is part of a transfer procedure by which the individual
is transferring ownership of the structure, he may be required to remove
the structure.
8. There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the
existence or use of structures authorized herein.
9. Applicants are advised of the possibility of damage by natural forces
or wave wash from passing vessels. The issuance of a permit does not
relieve the applicant from taking all proper steps to insure the
integrity of their structures permitted hereby and the safety of boats
moored thereto from damage by wave wash, and the applicant shall not
hold the South Carolina Coastal Council, the State of South Carolina',
or the united States liable for any such damage.
10. An applicant, upon receipt of a notice from the South Carolina Coastal
Council of failure to comply with the terms, conditions, or standards
of the permit, shall, within sixty (60) days without expense to the
South Carolina Coastal Council and in such a manner as the afordsaid
agency or their authorized representative(s) may direct, effect compliance
with terms, conditions, and standards or remove his structure from
South Carolina wetlands.
CC-P-01-E2
-------
11. 'A plan or drawing showing the applicant's proposal and the manner or
method by which the proposal shall be accomplished will be required
with the application. The requirements for the drawings are contained
herein.
12. A plat or copy of a plat of the area in which the proposed work will
take place will be required with the application.
13. Also, required with the application will be a certified copy of the
deed, lease, or other instrument under which the applicant claims
title, possession or permission from the owner of the property to
carry out the proposal.
14. The applicant shall furnish proof of publication of a notice of planned
activity in a newspaper of local circulation and statewide circulation.
The notice shall be published within fifteen (15) days of the date of
permit application. Additionally, the applicant must furnish the
Council with a certified copy of the newspaper notice before the permit
will be issued.
CC-P-01-E2
-------
DRAWING REQUIREMENTS
1. General
a. Submit one original copy of all drawings on 8% x 11 inch paper.
Submit the fewest number of sheets necessary to adequately
show the proposed activity. Drawings should be in -accordance -
with the general format of the enclosed sample drawings and
must be neat, accurate, and concise.
b. Drawings should not show the identity of engineers, architects
or consultants employed to prepare plans for the proposed
activity.
c. A one inch margin should be left at the top edge of each
sheet for binding purposes.
d. Since drawings must be reproduced photographically, color
shading cannot be used. Drawings may show work as dot
shading, hatching, cross-hatching or similar graphic symbols.
e. Show distance across channel or to navigation channel where
applicable.
f. Identify methods of construction and types of equipment to
be used.
2. Location Map (Must be sufficient for field personnel to locate site- include
written directions if necessary)
a. Show location of activity and name of waterway.
b. Show name and distance to local town, community or other
identifying location. -
c. Identify map or chart from which vicinity map was taken, if
applicable.
d. Show longitude and latitude, if known.
e. Show north arrow.
3. Plan View
a. Show shoreline with the proposed activity and any adjacent
existing structures.
b. Show direction of river flow/ebb and flow of tide, if
applicable.
c. Show high and low water lines.
d. Show dimensions of structures- and distance from nearest
property line.
-------
c:
Identify materials used in construction. If dredging or
filling is involved, show v<
moved and grade to be used.
/^ filling is involved, show volume and type of materials to be
f. Show adjacent property owners. On narrow waterways the
property owner on the opposite shore must also be identified.
g. For elevation and/or sectional views, show height of structure
above mean high water.
h. Show graphic scale.
i. Show north arrow.
CC-P-01-B2
-------
PLAN
Side View
Top View
CROSS -SECTION
(show all. dimensions)
SCALE
Location Map
Use full page for location map
if needed to adequately locate
site.
Reference5
'..• '.*•'•."£" .*.'•' ** •** "
Plan View (with property lines)
rfLlJ
XL
±
-Sl'>
Proposed activity
County-
Applicant-
^i^r^
PROPOSED*
NAME 8t ADDRESS -OF ADJACENT PROPERTY' OWNERS
Bay D».,
-------
o
anchor piles ^Sjfx^;
tie rod-
sheet pilinc
PLAN
Side View
g' g|
Tare- 5.51 above mhw
,-bulkhead piles
(placed 6*ac.)
rahw
mlw
Top View
\r
t
N
Use full page for location map
< if needed to adequately locate
^? site.
Pawleys Island
33d 26'07" N
77* 06'25" W
quad-Magnolia
Reference8
Plan View (with property lines)
NOTE!
Indicate type and voiumn
of fill
NORTH
(show ail dimensions)
SCALE
0 50
FEET
Proposed acTivity- BULKHEAD
County- GEORGETOWN
Applicant-- JOHN DOE
PROPOSED*-
NAME a ADDRESS-OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
-------
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
op? op tfwy
-------
GEORGIA
c
-------
JOINT APPLICATION
FOR A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DREDGE & FILL PERMIT
STATE OF GEORGIA MARSHLAND PROTECTION PERMIT & REQUEST
FOR WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AS APPLICABLE
1. Application number 2. Date. 3. For official use only.
(To be assigned by Corps).
Day Mo Yr.
4. Name and address of applicant. (If location of project is not same as above, indicate Route No., Box No. or other information
to assist in locating project).
Telephone number-
5. Name, address, and title of applicant's authorized agent for permit application coordination.
Telephone No.
6. Describe the proposed activity, its purpose and'intended use, including a description of the type of structures, if any, to be
erected on fills, or pile, or float-supported platforms, and the type, composition and quantity of materials to be discharged or
dumped and means of conveyance.
7. Proposed use.
Private Public Commercial Other (Explain in remarks)
8. Name and addresses of adjoining property owners whose property also adjoins the waterway.
9. Location where proposed activity exists or will occur.
County
Near - City or Town
Military District In - City or Town
Subdivision Lot No.
Lot Size Approximate Elevation of Lot State
-------
10. Name of Waterway at location of the activity.
Name of nearest creek, river, sound, bay, island or hammock.
11. Date activity is proposed to commence.
Date activity is expected to be completed.
12. Is any portion of the activity for which authorization is sought now complete?
Yes _ No _
If answer is "Yes" give reasons in the remarks section. Month and year the activity was com-
pleted . Indicate the existing work on the drawings.
If the fill or work is existing, indicate date of commencement and completion.
If not completed, indicate percentage completed, date it will be completed.
Date of existing structure or work..
Give dates when began and when completed..
13. List of approvals or certifications required by other Federal, interstate, State or local agencies for any structures, construc-
tion discharges, deposits or other activities described in this application.
Issuing Agency Type Approval Identification No. Date/Application Date/Approval
14. Has any agency denied approval for the activity described herein or for any activity directly related to the activity described
herein?
Yes No (If "Yes" explain in remarks)
15. Remarks (see paragraph 3 of Permits Pamphlet for additional information required for certain activities).
16. Description of Operation: (If feasible this information should be shown on drawing)
A. Purpose of excavation or fill
1. Access channel: length depth width_
2. Boat Basin length depth width_
3. Fill area length depth width.
4. Other length depth width_
(Note: If channel, give reason for needs of dimensions listed above.)
-------
B. I. If bulkhead, give dimensions
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material)
C. Excavated material
1. Cubic yards
2. Type of material
17. Land Type, , and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland? Yes No
B. Does the disposal area contain any marshland? Yes No
C. Location of disposal area
D. Maintenance dredging, estimated amounts, frequency and disposal sites to be utilized
E. Will dredged material be entrapped or encased?
F. Type of equipment to be used
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site?
(If yes, explain)
H. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known)
18. Water quality Certification: In some cases, Federal law requires that a Water Quality Certification from the State of
Georgia be obtained prior to issuance of a Federal license or permit. Applicability of this requirement to any specific project is
determined by the permitting Federal agency. The information requested below is generally sufficient for the Georgia En-
vironmental Protection Division to issue such a certification, if required. Any item which is not applicable to a specific project
should be so marked. Additional information will be requested, if needed.
A. Please submit the following:
1. A plan showing the location and size of any facility, existing or proposed, for handling any sanitary or industrial
wastewaters generated on your property.
2. A plan of the existing or proposed project and your adjacent property forwhich Permitsare being requested.
3. A plan showing the location of all points where petro-chemical products (gasoline, oils, cleaners) will be used
and stored. Any above ground storage areas must be diked and there should be no storm drain catch basins within the diked
areas. All valving arrangements on any petro-chemical transfer lines should be shown.
4. A contingency plan delineating action to be taken by you in the event of spillage of petro-chemical products or
other materials from your operation.
5 Plan and profile drawings showing limits of areas to be dredged, areas to be used for placement of spoil
locations of any dikes to be constructed, and typical cross sections of the dikes
B. Please provide the following statements.
1. A statement that all activities will be performed in a manner to minimize turbidity in the stream
2. A statement that there will be no oils or other pollutants released from the proposed activities which will reach
me stream
3. A statement that all work performed during construction will be done in a manner to prevent interference with
any legitimate water uses.
19. The applicant must be the owner of the property or be the lessee or have other authority to perform the activity requested
Evidence of the above may be furnished by a copy of the deed or other instrument as may be appropriate The applicant must
have State of Georgia's assent or a waiver authorizing the use of State-owned lands. (See attached letter.)
20. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. Water Quality Certification
from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division is also requested, if needed I certify that I am familiar with the information
contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate. I
further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities
Signature of Applicant
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the Un-'
ited States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any
fake, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to
contain any false fictitious or fraudulent statement of entry, shall be fined not more than $10.000 or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity; however, the application may be
signed by a duly authorized agent if accompanied by a statement by that person designating the agent and agreeing to furnish
upon request, supplemental information in support of the application
If the activity includes the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or the transportation of dredged material for
the purpose of dumping it in ocean waters, the application to the U.S Corps of Engineers must be accompanied by a fee of $100
for quantities exceeding 2,500 cubic yards and $10 for quantities of 2,500 cubic yards or less. Federal, State and local
governments are excluded from this requirement Check is to be made payable to Treasurer of the United States.
Permit application is to be completed and submitted as follows-
A. One copy of application, location map. drawing, copy of the deed and any other supporting information to:
1. For Department of the Army Permit, mail to:
District Engineer. Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army, Savannah
Attn: Regulatory Functions Branch
P.O. Box 889
Savannah, GA 31402
Phone: (912) 233-8822 Ext.347
2. For Marshland Permit - State of Georgia, mail to:
Coastal Protection Section
Coastal Resources Division, DNR
1200 Glynn Ave.
Brunswick GA 31523
Phone: Va12) 264-7365
3. For Executive Department - State of Georgia - Request for assent for use of State-owned lands. (See attached
letter.) Mail to:
Mr. James B. Talley, Executive Assistant
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street. SW.
Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: (404) 656-3508
4. For Water Quality Certification - State of Georgia, mail to:
Water Quality Certification
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street, SW.
Atlanta, GA 30334
Phone: (404) 656-4887
-------
MARSHLANDS PROTECTION
JOINT APPLICATION FZOCEVURES
Checklist for Applications:
Name, Address, and telephone number of the applicant and/or the
agent.
A brief description of the proposed project together with an-
explanation of its purpose and intended use (private, public,
commercial, other).
3. A copy of the deed or some other legal instrument which shows
proof of ownership or other lawful authority to make use of the
property. Refer to Rules 391-2-3-.02 (4) (b) .
A. A list of names and addresses of all landowners who have property
adjoining or abutting the tract/parcel of land within which the
proposed project is to be located. Refer to Rule 391-2-3-.02 (4) (d)
5. A certificate or letter from the local zoning authority stating that
the proposal is not in violation of any zoning law, ordinance or
other local restrictions which may be applicable.
6. An application fee of $25 (check or money order) made payable to the
order of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources for each acre
of land or portion thereof to be affected up to $500 for any one
proposal. This fee for processing your application is non-refundable.
•A list of all certifications required by other Federal, State and
local agencies for the work described in the application. Indicate
approvals or denials as applicable.
A written explanation of why the permit should be granted.
The. jJo-C&xuouj dsuuauT.g& and ptan& &hou£d be -Aabmitted on~a.
maxjjfium &he.et 4-tze o& 14" x IB" UmoZten. -&fiee£ 4-tzeA
acceptable and encouraged) . MUL dsuiLaing& Ahoatd be
and cJLeaA (pn.e.^eAa.bty not blue. Line.} . LK>e. a -i-unp£e
technique, to enhance the. cJLasUty o& the. dumain
wotuLLnQ, tabeJL& and dJjnejm>Jjon& A/ioa&f be -£aAge and dtvik.
enough to fl.e.p^iodu.c.e. cJLzaJiJLy usfien SLe.duc.ed. to an 8%" x. 11"
page. EniuAe tiie. ac.cjJAac.y o^-the. dAjai&Lng&' c.otit£stt&
through a A-inpte., &tnj2JjQl\t&o>'ii>xiAd. graphic. appAoacA. .
A£miy5 make Au/ie that dsLouiingt a^e done, to ^ca£e. IncAuie
a baA. AcaZ'e. i&ith ckziuioigA AO that -i& the.y a/ie
the. AcaZe. mitt /tead ttuie.. Atio -6tc£iufe a nositJi
Ex: SCALE: 1" = 20' { | | j
0 5' 10' 20'
A plat showing the boundaries (dimensions and size) of the parcel f
and proposed project site together with an indication of the adjacent
or abutting properties. Elevations should be in mean sea level (MSL) .
-------
A plan of the parcel and proposed project site showing both the existiii
and proposed features. This would include streets, utilities, structur
f - boardwalks, dredged areas, spoil areas, dikes, bulkheads, retaining wal
rip-rap, significant natural vegetation, introduced landscape materials
significant topographical features, significant drainage patters, etc.
Show elevation of project site with respect to mean sea level/mean tide
level. This plan will essentially be a detailed Site Plan. Include ar
element which will help elucidate the proposed project.
11. A series of construction drawings clearly showing the applicants' propc
project and how that project is to be completed. Include sections and/
elevations which show the proposed project in relation to mean sea leve
mean tide level.
STRUCTURES: Show details to explain the type and size
of structures and where they are to be located. Clearly
show whether structure is to be built on FILL, elevated
on PILING or placed on FLOAT SUPPORTED PLATFORMS.
BULKHEADS, RETAINING WALLS OR RIP-RAP: Show location
and extent of work together with dimensions in linear
feet. Use a cross-section to show depth, width, profile
and cubic yards of material where applicable. Show
typical construction method with respect to the tie-
backs, footings/foundations, height above mean sea
level, type of material (wood, steel, concrete, asbestos
sheet, etc.).
FOR DREDGE/SPOIL PROJECTS: Show size and location of each
activity together with cubic yards of material to be
handled. Show the location of any dikes to be constructed
with a typical cross-section. Show the project in re-
lation to existing navigation channels. Indicate the
estimated amount of maintenance dredging, frequency of
maintenance and which disposal sites will be used for
the material.
FOR FILL/ EXCAVATION PROJECTS: Show size and location of
each activity together with cubic yards of material
to be handled. For fill projects indicate the type,
composition and quantity of materials to be utilized.
Show the location from which the material will be
obtained and the means of conveyance to .the site.
FOR MARINAS, DOCKS, BOAT RAMPS, FISHERMAN'S CATWALKS, AND
ROADS: Show details to explain the type and size of
any such structure. Show extent, placement and spacing
of support piles. Indicate type of materials to be used;
i.e., wood, concrete, steel, asphalt, shell, gravel,
etc. Show typical construction methods using plans,
elevations and construction details where applicable.
For BOAT RAMPS show length, width, slope, materials
and access. For ROADS show typical cross-section,
culvert placement and size, and extent of bridging and/
or elevating. For MARINAS and DOCKS show all associated
facilities to be constructed (access, floating docks,
fixed docks, boat storage, fuel dispensing, hoists, etc.)
For FISHERMAN'S CATWALKS show cethod of public access
and «->ny related work together with construction details.
Q
Q
(j
-------
In addition to iheic. prioce.dusiaJL AeqiuAe/ndn^i , chick to
fa £hougti£ hoi been g-tven -Co -the
Yes No
| I [ j A. Is the proposed project, if applicable, in the public interest for
the benefit of all citizens of Georgia? Is -the public interest
protected?
j~] ["j B. If project maintenance will alter marshlands, has it been included
in the request for a permit?
r~\ r~) C. Has an analysis of alternative construction methods and/or project
sites been conducted?
PI r~"j D. Is the project water-related and dependent on a waterfront location
or is there an upland alternative available?
r~j Q E. Dpes the proposed project violate any local zoning regulations or
other local, State, and Federal requirements.?
• | I |p. Will the proposed project create any unreasonably harmful obstruction
' to or alteration of the natural flow of navigational waters?
I j [ )G. Will the proposed project increase erosion or the shoaling of channels?
r~J fjH. Will the proposed project create areas of stagnant water?
' j j ]i. Will the proposed project interfere with the conservation of fish,
shrimp, oysters, crabs, clams or any marine life or wildlife or
other natural resources-?
O OJ" *s tne Amount of marshlands to be altered the absolute minimum
necessary to complete the project?
r~) r~JK. Will any of the proposed structures constitute an unreasonable
obstruction of view to adjoining landowners?
f > j JL, Does the proposed project, where applicable, represent an enhancement
' ' of the public's access to waterfront locations?
r~\ ' JM. Does the demand for the proposed project, if applicable, justify
the alteration of marshlands?
1 — I { IN. Has there been a demonstrated need for erosion control structures?
(""} { 10. Is there protective natural vegetation in place, thereby eliminating
or reducing the need for erosion control structures?
{"1 f | p. Will the proposed project increase turbidity or cause siltation at
other locations?
f — ? j Q. Will the timing and location of dredging activities take into
' consideration the movements and life stages of fish, shellfish, ,
and wildlife, expecially during spawning and early development?
-------
APPLICANT'S NAME
ADDRESS
CORPS APPLICATION NO.
Mr. James B. Talley
Executive Assistant
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington St., S.W. - Rm. 815
Atlanta, GA 30334
Dear Mr. Talley:
I am making application for a permit with the U.S. Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. I understand that the issuance of such
a permit will not relieve me of the obligation to obtain authorization from the
State of Georgia since the proposed project would constitute an encroachment on
the beds of tidewaters which are State-owned property. Accordingly, I hereby
request that I be granted a revocable license from the State of Georgia.
Attached hereto and made a part of this request is a copy of the plans of the
project which will be the subject of such a license.
I understand that if permission from the State is granted, it will be a
revocable license and will not constitute a license coupled with an interest.
I further acknowledge that such a license would relate only to the property
interests of the State and would not obviate the necessity of obtaining any
other State license, permit or authorization required by State law.
I recognize that I do not have the permission of the State of Georgia to
proceed with such project until a copy of this request, which is sent and
signed by me in duplicate, is signed by you and returned to me.
Sincerely,
( APPLICANT;
The State of Georgia hereby grants you a revocable license not coupled with an
interest as provided in your request.
STATE OF GEORGIA
Office of the Governor
By
JAMES B. TALLEY
-------
-------
FLORIDA
c
-------
JOINT APPLICATION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY/FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
For Activities in the Waters of the State of Florida
CORPS APPLICATION NUMBER (official use- only)
I I I I I I I I I I
OER APPLICATION NUMBER (official use only!
I I I I I ! I I I I
1. APPLICANT'S NAME AND ADDRESS
NAME
STREET
I I I I I I I I I
CITY
TELEPHONE NUMBER (Day)
STATE ZIP
(Night) ( )
2. Name, address, zip code and title of applicant's authorized agent for permit
application coordination
Telephone Number
3. NAME OF WATERWAY AT LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY.
DER Code.
W/W Code
4. LOCATION WHERE PROPOSED ACTIVITY EXISTS OR WILL OCCUR.
Street, road or other descriptive location
Section
Township
Range
Incorporated city or town
County
Latitude Longitude
Tax Assessors Description: (if known)
Map No. Subdiv. No. Lot No.
5. NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE PROPERTY ALSO
ADJOINS THE WATERWAY.
6. PROPOSED USE
Private Single Dwelling [ ] Private Multi-dwelling [ ] Public [ ]
Commercial [ ] Other [ ] (Explain in remarks)
DER Form 17-1.203(1) Effective November 30, 1982
Page 1 o
-------
7. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (Use additional sheets, if necessary)
A. Structures: 1. New work [ ] Maintenance of existing structure [ ]
2. Piers, docks and use: Commercial [ ] Private [ ] Public [ ]
a. Single pier [ ] length width _
b. Number of piers [ ] length ^ width
c. Number of boat slips [ ] length width _
d. Number of finger piers [ ] length width _
e. Other (please describe) _______________^________^_
C
3. Seawalls, revetments, bulkheads: length
a. Type: Vertical [ ] Riprap [ ] Slope: Horizontal; Vertical
b. Material to be used ..
4. Other type of structure
B. Excavation or Dredging: New Work [ ] Maintenance work [ ] Total acreage involved
1. Acceaa Channel [ ] or Canal [ ] Length ft. Width ft. Depth _ft.
2. Boat Basin [ ] or Boat Slip [ ] Length ft. Width ft. Depth ft.
3. Other Length ft. Width ft. Depth ,ft.
4. Cubic yards: Total for project —__^__________
a. cyd. waterward/ cyd. landward of ordinary/mean high water
b. Type of material to be excavated/dredged '
C. Fill:
1. Amount of material
a. Cubic yards placed waterward of ordinary/mean high water
b. Cubic yards placed landward of ordinary/mean high water
c. Total acreage to be filled Total acreage of wetlands involved
2. Containment for fill
a. Dikes [ ] b. Seawall, etc. [ ] c. Other (please explain)
3. Type of fill material to be used
4. Source of fill material to be used
DER Form 17-1.203(1) Effective November 30, 1982 Page 2 of
-------
8. Date activity is proposed to commence . ; to be completed
9. Previous permits for this project have been " OCR t Corps I
A. Denied (date)
8. Issued (date)
C. Other (please explain)
Differentiate between existing work and proposed work on the drawings.
10. Remarks (See Instruction Pamphlet for additional information required for all applications
and certain activities. Use additional sheets if necessary.)
11. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL of the property on which the proposed project is to be
undertaken
I CERTIFY THAT: (please check appropriate space)
[ ] I am the record owner, lessee, or record easement holder of the property described
below.
[ ] I am not the record owner, lessee, or record easement holder of the property
described below, but I will have before undertaking the proposed work the requiait
property interest. (Please explain what the interest will be and how it will be -
acquired.)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN COUNTY, FLORIDA
(Use additional sheets if necessary)
Signature
Sworm and subscribed before me at County.
, this ______ day of . 19 .
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires: •''
DER Form 17-1.203(1) Effective November 30, 198Z Page 3 of
-------
c
12. Application ia made for a permit(s) to authorize the activities described herein.
A. I authorize the agent listed in Item 12 to negotiate *»d>•'';«•»! i»n»-«r revisions, when
necessary, and accept or assent to any stipulations on my oofialT.
B. I understand I may have to provide any additional information/data that nay be necessary
to provide reasonable assurance or evidence to show that the proposed project will
comply with the applicable State Water Quality Standards or other environmental stand-
ards both before construction and after the project ia completed.
C. In addition, 1 agree to provide entry to the project site for inspectors with proper
identification or documents as required by law from the environmental agencies for the
purpose of making preliminary analyses of the site. Further, I agree to provide entry
to the project site for such inspectors to monitor permitted work if a permit is granted
D. Further, I hereby acknowledge the obligation and responsibility for obtaining all of the
required state, federal or local permits before commencement of construction activities
I also understand that before commencement of this proposed project I must be granted
separate permits or authorizations from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast
Guard, the Department of Environmental Regulation, and the Department of Natural
Resources, as necessary.
I CERTIFY that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that
to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete and accurate.
I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities.
Signature of Applicant Date
NOTE: THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED by the person who desires to undertake the proposed
activity or by an authorized agent. If an agent ia applying on behalf of the appli-
cant, attach proof of authority for the agent to sign and bind the applicant.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever in any manner within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or
covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document
knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be
fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
NOTICE TO PERMIT APPLICANTS
This is a Joint Application; it is NOT a Joint Permit!
You Must Obtain All Required Local, State, and Federal
Authorizations or Permits Before Commencing Work! !
For your information; Section 370.034, Florida Statutes, requires that all dredge and
fill equipment owned, used, leased, rented or operated in the state shall be register-
ed with the Department of Natural Resources. Before selecting your contractor or
equipment you may wish to determine if this requirement has been met. For further
information, contact the Chief of the Bureau of Licenses and Notorboat Registration,
Department of Natural Resources, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida
32303. Telephone Number 904/488-1195. THIS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR A PERMIT FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION.
Form 17-1.203(1) Effective November 30, 1982 - ~ Page ft,of
-------
V
-------
ALABAMA
V,-
-------
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AND THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
RELATING TO SECTION 404 AND SECTION 10 PERMITS
WHEREAS, the Al abama Department of Envi ronrnent al Management (hereinafter,
ADEM) has been designated by Act 82-612 Regular Session 1982 as the State
Water Pollut ion Cont rol Agency and the agency responsible for administering
the other regulatory efforts of the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program
(hereinafter, ACAMP); and
WHEREAS, the ADEM is. accordingly, the State agePCv responsible for water
• ' '— •* •* •*—' iJ i
quality and coastal resources protection within the State of Alabama; and
WHEREAS, the Department of the Army through the Corps of Engineers
(hereinafter, the Corps) has certain responsibilities for issuing permits
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1899; and
.WHEREAS, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 307 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, require that the State
establish public notification procedures with regard to State certification of
Section 404 permits and Section 307 certifications; and
WHEREAS, the ADEM and the Corps wish to define their duties and
resoonsibilities to one another and to the pub lie oursuant to the Clean Water
I i. i.
Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, in order .that
these projects proceed in a timely manner.
*
NOW, THEREFORE, the ADEM and the Corps mutually agree as follows:
*
A. The Corps shall transmit to the ADEM sufficient conies of the
information described below to provide for the efficient and timely r-e^iev jf
F-rLiop 414- and Section 10 'applications for water quality and coastal pro.-rrsr,
cert i f ic/Jt ion:
- Copies of each permit application
-" Copies of each "public notice
- Copies of all pertinent correspondence between the
Cu rps, the applicant, other vi ewi n^ agene i es, and the
public-at-large
~ * +
The furnishing of a permit application by the Corps shall be deemed by
ADEM to be a request for 401(a) certification and 307 consistency.
B. For all projects that are not Federal projects, by the Mobile
District, the Corps agrees to issue a timely Joint Public Notice for the Corps
and the ADEM. Such notice shall at least contain the following statement:
T- ^
1. The~ applicant has applied' for certification from the State of
Alabama in accordance with Section 401(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act and upon
completion of the required advertising, a determination relative to
certification will be made.
F
i
\
-------
2 . (If the applicant's project is located within the area under the
jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone Management Program.) The applicant has
certified that the proposed activity complies with and will be conducted in a
manner that is consistent with the State Coastal Zone Management Program,
Upon completion of the required advertising, a determination relative to
consistency will be made by ADEM.
3. Correspondence concerning this Public Notice should refer to
Public Notice Number and should be directed to the
District Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer District, Mobile, Post Office Box 22SS,
Mobile, Alabama 36628, Attention: Regulatory Branch, with copy to Director,
Department of Environmental Management, State Capi tol, Mont gomery, Al aba.na
36130, and a copy to Director, Coastal Program, Suite 10, 3263 Demetropolis
Road, Mobile, Alabaraa 36609 .
C. The Corps and the ADEM agree to allow a maximum of 30 days after
issuance of a Joint Public Notice on a project for public comment on said
project, unless such other public comment period is mutually agreed to by the
Corps and ADEM.
D. ADEM shall furnish all certification, denials of certification,
waivers of certification or conditions of certification to the Corps no later
than 15 days after the expiration of the public comment period
unless the Department notifies the Corps thac an extension of time will be
required to review the project; otherwise state approval may be confirmed
verb all v. Ext ens ions of t ime shall not extend bevond the t ine 1 irr.it s
-/ •*
specified in Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended.
- E. A joint public hearing on permit proposals, consistency, and
certification shall be held if the District Engineer and ADEM mutually agree
that a valid public interest would be served.
i
F. Notice of any public hearing on certification, consistency or permit
proposals shall be made by the Corps at least 30 days in advance of the
hearing date.
r
j
1 • ""
G. Copies of any hearing record, as we 11 as.comments at such hearing,
— ^~^
shall be furnished to ADEM by the Corps.
H. Any conditions necessary to assure maintenance of water q-.:al i ty or to
assure consistency with the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program contained
in a statement given by the ADEM shall be made "an essential part of the Corps
permit.
^
I. If amendments to the permit affecting water quality, consistency with
the ACAMP, or time extensions of the permit are needed after issuance, the
* * - * i y
ADEM will be notified of such proposed changes by the_ District. Engineer.
- * i
Mobile District will also notify ADEM of any changes in title or transfer of
ownership of permits about which the District is informed. The ADEM will
evaluate the proposed changes as to ,possible impact ,on -water quality, and
'" ' ^ ^" _ £ " * F
consistency with the ACAMP, and advise the .District Engineer within, a maxiT'.tn
of 15 days whether or not a new public notice may be needed and its position
-- * •
on recertification.
-------
J. Those "general" permits in effect
in effect until renegotiated on a mutually
the Corps.
on September 30, 1982 shall remain
developed schedule bv the ADEM and
K. Copies of each permit issued, along with attached conditions, shall
be furnished ADEM within 30 days after issuance.
L. In cases of natural disaster or other emergency situations, the Corps
will contact the Director of the ADEM as to the need for certification or
consistency for rebuilding or erne rgency cons t rue t ion prejects, and where
appropriate obt a i n from the Director such ce re i fi cat ion, waiver of
certification, or statement of consistency.
M. In cases involving an "after-the-fact" application for ADEM
certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, the ADEM
agrees to give an intent to proceed with legal action no later than 15 clays
after the request for comments by the Corps. If the Director determines legal
action will not be pursued, the ADEM will waive Section 401 certification or
consistency. If the Director determines legal action is warranted, the
Director shall notify the Corps, and then the Corps, the ADEM or both may t ake
appropriate legal action.
N. For applications completed prior to the execut ion of this Agreement,
the Corps shal1 send to ADEM a request for certification prior to the issuance
of the permit. ADEM shall process the request for certification in a timely
manner.
*
0, This Agreement supersedes all previous Memoranda of Understanding or
other agreements between the ADEM and the Mobile District Regulatory Branch.
P. Changes in this Agreement shall be made by written amendment hereto.
0. This Agreement mav be terminated by either
*- -~
the other party o
f t
he termination at least 30 davs
terrninat ion.
R. This Agreement becomes effective
19
D a r t v D v 2; L v in 2 notice t c
L O Z>
in advance of su-:
FOR THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Date
FOR THE U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
D ate
A^r—
-A VA^
T* TT"T T \7 \ y^V IL*-
r\
-^PATRICK J. KELLY;
District Engineer
3
el, CE-
r.-j :J
-------
MISSISSISPPI
- 1
1 f* -f
* r -j
-------
JOINT APPLICATION AND NOTIFICATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MISSISSIPPI DEPT. OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, BUREAU OF MARINE RESOURCES
MISSISSIPPI DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES, BUREAU OF POLLUTION CONTROL
This form is to be used for proposed activities m waters of the United States and
Mississippi and for the erection of structures on suitable sites for water dependent
industry. Note that some items, as indicated, apply only to projects located in the
- coastal area of Hancock, Harrison and Jackson Counties.
1. Date
month
day
year
2 Applicant (mailing address and telephone)
3. Official use only
COE
BMR
BPC '
A95
i -
DATE RECEIVED
4. Project location
if
5.
Street Address __
Name of Waterway
Geographic location Section
_~^- ,J&--* r;,^ _ -——™-
Project descri^tron
Dredging
_ Channel
Boat slip
Manna
length
length
length
length.
Other (Explain)
V *»»P
T i* ft IF* ^h" «^K —*- •* *--. ^J -™- -«^—
Cubic yards of material to be removed
Location of spoil disposal area I
Dimensions of spoil area
Township
City/Community
Latitude
Range _
•K-
*"*!
ongitude
County
(if knownX
New work
Maintenance work
width __
width_
widih-
width -
existing depth
existing depth
existing depth
existing depth
proposed depth
proposed; cfepih
F^ r < . rT* - f ' ^Ti-f^ ' r
proposed depth
proposed depth
Type of material
Method of excavation
How will excavated material be contained?
Construction of structures
Bulkhead total length
Pier length
Boat ramp length
Other (explain) .
width
height above water
height .
width
slope
Structures on designated sites for water dependent industry (Coastal area only)
Explain in Item 11 or include as an attachment.
Filling
Dimensions of fill area
Cubic yards to fill
Type of fill
Other regulated activities (i.e. Seismic exploration, burning or clearing of marsh) Explain.
\
page 1
-------
6. Additional information relating 10 the proposed activity
Does project area contain any marsh vegetation? Yes
No
(If yes explain)
Is any portion of the activity for which authorization is sought now complete? Yes
No
(If yes explain}
Month and year activity took place
If project is for maintenance work of existing structures or existing channels, describe legal authorization for
the existing work. Provide permit number, dates or other form of authorization , ..
Has any agency denied approval for the activity described herein or for any activity that is directly related to
the activity described herein? Yes No (If yes explain
7. Projecrschedule
Proposed start date
Proposed completion date
4
Expected completion date (or development timetable) for any projects dependent on the activity described
herein. __^_^_ _____ ^^____
9.
8. Estimated cost of the project
r t
<<
h
Describe the purpose of the project. Describe the relationship between the project and any secondary or
future development the project is designed to support,
i
b.
Intended use: Private
Commercial
Public
Other (Exptetfn)
10
Describe the public benefits of the proposed activity and of the projects dependent on the proposed activity.
Also describe the extent of public use of the proposed project.
- >i"i -
^^
-^ -V
11. Remarks
•-, ^ •& - ^"T '
• * _^ ^^ ^ ^ "*^ ^
^'
.^-
1 1
i-
i- y-
T 1
t 1
k
page 2
-------
orovide the names and addresses of the adjacent property owners. Also identify the property owners on the
plan view of the drawing described in Attachment "A11.
1.
2.
-
13. List all approvals or certifications received or applied for from Federal, state or local ageocips for any struc-
tures, construction, discharges, desposits or other activities described in this application. Note that the
signature in Item 14 certifies that'appiication has been made to or that permits are not required ,'from the
following agencies. If permits are not required place NA in space for Type Approval.
Agency Type Approval Application Date Approval Date "'
Bureau of Pollution Control , ,
Bureau of Marine ResouVces « .*' ,
LLS.'Army Corps'of Engineers
City/County - , ,
Other ______^__ ^ ;
14. Certification and signatures
>
Application is hereby made for authorization to conduct the activities described herein. I agree to provide
any additional information/data that may be necessary to provide reasonable,assurance or evidence,to
show that the proposed project will comply with the applicable state water'quatity*standards or'other
environmental protection standards both during construction and after the project-js compj.eted/,,1 also
agree to provide entry to the project site for inspectors from the environmentalprotection'agenpies-for the
purpose Wm^ of the site and monitoring permitted works. [ certj^thaj: I am
famtffaTWltK%niti reSDohfibie fbr the information contained iW-this application, and ,thatrtqt^;besf,bf my
Vinfi^nft^^ accurate, I further certify tfrajf J;V£Q$BQSS the
"p rxilibs'eri activities. °.-"-,,, r-://7. ' * " '"
ft*
v -
e;
1 C
o
•^ 3 h
Sfgnatufe of Applicant or. Agent,
Date
•i
18 U.S.G. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, inr^ny manner within the jurisdiction"of any departrtignt or
$,-1.0,pOQiOr toprison-ed not more than five year-§ or both.
I* '• • - ^ ~
~ ^»- * *
- j*
15. , Mississippi Coastat.Program CertHrda^an (Coasta'l-,ariea"only)
* L_J^* • !• i_u r "^
• .,'
r"- \
i-j-
certify'that.theproposed^proje'Ct.for wh^Gh aul^onzation'is.gought complies with
Coastal Program and will-be conducted in a manner consistent with the program.
Signature of Applicant or Agent
Date
vpage 3
-------
16.
ees
Payable to State of Mississippi
$10.00 Application fee
$35.00 Cost of public notice fee
Payable to Treasurer of the United States
$1000 Non-commercial projects
:|. too o<) ComnuMcuil projects
State of Mississippi fee to be included with
Application to the Bureau of Marine Resources ?or
Hancock, Harrison and Jackson Counties only
\
Do not submit fee with application.
Fee acceptable only at time of issuance of permit
r.
i
I _ I H
17. Senjj one completed copy of tHis application form to each agency listed below:
Bureau Director Bureau Director
Bureau of Marine Resources Bureau of Pollution Control
P. O. Drawer 959 P. 0. Box 10385
Long Beach, MS 39560 Jackson, MS 39205
r i
T '
, ,„ " -, ,, t, - * - . -
* I b
If project is in Hancock, Harrison or Jackson Counties send one completed copy of this appfcati.on and ap
propriate fees listed in item 16 to: " .? „,,, n,>. . ,
" >. - "i M , ,*•" * h * - -
«" - *
1 n i * r "^ j
District Engineer District Engineer --•••• "•'.'.'"
U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile U.S. Army Engfneer District, Vicksburg
Attn: SAMOP-S Attn: LMKOD-FE
P. O. Box 2288 P. O. Box 60 ..... -, .
Mobile, Alabama 36628 Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180 \ .."•
—• I- ~ ; "
^-* , ~ * " " .. £
18. f In.addition tojhe completed application form the following attachments are required: , . , •
> *-
;'3, Attachment "Ar Drawings . . , ,..,' _ -/V -i''
, Provide,^vicinity map showing the location of the proposed;site alpng.wj^^'^^igsotipjapniOif how to
.- v(t-^3K,'*e,fr5)mmaJorhi9^wayso^?ndmar^^^^^
! 1er^btivt!tties,shownindeta;ir:A!rdrawIng!smur1"^1'A---^ '*•'-1'"*'••* ~ •' '' -
sHbw a pfari view and crbss section'or elevat
i
Attachment "B" Authorized Agent
If applicant.desires to have an agent or consultant act in his behalf for-permit coordination, a signed
authorization designating said agent must be provid'etf withlhe-applidatlop forms. The Authorized agent
named may sign the application forms and the consistency statement. ' " '* v
Environmental Assessment (Coastal areicoffty)
H 1 - . . - . ^ >- . , -. - - •/ /
-Provrde
,the final
on them should be addressed. Also provide ^complete :db'sd^ to" be taken la reduce
detrimental:off-site effects to the coastal wetlands tfuririg and after the pfop'osed actrvity. '' ~ - -
. - r
^
\ f
*
Attachment "D" Variance or Revisions to Mississippi Coastal Program (Coastal area, only)
If the applicant is requesting a variance to the guidelines in Section Z> ParHII, or B-revision to the Coastal
Wetlands Use Plan in Section 2, Part IV of the Rules, Reguiations^Guidejines .and Procedures of the
Mississippi Coastal Program a written request andJustjficaliGin mustefcre provided- -; ' ^ ^'^;c
f L-
r page 4
-------
HUE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
------- |