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

-------